are the conditions of infalibillity ever even met?

hedrick · Nov 9, 2010

I agree. This site is in general the ugliest discussion site I've ever seen. Between different fonts and colors, and amazingly large pictures in signatures, it's hard to read the content.

Uphill Battle · Nov 9, 2010

MrPolo said:
This is where I disagree. There are really little-to-no movements out there denying say, the IC, Assumption, or the canon of Scripture, or the hypostatic union, consubstantiality of the Trinity, and a whole host of other teachings not explicit in Scripture that are obviously taught by the Church. When you have occasions of one theologian thinking something was defined infallibly and another who doesn't, you usually see the doubter STILL hold that the teaching has been declared with extremely high certainty. I covered that a little in the blog article I linked to earlier. I think those who argue there is all this confusion and ambiguity over whether or not something has been technically infallibly defined exists only in the minds of critics. Catholics don't seem too confused that the IC is a dogma, for instance.

I don't know about that. I just spoke with a co-worker today who is Catholic, and he didn't have a clue that the infallible position on birth control was they are a no-no.

when you get down to brass tacks on the matter, infallible statements are really only being supported by majority rules.

in another 500 years, it might be possible that the chain of office will read like a different list.... with, as some minor Catholic groups (which, of course, aren't really Catholic according to any of the majority group) being "right" in their claims.

there really isn't any real reason to believe that the current line is any more valid than some of the conclavists, or say sedevacansits, (although less likely, because they have a vacant seat thing going on.)

Uphill Battle · Nov 9, 2010

. double post

MrPolo · Nov 10, 2010

Uphill Battle said:
I don't know about that. I just spoke with a co-worker today who is Catholic, and he didn't have a clue that the infallible position on birth control was they are a no-no.

There's a difference between someone not aware of a certain teaching and between hearing a teaching definitively and being confused. Your position here is like saying the Bible's infallibility is questionable just because you can find a bunch of Christians that didn't know Paul said he made up for what was lacking in Christ's suffering. There are also a lot of Catholics in name who "don't like" the Church's sexual teaching so they make themselves confused. Ask your friend if he thinks the Church teaches Jesus is God and then look at the subject of your thread.

Now if you gather a group of devout Catholics, like a good chunk of my circle of friends, who read Catholic stuff regularly, go to devotion, are even students at Catholic universities, the confusion is minimal to none. It's only fair to examine Catholics who are paying attention. Because if there are others who don't, the problem isn't with supposed "vague" infallible definitions but with reaching out to teach them (or it's their own fault).

The idea of mass confusion regarding Catholic infallibility remains a fiction advanced chiefly by those outside of Catholicism.

MrPolo · Nov 10, 2010

The Encyclopedia Britannica says this about the Orthodox Church:

In its 18 articles Lucaris professed virtually all the major doctrines of Calvinism; predestination, justification by faith alone, acceptance of only two sacraments (instead of seven, as taught by the Eastern Orthodox Church), rejection of icons, rejection of the infallibility of the church, and so on. In the Orthodox church the Confession started a controversy that culminated in 1672 in a convocation by Dosítheos, patriarch of Jerusalem, of a church council that repudiated all Calvinist doctrines and reformulated Orthodox teachings in a manner intended to distinguish them from both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.

So unless I'm misreading that, my good Orthodox friends believe in the infallibility of the Church too.

Korah · Nov 12, 2010

Originally Posted by Uphill Battle

I don't know about that. I just spoke with a co-worker today who is Catholic, and he didn't have a clue that the infallible position on birth control was they are a no-no.

Mr. Polo:
You quoted this and then ignored it in your reply. There is no infalliable RC teaching on birth control. Humani Generis is merely a highly disputed papal encyclical, one that is disregared by most RC in the US.

MrPolo · Nov 12, 2010

Korah said:
Mr. Polo:
You quoted this and then ignored it in your reply. There is no infalliable RC teaching on birth control. Humani Generis is merely a highly disputed papal encyclical, one that is disregared by most RC in the US.
[/INDENT]

Your claim is unsubstantiated. What dispute there is, is not coming from the Magisterium but rather spear-headed by dissenting Catholics and people outside the formal boundaries Church who cannot alter the Church's teaching on morality. Perhaps they don't like the Church's teaching which goes against their sexual desires. Rather, Catholic magisterial documents consistently speak of the objective immorality of contraception, such as any USCCB doc on contraception, Paul VI's Humanae Vitae, Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body, the Catechism, not to mention the teaching of the historical Church affirmed by the Magisterial doc Vademecum for Confessors which clearly said, "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful."

The magisterium has spoken consistently. At a minimum, even the wiliest dissident is faced with the consistent teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium making this teaching infallible. Your watering down the certainty of this teaching from the Church is not accurate or realistic. Even if UB were to switch out "infallible" with "the highest certainty" the point he was trying to make would still stand. There is no indication that the Church's teaching on birth control resembles a pius theory like limbo which was always posited as a possibility rather than as a truth. UB is right to recognize contraception as evil in the eyes of the Church.

Uphill Battle · Nov 12, 2010

and I think I'm right in identifying the inconsistancy of the Church's position as well, since

"have sex when you aren't fertile to avoid pregnancy"

and

"marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful"

are one and the same.

SpiritualAntiseptic · Nov 12, 2010

Uphill Battle said:
and I think I'm right in identifying the inconsistancy of the Church's position as well, since

"have sex when you aren't fertile to avoid pregnancy"

and

"marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful"

are one and the same.

They are two different things. One is a series of different actions (sex) and inactions (abstaining). The other is a single action that has been changed from its normal state. Sex with contraception is giving oneself partially to their spouse during sex, thus objectifying and twisting the marital act. You have a specific action which has been made sinful by alteration. Sin is usually something which is good that is altered or improperly done in some way. Eating is good, gluttony is not. Sex is good, prostitution is not, etc.

