Its not just the catholic Church that is moderating

[BillP]

How about actually refuting the arguments that teaching on infallible teaching has never changed instead of constantly topic hoping.

PS bad translation on the Creed btw

Church teaching on:

Slavery,

Usary,

Contraception,

Have all changed whether the Hierarchy chooses to lie about it or not.

There I even changed the translation, just for you!

 

[LJN21]

Church teaching on:

Slavery,

Usary,

Contraception,

Have all changed whether the Hierarchy chooses to lie about it or not.

Wow, Okay I have you documents stating how those have not changed. You said that was Rome CYA **** (never mind none of them were Vatican anything) with out any source back up. The burden on proof is on you to provide some basis for you opinion if there is any.

Oh and that Creed isn’t any better, it begins with “I”.

 

[BillP]

How about actually refuting the arguments that teaching on infallible teaching has never changed instead of constantly topic hoping.

Make up your mind! I was responding to your:

                 Originally Posted by **LJN21**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2305630#post2305630)                 
             *If you think its nonsense then I guess we are done here since you don't agree with basic fundamental teaching of the church you claim to belong too.*

PS bad translation on the Creed btw

As I say, I fixed it, just for you.

 

[BillP]

Oh and that Creed isn’t any better, it begins with “I”.

Well, not the one on Catholic Online doesn’t.

Catholic Prayers

                               **Nicene Creed - Profession of Faith**

We believe in God, the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and all that is seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in fulfilment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and His kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son
he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

Amen.

forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2308294

Maybe your thinking of the Apostles Creed?

 

[BillP]

Wow, Okay I have you documents stating how those have not changed.

No, you showed me a steaming pile of hair-splitting, rationalizations that asserted in the face of reality that the teachings hadn’t changed.

Are you asserting that the Church hasn’t changed or that the changes are okay because there is some convoluted intellectually dishonest rationalization that justifies the change?

If you’re asserting that the Church hasn’t changed, thast clearly flies in the face of reality. If you’re okay with changes that are somehow rationalized and justified, then I have every confidence that the Church will come up with suitable rationalizations when it finally accepts the changes the rest of us have made.

 

[LJN21]

No, you showed me a steaming pile of hair-splitting, rationalizations that asserted in the face of reality that the teachings hadn’t changed.

Are you asserting that the Church hasn’t changed or that the changes are okay because there is some convoluted intellectually dishonest rationalization that justifies the change?

If you’re asserting that the Church hasn’t changed, thast clearly flies in the face of reality. If you’reokay with changes that are somehow rationalized and justified, then I have every confidence that the Church will come up with a suitable rationalization when it finally accepts the changes the rest of us have made.

Again with no substance. You criticize and belittle sources but don’t provide anything other in opposition than your opinion.

I didn’t say the Church hasn’t changed, in some matters it has. The vast majority of Mass around the world are said in the vernacular today, this is quite obviously a change form 50 years ago.

I said the Churches teaching in matters that are infallible has not changed. I also said that since you have chosen not to believe the Churches teaching on infallibility there is no basis for a discussion.

 

[BillP]

Again with no substance. You criticize and belittle sources but don’t provide anything other in opposition than your opinion.

Okay, try this:

The Holy Office of the Vatican issued a statement in support of slavery. The document stated that* “Slavery itself…is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law…The purchaser [of the slave] should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave.*” Some commentators suggest that the statement was triggered by the passage of the 13th Amendment in the U.S. Others claim that the document referred only to a “particular situation in Africa to have slaves under certain conditions,” and not necessarily to the situation in the U.S.

Source: Joel Panzer, “The Popes and Slavery,” Alba House, (1996)

I said the Churches teaching in matters that are infallible has not changed. I also said that since you have chosen not to believe the Churches teaching on infallibility there is no basis for a discussion.

As long as you define infallible statements as those that never change you’re in good shape. I guess the ones that chnage aren’t infallible after all huh?

 

[BillP]

Want substance? Try these:

362 AD - The local Council at Gangra in Asia Minor excommunicates anyone encouraging a slave to despise his master or withdraw from his service. (Became part of Church Law from the 13th century).

