What's wrong with change?

[Benedicta00]

Defenders,

I'll repeat this again, I really think you have trouble seeing the difference between opinion and teaching and what is of the faith and what isn’t.

The topics you bring up (again) are not de fedei of the faith. It is that simple.

The Church has never taught it was okay to buy slaves from Africa, sell them and use and abuse them. This is the slavery that is condemned and rightfully so. Slavery in of itself isn’t immoral. The meaning of slavery changed and there stigma that is associated with it makes slavery synonymous with immorality.

 

[geocajun]

If I may chip in a little...

I think what DF's trying to get at is the distinction between a moral principle (which will presumably be unchanging) and the application of that principle. For instance, in the early church, a couple got married. That was it. There wasn't necessarily a formal ceremony in the liturgy, and it certainly wasn't required. But, by about 1000-1100, there was a real problem; people would declare that they'd actually not been married, if it wasn't working out. So, rules for ensuring that people wouldn't claim to be married, if they weren't, were developed. With that in mind, the rule about which people are and aren't married appears to have changed... But the underlying moral principle seems to be the same.

seebs, you described development, and called it 'change'. DF is suggesting that something can change - that is, it can turn into something opposite or different than what it was.
For example, a boy develops into a man.
A boy does not change into a bird.

Speaking as a non-Catholic, I'd say that I'd honestly think it would be easier for me to trust the Church if there were a known history of correction; not just refinement, but saying "actually, what was being taught at this time was not an infallible claim of the Magisterium, which later corrected it". (I'm afraid a detailed defense of my position would cross the line into debating, so just take it as one onlooker's perspective.)

If this was the behavior of the Church, she would have no authority at all, ever.
"If you don't like a teaching, vote against it... it'll change after the Magisterium admits she was wrong."

 

[geocajun]

But circumstances of our world change, don't they? What is morally correct in one era may be incorrect in another, given changing circumstances.

DF, consider catholic teaching on morality - ask yourself if circumstances are primary or secondary elements of an act, and if they can make a bad act good, or good act bad.
Hint: CCC 1754

 

[geocajun]

I know she can't change certain basic tenets of the faith, but do you know what binding and losing means? Its the authority to permit or forbid certain things and make laws. Those can be changed, by the definition of bind and loose.

we see binding and loosing used in customs, indulgences, canon laws, etc...
you won't see the Church loosing anything in the deposit of faith.
Remember the Magisterium is the interpreter of the deposit of faith. Not who decides its contents.

 

[Benedicta00]

In what case is slavery ever acceptable?

When you hire some one and pay them a just wage and/or care for them in return for their services, and it is mutual. That is 'slavery’ we have a new name for it now, we call it work or a job.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

When you hire some one and pay them a just wage and/or care for them in return for their services, and it is mutual. That is 'slavery’ we have a new name for it now, we call it work or a job.

Do you have a source for this meaning of slavery in the Bible?

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

we see binding and loosing used in customs, indulgences, canon laws, etc...
you won't see the Church loosing anything in the deposit of faith.
Remember the Magisterium is the interpreter of the deposit of faith. Not who decides its contents.

Indeed, but it gets a bit murky when you consider that the 'Deposit of Faith' also included Tradition and not just easily referenced Bible passages.

 

[Rising_Suns]

When you hire some one and pay them a just wage and/or care for them in return for their services, and it is mutual. That is 'slavery’ we have a new name for it now, we call it work or a job.

There are also other acceptable non-voluntary forms of slavery that don't involve pay, like inmates in prison; that is a form of slavery. Also paying off debt in the form of work can be considered another acceptble form of slavery.

 

[Benedicta00]

Indeed, but it gets a bit murky when you consider that the 'Deposit of Faith' also included Tradition and not just easily referenced Bible passages.

Oh no, I am not reading this…

And where does the bible come from if not from tradition???? How do we know the bible is the word of God??? Because the Church says so, that is how… The bible is just what was written down from tradition. How in the world can you even trust it if the Church didn’t tell you to??? Tradition is God’s word, from that we were give the scriptures, we can not be the authority, we can not have the control no matter how badly we want it to judge what is from God and what is not- we are fallen- that is exactly why Christ gave us a Church, and gave it grace and the Holy Spirit to never mislead. The book is not what he established, he established a Church that gave us the book.

Do we really have to go through all this?

 

[Benedicta00]

Do you have a source for this meaning of slavery in the Bible?

No, and I don’t need one. I hope you are just bored and are playing devil advocate or something…

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Do we really have to go through all this?

Nope, because I already know that and agree with it. That is not what I am saying.

What I'm saying is that its sometimes hard to tell what is Tradition and what is tradition. I know the teaching that the Deposit can't be changed, fine...but I think the lines are fuzzy between the two, at least to me.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

No, and I don’t need one. I hope you are just bored and are playing devil advocate or something…

No, actually I've never heard it claimed that slavery in the Bible simply means "paid work." So I wanted something to verify that claim.

 

[Benedicta00]

There are also other acceptable non-voluntary forms of slavery that don't involve pay, like inmates in prison; that is a form of slavery. Also paying off debt in the form of work can be considered another acceptble form of slavery.

Right, it’s a no brainer. I’m a slave- I have kids… I'm here to serve them and I’ll never be set free.

Break it down to the simplest of terms, a slave is one who is hired and a free man is the one who hires.

 

[Benedicta00]

No, actually I've never heard it claimed that slavery in the Bible simply means "paid work." So I wanted something to verify that claim.

Common sense?

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Common sense?

So basically this is just your own opinion, right?

 

[Benedicta00]

Defenders,

I have asked you to provide me anything at all where the Church has taught and any point in time that buying a slave and then selling him for a profit to someone who holds him against his will, makes him work and uses and abuses him for his own gain, is acceptable.

This is the "slavery" that is condemned. It was never taught as okay, and it will never be, the Church has changed ZERO on this issue.

If the Church has ever taught this, then please, enlighten me.

 

[Benedicta00]

So basically this is just your own opinion, right?

No… it is a given.

What is opinion is you thinking that I need to give you a definition from the bible that says slavery originally had a much broader, non-immoral, non stigmatizing meaning than what it has today. Where do you get that I have to provide proof from the bible in order for this to be true?

We solved your mystery for you, the Church never changed but you seem to want to find that she did, why?

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Defenders

It not "Defenders", please.

If the Church has ever taught this, then please, enlighten me.

Let's stick to the subject. I'm just curious about slavery in the Bible meaning paid work, that's all.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

No… it is a given.
What is opinion is you thinking that I need to give you a definition from the bible that says slavery originally had a much broader, non-immoral, non stigmatizing meaning than what it has today. Where do you get that I have to provide proof from the bible in order for this to be true?

Generally when people make assertions it is expected that they can and will back it up if asked. What's the big deal?

We solved your mystery for you, the Church never changed but you seem to want to find that she did, why?

Ah, here goes the old Inquisition starting up again. The accusations that I am an insurgent against the Church are soon to follow...now where are the other two members of the tribunal? Yippee, I can't wait! Please...perhaps your "solution" isn't satisfactory to me? Ever think I could honestly be troubled?

 

[Rising_Suns]

Ok you two, settle down now.