Sacred Tradition, Dogma, and Ecclesia

[Sirach2]

For your education…

Link 1: Whoa folks!!!

There is no such thing as “the only salvation”. The Church does not subscribe to that idea. Let’s not even go there.

There are ordinary means to salvation, which is following what the Church teaches. However, the Church also teaches that Christ uses extraordinary means to save that we do not know about. The Church does not handcuff God. Please read the entire section on salvation in the CCC.

We can tell people that the most certain way to salvation is following the map that the Church gives them. We can’t tell them that it’s the only way to salvation. The Church does not say this. The Church extends her graces as far as God’s mercy will allow and we have no idea how far that is.

We must present a balanced theology, not one that allows free passes, nor one that leads people to despair.

Link 2: I believe that you may be on a slippery slope here. The so-called butchering as you call it was done by popes, not by some Johnny Come Lately. These are men who are well aware of their theology, Tradition and the history of these teachings. They know exactly what theu can restate explain, clarify and interpret and what they cannot.

Do not put yourself in the dangerous position of appearing as if you know more than the popes, espeically popes who have been known for their knowledge of theology, history and their fidelity to the Church.

The minute you get into the position “me vs the pope” you’re in trouble.

Unless a pope says something that is heresy, what he teaches is part of the Ordinary Magisterium and requires assent and an honest effort to undertand what he’s saying. Don’t ever assume that these men do not know what they’re talking about. That’s a dangerous assumption. Avoid presenting an opinion to others that would suggest that the popes are wrong in their proposals and comments on the matter. When you do that, you create a situation that is antagonistic between you and the pope and you’re leading others into the same position.

As St. Francis always taught his brothers, “Teach what the pope teaches, even when you believe that you know better. Such obedience is pleasing to God and man.” We must lead people to Peter, not away from him. Creating suspicion is not helpful.

Link 3: WHOAH! The Franciscan family subscribes to the teaching of the Church as it has been taught and as it has been explained in these later years by Popes Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. There are people out there who believe that these interpretations of the EENS are incorrect and that those who follow them are wrong to do so.

Link 4: Christ does not undermine his Church. He works through her. As Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict XVI have agreed on, in the past there were two obstacles in many of the Church’s commentaries. The first was a very human obstacle. There was a great deal of anger and hurt due to the conflicts between the Catholic Church and other faiths. These feelings influenced the wording used to explain EENS. The other issue was that there was a underdeveloped ecclesiology. The thinking of the past limitted the Church in time and space. The idea that the Church transcends the physcial and can reach out and offer her protection to those of other faiths never crossed anyone’s mind. Though the knew that the Church is as transcendent as her head, Jesus Christ, they never worded their ecclesiology this way. What the last two popes have done is to describe the body according to the attribute of the head. Because Christ is transcendent, because he wishes for all men to be saved, and because he will do whatever he can to save all men without limiting himself, the body (the Church) can reach out and envelop those who are not physically within her. She does this by acknowledging the good and truth that is Catholic, often found in other faiths, even when they do not know that what they believe is Catholic.

Link 5: How is it possible that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI can all be wrong in their understanding of EENS?

How is it possible to still call these men, the Pontiff, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the Successor of St. Peter, and the ultimate and highest authority in the teaching of the faith and while claiming that their subordinates: clergy and laity are right and they are wrong? How does one justify to the non-Catholic world the power and authority of popes, if one can say that they are right only when their subordinates agree?

If what these men are saying is truly contrary to the faith, wouldn’t that make them heretics?

If they are heretics, then are they really popes?

 

[Pulvis]

Joshua R. Smith, is it? Quoting with a perfect cut-and-paste from FishEaters, crosses and all, and only a 3-minute time lapse between websites. Knowing the source of your loyalties, I will consider the ramifications of your post and chuck it to my file 13.

You may not want to get me started on quotes from St. Teresa.

Note well that this one-sided pursuit of Jaberwocky’s is completely off topic and has utterly derailed the thread. To return to topic, and lest anyone doubt what has been presented. I will post a subsequent research post for anyone who is in doubt about the correct teaching of the Church on EENS, from one who knows what he is talking about.

Your charity is lacking, nor is my name Joshua Smith. Your jumping to false conclusions exposes your disdain for anyone who rejects “Your” interpretation of facts.

Have a blessed Advent season.

 

[Sirach2]

Your charity is lacking, nor is my name Joshua Smith. Your jumping to false conclusions exposes your disdain for anyone who rejects “Your” interpretation of facts.