NFP does not change any aspect of the act itself. Abstaining from sex is not a sin. Thus, NFP is a method of choosing when to have sex that in no way changes the sexual act. Abstaining from sex during certain periods is not a sin.

ebia · Nov 12, 2010

SpiritualAntiseptic said:
They are two different things. One is a series of different actions (sex) and inactions (abstaining). The other is a single action that has been changed from its normal state. Sex with contraception is giving oneself partially to their spouse during sex, thus objectifying and twisting the marital act. You have a specific action which has been made sinful by alteration. Sin is usually something which is good that is altered or improperly done in some way. Eating is good, gluttony is not. Sex is good, prostitution is not, etc.

NFP does not change any aspect of the act itself. Abstaining from sex is not a sin. Thus, NFP is a method of choosing when to have sex that in no way changes the sexual act. Abstaining from sex during certain periods is not a sin.

If it's intention is a concious decision to avoid conception it's as much a change to sex as using a condom.
"Abstence is not a sin, therefore NPF is not sinful" is seriously flawed logic. If that's the level of thinking going on the point has been made.

MrPolo · Nov 13, 2010

ebia said:
If it's intention is a concious decision to avoid conception it's as much a change to sex as using a condom.

I think the above is flawed logic myself, and I realize it is the same idea advanced by others in the other thread. It's the idea that abstinence and contraception are without moral difference.

But it would be like saying eating like a glutton and regurgitating was the same as skipping a meal or having a salad. Both are intended to lose weight, right? But instead the former is a perverted use of a human gift and the latter is not. In sex, using contraception is a perverted use of a human gift and abstinence is not.

You cannot compare only the "intention" or "motive" to equate two actions. You can't say, "Well, the thief and the laborer just want money!! What's the difference!!"

Abstinence simply does not involve perversion of the sexual act which is why contraception is sinful and abstinence is not. There is no comparison on a moral level.

Catholicism aside, it would be more rational for contraception proponents to simply say: "I don't think contraception is sinful" rather than trying to justify it with the illogic of calling Catholics hypocrites on abstinence. Granted one would have to give cause for saying contraception is not sinful, but we could lose the flawed "what about abstinence!!" argument.

Tyndale · Nov 13, 2010

are the conditions of infalibillity ever even met?

I think we should forget about roman catholicism and concentrate on our own church from now on. The RC's are way too out there, they're in a different world than our own.

LittleLambofJesus · Nov 13, 2010

Tyndale said:
are the conditions of infalibillity ever even met?

I think we should forget about roman catholicism and concentrate on our own church from now on. The RC's are way too out there, they're in a different world than our own.

Perhaps you [and others here] could give your input on this thread

http://www.christianforums.com/t7494587/
A seperate sub board to debate Roman Catholicism

ebia · Nov 13, 2010

MrPolo said:
In sex, using contraception is a perverted use of a human gift and abstinence is not. .

Nobody seems to be able to give a consistent unflawed reason why "contraception is a perverted use of a human gift" and timing one's sex with the aim of achieving the same is not beyond "because we say so".

Rick Otto · Nov 13, 2010

abstinence too is a gift that can be perverted

Rick Otto · Nov 13, 2010

ebia said:
Nobody seems to be able to give a consistent unflawed reason why "contraception is a perverted use of a human gift" and timing one's sex with the aim of achieving the same is not beyond "because we say so".

I believe the thinking is it's a perversion of God's plan, theologicaly perverse, not sexualy perverse.

sunlover1 · Nov 13, 2010

Rick Otto said:
I believe the thinking is it's a perversion of God's plan, theologicaly perverse, not sexualy perverse.

But abstinence acheives the same "perversion of God's plan" so
what difference does it make on how you acheive that means?
Just seems sort of silly.. is there something ebia and I are missing
that you know about?

mother of 8
#justsayin

LittleLambofJesus · Nov 13, 2010

sunlover1 said:
But abstinence acheives the same "perversion of God's plan" so
what difference does it make on how you acheive that means?
Just seems sort of silly.. is there something ebia and I are missing
that you know about?

mother of 8
#justsayin

Whoa! Will have to call ya the "ark of Noah"

1 Peter 3:20 To ones being stubborn once when awaited the out of the God, patience, in days of Noah of being constructed an Ark into which few, this being Eight souls, were saved thru water.

Matthew 24:38 For as they were in the days, those, to-the before the flood eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage until which day entered Noah into the Ark,

Rick Otto · Nov 13, 2010

Thus, NFP is a method of choosing when to have sex that in no way changes the sexual act. Abstaining from sex during certain periods is not a sin.

Choosing to have the act at infertile moments is contraception.

In sex, using contraception is a perverted use of a human gift and abstinence is not.

How is choosing to abstain during fertile time not contraceptive?

Rick Otto · Nov 13, 2010

sunlover1 said:
But abstinence acheives the same "perversion of God's plan" so
what difference does it make on how you acheive that means?
Just seems sort of silly.. is there something ebia and I are missing
that you know about?

mother of 8
#justsayin

No. i wasn't espousing, just clarifying re: the condem, not sayin' anything about abstinence by that.

are the conditions of infalibillity ever even met?

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Woe those who call evil good + good evil. Is 5:20

Woe those who call evil good + good evil. Is 5:20

Anglican Lutheran

Woe those who call evil good + good evil. Is 5:20

Well-Known Member

SpiritualAntiseptic

Guest

Senior Contributor

Woe those who call evil good + good evil. Is 5:20

Veteran

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Senior Contributor

The Dude Abides

The Dude Abides

Beloved, Let us love one another

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

The Dude Abides

The Dude Abides

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency