tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post476750125164911315..comments2024-03-30T00:33:32.285+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Brutal honesty: broken Communion may not be fixed Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-65868267484270677202014-11-24T09:55:38.917+13:002014-11-24T09:55:38.917+13:00Goodbye, Jack. Blessings!Goodbye, Jack. Blessings!Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-48289685102702332192014-11-24T09:30:05.125+13:002014-11-24T09:30:05.125+13:00Dear "Happy Jack",
Thank you for express...Dear "Happy Jack",<br />Thank you for expressing your views again to me.<br />I fully understand the position as officially given by the Catholic Church.<br />You are welcome to promote and discuss that position elsewhere in blog land. But not here where the presumption is that baptised Christians are members of Christ's church. I am not going to be party to views which put down brothers and sisters in Christ.<br /><br />Further, even if you yet resile from these views in order to continue commenting here, I need you to use your real name.<br />With kind regards,<br />Peter.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-42779777394425053542014-11-24T09:13:17.615+13:002014-11-24T09:13:17.615+13:00Thank you Nick (on behalf of all the world's n...Thank you Nick (on behalf of all the world's non-Catholics)!<br /><br />I welcome Catholic commenters here, including conservatives who read the Catholic Herald a fine, thoughtful newspaper. But they must steer clear of consigning rafts of Christians to non-membership status.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-24637942521699170222014-11-24T09:03:58.571+13:002014-11-24T09:03:58.571+13:00Peter
The Catholic Catechism at para 838 recognis...Peter<br /><br />The Catholic Catechism at para 838 recognises that there are genuine Christians outside the RCC. Happy Jack has obviously forgotten. As for Catholic blogs, the Catholic Herald has revamped its website and it's hard to comment on now. You might get some increased RCC traffic, though probably not the type you want!<br /><br />NickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-63190099163653489942014-11-24T05:10:57.512+13:002014-11-24T05:10:57.512+13:00Hi Jack,
As a non-member of Christ's church I ...Hi Jack,<br />As a non-member of Christ's church I am not sure why I would bother to have further discussion with you on this site.<br /><br />Since I am not prepared to have commenters on this site who declare commenters here to not be members of Christ's church you need in your next comment to resile from the position you have pronounced or you will be banned from further commenting here.<br /><br />There are plenty of Catholic blogs which will welcome your comments.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-11241569490064745112014-11-24T01:57:51.118+13:002014-11-24T01:57:51.118+13:00Peter
"Ergo: there is NO guarantee that the ...Peter<br /><br /><i>"Ergo: there is NO guarantee that the Roman-system-of-guaranteeing the truth will work either consistently or coherently."</i><br /><br />Catholics believe the God will not allow the Church to err in matters of faith and morals. This itself is an infallible teaching. So we have the surest guarantee of all - God's word.<br /><br />It all rests on the promise given in Matthew 16 and also on John 16:13 and Luke 10:16. God never said Popes would be saints. The Church is a human organisation composed of flawed men. It has a human history. However, it cannot commit error in matters of faith and morals. <br /><br /><i>"Your argument seems to amount to this, What God has revealed in Scripture he has taught us; and what God has not revealed in Scripture he reveals through his church which is a certain guide to the truth because God has guaranteed it to be so."</i><br /><br />Not quite. What God has revealed in scripture has to be understood and this understanding is revealed to man through the Church. Sometimes, this requires an extraordinary exercise of the Magisterium through Councils and ex cathedra statements of the Pope. At other times, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium teaches it as established tradition passed down through the ages. <br /><br />The Magisterium should not be conceived of office holders. It is not some 'office' in Rome.<br />The Magisterium we mean the teaching office of the Church. It consists of the Pope and all the Bishops.<br /><br /><i>"What we are interested in here is deciding on thorny issues such as the filioque clause being in or out of the Nicene Creed."</i><br /><br />That has already been infallibly decided.<br /><br /><i>"The Magisterium of itself cannot decide that matter: only a full ecumenical council of the universal church."</i><br /><br />Which is precisely what happened! <br />The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium declared it. The 'Filioque' had been included in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed and had been used in most Western Christian churches since at least the 6th century. It erupted into and issue in the 11th century essentially because a dispute over Papal authority. <br /><br /><i>"Would such a council agree to the Assumption of Mary? I think not ..."