IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I guess the complexity of what I said was lost on you.I'm not thinking of only initial justification, but eternal justification. The latter term is biblical.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I guess the complexity of what I said was lost on you.I'm not thinking of only initial justification, but eternal justification. The latter term is biblical.
Each of us go through our own path, and some are similar and some are quite different. I left the Church for a bit over 20 years and converted to Judaism, but there was a strong "calling" to return back, which I did cover in some detail in a very lengthy series of posts a few years ago.
In short, I firmly believe it was the power of the Holy Spirit that brought me back after almost two full years of trying to figure out what the heck this was this all about???
I guess the complexity of what I said was lost on you.
being traditionalists is what put jesus at odds with the pharisees. love seems to be a very, very strong catalyst; especially when it isn't seen as an object of possession.Afraid to return to Mass
The above thread by Pearl has me thinking about Catholicism and the divide between progressives/liberals and the conservatives/traditionalists and their respective visions for the Church. I have always been open in regards to my sympathy for the traditionalist wing of the Church but for this thread I want to focus on the liberal side of things and consider just what exactly this side of the Church wants. Then I want to ask a question.
So if I understand this wing of the Church their main demands consist of the following:
There may be more, but reading the comments on various forums of Catholic discussion the aforementioned seems to me to cover the main items which liberal Catholics desire. So here is my question.
Renounce the teaching on the immorality of contraception, sodomy, fornication and masturbation. Accept abortion as a human right. Endorse homosexuality (and transgenderism) as a positive good to be affirmed and celebrated. Open the sacrament of matrimony to same sex couples. Open holy orders to women. Abolish clerical celibacy.
If the Catholic Church were to accept and implement all of the above; would that not falsify the Church's claim to teaching authority? Catholic doctrine states that the Church's teaching authority on questions of faith and morals is divinely guaranteed to be free from error. But if the Church has been in error this whole time especially in regards to sexual ethics then in what meaningful way can the Church's teaching authority be said to have been guided by the Holy Spirit?
It seems to me that without a credible answer to this question Catholicism would cease to make sense. The only item which could be implemented without the Church falsifying its own claims would be the abolishing of clerical celibacy. Which the Church has always admitted is not requirement of divine law but a disciplinary ideal of the Roman Rite. Everything else is a question of morals and doctrine. I do not see how the Church can budge on any of these issues without effectively renouncing the Catholic faith.
The point is that PAUL didn't stay within Jesus' teachings. He invented all sorts of stuff, and changed the core message to one of saved by faith, which Jesus never taught.Does not Paul warn believers to keep to the simplicity of what is in Christ, lest we be deceived?
Paul later clarifies what he meant by that, and it comes down to that if one truly believes in Jesus, they will do that which he taught that includes works that he taught are essential. Where the confusion comes in with some is that he negates any necessity of doing "works under the Law" [halacha] not covered by Jesus' teachings.The point is that PAUL didn't stay within Jesus' teachings. He invented all sorts of stuff, and changed the core message to one of saved by faith, which Jesus never taught.
The point is that PAUL didn't stay within Jesus' teachings. He invented all sorts of stuff, and changed the core message to one of saved by faith, which Jesus never taught.
We honestly don't know how many wrote the NT as that was one of the contentious debates during the 4th century selection of the canon. What complicates it is that often a disciple of one of the Apostles or an appointee of theirs would write and assign it to their mentor. A possible example is the Book of Revelation because, even though it says "John on Patmos", the form and language differs as one is reading along. Some theologians believe that maybe John the Baptist may have written some of the parts because of his eschatology orientation.No, I'm sorry, all the NT writers (12 teams of writers) agree in doctrine.