Church infallibility: talking out of both sides of her mouth?

[Elzee]

Yes. It has never been Catholic teaching that we are only bound to believe infallibly defined teachings.

Can you expand on this some Dave. I have a hard time explaining this to my fundamentalist friends. The questions usually come out something like this:

• Why are you bound to believe something that the Church claims they may not be absolutely accurate on?
• Why do you need to submit to the authority of the Church on matters that are not guaranteed to be free from error?
• Is this really what Jesus wanted - doesn’t he want us to follow the Truth? If the Church doesn’t guarantee it’s the Truth, why do you have to follow it?
  This is my most difficult area when talking to my fundamentalist/evangelical friends.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes. It has never been Catholic teaching that we are only bound to believe infallibly defined teachings.

So how does that reconcile with Post #4 which states:

We must believe without doubt anything concerning faith and morals decreed by any Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church or the Roman Pontiff when he speaks “Ex Cathedra” as defined by Ecumenical Council Vatican I.

We must believe infallible decrees, and also non-infallible teachings?

What if someone from the 1950’s defended to the death the Baltimore Catechism’s instructions on mixed marriages, only to find that this was a disciplinary issue which could change. And take that to today–someone defends to the death church teaching forbidding ESC research, or homosexual unions, or whatever, only to find that these teachings will change.

How does a Catholic reconcile this?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Can you expand on this some Dave…

Sure…

Ask your Protestant friends if they believe it is God’s will that a child obey his parents. Is so, why? Are the parents infallible? Or is it because all authority comes from God, and that the authority possessed by the father as superior to the son is God-given? And disobedience to God-given authority is not in accord with God’s will, not in accord with the virtue of charity?

Thus, if a son is bound to obey his father who is always fallible, then why is it that we presume we can disobey our lawful pastors simply because they are not ALWAYS defining things infallibly?

Sometimes we suffer the wrongs imposed upon us by authority, out of charity. Jesus did that, right? Didn’t Jesus even tell his disciples to do as the fallible Pharisees taught, but not to do what they did? Even though the Pharisees were not infallible, they sat upon the seat of Moses (cf. Matt 23:2). Thus, by that authority, they were to be obeyed, until such time that God established his eternal Church upon the rock of Peter (cf. Matt 16:18)

As for the Truth…it is Christ. We follow the Truth when we follow Him. He is the one who tells us to obey our fallible leaders which He himself empowered. Our response out to be “faith that worketh through charity.”

Heb 13:17 “Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

I really don’t think enough people prayerfully reflect upon the above passage, especially Americans, who often think they are not obliged to submit to anyone.

Now, it is true that we must reconcile Heb 13:17 with the other Scripture passages, such as this one…

Acts 5:29 “We must obey God rather than men.”

Thus, St. Thomas Aquinas states that there are two reasons why one is not bound to obey their lawful superior: 1) they command something outside the scope of their lawful authority, and 2) they command something contrary to higher authority.

Thus, we are bound to the lawful commands of lawful superiors, so long as they act in accord with their God-given authority, whether we agree with them or not.

As a military man, I have no difficulty submitting to very stuped superiors. I understand that they are my superior, not because they are always right, but because they were commission and appointed by lawful authority. I often suffer to submit to the will of another, even though I believe they are wrong. Being wrong is not the same as being contrary to God’s will.

For example, wasn’t Moses often going the “wrong” direction, away from the promised land while wandering in the desert? There were many who didn’t want to submit to him anymore (Korah, cf. Num 16). Yet, even though Moses was headed the wrong way, he was being navigated by God every step of the way. We cannot always understand why God navigates his holy people in divergent directions. But the response of the faithful is the “obedience of faith” spoken of by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, even if we can’t understand why.

The problem is that many people aren’t really obeying God when they enter into homosexual relations, or appreviate the Bible and start their own church like Luther did. They aren’t really applying Act 5:29, but instead obey their own faulty understanding rather than the submitting to the Church, what Scripture calls “the pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15)

Everyone needs limits and correction from lawful authority, because we have a tendancy, as individuals, to go faster than the speed limit, for example, and otherwise rationalize our unlawful actions, pretending that God wants me to do X, despite the norms established by lawful authority.

By doing so we make our faulty self the de facto pillar of truth, which is certainly contrary to God’s will. It is certainly contrary to Christ’s affirmation that the final arbiter is the Church (see Matt 18:15ff). We are commanded by Scripture to “listen to the Church.” All the evil in the word can be attributed to a failure to do so. How are we to responsond “if he refuses to listen even to the church” as the final arbiter of truth? And make no mistake, heresy and dissent from the teachings of the Church is certainly a sin against Christ’s brethren. Scripture is quite clear in this regard.

