Catholic church changes

In comparison to Orthodoxy? A bit, though it's mainly regional.

-Purgatory
-Papal SUPREMACY V. Primus inter pares
-Celibate presbyters
-Filioque
-Thomism

Orthodoxy's main 'advancement' was an elaboration on monastic practice attacked by barlaam, hesachasym.

Catholics used to believe in salvation by faith before Trent

The Catholic have f.e. often changed their scripture. Read this article for starters:

catholicbridge.com/orthodox/why_orthodox_bible_is_different_from_catholic.php

Filioque is what was declared at Nicaea

>I'm told that I'll go to hell if I leave the church.
Sounds like a cult

That is patently false. The history of the Filioque is 'recent' relative to the arbitrary set date of the schism. Political leaders were rallying for it. Do not spread lies, as your church admits the Filioque to not have been in the original creed.

It wasn't in the original creed, but the creed said it

Yes

Hesychasm is like Christian meditation correct? I've heard of the Jesus prayer or heart prayer.

So it looks like basically until the 4th century there was no agreed upon bible.

Man the church has an even more muddled start than I thought.

Are you do the orthodox faith? I just read the pope section there and the rcc argument for Peter as pope seems sound. Would love to hear an orthodox standpoint

They'll tell you no, but the answer is yes. I come from a strongly Catholic family and my parents were the first to convert to Protestantism in each of their families. The Church they were raised in, they didn't go to Prod weddings and Prods weren't allowed in theirs. They couldn't live together, have abortions, or support abortion legislation and even think about receiving Holy Communion. The Mass was in Latin and was the same wherever you went, and you participated in quiet devotion without any strange modernist notions of adjusting the music or rituals to serve your cultural sensibilities. They went to Catholic schools taught exclusively by priests and nuns and were required to show strict observance to Catholic moral and social teaching.

Nowadays you can preach abortion, homosexuality, female priesthood, deny transubstantiation and the Real Presence, insult the Pope and the bishops, hell, probably even deny the Trinity and the divinity of Christ, and this synagogue of Satan will be all to happy to commune you.

you SSPX?

He said he's Protestant

Watch James White debating Catholics on Youtube to see him destroy Catholic apologists claiming that the Catholic Church was "the same Church for 2000 years never changed dogma xD".

I heard of a theory and just a theory as to why the catholic church fell and became the roman catholic, vatican see or sede vaticana. And its something that is destroying catholicism.
There are scriptures that explain that Iesu Cristos it translates to Plastered Ice (crystal, see through, unblemished) was a roman law position of power. By using a manchurian candidate like being they could control the future pattern of laws. And forcing a stale mate amongst all kingdoms agreeing on a set of information bringing upon a tabula rasa of its age. This is what the roman church did and hid the true character behind "jesus."

In a sense, yeah. Mystical experience of God by prayer.

This destroys James White immediately

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwib95vRuLPOAhWLtY8KHZmtBl0QFgg-MAU&url=http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/vox/vol09/scripture_lane.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHuKK0dcvJaz9ZQgsdIpunJKLv4GA

Thats why they call the history of the new testament, world war one. All hell broke loose. There were wars in every continent. And wars have a lot to do with trade. Therefore the levant was host to a huge part of the cataclysm. The logic is they called jesus christ, jesus of nazareth, however nothing went on in nazareth but there was a little mentioned sect called the nazerenes in jesus's home village.

No. SSPX cannot reconcile their movement with Tridentine Catholic eccelsiology. Basically, the Roman Catholic Church has tipped its hand and shown itself for the sham that it is. There is no way to reconcile its claims about itself with its history.

I have my problems with Protestantism, too, even the fairly conservative Protestantism of my youth. But people who are claiming the modernist RCC as the Church of their grandparents and great-grandparents have no idea what they're talking about. And Prod converts to modern day Rome are fooled all the more. Find one of them who would be comfortable with Unigenitus. Probably very few have ever heard of it, and would come up with some Protestant-ish answer for why it doesn't mean that THEY shouldn't read and interpret the Bible for themselves, but in a Scott Hahn post-Prod Catholic sort of way.

A nazarite sect.

I'm not familiar with ugenitus. Can you explain?

what really lead me to believe in the validity of the catholic church is their numbers. every other christian sect is a joke. there are 2.2 billion christians but the catholics make up more than half. there are 1.6b muslims but google says 84-90% are sunni. this is why the pope is kissing refugee feet, we're talking about the future of the culture of humanity. there are so many catholics and sunnis in an increasingly globalized world, these 2 dominant forces will eventually have to confront each other on the ideological battleground and we all know how people can exploit religious wars.

