If only non catholics would listen to him, we would be able to cut down world problems by 99%
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
The correct moral authority
- Thread starter Aces High
- Start date
Well in the case of JPII, A LOT, if you deny this, you are either ignorant on the matter or ...well just that.
In the case of the current Pope, how about reading Deux Est Caritas, and also await the new encyclical written by him, coming out soon. Perhaps this will teach you to open your mouth on an issue before actually dwelling into it further.
Upvote
0
True, he cannot solve ALL the world's problems. But he can do a lot better than the jack's and jill's on this forum.
Upvote
0
Once again, spoken like one that has no idea of what he is talking about. I suggest you read into what papal infallibility means. And the fact, that since it was established, it has only been used once in this century, well last century actually. 1950, and none this century. It has to do with moral or matters of faith.Hey, you'd be surprised what an Average Jack or Jill could accomplish if you gave them a Chair of Infallibility and 1,000,000,000+ followers.
But evidently since you failed to realize that or rather failed to read into it, it certainly puts you in a precarious position when others happen to be reading anything you say
Unless you were sarcastic, meaning your above sentence was a joke, and that I remain correct, he is the true moral authority, anything else to bring in?
Upvote
0
Lord_Marx
Well-Known Member
Yes, it was just a joke. I know that the only time it was used was during a statement saying that Mary was a virgin prior to Jesus' birth.Once again, spoken like one that has no idea of what he is talking about. I suggest you read into what papal infallibility means. And the fact, that since it was established, it has only been used once in this century, well last century actually. 1950, and none this century. It has to do with moral or matters of faith.
But evidently since you failed to realize that or rather failed to read into it, it certainly puts you in a precarious position when others happen to be reading anything you say
Unless you were sarcastic, meaning your above sentence was a joke, and that I remain correct, he is the true moral authority, anything else to bring in?
I grew up Catholic, and although I like it more then most of the other branches of Christianity, I still tend to be overly critical when discussing it. Nothing personal, just the result of being Catholic'd out.
While I did respect JPII, I'm just not impressed with Pope Benedict.
Upvote
0
"although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."
Analysis of what objective disorder means - "It can be difficult to understand what an "objective disorder" is. It means that the very inclination toward a same sex act indicates that the desire itself is moving in the wrong direction"
Unfit for marriage is simply because sex is a part of the marriage. And homosexual acts are not in accordance with God's plan, which is another big topic altogether, and I'm not going into it now.
Upvote
0
Caylin
Formerly Dracon427
- Feb 15, 2004
- 7,066
- 316
- 42
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
First, you are going to have to prove same sex acts are "moving in the wrong direction." However, I wasn't referring to homosexuality in this case.
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/CatholicTSDecision.html
"who have undergone "sex-change" procedures are not eligible to marry"
Bizarrely, I'm disinclined to put my faith in an organization that blatantly disregards science in order to further their own ends.
Upvote
0
Err no, I am not out here to prove it, I could derive from whatever Benedict has said to create some proof for you, but I am not going to do that, with the tons of Catholic teachings or Christian teachings for that matter regarding homosexual acts please do not be silly enough to create proofs for you, use Google. Thanks
I didn't check out the link, but from what you just quoted, I think I can see what you mean. Sex changes make the body different, but I think the issue here is also the mentality. I can get a sex change done, but my mentality will be that of a boy.
Hence it's an intrinsic moral evil for the Pope to allow such a marriage, this isn't a rigorous proof, I am not going to write on up for you, there have been already one's written on the internet, go check it up.
The Vatican doesn't disregard science, they infact have a whole scientific team :S Unless you want to imply their scientists with degrees are incompetent and you have a better say than their scientists :S. So your statements on them disregarding science are based wrongly, the vatican has a whole bunch of scientists infact, who are advisors to the cardinals and the popes.
Upvote
0
Caylin
Formerly Dracon427
- Feb 15, 2004
- 7,066
- 316
- 42
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Of course they do. If they don't, how is it they are the only people in the world who can study transsexualism and decide it doesn't really exist?
If course they have scientists, but if they come up with something that the church deems as conflicting with doctrine, you know they will ignore it.
Upvote
0
Their statements on moral issues of transexualism has more to do with the religious aspect of it than the scientific aspect. That being said; it does not mean the Vatican doesn't have a scientific aspect, they aren't stupid, they realize everything they say and do is scrutinzed, whether you realize it or not, some priests and bishops probably agree with you, Catholics don't all have the same viewpoint, but there is a moral authority, and he has to make a final decision, so don't label everyong as "ignoring", you just make yourself seem ignorant.
So hence I disagree with that last line. You are too vague by what you mean as doctrine, there is a rigorous doctrinal proof that people should not kill, there is no scientific proof as to why people should not kill each other, there is statistical proof if people kill each other the population will decrease, but if it's relative, then there is no moral issue here. So does science hold the answer for why it's moral or not moral to kill? The church seems to be blatantly ignoring science!! Maybe the church should change their doctrine on killing and keep it in line with science, then won't you be bellowing that they should change it back?
