H
holy_face
Guest
I said nothing about natural law, I specifically stated sacred tradition and sacred scripture. The Pope must adhere to those, they have already been proclaimed to be infallible and can not be contradicted.
- Status
O
on_the_hill
Guest
They could be reinterpreted. If nothing changed, we would be moribund as a faith.
I
innertide
Guest
Just more mixed messages coming out from where ever be it the Pope or the Vatican or someones thoughts on the matter.
even if it is just a hypothetical of a possible suggestion of what the church could do or tolerate, it is still insulting and does send mixed messages.
The word Tolerate for starters is the insult, everything else is one big mixed signal, which civil union is more acceptable than another and why, and it is just more seperating couples and people into classes.
Creating classes to then say well if you just follow us and you will be fully accepted and loved not only by us but by God and Christ is just sad.
Why tolerate, to tolerate is to suggest a problem that can be overlooked for what ever reason, instead of just accepting the person as is. I doubt God is " tolerating " humanity or giving us just partial of His love.
even if it is just a hypothetical of a possible suggestion of what the church could do or tolerate, it is still insulting and does send mixed messages.
The word Tolerate for starters is the insult, everything else is one big mixed signal, which civil union is more acceptable than another and why, and it is just more seperating couples and people into classes.
Creating classes to then say well if you just follow us and you will be fully accepted and loved not only by us but by God and Christ is just sad.
Why tolerate, to tolerate is to suggest a problem that can be overlooked for what ever reason, instead of just accepting the person as is. I doubt God is " tolerating " humanity or giving us just partial of His love.
H
holy_face
Guest
No they can’t be reinterpreted, they have already been deemed infallible
The faith continues to grow through new revelations, however whatever has already been revealed as infallible can not possible be changed, or it wouldn’t be infallible.
T
Tigg
Guest
No, that is impossible according to the Church. **“Development of doctrine never means abandonment of doctrine or the substitution of new doctrine for the old; it never means that what the Church once firmly assents to, it will ever deny.” ** (The Teaching of Christ - a Catholic Catechism for Adults)
What you are suggesting would strip the Church of all credibility that she has held the Truth of Divine Revelation in the Deposit of Faith and has unerringly done so since founded by Christ. Disciplines and church law can change, but a deeper understanding of ***doctrine ***can only be found within the same vein and same “sense” as originally taught so that what has always been believed, continues to be believed.
S
Starrsmother
Guest
I guess that I see the subject of civil unions from a little different perspective. I understand that the Pope and Catholic church can never okay any sexual union between two people of the same sex–and I also realize that when most people think of civil unions that what they are really meaning is a way to legalize a same sex union without resorting to calling it a marriage–which it obviously can never be.
However, in the truest sense of the meaning of this term, it would simply be a legal means where two people–of the same or different sexes and even relatives such as two cousins— could set up a legal agreement where they would have the same legal rights as a married couple in terms of taxation, insurance, 401-K’s, retirement benefits, property ownership, visitation in a hospital, inheritance, medical decisions if one or the other partner became so ill that they were incapacitated and so on. From that stand point, I think it might be a sane and reasonable solution. If I were a single person and had a close friend or relative that I shared my personal life with and that I wanted to share in my finances and death benefits or retirement benefits with, I could do so and I think I should be able to do so! That seems reasonable to me. Not everyone gets married–and not everyone who isn’t married but lives with a friend or relative of the same sex is gay. When I was growing up, I had two elderly spinster friends as teachers who had apparently no living relatives and who lived together as long as I knew of them. Were they gay? I don’t know, but nobody thought they were. They went to Mass every morning and were certainly very pious in their behavior. Perhaps they just appreciated a friend to talk with of an evening and to not have to eat dinner alone every night. In several European countries, this is already the case. A couple who wish to marry must go through basically a 2 step process: a legal service and then a marriage in the church of their choice. Frankly, it makes sense to me and would take the pressure off of churches–such as the Catholic church–to have to marry same sex couples–which of course will never happen.
