Which Church teachings do you struggle to accept?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kozlosap
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimR-OCDS said:
The quote is outdated for when it’s used it insults people of other religions and the Church has to go through explanation gymnastics.

Jim
Click to expand...
No it is not. It is the Teaching of the Church. When it is used it is explained (due to yes misunderstandings that can arise in some -but because such can arise cannot make a Defined Teaching of the Church “out dated”).

Next shall we cease using the word Trinity because it offends some? Because some Muslims take it to mean we think there are three Gods or various sects reject it? No.

We teach and give the proper understanding. The Teaching of the Church is full and expansive.

We cannot say one part is outdated because it is misunderstood by a number.

The Immaculate Conception would have to be “outdated”…for so many think it means something else.

We are not going to say the “Immaculate Conception” is outdated -because in modern culture so many get confused and think they mean the Conception of Jesus. We are not to stop using the defined term.

No we are going to explain. And teach. And propose the* various *Truths of the Faith.
 
mommy_k said:
I was taught in catholic school that pets go to pet heaven. We can visit them.
Click to expand...
That is NOT a Church teaching. The Church teaches that only humans have an immortal soul. That means the souls of animals cease to exist when the animals die.
 
thistle said:
That is NOT a Church teaching. The Church teaches that only humans have an immortal soul. That means the souls of animals cease to exist when the animals die.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree. Animals do not have an immortal soul on this earth.

However, we do know from Scripture that there will be a new heaven and a new earth. How that will be, we don’t know.

We are pretty sure that we will eat and drink in heaven, since Jesus ate on earth after His resurrection, and He stated that “(he) would not drink the fruit of the vine until He drank it new in Heaven”. However --no ‘carnal actions’ since there will not be any marriage.

SO it is possible that, at the end of ‘time’, God could ‘remake’ the mortal animals and infuse in them an immortal soul, though I kind of doubt it ( even though I would dearly love to see some of my pets ‘once more’.) It is also possible that, in eternity, we would somehow transmit or transmute that love of our pets into something greater - something that love of our pets has ‘prepared’ us for, but that we simply do not know of yet. So the love we gave and received on earth would somehow ‘go on’ in heaven to achieve something even greater.

Anyway, I trust in God. I personally don’t think that He will ‘allow’ one person to have “X” and not another. . .I think rather that in Heaven, in loving God, all our desire will conform to God’s will, whatever it is (but it’s not an arbitrary will) and we won’t NEED to have anything other than Him.
 
Bookcat said:
No it is not. .
Click to expand...
Yes it is insulting.

When non-Catholics hear, “no salvation outside the Church,” they are automatically seeing that the Catholic Church is telling them that they will not go to heaven, but hell, because they do not belong to the institutional Catholic Church.

Granted, the exact teaching of the Church doesn’t say this, but they’re not going to get beyond hearing that one statement and most will not look further.

It’s a flaw in the wording as presented in general, not the teaching of the Church.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Yes it is insulting.

When non-Catholics hear, “no salvation outside the Church,” they are automatically seeing that the Catholic Church is telling them that they will not go to heaven, but hell, because they do not belong to the institutional Catholic Church.

Granted, the exact teaching of the Church doesn’t say this, but they’re not going to get beyond hearing that one statement and most will not look further.

It’s a flaw in the wording as presented in general, not the teaching of the Church.

Jim
Click to expand...
It is not.

And we do not go around saying “no salvation outside the Church…no salvation outside the Church” When the Teaching is given it is given with explaining what the teaching means~!

The wording IS as I recall the defined teaching of the Church. And the ancient expression. Again-

It is the Teaching of the Church. When it is used it is explained (due to yes misunderstandings that can arise in some -but because such can arise cannot make a Defined Teaching of the Church “out dated”).

Next shall we cease using the word “Trinity” because it offends some? Because some Muslims are offended because take it to mean we think there are three Gods or various sects reject it? No.

We teach and give the proper understanding. The Teaching of the Church is full and expansive.

We cannot say one part is outdated because it is misunderstood by a number.

The Immaculate Conception would have to be “outdated”…for so many think it means something else.

We are not going to say the “Immaculate Conception” is outdated -because in modern culture so many get confused and think they mean the Conception of Jesus. We are not to stop using the defined term.

No we are going to explain. And teach. And propose the various Truths of the Faith.
 
A long time ago I would have said none. But now with my wife wanting a divorce I struggle with the re-marriage doctrine. Hurts to know I am going to spend the rest of my life alone as we ave basically zero chance of annulment.
 
