Sentences with phrase «true teachings of the church»

One is allowed conscience, but that conscience is to be formed knowing what the True teachings of the Church are, knowing the love behind them, and why it is taught the way it is.

Not exact matches

I was taught as a child to pray to God and nothing / no one else and that I need not be in a Church or any building and that God hears all of our prayers, to have faith in following The Ten Commandments, to incorporate The Golden Rule, to be honest and true to myself and most importantly, to not judge others.

In the context of 1 Timothy the most likely interpretation that takes into account the immediate context is that, rather than abandoning their intended roles by demanding teaching and authoritative positions in the church, women will find true fulfillment through childbearing.

While I understand your anger, I do not think you understand that it was not the whole of the Catholic Church that committed these crimes, it was men, power hungry men, that actually acted outside of the true teachings of the religion.

But I found time and time again that the foundation of the church was operated more like a business and that they were in the business of preaching what would keep people coming in the doors and filling the coffers, and not necessarily what was true, or even what the Bible taught.

Haught can not explain what happens at death, nor the meaning of the sacraments as taught by the Church, nor the human need for true interior life.

That was true of Vatican II's authentic reforms in its teaching on the nature of the Church, the office of bishop, and religious freedom.

Upon the basis of Paul's teaching, taken alone, Christianity might possibly have foundered a century later in the rising sea of Gnosticism; possessing Mark's compilation of the historic traditions, later amplified by the other evangelists, the church held true to its course, steering with firm, unslackened grip upon the historic origins of its faith.

There are statements in Amoris Laetitia which, although they admit of a true interpretation, more easily suggest a false one, and are likely to be used to subvert the teachings of the Church.

The factors of chief importance in the development of this theology were: (a) the Old Testament — and Judaism --(b) the tradition of religious thought in the Hellenistic world, (c) the earliest Christian experience of Christ and conviction about his person, mission, and nature — this soon became the tradition of the faith or the «true doctrine» — and (d) the living, continuous, ongoing experience of Christ — only in theory to be distinguished from the preceding — in worship, in preaching, in teaching, in open proclamation and confession, as the manifestation of the present Spiritual Christ within his church.

In spite of the recurrent failure of the church to be true to Christ's teaching, in this important matter, the fact remains that the gospel continues to this day to be the chief antidote to the cult of power which has been the worst scourge of our distraught century.

It raises a question that all thoughtful Christians must at some point address: How do we identify the true tradition of Christian teaching throughout history, and what part does the Church play in that tradition?

I can't say that I thought through the theological implications of «I'm But a Stranger Here,» but its view of things was not inconsistent with what my overall church experience taught me to be true.

That said, Cardinal Kasper has done the Church a service because the observation that there is an «abyss» between what the Church teaches and how so many of her children actually live is demonstrably true.

The Church for them is not only the sacramental intermediary of grace and the teaching authority for the true statement of the hidden mysteries of God, but also has a pastoral power by which it can contribute quite considerably to determining the concrete action of its members in the tangible and sober reality of everyday life.

Our Churches, with common consent, do teach that the decree of the Council of Nicaea concerning the Unity of the Divine Essence and concerning the Three Persons, is true and to be believed without any doubting; that is to say, there is one Divine Essence which is called and which is God: eternal, without body, without parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, visible and invisible; and yet there are three Persons, of the same essence and power, who also are coeternal, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

For him this doctrine is not only the fundamental discriminator whereby one discerns the «true Christian» but also the universal teaching of the Christian church — at least prior to the rise of biblical criticism.

In life i am a puzzle solver, i annalize, deduct, and produce a theory and test the theory, all i did was take words said within the catacism and turn them into something that people can understand, I understand your confusion with the word proof, but i believe in god and i believe that his works are true, do i agree with some of the teaching of the church?

Any religion that teaches hate of anything but what God hates such as fornication idolotry or murder is not a true Christian there is only one Christian faith that has never been accused of doing nothing but teach people the bible going door to door but this is why people ridicule them for doing what the bible says they do nt charge for their material they do nt have communions they do nt pay their members for 2 years or send them to a college for doing so they do nt pay the speakers like other churches and they do nt hate anyone based on any reason they only give them bible knowledge then once they know the knowledge its their choice what to do with it.

The gradual unfolding of the Messianic secret, in particular, and Jesus» lack of immediate success in instructing his disciples as to the true nature of the Kingdom, have an inherent probability that is confirmed by the later history of the misinterpretation of his teaching in the New Testament Church.

I truly believe that the average Christian church does its best to worship the One True God, teach and obey Scriptures, and help people become faithful followers of Jesus Christ.

It is not defective nor in need of guidance by any other claimant, although other «faith communities» may possess some or even many of the truths taught by the One True Church.