</i><br /><br />Eh? It wouldn't be put up for a vote. All Catholics, and, indeed, members of the Orthodox Church believe in the Assumption of Mary. We see it as being in scripture but not explicitly so, and the truth having being Divinely revealed. Some Protestants agree and some Protestants don't. That's what's neither here nor there.<br /><br /><i>"The ordinary magisterium bit about the revealed truth believed by all is neither here nor there: that presumably includes all Christians on all the things we agree on."</i><br /><br />You think its neither here nor there? It's what binds the Body of Christ together in Communion - the Truth. And, just to be clear, it applies to members of the Catholic Church - Christ's Church on earth. If you don't believe the doctrines and teachings and submit to the authority of the Pope and the Bishops - the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium - then you're not a member of this Church. <br /><br /><i>"The task of authoritatively interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on [Scripture or Tradition], has been entrusted exclusively to the living Magisterium of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."</i><br />(Dei Verbum # 10)<br />Happy Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09310088819407999147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-31218660119042792052014-11-23T21:46:46.259+13:002014-11-23T21:46:46.259+13:00Hi Jack,
Your argument seems to amount to this, Wh...Hi Jack,<br />Your argument seems to amount to this, What God has revealed in Scripture he has taught us; and what God has not revealed in Scripture he reveals through his church which is a certain guide to the truth because God has guaranteed it to be so.<br /><br />Questions immediately arise about what 'the church' consists of, to which this guarantee applies. It has something to do with Peter and his successors, but not wholly so, as there have been some outright ratbags among them, and some dodgy teachers also (indeed, some question the present occupant), hence the role of the Magisterium, which kind of keeps the popes in line (except that they have the authority to lay down the infallible truth in a manner not wholly dependent on majority rule of the Magisterium). Further, the Magisterium itself has its own history of dodginess: witness the times it comes down hard on theologians, forbids them to teach etc, then changes its mind (de Lubac springs to mind; but I particularly have the Modernist controversy in mind, when the teaching authority of the church forbade critical scholarship in era and admitted it was a lost cause doing so in another era).<br /><br />We might also ask about papal power to appoint people to the Magisterium and wonder who rules who ... Cardinal Burke spings to mind and his recent 'demotion.'<br /><br />Ergo: there is NO guarantee that the Roman-system-of-guaranteeing the truth will work either consistently or coherently.<br /><br />I think that is the main point Bosco is making. In my view you have not refuted it. The ordinary magisterium bit about the revealed truth believed by all is neither here nor there: that presumably includes all Christians on all the things we agree on.<br /><br />What we are interested in here is deciding on thorny issues such as the filioque clause being in or out of the Nicene Creed. The Magisterium of itself cannot decide that matter: only a full ecumenical council of the universal church. Would such a council agree to the Assumption of Mary? I think not ...Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-87952712808703633102014-11-23T17:44:32.058+13:002014-11-23T17:44:32.058+13:00"There are degrees of weight that Catholics s..."There are degrees of weight that Catholics should give to the Ordinary Magisterium. A Pope giving a social teaching, for example, should be given more attention than a local Bishop"<br /> - Funny Jack -<br /><br />And who exercises that sort of power in your Church, Jack? is it another sort of infallible, notional, 'magisterium' - other than the occupant of the Vatican Throne? Or, in the case of Anti-Popes, which one decides on the inauthenticity of the other?<br /><br />One problem with the present system may be that the agreed outcome of Vatican II's deliberations seem to have been stifled by successive Roman Bishops.<br /><br /><br /><br />Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-32581692779098765042014-11-23T15:32:55.730+13:002014-11-23T15:32:55.730+13:00"If you are happy with this statement of your...<i>"If you are happy with this statement of yours, Jack, you must be seriously out of kilter with Roman Catholic reality. Are there no catholic marriages contracted in old age in your Church?"</i><br /><br />*sigh*<br /><br />Of course Jack is happy with it. It's the Churches teaching.<br /><br />Being impotent is not the same as being less virile or less fertile. A marriage, to be a marriage, has to be consummated. Sex has to take place at least once. Until then, it is not a marriage. Jack thinks this applies in the Anglican Church. It is the civil law in Britain too - with the exception of homosexuals who, in law, cannot consummate marriage or, for that matter, commit adultery.Happy Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09310088819407999147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-58104241721996117722014-11-23T15:21:21.021+13:002014-11-23T15:21:21.021+13:00Ummm ... rattled you cage there Jack sees.
You w...Ummm ... rattled you cage there Jack sees. <br /><br />You were disingenuous about the Magisterium - or didn't understand it. When one refers to infallible teachings most Catholics know this precludes the Ordinary Magisterium. <br /><br /><i>" ... the Magisterium acknowledges it is fallible, just as fallible as Happy Jack; and only infallible under certain, limited specified conditions.”</i><br /><br />There are degrees of weight that Catholics should give to the Ordinary Magisterium. A Pope giving a social teaching, for example, should be given more attention than a local Bishop - or Happy Jack. <br /><br />The majority of the Church's teachings were at one time accepted as infallible but were clarified and honed through dispute, division and theological debate. On becoming dogmatic, this didn't change their status. They were already infallible. It lifted them to having been Divinely Revealed Truth. <br /><br /><i>"As for your insistence that the biblical teaching against sex during and for a week following the woman’s menstrual cycle is solely about ritual purity and can be happily disregarded ..."</i><br /><br />Can it? On what basis? Jack gave you the supporting scriptural texts. Where are there any condemning NPF as you implied? <br /><br /><i>" ... does the same apply to the surrounding verses against incest, having sex with animals, sacrificing children, homosexuality, and adultery ..."</i><br /><br />There are no verses suggesting any of these are associated with ritual purity but rather with not killing and also with sexual morality. <br /><br /><i>" – or do you just nicely cherry-pick your way through those verses?"</i><br /><br />No. Jack uses scripture, tradition, and also reasoning based on natural law. Happy Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09310088819407999147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-59482910713568277972014-11-23T13:49:05.863+13:002014-11-23T13:49:05.863+13:00Happy Jack’s “The Magisterium consists of the infa...Happy Jack’s “The Magisterium consists of the infallible Sacred Magisterium and the fallible Ordinary Magisterium.” is merely another way of saying, as I did, “the Magisterium acknowledges it is fallible, just as fallible as Happy Jack; and only infallible under certain, limited specified conditions.”<br /><br />To quote Cardinal Ratzinger about whether he thought a pope’s teaching was infallible merely gets one back on the same loop. Cardinal Ratzinger was fallible when he said that!<br /><br />Rather than fabricating statements I obviously never made, and firing off ad hominem put-downs from behind your latest anonymous persona, Happy Jack, how about humbly acknowledging some of the clear difficulties?<br /><br />As for your insistence that the biblical teaching against sex during and for a week following the woman’s menstrual cycle is solely about ritual purity and can be happily disregarded, does the same apply to the surrounding verses against incest, having sex with animals, sacrificing children, homosexuality, and adultery – or do you just nicely cherry-pick your way through those verses?<br /><br />Blessingsliturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-82637572625385126812014-11-23T12:49:09.815+13:002014-11-23T12:49:09.815+13:00" if a person is impotent there is no marriag..." if a person is impotent there is no marriage. Why? Again, because the purpose of marriage cannot be fulfilled."<br /> - Happy Jack - <br /><br />If you are happy with this statement of yours, Jack, you must be seriously out of kilter with Roman Catholic reality. Are there no catholic marriages contracted in old age in your Church?<br /><br />There are many in your Church who do not act according to the Magisterium's edict of contraception. How do you see this as a healthy option?Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-80997166576859537132014-11-23T12:42:04.130+13:002014-11-23T12:42:04.130+13:00Happy Jack; 'infallibly fallible' is the o...Happy Jack; 'infallibly fallible' is the only sort of infallibility that can be said be the state of our common fallen humanity. Jesus never declared Peter to be infallible - only human beings in the Church have ever claimed that for him.<br /><br />"Rock of Ages, cleft for me" proclaims the identity of Christ, not Peter.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-72953334828011471472014-11-23T12:08:14.949+13:002014-11-23T12:08:14.949+13:00Bosco
