The Church has taught error?

[LittleLes]

itsjustdave1988:

This is still the theology of Catholicism.

According to the pope who convened Vatican II, and also the episcopacy present at Vatican II, and the teaching of the living magisterium after Vatican II, the council taught in accord with past Catholic doctrines. Vatican II was pastoral, in that it presented historical doctrines of Catholicism in a manner relevant and expedient to contemporary society, but remained in continuity with those doctrines.

The issue is comparative to “just capital punishment”’ There is such a thing as “just capital punishment” according to Catholic theology, just as certainly in today’s Catholicism as in past Catholicism. What changed is the pastoral approach, not Catholic doctrine, regarding capital punishment. The licit existence of “just slavery” too is still maintained by Catholic doctrine, though in pastoral practice it is opposed because of the risk to abuse.

Thus, both “just capital punishment” and “just slavery” can exist according to Catholic doctrine, but like just capital punishment, just-title servitude, though not intrinsically evil, can be seriously abused. For pastoral reasons, in view of the abuse that has occurred and will likely continue to occur, the Catholic Church opposes both slavery and capital punishment without declaring either to be intrinsically evil.

Hi ItsJustDave,

No. There is not such thing as “just slavery.” Catholic teaching once taught that there was (I cited Leander and the Catholic Encyclopedia to that effect), but that teaching was in error and has now been changed.

Veritatis splendor, 6 Aug 1993, Pope John paul II, IV The Moral Act # 80:
“…the Church teaches that “there exists acts which “per se” and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object.” The Second Vatican Council itself in discussing the respect due the human person gives a number of examples of such acts…slavery.”

Gaudium et Spec, Second Vatican Council, 7 Dec 1965, section 279 (c).

“…whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children…are infamies indeed…Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church #2414 “The seventh commandment forbits acts or enterprises that…lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold, and exchanged like merchandise in disregard for their personal dignity.”

The older Catholic teaching of “just titles of slavery” was in error and has been dropped.

LittleLes

 

[itsjustdave1988]

No. There is not such thing as “just slavery.” Catholic teaching once taught that there was (I cited Leander and the Catholic Encyclopedia to that effect), but that teaching was in error and has now been changed. …

The older Catholic teaching of “just titles of slavery” was in error and has been dropped.

Thank you for your opinion on the matter. But I’m not bound by your opinion, but to the teaching of the magisterium. I’ve given you a post-Vatican II article with an Imprimatur (1999) that disagrees with you.

Additionally, here’s a Catholic Answer’s *This Rock *magazine article, entitled “***Let My People Go: the Catholic Church and Slavery” ***by Mark Brumley: catholicculture.org/docs…cfm?recnum=1201

Here’s an excerpt:

"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 (indentured servitude). **

These forms of servitude or slavery differ in kind from what we are calling chattel slavery. While prisoners of war and criminals can lose their freedom against their will, they do not become mere property of their captors, even when such imprisonment is just. They still possess basic, inalienable human rights and may not justly be subjected to certain forms of punishment—torture, for example. Similarly, indentured servants “sell” their labor, not their inalienable rights, and may not contract to provide services which are immoral. Moreover, they freely agree to exchange their labor for some benefit such as transportation, food, lodging, et cetera. Consequently, their servitude is not involuntary.

**The Second Vatican Council condemned slavery (i.e., chattel slavery) **

I understand, as does the living magisterium, that Vatican II has not contradicted the doctrinal pronouncements of the past, but merely applyed them to the contemporary situation. At least that is the teaching of my bishop, who is vested with magisterial authority, and not just my opinion or yours.

“… like merchandise in disregard for their personal dignity” is an important phrase which distinguishes the slavery condemned by the Church from the just-title servitude that is far from being declared intrinsically evil by the magisterium.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Clearly the Catholic Church has not taught that chattel (or perpetual slavery) was wrong until quite recently.

By “quite recently” do you mean the 16th century?

Pope Paul III in 1537 issued a Bull against slavery, entitled Sublimis Deus, to the universal Church. He wrote:

…The exalted God loved the human race so much that He created man in such a condition that he was not only a sharer in good as are other creatures, but also that he would be able to reach and see face to face the inaccessible and invisible Supreme Good… Seeing this and envying it, the enemy of the human race, who always opposes all good men so that the race may perish, has thought up a way, unheard of before now, by which he might impede the saving word of God from being preached to the nations. He (Satan) has stirred up some of his allies who, desiring to satisfy their own avarice, are presuming to assert far and wide that the Indians…be reduced to our service like brute animals, under the pretext that they are lacking the Catholic faith. And they reduce them to slavery, treating them with afflictions they would scarcely use with brute animals… by our Apostolic Authority decree and declare by these present letters that the same Indians and all other peoples - even though they are outside the faith - …should not be deprived of their liberty… Rather they are to be able to use and enjoy this liberty and this ownership of property freely and licitly, and are not to be reduced to slavery…

 

[Genesis315]

I rather expected that you would try this argument. Please reread Leviticus 25:40 et seq. Note that the chattel slaves were to be bought from neighboring tribes or aliens who resided with the Jewish people.

The seven year limit on slavery was applied by Jews only to other Jews. But not to any other people.

Right. You just repeated my point. The Jews were the chosen people. They own each other in chattel slavery. They could own non-Jews. When Jesus came Gentiles became accepted and were treated as equal to Jews. After that, you don’t see chattel slavery.

Please present your evidence that “chattel” slavery was inconsistent with Church teachings.

See all the papal pronouncements in the above posts.

I’ve already documented that it was supported by the Church as believed to be consistent with scripture and the natural law!

You’ve only quoted theologians, not the magesterium.

Council of Gangra 340: "If anyone, on the pretext of religion teaches another man’s slave to despise his master, and to withdraw from his service, and not to serve his master with good will and all respect, let him be anathema. " This is restated in the Decreum,1140.

This refers to teaching on the pretext of religion. That means when religion is not the real reason. If it is not chattel slavery, then using religion would be a pretext. If it was not, then religion would not be a pretext, but a legitimate reason. It likewise states nowhere that that this statement has to do with the chattel slavery that removes all humanity.

So lets not pretend that slavery was inconsistent with Church teachings.

Let’s not pretend that chattel slavery and other just titles of servitude are the same thing.

Shall we next review the papal documents beginning with Pope Nicholas V’s Dum Diversas (1452) in which “Apostolic Authority” is granted to perpetually enslave any “unbelievers”?

Whatever you want.

 

[LittleLes]

itsjustdave1988:

LittleLes,

You seem to be trying so very hard to prove that the Church has condemned all forms of slavery as intrinsically evil. I don’t believe you’ve presented a convincing argument, however.

Not all forms of slavery, such as just-title slavery, are intrinsically evil, and the Church has never taught to the contrary. I’ve read all the Vatican II documents and they don’t teach what you say they teach. Forced labor of prisoners is “slavery” by another name. It is just and accepted by both civil and ecclesiastical authority.

The following article has the Imprimatur of Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz, D.D., S.T.D. (1999). For us to accept your thesis, we would have to presume the good bishop rejected Vatican II. I don’t believe that thesis is very compelling.

Slavery and the Catholic Church
users.binary.net/polycarp/slave.html

Hi ItsJustDave,

With all due respect to Bishop Bruskewitz’s imprimatur, this article is quite slanted, incomplete, and evidently addressed to readers who are not familiar with the historical documents it tries to argue.

The article tries to convince the reader that various popes have taught against slavery, while obliquely admitting that these teachings were really against the slave trade or racial slavery. Prior to 1900, no pope ever taught that slave ownership was immoral.

Lets look at what is not said:

(1) Curiously, the article implicitly admits that prior to 1435, no pope had written anything contrary to the moral licitness of slavery or the slave trade. Thus, it is tacitly recognized that for 3/4th of its history, the papacy did not challenge any aspect of slavery.

