A
Aquarius
Guest
OK. So, what was the last infallible formal development added to the collection of infallibles?
In 100 AD the Church knew a finite set of infallible doctrines. Why can’t they be written?
- Status
In 100 AD the Church knew a finite set of infallible doctrines. Why can’t they be written?
B
Brian_Ingram
Guest
It is irrelevant if the Pope used natural law or not to defend the teaching. He was upholding a Church teaching that contraception was against the moral order something the Church had taught from its beginning.
It must be remembered that in the Roman Empire there was something like 16 different concoctions that was either contraceptive or caused an abortion. The early Church rejected this as an evil;
Men who are avaricious and desirous to avoid children as a burden “mutilate nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live.”–St. John Chrysostom, Homily 28 on Matthew 5 (P 57:357).
That it has been a constant teaching of the Church means it is an infallible teaching in the ordinary magisterium
Vat. 11 speaks of the “sensus fedei”, that is, the whole body of the faithful, “from the bishops to the last of the faithful who manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals. By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority, the magisterium, and obeying it, receives not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God…The people unfailing adheres to this faith penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully to daily life.” (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, No. 12)
Pax
Brian
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
You’re not paying very close attention. The apostles knew Jesus Christ, a person, and all that he handed on (traditioned) to the apostles. They knew what He and the Holy Spirit taught to them, and also understood that all that was taught could not be written down. Thus, instead, they handed on (traditioned) what He taught through both written and unwritten tradition.
Why can’t they write it down? Tell you what, write down all that you are and know on paper so your children can have a written document of YOU. Tell me when you are done.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
S
SHEMP
Guest
From the Vatican Press Conference sited:
In particular, it can and must be said that the authentic pronuncement contained in the Encyclical "Humanae vitae excludes the possibility of a probable opinion, valid on the moral plane, opposed to this teaching—and that notwithstanding the number and the authority (hierarchical, scientific and theological) of those who have in recent years maintained that it is possible to have such a probable opinion. The pretext of a presumed doubt in the Church owing to the long silence of the Pope is not consistent, and conflicts with the repeated appeals of (lie Pope and Council to abide by the previous directives of the Magisterium which were still binding.
All those who have in recent years incautiously taught that it is lawful to rise artificial contraceptives to regulate births and have acted accordingly in their pastoral guidance and in the ministry of the confessional, must now change their attitude and set an example by their full acceptance of the teaching of the Encyclical. This is not a case of servility to be shunned, but rather one of essential loyalty and consistency in the profession of Catholic doctrine and in the practice of the Christian life…".
Whether the document is infallible or not is irrelevant as to whether a Catholic MUST submit to the teaching. Clearly the faithful Catholic must submit to this teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the Magisterium! The Church does not need to declare something infallible (and thus never changing) in order for it to be binding. Take for example to issue of abstaining from meat on Fridays. At one time it was a sin if you did not abstain from meat. Or take the example of the fast before the Eucharist.
The Church likewise has not declared that this document will change. The Church might one day declare this teaching to be infallible. Either way it is a binding teaching concerning morality whether you or any theologan likes it or not.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
itsjustdave1988 said:
See also Pope John Paul II’s declaration in 2000 that the Pope cannot dissolve a ratified and consummated sacramental marriage.
A
Aquarius
Guest
If they could hand down tradition, they did it by writing it down or telling people. That is a finite set and can easily be written.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I agree. This was probably the latest de fide catholica of the Church.
It’s sometimes hard to distinguish sometimes between re-affirmations and those declarations that may have first explicitly stated that a doctrine is to be definitively held.
A
Aquarius
Guest
itsjustdave1988 said:
[/indent]
Thanks.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Wrong again. Much of tradition is simply lived. There are many things in my family that we do every year without either explicitly stating we will do it or writing down that we will do it. We learn more from deeds that words. Catholics understand tradition in this same sense. I believe this is discussed in the link I provided on Tradition and the Living Magisterium.
A
Aquarius
Guest
How can what one does be infallible? If it isn’t explicitly written or told, then it is open to interpretation.
I suggest the reason the teachings of the year 100 AD cannot be written down is that they are unknown to a large extent.
B
Beaver
Guest
The question should be can the people council God. Let us say that Adam and Eve try that. It did not work.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
St. Basil (d. AD 379) on *unwritten *traditions…
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
It isn’t what is done that is infallible, but what is believed. What is believed need not be explicit (expressed) to be believed.
For example, was the efficacy of infant baptism believed by the apostles? Catholics answer: Yes. How do we know? We have implicit support in Scripture, and typological support from the Jewish baptism of infants prior to (and after) the advent of Christianity, but more importantly, the Catholic Church which has existed since the 1st century DID baptize infants. They implicitly believed in infant baptism, because this was manifest by what they DID. The Church continued to baptize infants since the first century. Of course some non-Catholics rejected the doctrine of the efficacy of infant baptism. They lack a lived tradition of what the Church did since the 1st century, because their church began in the middle ages. Ours didn’t. We passed on through our LIVED EXPERIENCE what it means to pray and believe like the 1st century Christians.
