Quote from: Sigismund

Why is that not certain, or at least possible?

It is certain.  I've already quoted St. Thomas about it.

Thomas was a saint, not a pope speaking infallibly.  

Isn't it rather obvious that if abortion and contraception had been rampant
in the days of St. Thomas as they are now, that he would have had a few
adjustments to make in his writings??

How many women today would carry their baby to term if it meant that
they would face execution for adultery?

Get real.

I am not say st. Thomas is wrong

You just said it was a matter of when he was writing.

I'm saying your interpretation of his summa is wrong.

There is no misinterpretation.  It is possible for a husband, without sin, to bring a civil charge of adultery and see his wife executed.  That's what St. Thomas said.

You interpret it as a person would have in the old testament, void and with no mercy.

No, I'm reading his words.
 

God in his infinite goodness and wisdom can be nothing but just so stoning a woman for adultery is a just punishment. Any sin is worthy of death just by the mere fact that it directly goes against God's nature. However our Lord came down, died, and opened the gates of heaven... By doing so He attained Gods mercy through His death and our Ladies intercession. We being made in the image and likeness of God should try to be more patient and have compassion for our fellow beings. You and I are both just as weak as anyone else.

St. Thomas's position was just a product of his time?

My point is that you would have no problem killing that girl for her sin. I warn you again let God be the judge.  

You are a troll.

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Sigismund

Why is that not certain, or at least possible?

It is certain.  I've already quoted St. Thomas about it.

Thomas was a saint, not a pope speaking infallibly.  

No, but he says that it's certain.

There is no doubt the Church has approved of capital punishment for adultery in the past.

Tele, if you lived in a state where this was possible, you had married a young Catholic virgin, she had had a couple of children and at 25 she cheated on you with a younger, more handsome man, would you opt to have her executed?

Genuine question. Interested in why and how and what you would decide.

Women who commit adultery should realize they are tempting their husbands to kill them.  Indeed, St. Thomas Aquinas says the reason the adulterous wife can be put away to reduce this temptation.

Women should believe they risk being punished with death for their transgressions.

What we have among today's so-called "Trads" (really they are mainly liberals) is a sentimental view that regards the crimes of women as being of no significance.

They would much rather wring their hands about abortion and say prayers outside of clinics than ever see a young woman punished for murdering her child.

They would much rather throw some man in jail for fornicating with their loose daughters than they would ever seriously impose consequences on slutty behavior by their daughters.

They are fully on board with feminism, with a society where illegitimacy is rife, a society where adultery is rife, a society where contraception is the norm and virginity at marriage almost unheard of.

They are fully on board with such a society, and because of that they should not be considered believing Christians.

and because of that they should not be considered believing Christians.

When they canonised JP2 I am going to hand my membership badge back in. If God wants me to stay a Roman Catholic then I need JP2 to not be canonised.  God has to step in an prevent it.  Destroying Rome would achieve this of course as would the Garabandal Miracle and Warning.  Who knows, maybe they'll find some real dirt on JP2 which will stop it at the 11th hour.

I don't think I'll become an SV for several reasons not least that they are trying to preserve a Church that will have fallen into contradiction.  Orthodox I'd need to look at closely.  The problem with them however is that they are not unified, they are in 31 flavours like Baskin Robbins ice-cream.

At that stage I'll think I'll read the Gospel from start to finish with a pair of fresh eyes and an honest intention.  I still think Jesus was real enough and that the Gospels are a great code for living your life.  There are pearls of Wisdom in the Gospel that are either Divinely inspired or way about any morality I could come up with.  I'll basically become my own boss for the simple reason that sinner though I am I would not break the first commandment or cover up for paedo-priests.  It's dangerous being your own Pope, but when the Pope is making it up as he goes along then it is no more dangerous than following him.

Frankly for the last 20 years I've had serious reservations about what has been taken from the Gospels and leveraged and what has been ignored and left out.  Christianity seems to have been heavily influenced by the emperor Constatine who as far as I understand it wasn't even a converted Christian until his deathbed.

For example, Jesus seems to make multiple statement that poverty is good and holy and that Christians should seek to have just enough and then give the rest to the poor.  Give your coat to a man who needs it and trust in providence.

Hardly any Christians do this however, myself included and the Church has been pretty quiet on the subject for the last 1500 years, and seems to mostly have sided with the Lords and Nobles and Kings, who were little more than the local warlords and mafia strongmen.

The only thing I've done is to live a way below my means and give the difference away, but I still eat nice food and have a comfortable live.  I've always driven 12 year old cheap cars rather than brand new ones.  I get all but my business clothes from charity shops.  I've stayed in budget hotels when I could have afforded 5 star hotels.  I don't drink much and I don't smoke either.

I've got major reservations about Traditional Catholicism too. There are some real arseholes in the Traditionalist Camp who lack charity, don't really give a crap about poor, lock themselves into a compound with a sort of bunker mentality (or dream about doing this if they had the money), take a delight in chastizing people over the clothes they wear to mass, or revel in their intellectual superiority.  A lot of these asshats can't hold down a full time job and are living at home with their mother until 35 and claiming a welfare check.  They ponce around like they are minor nobility.  They are no the sort of people I'd want to hang around with.  If after all those sacraments, all that prayer and all that grace they turn out like that I tend to wonder whether there is much positive effect from that stuff.

Conversely I've got friends who are evangelical Christian types, Baptists and Methodists who are very pleasant people to have around.  They have good sized families, their children love them, they are always willing to come over and help you paint your house, weed the garden etc.  Some of them are models of virtue.  This leads me to believe that their lives on earth must be pleasing to God.

Not all Christians are good or course.  Not all Muslims are evil.  The observation of my eyes and my 43 years of life on this planet suggests to me that there are good and bad people everywhere.  Selfish people who know the Gospel inside out and back to front and kind, charitable, decent and good people who've never got around to reading it.

I certainly DO have a problem with the idea that 90%+ of people who reach the age of reason are damned to Hell for all eternity.  God designed the system.  He new what humans were before the fall and understood what their nature would be like after the fall.  Any God who creates intelligent beings without asking them first and then damns most of them to hell is to my way of thinking an evil monster.

Universal salvation is horseshit.  Clearly Hitler and Stalin went to Hell if one exists.  But near universal damnation seems totally unjust to me bearing in mind what I observe in the lives of those people around me.

Just so that readers can undersatnd, this guy openly states he will apostasize given a future contingency, and in fact, says he has serious reservations about how the Church has taught the Gospels.

Now this character has the gall to talk about the hypothetical of me being betrayed by an adulterous wife, making nasty insinuations, when what I'm doing is quoting St. Thomas Aquinas - he is personalizing this issue to blacken my reputation.

This is a forum for Traditional Catholics.  Not for characters like ggreg.

Er no, because I wouldn't want adulterous men put to death either.

Once again earning your title as Queen of straw.  Not putting someone to death for a crime does not mean the crime is not worthy of death, or that a society can justly have laws that give the death penalty for such a crime.

Maybe that's a sentimental view as well though.

It is very easy most for women say such things, since one does not generally expect their deeds to correspond to their words.

Clare, you've publicly refused to condemn the scandal of a civil marriage of a woman to an already married man, you certainly are "sentimental" about the issue of adultery.

You called it "charity."