Teaching On Contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter expectthebest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

expectthebest

Guest
Is the current Catholic teaching on contraception considered any one of the following?

Dogmatic
Infallible
Doctine
 
expectthebest said:
If I read the article right, it says that it is not and infallible teaching. It mostly talks about why we must follow it anyway. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
This passage 🙂 :
Those who substantiate their denial of the documentary teaching by maintaining that it lacks infallibility, seem to forget that Catholic doctrine contains teaching which is. certain, outside that which has been the object of an infallible proposition. The recent Council proposed the doctrine of collegiality as a teaching which is certain and contained in Scripture, though it did not propose it as a defined doctrine to be believed as a truth of divine faith. Undoubtedly, it is an infallible doctrine, but it has never been defined, since the Council refrained from promulgating new dogmas of faith. Who would deny that, in unfolding this doctrine, the Council received Divine assistance?
Click to expand...
 
Also, something can be infallibly taught via the concept of the Ordinary Magisterium—which means the Church has consistently taught it over the years. To these teachings we are to give our religious assent. There is really no sober reason to think the Church would or could ever change teaching on artificial contraception. Time and again, popes and bishops have used vehement language against artificial contraception. If our trust is in the Holy Spirit, then we must assent to the Spirit’s teaching through the Church.
 
expectthebest said:
Is the current Catholic teaching on contraception considered any one of the following?

Dogmatic
Infallible
Doctine
Click to expand...
The teaching against contraception is an infallible doctrine. Not only is it part of the teaching of the ordinary magesterium, but in my view Humanae Vitae appears to have every element necessary for it to have been infallibly defined in an ex cathedra statement were it not for the fact that it already was infallibly taught.
 
Let me guess, you believe the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus, but REALLY disagree with the Church’s teaching on contraceptives? The big three that are a stumbling block to most people are chastity, contraceptives, and abortion.

Remember my friend, there will be teachings that we disagree with but have to realize that we don’t know everything nor are we right about everything, and Jesus left His Church here to help guide us correctly. We need to learn to have humility and accept teachings that are hard for us. For myself it was the death penalty, but I realized that I needed to jump in with both feet and accept that I was wrong, and to accept the Church’s position and hope to learn WHY the Church teaches what She does. Slowly I have come around to understand better.

I made some assumptions with this post, and if I assumed wrongly I apologize in advance.
 
So what is considered ‘ex cathedra’ and what isn’t?
 
Serafina17 said:
So what is considered ‘ex cathedra’ and what isn’t?
Click to expand...
This is the definition from Vatican I:*[W]e teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.*Let me just warn you that there are some contra-Catholic apologists out there who try to pit Catholic apologists against each other if they happen to disagree whether or not a certain dogma has been pronounced ex cathedra. It should be noted that in all the cases I’ve seen where this happened, even the Catholic who didn’t think the doctrine in question was pronounced ex cathedra believed the doctrine was still pronounced with the utmost authority (or perhaps pronounced infallibly via the Ordinary Magisterium).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top