354-430 AD - St. Augustine teaches that the institution of slavery derives from God and is beneficial to slaves and masters. (Quoted by many later Popes as proof of “Tradition”.

650 AD - Pope Martin I condemns people who teach slaves about freedom or who encourage them to escape.

1089 AD - The Synod of Melfi under Pope Urban II imposed slavery on the wives of priests. (Became part of Church Law from the 13th century).

1179 AD - The Third Lateran Council imposed slavery on those helping the Saracens.

1226 AD - The legitimacy of slavery is incorporated in the Corpus Iuris Canonici, promulgated by Pope Gregory IX which remained official law of the Church until 1913. Canon lawyers worked out four just titles for holding slaves: slaves captured in war, persons condemned to slavery for a crime; persons selling themselves into slavery, including a father selling his child; children of a mother who is a slave.

1224-1274 AD - St.Thomas Aquinas defends slavery as instituted by God in punishment for sin, and justified as being part of the ‘right of nations’ and natural law. Children of a slave mother are rightly slaves even though they have not committed personal sin! (Quoted by many later Popes).

1435 AD - Pope Eugenius IV condemns the indiscriminate enslavement of natives in the Canary Islands, but does not condemn slavery as such.

1454 AD - Through the bull Romanus Pontifex, Pope Nicholas V authorises the king of Portugal to enslave all the Saracen and pagan peoples his armies may conquer.

1493 AD - Pope Alexander VI authorises the King of Spain to enslave non-Christians of the Americas who are at war with Christian powers.

1537 AD - Pope Paul III condemns the indiscriminate enslavement of Indians in South America.

1548 AD - The same Pope Paul III confirms the right of clergy and laity to own slaves.

1639 AD - Pope Urban VIII denounces the indiscriminate enslavement of Indians in South America, without denying the four ‘just titles’ for owning slaves.

1741 AD - Pope Benedict XIV condemns the indiscriminate enslavement of natives in Brazil, but does not denounce slavery as such, nor the importation of slaves from Africa.

1839 AD - Pope Gregory XVI condemns the international negro slave trade, but does not question slavery as such, nor the domestic slave trade.

1866 AD - The Holy Office in an instruction signed by Pope Pius IX declares: Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given".

Now watch carefully, see if you can detect the change:

1888 AD - Pope Leo III condemns slavery in more general terms, and supports the anti-slavery movement.

1918 AD - The new Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope Benedictus XV condemns ‘selling any person as a slave’. (There is no condemnation of ‘owning’ slaves, however).

1965 AD - The Second Vatican Council defends basic human rights and denounces all violations of human integrity, including slavery (Gaudium et Spes, no 27,29,67).

womenpriests.org/teaching/slavery1.asp

Et voila! The CHURCH has ALWAYS, INFALLIBLY taught that Slaavery is WRONG.

 

[LJN21]

Okay, try this:

Source: Joel Panzer, “The Popes and Slavery,” Alba House, (1996)

You happen to have the actual Vatican statement? Not nit picking just curious.

As long as you define infallible statements as those that never change you’re in good shape. I guess the ones that chnage aren’t infallible after all huh?

Now we are getting somewhere. Definitions are very important for everything.

I believe the idea of “Chattel Slavery” (Slaves being less than human) has always been condemned by the Church. Slaves treated as human beings with dignity and rights has not been. Its actually even biblical. As far as infallibility is concerned I don’t think there has every been an infallible statement on slavery.

Divorce not allowed. You argue (correct me if I’m wrong) that because the Church seems to give out annulments like candy the teaching on divorce has changed.

I argue that an annulment is a statement that the couple was never married. The teaching of the Church is that Marriage is forever. Period. Sometimes for certain reasons (lack of full consent, no consummation, Catholics not married in the Catholic Church) a marriage never happened in the first place. I argue this is infallible.

I do agree Annulments are given out like candy and I sometimes wonder if all the marriages Annulled are really non-events. Are marriage tribunals infallible?

Usary - definitions, definitions. There is question about whether or not it is even an infallible doctrine. Then the question on what the definition of Usary comes to play.

Artificial Contraception- You say (again correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t want to put words in your mouth) since the church allows NFP that is a change in the stance of Contraception so the other shoe of the pill is right around the corner.

