T
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why do most people ignore the Church's teaching on contraception?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Abu, I have said on this thread multiple times that I assent to the Church’s teaching on contraception. I have lived it for faithfully for decades. It is you who are all-to-ready to condemn people without reading with comprehension what is being written. Discussion is not dissent.False, as this topic is centred on the ignorance and/or dissent, involved in ignoring/denigrating the Church over Her teaching against contraception and you have dissented against that infallible doctrine.
Please, once again, try to read and understand what is being written. You said that 1 Th 2:13 proved something, and I said the passage did not. It was not an attack on St Paul. It was a refutation of what you wrote. Adding an insulting cliche to your response just marks you as uncharitable. You seem to do that a lot.A false conclusion – that because this particular passage does not mention the Church – that Paul is fantasied to ignore both!! Where ignorance is bliss ‘tis folly to be wise.
For St Paul specifically teaches that the Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:16).”
Once again, this has nothing to do with anything we are discussing.None of the Apostles challenged Peter as to teaching, precisely because He was supreme leader, and they all knew it, and those who so fantasise ignore the real Paul who made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).
R
Rau
Guest
Where do you understand resides the teaching authority of Christ? In each of us? In majority opinion? In each ordained person? In every person later declared a Saint? The Church answers this, and how it is exercised ,and it is none of these things.But what is “the Church” if not the people in it including its saints and bishops and the things that they write and say? I’ve never understood this notion of “the Church” as somehow being a distinct and never culpable or blameworthy entity that is separate from the people in it.
M
Memaw
Guest
The Church has never changed any of her teachings, just some disciplines, BIG difference!! God Bless, MemawThe why has the Church changed some of its teachings? Did Truth change?
M
Memaw
Guest
THE Church is the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC Church founded by Jesus Christ with the promise that the Holy Spirit would protect her from error and the “gates of Hell” would never prevail against her. We, laity, priests, Bishops and yes even the Pope are members of Christ’s Church. Jesus never said that every member of His Church would always be holy, but that was His desire for us to grow in holiness. That is why HE gave HIS Church and the seven Sacraments, to help us grow in holiness. He also gave us His Mother to help us. Get to know her and she will bring us closer to Her SON. We need to get to know the Church and why She teaches what she does. instead of fighting against her teachings. God Bless.MemawBut what is “the Church” if not the people in it including its saints and bishops and the things that they write and say? I’ve never understood this notion of “the Church” as somehow being a distinct and never culpable or blameworthy entity that is separate from the people in it.
T
TMC
Guest
What do you mean? I am not speculating about future changes. As far as past changes, those are a matter of historical record.What is your speculation?
T
TMC
Guest
Didn’t we already go down this path once on this thread? Certainly it comes up often enough. Look at usury for a very easy example, at EENS for a more subtle one.Plse provide links to the old and the new teaching, where the the former was an error in faith or morals. But do this in a new thread.
A
Abu
Guest
Both false – which should be well known by now.TMC #1105
As far as past changes, those are a matter of historical record.
#1106
Look at usury for a very easy example, at EENS for a more subtle one.
1) Usury
Deuteronomy 23:20: “You may charge interest to a foreigner,” indicating that interest-taking is not presented as inherently evil or sinful. The larger ethical issue of the morality of interest-taking is not addressed in the Old Testament. Rather, interest was viewed only as a problem of social justice. The problem of commutative justice, i.e., of equivalence of value in an exchange of present for future goods, remained quite untouched (Thomas F. Divine, S.J., Interest, 10).
With free enterprise as developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics, the Church defined what is meant by usury. Session X of the Fifth Lateran Council (1515) gave its exact meaning: "For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk."
Consequently, as loaning money did involve loss of profit to the lender and further risk of loss from delay in returning the money loaned, this did justify interest that is just and justifiable.
2) Salvation – Extra ecclesia nulla salus.
**“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 – these too may achieve eternal salvation.”
**Popes knew this from St Clement through Pius IX to John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
Pope St Clement I, wrote in about 95 A.D. to the Church in Corinth: “Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God.” Catholic Apologetics Today, 1986, Fr William G Most, p 145].
“By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it will perish in the flood. Nevertheless, equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, land, native talents, and so many other factors” (Singulari Quidem, 1863 A.D.). Hence, Pius IX distinguished between those who have knowledge of the Church and Her divine foundation, and those who have no such knowledge due to a number of mitigating circumstances.
