Yes, it is an opinion. Even if everyone were to agree that there are two Apples in a bag, it is still an opinion.
If a majority of people in the world are of the opinion that there is no God, does this make it a fact, or is it still only an opinion?
Why is there no scandal? The authors idea of tolerance is that Christ will not say anything against adulterous behavior. That is not just scandalous but false.
Redemption is offered for all men and women. But it has to be accepted. So while Christ died for all, people can choose not to accept it. To accept it, one must repent of ones sins, get baptized (or confess ones sins if already baptized) and persevere to the end to be saved.
I do not want to go in to too much detail and take these one by one but let me show you why are wrong from the very first three.
All of them used very polite and respectful language and tone. We’re swerving away from that. That’s my point. I’m not trying to win an argument. I don’t do arguments, no body benefits.
I understand. But this idea that “polite language” is always needed is not always correct. St. Jerome is known to have used impolite language against his opponent, especially on Marian doctrine.
The 8th Delor of Mary? Are you serious? Don’t you think that is a ludicrous exageration?
Where is this concern coming from? Pope Francis has said nothing, nor given any indication that the moral position of the Church has, or will change, on any issues. It will not, it cannot.
How do you know that Jesus ate with unrepentant sinners? Didn’t Jesus avoid Pharisees and even when he attended their banquets, say nasty things to them?
Christ does tolerate sin because he tolerates sinners. The evidence that God tolerates sin is all around you. It is in fact glaringly obvious that He tolerates sin.
Anyone who, like Francis, has lived and worked among the poor, knows that there is no "dance party" among the chronically unemployed, in the slums of Argentina or anywhere in the world, or among the aged. Roe v. Wade was decided in my adolescence, and I was always adamantly against it, but in my late 30s became reasons I was alienated from the *movement*, as were other Catholic opponents of abortion, was its lack of integration of reproductive issues with the other life issues, including poverty and war, which popes from Pius XII right through Benedict XVI had worked so hard to manifest. Whenever one sees two stickers on a car, one saying "Abortion stops a beating heart" and the saying "Army of One" or some other militaristic slogan, it goes a long way to defeating the unity of teaching.Mark 2:15 - And as he sat at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were sitting with Jesus and his disciples; for there were many who followed him.
You are equivocating the term Tolerance here.
Our job is to state the truth without holding back parts of it. That is not a big job.
The issue is not sinners. The issue is unrepentant sinners. If you want it in terms of the times of Jesus, the problem is with having Pharisees inside the Church.
The sinners sitting with Jesus and his disciples were not disciples of Jesus themselves. They had not accepted Jesus as their Lord, yet still he sat and ate with them.
Maybe not but it is a job that is better suited for some than others. It is a serious job in that if done “incorrectly” or without grace can turn people away from the Church. Many of those who like to do it more harshly do just that.
Ok now I’m curiouse… If you beleive this as you are implying it then what is the point of practicing or having prudence? Isn’t having prudence or working to have prudence a virtue that we should be working on?