On limiting population growth thru contraception

[Abu]

LaSainte
Except that the Church’s declaration that contraception is immoral does not fall under something that is “necessary for guarding and expounding” a revealed truth. Thus, it cannot fall under the auspices of infallibility.

False.

The CCC #88 (1997) clearly combines exactly with Pope John Paul’s Motu Proprio (= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998 (ATF), which requires the assent of divine and Catholic faith to believe (credenda sunt) dogmas (a category one truth) (#750.1).

A category two truth requires the assent of ecclesial faith, as a secondary truth, “proposed definitively” (definitive proponuntur) to be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2). In fact, the 1983 revision of Canon Law had replaced in #749.3 “dogmatically declared or defined” with “infallibly defined”, thus NOT expressing a limitation of infallibility to dogmas. ATF better enables Canon Law to apply to the understanding of infallibility with the Profession of Faith covering the two categories of infallible doctrine.

cathmedweek.blogspot.com/2007/03/on-contraception.html
A great website:
“Pope Sixtus, in the late 1500’s, condemned simultaneously contraception and abortion.[10] The Holy Office under Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) handed down several decisions condemning contraception, noting that the wrongness of contraception is a wrong against human nature. That is, it is not a “situational” wrong, but is a universal wrong against the nature of man, as is abortion and infanticide.[11]
[W. E. May, *Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 2000.
[10] pg 144
[11] pg. 371.”

Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation.

The Church most likely doesn’t think so either, otherwise she could always clear this issue up by simply coming out and telling us that this has been infallibly defined and declare it as dogma, considering that it is the single biggest issue of dissent in the Catholic Church today. But this hasn’t happened. I wonder why?

The confusion here is worse confounded.

No defined doctrine has ever had, or needed, the word “infallible” – this is a red herring. In post #48 the infallible dogma in *Pastor Aeternus *of Vatican I is summarised.

Crystal clear, that dogma states:
“9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

“So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.”
fisheaters.com/pastoraeternus.html

**Answer by David Gregson of EWTN to me on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men. Further details on levels of certainty with which the teachings of the Magisterium (either the Pope alone, or in company with his Bishops) may be found in Summary of Categories of Belief.”

Both the Encyclicals Casti Connubii of Pius XI, 1930, and Humanae Vitae of Paul VI, 1968, condemned contraception infallibly as gravely wrong, the latter was issued after the advent of the contraceptive “Pill”, and abortion has always been condemned by Christ’s Church.

Through Google, viewers can easily access Vatican documents especially Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I, and *Lumen Gentium *of Vatican II.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Well, I guess I’m not a “Real Catholic” then. Nor or you, oh high and haughty judge.

Until you just said that, I honestly thought, based on your words, you were an atheist or an agnostic.

Who are you or anyone else to say whose life is worth living? After all, even if a soul is on this Earth but a day, if they die in Christ, they rise in Heaven. Infant deaths are tragic, but at least they are good news for Heaven.

 

[Abu]

Warrior1979
Well, I guess I’m not a “Real Catholic” then. Nor or you, oh high and haughty judge.
TarkanAttila
Until you just said that, I honestly thought, based on your words, you were an atheist or an agnostic

Precisely.

Further, the cafeteria Catholic denies Christ also when He mandates us to judge words, writing and actions against the truth, so that we can know and show right from wrong; good from evil.

Christ and His Church’s Scriptures tell us:

“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 judgement by anyone.” (1 Cor 2:15).

“I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgement 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 mesmerised by others and giving them adulation, but according to the teaching of Christ’s Church, Her Tradition and Her Scriptures.

Jesus has commanded “Stop judging, that you may not be not judged.” (Mt 7:1; read 1-5). Thus, we are commanded not to judge others regarding their motives, intentions, and guilt before God (a judgment reserved to God).

 

[LaSainte]

False.