[My emphases].
T
TMC
Guest
We are in serious danger of thread drift here. Suffice to say that this has been discussed ad nauseam on this forum. I think that readers here know the difference between staying the same and changing, and can look at the teachings on usury and EENS and see whether anything has changed or not.Both false – which should be well known by now.
1) Usury
Deuteronomy 23:20: “You may charge interest to a foreigner,” indicating that interest-taking is not presented as inherently evil or sinful. The larger ethical issue of the morality of interest-taking is not addressed in the Old Testament. Rather, interest was viewed only as a problem of social justice. The problem of commutative justice, i.e., of equivalence of value in an exchange of present for future goods, remained quite untouched (Thomas F. Divine, S.J., Interest, 10).
With free enterprise as developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics, the Church defined what is meant by usury. Session X of the Fifth Lateran Council (1515) gave its exact meaning: "For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk."
Consequently, as loaning money did involve loss of profit to the lender and further risk of loss from delay in returning the money loaned, this did justify interest that is just and justifiable.
2) Salvation – Extra ecclesia nulla salus.
**“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 – these too may achieve eternal salvation.”
**Popes knew this from St Clement through Pius IX to John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
Pope St Clement I, wrote in about 95 A.D. to the Church in Corinth: “Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God.” Catholic Apologetics Today, 1986, Fr William G Most, p 145].
“By Faith it is to be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does not enter into it will perish in the flood. Nevertheless, equally certainly it is to be held that those who suffer from invincible ignorance of the true religion, are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord. Now, then, who could presume in himself an ability to set the boundaries of such ignorance, taking into consideration the natural differences of peoples, land, native talents, and so many other factors” (Singulari Quidem, 1863 A.D.). Hence, Pius IX distinguished between those who have knowledge of the Church and Her divine foundation, and those who have no such knowledge due to a number of mitigating circumstances.
[My emphases].
R
Rau
Guest
LOL. The question is not one of change or of development. The question in debate was whether the Church teaches moral error. You have not supported that proposition at all.We are in serious danger of thread drift here. Suffice to say that this has been discussed ad nauseam on this forum. I think that readers here know the difference between staying the same and changing, and can look at the teachings on usury and EENS and see whether anything has changed or not.
T
TMC
Guest
I did not suggest that proposition.LOL. The question is not one of change or of development. Thd original question here was whether the Church teaches moral error. You have not supported that proposition at all.
R
Rau
Guest
Then we can agree that the Church does not teach, nor ever has taught, error in a matter of faith and morals?I did not suggest that proposition.
T
TMC
Guest
I didn’t say that either. The Church has changed its teaching in a number of ways over the centuries. Some things appear to me to have gone back and forth a bit. My opinion is that the general trend has been in the right direction, at least over the last few centuries. That would certainly suggest that the teaching in the past were less accurate or less fulsome than today’s teachings. But I am not here to say that the Church taught immorally in the past.Then we can agree that the Church does not teach, nor ever has taught, error in a matter of faith and morals?
R
Rau
Guest
Of course teachings are not all “fulsome” - and such is never claimed by the Church. The only claim is not to teach error. What is taught as evil is not subsequently taught as good, snd what is taught as good is not later taught as evil.I didn’t say that either. The Church has changed its teaching in a number of ways over the centuries. Some things appear to me to have gone back and forth a bit. My opinion is that the general trend has been in the right direction, at least over the last few centuries. That would certainly suggest that the teaching in the past were less accurate or less fulsome than today’s teachings. But I am not here to say that the Church taught immorally in the past.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
When it was stated in the papal bull Dum Diversas in 1452 that it was permissible “to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property …] and to reduce their persons into perpetual servitude,” wasn’t that a teaching of the Church? Permission to enslave non-Christians was, by the way, repeated in the papal bull Romanus Pointifex in 1454. So either the Church still thinks that it is acceptable to enslave non-Christians or it has taught that something is good which it now teaches is evil. Or if those papal bulls were not considered to be teachings of the Church, how would anyone at that time have known this? So are papal bulls not authoritative? Or maybe the issue of slavery is not considered to fall in the category of faith or morals.Of course teachings are not all “fulsome” - and such is never claimed by the Church. The only claim is not to teach error. What is taught as evil is not subsequently taught as good, snd what is taught as good is not later taught as evil.