(2) The 1435 papal writing was Sicut Dudem which objected to the enslavement of newly converted Indians. But not to slave ownership itself. Omitted is any mention of Pope Nicholas V’s “Dum Diversas” (1452) which, with his “Apostolic Authority,” authorized the making of “perpetual slaves” of non-Christian peoples. There were two other papal writing of the same nature which are on the web.

(3) The article fails to mention that in returning the slave Onesius to Philemon, Paul appears to be breaking Mosaic Law, ie. Deut 23:15-16., forbidding the return of runaway slaves.

(4) Pope Paul III’s "Sublimus Deus (1537) does not apply to nonChristians enslaved in a “just war.”

(5) Pastoralis Officium, subsequently retracted, dealt with the slave trade.

(6) In Supremo dealt with the slave trade, not slave ownership.

(7) Papal teachings on slave ownership are restated in the 1866 Instruction of the Holy Office issued over Pope Pius IX’s signature which taught that “It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged, or given.”

(8) And this article once again tries to use the “different forms” of slavery ploy also known formerly as the “just titles” ploy. The Church itself once did use this, but it’s no longer is recognized. But if used, one should realize the fact that the children of convicts or prisoners are not enslaved, nor are they bought, sold, given, or exchanged. In short indentured servants, prisoners, and convicts are not “perpetual or chattel” slaves at all.

(9) Note the wording of the Catechism # 2414’s teaching that slave ownership is a sin against the seventh commandment. Do you suppose that the writers were deliberatley contradicting the 1866 teaching?

LittleLes

 

[LittleLes]

itsjustdave1988:

By “quite recently” do you mean the 16th century?

Pope Paul III in 1537 issued a Bull against slavery, entitled Sublimis Deus, to the universal Church. He wrote:

Once again, you have to recognize the distinction between permissible slave ownership and the slave trade that gradually came to be condemned.

And of course, note the date of this writing. You, too, are admitting that for 3/4th of its history, the Church approved of slavery.

Perhaps you are trying to change the argument from the Church approved of the moral licitness of slavery to when did the Church cease to approve of the moral licitness of slavery. That’s a different argument. Still, this, of course, indirectly admits that there was a change in teaching.

Little Les

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Prior to 1900, no pope ever taught that slave ownership was immoral.

Because slave ownership is not immoral. Neither is capital punishment. Yet both practices are so abused that the Church opposes both, in practice, without declaring either intrisically evil in all its forms.

I understand that you think the authors of the above articles are uninformed dolts, but I’m curious as to what your credentials are. Are you a dogmatic theologian? Is your understanding of Catholic dogmatic theology greater than the good bishop who gave the Imprimatur?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not condemn all slave ownership as immoral, you opinion notwithstanding. That would be absurd, given that the Catechism tells us that “ministers are truly 'slaves of Christ,'” (CCC 876).

CCC 2414 states,

The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, . . . both in the flesh and in the Lord."194

It forbids forms of slavery that “disregard personal dignity.” As Mark Brumel in the *This Rock *article above states, this is condemning chattel slavery, not just-title servitude.

Even our own 13th Amendment to the US Constitution makes exception for involuntary servitude, and as such does not abolish all slavery.

Do you suppose that the writers were deliberatley contradicting the 1866 teaching?

No, I believe they were consistent with the teaching against chattel slavery that has been presented by the Church as early as St. Gregory of Nyssa, consistently condemned by the Roman Pontiffs.

Yet, there are some who assert, erroneously, that since the Church was, in their opinion, “wrong” about slavery, they are also wrong about homosexuality. Thus, from the webpage that you endoresed here:

There’s a short but good overview on Church teachings on slavery. I’ll not good at listing URL’s, so “search” under “Pharsea bind and loose.”

The homosexual activists advocate an agenda based upon there erroneous understanding of Catholic doctrine and pastoral practice as relevent to slavery.