I argue it has been infallible stated Artificial Contraception is intrinsically evil. NFP is permit because there is no evil in abstinence and prudence.

Celibate Priests not infallible its a matter of disciple not doctrine. There are in fact married priest even today.

 

[LJN21]

Want substance? Try these:

Now watch carefully, see if you can detect the change:

womenpriests.org/teaching/slavery1.asp

Et voila! The CHURCH has ALWAYS, INFALLIBLY taught that Slaavery is WRONG.

So what about the bible?

Col 4:1
Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.

Eph 6:5
Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ; not in the way of eye-service, as men-pleaser, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not Men, knowing that whatever good any one does, he will recieve the same again form the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours in in heaven, and that theres is no partiality with him.

Gal 3:27-28
For as many of you as were baptzed into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Now put that in context with your time line. None of which would be considered infallible statements.

 

[LJN21]

Lets define Innfalible really fast, based on your previous posts you don’t seem to understand how limited infaliblty is.

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

 

[BillP]

You happen to have the actual Vatican statement? Not nit picking just curious.

Nope, don’t have the original. But I do have two sources for the quote, so I’m okay with it.

I believe the idea of “Chattel Slavery” (Slaves being less than human) has always been condemned by the Church. Slaves treated as human beings with dignity and rights has not been. Its actually even biblical. As far as infallibility is concerned I don’t think there has every been an infallible statement on slavery.

Now we get to the crux of the matter. Essentially you’re defining Catholic teachings that have changed as being non-infallibly taught. Because, after all, if they change they can’t have been infallible in the first place.

Divorce not allowed. You argue (correct me if I’m wrong) that because the Church seems to give out annulments like candy the teaching on divorce has changed.

EXACTLY. The Church has in its wisdom decided that when two people come before God and witnesses and pledge themselves to each other for life, it isn’t always dissoluble. This is a change from the previous position that such vows were indissoluble.

I argue that an annulment is a statement that the couple was never married. The teaching of the Church is that Marriage is forever. Period. Sometimes for certain reasons (lack of full consent, no consummation, Catholics not married in the Catholic Church) a marriage never happened in the first place. I argue this is infallible.

And I argue that this is a rationalization. It starts from the a priori assumption that the teaching on Matrimony being forever is infallible, and thus can never change. So when it becomes necesssary to chnage the teaching for Pastoral reasons (rember Christ said “The Law was made for Man, Man wasn’t made for the Law”) some kind of loop-hole or rationalization must be found to circumvent it.

In this case the CHurch has decalred that in cases of Annulment, no actual marriage existed. I don’t have a problem with that, whatevere rationalization gets them through the day.

Usary - definitions, definitions. There is question about whether or not it is even an infallible doctrine. Then the question on what the definition of Usary comes to play.

It’s only because the teaching has changed that we’re parsing words about the definition of Usary (or Slavery for that matter, or even come to think of it Marriage). To my mind, for infallibility to exist at all there can’t be non-infallible teachings, because then we’re reduced to squabbling about which teachings are or aren’t infallible.

Artificial Contraception- You say (again correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t want to put words in your mouth) since the church allows NFP that is a change in the stance of Contraception so the other shoe of the pill is right around the corner.

In effect yes, after more than a thousand years of teahcing that Sex was solely for procreation (with the pleasure and unitive effects thrown in by God as a kind of “bribe”) now the Church teaches that sex also has Unitive fuction for couples.

After more than a thousand years of teaching that attempting to have sex without getting pregnant was sinful they have now decided that NFP is allowed for “grave” reasons.

Another pair of rationalizations intended to mask the fact that teaching has changed. Note, I don’t disagree with the changes. Personally, I feel the Church has traditionally gotten frustrated by her inability to see in her people’s hearts where all sinfulness lies, so they proscribe acts which are overt and easily observable instead of motivations which aren’t.

I don’t believe couples should avoid Children because they enjoy spending weekends in Aspen, or because mommy doesn’t want stretch marks, or for a whole host of selfish reasons. I believe there are couples using ABC for good reasons just like there are couples using NFP for bad ones.

I argue it has been infallible stated Artificial Contraception is intrinsically evil. NFP is permit because there is no evil in abstinence and prudence.

