No rudeness was intended, but any person or organization that claims infallible authority is clearly not interested in discussion of their ideals- here are the logical reasons I could come up with for not wanting to discuss one’s beliefs, given that the beliefs do not have a sinister motive.
Any group made up of fallible individuals can not be said to be infallible. And I did not mean all bishops, although in retrospect I can see how that was a plausible interpretation- I meant the very specific community of bishops that rejected Humane Vitae openly (the Canadians)
But you assume that I haven’t given infalliblity or any other Church teaching serious thought. I hate to tell you I have. I’m a convert. I did a LOT of study. It is rude of you to claim because I believe in the Church and what she teaches that I’m somesort of mind numb robot. I’m not…
Sure it can, because those individuals have been promised by Jesus to be protectors of the Faith and Teachers of the faith. Because of the Holy Spirit, God and Jesus. This promise comes through Christ. Why would God create a Church with teachers who could get Faith and Morals wrong?
Again, you might have looked carefully before believing in the Church’s infallibility, but believing in infallibility frees all other assertions of the Church from criticism- and a functional human frontal lobe should not take anything free of criticism. You might have done your research before hand, but belief in an unquestionable non-divine authority is not a healthy thing.
God also created Judaism, but as you recall the Jewish authorities were hardly free from error.
Perhaps that is the difference, we adult converts had to read and study and LEARN our way into the Church.
So does this mean that you think the bride of Jesus is a bunch of people?
God didn’t give Judaism the Charism of infallibility as the fulfillment of Christ hadn’t come yet.
But the authority IS divine, because that authority comes from God and is protected by the Holy Spirit. It IS a very healthy thing, becuase I have done my homework and come to believe in the Authority of the Catholic Church.
Well, according to many, we’ve got thousands of choices.
I wanted to ask about this for a while. Why do you think you have to respond to every single post?
I need to ask what you mean by bond.
Sure they do. We are given a commandment to love as Christ did in our interactions with each other. How does that not pertain to sex? How do you interpret that verse?
The term abstinence applies to all appetites… but yes. And I should clarify sex should be a complete giving of oneself to the extent that is humanly possible during that act. We can give completely of ourselves in any situation. You are confusing ‘complete’ and ‘perfect’ probably because it is my fault I never made the distinction.
if you see it as that black and white, then go right ahead.
Can’t even begin to explain how confused I am by this statement (you’ve got me right where you want me!)
If a post is addressed at me, I generally respond to it- just good internet ethics so nobody feels ignored.
“caved to secular society”
Wonderful. I’ve grown up in the Church and don’t believe in it’s infallibility.
Sincerity does not equate to correctness- I don’t believe contraception has ever been wrong.Well, according to many, we’ve got thousands of choices.
Or, according to others, we only need to “vote in” a new Pope that will allow us to use it.
tjm, The Church (note the cap C) is infallible, humans not so. The Pope however, is very filled with the Holy Spirit. More so than anything we’ll ever experience. It’s through the spirit that we are lead. Not personal opinion.
A while back I asked…
“So why do you think contraception was “wrong” for thousands of years but now it’s OK? How were the early church leaders misled? Is there some biblical evidence that use of contraception IS God’s will?”
It’s not like the Church has changed her mind. Other faiths have changed their mind on the subject.
Really, the church doesn’t just make this stuff up, you know.
Bond has different meanings for different “realms”- emotionally, it could be called “love” or in lesser cases, “affection”
I interpret them as an attitude we are supposed to have towards our fellow man- but having a certain outlook does not mean no contraception. Again I must ask why condemnation of other things labeled sexual sins have clear and specific biblical condemnations of them while contraception does not.
‘Any situation’ would include contraceptive sex, would it not?
Again, I fail to see how “near complete” giving is sinful- what is lost over all with a slight alteration of the physical aspect, and why can no evidence of it be found?