Methodists look to change church's LGBT policies

[mcq72]

It is impossible for the church to change her teaching on this. The church is infallible on the teachings of morality.

Thank you. I understand that first of all it is the correct position, and that secondly the CC can only take the correct position. Yet doesn’t really answer the question of placing yourself in other Christians position, of what to do when your church is wrong, to stay or to schism.

The take from some would be that no matter what position the CC takes, it must be correct, infallible, and no need for schism. After all, many churches take same stand on this issue, without the need to say they arrive at such stands infallibly. They perhaps see more value and candor to taking the stand on its own merit rather than also relying on another separate stand of infallibility. That is, the power to see that it is right without prejudicing the outcome. Fine balance to say it is right because it is right (and see for yourself) and because I say it is right. It is possible to agree with conclusion with just the former.

 

[commenter]

After all, many churches take same stand on this issue, without the need to say they arrive at such stands infallibly. They perhaps see more value and candor to taking the stand on its own merit rather than also relying on another separate stand of infallibility.

1. The RCC claims infallibility less often than people think.
2. Catholic teaching on homosexuality upholds the Natural Law, which predates churches.
3. If there is no infallibility, there is no real moral teaching, only relativism.
4. All churches in effect claim infallibility. A fair number of non Catholics appear to cautiously take the RCC’s claim fairly seriously.

 

[vsedriver]

They perhaps see more value and candor to taking the stand on its own merit rather than also relying on another separate stand of infallibility.

And without having an infallible source to determine what is and what isn’t a sin, allows people to be comfortable with changing their morality, changing their church’s teaching, and changing their church affiliation. The proof is in the evidence of splintered Christianity.

 

[mcq72]

And without having an infallible source to determine what is and what isn’t a sin, allows people to be comfortable with changing their morality, changing their church’s teaching, and changing their church affiliation. The proof is in the evidence of splintered Christianity.

This is same thing JWs express. They lump us altogether, C, O P churches as splintered “Christendom”. Only they have teaching and liturgy identical around the world they say.

Not sure their (P’s) splintering proves the value of infallibility, for they splintered off of a self proclaimed infallible church. That is the Catholic church had had splits itself. Also do Orthodox have as much splintering due to their self proclaimed truth bearing?

One must also look to the role of civil enforcement to church teaching, or the lack of it , when discussing historical splintering

 

[Pattylt]

I sometimes wonder if Christianity will eventually consist of millions of churches with memberships of one or two families?

 

[mcq72]

The RCC claims infallibility less often than people think.

I would hope so.

I mean how much old revelation needs clarification in the last century and a half since the dogma.

If there is no infallibility, there is no real moral teaching, only relativism.

Disagree that one needs infallibility to teach absolute truths with authority, even an unction from God.

All churches in effect claim infallibility. A fair number of non Catholics appear to cautiously take the RCC’s claim fairly seriously.

Interesting. Yet I would say there is a difference in conditional and unconditional “infallibility”, the CC taking the latter approach.

 

[commenter]

Me: > If there is no infallibility, there is no real moral teaching, only relativism.
Response:
Disagree that one needs infallibility to teach absolute truths with authority, even an unction from God.strong text
Me again:
Unless SOMEONE, not necessarily you, has infallibility, you wouldn’t know which truths are absolute. You wouldn’t even have a New Testament.

Protestants “borrow” on Rome’s infallibility to some extent, that the Magisterium once was unconditionally infallible, and even now is somewhat trusted. It’s like a ship that is not controlled by the lighthouse, but observes it, takes it’s illumination into account in charting it’s own course.

This may be less true for Methodists as they become more liberal. Perhaps they look at the media more now.

 

[Padres1969]

If that were true however, would there be any non-Catholic Christians?