FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: God Can Deliver the Damned From Hell?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
StevusMagnus Wrote:So priests did not sin by telling married couples they were right to use artificial contraception, an intrinsic evil, on the basis of a consensus of theologians? In fact they acted with a moral certainty in doing so?

If they did not know it was evil, it was no sin.

QuisUtDeus Wrote:I don't understand what all the shilly-shallying is.  All I wanted to know was what your beef was with the CE:  whether you thought they were making an heretical statement, or whether you were surprised to find out something was allowed.  It goes to why the heck you posted this in the first place with the comment that you were "floored".

I have no beef with the CE. Did I say I had one? I never claimed they were making an heretical statement. Did I ever state this? If not, then why ask the question?  I stated repeatedly that I was floored at the statement for what it asserted. I explained that this had to do with the Traditional Catholic teaching that Hell is eternal. If you can read the quote, and are capable of reading my statements answering your question numerous times. You know why I was floored. Not sure I can break it down for you any further.

I must say this is twilight zonish! [Image: laff.gif] You guys are really looking for something that is just not there. Read the quote again. Do you not find that a surprising statement? If not, then you guys held a far different notion of Hell than I. I suppose you guys thought it was Catholic that God saves souls from Hell all along, right? You guys read the quote and said "ho hum"? If so good for you.

Why the statement would be astonishing is self-evident. It's frankly a waste of time to have spent so many posts explaining the obvious to posters who already know the answer. I'm certain you both are intelligent and not that dense. It seems you are the ones being coy in trying to elicit my hidden motives in posting this, which are nothing more than I've already stated.
LaRoza Wrote:
StevusMagnus Wrote:So priests did not sin by telling married couples they were right to use artificial contraception, an intrinsic evil, on the basis of a consensus of theologians? In fact they acted with a moral certainty in doing so?

If they did not know it was evil, it was no sin.

Perhaps if they were living in a cave for  their entire lives or personally taught at seminary by Hans Kung they could plead ignorance...
StevusMagnus Wrote:
QuisUtDeus Wrote:
StevusMagnus Wrote:
QuisUtDeus Wrote:The consensus of theologians does provide a degree of certainty, varying as shown above, but not as much as that of a dogmatic pronouncement.

As I said, the "consensus of theologians" provides us with no moral certainty.

You seem to contradict Fr. Ott and the CE.

Where do Fr. Ott or the CE state that the mere consensus of theologians creates a moral certainty?

You're being obstinate on purpose now.  If Ott and the CE say we can (and in some cases should) believe things given by a consensus of theologians, does that not create a moral certitude by definition?

Quote: