G
Genesis315
Guest
I believe the Church has not taught error. Some believe she has. What’s the truth?
- Status
R
RSiscoe
Guest
You have to distinguish between what the Church has taught as dogma, and what churchmen (including bishops) sometimes teach.
The dogmatic teachings of the Church have been revealed by God. Since God cannot err, those teachings are without error. The dogmatic teaching are found in the Councils and ex-cathedra statements of the Popes. We must hold fast to these dogmas of our faith.
On the other hand it sometimes happens (often today), that Priests and Bishops teaching things that are contrary to what the Church actually teaches.
But I agree with you, officially the Church has never, and will never, teach error. All of the doctrines that have been defined by the Church, were protected by infallibility.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Right. I think most people get confused about infallibility. Individual Catholics have taught error, but the Magesterium has not.
T
Thal59
Guest
The church will never teach, officially, a truth to be a lie or a lie to be the truth.
If you suspect the church has failed to hold to that precept, you will need to be specific.
Thal59
If you suspect the church has failed to hold to that precept, you will need to be specific.
Thal59
G
Genesis315
Guest
Actually, this thread was started in response to another thread (on a different topic) where someone claimed the Church has taught error, therefore she can teach error. I think she signed off. Hopefully she’ll be back later. I, of course, agree with you.
M
MrS
Guest
Pilate asked the same question. He did not recognize that Truth was standing right in front of him. He did not “see” because he was still looking for material evidence, much like Thomas.
Fr John Corapi: " Truth is not something, it is Somebody, and His Name is Jesus Christ"
S
SWTHRT
Guest
Yes, I believe that the Church can never teach error. However, individuals in the church ( laymen and clergy) are capable of teaching THEIR personal beliefs rather than the true Church doctrine.
Karen
Karen
H
Hildebrand
Guest
This did it for me:
The article is quoted as saying the Spanish Inquisition killed 300,000 by burning them at the stake. PLLLLEASE!
The number of those killed in the Spanish Inquisition is extimated at most around 6,000 over several hundred years. By exaggerating the scale of the Spanish Inquisition by a factor of at least 50, you begin to wonder if there are any more distortions.
If you believe there are demons and a Devil and the Catholic Church is the true Chruch, you would conclude that their greatest attacks would be on the popes, bishops, and priests. At least that is what I would do if I were them. And I would not assume Satan is a complete idiot.
The article is quoted as saying the Spanish Inquisition killed 300,000 by burning them at the stake. PLLLLEASE!
The number of those killed in the Spanish Inquisition is extimated at most around 6,000 over several hundred years. By exaggerating the scale of the Spanish Inquisition by a factor of at least 50, you begin to wonder if there are any more distortions.
If you believe there are demons and a Devil and the Catholic Church is the true Chruch, you would conclude that their greatest attacks would be on the popes, bishops, and priests. At least that is what I would do if I were them. And I would not assume Satan is a complete idiot.
L
LittleLes
Guest
Catholic Encyclopedia, Ethical Aspects of Slavery, Nihil obstat and
Imprimatur, 1912 (on-line):
From the beginning the Christian moralist did not condemn slavery as “in se” or essentially against the natural law or natural justice. The fact that slavery, tempered with many humane restrictions, was premitted under the Mosaic law, would have sufficed to prevent the institution from being condemned by Christian teachers as absolutely immoral."
Leviticus 25, 1, 44-46: "The Lord said to Moses on Mt. Sinai…“Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neignboring nations. You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves YOU MAY OWN AS CHATTELS, and leave them to your sons as their hereditary property MAKING THEM PERPETUAL SLAVES.”
Instruction of the Holy Ovffice, June 1866, “It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be SOLD, BOUGHT, EXCHANGED, OR GIVEN.”
Note: The 1866 Instruction of the Holy Office summarized the constant teaching of the Church on the moral licitness of slavery up until that time.
To be continued…:yup:
LittleLes
Imprimatur, 1912 (on-line):
From the beginning the Christian moralist did not condemn slavery as “in se” or essentially against the natural law or natural justice. The fact that slavery, tempered with many humane restrictions, was premitted under the Mosaic law, would have sufficed to prevent the institution from being condemned by Christian teachers as absolutely immoral."
Leviticus 25, 1, 44-46: "The Lord said to Moses on Mt. Sinai…“Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neignboring nations. You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves YOU MAY OWN AS CHATTELS, and leave them to your sons as their hereditary property MAKING THEM PERPETUAL SLAVES.”
