Discrimination in the Catholic Church

[JacobEzra.]

There is an official slot for these people, according to the church (or there was 25 years ago). They are called "conscientious dissenters."

When I got married, my priest told me, "For the record, don't use birth control. Off the record, I hope you'll consider using it, because it's the responsible thing to do these days."

No such thing as a "liberal Catholic???":sarcastic

Then that priest should have resigned from the priesthood.

 

[JacobEzra.]

I didn't say there was no such thing as a liberal catholic.

JacobEzra did. Well, he CLEARLY insinuated it.

I referred to "conservative catholics",
to which he responded,
"what other kind is there?"

(my communion comment was tongue in cheek.
I personally couldn't care less who uses birth control,
and receives communion.)

Liberal Catholics are trying to destory the church.

And only bring judgement upon themselves. Hopefully, The Lord brings them to soften their hearts and repent.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Liberal Catholics are trying to destory the church.

And only bring judgement upon themselves. Hopefully, The Lord brings them to soften their hearts and repent.

I love it when non-clergy try and judge what fate the hierarchs should undergo.

Liberal Catholics are trying to destroy the church, huh? I'm sure that's what their master plan is, what with using their discernment and showing more mercy than anything else.

 

[JacobEzra.]

I love it when non-clergy try and judge what fate the hierarchs should undergo.

Liberal Catholics are trying to destroy the church, huh? I'm sure that's what their master plan is, what with using their discernment and showing more mercy than anything else.

Thats funny.

Liberal Catholics violate and preach against the Church. Especially when its infallible rulings. They do the laity an injustice and they try to weaken the hierarchy.

 

[sojourner]

Then that priest should have resigned from the priesthood.

So should have the pedophiles, he pope who shielded them, the ones who kept their mouths shut during WWII, the ones who advocated the Crusades, and colonialism, and the Inquisition, and the ones who look the other way in support of oppressive regimes.

Hell, if everybody resigned who "ought" to, the church would have no one left.
All this guy did was to suggest that we be responsible in family planning. You're telling me that's paramount in the grand scheme of things?

 

[sojourner]

Liberal Catholics are trying to destory the church.

And only bring judgement upon themselves. Hopefully, The Lord brings them to soften their hearts and repent.

Like Luther ... and Romero ...

 

[sojourner]

Thats funny.

Liberal Catholics violate and preach against the Church. Especially when its infallible rulings. They do the laity an injustice and they try to weaken the hierarchy.

The church didn't even have "infallible rulings" for 1800 years...

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

You're telling me that's paramount in the grand scheme of things?

It appears that way at times.

Online, Catholics seem to care about two things only:

1) Abortion
2) Whether you're purposely stopping babies from being made, wholesale

 

[Songbird]

Liberal Catholics violate and preach against the Church. Especially when its infallible rulings. They do the laity an injustice and they try to weaken the hierarchy.

Are all church rulings for all time considered infallible?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Are all church rulings for all time considered infallible?

Yes. Until they change them. Then they're infallible again.

 

[Songbird]

Yes. Until they change them. Then they're infallible again.

Ah, got it. I'm curious how Catholics view Church infallibility.

 

[sojourner]

Are all church rulings for all time considered infallible?

No. Only what is spoken ex cathedra. This has only happened something like six times, and all of them seem to surround marian issues.

 

[kepha31]

The church didn't even have "infallible rulings" for 1800 years...

The Creeds have been around longer than that, they are infallible.

It appears that way at times.

Online, Catholics seem to care about two things only:

1) Abortion
2) Whether you're purposely stopping babies from being made, wholesale

1) The future of the human race depends on the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion, so yea, we think it's important. Fr. Hardon Archives - The Catholic Perspective on Abortion: The Future of Human Society
2) Your generalization is misleading.
"...With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.
Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society... "
Humanae Vitae - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Paul VI on the regulation of birth, 25 July 1968 paragraph 10.

Are all church rulings for all time considered infallible?

Only when the Church says a particular ruling is infallible, and which parts of the ruling is infallible. Infallibility is a bit off topic anyway.

Yes. Until they change them. Then they're infallible again.

It is impossible for the Church to change her doctrines. Develope, yes. Change, no.

 

[Me Myself]

It is impossible for the Church to change her doctrines. Develope, yes. Change, no.

"develope" is a form of change. ( it is)


Priests weren´t always supposed to be celibate, then they were. Infalibility wasn´t a doctrine until some "Pio" pope. then it was.

Ironically, the same pope that preached infalibility was judged by his peers to be mentally unstable.

There are letters of people of their time (priests) stating this. There was a time this "infalible" Pope wanted to use his "infalibility" power and ordered an incapacitated person to walk. The incapacitated person tried... and failed.