R
Rau
Guest
The specific actions here and the historical context are outside my knowledge. It certainly does not teach on a matter of faith and morals - it does not appear to be teaching at all. Perhaps a Church historian can comment.When it was stated in the papal bull Dum Diversas in 1452 that it was permissible “to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property …] and to reduce their persons into perpetual servitude,” wasn’t that a teaching of the Church? Permission to enslave non-Christians was, by the way, repeated in the papal bull Romanus Pointifex in 1454. So either the Church still thinks that it is acceptable to enslave non-Christians or it has taught that something is good which it now teaches is evil. Or if those papal bulls were not considered to be teachings of the Church, how would anyone at that time have known this? So are papal bulls not authoritative? Or maybe the issue of slavery is not considered to fall in the category of faith or morals.
A
Abu
Guest
**You got the answer in #165:Thorolfr #1114
When it was stated in the papal bull Dum Diversas in 1452 that it was permissible “to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property …] and to reduce their persons into perpetual servitude,” wasn’t that a teaching of the Church? Permission to enslave non-Christians was, by the way, repeated in the papal bull Romanus Pointifex in 1454. So either the Church still thinks that it is acceptable to enslave non-Christians or it has taught that something is good which it now teaches is evil. Or if those papal bulls were not considered to be teachings of the Church, how would anyone at that time have known this? So are papal bulls not authoritative? Or maybe the issue of slavery is not considered to fall in the category of faith or morals.
**False. In no way can a localised instruction be compared to Magisterial doctrine on faith or morals for the whole Church. With such a misrepresentation no wonder that the Magisterium established by Christ is so misunderstood.
*Dum Diversas *was a real papal bull but it in no way is it a general endorsement of slavery. It is simply an authorization to the Spanish monarchy to engage the aggressor enemy of Christians in a “just war” and to take any survivors as prisoners and incarcerate them for life for their crimes against Christianity.
“Perpetual servitude” here, would equate to just servitude for a heinous crime – as with capital punishment for unprovoked and calculated murder, hardly unjust.
This repeats what Pope Innocent III and other popes expressed, while Pope Nicholas states clearly that this is a defensive and just war against people who are trying to destroy Catholic civilisation: “fidem ipsam defendere”.
The historical reality is of a weak, pre-Columbian, 15th century Christian kingdom like Portugal under constant attack from the Saracens.
Now take note for a change.“Under Roman Law the slave was a chattel with no more rights than an animal. His master might seduce, mutilate, torture or kill him without any interference by the law.” [Sir Arnold Lunn, *Is The Catholic Church Anti-Social?, Burns & Oates 1946, p 186, 188].
“The Church revolutionised the status of the slave long before there could be any thought of abolishing slavery. The inalienable rights of the slave to marriage and then family were safeguarded from the first by the precepts of the Church, and were later secured by legal enactment in the Theodosian code, which was later revised and classified by Justinian (A.D. 527-565). The law followed where the Church had led. The granting of religious equality to slaves was a silent but tremendous revolution – emancipated slaves were often raised to the priesthood and even to the very Chair of St Peter, Pius I and Callistus I in the second and third centuries.” (Ibid. p 187).
[See *The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 30].
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Dum Diversas actually authorized the Portuguese monarchy, not the Spanish one and it did not just apply to non-Christians who were the aggressors against Portugal. It applied to all non-Christian “kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property” captured by Portugal. And for the record, it was Portugal which was being the aggressor at this time, not the Moroccans. It was Portugal which was carving out territories for itself from Morocco, including Ceuta which they captured in 1415 and then Melila.It is simply an authorization to the Spanish monarchy to engage the aggressor enemy of Christians in a “just war” and to take any survivors as prisoners and incarcerate them for life for their crimes against Christianity.
“Perpetual servitude” here, would equate to just servitude for a heinous crime – as with capital punishment for unprovoked and calculated murder, hardly unjust.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
So slavery is not a moral issue?The specific actions here and the historical context are outside my knowledge. It certainly does not teach on a matter of faith and morals - it does not appear to be teaching at all. Perhaps a Church historian can comment.
R
Rau
Guest
The document is not teaching. If you want to argue that the Pope of the day acted wrongly in that act, you may be right - or you may be wrong.So slavery is not a moral issue?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.