Furthermore, if it's conflicting with doctrine, they will obviously say it's not allowed, what do you expect them to say "oh go right ahead", then you will criticize them for being hypocrites.
Upvote
0
Lynden1000
Senior Veteran
- Nov 6, 2005
- 2,454
- 196
- 54
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
If only non catholics would listen to him, we would be able to cut down world problems by 99%
Welp, I'm convinced! Oh, wait...no I'm not.
Upvote
0
I am glad to see people took the bait.
We were having a great discussion. Glad to see you chimed in.
Upvote
0
Robbie_James_Francis
May all beings have happiness and its causes
What an absurd suggestion! 
This is the man who believes the Native Americans were silently crying out to be colonised so that they could receive Christianity and supports the suffering and death of innocents in Africa because of his refusal to accept artificial contraception's morality. Not to mention his belief that it is better for women to die or raise children conceived through incest than for a blastocyst consisting of less cells than a housefly to be aborted. Or that stem cell research, arguably the most promising development this century in medical research, should be forbidden for the sake of non-sentient blastocysts.
This well-loved idea that papal infallibility has only been used once is, in my opinion, quite a misrepresentation. What this means to say is that papal infallibility has only be used once as the exclusive method of revealing an Article of the Faith. That is to say, the Magisterium had never proclaimed the Immaculate Conception of Mary in such a way as to make it a dogmatic, universal and binding belief.
Firstly, since the Church holds that the fullness of Public Revelation was revealed before the death of the last Apostle, it follows that Papal Infallibility--as declared by the First Vatican Council--was true long before the Council itself. Hence, all ex cathedra pronouncements by any Pope, from Peter to Benedict XVI, were infallible.
The Pope is still infallible whenever he meets the requirements set down in Vatican I's definition of the dogma. That what he says may be found as a binding doctrine proclaimed by other parties in the Magisterium anyway does not negate this fact.
How, otherwise, would you explain why the Catholic Encyclopedia feels the need to refute objections to infallibility based on Popes from the Middle Ages?
This is the man who believes the Native Americans were silently crying out to be colonised so that they could receive Christianity and supports the suffering and death of innocents in Africa because of his refusal to accept artificial contraception's morality. Not to mention his belief that it is better for women to die or raise children conceived through incest than for a blastocyst consisting of less cells than a housefly to be aborted. Or that stem cell research, arguably the most promising development this century in medical research, should be forbidden for the sake of non-sentient blastocysts.
This well-loved idea that papal infallibility has only been used once is, in my opinion, quite a misrepresentation. What this means to say is that papal infallibility has only be used once as the exclusive method of revealing an Article of the Faith. That is to say, the Magisterium had never proclaimed the Immaculate Conception of Mary in such a way as to make it a dogmatic, universal and binding belief.
Firstly, since the Church holds that the fullness of Public Revelation was revealed before the death of the last Apostle, it follows that Papal Infallibility--as declared by the First Vatican Council--was true long before the Council itself. Hence, all ex cathedra pronouncements by any Pope, from Peter to Benedict XVI, were infallible.
The Pope is still infallible whenever he meets the requirements set down in Vatican I's definition of the dogma. That what he says may be found as a binding doctrine proclaimed by other parties in the Magisterium anyway does not negate this fact.
How, otherwise, would you explain why the Catholic Encyclopedia feels the need to refute objections to infallibility based on Popes from the Middle Ages?
Upvote
0
I said SINCE it has been established it has only been used once, that is pertaining to it's official establishment, not that previous doctrines were not under an infallibility issue, it is deemed infallible if it was in line with what constitutes towards papal infallibility as set by the decree.What an absurd suggestion!
This is the man who believes the Native Americans were silently crying out to be colonised so that they could receive Christianity and supports the suffering and death of innocents in Africa because of his refusal to accept artificial contraception's morality. Not to mention his belief that it is better for women to die or raise children conceived through incest than for a blastocyst consisting of less cells than a housefly to be aborted. Or that stem cell research, arguably the most promising development this century in medical research, should be forbidden for the sake of non-sentient blastocysts.
This well-loved idea that papal infallibility has only been used once is, in my opinion, quite a misrepresentation. What this means to say is that papal infallibility has only be used once as the exclusive method of revealing an Article of the Faith. That is to say, the Magisterium had never proclaimed the Immaculate Conception of Mary in such a way as to make it a dogmatic, universal and binding belief.
Firstly, since the Church holds that the fullness of Public Revelation was revealed before the death of the last Apostle, it follows that Papal Infallibility--as declared by the First Vatican Council--was true long before the Council itself. Hence, all ex cathedra pronouncements by any Pope, from Peter to Benedict XVI, were infallible.
The Pope is still infallible whenever he meets the requirements set down in Vatican I's definition of the dogma. That what he says may be found as a binding doctrine proclaimed by other parties in the Magisterium anyway does not negate this fact.
How, otherwise, would you explain why the Catholic Encyclopedia feels the need to refute objections to infallibility based on Popes from the Middle Ages?
Upvote
0
