If they have a basic, minimal understanding of Catholic teaching, they will think as follows:
Possibly because Dr. Kim Hardey is a man.
So what is the source of the RCC’s position on birth control? Is it a position derived from your deity or from some old celibate guys in Rome? If the former, how come not binding? If the latter, why should anyone take any more notice than they do of any wise old person, many of whom aren’t against birth control?
You asked earlier “So why, Icerigger, does a similar document from the Catholic Church in the 1930s invite an inference that the Catholic Church still holds those views today?”. I’ll go out on a limb here and say the reason Icerigger may say that a similar document from the RCC invites the inference that the RCC still holds those views comes from the RCC’s claim that their views are those of a god.
Seems to me that the RCC is all very eager to say “our views come from God” when seeking to pound those views as being authoritative. But seems to me also that your get out clause when the RCC changes view is “actually, not God, just the Pope, who is fallible”.
Bricker and others have stated that Encyclicals are not binding on Catholics, I then asked if Humanae Vitae then was just a suggestion, he did not answer me.
I just have to ask more directly:
Do Catholics have to follow the dictates of Casti Connubii or Humanae Vitae?
Yes or No.
No.
But that answer has the potential to be deceptive.
Let me explain, please. Do you have to follow my commands? I think it’s fair to say, “No.”
Correct?
But suppose I said to you, “I command you to not commit armed robbery, Icerigger!”
Would you have to follow that command? Yes, but not because it came from me.
So there are dictates that appear in encyclicals that Catholics must follow, but not because they appear in encyclicals. Rather, because they recapitulate authoritative commands from other sources.
OK?
It’s a position derived from our best understanding, at present, of how our deity wants us to behave. We make room for the possibility that our present understanding is incomplete.
Even though possibly flawed and incomplete, though, we contend it’s a better understanding than that derived from “any wise old person.” This is because we believe that Jesus intended to create a church om Earth, and he intended to give ultimate authority for that Church to Peter, and then to Peter’s successors. So when the current successor of Peter, or those in the organization of the Church, offer teachings, we generally treat them as having persuasive authority – not infallible, mind you, but more persuasive than the musings of any given wise old person who is not part of that organization. But we also recognize that by virtue of his possession as successor of Peter, he may indeed be inspired by the Holy Spirit to speak infallibly; when he does so, he does so explicitly and clearly, so there is no mistake as to its happening.
That’s an inference that arises from a very poor understanding of Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church indeed takes the position that its existence is as the result of an action by God, and its teaching office is inspired by God, but never has held that any views it offers are those of God. To the contrary, the Church is keenly aware that it is composed of men, not gods.
No. Your confusion arises from a very myopic view of Catholic teaching, a view that seemingly has no clue whatsoever how to distinguish between elements of Catholic teaching that are in fact said to come from God, sacred, holy, and unalterable, and those that come from the Church, well-intentioned, informed, but by no means unalterable, and those that come from a particular person in the Church, maybe well-intentioned, maybe not; informed, but who knows to what degree; and most certainly not unalterable.
Ok, your encyclicals can’t both be just an old guy’s essay on the way the world should be and regurgitation of sacred truths.
Why not?
My post is:
(A) No state should criminalize the carrying of concealed handguns
(B) Two atoms of hydrogen combine with one atom of oxygen to form water, a substance necessary for human life
Line (A) is my essay on the way the world should be; line (B) is a undeniable statement of absolute truth about the world.
Does my post not exist? Did the addition of one of those lines cause it to vanish? Which one?
Why can my post be both, and an encyclical can’t?
If encyclicals had undeniable statements of absolute truth about the world, you might have a point.
In Catholic belief, they do contain such truths, along, of course, with also containing opinions from the Pontiff about the best way to live life consistent with God’s plan.
Your attempt to argue against this was initially couched in an effort to find some internal contradiction in Catholic teaching. Having failed to do that, you are now simply denying that encyclicals can contain any undeniable statements of absolute truth.
And of course you’re welcome to do so. But this denial is your disagreement with the concept, as opposed to your pointing out some internal contradiction.
You guys get your own deity? How cool. Is there a different deity for non-Catholics?
As is hopefully clear from the foregoing quotes, I used the phrase “our deity,” in response to Princhester’s use of the phrase “your diety” – that is, I echoed his use of the possessive in effort to acknowledge that the deity involved was not his, and indeed belief in that deity not universal.
As a Catholic, of course, I argue that there is but one deity, period, but as a rhetor on a message board, I was simply identifying the subject under discussion and responding factually. Whether a deity even exists is a subject of legitimate debate; that Catholics believe such a deity exists and rest their views of scriptural and traditional authority on that belief is, in contrast, well-established.
Wait, isn’t that what Pope Francis pedals to work?
Irrelevant. On the spectrum of “No state should criminalize the carrying of concealed handguns” and “Two atoms of hydrogen combine with one atom of oxygen to form water, a substance necessary for human life”, catholic dogma is much closer to the former than the latter.
Irrelevant to what specific point of argument?
This digression started with Icerigger offering words from an encyclical from the 1930s with the inference that the Catholic Church still held those beliefs today. I demurred; Icerigger asked when the encyclical stopped being binding on Catholics, and I explained that encyclicals are not, by themselves, binding on Catholics.
So the entire argument is about what Catholics view as binding upon Catholics. Catholic dogma is a matter of fact insofar as the subject is Catholic belief.
My examples of hydrogen and gun control were simply analogies to two types of statements of Catholic belief that can both appear in encyclicals.
Your last statement suggests you have forgotten this argument, and are attempting to now begin a discussion about the actual reality of Catholic belief, as related to the physical, verifiable world.
Your post is - I presume unintentionally - hilarious. I think you are just too close to the subject to see how it sounds from the outside.
You start by explaining how RCC’s non-infallible views involve a “better understanding” and having more “persuasive authority” those of ordinary wise men because they derive from your god through the structure your god is supposed to have set up. Then you go on to say that a substantial part (most?) of these views are entirely alterable because they just come from men of imperfect understanding.
Which plays into what I said above exactly ie
To me it all just sounds like the type of stuff you get from Sylvia Browne or John Edward. Sure, they have a telephone line to the dead, but the line’s so bad that anything they get wrong is probably due to the bad line. Could it be they have no line to the dead?
How many times to the RCC’s views have to alter (ie turn out to have been wrong) before you start thinking they have no line to any god?
The actual existence of any “line to God,” is not what we’re talking about. As I explained in the last post:
This digression started with Icerigger offering words from an encyclical from the 1930s with the inference that the Catholic Church still held those beliefs today. I demurred; Icerigger asked when the encyclical stopped being binding on Catholics, and I explained that encyclicals are not, by themselves, binding on Catholics.
So the entire argument is about what Catholics view as binding upon Catholics. Catholic dogma is a matter of fact insofar as the subject is Catholic belief. it’s about what Catholics actually believe, as opposed to the truth of those beliefs in the real world.
And as I said above:
This. About time someone called the OP for nutpicking.
It’s what I’m talking about. And it’s what the RCC is talking about, too, right up to the moment it ceases to suit it.
I suspect that if Bricker were to abandon the RCC he’d become Jewish, the other hyper-legalistic religion. 
A priest, a rabbi and a lawyer walk into a bar…
Everybody else leaves.