Infallible Truth?

[Betterave]

I don’t know; that’s why I am asking. As for which bits, presumably all those bits that are not based upon infallible pronouncements of Popes and Councils, like the existence of limbo in the old catechism (not a good example as it’s not about morality, but you get the idea).

Okay, thanks for the example. What “old catechism” are you referring to here? Can you be more specific so we can actually look at a real reference?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

With respect, you are confused. I am not making any claim or assumptions. I am simply asking a question. Let me put it this way:

1. We know that solemn pronouncements are infallible.
2. It follows that non-solemn pronouncements are not (otherwise what would be the distinction between these and the solemn ones?). Ah, HERE’S your error! There are ‘non solemn pronouncements which are IN FACT infallible. Did you miss the part in the Catechism where it spoke of the Magesterium and the Deposit of the Faith?
   3)In view of the fact (if it is a fact) that there appear to be few if any solemn pronouncements on matters of morality, how do we know for certain what is right and wrong? Here’s another. . . WHERE do you make the leap that ONLY ‘infallible’ teachings can give ‘certainty’ on what is right or wrong?’ IOW, an infallible teaching is one which gives certainty, that is true, but it is not the ONLY way to have certainty.

So far people have just answered “Look in the catechism, the Bible etc” which plainly is no answer at all as the Bible needs interpretation, and the catechism contains few if any solemn pronouncements on morality.

If some non-solemn pronouncements are to be regarded as certain so be it, but if this is so please give me the criteria and references.

 

[jomoco]

The dogmas you list are non-moral matters and are all matters of solemn infallible definition. My problem, as i have tried to make plain, is with non-infallible moral matters. Regarding abortion, I belive passionately that it is a dreadful act, and certainly mortally sinful, but I cannot find a solemn pronouncement on it, so it is just for me in the realm of my own personal opinion. A clear distinction is necessary here, between what I PERSONALLY am certain about, and what the Church gives us all certainty about, and how she gives that certainty.

Trying to meet Jesus’ example of how to live a good moral and ethically clean life, is not easy by any means, but nevertheless well worth doing, and living, as faithfully as humanly possible.

At any rate it’s the best guide post I’ve found to date.

jomoco

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The dogmas you list are non-moral matters and are all matters of solemn infallible definition. My problem, as i have tried to make plain, is with non-infallible moral matters. Regarding abortion, I belive passionately that it is a dreadful act, and certainly mortally sinful, but I cannot find a solemn pronouncement on it, so it is just for me in the realm of my own personal opinion. A clear distinction is necessary here, between what I PERSONALLY am certain about, and what the Church gives us all certainty about, and how she gives that certainty.

So what makes you think that a mortal sin cannot be judged as certainly wrong? What makes you think the Church has to pronounce each and every mortal sin as, infallibly, mortal sin when the Church has already pronounced they ARE mortal sins?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So what makes you think that a mortal sin cannot be judged as certainly wrong? What makes you think the Church has to pronounce each and every mortal sin as, infallibly, mortal sin when the Church has already pronounced they ARE mortal sins?

And here’s the thing. Suppose that, for example, I am a young woman (instead of the old bat I truly am), whose parents threaten to throw her on the streets for being pregnant out of wedlock, whose boyfriend threatens to beat her to a pulp and refuses to support her and the baby, whose every friend, teacher, health professional or even (God help us) supposedly CATHOLIC counselor or even PRIEST says that the abortion may be, for her, the ‘right’ thing to do. And suppose that I, perhaps after days of being physically sick, sleepless, being hounded emotionally by dozens of people, not really wanting this but not seeing any other help, have an abortion.

My CULPABILITY for this is perhaps LESSENED because I may not in fact be fully ‘free’ to make the choice. I may have been told (incorrectly, by people I trust) that it is morally acceptable. I may not be physically or mentally in control when I choose. So even though the action of abortion is always mortally sinful (and that is CERTAIN), the individual acting may not be capable of having all the necessary components of that mortal sin. But the act of abortion in and of itself, and the result thereby of death of the child, is always itself gravely sinful.

See the difference? You can be sure an action is sinful, but there can be circumstances where the person’s culpability is lessened. Think, for example, of murder one versus manslaughter versus accidental death. All three have the same RESULT of death, but the culpability of the person who caused or contributed to the death can vary widely. Still, the end result is DEATH. Just as the action of abortion (which you’ll find listed as grave matter, i.e. mortal sin) in the catechism, is always going to be a mortal sin IN ITSELF. But the person who commits the sin can be to a greater or lesser degree guilty of that sin.

 

[secondeve]

Okay, thanks for the example. What “old catechism” are you referring to here? Can you be more specific so we can actually look at a real reference?

If I remember rightly, the Revised Baltimore Catechism taught the doctrine of the Limbo of the Children. The Church is currently beating a hasty retreat from this apalling concept, and when one considers what dreadful consequences have followed from it, it is not surprising. Millions of poor parents, having to face the misery of the death of their child, were often told they had to bury her in unconsecrated ground, without the presence of a Priest, without official prayers. And they were told they would never see her again. The idea that God would permit the punishment of a child for all eternity for something that wasn’t his fault (and some theologions taught that the child had to suffer some pain) is clearly ludicrous. So not everything in a catechism is certain. To come back to my question, how can we know what is true and what is not?

