Religious Freedom

[Tantum_ergo]

We only have to agree with infallible statements. And there are very few of those. You don’t understand the Catholic faith, we are not obliged to believe in all teaching. That is purely propaganda from the religious right.

Excuse me, you are incorrect. Show me the documentation to support your ‘claim.’

Here is the documentation to support MY claim.

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421 ((IOW, Maria, NOT simply 'infallible statements."))

---

---

 

[tabbey48]

Contray to popular belief Catholism…isn’t teaching the “warm fuzzys”,as you seem to want. It teaches the truth

Amen!! When presented with truth, people either accept it or they reject it. MariaTS has convinced me that he/she does not accept the truth presented in Catholic teaching. And I certainly do not accept what MariaTS considers the “truth” which he/she has given us in this and other posts. What else is there to say?

I remain a happy Christian who believes ALL that the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[MariaTS]

Nice try

Support that either the New or Old Testament supports same-sex marriage. This is where your burden begins. I care nothing about other Religions. I am Catholic

I never said the Bible supported same-sex marriage.

 

[MariaTS]

Amen!! When presented with truth, people either accept it or they reject it. MariaTS has convinced me that he/she does not accept the truth presented in Catholic teaching. And I certainly do not accept what MariaTS considers the “truth” which he/she has given us in this and other posts. What else is there to say?

I remain a happy Christian who believes ALL that the Catholic Church teaches.

I am not a he/she, I am a girl, please respect that. No single religion is the Truth, to say that is ignorant at best. If you think that people are only happy by listening to lies and propaganda, you are shrouded in ignorance.

 

[MariaTS]

Excuse me, you are incorrect. Show me the documentation to support your ‘claim.’

Here is the documentation to support MY claim.

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421 ((IOW, Maria, NOT simply 'infallible statements."))

I call paragraph 891 and raise paragraph 892.

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

 

[kimmielittle]

I never said the Bible supported same-sex marriage.

BUT you did try to insinuate that the Jewish Religion { The old Testament believers ] believed in same-sex marriages.

You purposely try to mix Religious bodies with the people of the Jewish Race.

Even a kid can see through your attempts.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I call paragraph 891 and raise you paragraph 892.

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

Yes, and you’re agreeing with me. Where does this say that you must ‘only’ believe in a ‘few’ infallible teachings? Note "when WITHOUT arriving at an INFALLIBLE definition OR pronouncing in a ‘definitive’ manner’. . .the ‘ordinary teaching’ are to adhere with an assent which is an EXTENSION of the ‘assent of faith’.

IOW, the ‘religious assent’ is not ‘inferior’ or apart from the ‘assent’ of faith. You can’t play cafeteria, or ‘pick and choose’ what you ‘want to believe.’

 

[MariaTS]

BUT you did try to insinuate that the Jewish Religion { The old Testament believers ] believed in same-sex marriages.

You purposely try to mix Religious bodies with the people of the Jewish Race.

Even a kid can see through your attempts.

I never tried to insinuate that they did believe in same-sex mariages, most jews that I have met support same-sex marriage. The teachings of both Reform and Conservative Judaism support same-sex marriage. Judaism is a religion, it is not a race. There are Muslim Semites just like there are Jewish Semites. Yes, most Jews are Semites, but many Muslims are also Semites. I did not try to mix religion with race, I never brought up the Semitic Race.

 

[MariaTS]

Yes, and you’re agreeing with me. Where does this say that you must ‘only’ believe in a ‘few’ infallible teachings? Note "when WITHOUT arriving at an INFALLIBLE definition OR pronouncing in a ‘definitive’ manner’. . .the ‘ordinary teaching’ are to adhere with an assent which is an EXTENSION of the ‘assent of faith’.

IOW, the ‘religious assent’ is not ‘inferior’ or apart from the ‘assent’ of faith. You can’t play cafeteria, or ‘pick and choose’ what you ‘want to believe.’

I never said that a person only had to believe in a few infallible teachings, I said there were only a few infallible teachings, please don’t twist around my words. It says right there that the ordinary teaching is not infallible and the paragraph you quoted says that infallible teaching must be believed.

That is completely illogical, everyone picks and chooses what they want to believe. Because it is what you want to believe. There are no facts behind any beliefs whatsoever, they are just beliefs. I believe what the fundamentals of the Catholic Church, that is the reason why I do not go around blindly following the teachings of the Vatican.

 

[kimmielittle]

No single religion is the Truth, to say that is ignorant at best.

Then, you are not Catholic except in what you prefer to call yourself. Catholics Do believe Catholicism is TRUTH

If you think that people are only happy by listening to lies and propaganda, you are shrouded in ignorance.

AND if I were to listen to you…I’d, at the very best, be listening to someone very disenfranchised from Catholicism.

You are free to believe or worship how you want…please, don’t try to tell me about Catholicism. Because you will fail

 

[MariaTS]

Then, you are not Catholic except in what you prefer to call yourself. Catholics Do believe Catholicism is TRUTH

AND if I were to listen to you…I’d, at the very best, be listening to someone very disenfranchised from Catholicism.