The real problem though, is that even though it is a sane approach, I doubt that it will satisfy the gay community who will never be satisfied unless they can force the public to accept their so-called “unions” as marriages. The bottom line though is that this would put an end to gays thinking they could demand to be married in a church–and mark my words, that will come up next! Some churches will marry gays–some churches do now anyway. But it wold save the Catholic church headaches.
However, in the truest sense of the meaning of this term, it would simply be a legal means where two people–of the same or different sexes and even relatives such as two cousins— could set up a legal agreement where they would have the same legal rights as a married couple in terms of taxation, insurance, 401-K’s, retirement benefits, property ownership, visitation in a hospital, inheritance, medical decisions if one or the other partner became so ill that they were incapacitated and so on. From that stand point, I think it might be a sane and reasonable solution. If I were a single person and had a close friend or relative that I shared my personal life with and that I wanted to share in my finances and death benefits or retirement benefits with, I could do so and I think I should be able to do so! That seems reasonable to me. Not everyone gets married–and not everyone who isn’t married but lives with a friend or relative of the same sex is gay. When I was growing up, I had two elderly spinster friends as teachers who had apparently no living relatives and who lived together as long as I knew of them. Were they gay? I don’t know, but nobody thought they were. They went to Mass every morning and were certainly very pious in their behavior. Perhaps they just appreciated a friend to talk with of an evening and to not have to eat dinner alone every night. In several European countries, this is already the case. A couple who wish to marry must go through basically a 2 step process: a legal service and then a marriage in the church of their choice. Frankly, it makes sense to me and would take the pressure off of churches–such as the Catholic church–to have to marry same sex couples–which of course will never happen.
The real problem though, is that even though it is a sane approach, I doubt that it will satisfy the gay community who will never be satisfied unless they can force the public to accept their so-called “unions” as marriages. The bottom line though is that this would put an end to gays thinking they could demand to be married in a church–and mark my words, that will come up next! Some churches will marry gays–some churches do now anyway. But it wold save the Catholic church headaches.
T
Thorns
Guest
Its part of Sacred Scripture that the Pope has the power to loose and bind, so he really could change anything. The thing that we have faith in, is that the Holy Spirit would not allow him to make mistakes.
Of course there have already been past popes who taught in error, it would seem, yet the defense for their errors also seems to be that he was not in pope mode. But since the popes never actually signify when theyre speaking infallibly, how do we all really know?
It seems that if the pope says something we like, its “infallible.” If not, he went rogue. But since they mever signify, who knows?
H
holy_face
Guest
The Church has not ever claimed, to my knowledge, that the bind and loose power has any application over sacred scripture or sacred tradition, the Church has already deemed those infallible. If those are already infallible, how can they possibly be changed?
**They would lose all credibility at that point! ** This is why we believe the Holy spirit would never allow it to happen.
If they do legitimately have the power to bind and loose scared tradition and scripture, then they have already exercised that power by claiming it to be infallible, there is no turning back and reversing from infallible. Because if they change it they are saying it was not infallible and that the previous claim to infallibility was in error. This would call into question the whole doctrine of infallibility, and ultimately lead to the destruction of the Church.
The Church can make rules such as we must attend mass each Sunday, that we should fast during lent, go to confession if we are in state of mortal sin or declare something like the Immaculate Conception of Mary. They can expand upon our faith by further explaining the principles of the beliefs as they applies to modern life. But they can’t take back what scripture has already taught us, they can’t tell us the sacred traditions of the early church were in error.
H
holy_face
Guest
Therefore there is absolutely no hope for those who wish for the change of scared scripture and tradition. There will be no gay marriage, female priests, relaxation of abortion and contraception rules, acceptance of adultery or fornication, etc.
These things can not change and people don’t realize how set in stone these things are, they are used to everything being a democracy which the Church is not. There is no “living document” that can be amended to change. There can be new insights and revelations through time, but the core principles are eternal.
If for some reason the Pope declared infallibly that gay marriage was permissible it would be a clear sign that the Church was not legitimate and I would immediately start looking for a new denomination, probably Orthodox. I would have to due to the logic I just presented. The Church would have undermined its own authority and authenticity.