Happy Jack suggests you take a quick course...Bosco<br /><br />Happy Jack suggests you take a quick course in Catholic theology before claiming to be an expert on the Magisterium. <br /><br />You could start with the concepts of the "Deposit of Faith" and the "Indefectibility of the Church".<br /><br /><i>" ... the Magisterium acknowledges it is fallible, just as fallible as Happy Jack; and only infallible under certain, limited specified conditions."</i><br /><br />This is just plain inaccurate. <br /><br />The Magisterium consists of the infallible Sacred Magisterium and the fallible Ordinary Magisterium. The infallible Sacred Magisterium includes Ecumenical Councils and ex cathedra declarations of the Pope. The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, despite its name, is also part of the infallible the Sacred Magisterium. It is the commonest form of the infallibility of the Church. <br /><br />Examples of infallible teachings of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium are hard to point to as these are not contained in any one document. They are the common teachings found among the Bishops dispersed through the world united with the Pope. And they are unchangeable. An extraordinary definition is not necessary to make a teaching <br />irrevocably binding. Indeed, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is the usual form of infallibility. (Examples are the male priesthood and contraception. Always held as part of the faith and unchangeable by future generations. Divorce and access to communion also falls under this.)<br /><br />Here's what the then Cardinal Ratzinger said of Saint Pope John Paul's 'Ordinatio Sacerdotalis':<br /><br /><i>"The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, <b>intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively, since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium</b>. As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed."</i><br /><br />The Ordinary Magisterium is not infallible and includes teachings and theological ideas of individual Bishops or groups of Bishops taken separately from the whole College of Bishops. It also covers things like the social teachings of Popes or their theological opinions. Catholics are not free to simply dismiss these depending on a variety of things and Catholics must respectfully hear all opinions. These fallible teachings too might progress to be infallibly defined if they become not only Ordinary but Ordinary and Universal too. <br /><br /><i>"Happy Jack conveniently relegates biblical teaching he seeks to ignore to the merely ritual, and elevates biblical teaching that suits him, even when phrased in the same manner, in the same chapter, to intrinsically disordered.2</i><br /><br />Leviticus does not use terms like abomination about sex during a woman's menstruation, now does it? <br /><br />Leviticus 15:24 clearly locates it within ritual purity; 18:19 simply instructs not to do it; and 20:18 says if sex takes place the couple will be cut off from the people. How have you leapt from this to a universal moral law prohibiting natural family planning that equates with homosexuality? <br /><br /><i>"Happy Jack forgets that NFP was long taught as being immoral"</i><br /><br />Was it? Evidence? Contraception was always viewed as immoral.<br /><br /><i>" ... that many still regard it as immoral"</i><br /><br />Who?<br /><br /><i>"... and that even Paul VI himself was clear that NFP was to be used only for spacing births, not for preventing conception (as it is now used), and only then if there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births."</i><br /><br />Er, to space births means avoiding conception through natural methods. And Jack agrees the application of NFP has to be moral too.Happy Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09310088819407999147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-46613126372303754982014-11-23T07:07:02.402+13:002014-11-23T07:07:02.402+13:00“Truth is Truth and there is an objective moral or...“Truth is Truth and there is an objective moral order that we are capable of understanding through scripture and through reason.” Happy Jack<br /><br />3/4 of the theologians and 2/3 of the bishops on the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control, using Happy Jack’s scripture and reason, and throwing in tradition for good measure, came to a different conclusion than Pope Paul VI and Happy Jack about the morality of artificial contraception.<br /><br />“Jack will accept the Magisterium's view about was is and what is not an infallible teaching. It does not depend on him precisely because he is fallible and that's why the Church is there.” Happy Jack<br /><br />The loop just keeps repeating: the Magisterium acknowledges it is fallible, just as fallible as Happy Jack; and only infallible under certain, limited specified conditions. There is no infallible list of what are infallible teachings, and the view that “There is an infallible teaching on contraception” is merely Happy Jack’s fallible opinion.<br /><br />Happy Jack conveniently relegates biblical teaching he seeks to ignore to the merely ritual, and elevates biblical teaching that suits him, even when phrased in the same manner, in the same chapter, to intrinsically disordered. That NFP encourages the direct contravention of the previous biblical teaching can then be brushed off.<br /><br />Happy Jack forgets that NFP was long taught as being immoral, that many still regard it as immoral, and that even Paul VI himself was clear that NFP was to be used only for spacing births, not for preventing conception (as it is now used), and only then if there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births. <br /><br />Blessingsliturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-38926518383709568832014-11-23T01:02:38.006+13:002014-11-23T01:02:38.006+13:00Hi Peter