What you are doing there is bad.
You can never admit that you may have a bias.
Its usually bad for the health of faith

As an ex Protestant, I agree that Catholicism changed its dogma and does in fact display some historical disconnect.

But such are even greater for the Protestants. Take it from someone who got into history and the Church Fathers to prove Protestant doctrines in the face of Catholicism. When I ignored all apologetic sources, it became clear to me how the Bible and the Early Christians are a far cry from Protestantism.

Do you actually follow the rules though it are you more of a cultural catholic? Honestly I find myself being the latter-believing in Jesus Christ but also respecting the authority and historical precedent of the Vatican while understanding it has made mistakes and changed somethings.

I just feel guilty as all Fuck half the time because I can't keep up with some of the sexual doctrines-particularly birth control.

Take the chill pill and start from the bottom up, from the Bible and its contexts to the Early Christians.

These will tell you whether the Catholic Church is bs or not.

Not even denying it. But modern Catholicism is just as distant from the Fathers. I suspect that modern Orthodox will have quite a lot of problems with them, too, although they seem to be a bit more selective than the Catholic Church has been about who they listen to.

My main point was that, at least the admittedly small and splintered church I ended up growing up in was relatively consistent. I'm an atheist, so I have no real stake in the matter. But I'd take the OPC over the RCC any day.

Also, your error was trying to find Protestant doctrine in the ECF. Why would you expect to find them? Not even the Reformers thought their doctrine matched the ECF, only that they were the most consistent outgrowing amongst outgrowings.

Otherwise, I'm in agreement with you.

What I find oddly amusing about the Orthodox is that at least they are closer to the Church Fathers overall with their emphasis on deification and refusal to define or speculate about the change in the Eucharistic elements. But the odd thing is that they stress the limits of reason yet can actually come up with a whole theological system with comparable complexity to the Catholics.

When I started my research into the early Christians and the ECFs, I was a Protestant but as I moved away from apologetics to more academic sources on the matter, I began to have my doubts and realized my mistake. This eventually led me out of Protestantism.

I was Catholic but studying scripture and theology showed me Protestantism is right
I'm afraid you're reprobate

Show me an ECF who believes in Sola Fide

“And we [Christians], too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."
-Clement of Rome
“No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of a heifer . . . are sins purged, but by faith, through the blood of Christ and his death, who died on this very account.”
-Justin Martyr
“…a person is saved by grace, not by works but by faith. There should be no doubt but that faith saves and then lives by doing its own works, so that the works which are added to salvation by faith are not those of the law but a different kind of thing altogether.”
-Didymus the blind
“Wages cannot be considered as a gift, because they are due to work, but God has given free grace to all men by the justification of faith.”
-Hilary of Poitiers
“Let him who boasts boast in the Lord, that Christ has been made by God for us righteousness, wisdom, justification, redemption. This is perfect and pure boasting in God, when one is not proud on account of his own righteousness but knows that he is indeed unworthy of the true righteousness and is (or has been) justified solely by faith in Christ.”
-Basil of Caesarea
“Therefore let no one boast of his works, because no one can be justified by his works; but he who is just receives it as a gift, because he is justified by the washing of regeneration. It is faith, therefore, which delivers us by the blood of Christ, because blessed is he whose sins are forgiven, and to whom pardon is granted.”
-Ambrose
“God justifies by faith alone.”
-Jerome
Would you like more?

Look at all these misrepresentations.

1)Clement of Rome literally tells us to work and not be lazy right after his statement of justification by faith. The nature of good works is also compared to God making Creation which entails that the human being is doing works of his own volition.

2)Justin Martyr believes that all men will be judged by their deeds that is according to the merits of their actions(First Apology,Chapter 43). He also warns against merely professing without actions(First Apology,Chapter 16)

3)Didymus the blind in his exegesis of Genesis 16:12 makes clear that participation in the Word of God doesn't occur in those who are beginners but only to those who made some progress.(see Russell's, Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition, pg 159). He is also Platonic and thus opposes Sola Fide given that the Platonic theme of assent to the Divine involves progress.