It seems to me that instead of listening to homosexual dissidents to Catholic doctrine, perhaps Bishop Bruskewitz’s imprimatur ought to be given more confidence. He, afterall, has a Doctor of Divinity, does he not? He’s been vested with magisterial authority. He would know if the article above was contary to Vatican II, no?

Perhaps now you can tell us why you are more competent than he in determining whether some article is in accord with Catholic doctrine or not. Do you have a Doctor of Divinity? Are you ordained and vested with magisterial authority? If not, what are your credentials? Are you advocating the homosexual agenda much like Pharsea’s web site?

Here’s a sample from the author you endorsed above:
geocities.com/pharsea/

Pharsea’s home page.

Traditionalist Catholic and gay?
Commited to the Tridentine Mass and homosexual?
Concerned about orthodox belief, but commited to
personal integrity and not just willing to toe the Vatican “party line”?

You are not alone!

She goes one to take your position with regard to slavery, but I rather suspect she has a bias towards proving the Church wrong so that she can pretend her theological perspective is without sin.

Those who have studied dogmatic theology know that the above “defense” in order to promote the homosexual agenda is rubbish.

 

[Church_Militant]

LittleLes:

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

1. In matters of faith and morals,
2. Belonging as they do to the establishing of Christian Doctrine,
3. That meaning of Holy Scripture MUST BE HELD to be the true one,
4. Which Holy Mother Church held and holds,
   Since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture.

But we’ve just demonstrated that the Church’s interpretation of scripture (and natural law argument) supporting the moral permissiveness of slavery was in error and has been changed by the Church.

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

Did you guys ever hear of development of dogma?

 

[LittleLes]

itsjustdave1988:

In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI issued a Bull, entitled In Supremo. Its main focus was against slave trading, but it also clearly condemned racial slavery:

What people often fail to understand is that popes, in their formal and authoritative declarations, have always condemned unjust forms of slavery, without condemning all forms of slavery as unjust. This is true still today.

“Churchmen,” as RSiscoe put it, often misrepresent the teachings of the Catholic Church as promulgated formally and authoritatively by the Roman Pontiff, who is the visible source of sacerdotal unity in the Catholic Church. We are bound by the teachings of our lawful pastors, insofar as they are teaching in accord with their lawful pastors.

 

[LittleLes]

LittleLes:
No. What were formerly considered “just titles of slavery” are presently condemned. But of course this was not always the case. Slavery was thought to be approved of by scripture and the natural law.

In time the slave trade, especially when involved enslaving fellow Christains, became objectionable. Enslavement as a result of a just war, formerly approved, was the next to fall into disfavor.

This trend began about the 15th century. But slave ownership itself, especially as it existed in the American South, was not condemned until the 1900’s, and now all forms of slavery are now considered forbidden by the 7th commandment, and slavery intrinsically disordered. This was quite a change in teaching.

LittleLes

 

[itsjustdave1988]

What were formerly considered “just titles of slavery” are presently condemned.

Says you. Merely repeating your opinion does nothing to convince us of its veracity. Just-title servitude was not condemned as immoral by the Catholic Church, according to a proper interpretation of the councilar texts and the CCC, according to the two sources I cited.

Let’s review:

You’ve given your opinion of Vatican II teachings and the teachings of the CCC. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But you certainly haven’t been convincing. Thus, I disagree. And I suspect others reading this thread are less than convinced by your opinion as well.

You gave, as your support, from an article authored by a homosexual dissident to Catholic doctrine. I must say that this was not a weighty opinion, to say the least.

On the contary, I gave, as my support, an article from *This Rock *magazine by Mark Brumley, and another article which has been given an Imprimatur of the Catholic Church.

You haven’t given us any reason to trust your competency above that of Bishop Bruskewitz’s Imprimatur. For all we know, you are Pharasea, citing your own dissindent views in the absence of scholastic support.