 

[secondeve]

Tantum_ergo:
Originally Posted by secondeve View Post
With respect, you are confused. I am not making any claim or assumptions. I am simply asking a question. Let me put it this way:

1. We know that solemn pronouncements are infallible.
2. It follows that non-solemn pronouncements are not (otherwise what would be the distinction between these and the solemn ones?). Ah, HERE’S your error! There are ‘non solemn pronouncements which are IN FACT infallible. Did you miss the part in the Catechism where it spoke of the Magesterium and the Deposit of the Faith?
   3)In view of the fact (if it is a fact) that there appear to be few if any solemn pronouncements on matters of morality, how do we know for certain what is right and wrong? Here’s another. . . WHERE do you make the leap that ONLY ‘infallible’ teachings can give ‘certainty’ on what is right or wrong?’ IOW, an infallible teaching is one which gives certainty, that is true, but it is not the ONLY way to have certainty.

So far people have just answered “Look in the catechism, the Bible etc” which plainly is no answer at all as the Bible needs interpretation, and the catechism contains few if any solemn pronouncements on morality.

If some non-solemn pronouncements are to be regarded as certain so be it, but if this is so please give me the criteria and references.

You state that solemn definition is not the only way the Church gives certainty, but you neglect to mention what the other ways are.

 

[secondeve]

So what makes you think that a mortal sin cannot be judged as certainly wrong? What makes you think the Church has to pronounce each and every mortal sin as, infallibly, mortal sin when the Church has already pronounced they ARE mortal sins?

But that is just the point: the Chuch has NOT pronounced infallibly, in the case of sexual morality for example, what is mortal sin and what is not.

 

[secondeve]

And here’s the thing. Suppose that, for example, I am a young woman (instead of the old bat I truly am), whose parents threaten to throw her on the streets for being pregnant out of wedlock, whose boyfriend threatens to beat her to a pulp and refuses to support her and the baby, whose every friend, teacher, health professional or even (God help us) supposedly CATHOLIC counselor or even PRIEST says that the abortion may be, for her, the ‘right’ thing to do. And suppose that I, perhaps after days of being physically sick, sleepless, being hounded emotionally by dozens of people, not really wanting this but not seeing any other help, have an abortion.

My CULPABILITY for this is perhaps LESSENED because I may not in fact be fully ‘free’ to make the choice. I may have been told (incorrectly, by people I trust) that it is morally acceptable. I may not be physically or mentally in control when I choose. So even though the action of abortion is always mortally sinful (and that is CERTAIN), the individual acting may not be capable of having all the necessary components of that mortal sin. But the act of abortion in and of itself, and the result thereby of death of the child, is always itself gravely sinful.

See the difference? You can be sure an action is sinful, but there can be circumstances where the person’s culpability is lessened. Think, for example, of murder one versus manslaughter versus accidental death. All three have the same RESULT of death, but the culpability of the person who caused or contributed to the death can vary widely. Still, the end result is DEATH. Just as the action of abortion (which you’ll find listed as grave matter, i.e. mortal sin) in the catechism, is always going to be a mortal sin IN ITSELF. But the person who commits the sin can be to a greater or lesser degree guilty of that sin.

What you say is undoubtedly true but I fail to see its relevance to this thread.

 

[davidv]

But that is just the point: the Chuch has NOT pronounced infallibly, in the case of sexual morality for example, what is mortal sin and what is not.

The Catechism (CCC) documents many specific areas that are gravely sinful, not the least of which are the serious sexual sins.

Based on this it is clear that you are wrong about the Church not having pronounced on these matters. Whether infallible or not, we the faithful can be CERTAIN that the Church has judged these things without error.

See CCC articles 1858, 2291, 2326 and 2384 for specifics example of grave matter. If these are commited with full knowledge and consent of will, they are mortal sins.

 

[secondeve]

The Catechism (CCC) documents many specific areas that are gravely sinful, not the least of which are the serious sexual sins.

Based on this it is clear that you are wrong about the Church not having pronounced on these matters. Whether infallible or not, we the faithful can be CERTAIN that the Church has judged these things without error.

See CCC articles 1858, 2291, 2326 and 2384 for specifics example of grave matter. If these are commited with full knowledge and consent of will, they are mortal sins.

HOW can we be certain when the Church has made mistakes on moral matters eg on the subject of usury?

 

[davidv]

HOW can we be certain when the Church has made mistakes on moral matters eg on the subject of usury?

We can be certain because the Church is a divine institution with Christ as her head. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and cannot lead the faithful astray.