Have a blessed Advent season.

Agree. You’re too old to be Joshua - my apologies. But the script is identical, wherever you obtained it from, complete with dots and crosses.

You have a blessed Advent as well.

 

[otjm]

Has it occurred to any of you that to say Doctrine is not necessary for love is actually saying Truth is not necessary for love?

For starters, no one here has said that.

 

[Jaberwocky]

For starters, no one here has said that.

You need to learn how to read critically; it is clearly lacking in your responses. Your questions have been answered repeatedly, and you have either ignored or distorted those answers.

I see. I think anyone who reads this thread can see who has been stating actual objections and who has been without any counter argument.

All you, Sirach and Clem have done is state random posts without addressing the logical problem that I pointed out in your position. None of you three seem to realize that as long as an accusation that your position is self refuting stands, then no matter what else you add to make your own position beautiful is irrelevant. You can’t save a sinking boat by painting it. So either present something to plug that hole or one has to assume that your boat is going to sink not matter how good it looks.

I am not sure how you can insist on critical thinking but miss that important point regarding critical analysis of any position.

EDIT: Please also use the “quote” feature properly as a courtesy to those who want to reply to you. I fixed it for this post.

 

[Jaberwocky]

For your education…

Link 1: Whoa folks!!!

There is no such thing as “the only salvation”. The Church does not subscribe to that idea. Let’s not even go there.

There are ordinary means to salvation, which is following what the Church teaches. However, the Church also teaches that Christ uses extraordinary means to save that we do not know about. The Church does not handcuff God. Please read the entire section on salvation in the CCC.

We can tell people that the most certain way to salvation is following the map that the Church gives them. We can’t tell them that it’s the only way to salvation. The Church does not say this. The Church extends her graces as far as God’s mercy will allow and we have no idea how far that is.

We must present a balanced theology, not one that allows free passes, nor one that leads people to despair.

Link 2: I believe that you may be on a slippery slope here. The so-called butchering as you call it was done by popes, not by some Johnny Come Lately. These are men who are well aware of their theology, Tradition and the history of these teachings. They know exactly what theu can restate explain, clarify and interpret and what they cannot.

Do not put yourself in the dangerous position of appearing as if you know more than the popes, espeically popes who have been known for their knowledge of theology, history and their fidelity to the Church.

The minute you get into the position “me vs the pope” you’re in trouble.

Unless a pope says something that is heresy, what he teaches is part of the Ordinary Magisterium and requires assent and an honest effort to undertand what he’s saying. Don’t ever assume that these men do not know what they’re talking about. That’s a dangerous assumption. Avoid presenting an opinion to others that would suggest that the popes are wrong in their proposals and comments on the matter. When you do that, you create a situation that is antagonistic between you and the pope and you’re leading others into the same position.

As St. Francis always taught his brothers, “Teach what the pope teaches, even when you believe that you know better. Such obedience is pleasing to God and man.” We must lead people to Peter, not away from him. Creating suspicion is not helpful.

Link 3: WHOAH! The Franciscan family subscribes to the teaching of the Church as it has been taught and as it has been explained in these later years by Popes Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI. There are people out there who believe that these interpretations of the EENS are incorrect and that those who follow them are wrong to do so.

Link 4: Christ does not undermine his Church. He works through her. As Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict XVI have agreed on, in the past there were two obstacles in many of the Church’s commentaries. The first was a very human obstacle. There was a great deal of anger and hurt due to the conflicts between the Catholic Church and other faiths. These feelings influenced the wording used to explain EENS. The other issue was that there was a underdeveloped ecclesiology. The thinking of the past limitted the Church in time and space. The idea that the Church transcends the physcial and can reach out and offer her protection to those of other faiths never crossed anyone’s mind. Though the knew that the Church is as transcendent as her head, Jesus Christ, they never worded their ecclesiology this way. What the last two popes have done is to describe the body according to the attribute of the head. Because Christ is transcendent, because he wishes for all men to be saved, and because he will do whatever he can to save all men without limiting himself, the body (the Church) can reach out and envelop those who are not physically within her. She does this by acknowledging the good and truth that is Catholic, often found in other faiths, even when they do not know that what they believe is Catholic.

Link 5: How is it possible that John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI can all be wrong in their understanding of EENS?

How is it possible to still call these men, the Pontiff, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, the Successor of St. Peter, and the ultimate and highest authority in the teaching of the faith and while claiming that their subordinates: clergy and laity are right and they are wrong? How does one justify to the non-Catholic world the power and authority of popes, if one can say that they are right only when their subordinates agree?

