T
Tomdstone
Guest
Torture was allowed during the inquisition, but it is not allowed now.
Swiss Catholics call for same-sex partnerships, change in teaching on Communion [CWN]
- Status
B
Brendan_64
Guest
So the Church does not actually contain the fullness of truth then? Just most of it then, and she can learn a few more bits of truth from the outside world?
As regards our faith, all truth is learned through the Church. If this was not the case then the Church would not actually hold the fullness of truth.
J
JesusPeaceLove
Guest
That looks to me like definite change in practice or behaviour but not in teaching. Find me two contradictory magisterial teachings on torture. The church is not guranteed to be free from error in all she DOES, just all she proclaims to be the truth of God. The sale of indulgences was not a teaching of the church either.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Ad extirpanda allowed torture (under certain conditions), but a post-Vatican II papal statement forbids it as being inhumane.
T
TMC
Guest
There is a difference between the sufficiency of revelation, and the completeness of human understanding. The first may be complete, but the second is necessarily flawed.
J
JesusPeaceLove
Guest
Again, when you find two conflicting magisterial teachings, I will admit to “change”. finding contradictory statements of different church quarters on the same issue over the centeries does not count. Disagreements arise over all manner of things and the church settles it at some point one way or another, picking which of those views has been correct. Even among the fathers, torture was denounced, others had a different opinion. As far as I know there is no definitive church teaching on torture even today, defining its precise meaning and then absolutely prohibiting it in all circumstances. Not everything popes say is infallible. Some popes have been wrong about some things in history but what they have never done is bound the church to believe error is truth.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
What is the fullness of truth about torture? Is torture morally acceptable or not?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
- In the past you had to be subject to the Pope in order to be saved.
“Furthermore we declare, state and define that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff.”
POPE BONIFACE VIII Unam Sanctam (November 18, 1302 AD) - Presently it is taught that those who are not subject to the Pope, such as Jews, can be saved.
T
TMC
Guest
Good points, but I have given up on explaining what should be obvious. There is an old saying, “You can’t wake up someone who is only pretending to be asleep.” No amount of evidence or argument will change the mind of someone who is not really seeking for the truth. The Synod will do what it does and then we will see.
J
JesusPeaceLove
Guest
Insults are all you have left after facts and logic have failed, I see. I am guessing that the futile search for contradictory magisterial teachings have been predictably unsuccessful. Look, You are trying to do in a thread what protestants fundamentalists have tried to do for 150 years since Vatican I Council and failed, so I understand the frustration. However, for someone who dared preach on hubris, its quite interesting that you think the only reason anyone would reject your man-made ideas is “pretending” and being apparently uninterested in truth. If only insults could manufacture a contradictory magisterial teaching.
T
Tigg
Guest
To suggest that the Church may change her teaching because of insufficient understanding is what is flawed. The fuller vision in the development of doctrine can never repudiate what has always been taught and believed. It always proceeds along consistent lines, going in the same direction and may never abandon or make changes to doctrine as it has perennially stood. Regarding communion for the divorced/remarried it has been stated it does not meet the criteria for “development” of teaching as commonly accepted in the Church since the 5th century.
catholicworldreport.com/Item/3490/cardinal_newman_the_synod_and_the_kasper_proposal.aspx
J
JesusPeaceLove
Guest
Any statement taken out of context can be made to sound ludicrous. This is the whole document: ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/B7UNAM.HTM
Please note that the pope’s concern was the distinction of the secular power of kings from the spiritual authority of the church. The statement is for purposes of ensuring that even a King was subject to the same rules regarding the church as anyone else. It nowhere does away with the need for knowledge and consent that are required for anyone to sin, which were part of the chuch not only in Boniface VIII’s time but all the way to the early church. Everyone still has a duty to join the church and submit to the pope, but as in any other sin, guilt and culpability always depend on subjective factors of knowledge and consent.
J
JesusPeaceLove
Guest
I’m pretty sure you can tell in any situation whether or not infliction of pain on another is warranted. However, as soon as the church gives its definitive teaching, I shall inform you here if I can. Whatever it is, it will be correct. Fullness of truth ensures that the church has the means to a clear answer and infallibility ensures hen the declaration comes, it will be error-proof. I dont expect, though, that this is on her agenda anytime soon.
D
Dawnia
Guest
When was that actual teaching of the Church? Seems that this Bull was the only place that this idea was argued and this particular pope died less than a year later. His predicessor, Benedict XI, immediately undid the Bull, which was more about subjugating the French king more spreading the faith.
S
SonOfMan
Guest
As another person pointed out:
Infallible = things I agree with
Not infallible = things I dont like
D
Dawnia
Guest
Which does not answer my question.
How can it be Church teaching if no one teaches it?
S
SonOfMan
Guest
You will run into major problems with your arguments using this logic.Which does not answer my question.
If the Church stops teaching about abortion, then its no longer Church teaching to oppose or not engage in abortion, correct?
If Catholic lay people reject teachings and refuse to obey them, since no one is following them, how can it be Church teaching, correct?
B
Brendan_64
Guest
The fullness of truth is the fullness of truth. Truth cannot change, church teachings cannot be changed through ‘human understanding’. To do that is to put human understanding above divine revelation, to put man over God. It also assumes an ever increasing level of understanding by mankind, that we are more enlightened today than we were in the past, a Hegelian progression. We just need to look around at the sick state of our society to see that that isn’t the case.
D
Dawnia
Guest
Not really. Abortion is taught under the bigger teachings on murder. The details of how murder is performed can change, but the teaching on murder will not. Truth is not dependent on how many believe it. I can pull up document after document that supports and addresses the Churches teaching regarding abortion and murder. If a pope chooses to never say a single word about abortion, that doesn’t mean that the teaching no longer exists. That teaching will always be with us, regardless if anyone speaks another word about it.
In contrast, the Bull was repealed by Benedict VIII’s predecessor. It was not Church teaching prior and not Church teaching after. Not to mention that the Bull directly contradicts the teaching of Jesus regarding salvation. A single declaration by anyone (except Jesus) does not make it Church teaching. It actually has to be taught to be a teaching.
- Status