In the final analysis, your position is weak. Do you have anything else?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

For those interested in a more thorough treatment of papal documents on slavery, see ***The Popes and Slavery ***written by Fr. Joel S. Panzer (Alba House, 1996), also with the Imprimatur of the Catholic Church. It is a MUCH BETTER SOURCE than that written by homosexual dissidents from Catholic doctrine.

Fr. Panzer asserts and provides evidence that popes did condemn chattel slavery, which was different from “just title servitude.” The latter being justified today, whereas the former was something entirely different.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Another source which contradicts the thesis proposed by LittleLes is from my bachelor’s studies, the text of my ethics course called *Known from the Things that Are - Fundamental Theory of the Moral Life, *written by Fr. Martin D. O’Keefe, S.J., Imprimatur (1984) states with regard to slavery:

Slavery presents the risk of moral evil in many ways (chiefly in that it presents the potential for multiple abuse); but one cannot say that, as an institution, it is intrinsically evil… It is possible for certain forms of slavery to be moral…a life sentence in a penitentiary is a form of slavery, after all. And the sort of indentured service by which the ancestors of many Americans arrived in this country was certainly moral enough, even though in some cases perhaps harsh… it should also be said that the sort of slavery of blacks that was common in this country in past centuries was morally evil (Fr. Martin D. O’Keefe, S.J., *Known from the Things that Are - Fundamental Theory of the Moral Life, *Gonzaga University, 1985,pg. 225)

---

 

[LittleLes]

Although the claim that observing “the personal dignity” of a slave can make slavery just, this is an error.“There exists acts “per se” and in themselves, independently of the circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object quite apart from the interior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances”. Gadium et Spes.

Despite “BibleReader’s” and “ItsJustDave” claims to the contrary, the Church now teaches that all forms of slavery are “intrinsically evil.” (See Veritatas splendor para 80).

Hence the Catholic Church teaches that all forms of slavery are sins against the seventh commandment, irrespective of any rationalization offered. (see CCC#2414)

For a time the “just titles of slavery argument was made.”
These included:
(1) voluntary acceptance of slavery
(2) purchase of slave
(3) penal servitude
(4)capture in a just war (formerly any wars against unbelievers were just wars).
(5) partum sequiter ventrem (automatic enslavement of slave’s offspring). After the slave trade ended, this practice allowed slave ownership to continue particularly in the American South.

But in changing her teaching on the moral legitimacy to slavery, these “just titles” have been set aside.

LittleLes

 

[LittleLes]

Church Militant:

Did you guys ever hear of development of dogma?

Hi Church Militant,

Wasn’t the evolution of dogma condemned by Pope Pius IX in encyclical against the Modernist’s errors?

Also see the “no new dogma” teaching of Vatican I.

LittleLes

 

[LittleLes]

itsjustdave1988:

Says you. Merely repeating your opinion does nothing to convince us of its veracity. Just-title servitude was not condemned as immoral by the Catholic Church, according to a proper interpretation of the councilar texts and the CCC, according to the two sources I cited.

Let’s review:

You’ve given your opinion of Vatican II teachings and the teachings of the CCC. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But you certainly haven’t been convincing. Thus, I disagree. And I suspect others reading this thread are less than convinced by your opinion as well.

You gave, as your support, from an article authored by a homosexual dissident to Catholic doctrine. I must say that this was not a weighty opinion, to say the least.

On the contary, I gave, as my support, an article from *This Rock *magazine by Mark Brumley, and another article which has been given an Imprimatur of the Catholic Church.

You haven’t given us any reason to trust your competency above that of Bishop Bruskewitz’s Imprimatur. For all we know, you are Pharasea, citing your own dissindent views in the absence of scholastic support.

In the final analysis, your position is weak. Do you have anything else?