Bookcat said:
It is not.

And we do not go around saying “no salvation outside the Church…no salvation outside the Church”
Click to expand...
It’s not ?

Then you haven’t been following this thread and didn’t pay attention to the response when Pope Benedict XVI issued the document with the heading, “No Salvation Outside the Church,” which hit the news media outlets with that headline.

The PR from the headline, was a train-wreck and the Vatican had to quickly respond with explanations on the actual Church teaching.

It shouldn’t have to come to this. Just say, “Salvation Comes Through Jesus Christ,” then explain the doctrine.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Yes it is insulting.

When non-Catholics hear, “no salvation outside the Church,” they are automatically seeing that the Catholic Church is telling them that they will not go to heaven, but hell, because they do not belong to the institutional Catholic Church.

Granted, the exact teaching of the Church doesn’t say this, but they’re not going to get beyond hearing that one statement and most will not look further.

It’s a flaw in the wording as presented in general, not the teaching of the Church.

Jim
Click to expand...
I think perhaps a qualifier like “Can be insulting” or “in my opinion is insulting” or “would be insulting to me”, is in order.

As a convert, and one seeking a faith with a sincere desire for the Truth and ultimate achievement of heaven, your idea would have failed to convert me. And Catholics in general are HORRIBLE at converting in the modern era. while others knock on doors, we shy away from even public conversations. While many reach out with words of sincerity and knowledge, we say 4 letters (RCIA) and hope they can wait a year to find out what they need to know to convert. How many are lost to the idea that someone has the path to heaven? Baptists, Lutherans, Evangelicals, Mormons, etc. These people are converting at a high rate because they confidently hold that they have the right path to heaven. As Catholics we need to believe this about our Church as well. While God MAY choose to save outside the secular Church, the only way to salvation that has ever been revealed to mankind is through the Church. Through baptism (offensive and insulting to some I am sure) God gave us the sacraments to help us achieve heaven, to rid ourselves of sin and fill ourselves with grace. From confession to Holy Orders, to last rights I have no idea how I personally could attain heaven without the Church. Furthermore, while nothing is impossible for God and we do not know His mind, we do know what he has revealed to us. To go beyond that is unwise. God has chosen to reveal a select few who are indeed in heaven. We have proof of this. We pray with them and follow their examples. There are no non Catholic saints. God has never revealed a non Catholic in heaven. Every single person we KNOW to be saved and in heaven was done so through the Catholic Church. Period. Even the Old Testament Saints. The Church has always held this and always should.
As someone who was a convert and has sponsored many converts as well as actively evangelizes for the faith, I can tell you that sincere seekers, sincere people are STARVING for the Truth and for the food that ONLY the Catholic Church provides. And they are dying to be saved. They are dying to be told which way to go, even if it is the narrow path. We do nothing to help them by telling them that the path that is hard but is the true path is not the only path and that they can or should take the other paths and see where they lead. God has only revealed THIS path to be the correct one. If your really want to save people and grow a Church, and populate heaven, you will confidently lead them down the path the shepherd wants his sheep to be on.
That is called leadership, that is called spreading the Gospel, that is called mission, that is called the Truth.

Watering that down, saying it is insulting is bowing to the same thinking of telling a kid to not have sex while slipping a condom in his pocket.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
It’s not ?

Then you haven’t been following this thread and didn’t pay attention to the response when Pope Benedict XVI issued the document with the heading, “No Salvation Outside the Church,” which hit the news media outlets with that headline.

The PR from the headline, was a train-wreck and the Vatican had to quickly respond with explanations on the actual Church teaching.

It shouldn’t have to come to this. Just say, “Salvation Comes Through Jesus Christ,” then explain the doctrine.

Jim
Click to expand...
If only the Pope had consulted you right? LOL to be honest I feel that way about the current Pope, I would love to be able to be his adviser so he could stop letting his words get him in trouble…;)😛
 
Hoosier Daddy
I think perhaps a qualifier like “Can be insulting” or “in my opinion is insulting” or “would be insulting to me”, is in order.
Click to expand...
Fact is, people are insulted by it, so it IS insulting. The degree of insult varies, but it doesn’t negate the fact that it is.
As a convert, and one seeking a faith with a sincere desire for the Truth and ultimate achievement of heaven, your idea would have failed to convert me.
Click to expand...
Your conversion was the result of being called by Jesus Christ. If not, you merely converted to a religion because you were attracted to the doctrines and rites.
And Catholics in general are HORRIBLE at converting in the modern era. while others knock on doors, we shy away from even public conversations.
Click to expand...
Catholics have experienced “in your face religion,” preaching from door-to-door evangelists and Jehovhah’s witnesses. They know that it doesn’t work.