You are free to believe or worship how you want…please, don’t try to tell me about Catholicism. Because you will fail

First of all, I believe Catholicism is the Truth, but I also believe that there are other Truths, Jesus never said he was the only way to God.

Second of all, I am not disenfranchised from Catholicism, I am disenfranchised from Catholics who are unwilling and unable to understand Catholicism.

Third of all, I will fail if I tell you about Catholicism because you are unwilling to listen to anything other than the lies of the religious right.

Oh, and please, do me a favor, learn the english language before you try to have an educated debate with anyone.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I never said that a person only had to believe in a few infallible teachings, I said there were only a few infallible teachings, please don’t twist around my words. It says right there that the ordinary teaching is not infallible and the paragraph you quoted says that infallible teaching must be believed.

That is completely illogical, everyone picks and chooses what they want to believe. Because it is what you want to believe. There are no facts behind any beliefs whatsoever, they are just beliefs. I believe what the fundamentals of the Catholic Church, that is the reason why I do not go around blindly following the teachings of the Vatican.

I beg to differ. Your own post, #52.

We only have to agree with infallible statements. And there are very few of those. You don’t understand the Catholic faith, we are not obliged to believe in all teaching. That is purely propaganda from the religious right.

And you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

First of all, I believe Catholicism is the Truth, but I also believe that there are other Truths, Jesus never said he was the only way to God. What? Jesus never said, “I” (not, many others) am the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life --NO ONE comes to Me except through the Father? What gospel are you reading?

Second of all, I am not disenfranchised from Catholicism, I am disenfranchised from Catholics who are unwilling and unable to understand Catholicism. No, you are dissenting from Catholic teachings and trying, without success, to claim that this is acceptable Catholic behavior. It is not.

Third of all, I will fail if I tell you about Catholicism because you are unwilling to listen to anything other than the lies of the religious right.

Smear tactic. . .attempting to portray anything which differs from your UNSUPPORTED OPINION as ‘lies of the religious right’. . .this is not an argument on your part, it is calumny.

 

[MariaTS]

I beg to differ. Your own post, #52.

We only have to agree with infallible statements. And there are very few of those. You don’t understand the Catholic faith, we are not obliged to believe in all teaching. That is purely propaganda from the religious right.

And you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Yes, I said we only have to agree with infallible statements. I also said there were only a few infallible statements. I did not say that we only have to agree with a few infallible statements, I said there were only a few infallible statements. You have, since, been unable to prove that I am wrong.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

First of all, I believe Catholicism is the Truth, but I also believe that there are other Truths, Jesus never said he was the only way to God.

Second of all, I am not disenfranchised from Catholicism, I am disenfranchised from Catholics who are unwilling and unable to understand Catholicism.

Third of all, I will fail if I tell you about Catholicism because you are unwilling to listen to anything other than the lies of the religious right.

Oh, and please, do me a favor, learn the english language before you try to have an educated debate with anyone.

English should be capitalized. Use of “of all” with ‘first, second and third’ is redundant. And your continual attempts to portray those who disagree with you as uneducated are a type of epic fail when you yourself are not exactly guiltless of grammar and style errors in your own posts.

 

[MariaTS]

Smear tactic. . .attempting to portray anything which differs from your UNSUPPORTED OPINION as ‘lies of the religious right’. . .this is not an argument on your part, it is calumny.

No it is not a smear tactic, it is telling the truth. You are the one who is employing the smear tactic. Also, as long as we are talking about unsupported opinions, nothing in the Bible has ever been proven or supported by fact.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes, I said we only have to agree with infallible statements. I also said there were only a few infallible statements. I did not say that we only have to agree with a few infallible statements, I said there were only a few infallible statements. You have, since, been unable to prove that I am wrong.

You are wrong.

“We only have to agree with infallible statements. There are only a few infallible statements.”

IF you only have to agree with infallible statements, AND there are only a few infallible statements, what you have said is that we only have to agree with those (few) infallible statements.

And you are wrong.

 

[kimmielittle]

First of all, I believe Catholicism is the Truth, but I also believe that there are other Truths, Jesus never said he was the only way to God.

Actually, you are wrong yet again.

 

[MariaTS]

English should be capitalized. Use of “of all” with ‘first, second and third’ is redundant. And your continual attempts to portray those who disagree with you as uneducated are a type of epic fail when you yourself are not exactly guiltless of grammar and style errors in your own posts.

Redundancy is not a grammatical error. The people who do not understand Catholicism have shown that they, themselves, are uneducated. I am not trying to portray them as uneducated as they have already done that. Also, “guiltless of grammar and style errors” is wrong, the correct wording would be “guiltless of having grammatical errors”.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

No it is not a smear tactic, it is telling the truth. You are the one who is employing the smear tactic. Also, as long as we are talking about unsupported opinions, nothing in the Bible has ever been proven or supported by fact.

Kindly keep to the subject.

I am not smearing you by pointing out that you have used a particular phrase “lies of the religious right” as an accusation in claiming that people will not listen to YOU. Such a phrase is a smear.

Have a pleasant afternoon. I’d love to keep on but I have some things to do. I’ll be back later.