Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: daniel1212
Why is that so hard to understand? Are you defending a "one true church" which manifestly counts even proabortion, prohomosexuality public figures as members in life and in death? With a liberal head? Do you deny that or interpret canon law contrary to her manifest understanding of it, or imagine that faith is defined simply by words, and not actions (cf. James 2:18)? And who here (aside from a cultist) is defending any one church, vs. a faith?

The Church is not about the people ... it's about Jesus Christ. People are sinners. Every church has them. No, we do not have to accept the sins of the past that were committed by people within the Church.

201 posted on 04/28/2021 8:05:30 AM PDT by al_c (Democrats: Party over Common Sense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies ]


To: al_c
Why is that so hard to understand? Are you defending a "one true church" which manifestly counts even proabortion, prohomosexuality public figures as members in life and in death? With a liberal head? Do you deny that or interpret canon law contrary to her manifest understanding of it, or imagine that faith is defined simply by words, and not actions (cf. James 2:18)? And who here (aside from a cultist) is defending any one church, vs. a faith?

" No, we do not have to accept the sins of the past that were committed by people within the Church. "

Why is that so hard for you to understand that if you are preaching/defending a particular one true organic church in which the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors,* then your must accept all that your leadership manifestly considers to be members, and defend such.

*'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)

219 posted on 04/28/2021 11:38:38 AM PDT by daniel1212 (Turn to the Lord Jesus as a damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save + be baptized + follow Him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson