12 Mar 07
Originally posted by no1marauderBut Simon didn't say, "The teaching of the Church regarding the proper regulation of birth is a promulgation of the law of God Himself."
What proof do you desire? What of this statement in Humanae Vitae:
The teaching of the Church regarding the proper regulation of birth is a promulgation of the law of God Himself.
That's Ivanhoe's point.
12 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI'm not sure what his point is. I seriously doubt that Ivanhoe believes that the RCC position on contraception isn't infallible. "Liberal" Catholics, at least those who are a little "Liberal" and want to retain Papal Infallibility as a doctrine, try to argue that the contraception doctrine hasn't been infallibly declared. I don't think that position can really be sustained given the language of Humanae Vitae (though that is just one pronouncement on the issue among many).
But Simon didn't say, "The teaching of the Church regarding the proper regulation of birth is a promulgation of the law of God Himself."
That's Ivanhoe's point.
From the last of Conrau's links:
That this has been the uniform and universal teaching of the Church for centuries is attested by a much greater authority on history than Dr Kung. I refer to the former Regius Professor of Modern History at the University of Cambridge, Dom David Knowles:
"Attempts have been made to draw parallels between previous declarations of Popes that have either been reversed by their successors, or passed into desuetude as social habits changed. One, who has for the past ten years been engaged in reading and writing the history of the thousand medieval years of the Church's life, would have no difficulty in adding to their number. Some of them are indeed 'motes to trouble the mind's eye', and there were sore eyes enough before the decrees of Vatican I were passed. But I have not seen ... a single example alleged that is within hailing distance of being a parallel to Humanae Vitae."
The conclusion which Dr Kung draws from this recitation of the historical past is of course, fundamental to the position he was to take.
"How is one to respond to this?" asks Dr Küng. "There are only two alternatives. One either accepts it (i.e., the teaching on contraception, regardless of Humanae Vitae) as infallible and unalterable doctrine, as the commission minority and the Pope did, and holds firm to it in spite of all difficulties and criticisms, if necessary to the point of sacrificium intellectus, or one questions the whole theory of infallibility" - that is to say, not merely the infallibility of the Pope, but the infallibility of a General Council, and that of the Church itself.
I do not see how anyone can contradict Dr Küng in his statement that the binding force of the teaching on contraception does not in any way depend on the standing of Humanae Vitae and that as a consequence, these are the only alternatives available.
no1: This argument is that the contraception ban was infallible doctrine prior to Humanae Vitae.
12 Mar 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSurely the silliest aspect has to be Joseph actually believing his wife's cock and bull story.
What do you think it is?
1) Papal infallibility
2) Immaculate conception
3) Denying women access to the priesthood
4) Vow of celibacy
5) Purgatory
6) Taxonomy of sins
7) Impermissibility of contraception
8) Denial of Holy Communion to those deemed unworthy because of their stance in relation to the Church
"Seriously Joe, an Angel came down and said it was so..."
Yeah. Right.
12 Mar 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesPriestly formation requires two degrees - a baccalaureate in Philosophy (PhB - currently two years but soon to become three) and a licentiate in Theology (STL - currently four but soon to become five) plus specific training relevant to their priestly ministry (e.g. Liturgy).
No, that's not what I mean. I am asking if Catholic seminaries allow women to enroll and receive the same education, in the same classrooms and attending the same lectures, as prospective priests who are there in preparation for their ordination.
These degrees are available to women at all Pontifical universities and many seminaries affiliated to them.
12 Mar 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIf you're talking about 'American Catholic'(TM) as a schismatic group (rather than just the adjective 'American' applied to 'Catholic'😉, then yes.
Would a member of the American Catholic laity or clergy be denied Holy Communion in a Roman Catholic church in virtue of being American Catholic?
12 Mar 07
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerDo you think Jesus would want his followers denied Communion with him merely because they find themselves out of favor with the Roman Catholic Church?
If you're talking about 'American Catholic'(TM) as a schismatic group (rather than just the adjective 'American' applied to 'Catholic'😉, then yes.
Do you think that Jesus would prefer it if no Protestants took Communion.
12 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerDo you think the Pope's argument in defense of denying women ordination that Conrau cited is coherent?
It's also perhaps impossible for an unreasonable person to understand a coherent concept.
Specifically, does it cohere with the existence of Chinese priests?
12 Mar 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI think Jesus would prefer Protestants and Catholics remaining separate but friendly to a false show of unity. C.f. Jn 6, Mt 18.
Do you think Jesus would want his followers denied Communion with him merely because they find themselves out of favor with the Roman Catholic Church?
Do you think that Jesus would prefer it if no Protestants took Communion.
12 Mar 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIt does. With the Great Commission, Christ Himself opened the life of the Church to all nations -- including the Chinese.
Do you think the Pope's argument in defense of denying women ordination that Conrau cited is coherent?
Specifically, does it cohere with the existence of Chinese priests?
12 Mar 07
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's correct. The teaching about the immorality of contraception (or, more precisely, the teaching on the integrity of the sexual act with respect to its unitive and procreative functions) is part of the constant Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.
no1: This argument is that the contraception ban was infallible doctrine prior to Humanae Vitae.
