Sentences with phrase «teaching of the church does»

The teaching of the Church does not condone h0m0s3xual acts with pubescent boys by g @y priests.

Regrettably, few preachers have addressed the matter from the pulpit — partly because most aren't really sure what the Christian position is and partly because their understanding of the Bible and the teachings of the church does not square with either their experience or their reason.

An appeal to the unchanging teaching of the Church does little justice to the Church Fathers who engaged their whole minds and souls in the defense and articulation of the truth, based on Scripture, reason, liturgy, peculiar strands of philosophy, and sundry other allies they mustered to their side.

How we «feel» about the Word of God and the teachings of his Church does not determine their truth or their applicability to our lives.

Not exact matches

«But I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness, a Mother who, while clearly expressing her objective teaching, «always does what good she can, even if in the process, her shoes get soiled by the mud on the street.

I don't like it when atheists want to secularize our culture and shut out any public mention of religion... But I also don't like it when modern evangelical fundamentalists are so ignorant of the Christian Church's teachings and traditions of two thousand years.

Most of the people I work with are aware of it, and some the stuff I do on the side is because of it, like youth ministry and working as part of the teaching team at our church.

Well, if «take very seriously» means conforming his politics to Church teaching, rather than his understanding of Church teaching to his politics, then this is patently false, and we do not need to peer into the soul of John Podesta to reach this conclusion.

Most of the churches feed the poor, and teach their followers to do the same.

Now why don't you go talk to the thousands of ex-Mormons who have been shunned by their family and friends for the rest of their lives just because they disagreed with certain church teachings.

The ordained leaders of the Church, and the laity who are Christ's principal witnesses in the public square, do not enter public life proclaiming, «The Church teaches...» When the question at issue is an immoral practice, they enter the debate saying, «This is wicked; it can not be sanctioned by the law and here is why, as any reasonable person will grasp.»

While Evangelicals greatly respect the way in which the Catholic Church has defended many historic Christian teachings against relativizing and secularizing trends, and recognize the role of the present pontiff in that important task today, they believe that some aspects of Catholic doctrine are not biblically warranted, and they do not accept any claims of infallibility made for the magisterial teachings of popes or church couChurch has defended many historic Christian teachings against relativizing and secularizing trends, and recognize the role of the present pontiff in that important task today, they believe that some aspects of Catholic doctrine are not biblically warranted, and they do not accept any claims of infallibility made for the magisterial teachings of popes or church couchurch councils.

So does that mean since a bunch of rogue nuns with feminist ideals taught over the last 50 years should force the Church to change its current teaching on euthanasia, gay marriage, and abortion?

I do not embrace the man - made hierarchy of the Catholic Church or the secrecy and corruption it engenders, but I understand why they are concerned about nuns and priests - those who bear their name - and what it is they teach.

Furthermore, you have NO CLUE about Church teaching, nor do you seek to be an obedient member of the faith.

Finally, I don't agree with the people on here stating that she's not a Catholic simply because she doesn't agree with every aspect of Church teaching.

In my opinion, I do not think this woman is a practicing catholic since she is ignoring this basic teaching of the catholic church.

Sabio, I do not share your atheistic beliefs, but I definitely share many of your criticisms of the formal theological beliefs taught by the institutional Church authorities.

It is precisely in the community gathered for worship, and most expressly in the Eucharist, that the Church «puts its faith into action,» «focuses on Christ's teaching,» including the command to «do this» in remembrance of him, and offers its chief service (Greek: leitourgia) to God and to the world.

Yet «faithful Catholics» do in fact disagree about church teaching regarding contraception, the ordination of women, and the nature of the papacy, among other things.

Can you tell me the name of this church and what you were taught so that I don't need to guess anymore?

You say that you don't see Jesus in the churches — I don't know what churches you have been to, but there are definitely churches that do well in representing and teaching Jesus Christ (not all churches of course) HOWEVER... if you think you will find perfection in a human being, you must know that your kidding yourself.

The lyric «You're so open - minded that your brains leaked out» was always reminding me of what churches were telling me; that based on the Bible almost everything we do outside of what the church teaches and does, is evil.

The real damage these kind of churches do, especially to children, is they teach them to live their lives in fear.

But they never offer guidance for a case in which the couple must do the hard work of obeying what the Church has taught for two thousand years.