(to be continued)

4)From Hillary's "On the Trinity"(book 9.35),
And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, He said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. (Mark 12:34) What is the meaning of such moderate praise? Believe in one God, and love Him with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy heart, and love thy neighbour as thyself; if this be the faith which makes man perfect for the Kingdom of God, why is not the Scribe already within, instead of not far from the Kingdom of Heaven? It is in another strain that He grants the Kingdom of Heaven to those who clothe the naked, feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, and visit the sick and the prisoner, Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. (Mt. 25:34) ; or rewards the poor in spirit, Blessed are the poor in spirit: far theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt. 5:3, Lk. 6:20). Their gain is perfect, their possession complete, their inheritance of the kingdom prepared for them is secured. But was this young man's confession short of theirs? His ideal of duty raises love of neighbour to the level of love of self; what more did he want to attain to the perfection of good conduct? To be occasionally charitable, and ready to help, is not perfect love; but perfect love has fulfilled the whole duty of charity, when a man leaves no debt to his neighbour unpaid, but gives him as much as he gives ,himself.

His commentary on Pslam 64 also tells us that election is based on merit.

5)Basil in De Spiritu Sancto(9, 23, cited from Russell, pg 209) talks about how through the Spirit, the weak are led by the hand and those who are advancing are brought into perfection. Russell(pg 208) notes how Basil's concept of men becoming gods are in reference to human beings as those who are perfect in virtue.

(to be continued)

6)Ambrose
Concerning Repentance, Book 2. 5.35-36 But the apostles, having this baptism according to the direction of Christ, taught repentance, promised forgiveness, and remitted guilt, as David taught when he said: "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin."(Psalm 32:1-4, quoted by Paul in Rom. 4:7-8) He calls each blessed both him whose sins are remitted by the font, and him whose sin is covered by good works. For he who repents ought not only to wash away his sin by his tears, but also to cover and hide his former transgressions by amended deeds, that sin may not be imputed to him. 36. Let us, then, cover our falls by our subsequent acts; let us purify ourselves by tears, that the Lord our God may hear us when we lament, as He heard Ephraim when weeping, as it is written: "I have surely heard Ephraim weeping." (Jer. 31:18) And He expressly repeats the very words of Ephraim: "Thou hast chastised me and I was chastised, like a calf I was not trained (Jer. 31:18)."

Jerome

Commentary on Psalms 18, 66, 24- Just as we believe there are eternal torments for the devil and all the naysayers and impious persons who say in their heart: "There is not God." So too, for sinners and impious persons who are, nevertheless, Christians, whose works are to be tried in the fire and purged, we think that the sentence of the Judge will be tempered and blended with clemency.

>Clement of Rome literally tells us to work and not be lazy right after his statement of justification by faith. The nature of good works is also compared to God making Creation which entails that the human being is doing works of his own volition.
>Their gain is perfect, their possession complete, their inheritance of the kingdom prepared for them is secured. But was this young man's confession short of theirs? His ideal of duty raises love of neighbour to the level of love of self; what more did he want to attain to the perfection of good conduct? To be occasionally charitable, and ready to help, is not perfect love; but perfect love has fulfilled the whole duty of charity, when a man leaves no debt to his neighbour unpaid, but gives him as much as he gives ,himself.
>Concerning Repentance, Book 2. 5.35-36 But the apostles, having this baptism according to the direction of Christ, taught repentance, promised forgiveness, and remitted guilt, as David taught when he said: "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin."(Psalm 32:1-4, quoted by Paul in Rom. 4:7-8) He calls each blessed both him whose sins are remitted by the font, and him whose sin is covered by good works. For he who repents ought not only to wash away his sin by his tears, but also to cover and hide his former transgressions by amended deeds, that sin may not be imputed to him. 36. Let us, then, cover our falls by our subsequent acts; let us purify ourselves by tears, that the Lord our God may hear us when we lament, as He heard Ephraim when weeping, as it is written: "I have surely heard Ephraim weeping." (Jer. 31:18) And He expressly repeats the very words of Ephraim: "Thou hast chastised me and I was chastised, like a calf I was not trained (Jer. 31:18)."
How are these incompatible with sola fide? (would quote others but too long)

The definition of Sola Fide excludes the person doing works or even putting in effort for Salvation.

The key of Sola Fide is Jesus does all the work for you and God makes you accept that work.

The ideal of duty entails the person living the faith, not merely professing it and sticking to his convictions. This is not sola fide.

Ambrose's point on repentance tells us to compensate former sins by works!

Not a single quote of yours mentions salvation, and someone truly with faith will by nature do good works.