Here's your central issue: "I a...Hi Peter<br /><br />Here's your central issue: <i>"I am interested in weaknesses..."</i>. Jack is more interested in strengths!<br /><br /><i>"What is less agreeable to me is an over-emphasis on "objective" morality when what seems to be "objective" has "subjective" elements."</i><br /><br />What you actually mean is that discerning the objective morality may be difficult and then applying it to concrete situations even more so. Jack wouldn't disagree but this does not detract from accepting that murder is murder, or theft is theft. Look at the current discussion about euthanasia. Clearly this is self-murder. And yet there are some promoting as Christian! Loose the idea of a morally objective reality and morality will be just whatever an individual thinks is okay. We will have become like gods! <br /><br />We surely have to agree that God in His wisdom has created us for a purpose and equipped us to understand and live according to that purpose? All our 'natural' drives and emotions are designed to achieve this. Because of the Fall there is a dissonance between our God given consciences and our natural desires. <br /><br />Let's start with agreeing that the fundamental foundation of society is human relationships and family life. One of the strongest drives in nature is sex. The purpose of sex is unitive and procreative. Children need stability as do adults in their old age. In theory, and according to God's will, everyone's a winner with marriage being permanent. Sex is controlled; society is stable; children have parents; and parents have children in their later years. <br /><br />Now, annulment. A few examples. If a person contracts a marriage and has no intention of having children, the Church considers there has been no marriage - it is null. Why? Because one of the requirements of marriage has not been fulfilled. Similarly, if a person is impotent there is no marriage. Why? Again, because the purpose of marriage cannot be fulfilled. Another example. If a man marries with no intention of keeping his vows, say being faithful, or honouring and loving his partner, there is no marriage. Get the picture? <br /><br /><i>" "There's also a greater awareness that both spouses may not be on the same page when they make their vows"? I cannot think of the verse in Scripture which supports that way of thinking!" </i><br /><br />Really? Why does this have to be written in scripture? Read Matthew 16 for Jesus' commission to His Church and the authority He placed with His Apostles as leaders as His Vicars. If a couple who are making vows to one another have different intentions in their heart, how would this be valid unless they both agreed on the purpose and life long nature of marriage? <br /><br />The Church guards access to the Sacraments and has authority to decide if a marriage has been validly contracted or not. Once validly married it is for life and cannot be dissolved. If you divorce, then you cannot remarry without committing adultery. <br /><br />Annulments seem to me perfectly acceptable. Its the same with the Church deciding what are and what are not valid ordinations and then whether these are licit or illicit.<br /><br />The current rift in the Church is whether, for the sake of mercy, one should adopt a more lenient, pastoral approach to the Sacrament of marriage and grant access to Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried. This is unlikely as it contradicts established Church doctrine which cannot be changed. Some want to make annulments a simple administrative process and lower the threshold. Again, Jack can't see this happening. There is a genuine issue about the extent to which the contracting parties were properly aware of the nature of their vows. This is where the debate will be centred. <br /><br />Happy Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09310088819407999147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-7676386046025462102014-11-22T19:00:00.768+13:002014-11-22T19:00:00.768+13:00Hi Jack,