If what these men are saying is truly contrary to the faith, wouldn’t that make them heretics?

If they are heretics, then are they really popes?

You do realize that if the list of Popes you cited, according to you, have a different interpretation of EENS than Popes prior to them, one can ask the same question you just asked in reverse: “How can all those Popes before these four have a different view?”

So there are two possibilities

1. John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI are actually wrong
2. YOU are wrong in what you believe to be the interpretation of these Popes on EENS

I personally like possibility (2) and I feel confident that it is highly likely given what I can see from our discussion so far on the matter of “importance of doctrine”.

 

[otjm]

You do realize that if the list of Popes you cited, according to you, have a different interpretation of EENS than Popes prior to them, one can ask the same question you just asked in reverse: “How can all those Popes before these four have a different view?”

So there are two possibilities

1. John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI are actually wrong
2. YOU are wrong in what you believe to be the interpretation of these Popes on EENS

I personally like possibility (2) and I feel confident that it is highly likely given what I can see from our discussion so far on the matter of “importance of doctrine”.

Actually, there is at least one more reason, but given the general tenor of responses, it is not worth the effort to enter. I must admit, though, that the pseudonym is aptly chosen.

 

[Sirach2]

You do realize that if the list of Popes you cited, according to you, have a different interpretation of EENS than Popes prior to them, one can ask the same question you just asked in reverse: “How can all those Popes before these four have a different view?”

So there are two possibilities

1. John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI are actually wrong
2. YOU are wrong in what you believe to be the interpretation of these Popes on EENS

I personally like possibility (2) and I feel confident that it is highly likely given what I can see from our discussion so far on the matter of “importance of doctrine”.

Let’s add the third possibility.

1. Jaberwocky is a sedevacantist and the only valid truth is his own.

Your arrogance is beyond my desire to dignify it with a response, but due to a few PM’s that I have received, it has become necessary to reply, lest innocent souls believe you alone hold all the aces with your false teaching.

Brother JReducation’s links were provided since he is most widely respected for his theology. However, you did not even read these “critically” but audaciously skimmed over them to inject your poisonous opposition.

From a much older post on EENS, quoting from St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa.

And not only to this site, but several others that employ experts to peruse Catholic documents, seeking clauses to poison the minds of visitors to their forums. What is so obviously clear when we read the posts of those here at CAF who are in opposition to certain Church teachings in agreement with these websites, is that nothing has been studied on their own as individuals seeking truth. No, their “truth” comes solely from these seducers who have managed to isolate the Church’s teachings out of context and make them appear true, or from reading other posters’ quotes and adopting their theology.

The following contradicts the concept that only the intellect needs to receive “internal inspiration what is to be believed.” Knowledge in the intellect does NOT provide justification! Period.

Quote:
But because justice is completed in the affections, if man were turned toward God only with his intellect, he would not be coming into contact with God by the power that receives justice, his affections.

Thus he could not be justified.

It is therefore required that not only the intellect be turned toward God but also the affections. But the first motion of the affections toward anything is the motion of love, as was explained in the question on the passions of the Soul.** This motion is included in desire as a cause in an effect; for something is desired as loved**. Hope, moreover, implies desire accompanied by the rousing of one’s spirits as tending to something arduous. Then, just as the motion of cognition is accompanied by a motion of love, so too the motion of love is accompanied by a motion of hope or desire; for love arouses desire or hope just as the object apprehended arouses love.

Thus in the justification of sinners free choice is moved toward God by the motion of faith, of charity, and of hope; for the one justified must be turned toward God by loving Him with the hope of pardon. These three motions are counted as a single complete motion inasmuch as they are included in one another. Yet that motion takes its name from faith because faith contains the other motions virtually and is included in them. [end quote]

Since affective love is the motivation for repentence and turning to God, we hear the words of Jesus to the penitent woman in scripture, "Many sins are forgiven her because she has loved much."

 

[clem456]

You do realize that if the list of Popes you cited, according to you, have a different interpretation of EENS than Popes prior to them, one can ask the same question you just asked in reverse: “How can all those Popes before these four have a different view?”

So there are two possibilities

1. John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI are actually wrong
2. YOU are wrong in what you believe to be the interpretation of these Popes on EENS

I personally like possibility (2) and I feel confident that it is highly likely given what I can see from our discussion so far on the matter of “importance of doctrine”.

I think we can safely and silently trust in what the Church itself says about salvation at Vatican 2, which is the fullest teaching of the Church, embracing all that formed it over the centuries, and expressing it in it’s fullest understanding through the living teaching office of the Church. The Church receives it’s teaching authority from it’s living source, Jesus Christ, who is a person human and divine, who loves us and desires a relationship with us. Thank God we are not enslaved to a law that none of us could fulfill without the love of Jesus Christ.

 

[pnewton]

I think this would be to ignore the statements of MA. MA clearly states X is error.

The important thing is the definition of “X”. If that changes, then so does the possibility that it is in error. Lumen Gentium adds this ever important qualifier, “, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ”.

You asked, “Do you think a Catholic who adheres to the above today is a heretic or schismatic?” Of course not. But neither is one that accepts a more generous understanding of invincible ignorance. Let’s face it. None of us are God and none know how He will judge in detail or in specifics. I think it sufficient to say that one can totally reject all salvation without active Catholic membership and commit the error of denying God’s ability to judge the heart (as did Fr. Feeny). One can commit the error of saying that no one really would ever reject the Church knowing Jesus founded it, denying the need for any to be members of the Catholic Church or to evangelize, indifferentism.

I know this is an oft fought battle here, and I surely will always err on the side of God’s mercy and on hope, but I am glad to see R C bring this up. I see it as rather obvious that our biggest problem is with indifferentism, not Feenyism. The first is common and the second a rarity.

I personally follow the lead of the Great John Paul, who was and is my mentor to the faith.

 

[Jaberwocky]

I think we can safely and silently trust in what the Church itself says about salvation at Vatican 2, which is the fullest teaching of the Church, embracing all that formed it over the centuries, and expressing it in it’s fullest understanding through the living teaching office of the Church. The Church receives it’s teaching authority from it’s living source, Jesus Christ, who is a person human and divine, who loves us and desires a relationship with us. Thank God we are not enslaved to a law that none of us could fulfill without the love of Jesus Christ.

God forbid Clem, is that doctrine I see? I would think you should be able to “love me” to the correct understanding from what you have claimed so far but I guess not eh?

 

[Jaberwocky]

Let’s add the third possibility.

1. Jaberwocky is a sedevacantist and the only valid truth is his own.

Your arrogance is beyond my desire to dignify it with a response, but due to a few PM’s that I have received, it has become necessary to reply, lest innocent souls believe you alone hold all the aces with your false teaching.

Brother JReducation’s links were provided since he is most widely respected for his theology. However, you did not even read these “critically” but audaciously skimmed over them to inject your poisonous opposition.

From a much older post on EENS, quoting from St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa.

I do not know why or how you came to think of me as a Sedevecantist.

Even if I happened to be a Sedevecantist, if what I say is true, its true. if what I say is false, its false. So I fail to see how that is relevant possibility to consider.

That being said, all I see here is that you haven’t read the same Summa you quoted to me about the topic of knowledge and love. St. Thomas clearly states that one cannot love that which one does not know. So I think if we both agree on St. Thomas as a good authority, the matter is obviously settled!!!

 

[otjm]

I do not know why or how you came to think of me as a Sedevecantist.

Even if I happened to be a Sedevecantist, if what I say is true, its true. if what I say is false, its false. So I fail to see how that is relevant possibility to consider.

That being said, all I see here is that you haven’t read the same Summa you quoted to me about the topic of knowledge and love. St. Thomas clearly states that one cannot love that which one does not know. So I think if we both agree on St. Thomas as a good authority, the matter is obviously settled!!!

 

[Jaberwocky]

…

I am going to be honest with you in raising this issue. When I reply to your actual posts, usually there is no post in reply the objections or questions I raise.

But, there is no shortage of replies to my posts addressing issues of others. Even then, it is not anything constructive but something along the lines of “you have missed what everyone else is saying”. It also seems to have escaped you that an argument stands or falls on its premises and logical rules of inference used to arrive at the conclusion. So every argument I presented cannot just be refuted by piling on “evidence” to support what you want to say. If my argument stands, then there is no choice but to conclude that your position is false.

But none of this is addressed and I am simply called a Sedevecantist. I would think the fear of committing the sin of “rash judgement” would have kept you from doing such a thing.

 

[otjm]

I am going to be honest with you in raising this issue. When I reply to your actual posts, usually there is no post in reply the objections or questions I raise.

But, there is no shortage of replies to my posts addressing issues of others. Even then, it is not anything constructive but something along the lines of “you have missed what everyone else is saying”. It also seems to have escaped you that an argument stands or falls on its premises and logical rules of inference used to arrive at the conclusion. So every argument I presented cannot just be refuted by piling on “evidence” to support what you want to say. If my argument stands, then there is no choice but to conclude that your position is false.

But none of this is addressed and I am simply called a Sedevecantist. I would think the fear of committing the sin of “rash judgement” would have kept you from doing such a thing.

I am sorry; I apologize; for some reason I was having problems with the forum. I was going to respond, but was noticed that I could not edit as I had exceeded whatever time line they have internally.

For starters, I don’t believe you are a sedevacantist.

Rather, you strike me not as a sedevacantist, but rather as someone who is young. You are fairly articulate and educated, but you seem to be enamored with your own arguments and do not seem to read carefully.

And I say that, because no one in this thread (I am aware of your other thread, but will limit to this one)has said in any way that doctrine has no meaning or that it is irrelevant to faith.

You are quick to challenge, but slow (or not even in gear) to actually read and comprehend what others are saying.
And by the way, I don’t need you lecturing me on logic; I have an undergraduate degree in Philosophy, a Juris Doctor, and have been a practicing attorney. Your hubris is getting a bit thick.

No one here has said that doctrine is not important, but for some reason, you seem to take fairly clear statements and either miss entirely what they are saying, or ignore what they are saying.

Doctrine is a tool. Yes, I will most certainly agree with you that someone who has been minimally catechized has learned some elements of doctrine. But history is replete with uneducated saints who learned a minimal amount of doctrine, but had a major love of the Lord. What made them saints was not the minimal amount of doctrine. That was only a tool for their relationship with Christ.

St. Paul said: “If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,** but do not have love, I gain nothing.”

You don’t need to argue with me, you can argue with St Paul - who, I think, has the better position.

I am not convinced that you and I disagree with St. Paul; but for some reason, I (and others herein) we do not seem to be getting through.

As to your question about 4 popes, I will only reiterate what I was taught, I suspect, long before you were ever born (as I was taught this well prior to Vatican 2): the Holy Spirit guides the Church and keeps the Church from error whenever the Church speaks officially on doctrine or morals. If you think the last 4 popes have strayed from the truth of the Church prior to Vatican 2 - go read what I was taught, as that was what the Church taught prior to Vatican 2.

If you cannot sort out their statements and understand what they say in the context of prior doctrinal statements, then I would suggest you change your reading material.**

 

[Sirach2]

Very well said, Otjm. Hopefully, Jabber will open his heart for a few moments of enlightenment.

I went through Catholic school in the old days of Baltimore Catechism, and was taught by IHM nuns. We had “religion class” daily and had to memorize the doctrinal statements therein as a requisite for passing. To this day, I can still recite them. We even went to daily mass and had to bring our breakfast in a bag to eat in class later, due to the fast required before communion.

So…with daily mass and sacraments, who would ever suspect that I would jump ship the minute I was old enough to leave home? Obviously, from personal experience, DOCTRINE was not capable of producing in me a deep love for Jesus. It was only through a personal experience of His love for me when I was about 35 years old that effectively drew me back to the faith. I was grateful the old memorization was still there, and that I could connect the dots, so to speak. It was the Holy Spirit who then animated me to study, and with a passion that was a bottomless sponge, I delved into doctrine, so as not to displease this wonderful Lord of my life. As St. Paul taught, if we have all knowledge, but not love, it is nothing at all. My life is proof of that scripture.

Funny how we can hear the table being pounded with regard to Jabber’s vision of truth, but many can see past his words into the spirit behind them — and it ain’t holy! It is filled with hubris and contempt for others who do not espouse his teachings. And Jabber, NO, the matter is NOT settled!

 

[Jaberwocky]

No one here has said that doctrine is not important, but for some reason, you seem to take fairly clear statements and either miss entirely what they are saying, or ignore what they are saying.

Look, you claim to be well versed in logic so lets make this easier and concise so that both of us can settle the matter rather easily.

I argue that

1. Doctrine is necessary for love but not sufficient.

I further refute all your Scriptural statements that are presented against the statement that “Doctrine is necessary” as being misunderstood by you. I claim that all the Scriptural statements you present merely acknowledge that “Doctrine is not sufficient”.

So doctrine is not just a tool. It is necessary is what I contend.

If I may also ask, it is possible that you are tangling necessity for doctrine with how it is known. Just because a saint is uneducated does not mean they do not know doctrine. They could be very well catechized, which most were during certain times in history. Even St. John Vianney who is considered very slow and failed his exams for the priesthood very certainly knew doctrine.

Now I hope to see a very concise reply raising objections and counter points from you. I do not wish to see another long reply about how “I am missing what others are saying”. If you feel that I have missed something, do state it or link me to it.

Otherwise this discussion keeps being about ME. It is not. It is about the proposition that “Doctrine is necessary for love but not sufficient.”. Also, if you feel uncomfortable continuing the discussion on this thread because it is too off topic, please visit the other thread.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Very well said, Otjm. Hopefully, Jabber will open his heart for a few moments of enlightenment.

I went through Catholic school in the old days of Baltimore Catechism, and was taught by IHM nuns. We had “religion class” daily and had to memorize the doctrinal statements therein as a requisite for passing. To this day, I can still recite them. We even went to daily mass and had to bring our breakfast in a bag to eat in class later, due to the fast required before communion.

So…with daily mass and sacraments, who would ever suspect that I would jump ship the minute I was old enough to leave home? Obviously, from personal experience, DOCTRINE was not capable of producing in me a deep love for Jesus. It was only through a personal experience of His love for me when I was about 35 years old that effectively drew me back to the faith. I was grateful the old memorization was still there, and that I could connect the dots, so to speak. It was the Holy Spirit who then animated me to study, and with a passion that was a bottomless sponge, I delved into doctrine, so as not to displease this wonderful Lord of my life. As St. Paul taught, if we have all knowledge, but not love, it is nothing at all. My life is proof of that scripture.

Funny how we can hear the table being pounded with regard to Jabber’s vision of truth, but many can see past his words into the spirit behind them — and it ain’t holy! It is filled with hubris and contempt for others who do not espouse his teachings. And Jabber, NO, the matter is NOT settled!

So you assert that I am filled with an unholy spirit? You further find me at contempt and being guilty of hubris because I do not agree with your view of love?

Your life cannot prove what is logically impossible i.e. love without knowledge of doctrine. You can have pleasure or emotional highs without knowledge, that I most certainly will grant to you. That too can change lives, although, arbitrary as well. For every convert to Catholicism from an emotional high, we have countless others who convert to other religions and even cults and sometimes lose their lives from it.

I praise God that you ended up Catholic. But that in no way justifies or demonstrates what you want to show.

 

[Sirach2]

Well, Jabber, after 29 posts where you pound the table with your theories, you’d think we’d all “get it”. (Add the 27 posts in the other thread.) We don’t, and you can type out another 56 posts affirming your views, and we will still disagree that your theology is in agreement with scripture, tradition, and Church teaching. It is purely YOUR opinion, which we believe is bizarre, adamant, pedantic, and any other pertinent adjective that describes your activity here.

Please know that you may continue many more posts with your last words. I and the others will still disagree. You have a strange obsessive mindset with regard to this, and strive to force-feed it upon others indisciminately and relentlessly. Is this the way of Jesus, who allowed others to walk away in John 6, when folks had difficulty coping with His teaching? He did not run after them. You are attempting to coerce folks here when obviously they do not accept it. So yes, this is a very unholy attitude, very un-Christ-like and highly imprudent, devoid of wisdom and love for your neighbor. Note well, the Church has put forth in several of her documents that nobody is to be coerced with regard to the faith. If so, She will condemn the act. Mystici Corporis.

You’ll not see my face in this thread again. So carry on.

 

[Sirach2]

Well, Jabber, after 29 posts where you pound the table with your theories, you’d think we’d all “get it”. (Add the 27 posts in the other thread.) We don’t, and you can type out another 56 posts affirming your views, and we will still disagree that your theology is in agreement with scripture, tradition, and Church teaching. It is purely YOUR opinion, which we believe is bizarre, adamant, pedantic, and any other pertinent adjective that describes your activity here.

Please know that you may continue many more posts with your last words. I and the others will still disagree. You have a strange obsessive mindset with regard to this, and strive to force-feed it upon others indisciminately and relentlessly. Is this the way of Jesus, who allowed others to walk away in John 6, when folks had difficulty coping with His teaching? He did not run after them. You are attempting to coerce folks here when obviously they do not accept it. So yes, this is a very unholy attitude, very un-Christ-like and highly imprudent, devoid of wisdom and love for your neighbor. Note well, the Church has put forth in several of her documents that nobody is to be coerced with regard to the faith. If so, She will condemn the act. Mystici Corporis, 104.

You’ll not see my face in this thread again. So carry on.