Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match!

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion related to learning about the faith (Catechetics), defense of the Faith (Apologetics), the Liturgy and canon law, motivated by a desire to grow closer to Christ or to bring someone else closer.

Saint Augustine of Hippo is considered on of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time and the Doctor of the Church.
Learn More: Saint Augustine

Does anyone else find it off that someone can accept the teachings of Papal Infallibility but not accept other teachings such as contraception and premarital sex which are the teachings of the popes? Isn't this inherently contradictory? Does anyone else agree with me on this?

Thoughts would be appreciated.
Aug 22nd 2014 new

I think:

-- many people mentally separate "the pope" from "the Church". They aren't the same thing, after all. And a significant number of popes have been villains (ex: Borgia) . So accepting papal infallibility is difficult, because folks don't know/remember/understand that it applies only to ex cathedra proclamations, and not to the rest of the man's life.

-- many people on CM answer the Seven Questions based on their past experience/history -- not on how they think or believe today. Example, a person with a child out of wedlock may answer "no" to the premarital sex question, being afraid that to answer "yes" would open him/her up to charges of hypocrisy.

I don't put much stock in the answers to any of the questions, really. If and when I get to know someone well I may get around to asking, "Why did you answer that way?" but beyond that, I don't worry about it over much.

Aug 22nd 2014 new

Of course, there's contradiction and resultant bewilderment. It makes no sense.

There are many reasons though:

They do not know their faith.

Many have been poorly catechized.

Some simply choose heresy over fidelity. They have been corrupted by modernism--"the synthesis of all heresies" and relativism, thus rejecting objective truth, and, by extension, the Author of Truth. So, following the world (and its errant/heretical philosophies) they simply create their own.

As for excuses about hypocrisy, they hold no water. These are ideals that Holy Mother Church holds up for us. (There are no qualifiers, implicit or explicit, regarding acceptance or rejection of Church teaching. Nowhere is it mentioned that one would be precluded from agreeing with Church teaching if he had fallen short in the past.) We're all sinners in desperate need of God's grace.

Practically speaking, ideas precede deeds. If one neither esteems nor accepts the idea but openly rejects it, how could he ever hope to live it?

Enough prayers cannot be said for proper leadership, guidance and instruction when it comes to the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith.

Praying rosary theheart


Aug 22nd 2014 new
(quote) Cody-1089369 said: Does anyone else find it off that someone can accept the teachings of Papal Infallibility but not accept other teachings such as contraception and premarital sex which are the teachings of the popes? Isn't this inherently contradictory? Does anyone else agree with me on this?

Thoughts would be appreciated.
From the First Vatican Council, we have the following definition:

Therefore,
  • faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
  • to the glory of God our saviour,
  • for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
  • for the salvation of the christian people,
  • with the approval of the sacred council,
  • we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

    • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
      • that is, when,
        1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
        2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
        3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
    • he possesses,
      • by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
    • that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
    • Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

    • So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.
As Michael pointed out, poor catechesis is to blame for many peoples' lack of understanding with regard to this issue.


Aug 23rd 2014 new
Well I think everyone is a journey. We are all at different stages of acceptance of all the Churchs teachings. We all have a choice whether we want to make contact with members of the opposite sex whose's answers are different to our own.
Aug 23rd 2014 new
(quote) Marge-938695 said:

-- many people on CM answer the Seven Questions based on their past experience/history -- not on how they think or believe today. Example, a person with a child out of wedlock may answer "no" to the premarital sex question, being afraid that to answer "yes" would open him/her up to charges of hypocrisy.

I don't put much stock in the answers to any of the questions, really. If and when I get to know someone well I may get around to asking, "Why did you answer that way?" but beyond that, I don't worry about it over much.

I agree that it could be more about history, than current belief. If you say yes you believe in the teachings about premarital sex, then does a viewer of your profile automatically assume you are a virgin if your status is "never married"? Not everybody's journey is perfect. Some people have pasta that don't align with their current belief.
Aug 23rd 2014 new
Pasts. Not pasta boggled
Aug 23rd 2014 new
If you're answering based off of past experience, you are doing yourself a huge disservice. If you answer no to some of the questions, when you actually believe in the Church's teachings, then people will pass you by based on a misrepresentation. The very first thing people look for is whether or not you're a 7/7. They do this because they want to know whether or not you submit to the Church's authority and role of being the bearer of truth. Hope that helps.
Aug 23rd 2014 new
(quote) Greg-902815 said: From the First Vatican Council, we have the following definition:

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, for the exaltation of the catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.As Michael pointed out, poor catechesis is to blame for many peoples' lack of understanding with regard to this issue.


Thank you for doing the simplest thing to educate people in what they are supposedly talking about by putting forward the actual teaching from the First Vatican Council.

It is amazing in our time that people either reject Church teaching that is part of Sacred Tradition (or even recorded as being spoken of by Our Lord Himself) as if it came from the Pope's mouth, or demand that we accept innovations from the Pope's mouth as infallible even if the particular opinion contradicts some aspect of sacred tradition.

Both derive from the master error of construing Papal Infallibility as meaning that the Faith that comes to us from Christ through His Apostles comes from the Pope alone.
Aug 23rd 2014 new
(quote) Steven-706921 said: Thank you for doing the simplest thing to educate people in what they are supposedly talking about by putting forward the actual teaching from the First Vatican Council.

It is amazing in our time that people either reject Church teaching that is part of Sacred Tradition (or even recorded as being spoken of by Our Lord Himself) as if it came from the Pope's mouth, or demand that we accept innovations from the Pope's mouth as infallible even if the particular opinion contradicts some aspect of sacred tradition.

Both derive from the master error of construing Papal Infallibility as meaning that the Faith that comes to us from Christ through His Apostles comes from the Pope alone.
It's scary how so many people are unaware of the basic definitions/axioms which govern the Body of Christ. When I was going to "young adult meetings" I never heard any of the "speakers", including priests, EVER mention any of these. Instead, they spent the better part of the time talking about how we relate to other religions. Talk about religious status quo-ism!


Our Lady of La Salette(September, 1846)
"Priests, my Son's ministers, priests, by their evil life, by their irreverences and their impiety in celebrating the holy mysteries, love of money, love of honor and pleasures, priests have become sewers of impurity. Yes, priests call forth vengeance, and vengeance is suspended over their heads. Woe to priests, and to persons consecrated to God, who by their infidelities and their evil life are crucifying my son anew! The sins of persons consecrated to God cry to heaven and call for vengeance, and now here is vengeance at their very doors, for no longer is anyone found to beg mercy and pardon for the people; there are no more generous souls, there is now no one worthy of offering the spotless Victim to the Eternal on the worlds behalf.
Posts 1 - 10 of 42