Yes, disagreeing does not equal disobedience but if you are struggling with a teaching you need to pray for understanding and the faith to believe. It is not good to make negative comments about the teachings of the Church here on a Catholic forum for this gives scandal.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.
Did you not read the scripture that was already posted? John 16-12
Jesus says,“I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you now. But when the Spirit of Truth comes He WILL LEAD YOU TO THE COMPLETE TRUTH.”
People choose to have abortions with their own free will. God is the one guiding the Church.
Should we also use derogatory terms and categorize people?
No we should judge others wrong opinions with charity.
I don’t know why anyone would be in love with Christ first and foremost.
I cannot speak for everyone but I know I love Christ first and foremost and that is exactly why I love the Church that He started.
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.
The wriggling of the “gates of hell” is interminable against Christ’s Church: suppositions are not part of Christ’s, or His Church’s, teaching, but the guidance of the Holy Spirit is explicit into all truth. As the deposit of Revelation is complete with Christ’s Resurrection, Peter and the Apostles developed doctrine without contradiction as Christ promised through the protection of the Holy Spirit, and handed on their authority to the bishops they ordained.LaSainte, #72
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.
The dissenters pick and choose to suit their opinions, whims, fancies, desires, prejudices, feelings, but Bl John Paul II has clarified: “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].And I love how you claim that those who question infallibility aren’t “real Catholics”.
False.#73
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?
Incorrect.TarkanAttila, #75
communism is condemned outright, not socialism
Where is the reference to and quote for “laissez-faire capitalism”?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.
I’ve already done so for well over a decade. It has simply created greater separation. The epiphany came when I realized that ultimately God is the Truth, not any particular entity here on Earth.Yes, disagreeing does not equal disobedience but if you are struggling with a teaching you need to pray for understanding and the faith to believe.
While I may disagree with with the Church on particular matters, they are all based on the fact that I do not believe God causes the innocent to suffer, and that infallible statements (notably irreformable) should not be made on things that Christ did not directly address.It is not good to make negative comments about the teachings of the Church here on a Catholic forum for this gives scandal.
I agree.I’ve already done so for well over a decade. It has simply created greater separation. The epiphany came when I realized that ultimately God is the Truth, not any particular entity here on Earth.
While I may disagree with with the Church on particular matters, they are all based on the fact that I do not believe God causes the innocent to suffer, and that infallible statements (notably irreformable) should not be made on things that Christ did not directly address.
You don’t understand that all the teachings that are irreformable are directly from Christ because God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are all God so it is Him who is directing the teaching.
And, FWIW, name calling, derogatory comments, and implications by those who claim to be faithful to the Church also cause scandal, as it causes people to doubt and leave the Church.
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.
Without the infallibility conferred by Christ there is absolutely no way that the relativism and challenge of new technologies and ideas (good and bad) could be determined infallibly as right or wrong – like IVF, cloning, contraception, stem cell research etc.Warrior1979, #84
I do not believe God causes the innocent to suffer, and that infallible statements (notably irreformable) should not be made on things that Christ did not directly address.
Perhaps I am thinking of a different thing, then. For while what the apostles practised may not have been socialism, it was, in most things, like socialism. While it did not believe in a welfare state, it did believe in the welfare of its members (in all things, physical, spiritual, and otherwise). While they believed in private property, they were willing to give up their private property for their fellow Christians. Socialism does have some truth in it. So perhaps, while not true socialism, there should be a thing like Christian socialism.Incorrect.
Leo XIII asserts: “…the socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State or by municipal bodies.” Rerum Novarum, #4]. Similarly John Paul II condemns socialism for precisely this among other errors, in Centesimus Annus, making a frank acknowledgement that socialism has failed on its own terms as witnessed by events in Eastern Europe.The socialism that is condemned by Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, has the following false theories:
1)The Welfare State as the supreme objective.
2)Everything belongs to the State, thus excluding the real rights to private property.
3)The elimination of free enterprise in favour of state-controlled production and distribution.
