Why Do Most Catholics Ignore Humane Vitae?

[Chrono13]

Precisely because Josef Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Bandit XVI) knows that “the Catholic Church” has never taught that “sex is only for procreation.”

First, he never covered the topic in his writings.

Second, if he would have said something of such kind, it would not change the fact that Church thought (and taught) sex is only for procreation.

Only dissenters, the malformed and mal-informed, could concoct such a travesty of truth.

Truth can only be denied- not dissented to. If I speak the truth, I can not be dissenter.

Further She has taught always against contraception and as the principles of NBR became known counseled it’s wise use for just and serious reasons.

Principles of NBR were known as long as 4th century, and from what we know, they were not accepted.

 

[Chrono13]

Some people never learn. Not only is St Augustine pilloried, but the infallible doctrine against contraception is demeaned and dissented from by this poster, thus ridiculing the Popes and Christ Himself.

As I said many times, St. Augustine is all over the net, and everybody can read his work, then conclude the truth.

And truth ridicules only liars- Christ is certainly not one of them. Popes? Might be, since they are sinners. But I choose not to call them that way.

Christ’s Church and His infallible teaching through His Popes are cast aside as worthless, for a quagmire of dissent.
He has been shown the reality repeatedly, as below, but prefers his own selfist interpretations to the reality of truth.

Oh, joy. Another set of insults to me, huble seeker of truth. Christ said much worse things will happen to those who serve Him.

If I would think Pope is worthless, I would say so.
I have not said so.

That Augustine knew NFP, and declared it evil, is not my selfish interpretation. It is an objective fact, which would be the same even if I would somehow agree with you.

In his debate with Julian, he makes it clear that it is not pleasure which he criticizes: “because pleasure can also be honourable”; [32] and he is content that Julian admits that pleasure can be both licit and illicit. [33]

I never said Augustine criticized pleasure in sexual intercourse, thus this point proves nothing. At least not in my case.

“…summing up what we have so far established. The essential goods of marriage—offspring, fidelity, the unbreakable bond—are vigorously defended and praised by Augustine, who presents them as the laudable blessings of the married state.

Yet, these blessings are not adressed to marital intercourse, but remain on field of marriage as relation.

He also proposes the goodness of sexual differences, and of the intimacy and pleasure of marital intercourse: all of these given by God. The disorder that he draws attention to resides in our sense appetite (which, once again, is good in itself), [35] and that disorder makes itself particularly felt in the area of sexuality. His reserve, then, is not about the goodness of marriage, but about the force and effect of libido or the *concupiscentia carnis *which, he says, "is not a good that proceeds from the essence of marriage, but an evil which is the accident of original sin]. [36]

And since every intercourse done without desire of begetting is concupscentia carnis (lust of flesh), Augustine concludes that sex is only moral when procreation is intent of relation.

However, even sex for procreation, because of original sin, is lustful. Holy people are not immune to this (this might be interesting to Burke’s supporters)…

What friend of wisdom and holy joys, who, being married, but knowing, as the apostle says, “how to possess his vessel in santification and honor, not in the disease of desire, as the Gentiles who know not God,” would not prefer, if this were possible , to beget children without this lust, so that in this function of begetting offspring the members created for this purpose should not be stimulated by the heat of lust.
St. Augustine, City of God

 

[Chrono13]

I know of that, and also of the Catholic Bishops of Canada, how 90+% voted against Humanae Vitae!? Pretty sad if you ask me. Fools, false prophets, and black sheep of the Catholic Church. It’s getting better fortunately, young priests going back to what wasn’t broke to begin with, thankfully.

Welcome to discussion.

Now… if bishop must agree with Pope, then voting is completely absurd. However, how can we speak of “Universal Magisterium” (the idea that bishops agree on certain subject") if those who disagree are casted aside?

The smoke of satan has entered the Catholic Church, and Canada is one area he thrives in unfortunately. I know, I used to live there. You couldn’t go to Mass at two different churches without it being different liturgy and rubrics. All these ‘charismatics’ running the churches, and the priest following them like a blind man when he’s the one supposed to lead the flock! Sheep leading the shepherd. VERY sad to see. It’s still happening.

I can’t say, I’m not Canadian. But if bishops are bad, it’s Vatican’s job to handle them. And they have not issued anything on Winnipeg statement. Even when it was re-approved. Seems to me they are building their troops there, and at one time, Canadians will simply retreat the mentioned document without Vatican’s direct action.

 

[Abu]

Chrono13 #303
Now… if bishop must agree with Pope, then voting is completely absurd. However, how can we speak of “Universal Magisterium” (the idea that bishops agree on certain subject") if those who disagree are casted aside?

1. Truth is not determined by “vote”, but by the Holy Spirit for the Popes through His protection against teaching error, promised by Christ.
2. For Ecumenical Councils, all teaching has to be approved by Popes to be valid.
3. Bishops who teach against Magisterial teaching are in error.

The absurdity of the continued dissent and confusion of this poster is revealed in his every post – he takes his prejudices from dissenting bishops and continues to show that he knows nothing about fidelity nor the “universal Magisterium”.

The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium consists of Bishops who propose definitively throughout the world in union with the Pope.

The shabby ad nauseam demeaning and denial of the supremacy of the Pope and the infallibility of the doctrine against contraception continues to starkly portray the enormity of the dissent here pedaled.

There has never been, and is no, “licit dissent” as Pope John Paul II has confirmed: “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].

This is the faithful assent required by the Australian Bishops in 1976:
“The Episcopal Conference informs the Directors of Catholic Family Planning Centres and Priests connected with this work, that the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church contained in Humanae Vitae that ‘every action…to render procreation impossible’ is ‘intrinsically evil’….binds the conscience of all without ambiguity and excludes the possibility of a probable opinion opposed to this teaching.”

To this dissenter, fidelity to truth means nothing, and Satan’s work of doubt and denial are in evidence.

The acknowledgement and fact of truth are evident in Timothy Cardinal Dolan of New York:
**NEW YORK, April 2, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) **-
'As the Catholic Church in America fights Obama’s contraceptive mandate—perhaps its most vigorous defense of Catholic sexual teaching in decades—the Cardinal Archbishop of New York has admitted that the Church has failed to teach the faithful Catholic teaching on contraception, and so “forfeited the chance to be a coherent moral voice when it comes to one of the more burning issues of the day.”

“'In a frank interview with the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who heads the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and is increasingly being billed as America’s leading Catholic cleric, says the Church has failed to communicate its moral teachings in the area of sexuality. He says further that the fault lies with Church leaders.”

Note that tine Popes have taught with fidelity to Christ, but too many bishops have failed in their duty of care.

Readers will note that the dissenting poster actively tries to promote dissent.

 

[kalbertone]

Popes & their authority are of recent times. In the first 1600 tears or so there was no encyclicles,that is of recent vintage.It wasn^t till the 20th century that popes chose Bishops.That has led to disaster because a pope can choose someone not for pastoral ability but if he agrees with him on some trivial non definitive issue.Popes had nothing to do with the Creeds(Nicae,apostles0 that define our faith & councils have always held supremacy.The Council Of Constance which ended the papal schism stated its authority is from Christ & all are to obey including the pope. When the pope lost his lands(he had armies,assasins) to the unification of Italy,he took on a more spiritual presence to compensate this loss of temporal power.Vatican 1 gave this but was a incomplete council due to political turmoil.Vatican II finished it up.It would of been unheard of for the pope to assert his authority outside his own archdiocese throughout the first 1,000 years of church history.The Popes unrestrained power in absolute monarchy(which the church is not) should of ended at Vatican II. But John Paul II & Benedict have dissented against Collegiality,subsidiarity in favour of a totalitarian type church which is not modelled on the apostles(read Acts to see what I mean)