*********************Les replies,

What I am giving is not just my opinion but the present official teachings of the Catholic church. (Bishop Bruskewitz’s imprimatur of the article you cited not withstanding). Observe that the article dances around the question, but does not specifically contradict the Church’s present teaching regarding slavery. Also observe the plain meaning of the words used in the Church’s documents. Evidently unlike yourself, she now condemns slavery in all its forms:

Again see: Catechism of the Catholic Church #2414
Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes (esp 27c)
Pope John Paul’s Veritatus splendor (on moral acts, para 80)

Pope Paul III, Motu Proprio of 1548:

“Each and every person of either sex, whether Roman or non-Roman, whether secular or clerical…may freely and lawfully buy and sell publically any slaves whatever of either sex…”

Perhaps you might ask Bishop Brushewitz if you can still do that.

But the Church was in error and changed her teaching in this regard. I’m sorry if you belief system does not allow you to admit the facts of history.

LittleLes

 

[itsjustdave1988]

On the development of dogma…

Material dogma developed from the time of Adam to the time of Christ and the apostles. Catholicism teaches that material dogma ceased to develop after the death of the apostles. However, formal dogma continues to develop. Formal dogma is the continued understanding of that deposit of faith that was once and for all delivered unto the apostles. So, the “stuff” of dogma ceased to develop, but the “understanding” of the “stuff” continiues to develop.

Dr. Ludwig Ott describes the development of dogma in his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,

As against Modernism, the Catholic Church stresses that dogma according to its content is of truly Divine origin, that is, it is the expression of an objective truth, and its content is immutable. …

2. Development of Dogmas in the Catholic Sense

a) From the material side of dogma, that is, in the communication of the Truths of Revelation to humanity, a substantial growth took place in human history until Revelation reached its apogee and conclusion in Christ (cf. Hebr. I, I).

St. Gregory the Great says: “With the progress of the times the knowledge of the spiritual Fathers increased; for, in the Science of God, Moses was more instructed than Abraham, the Prophets more than Moses, the Apostles more than the Prophets” (in Ezechielem lib. 2, horn. 4, 12).

With Christ and the Apostles General Revelation concluded. (sent. certa.)

Pope Pius X rejected the liberal Protestant and Modernistic doctrine of the evolution of religion through “New Revelations.” Thus he condemned the proposition that: “The Revelation, which is the object of Catholic Faith, was not terminated with the Apostles.” D 2021.

The clear teaching of Holy Writ and Tradition is that after Christ, and the Apostles who proclaimed the message of Christ, no further Revelation will be made. Christ was the fulfilment of the Law of the Old Testament (Mt. 5, 17 ; 5, 21 et seq), and the absolute teacher of humanity (Mt. 23, 10: “One is your master, Christ” ; cf. Mt. 28, 20). The Apostles saw in Christ: “the coming of the fullness of time” (Gal. 4, 4) and regarded as their task the preservation, integral and unfalsified, of the heritage of Faith entrusted to them by Christ (1 Tim. 6, 14; 6,20; 2 Tim.1, 14; 2,2; 3,14). The Fathers indignantly repudiated the claim of the heretics to possess secret doctrines or new Revelations of the Holy Ghost. St. Irenaeus (Adv. haer III 1 ; IV 35, 8), and Tertullian (De praesc. 21) stress, against the Gnostics, that the full truth of Revelation is contained in the doctrine of the Apostles which is preserved unfalsified through the uninterrupted succession of the bishops.

b) As to the Formal side of dogma, that is, in the knowledge and in the ecclesiastical proposal of Revealed Truth, and consequently also in the public faith of the Church, there is a progress (accidental development of dogmas) which occurs in the following fashion:

1. Truths which formerly were only implicitly believed are expressly proposed for belief. (Cf. S. th. I; II, 1, 7 : quantum ad explicationem crevt numerus articulorum (fidei), quia quaedam explicite cognita sunt a posterioribus, quae a prioribus non cognoscebantur explicite. There was an increase in the number of articles believed explicitly since to those who lived in later times some were known explicitly, which were not known explicitly by those who lived before them.)
2. Material Dogmas are raised to the status of Formal Dogmas.
3. To facilitate general understanding, and to avoid misunderstandings and distortions, the ancient truths which were always believed, e.g., the Hypostatic Union (unio hypostatica), Transubstantiation, etc., are formulated in new, sharply defined concepts.
4. Questions formerly disputed are explained and decided, and heretical propositions are condemned. Cf. St. Augustine, De civ. Dei 2, 1 ; ab adversario mota quaestio discendi existit occasio (a question moved by an adversary gives an occasion for learning).

