CARDINAL TAURAN: WARFARE DOES NOT PREVENT REFLECTION

http://www.solt3.org/pipermail/catholicnews/2004-May/000734.html ^ | MAY 27, 2004

[Land of the Irish]

but he does discuss bigamy, fornication, wife-murder, and divorce.

He addresses no such topics in the Summa Theologica, he obviously had better educated "students" than those who are being accepted to Holy Apostles College and Seminary masters' program.

[pascendi]

"The point was that the Cardinal was supporting religious liberty in this conference, but the Church's major document on the subject states: "God Himself has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve Him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness ... all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know". So even according to the declaration on religious liberty the idea that pagans should be "loyal" to their "faith" is incorrect."

If I were a pagan or of any other faith for that matter, and saw the mumbling ambiguity of these words, heck, I would just figure that my faith was the truth [I'd] come to know. And stay there.

Why don't they just come out and say it? Here:

God Himself has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve Him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness ... all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the Catholic Faith.

Spit it out, would they. How hard can this be? See, this is all just a bunch of beating around the bush. It doesn't even work. It costs more in lost Catholics than it gains converts from other religions. In fact, are there any results at all?

But of the whole article, this one has to be the most interesting:

He went on to say that the meeting is "also a dialogue between believers belonging to two different religions. In order to avoid any syncretism or caricature of others, it is important that each person remain loyal to his or her own faith."

Check out the options he lays out:

1. Stay where you are and don't convert, or...

2. ... it's gonna be Syncretism.

Nice options. Are there any other options? Does any other option come to mind at all... I'm sure I could think of at least one other.

[GirlShortstop]

gbcdoj:  but he does discuss bigamy, fornication, wife-murder, and divorce.

He addresses no such topics in the Summa Theologica

Whether bigamy is removed by Baptism?  The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas

Whether fornication is the most grievous of sins?  The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas

SUMMA THEOLOGICA: Is wife-murder an impediment to marriage?

Whether it was lawful to divorce a wife under the Mosaic law?  The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas

The FR gbcdoj credibility factor increases.

[pascendi]

"The FR gbcdoj credibility factor increases."

Not really. The issue isn't LOTI's knowledge or lack thereof as to whether St. Thomas dealt with bigotry and fornication in the Summa.

I want to know, shortstop, why the Cardinal doesn't just uphold Catholic doctrine.

Perhaps you could inform me as to why.

[pascendi]

um; shoot. ping.

[GirlShortstop]

Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, librarian and archivist of Holy Roman Church and former Secretary for Relations with States, was one of the principal speakers this morning at the first public session of the Qatar Conference on Muslim-Christian Dialogue...

gbcdoj;    Cardinal was supporting religious liberty

pascendi:  It costs more in lost Catholics than it gains converts from other religions. In fact, are there any results at all?

  why the Cardinal doesn't just uphold Catholic doctrine.

pascendi, the FR Religion Forum is a fascinating read for me; I can't remember a time where there wasn't an interesting topic to read, from which to learn.  That's where I stand; I have quite a bit of learing to do, and can not legitimately step into the arena of your exchange with gbcdoj and mershon, *but* there is one thing that comes to mind about your question that I see as pertinent:  an interview with Bp. Gassis was on t.v. recently, and he spoke at length about the crisis in Sudan.  It's horrible, and the crisis boils down to Khartoum's aggression and maneuvering to establish Sharia Law.  I presume I don't need to elaborate on what that means!  If the Catholic Church is going to make progress via "dialog" with the muhammadens, it *must* be done with strategery; Bp. Gassis indicated that education of Catholic "negotiators" about Islam is imperative since it's lacking right now.   It seems to me that the Qatar meeting is a building block in such an endeavor.  "Know thy enemy" so to speak, while mindful of what Saint Francis de Sales said:  One drop of honey attracts more bees than a barrel of vinegar.  just my two ¢  :-)

Sudan's Christian and non-Muslim population is facing a genocide unleashed by a radical Islamic regime notorious for terror. Bishop Macram Gassis is protesting the enslavement, forced starvation and mass murder in Sudan. He is bringing help and hope to persecuted people. Can you help Bishop Gassis fight slavery, religious persecution and murder in the 21st Century?   <-link

[pascendi]

Allow me to point out something, Shortstop.

gbcdoj says this:

"Right - I was criticizing the Cardinal by pointing out that the declaration on religious liberty (to which doctrine he refers), condemns his foolish idea "it is important that each person remain loyal to his or her own faith"."

According to gbcdoj, the Cardinal's got some kind of crazy idea about something.

So thus enters poster Mershon, sporting degree in Thinkology, 65 pages attached. A modicum of backslapping ensues; some posturing, etc.

Mershon then says this:

"I see very little wrong with anything Cardinal Tauran said in this address."

Ouch.

Alright, now it seems we have a difference in opinion on the other side of the fence.

I was wondering if you would be willing to faciliate a reconciliation between these two luminaries. I'm on the edge of my seat here.

I suppose if all efforts fail, perhaps sinkspur could rub them both down with a dog and cure them... haha!

[GirlShortstop]

dang Pascendi... you're rubbin' off on me!
PING, for your names are mentioned in my post 66.
Pax et bonum.

[pascendi]

Dang, I feel bad already for being caustic. Forgive me.

But listen, you know how these problems are solved; you know the answer already.

[pascendi]

"Not really. The issue isn't LOTI's knowledge or lack thereof as to whether St. Thomas dealt with bigotry and fornication in the Summa."

Nor is it about whether I said bigotry instead of bigamy.