Instruction of the Holy Ovffice, June 1866, “It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be SOLD, BOUGHT, EXCHANGED, OR GIVEN.”
Note: The 1866 Instruction of the Holy Office summarized the constant teaching of the Church on the moral licitness of slavery up until that time.
To be continued…:yup:
LittleLes
L
LittleLes
Guest
Note: The Church’s teaching was that the institution of slavery is not contrary to scripture of the natural law.
Instruction of the Holy Office, June 1866 “It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged, or given.”
But now, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches in #2414:
“The seventh commandments forbids acts or enterprises that…lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold, and exchanged like merchandisement in disregard for their personal dignity.”
“Veritatis Splendor” #80 "…the Church teaches that “there exists acts “per se” and in themselves, independently of the circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their objects.” Gaudium et Specs is then cited as including slavery as such an act.
Summary: The Catholic Church’s former teaching on the divine and natural law approval of the moral licitness of slavery, which was a constant teaching until quite recently, has been changed.
LittleLes
Question: Genesis, do you want other examples of errors in Church teachings?
Instruction of the Holy Office, June 1866 “It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged, or given.”
But now, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches in #2414:
“The seventh commandments forbids acts or enterprises that…lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold, and exchanged like merchandisement in disregard for their personal dignity.”
“Veritatis Splendor” #80 "…the Church teaches that “there exists acts “per se” and in themselves, independently of the circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their objects.” Gaudium et Specs is then cited as including slavery as such an act.
Summary: The Catholic Church’s former teaching on the divine and natural law approval of the moral licitness of slavery, which was a constant teaching until quite recently, has been changed.
LittleLes
Question: Genesis, do you want other examples of errors in Church teachings?
B
BibleReader
Guest
How infallibility plays-out in reality is not necessarily as “clean” and as “clear” as we would want it to be.
There is an assertion up above that “The dogmatic teaching are found in the Councils and ex-cathedra statements of the Popes.” That’s nice. Isn’t that nice?
My point is that even this process is fouled-up, in practice, sometimes. When, before the Great Schism, a Council of Eastern bishops sent a long list of dogmatic decrees to the Pope for his signature, he declined to sign off on the decrees, finding many of them improper. A subsequent pope, afraid of offending the Eastern Church and the ever-present threat of schism, approved “all that was not incorrect” in the same list of decrees, or words to that effect – i.e., his signing off was perfectly ambiguous and uninformative.
When a Church Council ended the confusing “era of three popes” by convincing all of the three contenders to resign and then electing a new pope, the new pope promptly condemned the decree of the Council electing him which maintained that its will was superior to the popes deposed by the Council and replaced with the one pope. Thus, correctly, Counciliarism – the doctrine that a council’s decree is superior to that of the Chair of Peter – was properly struck down.
But, even Petrine Primacy was rendered confusing when one of the early popes hedged on the issue of the impropriety of the great Arian Heresy, leaving Bishop Athanasius “out there,” all alone, among all of the bishops of the Church, so that he was the only one denouncing Arianism, even in the face of Papal semi-approval of Arianism – and then the same pope reversed himself and condemned and abandoned his own prior position!
So, there is the reliability of infallility, on the one hand.
And then there is how wily, energetic human weakness and imperfection makes infallibility “hard to see,” on the other.
G
Genesis315
Guest
."
“Veritatis Splendor” #80 "…the Church teaches that “there exists acts “per se” and in themselves, independently of the circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their objects.” Gaudium et Specs is then cited as including slavery as such an act.
Slavery, in theory, is not intrinsically evil. It is evil when it is done in disregard of human dignity. Modern racial slavery was one form that was done in such a way.
As used here, “slavery” is the condition of involuntary servitude in which a human being is regarded as no more than the property of another, as being without basic human rights; in other words, as a thing rather than a person. Under this definition, slavery is intrinsically evil, since no person may legitimately be regarded or treated as a mere thing or object. This form of slavery can be called “chattel slavery.”
However, there are circumstances in which a person can justly be compelled to servitude against his will. Prisoners of war or criminals, for example, can justly lose their circumstantial freedom and be forced into servitude, within certain limits. Moreover, people can also “sell” their labor for a period of time or (indentured servitude).