4)Denounced the principle of subsidiarity.
Any one of these condemnations, based on the understanding of human nature, eliminates the scourge of socialism which is an ideology.
Pius XI declared emphatically in Quadragesimo Anno, #120: “If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.
Where is the reference to and quote for “laissez-faire capitalism”?
OK, you got me there. I just pulled that out of thin air. But I could sweat some older Pope wrote denouncing the faults of capitalism, too - as there are enough.Post #71 gives the references: Centesimus Annus, Bl John Paul, II, 1991, #32; Caritas et Veritate, Benedict XVI, 2009, #36, for the support of the free market and how Individuals may distort freedom and justice.
Pope Leo was a supporter of Distributism. This set of ideals attempts to pull the good out of socialism and capitalism and not support big government or big business. Rather it makes the family the core institution of society. Look up the encyclicals Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo AnnoPerhaps I am thinking of a different thing, then. For while what the apostles practised may not have been socialism, it was, in most things, like socialism. While it did not believe in a welfare state, it did believe in the welfare of its members (in all things, physical, spiritual, and otherwise). While they believed in private property, they were willing to give up their private property for their fellow Christians. Socialism does have some truth in it. So perhaps, while not true socialism, there should be a thing like Christian socialism.
OK, you got me there. I just pulled that out of thin air. But I could sweat some older Pope wrote denouncing the faults of capitalism, too - as there are enough.
tinyurl.com/6c6ggfwTarkanAttila, #88
I could sweat some older Pope wrote denouncing the faults of capitalism too - as there are enough….there should be a thing like Christian socialism.
Distributism has never had wide-spread support. One of the reasons may be that “the market economy consists of voluntary property exchanges. There is no mechanism of ‘distribution’ whatsoever.” (Thomas E Woods, The Church And The Market, Lexington Books, 2005, p 161, 201). While Distributism is unworkable as a societal norm, especially as Catholic social teaching recognises the tremendous benefits of free enterprise, condemns socialism, and proposes no “third way”, anyone is free to practise it.Nate13, #89
Pope Leo was a supporter of Distributism
Distributism has principles that are worth noting and the ideals spelled out in it should not be ignored. The idea of working to order our government and businesses around the family unit is a worthy objective.Distributism has never had wide-spread support. One of the reasons may be that “the market economy consists of voluntary property exchanges. There is no mechanism of ‘distribution’ whatsoever.” (Thomas E Woods, The Church And The Market, Lexington Books, 2005, p 161, 201). While Distributism is unworkable as a societal norm, especially as Catholic social teaching recognises the tremendous benefits of free enterprise, condemns socialism, and proposes no “third way”, anyone is free to practise it.
There is a very evident problem.Aside from that, God doesn’t change. Love doesn’t change. It’s not tying God’s hands; it’s stating a fact. God cannot choose evil. Ever. And when He declares evil, it’s evil. Forever. Because it fails to be completely loving. That is what sin is. Failure. Failure to love completely. Contraception is a sin because it is a failure to give everything - including children - to your husband or your wife, and to God.
Haha so we could go back to the way it was before Jesus came? I think Jesus made it pretty clear why God allowed divorce even though it was wrong for Jews. The key is that he never said divorce wasn’t wrong. He allowed them to divorce because they were so hard hearted. You have to think of Jews back then like you would think of a 2 year old kid and God as their Father. Moses allowed for divorce because if he hadn’t the Israelites were at a point where they would have killed off their current wife quite possibly in order to be able to remarry. Its curious how some Catholics are throwing tantrums like the Israelites of old. Unfortunately for them God doesn’t treat us like 2 year olds anymore. He expects us to have a mature faith, and has given us all the tools to make that happen by opening the flood gate of his grace through the suffering of his Son. We have been given much more than the Israelites and therefore much more is expected of us.There is a very evident problem.
I’ll give two common examples. We are not supposed to kill others, or more specifically murder innocents. However, as we know from the Old Testament that God did just that through His people. Naturally, God has His own motives that we may never understand. Yet, if we are to believe that the 10 Commandments are infallible and irreformable, this is objectively evil and can never happen again, because of the Church’s understanding of infallibility.
The same argument can be made for divorce. God allowed it before, and could allow it again if He so chooses for reason unknown to us. Yet, just like murder, the Church’s position is a flat-out no and would consider it objectively evil.
So, with the Church’s position on infallibility, which includes irreformable, the only possible explanation that would support the Church’s position is that God decided to NEVER to allow certain things again, including those things permitted in the past. To do so under current Church policy means a contradiction in infallible dogma will appear.
Now if infallible simply meant “free from error,” there is no problem. That allows God to do as He pleases, including some of the things that appear objectively sinful from our perspective. If “infallible” also includes “irreformable” these acts cannot occur without causing major theological and philosophical problems.
I am aware of all that. However, I don’t recall Christ saying this can NEVER happen again. There are instances in the Old Testament where God states He will never do things again, but this is certainly not one of them. In this case, the manner in which Church handles infallibility implicitly states “No.”Haha so we could go back to the way it was before Jesus came? I think Jesus made it pretty clear why God allowed divorce even though it was wrong for Jews. The key is that he never said divorce wasn’t wrong. He allowed them to divorce because they were so hard hearted. You have to think of Jews back then like you would think of a 2 year old kid and God as their Father. Moses allowed for divorce because if he hadn’t the Israelites were at a point where they would have killed off their current wife quite possibly in order to be able to remarry. Its curious how some Catholics are throwing tantrums like the Israelites of old. Unfortunately for them God doesn’t treat us like 2 year olds anymore. He expects us to have a mature faith, and has given us all the tools to make that happen by opening the flood gate of his grace through the suffering of his Son. We have been given much more than the Israelites and therefore much more is expected of us.
We’re talking about different things. As an example of what I am referring to is the God-given command of slaughtering the Canaanites, including children.As for God’s motives for killing innocents don’t you think if anyone is qualified to determine who is innocent and who is not innocent it is God? I think you are making assumptions that you cannot back. And what does it really mean when God “kills” someone? If someone dies from cancer couldn’t we technically say that God “killed” them? Thus when God went through Egypt and killed all the first born sons who are we to challenge God and why does that surprise us? If they had all died “naturally” of a disease would we have the same problem? Are not the disease and the “Angel of Lord” created by the same person?
Disease=created by GodI am aware of all that. However, I don’t recall Christ saying this can NEVER happen again. There are instances in the Old Testament where God states He will never do things again, but this is certainly not one of them. In this case, the manner in which Church handles infallibility implicitly states “No.”
haha it seems like quite a jump but I’ll play along for a bit. I’d first point to who handed out said “permission” to do something that was known to be wrong such as divorce i.e it was Moses. So it wasn’t just anyone who allowed for said evils it was the leader of Israelites who had been put in place directly by God. Therefore would it not be safe to assume that any such “loosening” of the law as given by God would come from the Church assuming there is even the possibility of such?
We’re talking about different things. As an example of what I am referring to is the God-given command of slaughtering the Canaanites, including children.
Yes. How is this different then if God had made them all die of disease?
To make the analogy comparable, it would mean that God ordered a person to infect an another innocent person to make them die.Yes. How is this different then if God had made them all die of disease?
To make the analogy comparable, it would mean that God ordered a person to infect an another innocent person to make them die.
Precisely, because Christ, the Son of God, explicitly formed His Church, not yours or mine, in His New Covenant, with explicit commands to His Supreme Vicar:Warrior1979
In this case, the manner in which Church handles infallibility implicitly states “No.”
I’m more than happy to learn, so educate me. On what basis are babies guilty, and worthy to be killed (note: I’m using the word “killed” rather than “murdered,” since your question presupposes guilt)? Certainly there is no such basis in any current Church doctrine.
- you continue to assume innocence. Please state on what grounds and how said grounds apply to the time period we are talking about.