What official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why?

[PJM]

After reading Unam Sanctam, I did some searches on the issue of salvation outside the CC, and I found Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV at this link: catholicism.org/cantate-domino.html.

Peace,
Anna

My dear friend in Christ,

These are obviously true statements. Having a more precise truth then, than by necessity now.

We KNOW that neither doctrines or Dogmas can be changed. BUT many today choose to over look the fact that as the world around us changes so too must the Church change to meet new needs.

The current understanding as articulated by the Catechism of the Catholic Church has expanded; NOT CHANGED; EXPANDED because the World around us changed and there are now “over 30,000” protestant; Christian churches outside the full embrace of Faith of the CC. YET, because of a Common Baptism, and a common Belief in the Blessed Trinity; Mother Church has; inspired and guided in such matters by the Holy Spirit, determined that there is a unity of belief sufficient to claim that they too MIGHT [conditionally] a possibility for there salvation to flow THROUGH the One True; and Only Faith founded by Jesus Christ.

1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

814 From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God’s gifts and the diversity of those who receive them. Within the unity of the People of God, a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together. Among the Church’s members, there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life. “Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions.” The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church’s unity. Yet sin and the burden of its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity. And so the Apostle has to exhort Christians to “maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation

I would further suggest that the Catechism authorized, approved and issued the Papal - Office of Blessed John Paul II has the same weight of authority, as do the documents quoted.

Quite simply, the CC had to extend this POSSIBILITY because at the time of these writings the Protestant Revolution had yet to take place.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[adrift]

I heartily agree with all the Catholic church’s declarations that I am aware, except perhaps, a flip-flop on the condemnation of usury. The charging of any interest on a monetary loan seems to be contrary to the OT and NT for those who are followers of our Lord Jesus Christ.
.

Usury

In the Christian era, the New Testament is silent on the subject; the passage in St. Luke (vi, 34, 35), which some persons interpret as a condemnation of interest, is only an exhortation to general and disinterested benevolence.

Did the Church Change Its Stance on Usury?

In other words, Catholic teaching still holds that usury is morally impermissible, but it does not follow from this (and the Church never did teach) that any charge above principle on a loan is always wrong. The Catechism of the Catholic Church reiterates the condemnation of usurious actions:

THE RED HERRING OF USURY

---

Q: Hasn’t the Church changed its teaching on usury? In the Middle Ages usury was considered a mortal sin, and the Church condemned it, yet today the Church doesn’t forbid the taking of interest on loans.

A: Usury and interest taking aren’t the same thing. That the Church didn’t always distinguish the two as it does today is due to the fact that the medieval concept (and use) of money was different from ours today.

Usury involves interest taken on a non-productive loan. (Example: a loan to a friend so he can have an operation.) Since medievals believed money as such to be non-productive and sterile (which in fact it generally was in the Middle Ages), they thought any interest taken immoral. (It’s still immoral to take interest on a non-productive loan, since such a loan violates the virtue of charity.) Only things which were productive could be loaned out with the expectation of compensation for the loss of productivity. For example, it would not have been usurious for a medieval farmer to loan out his cow and expect compensation for the milk lost during the time of the loan.

When the understanding (and reality) of money as a largely inert, non-productive thing changed as a result of economic changes in European society, the principle that interest taken on money was per se inordinate, was abandoned as well.

 

[kylemccloughan]

adrift:
I think his entire quote on the subject would show that you are not correct.

 

[kylemccloughan]

adrift:
???

 

[kylemccloughan]

adrift:
???

 

[Cavaradossi]

Mary could have said no to the Angel Gabriel…like all human beings, she and us were made in the image of God with free will and intellect.

I don’t think Mary would squander anything for her own acclaim…Our Lady of Grace has her hands open but down…heavy with graces from Christ to share.

Mary is, in Mother Theresa’s term, the transmitter of grace between God and us…she serves us as well…and she has no receptacle of sin…we can embrace her wholeheartedly.

Yes, but Mary couldn’t say no to the IC. That’s what I’m saying, the fact that God made her special from conception obliterates part of her free will.

 

[adrift]

Roman Catholic history…beginning perhaps around the 13th century–and official in 1854.

5. Didn’t the Church just invent the doctrine 150 years ago?

Pope Pius IX officially defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in 1854. When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was “invented” at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the Pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it.
Doctrines are defined formally only when there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or when the Magisterium (the Church in its office as teacher; cf… Matt. 28:18–20; 1 Tim. 3:15, 4:11) thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The definition of the Immaculate Conception was prompted by the latter motive; it did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. Pope Pius IX, who was highly devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary, hoped the definition would inspire others in their devotion to her. By understanding the work that God has done in Our Lady, all should have greater appreciation for both him and her. For if one member of the body is honored, all should share in its joy (1 Cor 12:26).

Mary Full of Grace

The Fathers of the Church taught that Mary received a number of distinctive blessings in order to make her a more fitting mother for Christ and the prototypical Christian (follower of Christ). These blessings included her role as the New Eve (corresponding to Christ’s role as the New Adam), her Immaculate Conception, her spiritual motherhood of all Christians, and her Assumption into heaven. These gifts were given to her by God’s grace. She did not earn them, but she possessed them nonetheless.

 

[adrift]

???

 

[kylemccloughan]

QUOTE=adrift;8111183]

 

[adrift]

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes, Mary had free will, and she could have said no. So we hold in faith that she – as a creature – had this faculty that along with her intellect, made her an image of God.

LIkewise, Christ did not go out and just pick anyone to be His apostle. He had His own reasons, and Peter then even denied Him 3 times after he was chosen by Christ to be the rock.

I would think that if an angel were to appear to any mortal, yes, the angel would discern just as Christ discerned Who would be His apostles. Only one betrayed Him.

And Mary, full of grace, did not say no or betray Christ. Just as the apostles had a special calling in Christianity, so did Mary.

The full deposit of faith resides in one Church, Christ’s church–that includes the place that Peter once had. But that does not mean that the ecclesiastics are better or have a monopoly on holiness.

Before God, there are no favorites, and when it comes to holiness, we each have our own walk to God.

Yes, Mary had a free will, but she had a mission God prepared for her, and with her fullness of grace, she freely responded and said yes. If she had said no, there would be no Messiah.

 

[byeveryword]

Usury

Did the Church Change Its Stance on Usury?

THE RED HERRING OF USURY

If I was to accept your arguments on interest taken on productive or non-productive loans, we still can not get around the fact that individuals are being charged interest on non-productive loans in order to pay for medical services, housing for large families, transportation to work that does not have mass transit, etc.

 

[rinnie]

No. This is not the ancient and apostolic teaching of the Church.
In order for Christ to truly receive the fulness of humanity, His mother had to be completely human…orginal sin and all.

You make no sense to me at all. What about Eve was she human? Was she brought into this world with Original SIn?

If your answer to this is NO Eve did not have O.S. and God saved her from it. How can he not save the Blessed Mother.

How could she be called Blessed are YOU among Women and Blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. What does Blessed mean to you Micky. Stained with Original sin

 

[rinnie]

You know I like you rinnie…but please do not put words in my mouth. What Mickey is saying is: There is no Tradition from the early Church which corroborates the late innovation of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the IC. It is not necessary to believe that St Mary was an exception when it comes to original sin. Original sin is a human attribute and St Mary was human…Christ received the fulness of humanity from her. Does this mean that Christ was born with sin…of course not…He is the Son of God.

And I love you Mickey but how could Christ be without original sin if original sin is inherited from the Mother?

And it IS necessary to believe that the Blessed Mother was saved from Original sin. It really is. It is more important then you can ever know.

I am going to bed right now, had a long day, but do me a favor my friend. PLEASE pray to God tonight and ask him to give you the grace to see how Important this really is.

You do not understand what you are saying. IF the Blessed Mother had original sin and she could not be saved from it by God Do you see the insanity of this statement you are making?

 

[rinnie]

Kathleen…
The IC? No.
Indeed. She is blessed among women! The Orthodox Church has no greater veneration for a saint than we have for Our Panaghia! We have such honor and respect for her that we are not inclined to call her “Mary” (like the protestants and Roman Catholics). We usually refer to her as “Panaghia” (all Holy One), “Most Holy Theotokos”, or at the very least “St Mary.”

But Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition tells us nothing of this doctrine of the IC that Rome has adopted.

Good Job Mickey. Really Good Job. Now help me here. How can she be Most Holy, and O Holy One and have Sin?

 

[adrift]

If I was to accept your arguments on interest taken on productive or non-productive loans, we still can not get around the fact that individuals are being charged interest on non-productive loans in order to pay for medical services, housing for large families, transportation to work that does not have mass transit, etc.

I am interested in your evidence for the above statement.
However, it has not bearing because…

Usury and interest taking aren’t the same thing. That the Church didn’t always distinguish the two as it does today is due to the fact that the medieval concept (and use) of money was different from ours today.

 

[byeveryword]

adrift:
This is your belief and God has given you His Spirit, so I respect your understanding.

I differ with you on this. As I quoted from Genesis, there is no painless way to support oneself. Those who use money to make money think it is painless way to support themselves, but it is not for others.

Interest or usury, whatever it is called, does not seem to be the way of our Lord Jesus Christ. “The love of money is the root of all evil”. How many people invest in stocks because they want to provide jobs for people? Not very many. Most invest to get the highest rate of return on their investment.

This way of investing in corporations encourages the love of money, and it encourages corporations to pursue profits at any cost in order to keep their investors. This is at the cost of the enviroment, at the cost of the laborer, and at the cost of providing only those products and services that are for the common good.

 

[adrift]

No. This is not the ancient and apostolic teaching of the Church.
In order for Christ to truly receive the fulness of humanity, His mother had to be completely human…orginal sin and all.

If Mary could only be completely human by having original sin, than it follows that Jesus could only be human by having a orginal sin. :bigyikes:

Scripture tells us that Jesus was Like Us in All Things Except Sin. If is possible for Jesus to be fully human except for sin including orginal sin than it follows that Mary can also be fully human being preserved from original sin.

The rest of us were not save from all sin until Jesus was crucified and saved us. I take it that you believe that at some point before this you say Mary was cleansed of os? If so, than why not at conception?

 

[adrift]

This is your belief and God has given you His Spirit, so I respect your understanding.

I differ with you on this. As I quoted from Genesis, there is no painless way to support oneself. Those who use money to make money think it is painless way to support themselves, but it is not for others.

Interest or usury, whatever it is called, does not seem to be the way of our Lord Jesus Christ. “The love of money is the root of all evil”. How many people invest in stocks because they want to provide jobs for people? Not very many. Most invest to get the highest rate of return on their investment.

This way of investing in corporations encourages the love of money, and it encourages corporations to pursue profits at any cost in order to keep their investors. This is at the cost of the enviroment, at the cost of the laborer, and at the cost of providing only those products and services that are for the common good.

Why people make money is not an evil in itself. I doubt many people spend money make money or save money for the purpose of providing jobs. It would be nice if we had only a barter system but in todays age it would not work. Your opinion is that it is a cost of the enviromentl. In some cases this might be true but in mho it is over stated. There is pros and cons on this issue. as is the rest of your sentence. Common good can be vastly different for different people. I don’t see the same thing you do. Interest is not a problem usury is. Jesus didn’t say anything about it. The only thing I recall Him saying is render into Caesar the things that are Caesar. We can’t make judgments on people’s hearts. That means we can’t see if they have a love of money or not. Jesus had a parable of a woman who losing money searched the whole house. Remember that parable.
However, why this came up is your statement

I heartily agree with all the Catholic church’s declarations that I am aware, except perhaps, a flip-flop on the condemnation of usury.

The Church did not do a flip-flop which I have demonstrated and you have not refuted.

 

[byeveryword]

Why people make money is not an evil in itself. I doubt many people spend money make money or save money for the purpose of providing jobs. It would be nice if we had only a barter system but in todays age it would not work. Your opinion is that it is a cost of the enviromentl. In some cases this might be true but in mho it is over stated. There is pros and cons on this issue. as is the rest of your sentence. Common good can be vastly different for different people. I don’t see the same thing you do. Interest is not a problem usury is. Jesus didn’t say anything about it. The only thing I recall Him saying is render into Caesar the things that are Caesar. We can’t make judgments on people’s hearts. That means we can’t see if they have a love of money or not. Jesus had a parable of a woman who losing money searched the whole house. Remember that parable.
However, why this came up is your statement

The Church did not do a flip-flop which I have demonstrated and you have not refuted.

I do not claim to refute you. I do think that collecting interest on non-productive loans that individuals take out for medical services, housing and transportation to work are usury under the definition of the Catholic church.

Even the Jewish people were commanded to cancel all debts of their debtors after 50 years. The teachings of Jesus Christ are more perfect than the OT. So what does that say about lending without receiving back, let alone the definition of usury or interest?