 

[puzzleannie]

For example, in the 1960’s, interracial marriage was frowned upon. .

do you have an actual quote from a dogmatic Church document that prohibited interracial marriage? without such a citation there is nothing to discuss.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

So how does that reconcile with Post #4

I reconciles quite well. Post #4 does not say the we must believe ONLY de fide definita. If that was what was intended, then it was contrary to Catholic doctrine.

We must believe infallible decrees, and also non-infallible teachings?

Yes. But don’t just take my word for it, read your Catechism, read what the pope’s themselves have taught, read what the doctors of Catholicism have taught.

For example…

St. Catherine of Sienna:** “For divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other.** And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil.**” **(letter to Brother Antonio of Nizza)

"Even if that vicar were a devil incarnate, I must not defy him" ( Letter to Bernabò Visconti)**First Vatican Council, ****Session 4 (18 July 1870):**Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.****Pius IX:“we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withold assent and obedience to those judgements and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and it rights and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church.” (Pius IX, Encyclical Quanta Cura (1864), Denzinger 1698) St. Pius X:“If one loves the Pope, one does not stop to ask the precise limits to which this duty of obedience extends… one does not seek to restrict the domain within which he can or should make his wishes felt; one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope.” (Pope St. Pius X, allocution of 18 November, 1912, AAS vol. 4 (1912), 693-695. Selection from p. 695)
Pius XII, Humani Generis, 20"Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are **taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”****Catechism of the Catholic Church, 892:**892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.Code of Canon Law:“Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff OR the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.”

 

[Scottgun]

As a military man, I have no difficulty submitting to very stuped superiors. I understand that they are my superior, not because they are always right, but because they were commission and appointed by lawful authority.

Or as Judge Mills Lane often said, “I’m not final because I am right, I am right because I am final.”

 

[PRmerger]

do you have an actual quote from a dogmatic Church document that prohibited interracial marriage? without such a citation there is nothing to discuss.

No, I don’t. But neither can I produce a dogmatic Church document that prohibits embryonic stem cell research.

 

[Scottgun]

At this point, I would ask itsjustdave to give a brief introduction to the living Church as opposed to the infallible stereo manual view of Church doctrine.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…
We must believe infallible decrees, and also non-infallible teachings?

Yes. If you are a Catholic who does not already know this, it appears you were poorly catechized.

Yet, there’s a distinction, for example, between “common teaching” (sententia communis) and “certain teaching” (sententia certa). Catholics are bound to give their religious assent to sententia certa. Sententia communis is considered free opinion in Catholic dogmatic theology, which Catholics are not canonically bound to assent to. We can know the difference by looking at the context of the teaching, how is was presented, the words used to present it.

For example, limbo of infants was taught in *some *Catechisms. Many aspects of which are still considered free opinion, such as St. Thomas’ contention, contrary to St. Augustine, that this is a place of “blissful” existence, without the pain of torment. Catechisms often present “common teaching” which is free opinion, as well as doctrine (certain teaching). You have to read such teachings in context and discern the intend of the Roman Pontiff given that context to understand whether it is a certain teaching (ie. Catholic doctrine) or free opinion. If you are doubtful, you can ask your lawful pastor, bishop, and even write to the Holy See to clarify. You don’t have to rely upon your own fallible interpretation of Scripture or ecclesial texts. Simply ask. The Teaching Church has a duty to clarify that which is doctrine as distinct from that which is free opinion.

What if someone from the 1950’s defended to the death the Baltimore Catechism’s instructions on mixed marriages

It isn’t important what “someone” thinks, not even the author of a local catechism which is not part of my bishop’s ordinary teaching authority. We aren’t protestants. We are Catholics. We are bound to assent to official Catholic doctrines, whether infallible or not, not what “someone” asserts is Catholic doctrine.

Thus, if “someone” is asserting something contrary to what your pastor teaches, your bishop, or your pope, then it isn’t Catholic doctrine. Furthermore, if your pastor is teaching contrary to your bishop, he does so without just authority. If you bishop teaches contrary to the pope, he too does so without just authority. You have a simple chain of command that doesn’t include “someone” but only includes these three pastors or any others they themselves delegate authority to. We are called only to submit to the lawful pastor of our soul, not what “someone” asserts contrary to that authority.

The Baltimore Catechism no.4 on mixed marriages states,

*289 Q. Why does the Church forbid the marriage of Catholics withpersons who have a different religion or no religion at all?A. The Church forbids the marriage of Catholics with persons who have adifferent religion or no religion at all because such marriagesgenerally lead to indifference, loss of faith, and to the neglect of thereligious education of the children.

