Glad I am not the only one. I know he is doing his best and don't doubt his holiness, but I feel like a lot of what he has said in the past goes against our faith.
Happily, what the Pope has stated a few times was just comments and not in the authority of the Pope, or ex-cathedra as it's called.
However, he does have authority and even bishops and priests have been divided over his comments. It's my hope that the next Pope will be in keeping with traditional Catholic values and teachings.
He's causing much confusing by making statements and then saying he didn't mean it that way from one writing or another.
I wish it would though, but then again it would probably teach against it unfortunately.
The one good thing about the CC is that it doesn't teach anything that it's not sure about.
It is very serious about this.
You can even believe in evolution, but evolution that is planned by God.
IOW, God has to be involved in it...not the evolution as some believe in that life just came about and evolved into humans.
Even science is unable to prove this and many scientists have moved away from this theory.
No, don't worry. If I were to attack Catholicism I would do it openly because it is not liked very well on this site. I initially called this thread "Why I refuse to conver to Catholicism" which would have made you question my sincerity even more. I changed the title because I don't really refuse and actually kind of want to.
This is nice to hear.
Too many attacking the church without even understanding what it teaches.
I went on for pages (something I don't normally do) with a member about justification. He kept insisting that the CC teaches justification by works - I kept telling him that it doesn't and why - but he just wouldn't accept it.
What's true is true and some don't even know the teachings but just like to attack.
What I was referring to when I said that was how Peter tried to teach that only Jews could convert to Christianity and how he believed that baptism and circumcision were an absolute necessity for salvation, whereas Paul taught that anyone could convert and that baptism and circumcision were things you SHOULD do but didn't necessarily have anything to do with salvation.
Ok. Yes, I agree.
I'd study a bit on baptism more.
Jesus said that the Apostles were to teach and BAPTIZE....
even some Protestant theologians believe baptism is necessary for salvation.
However, not to worry, in Catholic theology your DESIRE for baptism is sufficient IF you should die before you actually get baptized.
(sounds right to me).
Some Churches use the NASB translation which has a few flaws. One of the translators backed out because he feared he was committing a horribld sin.
Some Churches and the Vatican use the NAB which was even criticized bt Catholics (
Cringey Notes in the Catholic New American Bible)
I like the Revised Standard Version a good bit but it is not without its own problems (some versions use "Maiden" instead of "Virgin", removal of some verses, etc.)
Agreed. Every version has something or other we may not like. I use the NASB but I have many different versions and I'll check all to see what they say. Biblehub has this online now, so it makes this much easier. I do like the RSV.
The comments would be slightly different depending on which version a person uses.
Also, Catholic bibles are now being translated from the Greek instead of from the Latin - I might have said this already.
I will try to look into it.
Good idea.
