Posted on 05/20/2008 10:10:12 AM PDT by NYer
First off, let me state that the author of this paper/piece did an outstanding job in presenting the case for why the Catholic Church has a Pope/Bishop of Rome.
Also, it is true that “Humanae Vitae” in of itself may not be an infallible document, thus it would not be raised to the level of a teaching from the “Sacred Magesterium” or what Cardinal Avery Dulles has referred to as Level 1 teachings which require “full assent of the will, heart and intellect” These teachings would of course be the ones in the Creed and moral teachings expounded in the 10 commandments.
On the other hand, I think “Humanae Vitae” would be teaching to be held, and would fall under the “Ordinary Magesterium”, so while the document itself my not have been stated “ex cathedra”, I think the teaching is related to a Divine Truth, which is the meaning of marriage and human sexuality. I would encourage everyone to go back and read the document, remember it was published in 1968, and look at how prophetic the document has become. In essence, once you distort the meaning of sexuality which is to be ordered to the good of a man/woman for unitive and procreative purposes, then sex becomes something as an end for itself and thus marriage, or the meaning of marriage becomes what society at the time thinks it is. Hmmmm, recent California court case anybody. Anyway, if anyone wants to read Humanae Vitae, here it is. I have also linked Pope John Paul II’s Evangelisum Vitae
Good afternoon! (I not sure that was actually appropriate to an ecumenical thread :-).
Eh, that's inaccurate, at least if the author has 1 Peter 2:5 in mind. The word there is "lithoi", not "petres".
In fact, "petros" is simply the word for rock "petra" in masculine form. The connotation that "petros" is SMALL rock does not exist in Koine Greek -- all the examples of that are from the classic period. Liddell, Scott
With these new categories of religious threads, I am not sure either....but your remark put a smile on my face...
The RM has very clearly and adequately explained the different rules for the various threads, and done really an excellent job...I guess it must be a real nightmare to moderate these threads...
In any case, I suppose it will just be a matter of feeling our way around these threads...
I posted a couple of responses on another thread, earlier today, and I am not sure there either, if what I posted was acceptable on that thread or not...time will tell...
I guess we will get used to this in time...
And Religion Moderator, I dont envy your job, but thanks for being so patient with everyone...
It feels weird (and somewhat refreshing) to read a Catholic debate thread without seeing the same old nasty insults against the Church by the usual suspects. Thank you for the new Ecumenical category.
And NYer, thank you for your years of posting these educational articles.
Devotional threads are closed to debate of any kind.
Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not a member of the caucus. If it says “Catholic Caucus” and you are not Catholic, do not post to the thread. However, if the poster of the caucus welcomes you, I will not boot you from the thread.
Ecumenic threads in this trial run are closed to all “anti” arguments. Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs – or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal – are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.
Open threads are a town square – posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other's beliefs. They may ridicule, similar to the Smoky Backroom with the exception that a poster must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.
Thank you!
I believe that one can and should strongly question, disagree and discuss points on religion (especially for me as I am getting a degree in Biblical Christianity) but many take offense when none is intended (in my opinion only) because they lack actual facts to back up their beliefs.
That having been said, I'm delighted with a lively debate --- and have been accused in having an armadillo hide, where almost all areas are concerned.
That's how we actually learn things - get expert in backing up our principles, beliefs with FACTS not merely long held traditions (many handed down by generations in our families, or even teachers' opinions.)
1 Peter 3:15 Bump
You are most welcome! Thank you for the acknowledgement. It is truly humbling.
Equally unfortunately, indeed, possibly MORE unfortunately, many of other faiths, many of many faiths, don't seem to know how to articulate an objection to a line of thought without making it a slur, either against a person or against his faith community.
Further, many CLAIM (and indeed may think their claim is true) to be attacking a Catholic belief, when they are in fact attacking something Catholics do not in fact believe.
And it gets fuzzier when, say, a Protestant says we "worship" Mary and we, or most of us, sincerely think we do NOT pay her divine honors or respect. In other words, from our POV they attack what they think is something we do or believe and when we deny it, they, in effect, say, "Oh Yes you do," or accuse us of using elastic dictionaries or or , saints defend us, "parsing", as though paying attention to the meanings of one's words were a bad thing.
And once the atmosphere is poisoned with this kind of thing (and there's plenty for both sides to be ashamed of) an argument which might be entirely legitimate, is perceived in the context and the heat of battle to be a slur.
It doesn't cost extra to be polite. As soon as I figure out how, I'll share the knowledge.
FReepmail me if you want Nuclear Niceness lessons. I'll charge you the same thing my insurance company charges for my 17-year-old to drive :-).
Wonder what Luther would think of Jim Bakker and the Rev Wright.
Nah. I'll stay rude, crude, and socially unacceptable. It's cheaper.
I shall keep my comments for another time and place with people who believe that intellectually disagreeing with supporting reasoning, is not a personal affront.
JMHO, rather than tell Catholics how wrong they are, take it to God, pray that they will see the error of their ways. He’s the one with the power.
There have been many arguments against Catholicism on FR, believe me, many, many, all it does is strengthen the faith of Catholics because they have to know and defend their faith.
In the meantime, though, we have to consider that every Protestant who has a legitimate beef against us, or even just a plausible beef, is a kind of rebuke to us — a divine rebuke.
It's hard confronting one's own sinfulness, and it bugs me that I am not such a beacon of Love that I do not draw more people to what I have experienced as real, well, happiness I suppose is the word, as a Catholic.
I think we fail in our mission, and thinking that I begin to understand the penitential practices of our forebears in the Faith.
That would be highway robbery! I, for one, will have to pass on the classes.
Oh, well. I guess I’ll have to see about a night shift at Wal-mart, instead!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.