R
Rock_Happy
Guest
Sure, and that is why Pope Gregory I felt it was OK to own a “chattel slave” and to give that slave to a bishop as a gift. Try again.
Catholic Church teaching on the purpose of sex changed in the 19th century
- Status
R
Rock_Happy
Guest
If the Church has not changed its position on marriage, then explain why annulments are so common today.
There is a long list, once you get started.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
No, YOU try again, Show me where Pope Gregory stated that slavery was morally right and to be observed by all members of the Church. IOW, show me where this was infallible teaching.
Some of our Popes had mistresses. Very few, but one even would be terrible. So. . .because a Pope or even more than one had a mistress, did the Catholic Church change its teaching on the sin of fornication?
C
Chrono13
Guest
There are some who might.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Do you even know what an annulment is? Have you any idea how long the teaching on marriage --and what is and is not a valid marriage–has existed?
Sounds to me more as though you’re looking at the usual L.B. (Lorraine Boettner) supposed list of catholic no-nos. What exactly do you have as solid evidence to bolster your assertions? Where is the infallible magesterial teaching document which said first, “Thou shalt never have a decree of nullity from any marriage” and then the one which said, “If thou wishest to leave a marriage, then thou must seek thy decree of nullity”. With the dates, the Popes who authorized the teachings, etc.
C
Chrono13
Guest
Truth is dangerous thing in hands of the those who lack caution.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
And? If you’re telling the Truth, and Christ is the Truth, then you are helping those people draw closer to Christ, aren’t you?
C
Chrono13
Guest
Maybe I am scrupulous. But I honestly care about these things. It took a while for me to accept certain religious facts. I don’t know how other people will react.
But ok, I will respond in couple of hours.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
So now in addition to assuming that all those vast hordes of people who will read your words and be so convinced that they will abandon all faith (because they don’t share your ‘gifts’), you’re now assuming that the majority of people who read your ‘truth’ are in danger because they lack caution too.
You don’t have a high opinion of people, it seems. . .
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
All right, I’ll check back tomorrow. Thank you for responding.
R
Rock_Happy
Guest
So, now you are in the unenviable position of attacking one of the great popes in history. You just dug yourself a deeper hole to try to sling mud from.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
What? Where on EARTH did you get that from? I never accused Pope Gregory of anything nor did I ‘attack’ him. And I don’t sling mud.
R
Rock_Happy
Guest
Is St Augustine good enough for you? Christ “did not make men free from being slaves.”
Augustine, On Psalm 125 no. 7 (J. P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus. Series latina [hereafter PL] (Paris, 1844-1891) 37.1653; Gregory, Epist. 7.30 (PL 77.887 [accepts slave]). For the story of the slave market, see Bede, Historia ecclesiastica genüs anghrum, ed. George H. Moberley (Oxford: Clarendon, 1869) 2.1; cf. Anon., The Earliest Life of Gregory the Great, ed. and trans. Bertram Colgrave (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1968) 91.
R
Rock_Happy
Guest
My sense of history is that an annulment was so difficult for Henry VII, that he broke away from the Church. Yet today, annulments are common. Would you call this a change in Church policy, or not?Do you even know what an annulment is? Have you any idea how long the teaching on marriage --and what is and is not a valid marriage–has existed?
Sounds to me more as though you’re looking at the usual L.B. (Lorraine Boettner) supposed list of catholic no-nos. What exactly do you have as solid evidence to bolster your assertions? Where is the infallible magesterial teaching document which said first, “Thou shalt never have a decree of nullity from any marriage” and then the one which said, “If thou wishest to leave a marriage, then thou must seek thy decree of nullity”. With the dates, the Popes who authorized the teachings, etc.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Maybe I have to explain it to you.
YOU made a statement about Pope Gregory and him giving a chattel slave.
I made absolutely no comment about Pope Gregory himself.
I asked YOU to show me where Pope Gregory taught chattel slavery was an infallible teaching binding on all Catholics.
I THEN made an illustration to point out why your snip on 'Pope Gregory gave a chattel slave to a bishop" was NO MORE ‘binding infallible teaching’ on all Catholics than the fact that some Popes (and I did NOT name Pope Gregory) have had mistresses, yet that FACT did not mean that the Pope thereby was infallibly teaching that fornication was allowable!
So please stop trying to accuse ME of something I didn’t do (I never accused Pope Gregory and I don’t sling mud). . .
and kindly answer my question. Show me where Pope Gregory infallibly taught the Church that Chattel slavery was to be upheld as binding on all Christians. I say Pope Gregory only because YOU referenced HIM by saying he ‘gave’ somebody a slave, therefore the church ‘used to teach slavery was OK’ and then ‘changed’ in the 19th century.
It’s up to you to prove your claim instead of erecting strawmen.
YOU made a statement about Pope Gregory and him giving a chattel slave.
I made absolutely no comment about Pope Gregory himself.