Something was infallible before but now it is not and the opposite is infallible, it is really an impossible argument.
These things can not change and people don’t realize how set in stone these things are, they are used to everything being a democracy which the Church is not. There is no “living document” that can be amended to change. There can be new insights and revelations through time, but the core principles are eternal.
If for some reason the Pope declared infallibly that gay marriage was permissible it would be a clear sign that the Church was not legitimate and I would immediately start looking for a new denomination, probably Orthodox. I would have to due to the logic I just presented. The Church would have undermined its own authority and authenticity.
Something was infallible before but now it is not and the opposite is infallible, it is really an impossible argument.
H
holy_face
Guest
I meant “sacred” scripture not “scared” scripture 
D
Dulcinea2721
Guest
I understand what you are saying. The Pope cannot slam down the gavel (so to speak) and declare infallibly that we are no longer bound by the 5th commandment…go and murder at will! for example.
Everything must be in keeping with what has already been taught/known infallibly. That is what the Holy Spirit ensures.
When you say…“if he were to do that…” the answer is…he wouldn’t because the Holy Spirit would not let it happen.
H
holy_face
Guest
Never underestimate the ability of humans to be treacherous or stupid, a Pope could try and get around the infallibility issue by simply not declaring the revised teaching as infallible. Most people are under the belief that whatever the Pope says is gospel so all he has to do is make little statements here and there and the masses will take it as truth, technically nothing has changed but millions will live as if they did.
That is the danger behind these unclear messages Pope Francis has been making, not that he is being treacherous, but whatever he says has a major impact. It is really important that everything he says publicly is very carefully scrutinized, it has the potential to do real damage and I believe it already has.
That is the danger behind these unclear messages Pope Francis has been making, not that he is being treacherous, but whatever he says has a major impact. It is really important that everything he says publicly is very carefully scrutinized, it has the potential to do real damage and I believe it already has.
O
Origen52
Guest
If you have no faith in the papacy and the bishops, why are you still a catholic? It may seem a rude question, but you portray no respect for the church hierarchy.
I hope this passage from the catholic answers site helps you understand the teachings of the church on this issue.
*This need to discern more clearly what is contained in the deposit of faith given to the Church by the apostles points us to the related subjects of infallibility and inspiration. The pope and the bishops (when teaching in union with him) have the charism of infallibility when defining matters of faith or morals; but infallibility works only negatively. Through the intervention of the Holy Spirit, the pope and bishops are prevented from teaching what is untrue, but they are not forced or told by the Holy Spirit to teach what is true. To put it another way, the pope and the bishops are not inspired the way the authors of Scripture or the prophets were. To make a new definition, to clear up some dogmatic confusion, they first have to use human reason, operating on what is known to date, to be able to teach more precisely what is to be held as true. They cannot teach what they do not know, and they learn things the same way we do. They have no access to prophetic shortcuts—they must delve by study into the riches of the words God has already given us.
*
You can read the whole explanation
catholic.com/tracts/can-dogma-develop
I leave you in the hands of the much more learned teachers at catholic answers. You don’t seem to understand, or refuse to accept what some in this thread have tried to explain about Catholicism. May I suggest that you clarify your ideas and ask one of the apologist to deal with your concerns. I still feel your stressing over things that might never happen. Peace.
H
holy_face
Guest
“The road to Hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lamp posts that light the path.” St. John Chrysostom
I have faith in the hierarchy to a limited extent, but they are humans who are sinners and prone to great error. Hasn’t history shown us that the Church is very capable of horrible things; from rogue Popes to bloody ways and inquisitions. In modern times the massive sex abuse of children that was brushed aside for decades.
If the Holy Spirit was always guiding the clergy’s actions these things would have never happened. Therefore we have to assume the Holy Spirit acts decisively only in certain circumstances.
Since we know that bad people can become priests, bishops, and popes, why would we give them our 100% trust?
They need to be held to the tradition and scripture of the Church which they themselves deemed infallible. They can not decided later that what was infallible in now not infallible and still retain any sort of credibility.
