If the impossible happened

[Kyrie_eleison_9]

The Church has never seen fit to publish a list of the teachings that the Church considers infallible (or not). I believe that there are few, if any, outside of the Creed, although I believe that most Catholics would add some of the Marian teachings to that list, and maybe one or two other things. Given that the Church declines to publish a list, I am not sure that it makes much sense for any of us to try to do it ourselves.

There are things in existence known as Theology Manuals. They are divided according to the different divisions of theology such as “Dogmatic Theology”, “Moral Theology”, etc.

One such theology manual is “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig von Ott. This theology manual has an “imprimatur” which means that it has been reviewed that it contains no error and has been approved by the Catholic Church.

In this theology manual it says that: "Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation", and it says that this dogma is** “De fide”**, which means that it is a dogma that must be believed by the faithful and that denial of it is heresy.

Ott further expounds on this dogma: “The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) declared: “The universal Church of the faithful is one outside of which none is saved”. This was the teaching also of the Council of Florence, and of Popes Innocent III and Boniface VIII in the Bull Unam sanctam , Clement VI, Benedict XIV, Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius XII in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis”

Pope Gregory XVI, in his encyclical Summo Jugiter Studio, says that; *“You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that very article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation.” *Pope Gregory also quotes St Augustine in the same encyclical: *" 'Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God because of this one crime" *Pope Gregory calls this *“a well known dogma”. *

Ott is not unusual in citing this dogma. It is found in Denzinger’s “Sources of Catholic Dogma” and many others as well.

Of course the Church has always taught that there is a Baptism of Desire and a Baptism of Blood in which it is possible that those who are not visible members of the Church can be saved. Someone who is in the **state of grace **and through **no fault of his own **is outside of its visible structure can be said to ‘belong’ to the Church invisibly.

No, not at all. I made no judgment as to whether EENS is infallible or not, but it is certainly an important teaching. My point is that the meaning of EENS has changed quite significantly over the centuries. Do you disagree? Given that such a significant teaching has changed without the Church coming crashing down, why would changing the less significant teachings at issue on this thread be impossible or destroy the Church? That is my point.

A “De fide” doctrine cannot be changed without the Church loosing her promise of infallibility, which is impossible.

I guess we have a different view of what the Church teaches as to the marital act.

Yes, I guess we do. I will side with what the Church has always taught. I will quote from Ott again since I have it in front of me.

“The primary purpose of Marriage is the generation and bringing up of offspring. The secondary purpose is mutual help and the morally regulated satisfaction of the sex urge.”

 

[Abu]

TMC #56
The Church approves one form of birth control - NFP. The Church could certainly approve others. I am not saying the Church is about to do so, but I do think it would be possible and would not result in the catastrophic end of the Church.

NBR (NFP) involves merely abstaining so there is no contraception which is totally condemned, and the implication that the Church could approve contraceptive practices is in error.

If misused – without serious reasons, then guilt is involved. The spate of prejudices, opinions, feelings, views and desires expressed indicate a poor formation in the faith compared with the Church’s teaching.

From Vatican II (Gaudiem et Spes):
“But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church’s teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel. (#50).

“Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.(14) (#51)

Footnote 14 includes: Cf. Pius XI, encyclical letter Casti Connubii: AAS 22 (1930), which infallibly defines contraception as a grave sin:
"56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin. "

#58
I think the Church could approve any form of birth control.
shelby sun #61
they could follow their conscious on what birth control they use.

Both statements are against the teaching of the Church, especially when no effort is made to form the conscience, not “conscious”, according to the Church’s teaching.

 

[thistle]

The Church has never seen fit to publish a list of the teachings that the Church considers infallible (or not). I believe that there are few, if any, outside of the Creed, although I believe that most Catholics would add some of the Marian teachings to that list, and maybe one or two other things. Given that the Church declines to publish a list, I am not sure that it makes much sense for any of us to try to do it ourselves.

No, not at all. I made no judgment as to whether EENS is infallible or not, but it is certainly an important teaching. My point is that the meaning of EENS has changed quite significantly over the centuries. Do you disagree? Given that such a significant teaching has changed without the Church coming crashing down, why would changing the less significant teachings at issue on this thread be impossible or destroy the Church? That is my point.

I guess we have a different view of what the Church teaches as to the marital act. I don’t agree that the sole end or purpose of the marital act is to cause pregnancy. I don’t think the Church teaches that either, or else why would NFP be OK, why would sex after menopause be OK, etc. The Church approves one form of birth control - NFP. The Church could certainly approve others. I am not saying the Church is about to do so, but I do think it would be possible and would not result in the catastrophic end of the Church.

You have not responded to my post #54.

 

[TMC]

There are things in existence known as Theology Manuals. They are divided according to the different divisions of theology such as “Dogmatic Theology”, “Moral Theology”, etc.

One such theology manual is “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig von Ott. This theology manual has an “imprimatur” which means that it has been reviewed that it contains no error and has been approved by the Catholic Church.

In this theology manual it says that: "Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation", and it says that this dogma is** “De fide”**, which means that it is a dogma that must be believed by the faithful and that denial of it is heresy.

Ott further expounds on this dogma: “The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) declared: “The universal Church of the faithful is one outside of which none is saved”. This was the teaching also of the Council of Florence, and of Popes Innocent III and Boniface VIII in the Bull Unam sanctam , Clement VI, Benedict XIV, Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius XII in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis”

Pope Gregory XVI, in his encyclical Summo Jugiter Studio, says that; *“You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that very article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation.” *Pope Gregory also quotes St Augustine in the same encyclical: *" 'Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God because of this one crime" *Pope Gregory calls this *“a well known dogma”. *

Ott is not unusual in citing this dogma. It is found in Denzinger’s “Sources of Catholic Dogma” and many others as well.

Of course the Church has always taught that there is a Baptism of Desire and a Baptism of Blood in which it is possible that those who are not visible members of the Church can be saved. Someone who is in the **state of grace **and through **no fault of his own **is outside of its visible structure can be said to ‘belong’ to the Church invisibly.

A “De fide” doctrine cannot be changed without the Church loosing her promise of infallibility, which is impossible.

It is true that von Ott and Denzinger and others have compiled lists of what THEY think is immutable and infallible and so forth. But the Church has not ever put forth such a list. Even if it had, it seems to me that nothing being suggested for the upcoming Synods would require changing any Church doctrines.

Yes, I guess we do. I will side with what the Church has always taught. I will quote from Ott again since I have it in front of me.

“The primary purpose of Marriage is the generation and bringing up of offspring. The secondary purpose is mutual help and the morally regulated satisfaction of the sex urge.”

I guess we do disagree. Again, I am not predicting the Church will change this teaching anytime soon, but the teaching could be changed and I think it will be eventually.

 

[TMC]

NBR (NFP) involves merely abstaining so there is no contraception which is totally condemned, and the implication that the Church could approve contraceptive practices is in error.

If misused – without serious reasons, then guilt is involved. The spate of prejudices, opinions, feelings, views and desires expressed indicate a poor formation in the faith compared with the Church’s teaching.

From Vatican II (Gaudiem et Spes):
“But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church’s teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel. (#50).

“Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.(14) (#51)

Footnote 14 includes: Cf. Pius XI, encyclical letter Casti Connubii: AAS 22 (1930), which infallibly defines contraception as a grave sin:
"56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin. "
Both statements are against the teaching of the Church, especially when no effort is made to form the conscience, not “conscious”, according to the Church’s teaching.

We have a pretty different view of NFP, I guess. NFP is a lot more than just abstinence, it is taking deliberate and calculated actions to have sex without getting pregnant. That is birth control. The Church allows it, which is fine by me. The Church could also approve taking other deliberate and calculated actions to have sex without getting pregnant.

 

[TMC]

Can you please cite some Church documents on this. I do not believe this at all.

ALL forms of artificial birth control are forbidden if the primary purpose is to prevent pregnancy. That has not changed.

You have not responded to my post #54.

I guess I thought it was pretty obvious. The Church allows married couples to engage in the activity known as “Natural Family Planning” as a form of birth control. I suppose you could simply say that NFP is not birth control, but that does not make it so. Its a way for fertile couples have sex without having children. That is birth control. Again, I have no problem with NFP, but its a bit silly to pretend its not birth control. I am aware of the Church’s reasoning that NFP is somehow a categorically different kind of birth control, but it is birth control.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I guess we do disagree. Again, I am not predicting the Church will change this teaching anytime soon, but the teaching could be changed and I think it will be eventually.

If it doesn’t happen in your lifetime but “changes” later, are you still accountable to the rules you lived under?

