Teaching infallible?

[larry85704]

What would you all go if your sheep fell in a hole on the Sabbath? Do you not realize that Jesus was advocating breaking a Jewish law? I guess Jesus’s position was widely accepted. Everybody that had sheep would rescue them on the Sabbath. Yet the Church of the time, the Church Jesus belonged to, said it was wrong.

I suppose Jesus was Jesus and He didn’t have to follow the rules. After all, He didn’t respect death, but He did respect taxes. My little pea brain sure doesn’t understand this one, not at all.

 

[fix]

What would you all go if your sheep fell in a hole on the Sabbath? Do you not realize that Jesus was advocating breaking a Jewish law? I guess Jesus’s position was widely accepted. Everybody that had sheep would rescue them on the Sabbath. Yet the Church of the time, the Church Jesus belonged to, said it was wrong.

I suppose Jesus was Jesus and He didn’t have to follow the rules. After all, He didn’t respect death, but He did respect taxes. My little pea brain sure doesn’t understand this one, not at all.

For one thing certain actions are intrinsically evil and may never be done. Contraception is one such act. Working on Sunday is not intrinsically wrong.

 

[Convert_in_99]

I don’t know about infallible…but, if it hasn’t changed in 2,000 years, it isn’t going to change now.

 

[larry85704]

Hi fix

I guess I see your point.

Can you acknowledge that Jesus picked on the teachings of His Church? As I recall, in the teaching about the sheep He didn’t say the teaching of not working on the Sabbath was wrong, did He?

But then, I don’t think Jesus ever actually rescued a sheep on the Sabbath. As I recall, the pharisees were upset because Jesus did a miracle on the Sabbath.

Is Jesus saying that common sense is more important than the teachings of the Church?

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Hi fix

I guess I see your point.

Can you acknowledge that Jesus picked on the teachings of His Church? As I recall, in the teaching about the sheep He didn’t say the teaching of not working on the Sabbath was wrong, did He?

But then, I don’t think Jesus ever actually rescued a sheep on the Sabbath. As I recall, the pharisees were upset because Jesus did a miracle on the Sabbath.

Is Jesus saying that common sense is more important than the teachings of the Church?

Equating Jewish religious laws with Catholic Church laws is in error. The Jewish laws were created before Christ sent the Holy Spirit to the REAL Church. The Jewish religion was the best there was at that time, but the REAL Church, that which Christ established, had not yet been created. The Jewish ‘Church’ (strange term) was not “His Church” If it was, they would not have condemned Him.

Jesus was saying that many Jewish laws at the time were only nothing more than “common sense.”

Dan

 

[MilesXpisti]

I don’t know about infallible…but, if it hasn’t changed in 2,000 years, it isn’t going to change now.

If it hasn’t changed in 2,000 years, then it is by definition infallible by virtue of ordinary Magisterium.

 

[Janet_S]

For one thing certain actions are intrinsically evil and may never be done. Contraception is one such act. Working on Sunday is not intrinsically wrong.

If something is intrinsically evil, that can never change. For those having a difficult time with the Church’s teaching, please study and pray about it. It makes a lot of sense once you understand it.

This is about intrinsically evil acts from Veritatis Splendor:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope Paul VI teaches: “Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf. Rom 3:8) — in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general”.

1. In teaching the existence of intrinsically evil acts, the Church accepts the teaching of Sacred Scripture. The Apostle Paul emphatically states: “Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9-10).

If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain “irremediably” evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person. “As for acts which are themselves sins (cum iam opera ipsa peccata sunt), Saint Augustine writes, like theft, fornication, blasphemy, who would dare affirm that, by doing them for good motives (causis bonis), they would no longer be sins, or, what is even more absurd, that they would be sins that are justified?”.134

Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice.

1. Furthermore, an intention is good when it has as its aim the true good of the person in view of his ultimate end. But acts whose object is “not capable of being ordered” to God and “unworthy of the human person” are always and in every case in conflict with that good. Consequently, respect for norms which prohibit such acts and oblige semper et pro semper, that is, without any exception, not only does not inhibit a good intention, but actually represents its basic expression.

 

[jmcrae]

What would you all go if your sheep fell in a hole on the Sabbath?

What “sheep” is “falling into a hole” that could be rescued through the use of contra (against) ception (beginning).

Contraception interferes with the healthy human body by causing it to become infertile. (If something did that to people at random, we would call it a “disease” and we would spare no effort in curing it.) It also attacks the newly formed human being and kills her before her mother can become aware of her existence.

When Jesus “broke the rules” He did so in favour of life - not against it. He did not commit euthanasia (“mercy killing”) on the Sabbath; rather, He healed the sick and made them well. He did not poke people’s eyes out on the Sabbath; rather, He made the blind to see. Nor did He advocate any form of contraception; rather, He raised up sons and daughters to their parents from the dead.