Note that it doesn’t say because it is an article of faith, or some other doctrinal reason. So if I were that “someone” who contended it was immutable dogma, I would be making that assertion contrary to lawful pastors of the Church. The fault would be mine, not the Church. I would be ripping the teaching from its authentic context, the context being canon law, which even when the Baltimore Catechism was written, such a prohibition could be dispensed. Pius VII wrote, “such marriages are only tolerated out of the need to avoid even greater evils, and permission is not given wholeheartedly” *(*Pius VII, letter to the Archbishop of Mayence, Oct. 8, 1803).

If a law can be dispensed, then it cannot be rightfully understood to be immutable dogma, right?

BTW, Mixed marriages is still prohibited by canon law. You need dispensation from law to marry a non-Christian (cf. CHAPTER VI. MIXED MARRIAGES) . To marry a Christian who is not Catholic, you need permission from the Bishop, only after certain conditions are fullfilled. Thus, you are still bound to the disciplinary norms regarding mixed marriages which the lawful pastors of the Church deem are prudent. Why do they impose such restrictions, STILL? Because *such marriage can lead to lead to indifference, loss of faith, and to the neglect of the religious education of the children. *

And take that to today–someone defends to the death church teaching forbidding ESC research, or homosexual unions…

Again, these teachings are to be presented and defended in accord with what the Teaching Church teaches. I will always defend to the death, even the non-immutable precepts which the Church teaches, and I don’t need “immutability” or “infallibility” to be my reason. Because I have faith that even of the non-immutable ordinary teachings of the Church, it is true to say, “he that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me: and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.” (John 13:20)

I also understand what authentic doctrinal development is, what discipline is, and so I don’t fall into the fallacy of thinking that everything the Church states is immutable.

I agree instead with Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman:

***"I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience. **His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biassed. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore the Pope’s word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience." [John Henry Newman “'The Oratory, Novr. 10, 1867”, The Genius of Newman (1914), by Wilfrid Ward, Vol II, Ch. 26)

 

[PRmerger]

Thank you, dave. Post #22 made things clearer for me.

If I had to summarize your point, would it be correct to say: the Church may be wrong on some issues not infallibly defined, but being mistaken doesn’t necessarily mean that she’s contrary to God’s will. Thus, even when the Church is wrong/fallible, we need to follow her, because to do so is to follow Christ?

If I understood that correctly, that does indeed eliminate my confusion.

But it does bring up one question: can the Church ever teach something contrary to God’s will that’s not infallibly defined? In other words, if she can be mistaken sometimes, what’s the guarantee that she’s not contrary to God’s will? The guarantee exists for **solemn, formal, infallible **statements, but not for other teachings, right?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

At this point, I would ask itsjustdave to give a brief introduction to the living Church as opposed to the infallible stereo manual view of Church doctrine.

Sure…

The magisterium is not composed of documents and Catholicism is not a self-study correspondence program. We have living pastors of our Church who have been vested with teaching authority by God. Thus, we submit to a living authority, vested in living people.

This is what St. Pius X called the Teaching Church. This he distinguishes from the Taught Church. These both are the living members of the Church Militant, who remain still on earth battling with satan and sin. The Church Militant is in communion with the one body of Christ, together with the Church Suffering (in purgatory) and Church Triumphant (in heaven).

St. Pius X taught, “The Teaching Church is composed of all the Bishops, with the Roman Pontiff at their head…Church Taught is composed of all the faithful” (Catechism of Pius X). By this he means the living pope and the living bishops throughout the world in communion with him. Thus, the “magisterium” which is the Church’s teaching authority, is vested in the pope and college of bishops in union with him.

The 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia, written during Pius X’s papacy, describes the living magisterium as, “a Divinely authorized living magistracy for the solution of controversies arising among themselves” (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Tradition and Living Magisterium).