 

[TMC]

If it doesn’t happen in your lifetime but “changes” later, are you still accountable to the rules you lived under?

I think that is a complex and very interesting question, which has been debated on many threads here (and in many other fora). I think it comes down to obeying your well-formed conscience. There is considerable debate (both on this forum and in the broader Catholic community) as to what extent a Catholic is required to conform personal conscience to the Church’s teachings. My own view is that one’s own conscience has to be the final touchstone. The tricky issue is that is certainly easy to deceive oneself as to the issue and simply justify an action by an appeal to conscience that is not truly well formed or even actually held.

Nonetheless, I think that being a good person, good Christian or good Catholic involves more than simply obtaining a list of rules from some authority and then following them. It requires a deeper examination than that. I think that many (if not most) of the millions of Catholics that disagree with the Church on birth control are doing just that. I am sure there are some that are simply using “conscience” to opt out of a rule they don’t like. Each person has to examine their own conscience and decide. I am not in a position to judge them for that, nor is any other mortal person (see my signature line).

The same applies to other issues, of course. Are the Catholics that lived in times when the Church allowed for slavery to be judged for that? If they knew in their own hearts and consciences that slavery was wrong, then maybe so. If they followed the Church in good faith, then maybe not. Again, I am not in a position to make that judgment.

 

[Kyrie_eleison_9]

First, let me say I do not see the Church changing its teaching on this issue (nor am I saying it should), but since I am the OP, I will throw something out here.

The only thing I could come up with is that the Church would address those families who have children and believe, after searching their conscious, praying, and consulting a priest that they have fulfilled there openness to God’s gift of children, or that they for some reason should not have children due to some condition or illness, so they could follow their conscious on what birth control they use.

I cannot how many women I know that have turned to drinking over this very issue, whether it is because they are using artificial BC or because they are having more children then they planned. Now with so many Catholic marrying outside the church, so often their partners are not supportive of NFP.

Again, I am not saying the Church will change. I think the most they would ever do it tell people to search their conscious over their specific situation under guidance from a priest.
Again, my mother got pregnant with NFP which lead to enormous pain and destroyed us all. Now of course that was not the fault of the Church, but my mother was raising 4 children with a husband who travel ever week in a high level job, living on the other side of the country from any family. She had already moved numerous times all over the country. She had all her kids in Catholic school so studies were intense. None of these are excuses, but I don’t think every family situation can be dealt with exactly the same.

Again, I cannot think of anything that allows my husband and I to get closer physically, emotionally, spiritually, and mentally. To me God brings us together in every way possible, a very special way. When we planned it that just didn’t happen. I think anytime you can truly connect to your spouse that way, you are very lucky. However, I do understand what others our saying and what the Church is teaching and why. I don’t see anything changing.

The Church cannot change Her moral law in order to conform to the decaying morality of society.

Moral law is derived from Divine Law. Birth control is intrinsically evil.

A priest cannot advise someone to follow their conscious in using birth control anymore than he could advise someone to follow their conscious in stealing or committing adultery or murder.

 

[shelby_sun]

The Church cannot change Her moral law in order to conform to the decaying morality of society.

Moral law is derived from Divine Law. Birth control is intrinsically evil.

A priest cannot advise someone to follow their conscious in using birth control anymore than he could advise someone to follow their conscious in stealing or committing adultery or murder.

For many parents using BC is not the moral decay of society, please! They are trying to be responsible about how many children they have and can handle in all ways, financially, emotionally, socially, etc. Again these laws are being made by men who have no true understanding about sex, relationships, children, families, women and their bodies. They can study it all their lives but they will never truly understand, no matter how much God tries to inspire them.

If BC is intrinsically evil than why is NFP ok? It is try to prevent pregnancy. I know the answer to that, but it is still BC.

 

[Abu]

TMC #69
I think that being a good person, good Christian or good Catholic involves more than simply obtaining a list of rules from some authority and then following them. It requires a deeper examination than that. I think that many (if not most) of the millions of Catholics that disagree with the Church on birth control are doing just that. I am sure there are some that are simply using “conscience” to opt out of a rule they don’t like. Each person has to examine their own conscience and decide. I am not in a position to judge them for that, nor is any other mortal person (see my signature line).