A lot of popes said infalibility was a lie that was inspired by the devil. This is because the "infalibility" of the statements of the last Pope didn´t let them make contradictory statements, thus undermining their authority. So a lot of Popes were against infalibility for this very reason.

Infalibility is a ridiculous doctrine.

 

[Songbird]

No. Only what is spoken ex cathedra. This has only happened something like six times, and all of them seem to surround marian issues.

Only when the Church says a particular ruling is infallible, and which parts of the ruling is infallible. Infallibility is a bit off topic anyway.

Ah, so the majority of teachings are fallible; for example, the dictum of male-only priesthood.

It is impossible for the Church to change her doctrines. Develope, yes. Change, no.

That's quite blatantly not true. Not only have doctrines developed, some have been polar opposites.

 

[JacobEzra.]

"develope" is a form of change. ( it is)


Priests weren´t always supposed to be celibate, then they were. Infalibility wasn´t a doctrine until some "Pio" pope. then it was.

Ironically, the same pope that preached infalibility was judged by his peers to be mentally unstable.

There are letters of people of their time (priests) stating this. There was a time this "infalible" Pope wanted to use his "infalibility" power and ordered an incapacitated person to walk. The incapacitated person tried... and failed.

A lot of popes said infalibility was a lie that was inspired by the devil. This is because the "infalibility" of the statements of the last Pope didn´t let them make contradictory statements, thus undermining their authority. So a lot of Popes were against infalibility for this very reason.

Infalibility is a ridiculous doctrine.

For one celibacy for priest is not a infallible proclaimed doctrine. Its a discipline that could change in the future.

Infallibility by deffinition of its doctrine, does not even cover such things as miracles, such as making an incapacitated person to walk. Thats why it would fail

 

[JacobEzra.]

Ah, so the majority of teachings are fallible; for example, the dictum of male-only priesthood.



s.

How exactly do you make a response like this to Kepha saying

Only when the Church says a particular ruling is infallible, and which parts of the ruling is infallible. Infallibility is a bit off topic anyway.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Are all church rulings for all time considered infallible?

Ones proclaimed infallible

 

[Mister Emu]

Ah, got it. I'm curious how Catholics view Church infallibility.

The results of ecumenical councils, universal and ordinary tradition when recognized as such and the ex-cathedra statements of the Pope.

Ah, so the majority of teachings are fallible; for example, the dictum of male-only priesthood.

No. The male priesthood is dogma. It was declared infallible.

That's quite blatantly not true. Not only have doctrines developed, some have been polar opposites.

Could you give an example? Sometimes people misunderstands things like priestly celibacy(see below), which is a discipline and not a doctrine, or limbo, which was never a doctrine of the Church just a widely held belief.

Priests weren´t always supposed to be celibate, then they were. Infalibility wasn´t a doctrine until some "Pio" pope. then it was.

Priestly celibacy isn't a doctrine, it is a discipline.

There are letters of people of their time (priests) stating this. There was a time this "infalible" Pope wanted to use his "infalibility" power and ordered an incapacitated person to walk. The incapacitated person tried... and failed.

I've never heard that story in my life and I've heard a lot of stuff from anti-Catholics.

A lot of popes said infalibility was a lie that was inspired by the devil.

Name some and where they said it?

This is because the "infalibility" of the statements of the last Pope didn´t let them make contradictory statements,

Excathedra statements are exceedingly rare.

 

[kepha31]

Infallibility is a negative charism given to the Church by God. It is not something the Church assigned to herself. It prevents the Church from formally teaching error.

"He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16) Jesus was addressing the Apostles and their successors, not individual bible readers.

"Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18). To argue against infallibility, it must be assumed that heaven can bind an error. This is absurd. From these two verses (by no means exhaustive) we see that there is a profound and dynamic union between heaven and the teaching authority of the Church. In the original Greek, the tense of the binding and loosing, "shows that a binding occurs in heaven either prior to or simultaneous with the binding performed on earth. In addition, the Greek verb is in the passive voice which indicates that heaven is receiving the binding, not initiating it".

Scripture speaks of the Church as the "pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). "Bulwark" means "foundation". According to Kittle’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (a Protestant publication): "A Church is established which protects and defends the truth against the confusion of myths. It gives the faith and thinking of individuals a sure ground in confession. No longer God alone, but also the Church of God, now guarantees the permanence of the aletheia [truth]. The steadfastness of faith has now become loyalty to the Church and the confession" (vol. II, p. 364).

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

The only way that God would promise this union with heaven is if he intended to protect his Church from falsehood. After all, God is truth and he would not lead his flock into error, much less allow heaven to be bound by it. With this in mind, Christ prayed that Peter’s faith would not fail (Luke 22:32), built the Church upon him (Matt 16), and ordered him to tend and feed Christ’s sheep (John 21:15-17).
The above was gleaned from How to Argue for Papal Infallibility (This Rock: February 2002) and Papal Infallibility