 

[Abu]

kalbertone #305
Vatican 1 gave this but was a incomplete council due to political turmoil.Vatican II finished it up.It would of been unheard of for the pope to assert his authority outside his own archdiocese throughout the first 1,000 years of church history.The Popes unrestrained power in absolute monarchy(which the church is not) should of ended at Vatican II. But John Paul II & Benedict have dissented against Collegiality,subsidiarity in favour of a totalitarian type church which is not modelled on the apostles

Perfidy and lack of knowledge is endless here – another dissenter trying to play “pope”. Even after the fiasco over “conscience” – his false “PRIMACY & Superiority of CONSCIENCE” (see post #288) – he’s learned nothing.

The God-given primacy of the Popes, so eloquently affirmed at Vatican I, was expressed very early in the Church.
Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1).

Fr Stanley Jaki shows that the reality of the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome was expressed even by Protestant theologian Adolph von Harnack, with reference to the first century! Those who know nothing of history can now learn from history. The Infallibility and primacy of The Vicar of Christ was not disputed in Christ’s Church, at the beginning.

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

The doctrine of Papal infallibility is found in Scripture (Mt 16:17-19; Jn 21: 15-17; Mt 28:19-20; 1 Tim 3:15), and for the final proposed dogma of Vatican I there were 471 bishops for and 130 against; more than two-thirds bishops for. Sixty-six bishops then returned to their dioceses before the Public Session, but all eventually declared full acceptance of the defined doctrine. [Dr Leslie Rumble, *Questions People Ask, Chevalier, 1975, p 159].

The denigration of the dogma of papal primacy and infallibility is a monstrous fantasy, and Vatican II repeats the teaching in the *Dogmatic Constitution on the Church *(Lumen Gentium) (#18):
“This sacred synod following in the steps of the First Vatican Council… This teaching concerning the institution, the permanence, the nature and import of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching office, the sacred synod proposes anew to be firmly believed by all the faithful….”

On the genuine doctrinal development of collegiality, *Lumen Gentium *(Dogmatic Constitution of the Church), 25, teaches clearly: “But Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college.”

Lumen gentium

Dogmatic Constitution on the Church - Lumen gentium

www.vatican.va

……“collegial infallibility…marks a turning point in doctrinal history.” [See Fr John A Hardon, S.J., *The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 232-233]. This refers to the bishops around the world when teaching in accord with the Pope; when reflecting historical continuity of teaching; and in an Ecumenical Council when approved by a Pope.

So going against the Pope is NOT sanctioned by Vatican II which is completely consistent with Vatican I.

The dissenters just don’t know what they are talking about.

 

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

May I weigh in here regarding the innacurate offerings on the “non infallibity” of the Bishop of Rome. The actual history is that as noted PETER whose new name meant a new ROLE biblically, as in Abram/Abraham/ Jacob/Israel, was the most active of the Apostles in the Gospels and Acts, the “Decider” to cite GWBush from a different context, had that role for all the legitimate Councils. The declaration of an infallible decree, as in IMMACULATE CONCEPTION and ASSUMPTION, presume universal acceptance by the whole Church, bishops and laity, and they were consulted in both. Despite the sociological, political turmoil about the loss of the papal states, the 1870 Vatican 11 decision was a formal, quite precisely narrowly defined wording of the Tradition that was always held. The Crowned Heads of Europe used appoint or had veto power over the naming of bishops. That corruption which led to all sorts of evil, led to the BISHOP OF ROME making all appointments, nothing to do with power-grabbbing on his part., Before that he named all the bishops of Italy, the papal states. I delight in discussions and teaching but I bristle when redacted history and “politically naturalist” spins are given to our Church’s actual story.

 

[kalbertone]

Perfidy and lack of knowledge is endless here – another dissenter trying to play “pope”. Even after the fiasco over “conscience” – his false “PRIMACY & Superiority of CONSCIENCE” (see post #288) – he’s learned nothing.