Moreover, according to the same Catholic Encyclopedia article:

Documents of all kinds (writings, monuments, etc.) are in the hands of masters, as of the faithful, a means of finding or recognizing the revealed truth confided to the Church under the direction of her pastors. There is between written documents and the living magisterium of the Church a relation similar, proportionately speaking, to that already outlined between Scripture and the living magisterium. In them is found the traditional thought expressed according to varieties of environments and circumstances, no longer in an inspired language, as is the case with Scripture, but in a purely human language, consequently subject to the imperfections and shortcomings of human thought. … the living magisterium searches in the past, now for authorities in favour of its present thought in order to defend it against attacks or dangers of mutilation, now for light to walk the right road without straying. The thought of the Church is essentially a traditional thought and the living magisterium by taking cognizance of ancient formulas of this thought thereby recruits its strength and ***prepares to give to immutable truth a new expression ***which shall be in harmony with the circumstances of the day and within reach of contemporary minds… The living magisterium, therefore, makes extensive use of documents of the past, but it does so while judging and interpreting, gladly finding in them its present thought, but likewise, when needful, distinguishing its present thought from what is traditional only in appearance. It is revealed truth always living in the mind of the Church, or, if it is preferred, the present thought of the Church in continuity with her traditional thought, which is for it the final criterion, according to which the living magisterium adopts as true or rejects as false the often obscure and confused formulas which occur in the monuments of the past. Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings–she judges them more than she is judged by them.(ibid)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Thank you, dave. Post #22 made things clearer for me.

You’re welcome.

If I had to summarize your point, would it be correct to say: the Church may be wrong on some issues not infallibly defined…

Yes.

… but being mistaken doesn’t necessarily mean that she’s contrary to God’s will.

Yes. For example, the Blessed Virgin Mary was sinless, but not necessarily mistake-free. I don’t think that she meant to depart for Egypt, for example, without her 12 year old son. Mistakes happen which are not necessarily sins.

Thus, even when the Church is wrong/fallible, we need to follow her, because to do so is to follow Christ?

Yes.

If the Church were to pronounce the earth was immovable (as it once did), even if it did not do so as an infallible definition of faith, I am bound to submit to that authority, whether I agree with it or not. As part of the Taught Church, I leave it to new popes to correct the mistaken teachings of old popes. My job is to respectfully manifest my opinon if I find difficulties with the teaching. But in so doing, I am to always respectfully defer to the authority God has ordained over my soul.

The *Dogmatic Constitution on the Church *states,

By reason of the knowledge, competence, or pre-eminence which they have, the laity are empowered—indeed sometimes obliged—to manifest their opinion on those things which pertain to the good of the Church. ***If the occasion should arise, this should be done through the institutions established by the Church for that purpose, and always with truth, courage, and prudence, and with reverence and charity toward those who, by reason of their office, represent the person of Christ. The laity should, as all Christians, promptly accept in Christian obedience decisions of their spiritual shepherds, since they are representatives of Christ as well as teachers and rulers in the Church. ***(*Lumen Gentium, *no. 37)

This makes sense to me. It seem quite loyal to the virtues of faith and charity.

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

But it does bring up one question: can the Church ever teach something contrary to God’s will that’s not infallibly defined? In other words, if she can be mistaken sometimes, what’s the guarantee that she’s not contrary to God’s will? The guarantee exists for **solemn, formal, infallible **statements, but not for other teachings, right?

If by “contrary to God’s will” you mean something that is sinful, harmful or dangerous to the salvation of the faithful, I believe God provides the assistance of the Holy Spirit to guarantee protection of general ecclesiastical discipline and Catholic doctrine as well.

To help clarify, let me describe the two senses which the Church understands “infallibility.”

There’s the classic sense, that is direct and positive infallibility. These are teachings which are “of faith” (de fide) and as such without error and immutable. But there’s another sense of infallibility, called indirect and negative infallibility. This sense does not connote immutability, but pertains to whether the object is harmful or dangerous to the faithful. If I erroneously assert 2+3=7, I’ve made an error, but I have not asserted something that is necessarily harmful to my faith.

Infallibility in the indirect and negative sense pertains to the protection of God given to approved ecclesiastical discipline. It is affirmed by Pius VI condemnation of the Jansenist proposition that approved ecclesiastical discipline can be harmful or dangerous to the faithful (cf. Pius VI, *Auctorem Fidei, *78).

Thus, according to P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258:

                                              “The Church is** infallible in her general discipline**. **By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church.** Such things would be those which concern either external worship, **such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . .**

**“If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”
**

See more on disciplinary infallibility, here.

So, it appears that although general disciplinary norms may not be “the best,” given the contemporary situation, and therefore not immutable, they are always protected by God such that they can never be harmful or dangerous to the faithful*.

*From this, it is my opinion that this Divine protection necessarily includes Catholic doctrine. That is, since canon law is infallible in the indirect and negative sense, and since canon law demands assent to the doctrines of the Roman Pontiff and the college of bishops in union with him, then it follows that religious assent to this doctrine can not be harmful or dangerous to the faithful, even if such doctrines are not proclaimed solemnly, definitively as de fide.