(Strangely enough, this is exactly how Major League Baseball worked until 1972, with players in lifetime contracts being bought, sold, exchanged and given, and no one declared that intrinsically evil, not even Vatican II. )
Again, as above, there are “just titles of slavery” where these things are not contrary to divine law (indentured servitude, prison labor, etc).
On the other hand, the Catholic Church unhesitatingly condemned racial chattel slavery as soon as it began. In 1435, Pope Eugene IV condemned the enslavement of the black natives of the Canary Islands, and ordered their European masters to manumit the enslaved within 15 days, under pain of excommunication. In 1537, Pope Paul III condemned the enslavement of West Indian and South American natives, and explicitly attributed that evil, “unheard of before now,” to “the enemy of the human race,” Satan.
Papal condemnations of slavery were repeated by Popes Gregory XIV (1591), Urban VIII (1639), Innocent XI (1686), Benedict XIV (1741), and Piux VII (1815). In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI wrote,
Pope Leo XIII (1890), too, condemned slavery, and so did the Second Vatican Council (1965).
Even where slavery was not altogether repudiated, slaves and free men had equal access to the sacraments, and many clerics were from slave backgrounds, including two popes (Pius I and Callistus). This implies a fundamental equality incompatible with chattel slavery.
G
Genesis315
Guest
We can see that the approved Biblical slavery is not chattel slavery:
Paul told masters to treat their slaves justly and kindly (Eph 6:9; Col 4:1), implying that slaves are not mere property for masters to do with as they please.
Paul implied that the brotherhood shared by Christians is ultimately incompatible with chattel slavery. In the case of the runaway slave Onesimus, Paul wrote to Philemon, the slave’s master, instructing him to receive Onesimus back “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother” (Philem. 6). With respect to salvation in Christ, Paul insisted that “there is neither slave nor free . . . you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:27-28).
The Christian principles of charity (“love your neighbor as yourself) and the Golden Rule (“Do unto others as you would have them to do unto you”) espoused by the New Testament writers are ultimately incompatible with chattel slavery.
Finally, the Hebrews were held in chattel slavery and they were freed by God.
The Levitical quote you gave in my translation (DR) says this:
Paul told masters to treat their slaves justly and kindly (Eph 6:9; Col 4:1), implying that slaves are not mere property for masters to do with as they please.
Paul implied that the brotherhood shared by Christians is ultimately incompatible with chattel slavery. In the case of the runaway slave Onesimus, Paul wrote to Philemon, the slave’s master, instructing him to receive Onesimus back “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a brother” (Philem. 6). With respect to salvation in Christ, Paul insisted that “there is neither slave nor free . . . you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:27-28).
The Christian principles of charity (“love your neighbor as yourself) and the Golden Rule (“Do unto others as you would have them to do unto you”) espoused by the New Testament writers are ultimately incompatible with chattel slavery.
Finally, the Hebrews were held in chattel slavery and they were freed by God.
The Levitical quote you gave in my translation (DR) says this:
Again, servitude in theory, while treating the person humanely without making the person a thing is not intrinsically wrong. Slavery, as practiced in the second half of the last millennium, was intrinsically wrong.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Sure, should we go usuary? That’s my favorite.Question: Genesis, do you want other examples of errors in Church teachings?
D
didymus
Guest
I was going to ask this question on another thread (why do disobedient Catholics stay in the churhc?) but here seems more appropriate: just what are we* required *to believe? I mean, some things like creationism vs. evolution we are free to make up our minds (as I understand it) but what things have been settled ex cathedra and aren’t arguable? I assume the Apostle’s Creed is a good place to start
L
LittleLes
Guest
Sorry Genesis,
Slavery is intrinsically evil, or incapable of being ordered. Reread Veritatis splendor and Guadium and Spes.
And reread Lev 25, the alleged Word of God which just like the Commandments was given to Moses on Mt Sinai. Or so the story goes. It is one of the alleged scriptural bases for the approval of what it specifically calls “chattel” slavery or “perpetual slavery.” Ths means that all of the future offspring of the slaves are also slaves.
This was the type of slavery practiced in the American South before the Civil War. Are you aware of any southern bishop or the Pope writing against this practice of chattel slavery in the American South?
Of course not. It was consistent with Church teachings.
And I really don’t think that baseball player’s contracts mandate that their offspring must play baseball for the team too. Moreover, a contracted baseball player can quit.
This is one example of a Church teaching that was in error.