Many of the churches I have attended in my lifetime teach and preach in a very wishy washy way — don't rock the boat type of Christianity.

While the Church does teach absolution of sin, she certainly does NOT teach a penitent can carry forth without consequence.

And especially after the Noachian Flood, did false religion take a leap, with false religious doctrines and practices such as the trinity, immortality of the soul, that God torments people in a «hellfire», the establishment of a clergy class, the teaching of «personal salvation» as more important than the sanctification of God's name of Jehovah (Matt 6:9), the sitting in a church while a religious leader preaches a sermon, but the «flock» is not required to do anything more, except put money when the basket is passed.

But then neither does the history of the Church's teaching on Christ's divinity, or its teaching on the real presence in the Eucharist.

Satan will get churches to tell the pastor that people don't want to hear the Bible taught any more, and so if he could just tell them a bunch of stories, that would be better.

The moment the Christian churches begin Attuning themselves properly to Jesus Christ and Preaching His eternal message of LOVE for Everyone, Without Conditions, and Teaching about the Afterlife as God has promised us there is, and Teaching about the laying - on of hands to heal the sick as Jesus did, and begin truly Sharing their money with the poor as Jesus did, THEN you will find people flocking back into the church.

I would argue that many mainline Churches don't properly portray the teaching of Jesus Christ.

Gods judgment rest upon all the corporate and local churches temples, tabernacles, TV evangelists, ministries and congregations ever for all their false teachings and deeds, and God does not want any of His people to suffer the spiritual plagues which are being brought upon them.

Jesus Christ didn't write the Bible his disciples did and therefore I conclude that most people in the world are illiterate and will be saved by the preaching and teaching of the only one real church of catholicism founded in Rome, Italy by Peter the first bishop of Rome.

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.

The universities do not swear fidelity to the teaching of the Church.

So (by the teachings of the Catholic Church), a person does not have to be officially canonized in order to be a saint.

It's not just the sex abuse scandal, and not just the average American Catholic's disregard of Church teaching on contraception and divorce, though these don't help.

A friend of mine who teaches on the collegiate level recently told me, «I don't meet any young adults who've grown up in the church lacking at least one story of spiritual abuse.»

How then do we present the Church's teaching to the modern world in its orthodox meaning, yet without introducing any sense of arbitrariness or incoherence into God's works, which is what the thinkers named above were all rightly keen to avoid?

Do you think it is important for believers to find a Bible believing and teaching church to be a part of?

One of the sins of the Church is to teach that this can be done by recipe.

Living in low - income housing, teaching free literacy classes to refugees, setting up basketball camps for bored inner - city kids: all of it had a few costs for me personally, sure, but the holy buzz of pats on the back from friends and church people, and the feeling that I was the only person really getting what Jesus was saying — this more than made up for doing without.

So what the Pope's trying to do is to restore to center stage the individual conscience in the light of the gospels and church teaching.

The Institutional Church (ecclesia) has killed only two kinds of people: Those who do not believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and those who do.

For the faithful in Christ can not accept this view, which holds either that after Adam there existed men on this earth who did not receive their origin by natural generation from him, the first parent of all, or that Adam signifies some kind of multiple first parents; for it is by no means apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with what the sources of revealed truth and the acts of the magisterium of the Church teach about original sin, which proceeds from a sin truly committed by one Adam, and which is transmitted to all by generation, and exists in each one as his own» -LCB- Humani Generis 37).

In Lutheranism the retention of the ancient liturgy, sacramentalism, iconography, and much of the music and ceremony of the medieval church made - and makes - it apparent that the Lutheran Reformation did not start a new church but continued the ancient teaching and life of the catholic community.

One should not perhaps make too much of this, but it does seem to imply that the pastoral dimension of the Church extends to teaching as well, that is, to the feeding of our minds with sound doctrine.

Could the Church possibly say that because «the rules» about the indissolubility of marriage are Catholic rules, they therefore don't apply to non-Catholics, even to baptized Christian non-Catholics, even when those persons become Catholics and put themselves under the jurisdiction of the Church's teachings?

Some modern theologians are actually advocating a return to a church - sanctioned professional class of clergy who do all the Bible reading, teaching, preaching, and theologizing.