FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: A discussion of something sexual
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
yeah i am just really confused about the st alphonsus thing since i listened to Father Ripper on sensus traditious again and he says the saint and saint thomas condemns oral stimulation on the man. He then says though oral sex on the women is not wrong according to theologians. he has studied the theologians on this.

so this is where i would love to see the actual texts of the saints on this.

the reason i am wanting to see what saint alphonsus actually said on this is because those who argue against oral stimulation for either say a Pope declared st alphonsus teachings to be good and we are called to follow them. people say saint alphonsus said oral stimulation is a grave sin. so i know its not ex-cathadra but wouldn't that mean we are obliged to follow the saint even when others disagree with him? could the saint be wrong here? what does it mean that the Pope said his teachings can be safely taught if one chooses to not follow what the saint says? very confusing, for me at least.
Others have pointed out in the past that St. Augustine and St. Thomas also believed that life didn't start at conception and St. Thomas also at one point in his life didn't believe in the Immaculate Conception. Saints sometimes do make errors. One would certainly say that many of the saints had a very negative view of sex even in marriage. I'm not sure how easy it is to say that their thoughts on the subject were skewed by such an outlook.
(04-30-2018, 02:46 PM)havok579257 Wrote: [ -> ]yeah i am just really confused about the st alphonsus thing since i listened to Father Ripper on sensus traditious again and he says the saint and saint thomas condemns oral stimulation on the man.  He then says though oral sex on the women is not wrong according to theologians.  he has studied the theologians on this.

so this is where i would love to see the actual texts of the saints on this.  

the reason i am wanting to see what saint alphonsus actually said on this is because those who argue against oral stimulation for either say a Pope declared st alphonsus
teachings to be good and we are called to follow them.  people say saint alphonsus said oral stimulation is a grave sin.  so i know its not ex-cathadra but wouldn't that mean we are obliged to follow the saint even when others disagree with him?  could the saint be wrong here?  what does it mean that the Pope said his teachings can be safely taught if one chooses to not follow what the saint says?  very confusing, for me at least.

Pope Gregory XVI canonized St Alphonsus and said that his opinions in moral theology can be safely taught and held.

No pope has ever said that St Alphonsus must be followed, nor that everything he wrote is inerrant. 

No one is enjoined to accept a theological conclusion St Alphonsus, any more than one is obliged to accept a theological conclusion of St Thomas. Neither is the Magisterium and neither is Infallible. Both could be wrong on a subject, but there is no risk of grave error in following them, and even, we could say, generally one should follow them, unless there is good reason not to do so.

There are several examples where while St Alphonsus is probably incorrect, but certain one could take his opinion safely and therefore not sin as a result of holding it or practicing it:
  • St Alphonsus teaches that if a priest is distracted during the Consecration this constitutes a grave sin, because grave reverence is due. This is not the common opinion of most theologians, who hold that passing willful distractions would not cause a grave sin in such a case.
  • St Thomas and St Alphonsus say that the fruits of the Mass are limited due to the disposition of the offerrer and recipient, many others like Noldin and Pesch hold that these are limited by Christ's positive will.
  • St. Alphonsus holds that it is a grave sin for a woman to serve at the altar and not because of some disciplinary law, but because it is supremely unfitting and a grave lack of reverence. Obviously, if we take that opinion, then we have to insist that a number of Popes and countless Bishops and Priests have encouraged and allowed grave sin.
  • St. Alphonsus holds that one is bound to do one's penance even if he has fallen back into mortal sin, but that in so doing he commits a venial sin, which make sense if he has willfully neglected to do his penance and has lapsed into sin, but also seems to amount to an obligation to sin, which cannot be admitted.
  • St. Alphonsus holds that it is right and even obligatory to strike one's wife for a serious fault, and that this punishment cannot be grounds for separation.

In short, while St. Alphonsus is the standard, he is not the Magisterium and cannot be taken in isolation. His opinions can safely be followed, but that does not preclude him being wrong on certain things, and thus a more common standard being applied.
(04-30-2018, 09:15 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-30-2018, 02:46 PM)havok579257 Wrote: [ -> ]yeah i am just really confused about the st alphonsus thing since i listened to Father Ripper on sensus traditious again and he says the saint and saint thomas condemns oral stimulation on the man.  He then says though oral sex on the women is not wrong according to theologians.  he has studied the theologians on this.

so this is where i would love to see the actual texts of the saints on this.  

the reason i am wanting to see what saint alphonsus actually said on this is because those who argue against oral stimulation for either say a Pope declared st alphonsus
teachings to be good and we are called to follow them.  people say saint alphonsus said oral stimulation is a grave sin.  so i know its not ex-cathadra but wouldn't that mean we are obliged to follow the saint even when others disagree with him?  could the saint be wrong here?  what does it mean that the Pope said his teachings can be safely taught if one chooses to not follow what the saint says?  very confusing, for me at least.