Consequently, neither obedience to ecclesiastical discipline nor religious assent to the non-definitive doctrines of the magisterium are harmful or dangerous to the faithful, and therefore such assent and obedience cannot be sinful.

 

[PRmerger]

itsjustdave1988:

For example, the Blessed Virgin Mary was sinless, but not necessarily mistake-free.

Yes. I imagine there was a time or two when the dough got too much salt mixed in, or the fish was forgotten on the fire and burnt…

If the Church were to pronounce the earth was immovable (as it once did), even if it did not do so as an infallible definition of faith, I am bound to submit to that authority, whether I agree with it or not.

Wow. I think I would really have a problem with that! If the Church were to pronounce tomorrow that the world was flat, I’m not sure that I’d be able to submit.

My job is to respectfully manifest my opinon if I find difficulties with the teaching.

So was that the problem with Galileo? He promoted his evidence disrespectfully to Church authority?

 

[VociMike]

For example, in the 1960’s, interracial marriage was frowned upon. The excuse is given that there was never any solemn, formal proclamations from the Magisterium that this was actually forbidden, yet it was rather hard to find a priest who would marry an interracial couple in the U.S. in the '60’s.

Interesting example. Similarly, in Acts 15 Peter wrongly refused to eat with the Gentiles, and was scolded by Paul for doing so. Even though not eating with Gentiles was never pronounced as Church teaching by the Magesterium, shall we conclude then that all the Scripture penned by Peter is also not infallible? That by teaching by example one error, Peter was incapable of teaching anything infallibly?

 

[NotWorthy]

Interesting example. Similarly, in Acts 15 Peter wrongly refused to eat with the Gentiles, and was scolded by Paul for doing so. Even though not eating with Gentiles was never pronounced as Church teaching by the Magesterium, shall we conclude then that all the Scripture penned by Peter is also not infallible? That by teaching by example one error, Peter was incapable of teaching anything infallibly?

I think Peter was guilty of not practicing what he preached. His teaching was spot-on, he just didn’t live up to it, himself.

Perhaps a few popes have had the same problem, wouldn’t you say?

 

[Thal59]

Dogmas do not change.

But general practices and teachings change as mankind grows. It wasn’t until the Civil War that Americans were finally ready to emmancipate the slaves. If one regards slavery as evil, then why did the apostles suggest to slaves that they obey their masters? Could the apostles have ended slavery in the first century on the basis that the spirit had revealed to them that it was evil? Though they may have understood the nature of that evil, they could not act upon it because the world at that time was not ready for it.

As another example, consider that procreation in the literal interpretation of Genesis allowed for incest amongst siblings.

Solomon was a polygamist. Does the church teach that incest and polygamy are acceptable?

There is a difference between that which is always true, and that which is true for the nonce. Therefore, a teaching can be valid all the time, or it can be viewed to be the most appropriate teaching for the time being. The latter though, does not fall under the heading of the infallible.

Thal59

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…So was that the problem with Galileo? He promoted his evidence disrespectfully to Church authority?

Galileo stepped outside his field of study, and wrote about how Scripture should be interpreted. After being censured and having agreed to obey Church authority, Galileo then disobeyed.

See more here:

ControversyThe Galileo

…and the First Things book review here.

And Robert Sungenis has some interesting theories of his own, here.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…Wow. I think I would really have a problem with that!

As one who worked many years as a spacecraft engineer, I would have no scientific difficulty assenting to an immovable earth theory. As we say in science, “it’s all relative.”

Nonetheless, as of yet I am not convinced the earth is immovable. Nor do I believe it to be presented by the magisterium as sententia certa, so it doesn’t appear to be something to which I owe my religious assent.

I’ve already lived through my skeptical, dissenting years (decades, actually).

I’ve come to a place in my faith where I assent to Catholicism because I really believe the Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. If there is something I find difficult to assent to, it must be because I don’t understand the Church correctly, or that I am myself in error. After many years of questioning, I must admit that this place is where God wants me to be… it is where I found rest for my soul.

 

[Rosalinda]

PRmerger, Good to see you finally posted your question outside of the Culture of Death forum and into the apologetics forum. I’m a bit surprised no one has as yet asked for clarification about your point on St. Thomas in post 3.

Another example: St. Thomas Aquinas advocated banishing a woman for adultery.* I answer that, Our Lord permitted a man to put away his wife on account of fornication, in punishment of the unfaithful party and in favor of the faithful party, so that the latter is not bound to marital intercourse with the unfaithful one.*

Where did you get “banishing” from? Is it possible you are confused with the expression “to put away” ? What point were you trying to make with this example? How does it contradict the Church’s teaching on marriage today?