Romanus Pontifex

[bobzills]

You need to know why bobzills is on this crusade to prove the Church often changes its teachings-There are doctirnes he wants chaged and the best way to promote that is to tear down Church teachings. It appears he is very much in favor of female ordination, for instance. His tirade about the Church and Slavery was cut n pasted verbatim from womenpriests.org/teaching/slavery1.asp

In fact nearly EVERY Single post wherein he quotes Church Teachings ,in this and other threads. that have allegedly changed has been cut n pasted verbatim from this site.

For the record, I am opposed to women as priests, since I think it contradicts what St. Paul has written. However, I don’t think it would be a bad idea to allow priests to marry. A good wife and family would lend support to the many trials and tribulations of a priest. And single priests are facing more temptation than before. For example, at a local monastery there is a library, and the library has many recent video movies. I found out that some of the monks are watching video movies for relaxation.

 

[Scottgun]

Not true.
The Church has taught many things that are not infallible, but still are to be held by the faithful.

You are right on this point. Some things are to be obeyed by the faithful because of the Church’s authority rather than it’s infallibility. Or as Judge Mills Lane sometimes said:“I’m not final because I’m right. I’m right because I am final.”

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Some of you are squirming and trying to evade the following reality:

Church teaching on war and imprisonment is prudential. It is not infallible. Period.

Sorry, but that’s the way it is.

 

[bobzills]

Some of you are squirming and trying to evade the following reality:

Church teaching on war and imprisonment is prudential. It is not infallible. Period.

Sorry, but that’s the way it is.

I don;t think I evaded this. Please see post #18.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Seriously, Bob, you need to figure out what Catholics mean by Infallible Teaching (especially as opposed to Discipline–hint, anything having to do with law has to do with discipline first of all.)

I gave him a link to a nihil obstat webpage on infallibility. I was hoping that that might get read before any further comments were made on ‘changes’ in Church teaching.

After that, I was hoping that folks might apply the criteria for infallibility to the Church’s teaching on various forms of slavery. For, as others and myself have said before, slavery took different forms and the Church took different positions to the different forms.

Instead the boundaries are being blurred and that is not a good thing.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

bobzills:

I don;t think I evaded this. Please see post #18.

OK, let’s see:

bobzills:

Not true. The Church has taught many things that are not infallible, but still are to be held by the faithful.

And I have more than once now said that Church teaching on war and imprisonment are prudential. Not infallible.

Your response is an equivocation.

A prudential teaching may well be held by the faithful. But it is not obligatory – in the Church’s eyes – that the faithful hold to such a teaching.

In other words infallible teaching and prudential teaching are not equivalent. I have already explained this. There is no need to go round in circles. So let’s not.

I have given you a link to infallibility. I know it’s long. But you will need to understand it to comment further on ‘changes’ in Church teaching.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

You are right on this point. Some things are to be obeyed by the faithful because of the Church’s authority rather than it’s infallibility. Or as Judge Mills Lane sometimes said:“I’m not final because I’m right. I’m right because I am final.”

I am wondering if any of you have any support for your claims. In any case, Church teaching on war and on imprisonment are prudential. Folks may or may not obey them, depending on how Just War Doctrine and the Priniciple of Double Effect is applied.

 

[Scottgun]

I am wondering if any you have any support for your claims. In any case, Church teaching on war and on imprisonment are prudential. Folks may or may not obey them, depending on how Just War Doctrine and the Priniciple of Double Effect is applied.

Is it possible you think I am against you? Not at all. I’m ferin’, not agin’. I totally agree that war is a prudential judgement. I haven’t read much on imprisonment, but I’ll take your word for it.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Is it possible you think I am against you? Not at all. I’m ferin’, not agin’. I totally agree that war is a prudential judgement. I haven’t read much on imprisonment, but I’ll take your word for it.

OK. War and imprisonment are prudential. Yay! Progress.