 

[BillP]

Well, John XXIII must have thought it was changeable or he wouldn’t have empanelled the Papal Commisson on Birth Control. And Paul VI certainly must have thought it was changeable, or he wouldn’t have confirmed and enlarged the Commission as he described in H.V.

And the 30 of 35 members of the Commision thought it was changeable or they wouldn’t have voted to change it.

Additionally, at the Vatican Press Conference for Humanae Vitae the presenting Mgr. said " The decision has been given", said Mons. Lambruschini, “and it is not infallible.” ewtn.com/library/Theology/PRSSCNHV.HTM

These facts dispose of the notion that the teaching against ABC was infallibly defined in HV.

As to the “infallibility by Ordinary Magisterium” argument, that requires a degree of consensus aong the Church that is clearly lacking when 80% of Catholic couples are contracepting.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In a recent RCIA session in my local parish, one of the candidates asked the priest about the church’s teaching on contraception. I don’t think he really wanted to talk about it and only replied that it is not an infallible teaching. He did not attempt to explain the “why” of this church teaching either. We were all left with the impression that since it is not an infallible teaching, then we were all free to decide for ourselves.
I am confused because I thought this was an infallible teaching. Which is it?

VADEMECUM FOR CONFESSORS CONCERNING SOME ASPECTS
OF THE MORALITY OF CONJUGAL LIFE

“We know well all the richness that has been offered to the Christian community by the Encyclical Humanae Vitae, illuminated then by the Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, and by the Apostolic Exhortations, Familiaris Consortio and Reconciliatio et Paenitentia. We also know how the Catechism of the Catholic Church has provided an effective and synthetic summary of the Church’s doctrine on these subjects.”

We are happy to put this document in the hands of priests, a document that has been prepared at the request of the Holy Father with the aid of the competent collaboration of professors of theology as well as some pastors.

1. **The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable.**Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.33
2. However, profoundly different from any contraceptive practice is the behaviour of married couples, who, always remaining fundamentally open to the gift of life, live their intimacy only in the unfruitful periods, when they are led to this course by serious motives of responsible parenthood. This is true both from the anthropological and moral points of view, because it is rooted in a different conception of the person and of sexuality.35

Vatican City*, February 12, 1997.*

Alfonso Card. López Trujillo
President of the Pontifical Council
for the Family

+ Francisco Gil Hellín
Secretary

 

[fix]

Well, John XXIII must have thought it was changeable or he wouldn’t have empanelled the Papal Commisson on Birth Control. And Paul VI certainly must have thought it was changeable, or he wouldn’t have confirmed and enlarged the Commission as he described in H.V.

And the 30 of 35 members of the Commision thought it was changeable or they wouldn’t have voted to change it.

Additionally, at the Vatican Press Conference for Humanae Vitae the presenting Mgr. said " The decision has been given", said Mons. Lambruschini, “and it is not infallible.” ewtn.com/library/Theology/PRSSCNHV.HTM

These facts dispose of the notion that the teaching against ABC was infallibly defined in HV.

As to the “infallibility by Ordinary Magisterium” argument, that requires a degree of consensus aong the Church that is clearly lacking when 80% of Catholic couples are contracepting.

Archbishop Vincenzo Fagiolo, President of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts disagrees it seems.

And as for a consensus:

Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B.:

Moreover, when speaking of the need to verify the actual consent of all the Bishops dispersed throughout the world or even of the whole Christian people in matters of faith and morals, it should not be forgotten that this consent cannot be understood only <synchronically,> but also . This means that a morally consent embraces every era of the Church, and only if this totality is heard does one remain faithful to the Apostles. “If in some quarter”, the wise Cardinal Ratzinger observes, “a majority were to be formed in opposition to the faith of the Church in other times, it would not be a majority at all”.2

It is also worth noting that the agreement of the universal Episcopate in communion with the Successor of Peter about the doctrinal and binding character of an assertion or an ecclesial practice in ages past is not annulled or diminished by dissent that may occur in a later era.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Contraception is “intrinsically evil” according to the Catechism.

The Church’s teaching on this subject is “definitive and irreformable” according to the Vademecum for Confessors.

Any questions? :tiphat:

 

[BillP]

Archbishop Vincenzo Fagiolo, President of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts disagrees it seems.

And as for a consensus:

Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B.:

Exactly my point! Thansk for the other references. Appreciable dissent, either synchronically, or diachronically, precludes the “universality” required for the Ordinary Magisterium to be infallible.

 

[BillP]

Contraception is “intrinsically evil” according to the Catechism.

The Church’s teaching on this subject is “definitive and irreformable” according to the Vademecum for Confessors.

Any questions? :tiphat:

What is your point? The Vademeceum is simply a guideline for pastoral care,

This vademecum consists of a set of propositions which confessors are to keep in mind while administering the sacrament of Reconciliation, in order to better help married couples to live their vocation to fatherhood or motherhood in a Christian way, within their own personal and social circumstances.

not the final arbiter of what is and isn’t itself infallible… or are you asserting otherwise?