1. Since Christ’s Church is NOT “some authority” but teaches on faith and morals as Christ mandated, which real Catholic would care so little about Christ and His Church, to whom Christ affirmed “he that hears you hears Me” (Lk 10:16), and to His chosen Supreme Vicar St Peter: “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)?
2. Conscience: Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco (EWTN) on July 24, 2007:
   There can be no conflict between a well formed and correctly informed conscience and the Church’s Magisterium. A person who does not accept the Church’s teaching on contraception removes him or herself from communion with the Church.
   [Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church, and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network]

“The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.” (CCC 1783).
CCC 1792 identifies “errors of judgment” precisely: “…assertion of a mistaken autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and Her teaching…”

1. **We are commanded to judge:**It is very important NOT to judge a person’s guilt before God as commanded (Mt 7:1-5). We are commanded not to judge others regarding their motives, intentions, and guilt before God (a judgment reserved to God).

But it is vital to follow the command to judge all actions, speech writing against truth and in this way we can help others by offering truth.

Christ and His Church’s Scriptures mandate:
“Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.” (Jn 7:24).

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15, 16).

“Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.” (Mt 7:19-20).

“Test everything: retain what is good.” (1Thess 5:21).

“The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment by anyone.” (1 Cor 2:15).

“I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgment on the one who has committed this deed…” (1 Cor 5:3; read 1-13).

“I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying.” (1 Cor 10:15).

“Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 Jn 4:1).

“I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of my mouth.” (Rev 3:16).

We can’t judge according to truth by being mesmerized by others and giving them adulation, but according to the teaching of Christ’s Church, Her Tradition and Her Scriptures.

 

[Abu]

shelby sun #71
these laws are being made by men who have no true understanding about sex, relationships, children, families, women and their bodies. They can study it all their lives but they will never truly understand, no matter how much God tries to inspire them.

False. These are not man-made laws but the teaching protected by Christ Himself through His Magisterium, instituted precisely to thwart such man-made assertions and protected from teaching error on faith and morals to the whole Church.

If BC is intrinsically evil than why is NFP ok?

The misled should listen to the faithful pastors who guide according to the truth.

**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN): **
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”
[The late Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network].​

 

[Kyrie_eleison_9]

It is true that von Ott and Denzinger and others have compiled lists of what THEY think is immutable and infallible and so forth. But the Church has not ever put forth such a list. Even if it had, it seems to me that nothing being suggested for the upcoming Synods would require changing any Church doctrines.

Theology manual are not mere opinions of the individual authors. They have the imprimatur of the Church, which means that they have been reviewed to find any error and approved by the hierarchy. Furthermore, theology manuals are authoritative because they are used in minor and major seminaries to teach dogma to future priests who in turn teach it to the Faithful from the pulpit. The theology manuals list extra Ecclesium nulla salus as a “De fide” dogma, which means it must be believed.

Either the Church has infallible dogmas or She doesn’t. You don’t seem to think that the Church has any infallible dogmas. If nothing is infallible, if everything is changeable and can “evolve” over time, then there is no objective truth. If there is no objective truth, then it doesn’t matter what you believe. You might as well be a Baptist, or a Buddhist a Muslim, Agnostic or Atheist because without objective truth, it doesn’t really matter. Do you understand that concept?

The Catholic Church has solemnly defined three times by infallible declarations that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.

Pope Eugene IV, in the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441 declared:* The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."*

Pope Innocent III, ex cathedra, (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215):* “There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved”*

Pope Boniface VIII, Papal Bull, Unam Sanctam, 1302: "Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity* that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins**…"* Pope Boniface goes on and concluded the Bull with this sentence:" Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

The language the Boniface uses in this Bull: “we declare”; “we proclaim”; “we define”, is authoritative. This is a ex cathedra proclamation. It doesn’t get any clearer than this.

I could probably fill several pages of Papal proclamations confirming the infallible dogma of extre Ecclesium nulla sulus, but I think I have make the point. I will list a couple more.

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus was called by Pope Gregory XVI a “well known” dogma.

Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824.“It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”

Saint Gregory the Great (590-604), Moralia:* “Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved.”*

Pope Sylvester II, Profession of Faith, June AD 991:* “I believe that in Baptism all sins are forgiven, that one which was committed originally as much as those which are voluntarily committed, and I profess that outside the Catholic Church no one is saved.”*

Pope Leo XIII (1878–1903), Encyclical Annum Ingressi Sumus: “This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church.”

So are you saying that you know better than the authors of authoritative manuals and all of the Popes in history who have declared Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus a infallible dogma of the Church?