The CCC #88 (1997) clearly combines exactly with Pope John Paul’s Motu Proprio (= on his own authority) Apostolic Letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, 1998 (ATF), which requires the assent of divine and Catholic faith to believe (credenda sunt) dogmas (a category one truth) (#750.1).

A category two truth requires the assent of ecclesial faith, as a secondary truth, “proposed definitively” (definitive proponuntur) to be “firmly embraced and held” (now Canon 750.2). In fact, the 1983 revision of Canon Law had replaced in #749.3 “dogmatically declared or defined” with “infallibly defined”, thus NOT expressing a limitation of infallibility to dogmas. ATF better enables Canon Law to apply to the understanding of infallibility with the Profession of Faith covering the two categories of infallible doctrine.

cathmedweek.blogspot.com/2007/03/on-contraception.html
A great website:
“Pope Sixtus, in the late 1500’s, condemned simultaneously contraception and abortion.[10] The Holy Office under Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) handed down several decisions condemning contraception, noting that the wrongness of contraception is a wrong against human nature. That is, it is not a “situational” wrong, but is a universal wrong against the nature of man, as is abortion and infanticide.[11]
[W. E. May, *Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life,

Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 2000.
[10] pg 144
[11] pg. 371.”

Vatican Council II and the post-conciliar Magisterium have explicitly affirmed that both ecclesial and papal infallibility extend to the secondary doctrinal truths necessary for guarding and expounding revelation.
The confusion here is worse confounded.

No defined doctrine has ever had, or needed, the word “infallible” – this is a red herring. In post #48 the infallible dogma in *Pastor Aeternus *of Vatican I is summarised.

Crystal clear, that dogma states:
“9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

“So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.”
fisheaters.com/pastoraeternus.html

**Answer by David Gregson of EWTN to me on Nov-22-2002: **
“You are correct in stating that the Pope exercises his charism of infallibility not only in dogmatic definitions issued, ex cathedra, as divinely revealed (of which there have been only two), but also in doctrines definitively proposed by him, also ex cathedra, which would include canonizations (that they are in fact Saints, enjoying the Beatific Vision in heaven), moral teachings (such as contained in Humanae vitae), and other doctrines he has taught as necessarily connected with truths divinely revealed, such as that priestly ordination is reserved to men. Further details on levels of certainty with which the teachings of the Magisterium (either the Pope alone, or in company with his Bishops) may be found in Summary of Categories of Belief.”

Both the Encyclicals Casti Connubii of Pius XI, 1930, and Humanae Vitae of Paul VI, 1968, condemned contraception infallibly as gravely wrong, the latter was issued after the advent of the contraceptive “Pill”, and abortion has always been condemned by Christ’s Church.

Through Google, viewers can easily access Vatican documents especially Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I, and *Lumen Gentium *of Vatican II.

Then please tell me precisely WHAT divinely revealed Truth the Church’s stance on contraception is expounding. None. This teaching does not in any way relate to or deepen our understanding of divine revelation. It is not an object of infallibility, be it primary or secondary and thus it cannot be infallibly taught, ever.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Then please tell me precisely WHAT divinely revealed Truth the Church’s stance on contraception is expounding. None. This teaching does not in any way relate to or deepen our understanding of divine revelation. It is not an object of infallibility, be it primary or secondary and thus it cannot be infallibly taught, ever.

I don’t think that you need infallibility to be certain. Even with infallibility you really don’t know 100%. Do you infallibly know that what the pope teaches ex cathedra is infallible? All you can really say is that it is probably true that the pope has the charisma of infallibility.

You can know about contraception using your unaided reason so it isn’t really important if it is infallible or not. With things like the dual nature of Christ there is really no reason to prefer one answer to the other, and so if you are going to be confident that the Church has given the correct answer you need something like infallibility. Otherwise you reduce the answer that the Church has given to a power struggle and historical accident that could have gone either way. The only reason you have for being confident the truth has prevailed is infallibility. With contraception you don’t have that since assessing the morality of contraception is something that is open to human reason.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Yes, agreed. It would be considered an “advancement” or “development” of the doctrine and not an outright reversal of position. Now where are some good Catholoc doctors we can get to develop this new “non-contraceptive contraceptive”? I have many years of fertility left and I don’t trust NFP at all

I hope that somebody is busy building nanobots that can monitor ovarian follicles. I would rather abstain than use any of the methods available now. Which is good I suppose because my wife thinks NFP is too burdensome on her and doesn’t work in any case. I believe it does work when we follow the rules but the bad thing is that the rules don’t give us any safe days.

 

[Nate13]

Ultimately, you have to realize the following:

Contraception is a population control measure.
Abortion is a population control measure.

However:

Disease is a population control measure.
Famine is a population control measure.
War is a population control measure.

The first two are (at least somewhat) controllable at the state level. The last three, once let loose, are completely uncontrollable… And the present Church teaching is to completely reject the first two.

Funnily enough, the Church has no problem subscribing to an economic system which is based on usury (which the Scripture condemns) and which will be impossible to sustain once the resource limits are hit. (Arguably, it is already becoming unsustainable due to oil depletion.)

There are some errors in this analysis. First off your forgot natural death as a population control measure. Last time I checked the Church doesn’t consider natural death to be immoral You also left off NFP/using breastfeeding to naturally space children, which the Church allows. I believe it is a great injustice that our society demands that women become un-woman like if they want to have a job. Also the Church does not subscribe to either socialism (big government) or capitalism (big business). The Church subscribes to making the family the most important part of society, possibly something close to distributism.

 

[LaSainte]

I hope that somebody is busy building nanobots that can monitor ovarian follicles. I would rather abstain than use any of the methods available now. Which is good I suppose because my wife thinks NFP is too burdensome on her and doesn’t work in any case. I believe it does work when we follow the rules but the bad thing is that the rules don’t give us any safe days.

That would be amazing! What a lot of people here don’t get is that most of us don’t mind periodic abstinence, we just want to be more certain of what we are doing and the outcome. I personally do not trust NFP and I absolutely 100% cannot have another baby. It would be a life-ruiner for me. Not everyone can handle 3+ children, and the statistics that claim 95+% success with NFP are skewed.

 

[LaSainte]

I don’t think that you need infallibility to be certain. Even with infallibility you really don’t know 100%. Do you infallibly know that what the pope teaches ex cathedra is infallible? All you can really say is that it is probably true that the pope has the charisma of infallibility.

You can know about contraception using your unaided reason so it isn’t really important if it is infallible or not. With things like the dual nature of Christ there is really no reason to prefer one answer to the other, and so if you are going to be confident that the Church has given the correct answer you need something like infallibility. Otherwise you reduce the answer that the Church has given to a power struggle and historical accident that could have gone either way. The only reason you have for being confident the truth has prevailed is infallibility. With contraception you don’t have that since assessing the morality of contraception is something that is open to human reason.

I get this. I think I have a real problem with I fallibility. It seems like every time someone comes out with an example refuting infallibility, there are always 75 reasons and rationalizations why it doesn’t apply. “oh that was never a real teaching of the church, just a practice”, or “those were the pope’s personal opinions, not his infallible declarations”, and on and on. Did Jesus come down from Heaven when I wasn’t looking and tell us EXACTLY when infallibility does and doesn’t apply? In fact, when you ask someone to cite why the Church is infallible, they cite passages from the Bible like “I will not leave you orphans” or Jesus speaking specifically to the Apostles about binding and loosing-NONE of which are actually convincing regarding something as important as the whole church being infallible. Anyone who read the Bible would never, ever come away with the idea that Jesus was telling the Apostles that the whole Church, in perpetuity, would be absolutely unable to err in its teachings ever.

The skeptic in me just feels like it’s a very self-serving thing to say. “we are infallible and here is some vague, random text proving it”.

Every issue I have a problem with comes back to this very thing. I don’t know a single Catholoc in real life who believes in the infallibility of the Church- not even my grandma, who follows every Church directive to the letter.

