S
secondeve
Guest
In view of the fact that there is little, if anything, in the Church’s moral teaching that comes under the heading of “Solemn, Infallible Teaching”, how can we know for certain what is right and wrong?
- Status
1
1ke
Guest
Where’d you get that idea?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I think what !ke means is, do you somehow have the idea that ONLY a ‘solemn infallible statement on a moral issue’ has to be followed? Like anything ELSE was up for personal interpretation and could be ignored with impunity?
IOW, there are infallible teachings out there and they are not limited to Papal statements. The Deposit of the Faith (the Magesterium).
Furthermore, even if a teaching of the Church on dogma or doctrine is not ‘labeled’ infallible, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t guaranteed true.
And even a DISCIPLINE should not be ignored or considered ‘optional’.
IOW, as a Catholic you should be striving to follow all the teachings of the Church (and possess a nice copy of the Catechism or go on-line frequently), should be going to Church on Sundays and holy days, supporting the Church with time, talent or treasure, reading your Bible, studying the many great theologians such as Aquinas and Augustine, making a habit of reading such writers as Chesterton, Belloc, etc., engaging in daily devotions like the Rosary, the Liturgy of the Hours, engaging in daily prayers (Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity, Morning Offering, prayers for the Souls in Purgatory), engaging in acts of fasting and almsgiving for those in need, striving to live a good Christian life and modeling yourself as a guide especially if you have children, teaching THEM about the faith. . .
If it’s in the Catechism, it’s worthy of belief and should be followed, whether it has the Papal Stamp of “Infallible” upon it or not. God, so far as I know, never once in His teaching, Oral or Written, said, “And thou shalt only have to follow whatsoever teachings are solemn and infallible and written down as such, and can ignore anything else as not important enough for such”.
S
secondeve
Guest
No disrespect intended, but most of what you have written is not answering my question and is irrelevant eg your statement that discipline should be followed.
You have completely missed the point with your statement,
“If it’s in the Catechism, it’s worthy of belief and should be followed”
Plainly, not everything in the catechism is certain…the Church has made many mistakes over 2000 years,( eg the legitimisation of torture ) which is why we have infallible dogma (not limited to Papal Infallibility as you imply).
To re-state my question, “How can we know with CERTAINTY what is right and wrong?”
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
The Church DID NOT MAKE A MISTAKE. The Church never definitively stated as a matter of morality to be held by all the faithful that hey, folks, torture is okay.
I think you have missed the point, and it shows by your assertion that the Church ‘made mistakes’. Individuals in the Church can err. And hey, dogma and doctrine can develop. But that doesn’t mean that the earlier dogma was WRONG.
I mean, what are you worried about? What teaching in the Catechism is going to be proven ‘wrong?’
S
secondeve
Guest
Now you are making my point for me. You have actually stated that torture, despite the fact it was Papally sanctioned, is not to be accepted as morally acceptable today because it was not a matter of infallible definition. So you admit that Popes can err badly. What I want to know is, in view of the fact that official teaching can be so wrong, how can we know what in the official non-infallible teaching on morals is true?
As for suggesting that the dogma that torture is morally acceptable can “develop” into the dogma that it is a moral outrage, that is simply silly.
1
1ke
Guest
Minimally, we can have moral certainty.
And, we must give assent of the faith.
And, we must give assent of the faith.
1
1ke
Guest
Yes, about all of them.
E
ESMDHokie77
Guest
Why would you think not all of them??
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I fear you have completely misunderstood me. Kindly do not put words into my mouth. What you have said above (and attributed to me, falsely) is what YOU said, and not what I said. If you’re going to respond to me, respond to what I say and not strawmen you create and then say that “I” said them.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Oh, I asked you before but you side stepped. What of the ‘official teaching’ is so absolutely horrendous and ‘wrong’ that you are worried about it?’
S
secondeve
Guest
Don’t be silly. You said that individuals can err (the Pope is an individual) and you plainly accept that the teaching about torture has been changed.
And what about my other points?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
You are hung up on torture.
Kindly show us the relevant Papal Edict or Bull which stated that Torture was NOT evil and could be used by Catholics with impunity.
You won’t find it because it doesn’t exist.
What exactly do you CLAIM was taught about torture, when was it taught, by whom, what was the context, where are the bulls, who was taught. . .
Give us some info.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Again, please STOP distorting my statements. To leap from ‘individuals can err’ (which is what I said) to claiming that because the Pope is an individual that HE erred (which is NOT what I said) is YOUR claim, not mine, your illogic, and not mine.
S
secondeve
Guest
I did NOT side-step. I just couldn’t believe you were asking me such an irrelevant question. What I am asking is quite simple; it would be futile to ask it again. You obviously do not have the answer, though it is an extremely important question.
S
secondeve
Guest
Ha ha. Are you now claiming that the Pope is not an individual, or that the Pope cannot err? Are you perhaps an ultramontanist?
- Status