 

[Abu]

What Kyrie eleison 9 in #74 continues to omit is the Magisterial teaching which clarifies clearly what “outside” of the Church does NOT mean.

Pope Innocent III in the Lateran Council of AD 1215, Unam Sanctam, the Papal Bull of Pope Boniface VIII, 1302, and Pope Eugene IV’s Bull Cantate Domino, 1441 all refer to those who have rejected the true gospel, Pope Eugene IV makes the statement about the pagans, Jews, etc… so this classifies them like the Arians, Monophysites, Ebionites, who heard the message of Christ’s gospel. It is not talking about those who have not heard the gospel. The ones that these decrees are considering are those that have heard the message. If they had heard the message and obstinately stay outside the Church, they can not be saved. Notice that in this decree, just like the first two mentioned, the decree does not say, “Well, if those pagans and Jews, etc. have never heard of the gospel, they can not be saved.” This is fully consistent with what the Church teaches.

“By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it will perish in the flood. **Nevertheless, equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, land, native talents, and so many other factors.” **(Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, 1863 A.D.)

The Church has always regarded the baptism of non-Catholics as valid – and a valid baptism means you are, in some sense, in union with Christ through His Church. Further, Pope Clement (circa A.D… 95) affirmed that “those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God." Christ’s Church knew from the beginning that non-Catholics could be saved. Catholic Apologetics Today, 1986, Fr William G Most, p 145].

The “necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation” = no salvation without the Catholic Church.

The doctrinal meaning of the phrase means that whether they know it or not, salvation for anyone can come only through Christ’s Church. Christ offers the actual graces which can enable them to follow the natural moral law, and come home if they have the opportunity to so do. So some who are not Catholics may be saved – it is up to them to seek and to follow such truth to which they are exposed and up to the faithful to offer the truth.

 

[Kyrie_eleison_9]

For many parents using BC is not the moral decay of society, please! They are trying to be responsible about how many children they have and can handle in all ways, financially, emotionally, socially, etc. Again these laws are being made by men who have no true understanding about sex, relationships, children, families, women and their bodies. They can study it all their lives but they will never truly understand, no matter how much God tries to inspire them.

If BC is intrinsically evil than why is NFP ok? It is try to prevent pregnancy. I know the answer to that, but it is still BC.

Laws made by men who have no true understanding about sex, relationships, children, families women and their bodies?

Spoken like a true feminist! Wow.

Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Casti Connubii: * “But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”*

Pope Pius XII, in his address to midwives on October 29, 1951 declared that: “any attempt on the part of married people to deprive this act of its inherent force and to impede the procreation of new life, either in the performance of the act itself or in the course of the development of its natural consequences,* is immoral;** and no alleged ‘indication’ or need can convert an **intrinsically immoral act *into a moral and lawful one. This precept is as valid today as it was yesterday; and it will be the same tomorrow and always because it does not imply a precept of the human law but is the expression of a law which is natural and divine.”

Let’s look at the results of birth control. Shortly after the advent of the birth control pill, we had the sexual revolution and “free love” movement of the 1960’s. The availability of cheap, supposedly reliable birth control was the engine that drove the sexually permissive “free love” revolution.

A dramatic increase of sexual promiscuity, resulting in an INCREASE, not a decrease of unwanted pregnancies because no birth control method is 100% effective.

A dramatic increase in the divorce rate and a general deterioration of the family unit, which is the foundational institution of any society.

The legalization in 1973 of abortion as a means of birth control.

The potential end of Western Civilization as we know it as currently the Western industrialized nations are busy contracepting and aborting themselves into extinction.The birthrate is below replacement levels now in most of the industrialized West. The only population growth occurring in these nations is from immigration and in Europe this immigration is primarily from Islamic countries.

Since the advent of widespread cheap birth control we have seen:

A general lowering of moral standards.

A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy.

The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men.

 

[Kyrie_eleison_9]

What Kyrie eleison 9 in #74 continues to omit is the Magisterial teaching which clarifies clearly what “outside” of the Church does NOT mean.

Pope Innocent III in the Lateran Council of AD 1215, Unam Sanctam, the Papal Bull of Pope Boniface VIII, 1302, and Pope Eugene IV’s Bull Cantate Domino, 1441 all refer to those who have rejected the true gospel, Pope Eugene IV makes the statement about the pagans, Jews, etc… so this classifies them like the Arians, Monophysites, Ebionites, who heard the message of Christ’s gospel. It is not talking about those who have not heard the gospel. The ones that these decrees are considering are those that have heard the message. If they had heard the message and obstinately stay outside the Church, they can not be saved. Notice that in this decree, just like the first two mentioned, the decree does not say, “Well, if those pagans and Jews, etc. have never heard of the gospel, they can not be saved.” This is fully consistent with what the Church teaches.

“By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it will perish in the flood. **Nevertheless, equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, land, native talents, and so many other factors.” **(Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, 1863 A.D.)

The Church has always regarded the baptism of non-Catholics as valid – and a valid baptism means you are, in some sense, in union with Christ through His Church. Further, Pope Clement (circa A.D… 95) affirmed that “those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God." Christ’s Church knew from the beginning that non-Catholics could be saved. Catholic Apologetics Today, 1986, Fr William G Most, p 145].

The “necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation” = no salvation without the Catholic Church.

The doctrinal meaning of the phrase means that whether they know it or not, salvation for anyone can come only through Christ’s Church. Christ offers the actual graces which can enable them to follow the natural moral law, and come home if they have the opportunity to so do. So some who are not Catholics may be saved – it is up to them to seek and to follow such truth to which they are exposed and up to the faithful to offer the truth.

Did you miss this statement I made in post #62?

*Of course the Church has always taught that there is a Baptism of Desire and a Baptism of Blood in which it is possible that those who are not visible members of the Church can be saved. Someone who is in the state of grace and through **no fault of his own **is outside of its visible structure can be said to ‘belong’ to the Church invisibly.
*

 

[Abu]

Kyrie eleison 9 #77
Did you miss this statement I made in post #62?
Of course the Church has always taught that there is a Baptism of Desire and a Baptism of Blood in which it is possible that those who are not visible members of the Church can be saved. Someone who is in the state of grace and through no fault of his own is outside of its visible structure can be said to ‘belong’ to the Church invisibly.

I did, but the lack of balance in not also quoting from the Popes to show this fact in their teaching tends to leave an unbalanced picture.

 

[thistle]

I guess I thought it was pretty obvious. The Church allows married couples to engage in the activity known as “Natural Family Planning” as a form of birth control. I suppose you could simply say that NFP is not birth control, but that does not make it so. Its a way for fertile couples have sex without having children. That is birth control. Again, I have no problem with NFP, but its a bit silly to pretend its not birth control. I am aware o****f the Church’s reasoning that NFP is somehow a categorically different kind of birth control, but it is birth control.

In the first place we are talking about ARTIFICIAL birth control. We were not talking about the natural means of spacing out pregnancies.
I therefore ask you again to show me any Church document which allows for the use of artificial birth control methods to prevent pregnancy.

 

[poker10]

Since the advent of widespread cheap birth control we have seen:

A general lowering of moral standards.

A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy.

The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men.

You do know moral standards are ever changing and have swung back and forth throughout recorded history, right?

So women have only been reduced to objects to satisfy men since the 1960s? Again, you have no sense of history if that’s what you believe.

 

[Teelynn]

So you say there are very few infallible dogmas of the Church? When does the Church speak ex cathedra then? What is the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium and are these not infallible? What are some infallible dogmas of the Church? Can you name any?

So then extra Ecclesiam nulla salus has never been an infallible doctrine of the Church? Is that what you are saying.

Well maybe my logic is off, but it seems to me that the ends of the two things are diametrically opposed to each other. The end or purpose of “birth control” is to prevent pregnancy and the birth of children. The end or purpose of the marital act is to cause pregnancy and the birth of children. Now if a married couple are performing the marital act while using birth control, then obviously it is not to the end for which the marital act exists, but for some other end. If the Church says that it is licit to use birth control then consequently it must redefine the purpose or end of the marital act to reconcile it to the purpose or end of birth control in order not to contradict Herself.

I am aware that NFP is allowable but it was suppose to be only under grave circumstances.

I was not aware that NFP was to be used only under GRAVE circumstances. Yes, it has always been understood (or at least I thought it to be understood) that using NFP was to be used in possible financial hardship or for the healthy spacing of children, or of course for health reasons, but you can be sure if someone went to their parish priest to talk about their situation and when to use NFP they would be looked at as if they had three crooked horns on their head. I guess that shows how much we really KNOW about technicalities and how much we don’t.