Pope Gregory XVI canonized St Alphonsus and said that his opinions in moral theology can be safely taught and held.

No pope has ever said that St Alphonsus must be followed, nor that everything he wrote is inerrant. 

No one is enjoined to accept a theological conclusion St Alphonsus, any more than one is obliged to accept a theological conclusion of St Thomas. Neither is the Magisterium and neither is Infallible. Both could be wrong on a subject, but there is no risk of grave error in following them, and even, we could say, generally one should follow them, unless there is good reason not to do so.

There are several examples where while St Alphonsus is probably incorrect, but certain one could take his opinion safely and therefore not sin as a result of holding it or practicing it:
  • St Alphonsus teaches that if a priest is distracted during the Consecration this constitutes a grave sin, because grave reverence is due. This is not the common opinion of most theologians, who hold that passing willful distractions would not cause a grave sin in such a case.
  • St Thomas and St Alphonsus say that the fruits of the Mass are limited due to the disposition of the offerrer and recipient, many others like Noldin and Pesch hold that these are limited by Christ's positive will.
  • St. Alphonsus holds that it is a grave sin for a woman to serve at the altar and not because of some disciplinary law, but because it is supremely unfitting and a grave lack of reverence. Obviously, if we take that opinion, then we have to insist that a number of Popes and countless Bishops and Priests have encouraged and allowed grave sin.
  • St. Alphonsus holds that one is bound to do one's penance even if he has fallen back into mortal sin, but that in so doing he commits a venial sin, which make sense if he has willfully neglected to do his penance and has lapsed into sin, but also seems to amount to an obligation to sin, which cannot be admitted.
  • St. Alphonsus holds that it is right and even obligatory to strike one's wife for a serious fault, and that this punishment cannot be grounds for separation.

In short, while St. Alphonsus is the standard, he is not the Magisterium and cannot be taken in isolation. His opinions can safely be followed, but that does not preclude him being wrong on certain things, and thus a more common standard being applied.
Thanks for shedding light on this.  

Although does the same line of thinking apply to books or manuals with a nihil obstat and an imprimatur ?  If a book has that on it is a Catholic allowed to follow the book when it comes to moral theology and not sin?  Like I know Christopher West’s book has those on it and he calls oral stimulation ok.  Also a examine of conscious I have by Father Robert Altier has both those things on it and he says oral sex is gravely sinful but oral stimulation is allowed in marriage.

So since these books or other have the nil on and imprim on it, does it mean it is safe for Catholics to follow what is in these books and not commit sin?
(05-01-2018, 12:12 AM)havok579257 Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for shedding light on this.  

Although does the same line of thinking apply to books or manuals with a nihil obstat and an imprimatur ?  If a book has that on it is a Catholic allowed to follow the book when it comes to moral theology and not sin?  Like I know Christopher West’s book has those on it and he calls oral stimulation ok.  Also a examine of conscious I have by Father Robert Altier has both those things on it and he says oral sex is gravely sinful but oral stimulation is allowed in marriage.

So since these books or other have the nil on and imprim on it, does it mean it is safe for Catholics to follow what is in these books and not commit sin?

Historically, yes.

Today ... I have my doubts that the censors who read these are doing a sufficient job.

The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are not infallible, and only as good as the person doing the censor's work.
(05-01-2018, 01:04 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]Historically, yes.

Today ... I have my doubts that the censors who read these are doing a sufficient job.

The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are not infallible, and only as good as the person doing the censor's work.

Just to back up what MM is saying, in the process of my conversion I went into my local parish and picked up a bunch of little books that about the Faith.  I forget the title of one of them, but it was a Catechism, which bore a Nihil Obstat and and Imprimatur.

And it contained this gem (I paraphrase):

Quote:While the Catholic Church currently looks down upon homosexuality and same sex affections, there is still much research to be done and the position of the Church is open to reinterpretation.

The above statement is blatant heresy.  So, just follow the old rule, "I don't care who you're reading, just so long as the first two letters of his name are S and T."
Pages: 1 2 3