Lest we forget, I believe we agree on man...Hi Jack,<br />Lest we forget, I believe we agree on many things!<br />What is less agreeable to me is an over-emphasis on "objective" morality when what seems to be "objective" has "subjective" elements.<br />To take one example from the discussion points above, what is the objective basis for granting annulments if we go along with "There's also a greater awareness that both spouses may not be on the same page when they make their vows"? I cannot think of the verse in Scripture which supports that way of thinking!<br /><br />In other words, "objective" is itself potentially if not in reality a slippery term when it comes to discussing objective morality.<br /><br />(With the exceptions of a few way out "marriage is for the life of the marriage" very liberal Christians) all Christians are agreed that a couple marrying should intend it to be for life. (Perhaps that "all" is a sound objective basis!) Not all Christians are agreed on the "what happens if the marriages breaks down" situation. Even Eastern Orthodox, notoriously conservative in many ways, have a different view to Rome at that point. Rome's own approach to annulment is under serious questioning these days. Might we agree that some subjectivity has entered the Christian world on the question of divorce?<br /><br />(I am not interested, by the way, in demolishing Roman ethics, nor defending Protestant approaches to the death. Each way has its strengths. I am interested in weaknesses. Even more on whether together we can find a way forward in the 21st century.)Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-55316492703409197112014-11-22T15:38:15.373+13:002014-11-22T15:38:15.373+13:00"It is all very really trumpeting the objecti...<i>"It is all very really trumpeting the objective nature of morality and with it the triumph of Roman ethics over other more subjective Christian approaches."</i><br /><br />What are "subjective Christian approaches"? Are you denying an objective morality altogether? <br /><br /><i>"But a price is paid for doing so. One of which is casuistical approaches to complex human issues. Another is the inability to answer satisfactorily the kinds of questions I raise above."</i><br /><br />Moral questions concern the application of reasoning and not emotions and feelings. The questions above can all be answered. <br /><br /><i>"And I still raise the question if NFP is so infallibly right, how come many Catholics globally ignore it and use artificial contraception. I imagine most of them receive the Mass each week without having confessed that sin."</i><br /><br />You attend Mass and receive Holy Communion. Anyone can attend Mass. To receive Communion you must be in a state of grace. <br /><br />Then if they do this knowing it is sin and against the teaching of the Church, they are committing the grave sin of sacrilege.<br /><br /><i>"Protestants pay their own prices for their approach to morality. But we each pays our money and takes our pick."</i><br /><br />Yes and it's tearing your Church apart and sending the wrong message to society at large about our first duty to God. We're slipping back into pre-Christian sexual immorality and the worship of self pleasure. You are aware of that?<br />Happy Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09310088819407999147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-74455929887764003052014-11-22T15:29:21.308+13:002014-11-22T15:29:21.308+13:00So many questions, Peter.
They suggest confusion...So many questions, Peter. <br /><br />They suggest confusion to Jack and an absence of certainty in the Church you follow. Too much emphasis on the individual, perhaps?<br /><br />Let's unpack the sexual morality examples.<br /><br /><i>"What duty do we have to raise the next generation? Should we raise one more when the world's population is 7 billion and rising?"</i><br /><br />If you honestly believe that there are too many children in the world already then, for you, as an individual, following your own conscience, the only course open to you is chastity within marriage after consummation or not to marry at all. <br /><br /><i>"Why are the shifting sands of economic morality different to the shifting sands of sexual morality? Both concern people and their relationships to one another, do they not? Was not the Levitical law concerned with both?"</i><br /><br />There are certain transcendent moral laws that bind us, regardless of situations and circumstances. Laws pertaining to a agrarian economy where money was stored and had no other use than buying things, called for a different ethic. The transcendent ethic is not to exploit people and not to pursue self-gain at all costs. This still holds, whereas how this is exercised will change. Men and women do not change and neither does the moral law concerning sex. Overpopulation is not a justification for contraception - or for abortion. Both are intrinsically immoral and therefore cannot be acceptable. <br /><br />No Christian Church prior to the Lambeth Conference in 1930 supported contraception. Indeed, all the reformers were opposed to it. It was a constant teaching of all Christian Churches - a part of what Catholics call the "deposit of faith" which is unchanging. <br /><br /><i>"Prior to NFP what did the Catholic church teach about regulating fertility? If it did not teach regulation of fertility why does it do so now? Where is the distinction between artificial and natural regulation of fertility drawn in the history of theology? Has it been with us since Scripture, or is it a new fangled theological distinction?"</i><br /><br />The science about ovulation, fertility and conception was unknown until relatively recently. The Church taught either continence or sex involving no artificial means of avoiding conception. From memory, there was a considerable theological debate within the Church before it settled on NFP as acceptable - and even then within limits. (Have you read Humane Vitae?)<br /><br /><i>"Would you say that annulments granted today by the Catholic church follow traditional patterns of granting them? Or have they changed in recent decades? If they have, do they have an intriguing relationship with the rise of divorce and remarriage in modern societies?"</i><br /><br />Well they're not as easy to get as Henry VIII's if this is what you mean! <br /><br />This is a contentious issue at the present moment in the Catholic Church as you well know. Annulments have increased. Perhaps because the modern world devalues the sacrament of marriage and spouses are actually poorly taught about its binding nature. There's also a greater awareness that both spouses may not be on the same page when they make their vows. Even so, Jack would be troubled if annulments were granted without the necessary rigour of examining whether the actual marriage was valid.<br /><br /><i>"Do you think Jesus would approve of annulments as currently granted, many of which have the effect of bastardising children who previously thought they were legitimate?"</i><br /><br />If His Church grants them, then Jesus would understand this. There are many, many more bastards in the world because marriage has become so devalued than through annulments. There are also many children without a father and mother too. What do you think causes the greatest harm? Jack believes Jesus would be more worried by the Anglican acceptance of 'no fault' divorce and remarriage. <br />Happy Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09310088819407999147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-16606290453284237042014-11-22T14:35:00.378+13:002014-11-22T14:35:00.378+13:00Hi Happy Jack
What duty do we have to raise the ne...Hi Happy Jack<br />What duty do we have to raise the next generation? Should we raise one more when the world's population is 7 billion and rising?<br /><br />Why are the shifting sands of economic morality different to the shifting sands of sexual morality? Both concern people and their relationships to one another, do they not? Was not the Levitical law concerned with both?<br /><br />Prior to NFP what did the Catholic church teach about regulating fertility? If it did not teach regulation of fertility why does it do so now? Where is the distinction between artificial and natural regulation of fertility drawn in the history of theology? Has it been with us since Scripture, or is it a new fangled theological distinction?<br /><br />Would you say that annulments granted today by the Catholic church follow traditional patterns of granting them? Or have they changed in recent decades? If they have, do they have an intriguing relationship with the rise of divorce and remarriage in modern societies?<br /><br />Do you think Jesus would approve of annulments as currently granted, many of which have the effect of bastardising children who previously thought they were legitimate?<br /><br />It is all very really trumpeting the objective nature of morality and with it the triumph of Roman ethics over other more subjective Christian approaches. But a price is paid for doing so. One of which is casuistical approaches to complex human issues. Another is the inability to answer satisfactorily the kinds of questions I raise above. And I still raise the question if NFP is so infallibly right, how come many Catholics globally ignore it and use artificial contraception. I imagine most of them receive the Mass each week without having confessed that sin.<br /><br />Protestants pay their own prices for their approach to morality. But we each pays our money and takes our pick. Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-87762726658251184132014-11-22T10:32:41.939+13:002014-11-22T10:32:41.939+13:00Peter
Jack has answered the points about slavery ...Peter<br /><br />Jack has answered the points about slavery and usury and the Mosaic law. As far as artificially preventing contraception - the key word is artificial. NFP is not in and of itself immoral. Happy Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09310088819407999147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-14403967498417539982014-11-22T10:24:12.771+13:002014-11-22T10:24:12.771+13:00Bosco
"Let’s just recap, Happy Jack."