:extrahappy:

 

[Ani_Ibi]

For the record, I am opposed to women as priests, since I think it contradicts what St. Paul has written. However, I don’t think it would be a bad idea to allow priests to marry…

bobzills: the topic of the thread is slavery and Romanus Pontifex.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

In fact nearly EVERY Single post wherein he quotes Church Teachings ,in this and other threads. that have allegedly changed has been cut n pasted verbatim from this site.

Yet he uses neither quote tags nor quotation marks.

bobzills, please cite your references in a recognizable fashion so that we can know when you are talking and when a writer from another website is talking. Thank you.

 

[estesbob]

bobzills: the topic of the thread is slavery and Romanus Pontifex.

I believe he was responding to me and my post where are pointed out the almost the sole source for what he posts here comes verbatim from womenspriest.org. They claim that Church changes it doctrines about every 2 weeks and thus its OK to change the doctrine of a male only Priesthood. Bobzill shares their attitude towards ongoing change but says he does not share their agenda,

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I believe he was responding to me and my post where are pointed out the almost the sole source for what he posts here comes verbatim from womenspriest.org. They claim that Church changes it doctrines about every 2 weeks and thus its OK to change the doctrine of a male only Priesthood. Bobzill shares their attitude towards ongoing change but says he does not share their agenda,

Whoops! My mistake. Sorry. :blushing:

 

[bobzills]

Whoops! My mistake. Sorry. :blushing:

No problem here on this score.
Hopefully, I will be able to contribute more later on the other things you brought up.
Thank you.

 

[dominikus28]

So this document doesn’t support any type of slavery? It does mention the enslavement of natives, but whatever it says, would it be acceptable today, or have times changed?

In the bible, there are slaves in the OT, would these types of slaves be acceptable today?

 

[YADA]

From the Letter of St. Paul to the Ephesians Chapter 6

Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ, 6 not only when being watched, as currying favor, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 willingly serving the Lord and not human beings, 8 knowing that each will be requited from the Lord for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free. 9 Masters, act in the same way toward them, and stop bullying, knowing that both they and you have a Master in heaven and that with him there is no partiality

So the church fought against slavery but not in the manner nor the in the time that we [the enlightened souls of the 21st century] would like? It is so easy to look back with the certitde of our own infallibility and judge the past…not against the fabric of their times but ours…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

dominikus28:

So this document doesn’t support any type of slavery?

Wow, dominikus! I posted info on the slavery of war, imprisonment and on indentured servants. For me to answer your question, why don’t you refer to the specific points which I made?

dominikus28:

It does mention the enslavement of natives, but whatever it says, would it be acceptable today, or have times changed?

Is there some aspect of prudential teaching you do not understand? For that matter is there some aspect of infallible teaching you do not understand? Moreover, are you having trouble with the difference between prudential and infallible teaching?

If there is anything you don’t understand as set out in these questions, then please let us know and we will explain further.

dominikus28:

In the bible, there are slaves in the OT, would these types of slaves be acceptable today?

First things first: let’s see if we have a common understanding of prudential and infallible teachings, OK?

 

[bobzills]

Moreover, are you having trouble with the difference between prudential and infallible teaching?

Yes.
For example, is the restriction against artificial birth control prudential or infallible ?
Or for another example, is it prudential or infallible to omit the filioque from the creed ?

 

[dominikus28]

I understand the difference between prudential and infallible teaching.

I just want a simple answer.

What category does the type of slavery mentioned in the OT fit in to? Is it acceptable or used today?

Prisoners of war are allowed, right? But that isn’t the same as slavery, they cannot be used for work, etc.

 

[NonDenom]

Genesis315;2483777]There’s a difference between chattel slavery (which has always been condemned as a sin) and other forms of involuntary servitude.

Sorry all but I nearly fell on the floor laughing at this post. Is this Bill Clinton? because it sure sounds like one of his answers. Tell any Black person that their relatives weren’t really slaves, they were just forced into “Involuntary Servitude”.