 

[Betterave]

If I remember rightly, the Revised Baltimore Catechism taught the doctrine of the Limbo of the Children. The Church is currently beating a hasty retreat from this apalling concept, and when one considers what dreadful consequences have followed from it, it is not surprising. Millions of poor parents, having to face the misery of the death of their child, were often told they had to bury her in unconsecrated ground, without the presence of a Priest, without official prayers. And they were told they would never see her again. The idea that God would permit the punishment of a child for all eternity for something that wasn’t his fault (and some theologions taught that the child had to suffer some pain) is clearly ludicrous. So not everything in a catechism is certain. To come back to my question, how can we know what is true and what is not?

So no specific reference? I don’t think that’s helpful. You are just jumping to conclusions without first establishing the facts.

FYI: The Church is not beating a hasty retreat on the limbo of the children. I don’t know where you got that idea, but I am certain (though not infallibly ) that it is false.

 

[jomoco]

We can be certain because the Church is a divine institution with Christ as her head. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and cannot lead the faithful astray.

Astray could be easily defined as the priestly sexual abuse scandal that has manifested itself as self-evident to the Christian world at large?

How infallible is that?

Who’s caught a beam in their own eyes, the Catholics, or the Christians at LARGE?

jomoco

 

[Betterave]

Astray could be easily defined as the priestly sexual abuse scandal that has manifested itself as self-evident to the Christian world at large?

How infallible is that?

Who’s caught a beam in their own eyes, the Catholics, or the Christians at LARGE?

jomoco

Seriously, dude: If you don’t have the first clue about what ‘infallibility’ means, don’t jump in guns blazing as if you do. Come back when you’ve done some research.

God bless

 

[jomoco]

Seriously, dude: If you don’t have the first clue about what ‘infallibility’ means, don’t jump in guns blazing as if you do. Come back when you’ve done some research.

God bless

Un-erringly correct I’m told.

jomoco

 

[davidv]

Astray could be easily defined as the priestly sexual abuse scandal that has manifested itself as self-evident to the Christian world at large?

How infallible is that?

Who’s caught a beam in their own eyes, the Catholics, or the Christians at LARGE?

jomoco

What part of sexual abuse is in accord with Church teaching? Answer: Not one thing. Your accusation about beams is without merit.

The sins of individual members of the Church do not invalidate the correctness of her teaching.

 

[jomoco]

What part of sexual abuse is in accord with Church teaching? Anwser: Not one thing. Your accusation about beams is without merit.

The sins of individual members of the Church do not invalidate the correctness of her teaching.

What part of church teachings ignore’s and cover’s up evil perpetrated within the church, for decades?

Is this another head’s I win, tail’s you lose, example of the executive leadership clause that insulates them against reality, and accountability?

jomoco

 

[secondeve]

So no specific reference? I don’t think that’s helpful. You are just jumping to conclusions without first establishing the facts.

FYI: The Church is not beating a hasty retreat on the limbo of the children. I don’t know where you got that idea, but I am certain (though not infallibly ) that it is false.

You know as well as I do that the Church has taught Catholics that there is a Limbo of the children for centuries. She is now beginning to unravel that disgusting doctrine. Being dishonest in the service of “loyalty to the institution” is not doing God’s work. it is indeed what caused the disgraceful child abuse scandal, where many bishops covered up the physical and sexual abuse of children as young as three, out of a misguided loyalty to the institution. The Church needs to acknowledge her sins and errors and not lie about them!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

But that is just the point: the Chuch has NOT pronounced infallibly, in the case of sexual morality for example, what is mortal sin and what is not.

Excuse me? No doubt it’s just old age (50s) creeping up on me but where exactly has the Church ever taught that only what it pronounced ‘infallibly mortal sin’ is mortal sin, and where has the Church NOT said in ‘sexual morality’ what is and what is not mortal sin.

Examples, PLEASE. What ARE you trying to get to? Are you saying that because the Church does not say flat out, “Ms X, you had sex out of wedlock. Sex out of a wedlock is a mortal sin. Ms X, you thus committed mortal sin and are damned to hell no ifs ands and buts’” (and Ms X may have been raped, which is ‘sex out of wedlock’, but she obviously didn’t freely consent to sin!; or Ms. X may have been drunk and not freely consented, or Ms X may have not realized at the time that sex out of wedlock is wrong, etc. etc.) that the Church doesn’t teach sex out of wedlock in and of itself is mortally sinful? It most certainly does teach so!

I think you really need to peruse the Catechism! It is not that hard a concept to realize that an ACT may be gravely sinful but a given individual performing that act might not do so freely or might not understand and thus might have lessened or even no culpability for the act, which doesn’t make the ACT ‘not sinful’.

Suppose I hit my baseball into the MOMA and break the visiting exhibition of the Michaelangelo David. That act results in a really awul destruction, right?

But suppose I was hitting the baseball to try to knock the gun out of some guy’s hand who was trying to hold up an old lady, and it was in doing that (good) action that the ball riccocheted into the MOMA and caused the damage. Did I INTEND to cause the damage? No. Was I being just careless? No. Does it mean the action destroying the David (NOT the action that knocked the gun out) was NOT a destructive action and the David is miraculously not destroyed? No.

So an action can have an intrinsic grave character but the intentions of the person can lessen the gravity.