It relates to it so it doesn't even matter if the word is used or not. Context is clear that such is the subject being talked about.

All these examples relate to a human being struggling in the life of faith and that their salvation rests not just on mere confession or belief but LIVING IT.

It also entails that they do so of their own volition without it being stripped away or somehow overridden by God, ala Sola Fide.

>It relates to it so it doesn't even matter if the word is used or not. Context is clear that such is the subject being talked about.
False.
>All these examples relate to a human being struggling in the life of faith and that their salvation rests not just on mere confession or belief but LIVING IT.
A consequence of faith.
>It also entails that they do so of their own volition without it being stripped away or somehow overridden by God, ala Sola Fide.
???

More like true. Every citation I had provided deals with such. There is also no evidence in any of their statements that works are simply the consequence of faith ala Sola Fide where it is evidence of God giving grace to the sinner such that he can do works and turn to him.

It is in fact on the contrary where the person is presupposed to be acting of his own volition, not of God mind controlling him. All of these authors cited are staunch defenders of free will and thus the autonomy of the individual person. This is seen in them talking about how one must work and put in effort to show forth their faith. How one must do so as in Ambrose, do good deeds to cover the sins of the past(oops, this is already anti sola fide).

>mind controlling
Oh i see, you're that malaysian shitposter. Opinion discarded.

That mind control thing is in fact embedded in the definition of Sola Fide itself. In fact any works or actions of the individual does not even matter according to such definition. In fact this is the only logical conclusion of the Protestant exegesis of Paul's statement of Grace through faith(which is not of the person's own but a gift from God).

But in every Church Father you cited, they stress the importance of faith and LIVING it, which is expressed through actions and works. This is why Hillary points out that the scribe is not "in the kingdom of God" because he does not act it our through works of charity.

We even have Ambrose telling us to do good works to cover our past misdeeds(also contra Sola Fide).

I thought your country has sharia courts, why are you still alive?

>ignoring the argument

>implying an argument

My argument is simple, the concept of Sola Fide cannot be found in Scripture and the ECFs.

I had already shown why this is the case with reference to Russell and the fathers themselves to prove my point.

Not once is any of these directly addressed at all.

I also pointed out differences between the ECF's views and that which is commonly used by Evangelicals to define Sola Fide.

You didn't answer, how are you still alive?

You didn't answer my arguments

This is pretty fucking pathetic.

*tips mitre*

Yeah, that's about all you can do.
The conversation between you two showed me what level of discourse should I expect if I ever get into a """discussion""" with a prod. Thank you.

>It's tough man. Especially when I'm told that I'll go to hell if I leave the church. I just want truth but I know that I have my particular confirmation bias so I'm not even sure I'll know truth if I see it.

If your looking for truth in religion then I've got bad news. Religion is based off faith, aka you will never "know" until you die.

But while your waiting for that, I've got my version with its own rules and need for your money.

This seems pretty clear cut to me. It also seems like you two are arguing semantics about what comes first-works or faith. A religious chicken or the egg.

Imo it seems like both points are valid and have more in common with each other. Good works possible without faith are strengthened and more righteous with it. Faith can exist without works but it is brought to life with works. They both compel each other.

In terms of salvation I think it's more personal. To me it seems like faith is the first step needed for salvation but works keep that individual salvation from becoming selfish by spreading it to others. Works transcend the self and should flow naturally from faith. Works thereby nourish faith. Kind of like a cycle that faith gets rolling. Perhaps the relationship between faith and works is where salvation is found but it seems like faith may be what gets the ball rolling.

>T. Arm chair theologian

>Good works possible without faith
Psalm 14:1

What about primacy of conscience? Those born in foreign lands? Certainly there is no goodness without Christ. Whether they know it Or not if they perform deeds such as clothing/feeding the hungry or other charitable acts God is guiding their actions.

This is not mind control but if God is objective and true his suggestions would come to all. He's not forcing their hand, their own minds just cloud his grace or view it in a different way.

Good deeds can happen without faith, the person just may not realize God's inspiration in the action. Would you argue that Buddhist monks giving alms or sheltering the poor are not performing good works simply because they don't outright see it as part of our lords instruction?

fililoque is enough to prove the doctrinal change, Orthodoxy remained most truly to early christianity.

The Luther version of Sola Fide can be said to be that way(but he must remove any forensic aspects in his doctrine) but not that of Calvin whose version of it will be the one that will have a more wider influence over Protestantism.