 

[Abu]

LaSainte #69
Anyone who read the Bible would never, ever come away with the idea that Jesus was telling the Apostles that the whole Church, in perpetuity, would be absolutely unable to err in its teachings ever.

Such is the mindlessness of the unknowing – quite pathetic. The infallibility conveyed by Christ to His Church is specifically to His Magisterium for defining faith and morals

Apart from the fact that “there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” (Jn 21:25), the Word of God contains the reality:
This is what Jesus did in transferring His authority to teach on Peter:
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)
Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Apparently some have never heard of the Holy Spirit and Christ’s promise!
“I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15)

Yes all defined teaching on faith and morals is guaranteed from error by Christ through the Holy Spirit.
One of the foremost theologians at Vatican I, Giovanni Perrone, expresses what we have seen well for he “was on most biblical grounds when he pointed out that Christians must adhere to the pope not because he is infallible; but since they must, on divine command, adhere to the pope, he has to be infallible.” (Fr Stanley Jaki, The Keys of the Kingdom, Franciscan Herald Press, 1986, p 170).

Post #38 outlines the essentials of the exercise of papal infallibility showing precisely how Christ’s teaching is defined on faith and on morals, by the protection of the Holy Spirit to be free from error.

I don’t know a single Catholic in real life who believes in the infallibility of the Church- not even my grandma, who follows every Church directive to the letter.

Such a howler betrays a ginormous misconception of, or miniscule contact with, real Catholics, for there are many who really don’t know much of what Christ teaches.

 

[Abu]

Nate13, #67
the Church does not subscribe to either socialism (big government) or capitalism (big business).

In fact, socialism is condemned outright, and “capitalism” does NOT equal “big business”, though that can and does exist within free enterprise. The free enterprise system was developed from the laws of cause and effect by the Catholic late Scholastics and is supported by the Church’s social teaching. [See *Centesimus Annus, Bl John Paul, II, 1991, #32; Caritas et Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36].

 

[LaSainte]

Such is the mindlessness of the unknowing – quite pathetic. The infallibility conveyed by Christ to His Church is specifically to His Magisterium for defining faith and morals

Apart from the fact that “there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” (Jn 21:25), the Word of God contains the reality:
This is what Jesus did in transferring His authority to teach on Peter:
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)
Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Apparently some have never heard of the Holy Spirit and Christ’s promise!
“I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15)

Yes all defined teaching on faith and morals is guaranteed from error by Christ through the Holy Spirit.
One of the foremost theologians at Vatican I, Giovanni Perrone, expresses what we have seen well for he “was on most biblical grounds when he pointed out that Christians must adhere to the pope not because he is infallible; but since they must, on divine command, adhere to the pope, he has to be infallible.” (Fr Stanley Jaki, The Keys of the Kingdom, Franciscan Herald Press, 1986, p 170).

Post #38 outlines the essentials of the exercise of papal infallibility showing precisely how Christ’s teaching is defined on faith and on morals, by the protection of the Holy Spirit to be free from error.
Such a howler betrays a ginormous misconception of, or miniscule contact with, real Catholics, for there are many who really don’t know much of what Christ teaches.

Honestly there is nothing there that states that the Church will always be infallible. If anything, it seems to state that the Holy Spirit would teach the apostles all they needed to know-not that future popes would be able to continuously add to Christ’s teachings as they do now.

And I love how you claim that those who question infallibility aren’t “real Catholics”. My grandmother is a cradle catholic, as were her parents and their parents, etc. They are not new converts full of spit and vinegar, but have been Catholic as far back as we can record, so they know a thing or two about it. Your arrogance is truly astounding.

 

[LaSainte]

In fact, socialism is condemned outright, and “capitalism” does NOT equal “big business”, though that can and does exist within free enterprise. The free enterprise system was developed from the laws of cause and effect by the Catholic late Scholastics and is supported by the Church’s social teaching. [See *Centesimus Annus

, Bl John Paul, II, 1991, #32; Caritas et Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36].

