Why don’t you give the references for the above?
The slavery example is as follows…
I thought everyone knew about it already:
. I can understand the torture part, dont get me wrong… But slavery…? 
…as if the story wasnt bad enough…
)Not quite. The discussion of capital punishment in the 1997 version differs from not just the 1992 version but all previous catechisms, so from that perspective there was certainly a change. I have also alleged, however, that the statements on the 1997 version are prudential, not doctrinal, therefore there is no conflict.
What one or more popes do at a particular time is not on a par with church doctrine. The church has never claimed that everything done or said, even by popes, is either appropriate or accurate. The doctrine against divorce and remarriage is permanent and unchangeable; it has been constantly reaffirmed and has existed unchanged during the entire history of the church. It is an infallible teaching and is irreformable.
You take that term too literally; that is not how it was used.We must now consider each law by itself; and (1) The eternal law; (2) The natural law; (3) The human law; (4) The old law; (5) The new law, which is the law of the Gospel.
What was recorded in the Bible is only one part of what the church regards as true. The other parts are sacred tradition and the teaching authority of the Magisterium. The fact that there is no record of Christ condemning something doesn’t mean it is not dogmatically condemned by the church.…sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others. (Dei Verbum #10)
True…so where is the argument that the teaching on the sinfulness of divorce and remarriage can change?
…the faithful must remember that even though separated as to bed and board, they remain none the less bound by the bond of marriage with no hope of marrying another… (Catechism of Trent)
Thomas Aquinas, while a great saint, a theological giant, a doctor of the Church, is not the magisterium.
Considering Aquinas’ reputation in the church it seems he should be given the benefit of the doubt and accepted as right unless there is a specific example to demonstrate his error.
They haven’t but people in the state of mortal sin are bound not to approach for communion. Bishops and priests can’t be put into positions where they judge the state of one’s soul or disposition. They can refuse to administer communion, however, where there is risk to profanity or scandal, but there is a fine line here too. The burden is still on the communicant.
Please cite what, exactly, you think endorsed torture in Ad Extirpandum.
If you will go to the New Catholic encyclopedia (green books) and look up “torture” you will find the explanation there. It is also in wikipedia.
A Catholic encyclopedia is not an exercise of the magisterium.
The encyclopedia explains the issue. The document is the papal bull Ad extirpandum.
There is NOTHING in the papal bull that contradicts the USCCB’s teaching on torture.
In 1252, Pope Innocent IV sanctioned the infliction of torture by the civil authorities against heretics. See:
If the argument is that we may ignore the Doctors and Fathers of the church because they were not universally right, we are basically dismissing everything not explicitly written by a council or proclaimed as binding by a pope. This goes way too far. It is surely true that something is not doctrine simply because a saint has expressed an opinion on it, but it is equally true that we cannot ignore their positions simply because “they’re not always right.” As I said, they deserve the benefit of the doubt and their positions rejected only when there is clear evidence to the contrary.
No one has posited that we may ignore the Doctors and Fathers of the Church.