Go back
Theological Implications of Right to Lifers

Theological Implications of Right to Lifers

Spirituality

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You told me that it follows logically from the pope's infallibility that him making a proclamation about the Lord revoking the 5th Commandment is an impossibility. I am asking for the reasoning behind this finding.

I can accept that the other, paradoxical proclamation is impossible for an infallible being to make (although I don't concede that the pope is infallible), but I don't see how the Commandment proclamation is impossible.
Infallibility (in Catholic theology) is the inability to definitively teach error in matters of faith and morals. Since the Ten Commandments are already part of Catholic dogma, the Pope would be unable to revoke the Fifth Commandment.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Infallibility (in Catholic theology) is the inability to definitively teach error in matters of faith and morals. Since the Ten Commandments are already part of Catholic dogma, the Pope would be unable to revoke the Fifth Commandment.
In my example, the Pope is not revoking the 5th Commandment. He is reporting that the Lord has told him that the Lord himself has revoked the commandment.

Is this consistent with infallibility?
Would you believe the pope?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
In my example, the Pope is not revoking the 5th Commandment. He is reporting that the Lord has told him that the Lord himself has revoked the commandment.
Is this consistent with infallibility?
No, it isn't. There are many dogmas of the Church this would violate:

1. The unchanging nature of Natural Law (the Decalogue is the revealed form of the natural law)

2. The unchanging nature of God

3. The end of General Revelation with the death of the last Apostle (all revelations after that would be private and non-binding on the Church)

Any one of the above is sufficient to prevent the Pope from making such an ex cathedra proclamation.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by lucifershammer


2. The unchanging nature of God
Do you continue to follow the rules of Leviticus?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Suppose the pope made an ex cathedra declaration that there are roller coasters in limbo. Would you believe him?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you continue to follow the rules of Leviticus?
No, but:

1. The Jews still do. AFAICS, they are still bound by them.

2. The rules of Leviticus had run their course (this is part of the Apostolic General Revelation itself). It wasn't a question of God changing his mind or "revoking" them.

I thought you might bring this up.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Suppose the pope made an ex cathedra declaration that there are roller coasters in limbo. Would you believe him?
I might. But I am not bound by it, nor does it come under the charism of infallibility because it is not a matter of faith or morals.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by lucifershammer
2. The rules of Leviticus had run their course (this is part of the Apostolic General Revelation itself). It wasn't a question of God changing his mind or "revoking" them.
Run their course? Can you break that down into an example? It seems to me that his immutability might be compromised by this new convenant.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I might. But I am not bound by it, nor does it come under the charism of infallibility because it is not a matter of faith or morals.
Are you saying that the existence of limbo is a matter of faith or morals, but that its nature isn't?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No, but:

1. The Jews still do. AFAICS, they are still bound by them.

2. The rules of Leviticus had run their course (this is part of the Apostolic General Revelation itself). It wasn't a question of God changing his mind or "revoking" them.

I thought you might bring this up.
Suppose the Pope made a declaration that the Lord told him that the 5th Commandment had run its course. Here, only (1) and (3) above would apply, correct? (2) would be irrelevant, since rules running their course don't imply that God has changed.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by David C
Run their course? Can you break that down into an example? It seems to me that his immutability might be compromised by this new convenant.
I can explain it better with an analogy.

The father of an 8 year-old child tells him not to stay out after 6pm. Once the child reaches 13, he is allowed to stay out till 8pm. Has the father changed? When he asked the child not to stay out after 6pm five years ago, was it his intention that the child never stay out after 6pm no matter how old he became?

Clearly not.

The 6pm rule was put in for a reason. It has now "run its course".

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Suppose the Pope made a declaration that the Lord told him that the 5th Commandment had run its course. Here, only (1) and (3) above would apply, correct? (2) would be irrelevant, since rules running their course don't imply that God has changed.
Right. But any one of the three is sufficient to prevent such a proclamation.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Are you saying that the existence of limbo is a matter of faith or morals, but that its nature isn't?
If it doesn't affect the souls in limbo (as the mere existence of roller coasters might) then, no, it isn't.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The 6pm rule was put in for a reason. It has now "run its course".
OK, I got that so far. Now, can you cite some specifics from Leviticus, please?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by David C
OK, I got that so far. Now, can you cite some specifics from Leviticus, please?
Off the top of my head, the dietary requirements (e.g. do not eat the meat of certain animals, "animals that crawl" etc.)