P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes.
This is something I reject from a pope: “That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error.” --Pope Pius X
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10law.htm
- Status
This is something I reject from a pope: “That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error.” --Pope Pius X
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10law.htm
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ah. Well, I see now that there was indeed sanctioning of torture by a Pope. And that is troubling indeed.
It does appear, then, that in the case of torture, the Church has indeed changed its teaching.
O
One_point
Guest
Not only that but it certainly wasn’t “500 years later” that the church voiced opposition to slavery (and the period between Thomas Aquinas and Vatican II was a good deal more than 500 years), the catholic church was the first voice of opposition to trans-atlantic slave trade and slavery of Indians right from the 1500s. there were several papal documents condemning it for decades and centuries.
On slavery, it is false to say there was consistent teaching either way. Before the trans-atlantic slave trade, there was debate in the church going back and forth some theologians for some against from the fathers to theologians of middle ages. the church never settled it definitively. to claim a change has taken place here in church teaching is incorrect. what happened is that the church teaching finally settled on one side of that old debate and repudiated the other.
M
MichaelTDoyle
Guest
The USCCB cannot change Church teaching. Bishops do not have the charism of infallibility, only the successor of Peter. The earlier teaching seems to me is the one to follow. “one must stop short of danger to life or limb”, which puts limits on the legitimate use of force by the government.Ah. Well, I see now that there was indeed sanctioning of torture by a Pope. And that is troubling indeed.
It does appear, then, that in the case of torture, the Church has indeed changed its teaching.
As for slavery, how do you define it? Is a slave in ancient Egypt the same as one in 1800’s Alabama? There’s a lot of assumptions. Is indentured slavery inherently wrong if a man chooses to sell himself into bondage to pay a debt? Particularly if there are rules for the just treatment of people in their care? How much context do we have to judge the condition of a “slave” in 2300 BC? or even 1200 AD?
IMHO, I think it is a mistake to read documents outside your social context in a literal or “mathematical” fashion. Some docility to Church teaching allows a person to grow and understand things not yet perhaps clear to their current spiritual growth.
Thanks for reading.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
While far from the subject at hand, I find this little sidetrack fascinating.
P
PRmerger
Guest
True, dat.
E
Ender
Guest
This would be true if everything a pope said was church doctrine, but that isn’t the case nor has the church ever claimed this. The fact that this pope approved torture or that pope approved of slavery says nothing about whether they were expressing church doctrines or their own opinions. The two are not the same.
Ender
B
Brandall
Guest
I thought that was just me.…For instance, sometimes my wife will explain in great detail a situation about my mothers statement about what my sister in law said about my brother, last year at holloween… Of course i use my selective hearing powers to prevent hearing any of it, but then, at the end she asks for my opinion and i have to tell her to repeat the entire 15 minute long conversation…
Uh oh… Thats when the torture ‘really’ begins for me.…as if the story wasnt bad enough…
(…)
C
Catherine_S
Guest
*Catholics in civil re-marriages or who as Catholics went outside of the Catholic Church to other churches to be - remarried **must first take their situations to the Catholic Church and go through the annulment process ( provided by the Catholic Church)**before reception of *Holy Communion in a Catholic Church.
In fact a Divine commandment, in our case the sixth commandment, the* absolute indissolubility** of the sacramental marriage, a** Divinely** established rule, means those in a state of grave sin cannot be **admitted **to Holy Communion. This is taught by Saint Paul in his letter inspired by the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 11, 27-30, this **cannot **be put to the vote, just as the **Divinity **of **Christ **would **never **be put to a vote. A person who still has the indissoluble sacramental marriage bond and who in spite of this lives in a stable marital cohabitation with another person, by Divine law cannot be admitted to Holy Communion. To do so would be a public statement by the Church nefariously legitimizing a denial of the indissolubility of the Christian marriage and at the same time **repealing **the sixth commandment of God: “**Thou shalt not commit adultery”. **No **human **institution not even the Pope or an Ecumenical Council has the authority and the competency to invalidate even in the slightest or *indirect manner one of the ten Divine commandments or the Divine words of Christ: “What therefore God has joined together, let man not separate (Math 19:6)*”. Regardless of this lucid truth which was taught constantly and unchangingly - because unchangeable - through all the ages by the Magisterium of the Church up to our days as for instance in “Familiaris consortio” of Saint John Paul II, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and by Pope Benedict XVI, the issue of the admissibility to Holy Communion of the so called “divorced and remarried” has been put to the vote in the Synod. This fact is in itself grievous and represents an attitude of clerical arrogance towards the Divine truth of the Word of God. The attempt to put the Divine truth and the Divine Word to a vote is unworthy of those who as **representatives **of the Magisterium have to hand over zealously as good and faithful rules (cf. Math 24, 45) the **Divine deposit. ***
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-athanasius-schneider-on-the-synod-on-the-family
In fact a Divine commandment, in our case the sixth commandment, the* absolute indissolubility** of the sacramental marriage, a** Divinely** established rule, means those in a state of grave sin cannot be **admitted **to Holy Communion. This is taught by Saint Paul in his letter inspired by the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 11, 27-30, this **cannot **be put to the vote, just as the **Divinity **of **Christ **would **never **be put to a vote. A person who still has the indissoluble sacramental marriage bond and who in spite of this lives in a stable marital cohabitation with another person, by Divine law cannot be admitted to Holy Communion. To do so would be a public statement by the Church nefariously legitimizing a denial of the indissolubility of the Christian marriage and at the same time **repealing **the sixth commandment of God: “**Thou shalt not commit adultery”. **No **human **institution not even the Pope or an Ecumenical Council has the authority and the competency to invalidate even in the slightest or *indirect manner one of the ten Divine commandments or the Divine words of Christ: “What therefore God has joined together, let man not separate (Math 19:6)*”. Regardless of this lucid truth which was taught constantly and unchangingly - because unchangeable - through all the ages by the Magisterium of the Church up to our days as for instance in “Familiaris consortio” of Saint John Paul II, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and by Pope Benedict XVI, the issue of the admissibility to Holy Communion of the so called “divorced and remarried” has been put to the vote in the Synod. This fact is in itself grievous and represents an attitude of clerical arrogance towards the Divine truth of the Word of God. The attempt to put the Divine truth and the Divine Word to a vote is unworthy of those who as **representatives **of the Magisterium have to hand over zealously as good and faithful rules (cf. Math 24, 45) the **Divine deposit. ***
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-athanasius-schneider-on-the-synod-on-the-family
J
Justin_Swanton
Guest
Bishop Schneider’s interview shows plainly the post synodal trend. This is going to become an open fight among prelates. It is good at least to see bishops and Cardinals stating their positions plainly so everyone knows where they stand.
Here are extracts from a very recent interview with Cardinal Marx, head of the German Episcopal Conference. He also speaks plainly:
Despite media reports to the contrary, Marx said the “progressive” group at the Synod had not suffered any setbacks, and cited the pontificate of Francis as proof. “Anyone who comes to that conclusion has not had their eye on what has been going on in our church over the past one and a half years,” Marx said.
“This pope knows exactly what he is doing, let no one doubt that. Francis wants us to move. His frequent use of the word avanti – ‘get moving’ – is ample proof of that.”
And on the subject of Communion for remarried divorcees (I’ve cobbled together the relevant sections from the interview):
“Up to now, these two issues have been absolutely non-negotiable. Although they had failed to get the two-thirds majority, the majority of the synod fathers had nevertheless voted in their favor,” he said.
“They are still part of the text,” Marx said. “I especially asked the pope about that, and the pope said he wanted all the points published together with all the voting results. He wanted everyone in the church to see where we stood.”…
The cardinal added that one of the “central theological debates” at the Synod had been about “how to find a way out of the far-too-narrow logic of ‘Everything or nothing,’ ‘Sin or not sin.’
And on what to expect:
“No, this pope has pushed the doors open and the voting results at the end of the synod will not change that,” he said. Cardinal Marx added that it is in the coming year before the next session of the Synod that “the real work is about to begin.”
“Real work”? ***What ***real work?
Here are extracts from a very recent interview with Cardinal Marx, head of the German Episcopal Conference. He also speaks plainly:
Despite media reports to the contrary, Marx said the “progressive” group at the Synod had not suffered any setbacks, and cited the pontificate of Francis as proof. “Anyone who comes to that conclusion has not had their eye on what has been going on in our church over the past one and a half years,” Marx said.
“This pope knows exactly what he is doing, let no one doubt that. Francis wants us to move. His frequent use of the word avanti – ‘get moving’ – is ample proof of that.”
And on the subject of Communion for remarried divorcees (I’ve cobbled together the relevant sections from the interview):
“Up to now, these two issues have been absolutely non-negotiable. Although they had failed to get the two-thirds majority, the majority of the synod fathers had nevertheless voted in their favor,” he said.
“They are still part of the text,” Marx said. “I especially asked the pope about that, and the pope said he wanted all the points published together with all the voting results. He wanted everyone in the church to see where we stood.”…
The cardinal added that one of the “central theological debates” at the Synod had been about “how to find a way out of the far-too-narrow logic of ‘Everything or nothing,’ ‘Sin or not sin.’
And on what to expect:
“No, this pope has pushed the doors open and the voting results at the end of the synod will not change that,” he said. Cardinal Marx added that it is in the coming year before the next session of the Synod that “the real work is about to begin.”
“Real work”? ***What ***real work?
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
Yep. Honesty. Invigorating, isn’t it. Unfortunately, I think most if not all of us know what this “real work” amounts to. In response, time to roll up our sleeves as well, not much more to it than that. 
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I thought that a majority had voted to change the pastoral treatment of divorced Catholics. (Although it was not a supermajority).*Catholics in civil re-marriages or who as Catholics went outside of the Catholic Church to other churches to be - remarried *must first take their situations to the Catholic Church and go through the annulment process ( provided by the Catholic Church)before reception of Holy Communion in a Catholic Church.
In fact a Divine commandment, in our case the sixth commandment, the** absolute indissolubility** of the sacramental marriage, a** Divinely** established rule, means those in a state of grave sin cannot be **admitted **to Holy Communion. This is taught by Saint Paul in his letter inspired by the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 11, 27-30, this **cannot **be put to the vote, just as the **Divinity **of **Christ **would **never **be put to a vote. A person who still has the indissoluble sacramental marriage bond and who in spite of this lives in a stable marital cohabitation with another person, by Divine law cannot be admitted to Holy Communion. To do so would be a public statement by the Church nefariously legitimizing a denial of the indissolubility of the Christian marriage and at the same time **repealing **the sixth commandment of God: “**Thou shalt not commit adultery”. **No **human institution not even the Pope or an Ecumenical Council has the authority and the competency to invalidate even in the slightest or indirect manner one of the ten Divine commandments or the Divine words of Christ: “What therefore God has joined together, let man not separate (Math 19:6)”. Regardless of this lucid truth which was taught constantly and unchangingly - because unchangeable - through all the ages by the Magisterium of the Church up to our days as for instance in “Familiaris consortio” of Saint John Paul II, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and by Pope Benedict XVI, the issue of the admissibility to Holy Communion of the so called “divorced and remarried” has been put to the vote in the Synod. This fact is in itself grievous and represents an attitude of clerical arrogance towards the Divine truth of the Word of God. The attempt to put the Divine truth and the Divine Word to a vote is unworthy of those who as **representatives **of the Magisterium have to hand over zealously as good and faithful rules (cf. Math 24, 45) the **Divine deposit. **
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-athanasius-schneider-on-the-synod-on-the-family
T
Tomdstone
Guest
The Pope is the leader of the Church and has the authority to bind and loose because he has the keys which enable him to do so.
F
Fred_E
Guest
A 2/3 majority is required, and then it is subject to ratification by the Holy Father.
The notion of a “majority” in this case is meaningless.
M
McCall1981
Guest
They did not vote on whether or not to change the practice. They voted on whether or not to include the following paragraphs in the final document:
“52. The synod father also considered the possibility of giving the divorced and remarried access to the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist. Some synod fathers insisted on maintaining the present regulations, because of the constitutive relationship between participation in the Eucharist and communion with the Church as well as the teaching on the indissoluble character of marriage. Others expressed a more individualized approach, permitting access in certain situations and with certain well-defined conditions, primarily in irreversible situations and those involving moral obligations towards children who would have to endure unjust suffering. Access to the sacraments might take place if preceded by a penitential practice, determined by the diocesan bishop. The subject needs to be thoroughly examined, bearing in mind the distinction between an objective sinful situation and extenuating circumstances, given that “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1735).”
“53. Some synod fathers maintained that divorced and remarried persons or those living together can have fruitful recourse to a spiritual communion. Others raised the question as to why, then, they cannot have access “sacramentally”. As a result, the synod fathers requested that further theological study in the matter might point out the specifics of the two forms and their association with the theology of marriage.”
About 60% (a majority, but not 2/3) voted to include these paragraphs in the final doc, which was not enough, but the Pope decided to include them anyway, with a note saying how many votes ithey had received.
M
McCall1981
Guest
newsmax.com/Newsfront/vatican-doctrine-secularism-marriage/2014/11/04/id/605133/
Vatican’s Müller: Bishops Being ‘Blinded’ by Secularism
The Vatican’s doctrinal chief Cardinal Gerhard Müller says that bishops have been “blinded by secularized society” and are being pulled away from the teachings of the Catholic Church.
The prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made his comments in an interview with the popular Polish website Nasz Dziennik, according to Breitbart.
He said that “unfortunately, representatives of the Church, including bishops,” have been so influenced by secular society that they have been “pulled far from the central question of the faith and the teachings of the Church.”
These trends, he said, “have found their way into the church and among the bishops. We have Christ and the Gospel. This is our point of reference, and the foundation for the only correct teaching of the Church.”
Müller noted that the Church “has no power to change that which comes from the teaching of Christ,” Breitbart reported.
He added, “With respect to marriage, this is primarily defined by the words, ‘What God has joined together, man must not divide.’”
Vatican’s Müller: Bishops Being ‘Blinded’ by Secularism
The Vatican’s doctrinal chief Cardinal Gerhard Müller says that bishops have been “blinded by secularized society” and are being pulled away from the teachings of the Catholic Church.
The prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made his comments in an interview with the popular Polish website Nasz Dziennik, according to Breitbart.
He said that “unfortunately, representatives of the Church, including bishops,” have been so influenced by secular society that they have been “pulled far from the central question of the faith and the teachings of the Church.”
These trends, he said, “have found their way into the church and among the bishops. We have Christ and the Gospel. This is our point of reference, and the foundation for the only correct teaching of the Church.”
Müller noted that the Church “has no power to change that which comes from the teaching of Christ,” Breitbart reported.
He added, “With respect to marriage, this is primarily defined by the words, ‘What God has joined together, man must not divide.’”
R
RGCheek
Guest
Didn’t the Catholic church once give up an entire kingdom (England) in order to keep to its doctrines on marriage?
I think many people don’t feel that everything is firm any more and that they might go through a great deal of sacrifice for decades only to see that forbidden thing to become morally legal and they feel like fools.
Case in point; the mom of an old friend of mine told me how she grew up as a Catholic in Rhode Island and she couldn’t do a lot of things with her friends. She said she couldn’t tell me how many times she refused to go to a burger joint with her friends on Friday or couldn’t attend friends piano recitals because they were in a Protestant church.
After she became adult it was all given the OK by Vatican 2 and she felt like a proverbial idiot.
That was why she refused to raise her kids as Catholics.
She didn’t want her kids to wind up in trouble or debt or friendless for no good reason.
I think many people don’t feel that everything is firm any more and that they might go through a great deal of sacrifice for decades only to see that forbidden thing to become morally legal and they feel like fools.
Case in point; the mom of an old friend of mine told me how she grew up as a Catholic in Rhode Island and she couldn’t do a lot of things with her friends. She said she couldn’t tell me how many times she refused to go to a burger joint with her friends on Friday or couldn’t attend friends piano recitals because they were in a Protestant church.
After she became adult it was all given the OK by Vatican 2 and she felt like a proverbial idiot.
That was why she refused to raise her kids as Catholics.
She didn’t want her kids to wind up in trouble or debt or friendless for no good reason.
1
1newcatholic
Guest
*
25 “Now his elder son was in the field; and when he came and approached the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 He called one of the slaves and asked what was going on. 27 He replied, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has got him back safe and sound.’
28 Then he became angry and refused to go in. His father came out and began to plead with him. 29 But he answered his father, ‘Listen! For all these years I have been working like a slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your command; yet you have never given me even a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came back, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fatted calf for him!’
31 Then the father said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.’”*
*9 When those hired about five o’clock came, each of them received the usual daily wage.10 Now when the first came, they thought they would receive more; but each of them also received the usual daily wage.
11 And when they received it, they grumbled against the landowner, 12 saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’
13 But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?14 Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ 16 So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”*
28 Then he became angry and refused to go in. His father came out and began to plead with him. 29 But he answered his father, ‘Listen! For all these years I have been working like a slave for you, and I have never disobeyed your command; yet you have never given me even a young goat so that I might celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came back, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fatted calf for him!’
31 Then the father said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found.’”*
*9 When those hired about five o’clock came, each of them received the usual daily wage.10 Now when the first came, they thought they would receive more; but each of them also received the usual daily wage.
11 And when they received it, they grumbled against the landowner, 12 saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’
13 But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?14 Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ 16 So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”*
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Wonderfully edifying references, 1newCatholic! I thought todays Gospel (Friday) could also make that point.
Luke 16:1-8
"Jesus said to his disciples, “A rich man had a steward
who was reported to him for squandering his property.
He summoned him and said,
‘What is this I hear about you?
Prepare a full account of your stewardship,
because you can no longer be my steward.’
The steward said to himself, ‘What shall I do,
now that my master is taking the position of steward away from me?
I am not strong enough to dig and I am ashamed to beg.
I know what I shall do so that,
when I am removed from the stewardship,
they may welcome me into their homes.’
He called in his master’s debtors one by one.
To the first he said, ‘How much do you owe my master?’
He replied, ‘One hundred measures of olive oil.’
He said to him, ‘Here is your promissory note.
Sit down and quickly write one for fifty.’
Then to another he said, ‘And you, how much do you owe?’
He replied, ‘One hundred measures of wheat.’
He said to him, ‘Here is your promissory note;
write one for eighty.’
And the master commended that dishonest steward for acting prudently.
For the children of this world
are more prudent in dealing with their own generation
than the children of light.”
P
pnewton
Guest
When I hear an anecdote like this, I read more excuse than reason. There is no reason to raise children Catholic if one does not believe that the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ on Earth, the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus, the only one, holy, apostolic and catholic Church. Then if one does believe this, no other reason can matter.
- Status