...Bosco<br /><br /><i>"Let’s just recap, Happy Jack."</i><br /><br />Yes and let's do it honestly, please.<br /><br /><i>"You hold that there is an objective moral order. So there is no room for diversity of moral teaching in the revelation of God in Scripture. And this moral teaching cannot change."</i><br /><br />Truth is Truth and there is an objective moral order that we are capable of understanding through scripture and through reason. <br /><br /><i>"God clearly taught that a couple having sex during the menstrual period of the woman, or within the seven days after it has stopped, is grossly immoral and an absolute abomination to God."</i><br /><br />But why? Because of ritual purification reasons or because of the inherently sinful nature of the act? God's moral laws are not random. Use your reason. What could be objectively evil about such a thing? <br /><br /><i>"That you see Jesus as altering this teaching to the point of negating God’s previous, clear moral teaching demolishes your point that Christian moral understanding is unchangeable."</i><br /><br />Demolishes it? Please! You've not shown it was a moral teaching. Jack contends it was a ritual law - an external discipline not an injunction to avoid something intrinsically disordered. Christians don't have to be ritually circumcised either. Jack hopes someone has informed you of this. <br /><br /><i>"As to your suggestion that artificial contraception is contrary to God’s objective moral order, the problem with your approach is that you assume that this is an infallible papal teaching. The issue is: you are fallible. There is no infallible list of infallible teachings."</i><br /><br />Jack will accept the Magisterium's view about was is and what is not an infallible teaching. It does not depend on him precisely <b>because</b> he is fallible and that's why the Church is there. <br /><br />There is an infallible teaching on contraception and it represents 2000 years of constant Church teaching. Not everything has to be written down, or be declared at a Councils or stated <i>ex cathedra</i>. This only becomes necessary during times of dispute or doubt, when formal clarification is needed.<br /><br /><i>"And like the church’s teaching against interest, one day it may very well change."</i><br /><br />That's a red herring and Jack keeps hearing this advanced by homosexuals and their supporters. Slavery is actually a touch trickier to answer. However, both are to do with the shifts and changes in political, social and economic situations. Unlike sex which is to do with the relationship between a man and a woman and their duties to raise the next generation. These do not change.<br /><br /><i>"So many of today’s favourite moral issues may look so dated in the future. And not just dated, but understood to have been wrong."</i><br /><br />Possibly. They've lasted for over 2000 years. Then a great falling away from the faith is prophesised too and apostasy too. Who knows what lies ahead.Happy Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09310088819407999147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-81810621960630687222014-11-22T08:24:01.772+13:002014-11-22T08:24:01.772+13:00Let’s just recap, Happy Jack.
You hold that there...Let’s just recap, Happy Jack.<br /><br />You hold that there is an objective moral order. So there is no room for diversity of moral teaching in the revelation of God in Scripture. And this moral teaching cannot change.<br /><br />God clearly taught that a couple having sex during the menstrual period of the woman, or within the seven days after it has stopped, is grossly immoral and an absolute abomination to God. That you see Jesus as altering this teaching to the point of negating God’s previous, clear moral teaching demolishes your point that Christian moral understanding is unchangeable.<br /><br />As to your suggestion that artificial contraception is contrary to God’s objective moral order, the problem with your approach is that you assume that this is an infallible papal teaching. The issue is: you are fallible. There is no infallible list of infallible teachings. And like the church’s teaching against interest, one day it may very well change. <br /><br />So many of today’s favourite moral issues may look so dated in the future. And not just dated, but understood to have been wrong.<br /><br />Blessings<br /><br />Boscoliturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-3326954406062138702014-11-22T06:23:19.421+13:002014-11-22T06:23:19.421+13:00Dear Jack,
A. Did the Papcy ever change its mind o...Dear Jack,<br />A. Did the Papcy ever change its mind on the morality of keeping slaves?<br />B. Your own words in reply to Liturgy "condemn" you: the Levitical prohibition re sex/menstruation was precisely designed to ensure sex occurred during maximum fertility in the monthly cycle. Consequently your reply in one part says there is no problem with sex which is not open to procreation and in another part says that sex is only okay within marriage when open to procreation!! Which is the definitive position?Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-88611845760835609172014-11-22T03:19:11.849+13:002014-11-22T03:19:11.849+13:00Ron Smith
I have not been "dropped", Si...Ron Smith<br /><br />I have not been <i>"dropped"</i>, Sir. I have opted for voluntary, early retirement. To my mind, this Happy Jack bloke is way too moderate but we have to let the young 'uns have a go.<br /><br />And you have insulted me! Take a good look at my avatar. Anyone who knows anything about Dodos can see I am a proud male. There is no confusion about gender and sex in our species. We are as God made us and act accordingly. Occasionally, in the heat of the moment, it has been known for one of us to get confused but the rest soon put us right. We'd become extinct otherwise. <br /><br />Off back to my sanctuary now.The Way of Dodohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02768438289001724700noreply@blogger.com