Is it really? I see more local matters influencing the matter when it comes down to “comdemming”. If you look at Church history, things have changed over the centuries, we do not have the same church now as we did 10, 100, 1000 or more years back. The Church has humanity as its core and all the diversity that goes with it.
How do we know that “hell” is automatic? Is this really a singular defining matter of a person with same-gender preferences that they are automatically going to “hell”? There is no uniform theological agreement on that, which goes beyond the idea of proof, as we can never truly answer this question.
So I’d sum up your argument like this:
Are we only assuming “blind” obedience here? As remember a blind following of rules discounts our god-given gifts. Many of these rules have a human fallible component with them. That does not automatically discount them but means when looking at the Church at the human, pew level, the application there will probably not fit the ideal theory at Rome (or elsewhere) other interpretations were put together.
But the way you see things doesn’t matter one iota. It is the Church who decides.
Name one Church teaching regarding faith or morals that has changed in 2000 years.
Nice use of quotes. Are you denying the existance of hell?
If they don’t repent, then yes. Mortal Sin on the soul, excludes one from reaching heaven.
Yes there is, read the flippin Catechism.
And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
We have free will, but rejecting the Church leads one astray.
Not if you believe the Bible, which you clearly don’t…
Good thing the “pew level” doesn’t decided what is right or wrong. The Church exists for a reason, and that is to guide the faithful so that they might obtain the beatific vision and to rule in absence of Christ. Rejecting what the Church teaches, is rejecting Christ.
Blind? The measure of humility is obedience.
The abuse of gifts is when we place ourselves above the Church.
You mean the moral law is plastic for those who do not want to change what they are doing?
Thank you for corroborating my testimony in this and in other threads.We have two or three parishes in the Archdiocese of St. Paul/Mpls. who are much like Cabrini. Archbishop Flynn does nothing!! We are hoping and praying that Archbishop Niestad (sp) will take the bull by the horns and close 'em all. Take a look at the St. Joan of Arc website. That one is a doozy. This has been going on for so long, I think we, in this Archdiocese, have become desensitized, which is exactly what they want.
Very, very frustrating.
Is the Catholic Church the Church of humanity and diversity? If it is, then it is subject to the whims, vagaries and fickle nature of humanity. I want nothing to do with such a “church” with humanity at its core. My church is Christ-centered. True, humanity is a great concern of the Church, but not at the expense of condoning sin.
Minor? I would say this is trying to think that the minorities do not exist in the Church. This is a way of showing that they are lesser Catholics than the rest of the Church, which is highly misleading and very judgmental. There can be just as much spirituality at Cabrini and St Joan of Arc as there is at St Anges or the Cathedral. All parishes in the Archdiocese (and any diocese around the world for that matter) are good, loving communities where fallible, sinful people try to get by day to day.
Sure there can. Satan can be very spiritual, when it suits his purposes. It is indeed regrettable that he has managed to blind so many people in those two parishes and to lead them astray, to the eternal endangerment of their immortal souls.
If they are actively homosexual, than they aren’t just lesser Catholics, they aren’t Catholics at all.
A parish can’t ever be good for the spirit when it rejects Church teaching.
Are you inferring these parishes are "santan"ic?
No, even the official Church writings (see sticky at top of one of the forms, forget which one now) say this. There is much debate in how to minister and relate to people with same-gender preferences, but the overall conclusion is that they are still Catholic. Showing acceptance and compassion towards others who are scorned by others is not rejecting Church teaching.
Well that’s who influenced Adam and Eve to sin and he’s doing the same thing today to people who think gay sex is okay. Once again, nice use of quotes. Are you going to ignore my questions all day, or are you going to answer me? Do you or do you not believe in Sin, Hell, and Satan?Are you inferring these parishes are "santan"ic?
Mortal Sin seperates one from the beatific vision, and hence the Church. That is why there is Reconciliation.
Source? What theologians debate about is not infallible. You don’t think the Church is infallible but you do think the opinions of a minority number of theologians are. Pure hypocrisy.
Accepting and condoning sin as normal behavior most certaintly rejects the Church. Because of this, it also rejects Jesus.
Once again, the Church teaching here is anything but broad, unless you believe that the minority opinions of a few theologians are infallible, which you so obviously do.