I am explicitly addressing the Calvin version here.

The issue here is whether man responds freely and is when doing works doing so out of his convictions(Faith).

If man responds freely, he is active and we must posit synergism for there are two wills in Salvation, the Divine and human. This necessarily opposes the Calvinist who says monergism that God frees the person he chooses prior to Creation and that person being the elect naturally does good works and hence not responding of his own volition.

The issue is not whether faith or works come first but that the two are inseparable and involves struggle, effort and action which is evident in all the ECF's that user cites as somehow believing in Sola Fide.

But that user denies this and hence refuses to answer when I provided citations from those same ECF's on the contrary.

Are you the same user that was an ex prod?

Either way where are you denominationally now?

Yes that's me

Denominationally I'm probably closer to the Eastern Orthodox I would say based on my beliefs.

Dogma never changes, but emphasis on certain parts and aspects do change. Pope Francis for example has decided to place aiding the poor and ecumenism on the forefront of his papacy, rather than hard lining differences.

If you are ever in doubt OP, then ask yourself this, Would the Blessed Mother have appeared to Juan Diego and converted the Americas to the Roman Catholic Church if the Church were not true and proper at the time? What Lourdes? The Miracle of the Sun? Would Padre Pio been given the stigmata if the Church was false?

lol this whole site is just catholic apologia, outside of big events like the 4th crusade it just tries to make the orthodox look wrong on everything

none of this happened

>specially when I'm told that I'll go to hell if I leave the church

lol. now dont be silly. ps chek ya testicles for me will ya

It seems pretty clear that after studying church history there are contradictions Jeff and right.

One apostle states that Jesus death assures our salvation of we believe. Other ECF then go on to say that those outside the RCC are damned. Then there's a rushing of apologetics to some how reconcile the two opinions that are clearly at odds. Happened with Vatican II, Council of Trent, there wasn't even a canonical bible until 400 AD.

I dunno man. I was raised catholic but this just seems so hard to make sense of.

>Would Padre Pio been given the stigmata if the Church was false?

Padre Pio was a fraud. It's very likely he used carbolic acid to create the wounds, and correspondence has been found in which he wrote to a pharmacist in order to ask for a supply of carbolic acid, stressing both his urgent need for it but also that it be delivered to him as "discreetly" as possible.

He was well-known for his psychotic disposition, and he had been embroiled in minor scandals involving him sleeping with women and telling lies to his fellow clergy-men.

nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=2047151

Proofs?

Shameless bamp

SSPX are Protestant by definition.

Nice picture i can save it

The Church doesn't fucking need the Bible to justify it because the Church MADE the Bible. The Church is OLDER than the Bible. The Church put the Bible together. That's why the Church, and only the Church, is qualified to interpret Scripture. The Church alone knows why Scripture is the way it is.

This is why Tradition has equal weight with Scripture. And this is why the Church may behave as it will, in accord with God's command. The Church is the unbroken chain of Tradition stretching back to the Apostles themselves, and to Christ.

>666
>defending anti-christian papism
Sounds right.

The Bible tells us to obey the Word of God not the traditions apostate

Sure. Sola scriptura is junk but would you say that Vatican II would not be deemed heretical if it was presented 1000 years ago?

Either their is some progressing dogma of God revealing himself or the Catholic church has changed some of its stances.

I don't have a problem with tradition so long as it is consistent but the church seems to change how it views dogma every couple hundred years. Not saying this is bad per se but I think further analysis is needed in this regard.

Struggling catholic btw so don't call me a prod shill.

>be omnipotent God of all time and space
>deciding how best to represent my almighty power on earth
>meh, let the Italians do it, what could go wrong

Should I make a "better them than the Jews" joke or not?

You joke, but by any objective measure the Church has been a resounding success. I mean, it's pretty much achieved its goals, hasn't it? It's baptized people into Christianity on every continent, and everyone knows the name of Jesus. Meanwhile, it has proclaimed the Gospel for 2000 years with no signs of stopping.

Augustine teaches us that a law may be just at one time and unjust at a different time. The same law may express Truth one day, and not express it the next, depending on how circumstances change.

And that's the key. God is perfect. God is unchanging and immutable. However, we live in a fallen and sinful world, and therefore, we are subject to change, and subject to error. The world decays and undergoes transmutation. So the Church to a certain degree must change with the times. The Church must express old Truth, which does not change and will not change; however, the Church must grapple with the fallen world, which does change and will change.