 

[fix]

Exactly my point! Thansk for the other references. Appreciable dissent, either synchronically, or diachronically, precludes the “universality” required for the Ordinary Magisterium to be infallible.

Huh? The Pope has spoken. It is always evil. It does not matter how many, bishop or not, rebel.

Again, the Church has always condemned contraception in every age. If many refuse to submit today it does not change what is true.

 

[BillP]

Huh? The Pope has spoken. It is always evil. It does not matter how many, bishop or not, rebel.

Paul VI had the opportunity to declare the teaching infallibly and chose not to do so. John Paul II had 25 years to do so and he didn’t. The “papal infallibility” dog don’t hunt.

Again, the Church has always condemned contraception in every age. If many refuse to submit today it does not change what is true.

I submit that a large part of the Church disagrees NOW, which is certainly part of “every age” So I find your assertion incompatible with the facts as I know them.

The question is NOT whether ABC is evil, nor is it whether the teaching against ABC is correct, the question is whether or not the teachign is infallible and it clearly is not.

 

[jmcrae]

Paul VI had the opportunity to declare the teaching infallibly and chose not to do so. John Paul II had 25 years to do so and he didn’t. The “papal infallibility” dog don’t hunt.

It doesn’t matter whether it is “infallible” or not. (“Thou shalt not kill” has also never been infallibly defined, using your definition, after all.)

What matters is that it is currently the law of the Church. To disobey the Church is to disobey Christ - a mortal sin when dealing with grave matter - and all life-and-death situations are grave matter, of course - I hope that’s self-evident.

We are not bound to obey yesterday’s Church laws, and equally, we are not bound to obey tomorrow’s Church laws - we are bound to obey today’s Church laws. Here on the ground, where the rubber meets the road, it doesn’t matter whether they are infallible, ordinary, or disciplinary - every kind of law is equally binding on all to whom they pertain, according to their state of life.

I submit that a large part of the Church disagrees NOW, which is certainly part of “every age” So I find your assertion incompatible with the facts as I know them.

Your 80% is not even 80% of Catholics alive today, let alone 80% of all Catholics who have ever lived. I suspect that your 80% is 80% of English-speaking Catholics living in North America, who constitute about 2% of the current world-wide total number of Catholics alive right now, who in turn are only one of 99 generations that have lived since the time of Christ, or just over 1% of all Catholics who have ever lived, which is .02111% of the “sensus fidelium” of the Church.

Not exactly a “majority,” by a long shot.

 

[BillP]

It doesn’t matter whether it is “infallible” or not. (“Thou shalt not kill” has also never been infallibly defined, using your definition, after all.)

Of COURSE it does! See the title of the thread!

 

[BillP]

It doesn’t matter whether it is “infallible” or not. (“Thou shalt not kill” has also never been infallibly defined, using your definition, after all.)

What matters is that it is currently the law of the Church. To disobey the Church is to disobey Christ - a mortal sin when dealing with grave matter - and all life-and-death situations are grave matter, of course - I hope that’s self-evident.

We are not bound to obey yesterday’s Church laws, and equally, we are not bound to obey tomorrow’s Church laws - we are bound to obey today’s Church laws. Here on the ground, where the rubber meets the road, it doesn’t matter whether they are infallible, ordinary, or disciplinary - every kind of law is equally binding on all to whom they pertain, according to their state of life.

Your 80% is not even 80% of Catholics alive today, let alone 80% of all Catholics who have ever lived. I suspect that your 80% is 80% of English-speaking Catholics living in North America, who constitute about 2% of the current world-wide total number of Catholics alive right now, who in turn are only one of 99 generations that have lived since the time of Christ, or just over 1% of all Catholics who have ever lived, which is .02111% of the “sensus fidelium” of the Church.

Not exactly a “majority,” by a long shot.

You argument about Catholics who lived in eras before the advent of modern ABC methods is specious and doesn’t merit serious response unless you’re claiming some special insight into what those people would have done in today’s world.

As far as your “statistical” assertions about the number of currently living Catholics in agreement with the Church, well, that’s wrong too.

catholicsforchoice.org/topics/reform/documents/2004worldview.pdf

 

[jmcrae]

You argument about Catholics who lived in eras before the advent of modern ABC methods is specious and doesn’t merit serious response unless you’re claiming some special insight into what those people would have done in today’s world.

When was “before modern ABC”? There have always been medicines that cause women to become temporarily infertile - they are as old as the profession of prostitution and the sins of fornication and adultery.

The Didache (which some scholars place as early as 50 AD, and certainly it is no later than 150 AD) forbids abortion, child exposure, and the use of pharmecuticals for the prevention of conception.