posted
I seem to recall that the Catholic church will occasionally say that this, that, or the next thing is 'necessary to salvation'. Is there an updated list somewhere of what the current necessities are? Or maybe they've dropped the concept in recent years?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, not sure what you mean. Can you give some examples? From what I understand, grace is necessary for salvation. The details are how one can/should access that grace.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It should be noted that what Black Blade has linked is not official LDS doctrine, does not all come from the leaders, and may or may not be accurate.
I could have sworn I said that in my post. Sans the accurate part.
edit: Not only that I should have noted that some of the comments are in favor of personal choice, so not directly negative towards it's use.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: kat, I think that if you look at the generational change Lyrhawn and I were talking about you will see a significant shift in direction. For example, when my father took what was then called "Catholic Instruction" 50 years ago, he was given rules and was quite often told, "you don't need to know why." That is a big part of the reason he didn't become Catholic. His experience was pretty typical. Today the RCIA process spends a lot of time on the "why". When we talk about doctrine, we try to give a sense of why the Church's position is what it is, historically, traditionally, scripturally etc. This is what I mean by presenting accumulated wisdom.
By "obey or go to hell" what I mean is that, quite literally, if you didn't obey, you couldn't receive the sacraments and were endangering your salvation.
I am not sure we are talking about the same thing with "commandments" and I don't know about the Jonathan Edwards thing. (Is he the guy who talks to ghosts?)
I like that explanation better. The "obey or suffer for eternity" mentality is why I retreated from the faith.
I suppose I'll have you ask your forgiveness/tolerance of my use of "watered down" to describe the changes. I grew up with a stricter view, with the strict "obey or face the consequences" mentality that came with it. Therefore, and as I said before, I don't necessarily think that the new Catholicism is BAD, in fact I specifically said that I wasn't claiming that, just that it required less of what USED TO be necessary to consider yourself a "good Catholic."
I'm outdated (and sadly, only 22), gimme a break. I've only ever been to one church, Shrine of the Little Flower, which is a fairly big/semi-famous church in Southeast Michigan. If anyone's ever heard of Father Coughlin, big figure a few decades ago, he preached there. Maybe it's time I reconsider Catholicism.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Therefore, and as I said before, I don't necessarily think that the new Catholicism is BAD, in fact I specifically said that I wasn't claiming that, just that it required less of what USED TO be necessary to consider yourself a "good Catholic."
That is true. The good part is that it requires (or at least opens the door to) more of some new things. New things that I think are quite wonderful.
quote:Maybe it's time I reconsider Catholicism.
Maybe. If you do, remember that it is (and will continue to be) a work in progress. There has been plenty of "push back" to VII. It is an interesting time in the Church.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I've only ever been to one church, Shrine of the Little Flower, which is a fairly big/semi-famous church in Southeast Michigan. If anyone's ever heard of Father Coughlin, big figure a few decades ago, he preached there. Maybe it's time I reconsider Catholicism.
