Indeed, not everything Aquinas says is infallible.There is no statement from the Church that these teachings of Aristotle and Plato ARE part of moral law, is there? No, these statements have not been declared infalliable.
Was it ever more than the private opinion of men like Aquinas and Aristotle? Remember, slavery in the 18th and 19th century is radically different from slavery in the 4th century BC.Here is one change that Pope John Paul II just apologized for: ST THOMAS AQUINAS "Slavery among men is natural, for some are naturally slaves according to the Philosopher. Now “the Philosopher” is Aristotle.
What was there to be changed? In the Middle Ages the Church actively opposed slavery. There was very little slavery in Medieval Europe thanks to the RCC, compare that to where Islam or Orthodoxy ruled. There they had slaves.There is no need for me to repeat what is in Judge Noonan’s book. He covers four examples of change, the first being slavery.
So, what you are doing is presenting Judge Noonan’s statements as fact,.There is no statement from the Church that these teachings of Aristotle and Plato ARE part of moral law, is there? No, these statements have not been declared infalliable.
Here is one change that Pope John Paul II just apologized for: ST THOMAS AQUINAS "Slavery among men is natural, for some are naturally slaves according to the Philosopher. Now “the Philosopher” is Aristotle.
There is no need for me to repeat what is in Judge Noonan’s book. He covers four examples of change, the first being slavery.
If it was only their “private opinion”, then why did the Pope apologize for the Church as a whole? Their private teaching was used by the American bishops in the 1860s to oppose the end of slavery as well as by Catholic countries to engage in the slave trade prior to the 1860s. This is why the question of separating between truth/divine Revelation and personal opinion is important!Was it ever more than the private opinion of men like Aquinas and Aristotle? Remember, slavery in the 18th and 19th century is radically different from slavery in the 4th century BC.
Not meaning to be offensive, but Pope JPII apologised for pretty much anything under the sun.If it was only their “private opinion”, then why did the Pope apologize for the Church as a whole? Their private teaching was used by the American bishops in the 1860s to oppose the end of slavery as well as by Catholic countries to engage in the slave trade prior to the 1860s. This is why the question of separating between truth/divine Revelation and personal opinion is important!
There are many things he didn’t apologize for. Unless some statement is given that this was accidental, let’s take it that he meant what he was saying.Not meaning to be offensive, but Pope JPII apologised for pretty much anything under the sun.
Do you have any evidence for any of these statements?Some of the theology is not based on truth or divine law but can be traced back to these very human philosophers. This is why people such as Justice Judge Noonan write books such as the “The Church that Can and Cannot Change”. Many changes have occurred in the Church moral theology over the years; not all of Church teaching is infalliable.