The God-given primacy of the Popes, so eloquently affirmed at Vatican I, was expressed very early in the Church.
Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1).

Fr Stanley Jaki shows that the reality of the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome was expressed even by Protestant theologian Adolph von Harnack, with reference to the first century! Those who know nothing of history can now learn from history. The Infallibility and primacy of The Vicar of Christ was not disputed in Christ’s Church, at the beginning.

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

The doctrine of Papal infallibility is found in Scripture (Mt 16:17-19; Jn 21: 15-17; Mt 28:19-20; 1 Tim 3:15), and for the final proposed dogma of Vatican I there were 471 bishops for and 130 against; more than two-thirds bishops for. Sixty-six bishops then returned to their dioceses before the Public Session, but all eventually declared full acceptance of the defined doctrine. [Dr Leslie Rumble, *Questions People Ask

, Chevalier, 1975, p 159].

The denigration of the dogma of papal primacy and infallibility is a monstrous fantasy, and Vatican II repeats the teaching in the *Dogmatic Constitution on the Church *(Lumen Gentium) (#18):
“This sacred synod following in the steps of the First Vatican Council… This teaching concerning the institution, the permanence, the nature and import of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching office, the sacred synod proposes anew to be firmly believed by all the faithful….”

On the genuine doctrinal development of collegiality, *Lumen Gentium *(Dogmatic Constitution of the Church), 25, teaches clearly: “But Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college.”

Lumen gentium

Dogmatic Constitution on the Church - Lumen gentium

www.vatican.va

……“collegial infallibility…marks a turning point in doctrinal history.” [See Fr John A Hardon, S.J., *The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 232-233]. This refers to the bishops around the world when teaching in accord with the Pope; when reflecting historical continuity of teaching; and in an Ecumenical Council when approved by a Pope.

So going against the Pope is NOT sanctioned by Vatican II which is completely consistent with Vatican I.

The dissenters just don’t know what they are talking about.

 

[kalbertone]

Perfidy and lack of knowledge is endless here – another dissenter trying to play “pope”. Even after the fiasco over “conscience” – his false “PRIMACY & Superiority of CONSCIENCE” (see post #288) – he’s learned nothing.
Then why did John Paul II say in his book In the Threhold of Hope that “If Newman places Conscience above authority he is proclaiming nothing new,it has always been a constant tradition of the church”. Why aren^t you withdrawing any money you have if its collecting interest or scolding the Vatican whose Bank practices Usury as condemned by popes & councils under no exception in times past ?
The God-given primacy of the Popes, so eloquently affirmed at Vatican I, was expressed very early in the Church.
Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).
It was the Apostle James who gave the final decision at the Council Of Jerusalem. Also Peter wanted to impose circumcision on grown males(Ouch !) before Paul resisted him & told him he was wrong.Didn^t Jesus also say to peter in the gospel"stay behind me satan"
The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1).

Fr Stanley Jaki shows that the reality of the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome was expressed even by Protestant theologian Adolph von Harnack, with reference to the first century! Those who know nothing of history can now learn from history. The Infallibility and primacy of The Vicar of Christ was not disputed in Christ’s Church, at the beginning.

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).
Yes he had a place of honour,but the jurisdiction over the whole church was unheard of in the first 1,000 years.Each Bishop was referred to as Vicar Of Christ,in charge of their own flock
Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

The doctrine of Papal infallibility is found in Scripture (Mt 16:17-19; Jn 21: 15-17; Mt 28:19-20; 1 Tim 3:15), and for the final proposed dogma of Vatican I there were 471 bishops for and 130 against; more than two-thirds bishops for. Sixty-six bishops then returned to their dioceses before the Public Session, but all eventually declared full acceptance of the defined doctrine. [Dr Leslie Rumble, *Questions People Ask

, Chevalier, 1975, p 159].
It was unheard of.John the XII who reigned in late 900s said it was the work of the devil & it was never used because it was non existant pure & simple. I believe in Paal infallibility because as Vatican 1 & 2 proclaimed its part of the infallibilty of the whole chuech(including the laity). So if a pope teaches something & its rejected by the church at large,he can^t declare its infallible
The denigration of the dogma of papal primacy and infallibility is a monstrous fantasy, and Vatican II repeats the teaching in the *Dogmatic Constitution on the Church *(Lumen Gentium) (#18):
“This sacred synod following in the steps of the First Vatican Council… This teaching concerning the institution, the permanence, the nature and import of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching office, the sacred synod proposes anew to be firmly believed by all the faithful….”I do believe in it but its a infallibility as the council teaches that belongs to the whole church(incl. the people). They play a role in this with reception,sense of the faithful

On the genuine doctrinal development of collegiality, *Lumen Gentium *(Dogmatic Constitution of the Church), 25, teaches clearly: **“But Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college.”**It teaches also bishops get their authority from Christ & are not Vassels of the pope too.They govern with him. Hence Primacy is placed within collegiality.Not turning his back on Bishops & going your own way(JPII)

Lumen gentium

Dogmatic Constitution on the Church - Lumen gentium

www.vatican.va

……“collegial infallibility…marks a turning point in doctrinal history.” [See Fr John A Hardon, S.J., *The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, p 232-233]. This refers to the bishops around the world when teaching in accord with the Pope; when reflecting historical continuity of teaching; and in an Ecumenical Council when approved by a Pope.

So going against the Pope is NOT sanctioned by Vatican II which is completely consistent with Vatican I.

The dissenters just don’t know what they are talking about.

 

[Chrono13]

1. Truth is not determined by “vote”, but by the Holy Spirit for the Popes through His protection against teaching error, promised by Christ.

That’s what I said. What’s the point of voting ?

1. Bishops who teach against Magisterial teaching are in error.

This means Catholic can’t have a valid sacrament in Canada for the last 40 years.

The absurdity of the continued dissent and confusion of this poster is revealed in his every post – he takes his prejudices from dissenting bishops and continues to show that he knows nothing about fidelity nor the “universal Magisterium”.
The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium consists of Bishops who propose definitively throughout the world in union with the Pope.

If bishop disagrees, then he is a heretic?
What is the point of magisterium then? If they have to agree with Pope, they are not different then layman. How can things work on Councils?

The shabby ad nauseam demeaning and denial of the supremacy of the Pope and the infallibility of the doctrine against contraception continues to starkly portray the enormity of the dissent here pedaled.

I only said St. Augustine, as most (every?) Church Fathers, claimed sex is only for procreation.

If Pope disagrees with them, it’s really not my problem. Catholic can’t choose between Pope and History- these things need to be both accepted.

To this dissenter, fidelity to truth means nothing, and Satan’s work of doubt and denial are in evidence.
Readers will note that the dissenting poster actively tries to promote dissent.

I won’t talk to you that way. Nor to our readers as well. They are too smart to be manipulated by either of us. If for nothing else, they are faithful, and love Jesus. He will lead them to truth.

Now, to those who came here to discuss all things Catholic, I ask you, dear Abu, to explain this paragraph of Saint Augustine of Hippo…

What friend of wisdom and holy joys, who, being married, but knowing, as the apostle says, “how to possess his vessel in santification and honor, not in the disease of desire, as the Gentiles who know not God,” would not prefer, if this were possible , to beget children without this lust, so that in this function of begetting offspring the members created for this purpose should not be stimulated by the heat of lust.
**St. Augustine, City of God **

In other words, every sexual act is act of lust. It is impossible to concieve children without lust. Wise people would like sex to be different, but it’s not, it’s always an act of lust. Lust is part of every intercourse, and no act is free of it.

Would Pope object me, or would he object Augustine?