On this we disagree. I hope you would concede that there hasn’t been any EXPLICILTY INFALLIBLE statement on ABC.

I know an argument can be made that the teaching is infallible through the ordinary magesterium, but I don’t find that compelling.

As far as I know, the only things explicitly defined as infallible are The Immaculate Conception and The Assumption. Everything else is open to debate.

In point of fact I’m not sure about Papal Infallibility, but since it has only beeen invoked for these two things it really isn’t an issue for me.

 

[BillP]

Lets define Innfalible really fast, based on your previous posts you don’t seem to understand how limited infaliblty is.

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Yes, I’ve read all that. And find it more or less meaningless. Short of an explicitly ex cathedra statement by a sitting Pope, we have no real way to determine whether or not a teaching is infallible.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Gruff looking little frowny faces notwithstanding who died and left YOU arbiter of who gets to call himself Catholic?

I “dare” to call for change because change is needed.

I am one of the children of God. Together me and more than a Billion others like me ARE the Church. The Church isn’t the Hierachy, the Church isn’t the Pope, or the Cardinals or the Curia. Its US, the common people who do the living and dying and praying and paying on a daily basis. The days when a bunch of out of touch old men in Rome ruled the daily lives of millions of people without the slightest understanding of those lives is OVER. Folks who aren’t comfortable with that are in for a difficult time.

The Church shepard by the Pope, and the bishops. People like you should be execommunicated. If I was Pope I would execommunicate all dissenters of the Church to include you.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Gruff looking little frowny faces notwithstanding who died and left YOU arbiter of who gets to call himself Catholic?

I “dare” to call for change because change is needed.

I am one of the children of God. Together me and more than a Billion others like me ARE the Church. The Church isn’t the Hierachy, the Church isn’t the Pope, or the Cardinals or the Curia. Its US, the common people who do the living and dying and praying and paying on a daily basis. The days when a bunch of out of touch old men in Rome ruled the daily lives of millions of people without the slightest understanding of those lives is OVER. Folks who aren’t comfortable with that are in for a difficult time.

In addition to the last statement, your views are very secular and lies closely to those of Protestants.

The Catholic Church cannot change its doctrines especially moral and faith, and the Church cannot change its doctrine concerning women in the priesthood. You need to look deeper in what you are saying.

Jesus said to his Disciple, “He who hears you, hears me. He who rejects you, rejects me.”

In other words, you reject the authority of the Church you are no better than a pagan and need to be thrown out to the dogs and be eaten.

 

[BillP]

First of all Mannyfit, I see you’re logging in from Iraq. Thanks for serving and be careful.

In addition to the last statement, your views are very secular and lies closely to those of Protestants.

Yeah, I think you should read some history of the early Church my friend. You might be surprised by what you see.

In other words, you reject the authority of the Church you are no better than a pagan and need to be thrown out to the dogs and be eaten.

I’m not sure your desire for me to be “thrown out to the dogs and eaten” is exactly Christian, but well, I guess you’re entitled to your opinon.

God Bless

 

[LJN21]

Now we get to the crux of the matter. Essentially you’re defining Catholic teachings that have changed as being non-infallibly taught. Because, after all, if they change they can’t have been infallible in the first place.

Not at all, I’m saying the once have changed were never taught as infallible in the first place.

EXACTLY. The Church has in its wisdom decided that when two people come before God and witnesses and pledge themselves to each other for life, it isn’t always dissoluble. This is a change from the previous position that such vows were indissoluble.

So if a couple gets married and never consummated it they are still really married?

What if a woman marries a man and finds out later he was before their marriage a polygamist or an axe murder. She would not have married him had she known this about him before the marriage tough cookies for her?

Marriage is a contract more than blind vows.

And I argue that this is a rationalization. It starts from the a priori assumption that the teaching on Matrimony being forever is infallible, and thus can never change. So when it becomes necesssary to chnage the teaching for Pastoral reasons (rember Christ said “The Law was made for Man, Man wasn’t made for the Law”) some kind of loop-hole or rationalization must be found to circumvent it.

In this case the Church has declared that in cases of Annulment, no actual marriage existed. I don’t have a problem with that, whatevere rationalization gets them through the day.

