God Can Deliver the Damned From Hell?
#41
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.

Reply
#42
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.
Reply
#43
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...
Reply
#44
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: 
[-]
  •
Reply
#45
StevusMagnus Wrote:
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...

Now we're judging the internal forum to make our point.  How important is it to you to "win" this discussion?
Reply
#46
QuisUtDeus Wrote:
StevusMagnus Wrote:
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...

Now we're judging the internal forum to make our point.  How important is it to you to "win" this discussion?

The truth wins because it is true. The dissident priests in the 60's had absolutely no moral certainty based on "theologian consensus" to tell any couples they could artificially contracept. To actually say they did, makes me wonder how important it is to you to "win" this discussion? That assertion is incredible.
Reply
#47
I'm floored by the silliness here...
Reply
#48
StevusMagnus Wrote:
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?

No, that would be why I asked.

Quote: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.

Actually, as people pointed out, that's not "traditional" (lower-case 't').  Throughout history there have been stories of people being freed from the bonds of hell (not sheol, but hell itself).

Quote: 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.

You answered it once, at the end.  And what you said clearly states you were suprised that X wasn't heresy.  I was merely trying to figure out if you thought the CE was wrong or if you were surprised that this was true.

In other words, I was trying to figure out why you were suprised, because seeing this in the CE didn't surprise me at all.

Quote: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.

Actually, I read it and was not surprised because I never heard it was dogma that God couldn't pull someone out of hell.   Until I hear something is a dogma, I don't assume it is.  I was wondering what the heck the big deal was about this single sentence in the CE that you felt compelled to post it.

Quote: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.


Well, it seems to me that if multiple people are asking, the "consensus" is that you are being unresponsive.  But, I know, you're sane and everyone else is crazy.
Reply
#49
StevusMagnus Wrote:[The truth wins because it is true.

The truth can fall victim to deception.  If that wasn't the case, there would be no "traditional Catholicism".


Quote:The dissident priests in the 60's had absolutely no moral certainty based on "theologian consensus" to tell any couples they could artificially contracept.

Well, for one, I didn't make that assumption.   You offered it as a premise:

Quote:A "consensus" of "theologians" after VCII taught that artificial contraception was a-ok

So, which was it?  Was there a consensus of theologians or not?  I answered based on your premise that there was a consensus of theologians.

Quote:To actually say they did, makes me wonder how important it is to you to "win" this discussion? That assertion is incredible.


You're being objectively dishonest now.  You offered a premise that there was consensus of theologians, and given that premise I answered your question.

If you offer the premise that there was no consensus of theologians, then I would answer differently.

So if the truth is going to win, then you are going to lose, because at this point I have no qualms stating you are being deceitful and changing the question after it has been answered as asked.
Reply
#50
I'm making this last post, and you can have the last word Stevus, because I'm done wasting my time on you.

You may think all this word-wrangling is funny or amusing, or even intellectually stimulating, but it's not.

You're tearing down how the Church works.  You're distorting and obfuscating the meaning of traditional approaches to theology (the consensus of theologians, Schola Theologica, degrees of theological certainty, etc.) to try to find loopholes as to the meaning of things to come out ahead in some stupid argument.

I played with you for a while, but I won't anymore.  It's not worth it.  I don't want people to go around thinking they don't have to believe things that aren't dogma or that the Schola Theologica has no weight, or that the consensus of theologians is something to throw away and gives us no certainty to our beliefs, or that they have to second-guess everything their priest tells them is OK.
I'm hoping you'll take the last word and then shut up before you screw up any more people who will read this and become confused.

So go for it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)