That’s kinda what we do here when we hear a “Catholic” saying things that don’t line up with official Church teaching.
You are free to pick and choose among approved private revelations as you see fit.
Even learned people can be wrong.
Unless a matter has already been settled by the Magisterium definitively.
If questioning the faith of other people is ‘kinda’ what you do I would think its high time you stopped. Debate is fine until you begin to tell people that in your opinion that they aren’t Catholic. You are right learned people can be wrong I imagine it’s which learned discourse appears to reveal the truth, after all the Magesterium had decided it was heresy to suggest that the Earth went around the Sun and then rethought it’s teaching and now has an observatory in the Vatican. The Chuch is alive things will always develop as they always have.
Nobody is questioning your faith in God.
Good look convincing sausage eating europeans to give up Pork.
I’m pleased to hear that first bit. I think that the problem in the Church is that since the death of Pope Paul and until the beginning of Pope Francis’s reign theological debate was crushed in a way unknown since the reign of Pius X. What many good Cathoics have grown used to is a suppression of discussion that has resulted in great Cathoilc thinkers being silenced books and papers not being published and an atmosphere where it is ‘unsafe to say’. Disputation has for centuries been one of the vehicles that has assisted the development of tradition. Like language theology develops and is nuanced. Over years these nuances can mean a complete change of ideas.
If someone is simply unaware of authentic Catholic teaching, then telling them that what they are espousing is incorrect is a great blessing. OTOH, when people know that what they are posting is NOT Catholic teaching, then we have an obligation to that person as well as to the many people who might be “lurking” to correct them. Woe to me if I do not warn you, Jimmy:
You are misinformed. The Church made no ruling regarding whether the Earth orbited the Sun or vice versa. What the Church specified was that Galileo should not teach as fact something that was merely a hypothesis.
I am not unaware of Catholic teaching. You can spin most stuff but Galilleo was under house arrest and silenced. I am simply breathtaken that you feel quoting scripture that implies that you are correcting my sin is appropriate. I have seldom come across such closed minds and matchless arrogance ever frankly
But you have said that you do not agree with all of it, correct?
Yes. But not for the reason you claimed.
I specifically said that I was NOT accusing you of sin. However, you have been expressing some theological errors, and those I am happy to point out for your benefit.
It’s a small number. Just like it’s a very small number that keep the law of taharat ha mishpahah also known as the family purity laws or the laws of niddah.
I have been asking questions and probing inconsistencies unlike almost every other person on here who apparently have the full answer to every single matter of faith and morals. I must say I do find this web site eyewateringly prescriptive. I find some of the posts odd. There is a clear fondness for religious habits, the Tridentine Mass, the Index and the cult of Angels. No questions about belief just acres of trivia about birettas and maniples. Discourse is discouraged and regarded as sinful. Thank God they didn’t think so at any of the Councils of the Church otherwise we would be nowhere
From the CCC
Thanks. I don’t believe that this is commonly understood
CCC
See that’s an ANSWER!!
This is as good an explanation from the Christian perspective as I have heard. Truth to be told, it has also served, with one major exception in the Person of Jesus Christ, in Reform Judaism (at least the more extreme expressions of it) as a marked distinction between the moral law and the ceremonial law. In large measure, Reform Judaism rejects the Talmudic understanding according to Orthodox Judaism that ceremonial law and moral law are intertwined since BOTH stem from the divine commandment, whether found in the Written Law or the codified Oral Law. One verse in the Talmud, which states that during the Messianic era, ceremonial law will no longer be necessary, strengthens the case put forth by those leaders of Reform Judaism. Besides, the Prophets in the Hebrew Bible always stressed the importance of moral law compared to ceremony and warned that ceremony without inner conviction was considered by G-d to be null and void and put a damper on the very spirit of Judaism. The Orthodox Jewish interpretation of this verse of the Talmud, however, is that ceremonial law will at last be at one with moral law, both externally and internally, during the time of the Messiah and will never be deleted. Historically, according to the MOST extreme Reform Jewish belief, EVEN such declarations as the seventh-day commandment of the Sabbath and the rite of circumcision were grouped under ceremonial acts and thus vulnerable to change. Within Reform Judaism itself, there thus developed an internal conflict regarding just how far any revision of ceremony should go without denying the religion itself. (The latter ceremonies have, for the most part, remained in Reform Judaism.)
Jesus taught that it is not that which goes into a man’s mouth which defiles him but that which comes out of his mouth (Matthew 15)
Wow. Coming from you, that’s quite an endorsement.
The movement of Judaism led by Hillel the Elder also believed this a generation before the coming of Jesus: that is, the essence of Torah study is to love G-d and love thy neighbor, and all the rest is commentary. However, there is also the belief within Judaism–the Shammai school–that G-d is in the details of the Law, for without studying and learning the details, it is challenging, if not impossible, to know HOW to translate the love of G-d and neighbor into actual practice.
Hmmm…what did you have in mind specifically?
