The newer promulgations supercede the former, which isn’t contradictory at all if the former weren’t made ex cathedra, which the Syllabus was not. The Pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra, not in every utterance or writing he makes.
The Jesuits I have met are all, to a man, awesome guys. They also put out America, which is one of this agnostic-raised-Presbyterian’s favorite magazines.
What’s your take on pre-marital sex?
Not all infallible statements are ex cathedra. See http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/4levels.txt for an explanation of the different levels of infallibility. On the other hand, you are certainly right that not all papal statements are infallible.
I don’t want to beat a dead horse over this, but you seem to be saying all non ex-catherdra dogmas can be changed. Since there have only been a few that would seem to imply any dogma can be superceded, is this correct. I thought the Magisterium was infallible in matters of doctrine. If I were to ask Pius if he thought freedom of religion was against Catholic doctrine what would he tell me?
Pre-marital sex is gravely sinful, and no one should ever do it.
Traditional_Catholic, would you please answer the questions I’ve asked?
-During those times that you celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation and do not feel like you’ve truly been absolved, do you still believe that you’ve been absolved?
-What do you think of the laity’s tendency to put religious up on a pedestal?
-Why don’t you want religious orders remain true to their founders’ ideas on dress?
Thank you for starting this thread. I’m not sure if I would describe myself as a “traditional Catholic” (I’m not even sure how I would define one; how do you?), so it has been interesting reading your responses.
That was my understanding, from my instruction years ago in Catholic school, that only ex cathedra statements are infallible. Apparently they were simplifying things immensely.
-
Even if I do not feel like I have been absolved, I still believe that I have been absolved.
-
I think that religious should be respected, but should not be treated as if their every word is infallible or any such thing.
-
I think that religious orders should remain true to their founders’ ideas on dress by dressing simply. However, I am fine with modifying the habit so that it looks more like modern day clothing, as long as modesty is observed. For example, I am fine with Indian nuns wearing saris.
God created human beings even though He knew that some would choose to not follow Him because He wanted to give them the chance to follow Him if they wanted to do so.
I believe in the papacy because the Bible did not just fall from the sky; someone had to decide which books would be in it, and that someone was the pope. Since I believe in the pope, I believe in everything that the pope has taught infallibly, including the necessity of the priesthood. If everyone and their pet monkey can interpret the Bible however they please, you will never know if your interpretation is the right one.
I do not find the necessity of the priesthood hard to swallow, since Jesus only chose some of his followers (Catholics) to be apostles (priests/bishops).
I do not know enough about C. S. Lewis to have an opinion one way or the other.
Or maybe he wants to have children.
The apostles have more authority than Warren Jeffers because Jesus chose them to be His representatives on Earth.
If you marry will you want your wife to get pregnant every time you have sex?
Did you have sex before you converted?
How old are you?
I’m glad to hear that you still believe you are absolved. There is much room for doubt in any faith, so it makes me smile whenever I hear that people believe in things even when they don’t feel it inside.
There’s a large space between the respect that you show a regular person and acting like every word that a person says in infallible. I’ve found that the laity put priests, sisters, and brothers and also to an extent consecrated lay people on a pedestal. They’re treated as if they’re more special than a regular person. What I’ve been trying to get at is if you’ve seen this and what your opinion of it is.
In many habited orders, the dress evolved from the clothing at the time of the order’s founding made simpler. For instance, the scapular you see on some Benedictine monks “was at first nothing else than a working garment or apron such as was then worn by agricultural labourers.” (from the Catholic Encyclopedia) The histories I’ve read of other orders’ styles of dress have been, for the most part, similar. Sticking with the founders’ ideas of dress would be dressing in the style of the day, but simpler, not overly ostentatious.
Finally, how do you describe a “traditional Catholic”?
I think that you are referring to NFP (natural family planning), which in this case involves only having sex during the infertile part of the women’s cycle. The pope has never authoritatively declared that the use of NFP to avoid pregnancy is licit; even if he did, he would likely only allow it in cases of necessity (extreme poverty, war, etc.).
If he did allow NFP, it would not be because of its failure rate; rather, it would be because it works with nature instead of working against it the way that artificial birth control does. Personally, I think that any case grave enough to necessitate the use of NFP as a form of birth control would need the certainty that only abstinence can bring.
Are you Opus Dei?
Since I am a woman, if I ever marry I would be the one to get pregnant, not my spouse.
No, I have never had sex.
I am 15 years old.