I asked YOU to show me where Pope Gregory taught chattel slavery was an infallible teaching binding on all Catholics.
I THEN made an illustration to point out why your snip on 'Pope Gregory gave a chattel slave to a bishop" was NO MORE ‘binding infallible teaching’ on all Catholics than the fact that some Popes (and I did NOT name Pope Gregory) have had mistresses, yet that FACT did not mean that the Pope thereby was infallibly teaching that fornication was allowable!
So please stop trying to accuse ME of something I didn’t do (I never accused Pope Gregory and I don’t sling mud). . .
and kindly answer my question. Show me where Pope Gregory infallibly taught the Church that Chattel slavery was to be upheld as binding on all Christians. I say Pope Gregory only because YOU referenced HIM by saying he ‘gave’ somebody a slave, therefore the church ‘used to teach slavery was OK’ and then ‘changed’ in the 19th century.
It’s up to you to prove your claim instead of erecting strawmen.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Show me where St. Augustine taught this ‘infallibly’ and that the ‘slaves’ referenced were chattel slaves.
T
TomD123
Guest
fisheaters.com/insupremoapostolatus.html
fisheaters.com/sublimusdei.html
The above links are just two examples of the Church’s opposition to slavery, and they are formal teachings of the Church because they are encyclicals, addressed to the entire Church.
Second, the Church has not changed its teaching on marriage and its purpose:
Catechism of St. Thomas:
"Matrimony has a threefold good. The first is the birth of children and the educating of them to the worship of God. The second is that fidelity which one must render to the other; and the third is that it is a Sacrament, or, in other words, the indivisibility of Matrimony which shows forth the indivisible union of Christ and His Church. " sounds like marriage is not only for kids (In Genesis, God made Eve because Adam needed a suitable partner AND to procreate)
“Not only is it devoid of sin, but for those in the state of grace it is meritorious for eternal life. Sometimes, however, it may be a venial sin, sometimes a mortal sin. When it is had with the intention of bringing forth offspring, it is an act of virtue. When it is had with the intent of rendering mutual comfort, it is an act of justice” Sounds like the unitive purpose of sex to me
Lastly, with regards to the fertile periods, I know of no Church document or statement that has ever condemned what we call now NFP. Remember also that it wasn’t discussed as much prior to the 20th century because of how much worse the technology was. Nowdays, NFP is like 99% effective if done correctly because it is no longer just the rythm method
fisheaters.com/sublimusdei.html
The above links are just two examples of the Church’s opposition to slavery, and they are formal teachings of the Church because they are encyclicals, addressed to the entire Church.
Second, the Church has not changed its teaching on marriage and its purpose:
Catechism of St. Thomas:
"Matrimony has a threefold good. The first is the birth of children and the educating of them to the worship of God. The second is that fidelity which one must render to the other; and the third is that it is a Sacrament, or, in other words, the indivisibility of Matrimony which shows forth the indivisible union of Christ and His Church. " sounds like marriage is not only for kids (In Genesis, God made Eve because Adam needed a suitable partner AND to procreate)
“Not only is it devoid of sin, but for those in the state of grace it is meritorious for eternal life. Sometimes, however, it may be a venial sin, sometimes a mortal sin. When it is had with the intention of bringing forth offspring, it is an act of virtue. When it is had with the intent of rendering mutual comfort, it is an act of justice” Sounds like the unitive purpose of sex to me
Lastly, with regards to the fertile periods, I know of no Church document or statement that has ever condemned what we call now NFP. Remember also that it wasn’t discussed as much prior to the 20th century because of how much worse the technology was. Nowdays, NFP is like 99% effective if done correctly because it is no longer just the rythm method
T
TomD123
Guest
- maybe more marriages are invalid today (wouldn’t surprise me)
- what # marriage was it for King Henry?
- this is just one example not a generalization for the entire Church
R
Rock_Happy
Guest
Well, where there is hysteria, there is something more at stake than the truth. At least that is my experience in life.
There is a long historic trail on the subject of slavery, and the Church did not reach consensus until around 1960 with Vatican II. Prior to that, it was all over the place, and clearly supported slavery until the late 1800’s, as did most societies. Don’t yell at me if your historic sense is different than mine. We just differ in our opinion.
On the subject of marriage, I could bore everyone with citations regarding “Pauline Privilege” dating from the 16th century through the early 20th century. It would be a long and tedious discussion, but the bottom line is that the Church changes its teachings over time on fundamental moral issues. That is my opinion. Don’t take it personally, if yours differs.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Not. You yourself have agreed that decrees of nullity were sought all the way back as far as Henry VIII (not Henry VII). . .reigned 1509-1547.(and in fact they go back much further) So they existed then and they exist now. Are not there more people alive than in Henry’s time? IOW, if you have more people, wouldn’t you expect there to be more decrees sought?
Nope, not a change in policy. Try again.
- Status