I am hoping for a direct answer on direct question.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This may be simplistic, but it seems to me the answer is on two levels:

1. People ignore it because they want to use artificial birth control and don’t want to hear anything contrary to what they want to do. People like to sin and don’t like to be challenged for doing it.
2. People don’t want to admit they’re sinning when they do it. I recall reading a historian who talked about the morals and faith of the Renaissance. He remarked that, compared to those people, folks nowadays neither sin well nor practice virtue well. That seems an odd thing to say, except that if you do look back into history, you do see that people sinned with considerable vigor and earnestness, but that they also repented with vigor and earnestness.

We, on the other hand, prefer to lie to ourselves and sort of sin in a fog of self-deception, then don’t repent at all. We neither sin well nor repent well.

 

[Catholic_Prime_1]

I don’t mean to sound rude or anything, but I think God allows for some people to have, and for others to have not. I don’t understand it, but I’m not going to question it either.

Not everybody can be rich, and not everybody is poor. Maybe God has a Vocation for you.
Maybe you’d be better off as a Priest.

 

[Abu]

Chrono13 #303
Now… if bishop must agree with Pope, then voting is completely absurd. However, how can we speak of “Universal Magisterium” (the idea that bishops agree on certain subject") if those who disagree are casted aside?
#310
What’s the point of voting ?

So that no one is misled by anyone who places themselves above Popes, and Vatican II, and doesn’t assent to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), # 21:
“But Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college.”
Note that this is issued by the Ecumenical Council of the world’s bishops in union with the Pope, which is demeaned by the poster. The “absurdity” is only with the poster.

Apart from this essential communion, “episcopal action has no assurance of divine approval, no matter how many prelates may agree among themselves.” (Fr John A Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 223).

I only said St. Augustine, as most (every?) Church Fathers, claimed sex is only for procreation. If Pope disagrees with them, it’s really not my problem. Catholic can’t choose between Pope and History- these things need to be both accepted.

Persistently repeated rubbish, and trying to put any such fantasy above the Magisterium is confusion worse confounded.

But for the interested, St Augustine’s thoughts can be accessed at:
churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/augustine.htm

SAINT AUGUSTINE AND CONJUGAL SEXUALITY
Monsignor Cormac Burke, a priest of the Opus Dei Prelature, was a judge of the Roman Rota (the High Court of the Church), and taught at the Roman University of the Holy Cross.

When the infallible doctrine against contraception is accepted, along with all other doctrine and dogma, then can Christ be really accepted as Redeemer and the teaching and sacraments of His Church lead those blessed believers to try to live according to His precepts through Her.

 

[Abu]

Chrono13 #303
Now… if bishop must agree with Pope, then voting is completely absurd. However, how can we speak of “Universal Magisterium” (the idea that bishops agree on certain subject") if those who disagree are casted aside?
#310
What’s the point of voting ?

So that no one is misled by anyone who places themselves above Popes, and Vatican II, and doesn’t assent to the *Dogmatic Constitution on the Church *(Lumen Gentium), # 21:
“But Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college.”
Note that this is issued by the Ecumenical Council of the world’s bishops in union with the Pope, which is demeaned by the poster. The “absurdity” is only with the poster.

Apart from this essential communion, “episcopal action has no assurance of divine approval, no matter how many prelates may agree among themselves.” (Fr John A Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 223).
I only said St. Augustine, as most (every?) Church Fathers, claimed sex is only for procreation. If Pope disagrees with them, it’s really not my problem. Catholic can’t choose between Pope and History- these things need to be both accepted.
Persistently repeated rubbish, and trying to put any such fantasy above the Magisterium is confusion worse confounded.

But for the interested, St Augustine’s thoughts can be accessed at:
churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/augustine.htm

SAINT AUGUSTINE AND CONJUGAL SEXUALITY
Monsignor Cormac Burke, a priest of the Opus Dei Prelature, was a judge of the Roman Rota (the High Court of the Church), and taught at the Roman University of the Holy Cross.

When the infallible doctrine against contraception is accepted, along with all other doctrine and dogma, then can Christ be really accepted as Redeemer and the teaching of His Church lead those blessed believers to try to live according to His precepts through Her.

 

[kalbertone]

May I weigh in here regarding the innacurate offerings on the “non infallibity” of the Bishop of Rome. The actual history is that as noted PETER whose new name meant a new ROLE biblically, as in Abram/Abraham/ Jacob/Israel, was the most active of the Apostles in the Gospels and Acts, the “Decider” to cite GWBush from a different context, had that role for all the legitimate Councils. The declaration of an infallible decree, as in IMMACULATE CONCEPTION and ASSUMPTION, presume universal acceptance by the whole Church, bishops and laity, and they were consulted in both. Despite the sociological, political turmoil about the loss of the papal states, the 1870 Vatican 11 decision was a formal, quite precisely narrowly defined wording of the Tradition that was always held. The Crowned Heads of Europe used appoint or had veto power over the naming of bishops. That corruption which led to all sorts of evil, led to the BISHOP OF ROME making all appointments, nothing to do with power-grabbbing on his part., Before that he named all the bishops of Italy, the papal states. I delight in discussions and teaching but I bristle when redacted history and “politically naturalist” spins are given to our Church’s actual story.

 

[kalbertone]

So that no one is misled by anyone who places themselves above Popes, and Vatican II, and doesn’t assent to the *Dogmatic Constitution on the Church *(Lumen Gentium), # 21:
“But Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college.”
Note that this is issued by the Ecumenical Council of the world’s bishops in union with the Pope, which is demeaned by the poster. The “absurdity” is only with the poster.

Apart from this essential communion, “episcopal action has no assurance of divine approval, no matter how many prelates may agree among themselves.” (Fr John A Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 223).
I only said St. Augustine, as most (every?) Church Fathers, claimed sex is only for procreation. If Pope disagrees with them, it’s really not my problem. Catholic can’t choose between Pope and History- these things need to be both accepted.
Persistently repeated rubbish, and trying to put any such fantasy above the Magisterium is confusion worse confounded.

But for the interested, St Augustine’s thoughts can be accessed at:
churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/augustine.htm

SAINT AUGUSTINE AND CONJUGAL SEXUALITY
Monsignor Cormac Burke, a priest of the Opus Dei Prelature, was a judge of the Roman Rota (the High Court of the Church), and taught at the Roman University of the Holy Cross.

When the infallible doctrine against contraception is accepted, along with all other doctrine and dogma, then can Christ be really accepted as Redeemer and the teaching of His Church lead those blessed believers to try to live according to His precepts through Her.

 

[kalbertone]

Well the Bishop Of Rome making all the appointments(very recent only in past century) has led to big time corruption.Men were chosen in the case of JPII not because of pastoral ability or (name removed by moderator)ut from the local church but because they adhered to JPII^S vies on sexuality & gender. In the past the local church offered Bishops & Rome would pick one,there would be respect for the local church.Bishops,laity,clergy have complained that Bishops have been imposed on them by Rome.Throughout most of History this WAS NOT THE CASE. People also elected Popes in the early days(there was no such thing College of Cardinals throughout most of history). Pope Leo who was elected said it best"he who serves all should be elected by all"

 

[kalbertone]

So that no one is misled by anyone who places themselves above Popes, and Vatican II, and doesn’t assent to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), # 21:
“But Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the office of teaching and of governing, which, however, of its very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head and the members of the college.”
Note that this is issued by the Ecumenical Council of the world’s bishops in union with the Pope, which is demeaned by the poster. The “absurdity” is only with the poster. If you look at apostolic Canon 34 from the first 3 centuries of the united church—yes it acknowledges the primacy of pope but issues a warning that, that primacy of pope CANNOT be excercised without communion with his brother bishops. A pope acting separate from the college is unheard of throughout the first 1,000 years

