Posted on 02/22/2005 12:46:48 PM PST by Clint N. Suhks
"The Church holds that Capital Punishment has a place, but the discussion is not and never has been stated ex cathedra, you should know that. The Church' perspective on capital punishment is congruent with the position the Church has in other areas."
Wrong. The Church doesn't teach Capital Punishment "has a place." It teaches it is justly imposed by secular authorities in the case of serious crimes like murder and treason. The Church never fudged on truth the way the liberal New Church now does. It never used to use fuzzy phrases like "has a place" without any specificity, especially while emphasizing an opposite view. It stated openly and unambiguously that secular authorities have the right to use capital punishment to exact retribution for serious crimes.
Nor by the word "Church" can you mean what the Pope is now saying. It is wrong to equate his novel doctrine--which he had placed in the text of the new catechism--with the teaching of the Church throughout history. There is nothing consistent about his view which downplays Church doctrine and is based on his prior view that human dignity precludes the exacting of the death penalty. This is a novel notion pure and simple, something never taught before by any previous pope or council.
bookmark
Wait a minute. The Holy See has made it explicit that attending an SSPX Mass is not illict. Anyway, how can you possibly be sure that they are acting hypocritically? Have you ever heard an SSPX priest in a sermon in real life say anything against the Pope. I never have.
"If you are dragging out the SSPX, the installation of a Bishop against the Holy Father's wishes is a excommunicatable offense, and indeed had plenty of forewarning."
How about excommunicating the abortionists, those who willfully practice modernism within the Church, and suspending those priests who abuse the liturgy, among other things? (Sarcastically) Well, that cant do! Lets just excommunicate those who want to uphold tradition yet praise (either by indifference or otherwise) those who seek the ruin of the Church!!!! (Serious) Yeah, what do you have to say about that?
Here is the passage. I actually paraphrased from memory, using "path" for "primary route", but the meaning is the same. Notice how universalist JPII is in this passage, how he makes no distinction between baptized and unbaptized nor any allowance for sanctifying grace when talking about redemption. Elsewhere he says that all men are born into the world connected "in some way" to Christ. This is a wholly new pan-religious doctrine.
___________________________________________________
Man in the full truth of his existence, of his personal being and also of his community and social being-in the sphere of his own family, in the sphere of society and very diverse contexts, in the sphere of his own nation or people (perhaps still only that of his clan or tribe), and in the sphere of the whole of mankind-THIS MAN IS THE PRIMARY ROUTE THAT THE CHURCH MUST TRAVEL in fulfilling her mission: he is the primary and fundamental way for the Church, the way traced out by Christ himself, the way that leads invariably through the mystery of the Incarnation and the Redemption.
It was precisely this man in all the truth of his life, in his conscience, in his continual inclination to sin and at the same time in his continual aspiration to truth, the good, the beautiful, justice and love that the Second Vatican Council had before its eyes when, in outlining his situation in the modern world, it always passed from the external elements of this situation to the truth within humanity: "In man himself many elements wrestle with one another. Thus, on the one hand, as a creature he experiences his limitations in a multitude of ways. On the other, he feels himself to be boundless in his desires and summoned to a higher life. Pulled by manifold attractions, he is constantly forced to choose among them and to renounce some. Indeed, as a weak and sinful being, he often does what he would not, and fails to do what he would. Hence he suffers from internal divisions, and from these flow so many and such great discords in society"95.
THIS MAN IS THE WAY FOR THE CHURCH--a way that, in a sense, is the basis of all the other ways that the Church must walk-because man-every man without any exception whatever-has been redeemed by Christ, and because with man-with each man without any exception whatever-Christ is in a way united, even when man is unaware of it: "Christ, who died and was raised up for all, provides man"-each man and every man- "with the light and the strength to measure up to his supreme calling"96.
Bishops? THe only bishop I would see saying anything would be Williamson. Fellay seems intent on resolving this whole issue with Rome as quick as possible. The only two things he asked for was that it be acknowledged that they were not excommunicated (favorable) and that the Pope grant a universal indult (unfavorable). The reason behind the rejection of the latter was that the some of the rest of the Church's Bishops might break away. So much for the good ol' Church hierarchy.
1. "If you are dragging out the SSPX, the installation of a Bishop against the Holy Father's wishes is a excommunicatable offense, and indeed had plenty of forewarning."
No, I'm stating a fact. Popes can't excommunicate whomever they choose as you seem to think. They can't excommunicate anybody innocent. If they could, such power would be monstrously evil. Forget about SSPX. I'm talking about Catholic principles. No pope can excommunicate somebody else because he simply chooses to. This is simply a false idea.
As for the Archbishop and his followers in the SSPX, the forewarnings made no difference whatsoever. They still refused to offend against the faith by assisting in the destruction of the ancient Mass for the sake of false obedience. Do you think a warning would have any more impact than a direct order from the Pope? Your thinking on this is absurd.
2. "I found a source for Integrist, Pope Pius X, speaking of those who elevate any mistake or abuse in liturgy or the Church as the most grave of error."