I have faith in the hierarchy to a limited extent, but they are humans who are sinners and prone to great error. Hasn’t history shown us that the Church is very capable of horrible things; from rogue Popes to bloody ways and inquisitions. In modern times the massive sex abuse of children that was brushed aside for decades.
If the Holy Spirit was always guiding the clergy’s actions these things would have never happened. Therefore we have to assume the Holy Spirit acts decisively only in certain circumstances.
Since we know that bad people can become priests, bishops, and popes, why would we give them our 100% trust?
They need to be held to the tradition and scripture of the Church which they themselves deemed infallible. They can not decided later that what was infallible in now not infallible and still retain any sort of credibility.
T
Tigg
Guest
Your quote from Catholic Answers above is exactly what the Church authentically teaches and one needs to pay close attention to this part: “Through the intervention of the Holy Spirit, the pope and bishops are prevented from teaching what is untrue, but they are not forced or told by the Holy Spirit to teach what is true.” I see no discrepancy in the posts of either holy face or myself that would be opposed to that quote. In order to follow our faith in truth, we need to study our faith and understand with our reason what the teachings are and assent to them. If we do that, we are given a supernatural gift called sensus fidelium so that we believe not in our own opinions, but are united in belief with the Magisterium (as an entire body united with the Pope.) A single bishop or even a small group of bishops can disconnect (for lack of a better word) themselves from the main body if they try to teach something not in accordance with the whole or different from what has consistently and unerringly been taught from the beginning.
Read this from Vatican II (emphasis mine):
H
holy_face
Guest
^^ this, yes
O
on_the_hill
Guest
I’m still going back to the point that the Italian notion of civil union refers to a civil marriage between one man and one woman, not necessarily gay marriage.
In my mind, it’s likely the Church *could *tolerate some civil marriages between one and one woman.
In my mind, it’s likely the Church *could *tolerate some civil marriages between one and one woman.
H
holy_face
Guest
In order to be considered married you have to go through the process of marriage, priests, vows, etc. I am not sure what they mean by tolerating a civil union between a man and a woman.
Do they mean civil union without being married by the Church, that would be called fornication.
Why not just have the marriage ceremony by the Church? What is the obstacle to this?
Sacred tradition and scripture as well as over 2,000 years of church teaching deals with marriage, there is nothing regarding civil unions.
It is possible that civil unions could be something that collapses the whole concept of marriage throughout society and could have a major negative effect. The Church should be concerned about that possibility and should tread very carefully here.
What happens when civil unions start to surpass marriages because they seem like a more attractive option for people to shack up.
Very dangerous stuff here.
Instead of making big announcements that they are going to study an issue like this, they should just study it without all of the fanfare. They get people’s expectations up and now people also start thinking it is OK because the Pope is seriously considering the matter, it is confusing for the faith in general.
Do they mean civil union without being married by the Church, that would be called fornication.
Why not just have the marriage ceremony by the Church? What is the obstacle to this?
Sacred tradition and scripture as well as over 2,000 years of church teaching deals with marriage, there is nothing regarding civil unions.
It is possible that civil unions could be something that collapses the whole concept of marriage throughout society and could have a major negative effect. The Church should be concerned about that possibility and should tread very carefully here.
What happens when civil unions start to surpass marriages because they seem like a more attractive option for people to shack up.
Very dangerous stuff here.
Instead of making big announcements that they are going to study an issue like this, they should just study it without all of the fanfare. They get people’s expectations up and now people also start thinking it is OK because the Pope is seriously considering the matter, it is confusing for the faith in general.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
What my question becomes then: Does the Church not currently recognize non-religious marriages in jurisdictions outside Italy? For example, if a man and woman in the U.S. have a judge preside over their marriage, doesn’t the American Church recognize them as married? I honestly don’t know.
I’d prefer a simple answer, rather than quotes from the CCC, if you please. I simply don’t have the wherewithal to read theological explanations.
H
holy_face
Guest
it has to be a Christian marriage to be considered legitimate, so a civil marriage only is not valid, they would need to follow up with a Christian ceremony
- Status