EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 I checked out this book in a store and it seems a bit liberal to me. Saying that the Church made mistakes, infallibility is changing, beliefs evolve, etc. Has anyone else heard about it and what do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin D Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 I checked out this book in a store and it seems a bit liberal to me. Saying that the Church made mistakes, infallibility is changing, beliefs evolve, etc. Has anyone else heard about it and what do you think? Never heard of the book. If you want an orthodox book, get Catholicism For Dummies, it's written by two priests who so happen to also be on EWTN. The Complete Idiot's Guide To Understanding Catholicism tends to be on the liberal side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phatcatholic Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 u should find the book at amazon and read the comments from people who have read it. sometimes, those are helpful.........sometimes there not. i haven't gone there to check it out yet, but that may help. it would be cool if there was a catholic site that reviewed catholic media when it came out so we would know what's orthodox before we spend our hard earned money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Of course the Church can make mistakes and change things. The REAL questions are what it can err on or change. Dogma, defining Dogma, etc., the Church cannot err or change. Man-made rules for the living application of Dogma can be in error. People acting in the name of the Church can make mistakes in what they do or say. Discipline rules can change. For example, married priests were more the norm at one time. The Church has decided, for various reasons, that being unmarried is preferable for a priest. The Church adamantly taught the the sun moved around the earth. It certainly doesn't teach that now. Though there were/are theological Truths it wished to maintian, the Church is not an expert in defining or understanding Science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Two words: Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur Ok, that's three words, but look for those at the beginning of a book to ensure the orthodoxy of a published work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thicke Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 If you want an orthodox book, get Catholicism For Dummies, it's written by two priests who so happen to also be on EWTN. I have to second this one. I thought CFD was a great book. My mom, who is in RCIA right now loved it too. You'll note that it does have the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted January 18, 2004 Author Share Posted January 18, 2004 I had a religious text book that had an orthodoxy stamp on it. It wasn't "Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur", but it was something that said the book was orthodox. Anyway, I didn't think the book was very orthodox. It watered down the masculinity of God and stuff. I'll check for those words, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 There is a wide range of opinion allowed within the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. I chatted with an ederly priest I had just met the other day when visiting the Mary, Queen of the Universe Shrine in Orlando. He said people try to define God into box too often. I often try to define God into my perfect Box. Getting perfect Mercy to fit with perfect Justice and have His Self-Sacrifice fit with Omnipotence. Who am I kidding? Our perceptions and opinions will necessarily pale to the actuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted January 18, 2004 Author Share Posted January 18, 2004 I looked, and only two of my books have that inscription, the Catechism, and a Scot Hahn book. Some of my others don't have any orthodoxy inscriptions, but I know from reading them, they are orthodox. This stamp system should be more widely used to include all Catholic books, it'd be much easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Getting perfect Mercy to fit with perfect Justice and have His Self-Sacrifice fit with Omnipotence. still not sure - where do you get this perfect mercy from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Everything of God's is the pan-ultimate, the perfect, the archetype... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 God has given mercy over time - why does that mean it must be perfect mercy? God has also destroyed nations - does that mean he is a perfect destroyer of all? God has been sorry He created man - does He always portray perfect sorry? Mercy is an action, so is destruction and so is sorrow. I'm not sure why you take it to be perfect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 To all three questions yup. To the why, becuase he IS perfect. God is perfect (The Archetype of Being), so therefore if a perfect being does anything it is either done perfectly or He is not perfect. If He is not Perfect, then I must find a new God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 wait, it is done perfectly, or it is perfect. JisJas said "Getting perfect Mercy to fit with perfect Justice" and his struggle is not that each act of mercy and each act of justice are perfect, but that God is perfect in mercy always being merciful and always being just. I agree each act is perfect, but saying He must always be merciful I cannot agree with. Do you agree? And if not, then why do you say He must be always merciful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted January 18, 2004 Share Posted January 18, 2004 Dangonit I agree! I think you're misinterpreting Jas tho'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now