Do you think INVENTING a Mass that is Protestant in its theology and which in direct contravention of the Council of Trent is the same thing as a mere liturgical mistake or abuse? No wonder you people are floundering in deep intellectual doo-doo! You can't even make proper distinctions. What happened was not a mistake. It was not even an abuse. It was the concoction--by a committee of well-known humanists that included Protestant advisors--of a liturgy that had never existed before. It was also the deliberate substitution for a rite that had evolved over two thousand years under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and which up till 1969 had been the crown jewel of Catholicism and the primary means for conveying the Catholic faith. In its place was put a protestantizing liturgy that has been destroying the Catholic faith ever since. That is not a mistake, that is a catastrophe.
3. "Care to post any excatherdra statements on Capital punishment?"
Do you think all official Church doctrines must be expressed ex cathedra? Where are the ex cathedra statements on abortion or homosexuality? There are infallible doctrines pronounced by the Ordinary Magisterium--and these doctrinal pronouncements which have been consistently expressed over the years by various popes. The novel ideas expressed by JPII cannot be infallible in this way. They cannot be divinely protected from error if they are inconsistent with prior teachings.
"Your hatred for Catholicism is proof enough that you are outside the Church."
Who is showing hatred on this thread? Not I. Sure I'm angry--the way any Catholic should be who values his faith. It is as though some gang of thugs had entered my home and ravaged everything within it. There is bitterness and anger--these are human emotions. But there is no hate. The only hate expressed is by so-called Catholics like yourself who resent any criticism of papal heterodoxy.
More trash-mouthing from Dominick. Of course it's there--along with a lot of modernist doublespeak! Sure there are orthodox passages that speak of Jesus as the Way--but this is the modernist style, to sprinkle the orthodox in with the heterodox. When I began this discussion of JPII's style I said it was laced with ambiguities and fuzziness. What could be more fuzzy and inconsistent than to say Jesus is the Way in one paragraph and to say Man is the Way in another? He does not say they are the same; no, he says all men in some invisible way are redeemed somehow. No mention of grace or the sacraments. None of that Catholic stuff--just sheer humanistic chatter about "consciousness" and "human dignity."
"Doesn't sound fuzzy to me, sounds like Catholic Dogma. Did you even read the document you derided?"
Of course I've read it. But that doesn't mean it makes sense. It doesn't. Here is the passage you should focus on:
"THIS MAN IS THE WAY FOR THE CHURCH--a way that, in a sense, is the basis of all the other ways that the Church must walk-because man-every man without any exception whatever-has been redeemed by Christ, and because with man-with each man without any exception whatever-Christ is in a way united, even when man is unaware of it: 'Christ, who died and was raised up for all, provides man'-each man and every man- 'with the light and the strength to measure up to his supreme calling'".
When I ask where is the mention of sacraments, it was in this context. The mention that is necessary is BAPTISM and the sanctifying grace that derives from it. Where does it say ANYWHERE AT ALL IN THIS DOCUMENT that men must be baptized or in some way cooperate with grace in order to be redeemed--which has always been the message of the Church? And how can it be that each individual man, as he says, is connected to Christ at birth? How is THAT a Catholic doctrine? Is a Buddhist born connected to Christ--or a Sikh? John Paul II says they are IN SOME WAY--in WHAT WAY? If this isn't a new doctrine, nothing is!
The problem with people like you is that you hear a few pious-sounding words like redemption and incarnation and are gulled by them--without putting these phrases in any traditional Catholic theological context. You say the encyclical makes sense. Then tell me, how can every individual human being on earth be connected to Christ at birth without baptism? In what way is this true precisely? The piece is full of fine-sounding language, but it is essentially humanistic rather than Catholic. For a Catholic it makes no sense whatsoever.
"I have not attended an SSPX Mass, but, I have seen transcripts of the writings and the writings of the Bishops. Most have what Ratzinger referred to as the schismatic mentality."
Oh, really? More falsehood from you. Cite a passage from these bishops--just one.
"Man in the full truth of his existence, of his personal being and also of his community and social being-in the sphere of his own family, in the sphere of society and very diverse contexts, in the sphere of his own nation or people (perhaps still only that of his clan or tribe), and in the sphere of the whole of mankind-this man is the primary route that the Church must travel in fulfilling her mission: he is the primary and fundamental way for the Church, the way traced out by Christ himself, the way that leads invariably through the mystery of the Incarnation and the Redemption...
"This man is the way for the Church--a way that, in a sense, is the basis of all the other ways that the Church must walk-because man-every man without any exception whatever-has been redeemed by Christ, and because with man-with each man without any exception whatever-Christ is in a way united, even when man is unaware of it..."
Tell me, if the Church follows man and not the other way around, and if all men are connected to Christ at birth whether they know it or not, then why do we have to belong to the Church? What did Jesus mean when he said that unless we were baptized with water and the Holy Spirit we could not be saved? How does this encyclical do anything but make the Catholic doctrine of redemption more problematic and probably unnecessary?
No, you haven't. You're cheating again! The passage you cite refers to CHRISTIANS only! Here it is:
"through which each Christian receives the saving power of the Redemption, beginning with the mystery of Baptism, in which we are buried into the death of Christ, in order to become sharers in his Resurrection"
Where does it say that EVERYBODY AND HIS BROTHER are redeemed without their first COOPERATING in some way with grace? It doesn't--because it would spoil the party, it would introduce a discordant note in a document meant to celebrate our humanity exclusively. It is MAN HIMSELF the Pontiff wishes to celebrate--this is why he says every single individual is connected IN SOME WAY to Christ--yet doesn't spell out how this is so. Nor does he mention anything at all about each individual's responsibility to cooperate with grace.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.