Funny considering that the Apostles were basically socialists. I guess the Church is just against socialism as a form of government and not as a way of life?

 

[TarkanAttila]

Such a howler betrays a ginormous misconception of, or miniscule contact with, real Catholics, for there are many who really don’t know much of what Christ teaches.

Amen, Amen, Amen.

LaSainte, Catholic laity do NOT control the teachings of the Church. We’re not Lutherans who vote on what is right and wrong. When Christ gave us the Truth, he gave it to us for all places and seasons, not just when popular opinion is for it. And popular opinion, be sure, has never been in favour of Christ’s teachings.

Honestly there is nothing there that states that the Church will always be infallible. If anything, it seems to state that the Holy Spirit would teach the apostles all they needed to know-not that future popes would be able to continuously add to Christ’s teachings as they do now.

And I love how you claim that those who question infallibility aren’t “real Catholics”. My grandmother is a cradle catholic, as were her parents and their parents, etc. They are not new converts full of spit and vinegar, but have been Catholic as far back as we can record, so they know a thing or two about it. Your arrogance is truly astounding.

AS IS YOURS.

You can be old as the hills and still be wrong. Look at the Hindus. They’ve been on the wrong path since the word “maya”.

Those Scriptures above are fairly clear: Christ is protecting us and has been since Peter. He has been barring the Church from error since day one with the Holy Spirit through Peter and the Apostles. The New Testament doesn’t indicate that the Apostles would be taught all that they need to know, but that the Church, beginning with Peter, would have authority second only to Christ.

See: Isaias 22:22 and Apocalypse 3 for cross references to what Christ said in Matthew 16:19, and you will see Christ was giving Peter second-in-command position (much as was done for Eliakim in place of Shebna).

 

[TarkanAttila]

In fact, socialism is condemned outright, and “capitalism” does NOT equal “big business”, though that can and does exist within free enterprise. The free enterprise system was developed from the laws of cause and effect by the Catholic late Scholastics and is supported by the Church’s social teaching. [See *Centesimus Annus

, Bl John Paul, II, 1991, #32; Caritas et Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36].

Abu, communism is condemned outright, not socialism. There is a difference. Communism is a psuedo-socialistic dictatorship that aims to make the State God. That’s why it is condemned. Socialism was practised in Acts. But you see, it can only work in a society that is totally God-centred and unselfish, i.e. Heaven, as socialism can only work when the wants of the individual come last.

Laissez-faire capitalism WAS condemned in Rerum Novarum as being inhumane and unjust. (Frankly, it’s Social Darwinism.) Controlled capitalism is not so harmful, but there are better ways to govern and run an economy.

Personally, I favour a sort of moral, Christian libertarianism. Enough government on the right levels, and no more power in each level than is necessary.

 

[Warrior1979]

Until you just said that, I honestly thought, based on your words, you were an atheist or an agnostic.

It’s confusing because it is natural for people to see what the want to see, and not actually what is. Since you haven’t figured it out yet, I’ll sum it up for you.

• Policies that either directly or indirectly result in the suffering of innocents are offensive to my conscience (which, or course, God gave me in the first place). No amount of arguing or hyperbole will change that. To believe otherwise is to become like the rest of the animals that roam this earth.
• Infallibility - There is a difference between being “free from error” and being “free from error and unchanging.” The latter has the effect of tying God’s hands.

 

[Warrior1979]

Jesus has commanded “Stop judging, that you may not be not judged.” (Mt 7:1; read 1-5). Thus, we are commanded not to judge others regarding their motives, intentions, and guilt before God (a judgment reserved to God).

I assume that you think it is okay to tag Catholics as “real,” “cafeteria,” and other derogatory terms though. This is separate and distinct from “judging.”

Correct?

 

[LaSainte]

Amen, Amen, Amen.