The exposition of the dogmas in the given sense is prepared by theological science and promulgated by the Teaching Authority of the Church under the direction of the Holy Ghost (John 14, 26).

[Ott, L., *Fundamentals of Catholci Dogma,

Introduction]

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Littleles,

I’ve provided FOUR post-Vatican II sources which contradict your thesis, THREE of which were written by Catholic priests who are immensely more qualified to tell us what the Catholic Church teaches than either you or I. These three sources written by Catholic priests also carry the Imprimatur of Catholic Bishops who affirm that these texts are not contrary to Catholic doctrine.

Is seems to me that what the Catholic Church teaches, in your view, is whatever you say that it teaches, regardless of any proof to the contrary.

I’ve read your arguments at the Phatmass forum which you seem motivated to re-tread here, and in my view, if the pope himself were to write to you personally and correct your dissident views, you would confidently proceed to tell him what the Catholic Church *really *teaches.

As such, I think our conversion has ceased to have any value. I pray for your conversion to the Catholic faith.

I also offer the following advice from the Holy Bible:

Hebrews 13:17 “Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.”

I also offer the advice of Thomas a’ Kempis, a 15th century Catholic monk, from his book *The Imitation of Christ, *the second best selling book in all of western history, second only to the Holy Bible:

It is a very great thing to live in obedience, to be under a superior, and not to be free to do as we please.

It is much safer to obey than to govern.

Many live under obedience more from necessity than from love, and such are discontented and easily complain. They cannot attain freedom of mind unless they willingly and heartily put themselves under obedience for the love of God.

Go wherever you will, but you will still find no rest except in humble subjection under the government of a superior.

 

[LittleLes]

itsjustdave1988:

Littleles,

I’ve provided FOUR post-Vatican II sources which contradict your thesis, THREE of which were written by Catholic priests who are immensely more qualified to tell us what the Catholic Church teaches than either you or I. These three sources written by Catholic priests also carry the Imprimatur of Catholic Bishops who affirm that these texts are not contrary to Catholic doctrine.

Is seems to me that what the Catholic Church teaches, in your view, is whatever you say that it teaches, regardless of any proof to the contrary.

I’ve read your arguments at the Phatmass forum which you seem motivated to re-tread here, and in my view, if the pope himself were to write to you personally and correct your dissident views, you would confidently proceed to tell him what the Catholic Church *really *teaches.

As such, I think our conversion has ceased to have any value. I pray for your conversion to the Catholic faith.

I also offer the following advice from the Holy Bible:

I also offer the advice of Thomas a’ Kempis, a 15th century Catholic monk, from his book *The Imitation of Christ, *the second best selling book in all of western history, second only to the Holy Bible:

 

[LittleLes]

Lets not reject formal Church teachings, ie., the writings of an ecumenical council, a papal encyclical, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and substitute the writings of three priests who might try to support the “party line” that the Church was never in error or never really approved of the institution of slavery. But it’s understandable that they have career concerns and are required to maintain claims of Church inerrancy. Some Catholic “true believers” think they have to maintain the same party line in spite of all the evidence.

I have presented Church teachings beginning with Leviticus, writings of the various popes, and the current teachings of the Church prohibiting slavery in all its forms.

You are arguing, a best, that after about 1500 the Church moved to limit slavery (but it was really the slave trade until about 1900).

Thus, you are implicitly agreeing that at some point the original teaching changed, and unless you want to challenge the present Church teaching that slavery is a sin against the seventh commandment and is, in se, disordered.

QED

LittleLes

Shall we take a further look at the claim that the Church always interperts scripture correctly, ie a teaching of Vatican I?