We are destroying the faith from inside

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roseeurekacross
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brendan_64 said:
Using language to mean different things does not change truth, truth is absolute.
Click to expand...
My own observation is that we have lost some of our faith because many of us no longer believe in the first three chapters of Genesis.
 
Brendan_64 said:
Using language to mean different things does not change truth, truth is absolute.
Click to expand...
No, but it might very well necessitate the use of adjectives or further descriptive agents to make sure everyone is in fact talking about the same thing.
 
DarkLight said:
No, but it might very well necessitate the use of adjectives or further descriptive agents to make sure everyone is in fact talking about the same thing.
Click to expand...
Do we need further descriptive agents to explain what the Church has always taught?
 
Brendan_64 said:
Do we need further descriptive agents to explain what the Church has always taught?
Click to expand...
Sometimes we may. It’s just like if we reach a new people, we would have to translate the teaching into their language. Even older works in english may need glossing to be understood. For example, the word “charity” in the modern general american english lexicon has a much narrower meaning than in catholic teaching language. I suspect the issue of “praying to saints” also suffers from this - to your average american of protestant background, prayer means “a type of worship that involves talking to a deity”, so it’s very confusing when catholics talk about praying to saints.
 
DarkLight said:
… online discussions tend to center themselves around the members with the most extreme views. If one person says something that’s very out there, the next page, at least, will likely be devoted to replying to that person, and more moderate voices tend to be ignored. …
Click to expand...
Sometimes, keeping it relevant to the original poster has been forgotten at the expense of “putting right” a fellow responder.

We usually need to address both the OP and fellow responders of course. It ought to be a matter of having an attitude of building on where they’re at rather than “proving them wrong”, in my opinion.
 
Vic_Taltrees_UK said:
We usually need to address both the OP and fellow responders of course. It ought to be a matter of having an attitude of building on where they’re at rather than “proving them wrong”, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
But what if the person is wrong? Do we use error as a foundation to build truth?
 
Brendan_64 said:
But what if the person is wrong? Do we use error as a foundation to build truth?
Click to expand...
That’s what seems to be the case nowadays huh. We follow the One who said I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life and yet many want to muddle the Truth in some false sense of ecumenism. ‘Meeting them where they are at’ doesn’t mean leaving the Truth behind.
 
johnnyc176 said:
That’s what seems to be the case nowadays huh. We follow the One who said I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life and yet many want to muddle the Truth in some false sense of ecumenism. ‘Meeting them where they are at’ doesn’t mean leaving the Truth behind.
Click to expand...
“muddle the Truth in some false sense of ecumenism” is exactly what Pope Pius XII warned in* Humni Generis*.

Humani Generis w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

11. Another danger is perceived which is all the more serious because it is more concealed beneath the mask of virtue. There are many who, deploring disagreement among men and intellectual confusion, through an imprudent zeal for souls, are urged by a great and ardent desire to do away with the barrier that divides good and honest men; these advocate an “eirenism” according to which, by setting aside the questions which divide men, they aim not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma. And as in former times some questioned whether the traditional apologetics of the Church did not constitute an obstacle rather than a help to the winning of souls for Christ, so today some are presumptive enough to question seriously whether theology and theological methods, such as with the approval of ecclesiastical authority are found in our schools, should not only be perfected, but also completely reformed, in order to promote the more efficacious propagation of the kingdom of Christ everywhere throughout the world among men of every culture and religious opinion.

12. Now if these only aimed at adapting ecclesiastical teaching and methods to modern conditions and requirements, through the introduction of some new explanations, there would be scarcely any reason for alarm. But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent “eirenism” seem to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union, things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense and support of the integrity of the faith, and the removal of which would bring about the union of all, but only to their destruction.
 
Brendan_64 said:
But what if the person is wrong? Do we use error as a foundation to build truth?
Click to expand...
Our Church is the Pillar and Support of
the Truth. 1 Tim 3:15, and we are
building on that every day of our lives
as believers, we can build w/ gold and
silver and precious stones, but also
wood hay and stubble. 1 Cor. 3:11-15,
So, it IS possible to build our lives on
false convictions, but praise God, that
CAN be corrected if we repent!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top