LittleLes
Slavery is intrinsically evil, or incapable of being ordered. Reread Veritatis splendor and Guadium and Spes.
And reread Lev 25, the alleged Word of God which just like the Commandments was given to Moses on Mt Sinai. Or so the story goes. It is one of the alleged scriptural bases for the approval of what it specifically calls “chattel” slavery or “perpetual slavery.” Ths means that all of the future offspring of the slaves are also slaves.
This was the type of slavery practiced in the American South before the Civil War. Are you aware of any southern bishop or the Pope writing against this practice of chattel slavery in the American South?
Of course not. It was consistent with Church teachings.And I really don’t think that baseball player’s contracts mandate that their offspring must play baseball for the team too. Moreover, a contracted baseball player can quit.
This is one example of a Church teaching that was in error.
LittleLes
L
LittleLes
Guest
Lets go on to another teaching of the Catholic Church that was in error. This is a teaching of an ecumenical Council and thus is suppose to be infallible.
First Vatican Council, Session 3, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 2 On Revelation, Section 8:
"We renew that decree (Trent’s) and declare its meaning to be as follows: that
Slavery is now a sin against the seventh commandment (CCC2414) and intrincisally disordered (“incapable of being ordered per se”).
Shall we give other examples of errors in the Church’s interpretation of scripture?
LittleLes
First Vatican Council, Session 3, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 2 On Revelation, Section 8:
"We renew that decree (Trent’s) and declare its meaning to be as follows: that
- In matters of faith and morals,
- Belonging as they do to the establishing of Christian Doctrine,
- That meaning of Holy Scripture MUST BE HELD to be the true one,
- Which Holy Mother Church held and holds,
Since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture.
Slavery is now a sin against the seventh commandment (CCC2414) and intrincisally disordered (“incapable of being ordered per se”).
Shall we give other examples of errors in the Church’s interpretation of scripture?
LittleLes
G
Genesis315
Guest
First off, I doubt you can find a document which saves the idea that slavery is ok “must be held by all the faithful” or that anyone who disagrees “let him be anathema.”
These above documents are talking about chattel slavery. When people use the word “slavery” nowadays, it means chattel slavery, the slavery that denies the personhood of individuals. See my above post where all those popes spoke out against the same thing. Likewise, denying human personhood to individuals has always been condemned. It has always been taught that all human beings have been created in the image of God.
It’s what slave owners and proponents of slavery used to justify their position, not the Church. Luckily, we have a guide, the Church, to help us understand Scripture (my translation doesn’t use “chattel”). People today use Scripture to say homosexuality is ok. Does that make it ok? Nope. Jesus came and fulfilled the old law. We have to look at OT rules in light of the NT and the Church. Notice also, that the Jews were always given special privileges over other groups (in wars especially). They were charged with putting to death sinners as well. Jesus changed all that, including His acceptance of non-Jews as well.
Popes did, and they have more authority than individual bishops. An individual bishop (cardinal Law) did not speak out against child molestation, in fact he enabled it. Does that mean child molestation is consistent with Church teaching? Of course not. Many bishops kept their mouth’s shut during the holocaust. Does that make it consistent with Church teachings? Nope.
Nowhere in Pius IX document (which is not an infallible ex cathedra statement anyway) does it talk about offspring or not being able to quit. He speaks only of the most basic form of slavery. Indentured servitude was voluntary and would fit under a just title. Likewise, prison labor had nothing to do with offspring.
G
Genesis315
Guest
We’ve demonstrated no such thing.
The word “slavery” as it is used today means chattel slavery, depriving someone of their humanity.
L
LittleLes
Guest
Really? Is there any document saying that the Ten Commandments are infallible?
But in your claim of the noninfallible nature of the teaching on slavery, you are restricting such teachings to only extraordinary magisterial infallibility, those teaching that have been formally defined by the Pope and bishops.
Much more common is the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium, moral teachings that have been held at all times and in all places. Such as the Ten Commandments. Up until quite recently, slavery fulfilled this requirement.
But, moreover, you are now attempting to argue that the teaching on slavery wasn’t infallible, but you are avoiding the central point, that a Church teaching was in error and has changed.
And please provide citations in which a pope prior to John Paul II condemned slavery itself as immoral. Don’t confuse such with papal teaching after 1450 condemning the slave trade but not slavery itself.
And neither prisoners nor indentured servents were chattel slaves whose offspring were perpetual slaves. Some difference.
LittleLes
- Status