Posted on 06/06/2014 11:46:00 AM PDT by NYer
Agree!
I'm the opposite..
Skeptical of ACCEPTING it unless there is ANY kind of evidence.
And just how 'old' was the teaching that everything revolved around the earth?
Turned out to be WRONG...
I'm the opposite..Skeptical of ACCEPTING it unless there is ANY kind of evidence.
Seems prudent to me. Though, in matters of faith, what I consider evidence and what another might may not always be identical.
And just how 'old' was the teaching that everything revolved around the earth?Turned out to be WRONG...
Well, if I may, I would not call that a tradition, but merely a very old model about how people imagined things worked. It was like a flat earth, or where rain came from. These are more like rudimentary theories than what I have been referring to, which relate more to factual events and origins as opposed to hypotheses about things which cannot be seen. Does that make sense? One thing they do have in common though is that once evidence to the contrary comes to light they are abandoned. At least if one is rational they are.
For something more analogous to what I have been speaking about consider the differing points of view about who wrote the various books of the Bible. Tradition is that St. Matthew wrote the Gospel which bears his name first, and in Hebrew, which was then translated into Greek. Modern theorists say that St. Mark's was first, and was not by St. Mark. I tend to stick to the traditional view because the modern theorists haven't really produced much in the way of evidence, or even convincing theories for my money. But, if somebody really does produce something concrete, or at least compelling, that what they are saying is true, then I will admit that the traditions are wrong and change my point of view. These traditions, like many, come from closer to the events than anything we have today which we think contradicts them. This is often the case, and so I tend to stick with them, not because I think they are somehow infallible, but just because they probably have a better pedigree than those which would deny them. But, again, that is just how I approach this stuff. What can I say? I am a traditional guy.
That is really parsing.
Reminds me of when Bill Clinton was asking about the meaning of “is.”
So....in order to belong to an organization....such as a Church....you must agree with absolutely EVERYTHING it says and does? Or else you should leave or be kicked out? Is that what you are saying?
I’m no great fan of the current Pope myself. I have been turned off by his many misguided comments on economic policy.
But if I decided to excommunicate everyone in the Church who disagreed with my views, I think I would be the only one left in the Church.
Maybe YOU wouldn't; but ROME sure as Hell bet some BIG BUCKS on it!
What can I say?
Other than Missouri's state nickname fits me to a tee!
Appeal to Authority - Because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.
Appeal to Tradition - Trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time.
Example: This is the way we've always done it. Therefore, it is the right way.
Example: The Catholic church's tradition demonstrates that this doctrine is true.
When it comes to dogma........YES!
And “should be kicked out” is not the proper wording. “Automatically kicked-out” is the proper phrasing. Don’t let the doorknob hit your backside.
Sorry pal. Aint leaving. No reason to. I could find another Church to join and find a few things I disagree with as well. Nothing in life is perfect. I don’t expect it. You’ll have to put up some us of free thinkers. If the Church wants to excommunicate me for reading the Bible and believing what’s in it. Fine.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia :
>>Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Church is heresy pure and simple, heresy in the first degree. <<
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm
Sorry, pal. Looks like you’re already in you’re own little church. Martin Luther comes to mind.
According to the Catholic Church, you’ve already been automatically ex-communicated.
So don’t hang around your mailbox waiting for official notification.
Fine. I have a friend who also says if you don’t attend the Latin Mass you’re not a real Catholic as well.
I’m not surprised you have friends who are also in error. Birds of a feather...
I first learned that Jesus had brothers and sisters in a Bible study class taught by a Catholic priest in a Catholic church. The priest didn’t make up any yarns that those brothers and sisters were cousins or Joseph’s children from a prior marriage. Should the priest be excommunicated as well? Should Pope Francis be excommunicated for saying celibacy is not dogma and the policy is subject to change?
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
“Celibacy” was never dogma. Do you even know what the dogmas of the Church are?
I’m really beginning to think that you don’t know the difference between dogma, doctrine and discipline.
Martin Luther was once also a Catholic priest in a Catholic church; and he, too, led many astray, as your "teacher" has done you. But I don't think Luther ever formerly denied the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother, as you and your "Catholic priest" teacher do.
How about that? Martin Luther appears to be more Catholic than some people who still claim they're Catholics!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.