"To err is divine human"

[pascendi]

The mention of Pope Leo XIII called to mind this particular statement of his:

"There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the entire cycle of Catholic doctrine and yet, by a single word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by Our Lord and handed down by Apostolic Tradition ... For such is the nature of the Faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some of the things and reject others. If, then, it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith ... But he who dissents even onone point from divinely-revealed Truth absolutely rejects all Faith, since he therefore refuses to honor God as the Supreme Truth and formal motive of Faith. In many things they are with me, in a few things they are not with me, the many in which they are will not profit them. And this, indeed, most deservedly, for they who take from Christian doctrine what they please lean on their own judgment, not on Faith ... and they obey themselves more truly than they obey God ... We are absolutely bound to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will ... You who believe what you like and do not like of the Gospels believe yourselves rather than the Gospels.

And this one:

Those who acknowledge Christ must acknowledge Him completely and entirely. The Head is the only-begotten Son of God; the Body is His Church. All who dissent from the Scriptures concerning Christ are not in the Church, and all who agree with the Scriptures concerning the Head but who do not communicate in the unity of the Church are not in the Church. They can in no way be counted among the children of God unless they take Jesus Christ as their Brother and, at the same time, the Church as their Mother ... Consequently, all who wish to reach salvation outside the Church are mistaken as to the way and are engaged in a futile effort ... Christianity is, in fact, incarnate in the Catholic Church; it is identified with that perfect and spiritual society which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and has for its visible Head the Roman Pontiff ... This is Our last lesson to you: receive it, engrave it upon your minds, all of you: by God's commandment, salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church."

My mind is still smoking from the engraving process.

At any rate, what do you make of these statements in light of the current ecumenical endeavor?

[Land of the Irish]

He addresses no such topics in the Summa Theologica

I stand corrected. In my haste last night, I did not review all of this summa. Mea culpa.

I did note this however in the intro:

Because the doctor of Catholic truth ought not only to teach the proficient, but also to instruct beginners (according to the Apostle: As unto little ones in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not meat -- 1 Cor. 3:1-2), we purpose in this book to treat of whatever belongs to the Christian religion, in such a way as may tend to the instruction of beginners.

Sounds to me like St. Thomas intended this summa for more than just theology students.

[Mershon]

See, this is exactly the type of obfuscations and misinformation (dare I say, propaganda?) that helps to destroy the traditionalist agenda.

"Do you mean the one that was recalled shortly after it was issued?"

It was not "recalled." It was changed from French as the original language to Latin with some minor adjustments made to it in the process, because as you know well, languages don't always translate among three different ones quite literally.

It is not factual to say it was "recalled." In fact, it is dead wrong.

[Mershon]

I answered a question directed toward me by another poster. I really am not interested in your opinion of the college in which I received my degree.

I am the homeschooling father of 5 living children, and have learned just as much about "objective reality" in that role and in my own personal reading and assisting in developing the traditional Latin Mass community in my locale as I did studying for my master's degree. However, I have read a lot on both ecumenism and religious liberty in the interest of showing "harmonization" in these and pre-Vatican II teachings. This is what Catholic theology is all about. Protestants are very good at showing the alleged "inconsistencies" and "contradictions" of Catholic teaching--and being in the heart of the Bible Belt--I know it quite well. Perhaps Irishman is a Bob Jones University graduate in disguise?

[Mershon]

Maybe you can go to Rome and apply for the good cardinal's job. I'm sure it would be a short-lived experience.

And I suppose every article about a church event shows EVERYTHING that was said and reveals in total the entire event and interchange, right?

Like I said, I suppose you think the better approach is to issue Unam Sanctam, and then be done with it. Real concern about "giving them milk because they weren't ready for meat" as St. Paul discusses, huh?

[Land of the Irish]

So if you, Mershon, are a homeschooling father of five, who is mershonathome?

[Mershon]

I agree with gbcdoj. There. No need to referee. The cardinal said something that I do not believe needs to be emphasized.

However, you and Irish guy make it out like it is another Assisi or something and it is not. You remind me of the Pharisees who were scandalized because Jesus Christ ate with public sinners. Did Christ hammer them right away and condemn them? In most, incidents, he gradually led them along. Perhaps there is a basis in our approach in his example? Or is the Sacred Scripture not "traditional" enough for you?

[Mershon]

One is my screen name at work and the other is "at home."

[Land of the Irish]

In most, incidents, he gradually led them along.

When did Christ ever say "it is important that each person remain loyal to his or her own faith"?

That's leading them along?

[Mershon]

Did you know that seeking to be scandalized and leading others into public scandal is gravely sinful?

I have written lots and lots on this post, esp. having to do with religious liberty. Evidently, you want to sit back and cherry pick where you think the argument is weakest and pull quotes out of one or two places.

I already said I agreed that this is perhaps not the most prudent or opportune thing to say. I said I agreed with GBCOG(sp?)on this.

Now, how about discussing my question about simply issuing Unam Sanctam to everyone and then be done with it? Do you think that is the most likely approach to accomplish Christ's peace, or might it really lead the Muslims to further expand their expansionist policies? Is your state in life the Cardinal's job? Is that your vocation? If not, why don't you concern yourself with your vocation?

Perhaps we can have articles that outline everything you do every day, then Freepers can post it, and then sit around and criticize your methods and techniques all day long?

Is it a deal?

I noticed nobody commented on Girlshortop's quote from a SAINT talking about getting more accomplished with honey than vinegar. I guess this means you guys agree with it, right?