In fact, I took a course on evangelization within the Catholic Church, about 35 years ago.
The priest who led the class was from the dioceses and showed how door-to-door in your face religion has a negative effect in conversions. It’s why even JW’s have backed off such techniques over the years.

In all, Pope Francis is bring people to the Christ by his message of mercy and compassion in Jesus Christ.

We need to follow his example and do a check on our own zeal in trying to convert people…

Jim
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
If only the Pope had consulted you right? LOL to be honest I feel that way about the current Pope, I would love to be able to be his adviser so he could stop letting his words get him in trouble…;)😛
Click to expand...
No Pope has to consult me, but as Pope Benedict XVI learned in the first year of his pontificate, what he says can cause death and violence if he is not careful in what he says.

Pope Francis is the example of how a Pope should teach on the world stage.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
No Pope has to consult me, but as Pope Benedict XVI learned in the first year of his pontificate, what he says can cause death and violence if he is not careful in what he says.

Pope Francis is the example of how a Pope should teach on the world stage.

Jim
Click to expand...
I would of course disagree,🤷
 
JimR-OCDS said:
It’s not ?
Click to expand...
Of its self it is not. Something that is offensive is to say “persons of this religion or that religion are pigs…” that is offensive.

Persons have taken offense at Christ ever since days he walked the earth.

As the treated the Master so they will treat his disciples.

We cannot set aside the teachings of the Church or its defined formulation just because someone “takes offense” at them.

We propose and explain. As is done when that Particular Teaching comes up say in the Catechism, the General Audiences of St. John Paul II etc etc…It is not given out of authentic context.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Y
Click to expand...
The wording IS as I recall the defined teaching of the Church. And the ancient expression.

When it is used* it is *explained (due to yes misunderstandings that can arise in some -but because such can arise cannot make a Defined Teaching of the Church “out dated”).

Next shall we cease using the word “Trinity” because it offends some? Because some Muslims are offended because take it to mean we think there are three Gods or various sects reject it? No.

We teach and give the proper understanding. The Teaching of the Church is full and expansive.

We cannot say one part is outdated because it is misunderstood by a number.

The Immaculate Conception would have to be “outdated”…for so many think it means something else.

We are not going to say the “Immaculate Conception” is outdated -because in modern culture so many get confused and think they mean the Conception of Jesus.

We are not to stop using the defined terms.
 
Bookcat said:
The wording IS as I recall the defined teaching of the Church. And the ancient expression.

When it is used* it is *explained (due to yes misunderstandings that can arise in some -but because such can arise cannot make a Defined Teaching of the Church “out dated”).

Next shall we cease using the word “Trinity” because it offends some? Because some Muslims are offended because take it to mean we think there are three Gods or various sects reject it? No.

We teach and give the proper understanding. The Teaching of the Church is full and expansive.

We cannot say one part is outdated because it is misunderstood by a number.

The Immaculate Conception would have to be “outdated”…for so many think it means something else.

We are not going to say the “Immaculate Conception” is outdated -because in modern culture so many get confused and think they mean the Conception of Jesus.

We are not to stop using the defined terms.
Click to expand...
Using the terms " Holy Trinity," or the “Immaculate Conception,” is not the same as telling them they’re not saved for not belonging to the institutional Catholic Church, which is how they understand the doctrine,’ No Salvation Outside the Church."

Again, it’s not a matter of changing doctrine, but presenting it in a way that is understandable on it’s face, without requiring in-depth research by the one’s you’re providing the doctrine to.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Using the terms " Holy Trinity," or the “Immaculate Conception,” is not the same as telling them they’re not saved for not belonging to the institutional Catholic Church, which is how they understand the doctrine,’ No Salvation Outside the Church."

Again, it’s not a matter of changing doctrine, but presenting it in a way that is understandable on it’s face, without requiring in-depth research by the one’s you’re providing the doctrine to.

Jim
Click to expand...
My points remain.

Have already explained at length. That Teaching IS explained by the Church -exactly where and when it is taught.

And are we going to re-write the words of Jesus? So they do not get misunderstood??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top