Apart from this essential communion, “episcopal action has no assurance of divine approval, no matter how many prelates may agree among themselves.” (Fr John A Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 223).
Persistently repeated rubbish, and trying to put any such fantasy above the Magisterium is confusion worse confounded.
Neither does a Pope when he does not speak ex-cathedra or separate from the college
But for the interested, St Augustine’s thoughts can be accessed at:
churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/augustine.htm

SAINT AUGUSTINE AND CONJUGAL SEXUALITY
Monsignor Cormac Burke, a priest of the Opus Dei Prelature, was a judge of the Roman Rota (the High Court of the Church), and taught at the Roman University of the Holy Cross.
The Church fathers were against Usury—practiced by the Vatican & millions & millions of Catholics
When the infallible doctrine against contraception is accepted, along with all other doctrine and dogma, then can Christ be really accepted as Redeemer and the teaching and sacraments of His Church lead those blessed believers to try to live according to His precepts through Her.

Its not accepted,never was. The Trinity yes,the redemption of Christ yes. But this has never been formally recieved

 

[Abu]

kalbertone #318
Its not accepted,never was. The Trinity yes,the redemption of Christ yes. But this has never been formally recieved

That’s precisely why dissenters are not real Catholics – they feel they can have their cake as well as eat it, meaning that they can pick and choose whatever they decide to believe and however they choose to live, thus ridiculing Christ and His Church, the same Christ who taught: “He who is not with Me is against Me.” (Mt 10:12).

Canon Law defines the real Catholic:
Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

Can. 229 §1. Lay persons are bound by the obligation and possess the right to acquire knowledge of Christian doctrine appropriate to the capacity and condition of each in order for them to be able to live according to this doctrine, announce it themselves, defend it if necessary, and take their part in exercising the apostolate.

Dissenters don’t have a leg to stand on.

 

[Chrono13]

What is voting for?
So that no one is misled by anyone who places themselves above Popes, and Vatican II, and doesn’t assent to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium),

How can voting of bishops help against misleading people?

Persistently repeated rubbish, and trying to put any such fantasy above the Magisterium is confusion worse confounded.

Negative. We talk about Church History, and every attempt to disregard it as “rubbish” is denying the sacrifices layman had to offer in order to upheld the teaching sex is valid/moral only for procreation.

But for the interested, St Augustine’s thoughts can be accessed at:
churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/augustine.htm

SAINT AUGUSTINE AND CONJUGAL SEXUALITY
Monsignor Cormac Burke, a priest of the Opus Dei Prelature, was a judge of the Roman Rota (the High Court of the Church), and taught at the Roman University of the Holy Cross.

As already pointed, text suffers from various inconsistencies. Instead of reading Burke, readers are welcome to read actual writing of St. Augustine:
newadvent.org/fathers/1201.htm

Especially take note of this quote…

**What friend of wisdom and holy joys, who, being married, but knowing, as the apostle says, “how to possess his vessel in santification and honor, not in the disease of desire, as the Gentiles who know not God,” would not prefer, if this were possible , to beget children without this lust, so that in this function of begetting offspring the members created for this purpose should not be stimulated by the heat of lust.
St. Augustine, City of God **

…because it claims that it is impossible to have sexual intercourse without lust. And this is something “theology of the body” doesn’t want to talk about.

Neither do you Abu. I asked for direct answer on a direct question- your lack of providing it shows something to this Roman Catholic.

When the infallible doctrine against contraception is accepted, along with all other doctrine and dogma, then can Christ be really accepted as Redeemer and the teaching and sacraments of His Church lead those blessed believers to try to live according to His precepts through Her.

If this doctrine bypasses the history and theology of Catholic Church, it will certainly find resistance in faithful.

The Redeemer asked loyalty to truth, and those who search it will open the gate to Him.