Can you prove at one time the church condemned the idea of annulments? That would be a change in teaching. You idea of their rationalization does not confirm an actual change in teaching.

It’s only because the teaching has changed that we’re parsing words about the definition of Usary (or Slavery for that matter, or even come to think of it Marriage). To my mind, for infallibility to exist at all there can’t be non-infallible teachings, because then we’re reduced to squabbling about which teachings are or aren’t infallible.

Not necessary, the definition of words means a lot of things. It determine if it really did change or if our definitions changed.

In effect yes, after more than a thousand years of teahcing that Sex was solely for procreation (with the pleasure and unitive effects thrown in by God as a kind of “bribe”) now the Church teaches that sex also has Unitive fuction for couples.

After more than a thousand years of teaching that attempting to have sex without getting pregnant was sinful they have now decided that NFP is allowed for “grave” reasons.

Find me one place that the Church ever condemn a married couple not having sex when a woman was not fertile. It would be unlawful then for married couples to have sex after menopause and this is clearly not the case.

Another pair of rationalizations intended to mask the fact that teaching has changed. Note, I don’t disagree with the changes. Personally, I feel the Church has traditionally gotten frustrated by her inability to see in her people’s hearts where all sinfulness lies, so they proscribe acts which are overt and easily observable instead of motivations which aren’t.

I don’t believe couples should avoid Children because they enjoy spending weekends in Aspen, or because mommy doesn’t want stretch marks, or for a whole host of selfish reasons. I believe there are couples using ABC for good reasons just like there are couples using NFP for bad ones.

Agian your idea of rationalization does not in fact prove an actully change in teaching.

If a couple gets married and doesn’t want kids they’ve missed the underlying purpose of getting married.

On this we disagree. I hope you would concede that there hasn’t been any EXPLICILTY INFALLIBLE statement on ABC.

Many experts will tell you humanae vitae is infallible as is the Caitisum of the Catholic Church. Both of these say ABC is intrinsically evil.

I know an argument can be made that the teaching is infallible through the ordinary magesterium, but I don’t find that compelling.

It really doesn’t matter if you find it compelling or not.

As far as I know, the only things explicitly defined as infallible are The Immaculate Conception and The Assumption. Everything else is open to debate.

In point of fact I’m not sure about Papal Infallibility, but since it has only beeen invoked for these two things it really isn’t an issue for me.

What about the Resurrection, or the Assumption, the real presence, the authority of the gospels? Where is the line then?

 

[edwest2]

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. The Bible is the word of God. Some in the present have decided to no longer endure sound doctrine, and since so many Catholics have divorced or use birth control, they take it to mean the Church condones this? It does not.

On Catholic radio, two priests were expressing their disappointment over the fact that when young men tell them they are living with their girlfriends and having sex, they confess that as a sin but since they don’t want to change, the priests can’t give them absolution. These priests are upset that they can’t.

Most of the disorder in American society revolves around issues of human sexuality, marriage, divorce, birth control… Marriage is more than sex.

If by “moderate,” people mean: What people are currently doing that is against Church teaching to make those acts part of Church teaching, and “OK.” This would be wrong.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Mannyfit75]

First of all Mannyfit, I see you’re logging in from Iraq. Thanks for serving and be careful.

Welcome, and yes I am entitle to my opinion. They seem harsh but I find disobedience to the Catholic Church’s teachings as rather insulting to Jesus who founded the Church.

To suggest that the Catholic Church will change its doctrines concerning morality because of popularity or poll numbers is erroneous not going God’s way. It’s going to our Way.

We would be contradicting Jesus since Jesus said that He is the Way.

Jesus founded the Church, which is the Catholic Church. He preserve it from error with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. When the Church teaches that contraception is wrong, it is wrong. When she say abortion is mortal sin, we should avoid it. If we break it, we have to repent.

The Church doctrine is not a popularity contest. If the entire human race say its ok to marry your sister, and the Church say no. Who will you be siding with? The Church of Jesus Christ, or the people who thinks marrying your sister is ok because you love her.

 

[BillP]

… I find disobedience to the Catholic Church’s teachings as rather insulting to Jesus who founded the Church.

I find it more insulting to him when people claim to speak for him or in his name on issues he chose to remain silent on. But there you go.