Thanks for your opinion. However, I disagree. I believe instead that the Holy Spirit guides the Church to be exactly what Scripture calls it, “the pillar and foundation of truth.” I find like St. Basil did that the lived unwritten tradition of the Church need not be written down to continue to be a lived tradition.
O
otm
Guest
Yes. If one has been seeking to follow one’s conscience (which is different from simply doing what one wants when one knows - there’s that conscience thing - that it is wrong), then one is not committing sin subjectively (although one may be committing an act which is an objective sin).
If there is legitimate disagreement, then we are talking about two people, both trying to follow thier conscience; one who’s conscience is in accord with Church teachings, and one who is not.
It would if that were what I was saying, but it is not. One can have significantly wrong information upon which one is acting, or one can be making decisions on a wrong value system. Neither of these imply deficient mental capacity. They may imply a number of other things, such as prior incorrect training, or training from a source other than the Church (e.g. Planned Parenthood); or such as a self centered value system as opposed to an other centered value system (aka a Christ centered system).
Let’s separate out differences with doctrinal issues from differences of moral issues. Almost all of the people whom I have spoken with who differ with the Church about moral issues - sex outside of marriage (hetero- or homo-) or birth control have differences that start with “I want” or “I need”. Most have been very influenced by commercialism and materialism, many are still caught up in seeing sex as primarily recreational, as opposed to communicative and are not the least interested in haveing more than one or two, and a feww, three designer children… the list goes on and on.
Surprisingly, when taught about NFP, it seems that more women are afraid it won’t work than men; which may say something about how women perceive men’s attitude towards frequency of sexual intercourse unfettered by such issues as being able to wait a week, or a couple of days, or even a day… in short, they seem to perceive men as bordering on sex crazed with barely controlable urges. Sadly, they seem to pick this up from the attitudes of dates, spouses, spouses of friends, comments by friends about spouses…
I guess if you want to shorten two thousand years of reflections on the Gospels, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and reflections on human nature, you could reduce it to “God said it, I believe it, that ends it” as the bumper sticker said. I think it is a bit more complex than that, and what the Church teaches sure looks a lot like the truth that I see and experience in my life and the lives of others whom I observe.
B
Beaver
Guest
There is another aspect of this we have not discussed and that is that there was an attempt to call a council on the matter. This attempt failed. If this document was wrong, I think this council would have taken place and corrected the matter. Since this did not happen, the matter should be settled.
M
mark_a
Guest
Do you think there is a chance he could do something with relativity too?I heard that the Pope is going to repeal both the ban on contraception and the law of gravity in the same encylical.
E
EtienneGilson
Guest
Coppleston’t quote can be found in his book “A History of Medieval Philosophy” in the section on Albert Magnus and Thomas Aquinas…p.232 or something…sorry but I don’t have the book with me. It was in the interuniveristy press edition of the book and I believe it is near the end of the chapter. It was not in his section on Aquinas in the famous 9 volume History of Philosophy series though there are similar quotes in the series.
I guess I would best be describbed as a neo-Thomist, though Maritain hated that title. Something close to Fr. Norris Clarke S.J.
But I didn’t mean to imply that only a scholastic argument would suffice! Coppleston and Knowles frequently note the conservative reaction against the innovation of scholasticism as evidence that the scholastic method does not satisfy the strict requirements of patristic continuity. Rather I was noting that Paul VI used invalid arguments to condemn ABCs. Later philosophers like Grisez-Finnis created a new moral system to accomodate HV, then Pope John Paul II gave a quasi-theological, quasi-philosophical reflection on it.
I simply am suggesting that the price for adherence to HV is too high. The fact is that the teaching on ABCs is not found in revelation; neither scripture nor tradition. The patristic teaching on it confuses contraception with abortion due to their scientific understanding at the time. The medievals never really touch it and their system (natural law) has proven not to support it, and now we have the development of new philosophies and theologies to accomodate it. Frankly the teaching is a relic of more ignorant times floating around attempting to find a justification. Like a ship without a rudder it will soon perish.
B
Brian_Ingram
Guest
The assertion that Patristic teaching confuses contraception and abortion, and that there is no distinction made in it, is a gross generalisation at best. It can be shown that many of the Fathers made clear distinction between the two. The fact that up to the Lambreth conference in the 30’s contraception was seen as against traditional Christianity shows that HV did not spring out of a Popes alleged faulty logic exercised in a vacuum. That liberal scholars argue against his use of natural law is irrelevant, his conclusions were right, his prophetic statements in HV have come to pass.
Pax
Brian
B
bear06
Guest
Yes, 2000 years of Catholic Tradition is antiquarian. How about we forget the whole thing?
You seem to fail to understand that if the Church says it is a constant teaching, it is. You’re going to be holding your breath for a long time on the ABC issue. Condemnation of birth control itself is found in scripture. Now, if you asking if putting a piece of plastic on your body or popping a pill everday is found in the Bible, well, you’d be right. Our Church is not stagnent, however. It rolls with the times thus the newer teachings on ABC such as HV which fall right in line with the biblical and constant teachings of the Church.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
- Status