LaSainte, Catholic laity do NOT control the teachings of the Church. We’re not Lutherans who vote on what is right and wrong. When Christ gave us the Truth, he gave it to us for all places and seasons, not just when popular opinion is for it. And popular opinion, be sure, has never been in favour of Christ’s teachings.

AS IS YOURS.

You can be old as the hills and still be wrong. Look at the Hindus. They’ve been on the wrong path since the word “maya”.

Those Scriptures above are fairly clear: Christ is protecting us and has been since Peter. He has been barring the Church from error since day one with the Holy Spirit through Peter and the Apostles. The New Testament doesn’t indicate that the Apostles would be taught all that they need to know, but that the Church, beginning with Peter, would have authority second only to Christ.

See: Isaias 22:22 and Apocalypse 3 for cross references to what Christ said in Matthew 16:19, and you will see Christ was giving Peter second-in-command position (much as was done for Eliakim in place of Shebna).

Um, I am not being arrogant. I may very well be wrong on the infallibility issue and I freely admit that. However, I do not see Christ establishing a Church as a guarantee of infallibility. One could just as easily say that Christ was giving only Peter infallibility, or that all Popes regardless of what capacity they were speaking in (not just faith and morals, and not only when speaking to the entire Church) were given infallibility in everything they did and said. The text is far from clear, and yet the Church has come down with rules SO SPECIFIC re: infallibility that it seems a bit…MUCH.

“The Pope is only infallible when speaking in an official capacity as supreme pontiff to all Catholics on matters of faith and morals which have been divinely revealed or which are somehow needed for the understanding and expounding of that which has been divinely revealed during a lunar eclipse when he is wearing his favorite vestments. Oh, and the magisterium is infallible if they have taught something for a long time, but we aren’t going to tell you what a “long time” is. It might be a hundred years, it might be a thousand years. Oh, and if some or even most of the bishops and cardinals disagree with any of these teachings at any given time, then they don’t count as part of the magisterium, so they are decried as dissenters and the teaching remains the same-infallible”.

Did I miss something here or is there NO WAY that any of this is anywhere in scripture or even tradition until quite recently? Are we really to believe that the Holy Spirit gave the Church these details with this level of specificity? It seems like a rather convenient way of saying “We’re infallible unless we screw up, in which case some new set of criteria for infallibility will be proposed so we don’t look like we’re not really infallible.”

Does this bother anybody else at all? This doctrine really tests my faith, although ironically, the doctrine on infallibility is not itself infallIble. Go figure.

 

[onmyknees]

How can you question the founder of the Church, Jesus Christ, who has given Peter and all the popes the authority and guidance from the Holy Spirit, who is God!!

Abu is not judging the person but we can and should judge the incorrect opinions on matters of the authority of the Church. The doctrines and dogmas on faith and morals have never changed for 2000 plus years and will never be changed. The little “t” traditions always have been able to be changed.

I just don’t understand why someone who is Catholic would not be in love with everything about Christ’s Church and want to be obedient to it’s authority.

 

[Warrior1979]

How can you question the founder of the Church, Jesus Christ, who has given Peter and all the popes the authority and guidance from the Holy Spirit, who is God!!

I don’t question Christ. I do question the manner of how Christ’s was interpreted, because it includes things that He didn’t say. In the matter of morals in particular, it creates problems, if the interpretation is includes “irreformable.” God has free will, and can allow the killing of innocents, divorce, and anything else if He so chooses, and has been done in the past. “Free from error” and “authoritative” allows God to permit such things; “irreformable” does not; i.e., ties God’s hands.

Abu is not judging the person but we can and should judge the incorrect opinions on matters of the authority of the Church.

Should we also use derogatory terms and categorize people?

I just don’t understand why someone who is Catholic would not be in love with everything about Christ’s Church and want to be obedient to it’s authority.

I don’t know why anyone would be in love with Christ first and foremost.

Secondly, many people make way to many assumptions on this forum. Disagreeing with an issue does not equal disobedience. I practice no form of birth control, Church approved or not.