Incidentally, I've always been told that this is the difference between doctrine and dogma. Dogma does not change, because it is Revelation and expresses eternal Truth; doctrine can change, because it must express truth accurately in a changing world.

>God is unchanging and immutable.
Explain Jesus

That being said do you think that the Catholic stance on birth control should be reconsidered knowing what we do now about disease, embryonic development, and population control/environmental sustainable growth ? They already have some leeway with NFP

These sort of seems like shifting to goal post to me. If something is immutably true than it should stand up to time.

I don't mind tradition and authority if it is true but the church only seems to "reconsider things" after they mess up so bad it becomes obvious to even the most devout.

Also aren't they both taught to be infallible if from magisterium or ex cathedra?

Jesus is God and God is unchanging and immutable. And because Jesus is also human, the Resurrection raises humanity up to the level of God.

It's actually the case that the Resurrection is even greater than most people know. The Resurrection is God drawing in our fallen, rotting humanity to his perfect, transcendent divinity. It is the promise of the Serpent--"Ye shall be as gods"--brought to life on God's own terms and by God's own decree. Jesus isn't God becoming changing and fallible. Jesus is God making humanity unchanging and perfect.

>unchanging and perfect

What about original sin? The bible straight up days we will all sin.

Speaking purely for myself I don't see a reason for the Church's stance on birth control to change. The Church's position has always been that if you're not in a Catholic marriage, you just shouldn't have sex--period. So therefore, so long as you're not married, birth control is unnecessary.

You might say that that's highly inconvenient, but who cares? Nobody ever said Christianity was supposed to be convenient. It almost becomes a question of what you love more: God or sex?

And it seems to me that you're the one doing the shifting, considering you're the one proposing changes. Never forget, also, that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. Its actions sometimes seem strange and don't align with our conceptions, because though the Church is staffed by men it's ultimately a divine institution.

Good for them, if you are a member then you have every right to cheerlead for the success of their memes through their ups and downs.
I'm just skeptical about any temporal institution that claims divine authority. They all seem to think that the Universal Omnipotent Almighty God just so happens to line up perfectly with their agenda. Exactly like every other overlord has claimed throughout human history since.

By that logic, if some other institution 10,000 years from now is the dominant one, then by rights the Catholic church was wrong all along and actually this other religion was the One True Faith?

No. That's a sneaky Chinese trick.

>muh mandate of heaven

Even in the Bible they change who Jesus is and what he said.
Every time and place they depict Jesus as a member of their own race.
Jesus was always a literally device.
It smacks of tribalism and polytheism to try to make the Jesus character into a "son" of God, like trying to establish some legitimacy or dynastic link.

Sorry should have clarified. I mean within the confines of marriage. I feel like that may be different.

I see your point. I understand the church is not a democracy and does not need to behave as such but at what point would they start to reconsider. Nearly any Catholics follow their sexual teachings. The commission put together overwhelming stated that they thought birth control as long as not abortifacent might be licit but the pope thought otherwise.

I dunno maybe the holy spirit was with him but human vitae and NFP don't really match with the ECF who thought sex to be purely for procreation. They were writing like 200 years after Jesus and had very little scriptural illusion to birth control. There wasn't even a canonical bible yet. There was however a lot of stoicism and misinformed biology.

All I'm positing is that if the church admits that what is light changes during the context of the time period than perhaps they should re-examine some things.

The shift in talking about are Vatican II and some of the other eccumenical councils that had rolled over on or created new mandates. If there's a historical precedent for them doing it before, In not really asking for anything radical. I do see your point though.

Birth control and some of the sexual morality teachings are something I struggle with as a Catholic because I can't seem to wrap my head around the Vatican's reasoning sometimes. Falter a lot desu.

So it's bad when Chinese do it but it's fine when Italians do it?

I understand. Sometimes the Church does things I don't agree with either. It is fallible, and there have been shitty popes and cardinals before.

What I put my faith in is that the Church as a whole won't fail. That's what Christ promised Peter. Even if it seems like there's disaster and disorder coming, I put my faith in Christ and in the Church he founded. I believe that if I do these things I won't be led astray. And even if the Church does confuse you, if you hold fast to those two pillars--Christ and the Church--you'll wind up where you need to be sooner or later, by the grace of God. That's what I believe.

if the Church was false, what would explain the incorruptible body of saints?

including padre pio

Not to mention all the apparitions, all the healings, all the visions, all the prophecies, all the curses and warnings...