Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Denying any one of these four Marian dogmas may not automatically result in heresy or anathema, as there is room for theological debate within Catholicism.
Transubstantiation comes from old world metaphysics before we know about the quantum world.His saving power, and transubstantiation, one could be a Catholic.
Ooh, I see your point, brother. AI is good for some things, but it still has a ways to go when it comes to understanding theology. And yes, I would not want any churches to use AI-generated sermons or AI-generated homilies.This is just a straight up contradiction, for dogmas are by definition not open to theological debate. This is a good example of why one should not put their faith in AI, which has no intellect or authority.
My brother, even though quantum physics is real, transubstantiation is also real. Check up on Eucharistic miracles.Transubstantiation comes from old world metaphysics before we know about the quantum world.
"Substance" has been proven to be a concept rather than some platonic unchanging form.
I wonder if the Catholic Church will ever reconsider that theory.
Right, but that would only be the distinction between formal and material heresy, where you can hold to a belief that is "materially heretical," i.e. objectively heretical, even if you don't formally reject something you know is the teaching of the Church.The key term in there is 'willful denial', which also implies deliberation and indeed investigation. Your run of the mill Protestant who only knows what some pastor taught them is not a willful denier. But if someone really studied it and then denies it I might agree with Pius XII. I think those are uncommon people.
The thing with this is, if he's taking the Vatican 2 amendments into consideration. Also as I understand it (probably according to V2) the anathemas only apply to Roman Catholics who don't accept RCC dogma. Those who aren't Roman Catholic are already essentially heretics.View attachment 353586
Bummer for me.
He’s just a guy. So am I. I don’t pronounce anathemas. Best I could say is I’d be happy if you could see Mary as sinless, and not mouldering in some grave somewhere, and not having any other children, all in keeping with the common teaching of the Church for most of her existence. And to a degree see her as the mother of the beloved disciple, with us all being beloved disciples. I get it that such things would be hard to accept. They were for me too but I finally came around and they made sense. It took some time. I was not a heretic for that time because I was not ‘in denial’ but open to truth.I deviate with one point at least. So am I anathema? Is the guy in the OP correct?
Of course.Wiggle room on point number 1: Mary physically bore a son, and His name was Jesus.
Of course.But God the Son did not come into being through Mary. He existed forever before He created everything.
Most who have trouble with the first item get hung up on Mary somehow pre-existing God and originating God, as kind of a god behind God. It would be a humorous absurdity nobody actually believes in real life if they were not so earnest in their confusion.You don't have to ba a Catholic to understand this.
The key term in there is 'willful denial', which also implies deliberation and indeed investigation. Your run of the mill Protestant who only knows what some pastor taught them is not a willful denier. But if someone really studied it and then denies it I might agree with Pius XII. I think those are uncommon people.
"The wisdom of this world is foolishness to God." Why would reason be a better way to arrive at the truth than the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Can you reason why there are three Persons in the Trinity, rather than two or four? Did the Apostles reason their way to knowledge of Jesus Christ as God the Son, or was that revealed to them?What interests me the most about these kind of posts is WHY people believe these things? These councils that he quotes were convened at a time when they didn't have flushing toilets and they thought that the universe was made of concentric spheres. What leads one to think that they had a better corner on truth that we can arrive at with our own God-given reason?
Technically speaking he is incorrect, but let's pretend he said something more precise: "If you are baptized and you deny any of these four dogmas you are a heretic and anathema..." Would he be technically correct in this case? If he limited his statement to the baptized?I want to be careful to say that I don't think calling non-Catholics heretics on Twitter is an effective or Christlike approach, but as far as I know, Marshall is technically correct.
Exactly. Whether or not one thinks of non-Catholics as heretics, there is no change of status occurring, and therefore the charge is vacuous.Those who aren't Roman Catholic are already essentially heretics.
I would say that LLMs are a danger to those who have no way to discern true answers from false answers. Without that discernment one does not know whether the LLM has led them into understanding or misunderstanding.I do have to tell you, that AI has helped me at least understand complex Bible verses, and write parts of my devotionals.
Wiggle room on point number 1: Mary physically bore a son, and His name was Jesus. But God the Son did not come into being through Mary. He existed forever before He created everything. You don't have to ba a Catholic to understand this.
We can simply say that Jesus was God in flesh. We do not need to grant any titles to Mary. Involving Mary into this is unnecessary and I guess heavily influenced by the Roman culture (like family pantheons).No one claims that, but it does not provide for wiggle room on number 1, because if we deny that St. Mary is the Theotokos (birth giver to God) we have denied that God became incarnate having assumed our human nature in the person of the Son and Word, Jesus Christ (John 1:1-18, Luke 1-2, Matthew 2)
The second one is odd. He claims:View attachment 353586
Bummer for me.
Transubstantiation comes from old world metaphysics before we know about the quantum world.
"Substance" has been proven to be a concept rather than some platonic unchanging form.
I wonder if the Catholic Church will ever reconsider that theory.
I believe Catholic anathemas apply to everyone--or at a minimum the baptized--but functionally only apply to Catholics who reject Catholic dogma. The reason for this is that since the effect of an anathema is to declare that someone is not a member of the Catholic Church, it has no practical effect on a non-Catholic, who is not part of the Catholic Church anyway.The thing with this is, if he's taking the Vatican 2 amendments into consideration. Also as I understand it (probably according to V2) the anathemas only apply to Roman Catholics who don't accept RCC dogma. Those who aren't Roman Catholic are already essentially heretics.
We can simply say that Jesus was God in flesh. We do not need to grant any titles to Mary.
Involving Mary into this is unnecessary and I guess heavily influenced by the Roman culture (like family pantheons).
He was too far out over his skies on that one. He is falsely assuming that a Catholic doctrine is found in the same places that Aeiparthenos derives from. He does this because in Catholic circles those doctrines are always grouped together.So what exactly is his source that Mary not suffering pain is a dogma?
I believe Catholic anathemas apply to everyone--or at a minimum baptized Christians--but functionally only apply to Catholics who reject Catholic dogma. The reason for this is that since the effect of an anathema is to declare that someone is not a member of the Catholic Church, it has no practical effect on a non-Catholic, who is not part of the Catholic Church anyway.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?