Were there no such thing as inspiration, Christianity would be true, and all its essential doctrines would be credibly witnessed to us in the generally trustworthy reports of the teaching of our Lord and of His authoritative agents in founding the Church, preserved in the writings of the apostles and their first followers....

25 years ago I was a new christian and a single mum who was not truly familiar with the word of god neither was I in a sound biblical church which taught the true meaning of the bible.

Yet if we truly believe that the Incarnation is the crowing glory of creation, of history and of humanity, then we have no need to fear that Church teaching will somehow rob us of our intellectual initiative or suppress our true selves.

What I am calling for here is for the Birmingham programme to present that approach in a more systematic way which will show to best advantage the compellingnature of the Church's moral teaching as true.

Because Christ's Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth, in disputes over conflicting interpretations of the Word of God the Church must be capable of discerning true teaching and setting it forth with clarity.

He has absorbed an authentic understanding of the Church's social teachings, and of the true meaning and value of human work.

They would say that a true follower of Jesus has to attend church on Sunday morning for edification, accountability, fellowship, and teaching.

Maybe if Christian churches quit peddling their right - wing brand of religion and go back to the true teaching of Christ and actually followed what he taught, then maybe the younger generation would turn back.

In such a case, if it exists, the scientist would, of course, be compelled to withdraw his assent to the legitimate teaching authority of the Church, if it were supposed that he really considered the certainty of the scientific «result» as definitively truer and surer than the grounds which he had previously believed he possessed in justification for the claim of the Church to teach.

To teach, as some writers have, that we must accept the «insight» of modern Evolutionists, as true beyond reasonable doubt, that humans came into existence in various places at differing times (so - called «Polyphyletism») is to compromise the Church's infallible teaching that there was one first man (Adam) and one first woman (Eve) from whom we all descend.

We need to surrender our lust for power and recognition and return to the radical teachings of Jesus, it's not easy task, but it must happen if the church is ever going to be the true light of the world Jesus envisioned.

At Pentecost the disciples received the Holy Spirit, which teached them about the true character of Christ: On earth the Church has to share Christ's destiny to be rejected and to suffer up to Judgement Day.

The Church teaches the truth of the Virgin Birth and the truth of Mary's Immaculate Conception; both doctrines are true, but the Virgin Birth is closer to the Paschal Mystery than is the Immaculate Conception.

If teachers of status, whether priests or layfolk, do not accept themselves and do not teach to others the doctrine of life and human goodness that Jesus taught on earth and still teaches in His Church, they will not form within others the true identity of the real, the living Jesus.

In fact we would argue that true development of doctrine, including the social teaching of the Church, is only possible on the basis of the orthodox doctrinal and spiritual principles.

The REAL Church is the heart of man, receiving our LORD's HOLY SPIRIT, true acceptance of GOD's saving GRACE would mean turning away from false teachings, man's doctrines and traditions.

As Anderson shows, all the best and true Catholic reformers — whatever their political views or prudential decisions — were always strong proponents of established Church doctrine, and fierce disciplinarians when it came to upholding Church teaching, particularly in the area of sexual morality (a main target of today's «reformers»).

Nevertheless, both are devoted to the personal vocation of man, though under different titles... [Yet] at all times and in all places, the Church should have the true freedom to teach the faith, to proclaim its teaching about society, to carry out its task among men without hindrance, and to pass moral judgment even in matters relating to politics whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it» (Gaudium et Spes, 76).

The matter is ontological because at base it is necessary to discern the true nature of gender and how essential it is in Church teaching.

My weigh - only the true Christians thought that way of course... In the other hand the Catholic Church adopted human philosophy in to their teachings... Like Hell, and life after death!

Though he does not name examples, Nuechterlein would be hard - pressed to give a true, working definition of «orthodox Roman Catholic,» and then name persons who fit but refuse to comply with Church teaching on contraception, or anything else, including Scripture.

The true Church of Christ teaches the gospel.

So true of fundy church teaching.

Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be the Christ: he claimed to be God incarnate and the Church has reflected upon and refined its understanding of Jesus» identity and teaches that the one person of Jesus is true God and true man.

We need a new development of Catholic theology and philosophy which is true to the defined teaching of the Church and which can also answer the valid and sincere questions which have far - reaching implications for Christian faith.

This is true even of many devout Catholics: they have a strong faith in Christ but just don't know the theology behind the Church's teachings.

He states: «It could be argued that the Church herself is in part responsible for this in that we have failed, since the social and sexual revolutions of the 1960s, to explain attractively and imaginatively the alternative vision of life and love that Jesus has taught and which he promises is the true way to human happiness and eternal life.»

We must continue to be clear in explaining the actual teaching of the Church, so as to promote a true synthesis of science and Christian faith.