Latest topics
» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:02 pm by tornpage

» Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:24 pm by MRyan

» Revisiting Diocese/Parish Screening Policy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:03 pm by MRyan

» When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:08 pm by MRyan

» Doctrinal talks were conducted with Fr.Gleize on 'the other side'
Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:08 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Pope Benedict permitted Fr. Jean Marie Gleize to lead in doctrinal talks since he was a liberal ?
Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:59 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Padre Pio told Fr.Gabriel Amorth," It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church" -Bishop Richard Williamson
Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Mons. Brunero Gherardini misled the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and many traditionalists
Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Official statement from SSPX awaited : Fr.Gleize and other theologians have got it wrong
Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Andre Marie MICM too is teaching error : Bishop Sanborn cannot report at the Chancery office
Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:50 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magsiterial Heresy ?
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magisterium should apologise to the SSPX for the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:34 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Francis MICM made a mistake on Vatican Council II
Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Legion of Christ universities in Rome adapt to leftist laws
Fri May 22, 2015 7:53 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» CM, SSPX, MICM deny the Faith to please superiors
Thu May 21, 2015 4:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX and Church Militant are using the same liberal theology and are unaware of it
Wed May 20, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Michael Voris uses liberal theology and yet critcizes Michael Coren
Tue May 19, 2015 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fr.John Zuhlsdorf condones Mass for suicide
Tue May 19, 2015 9:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II is traditional or liberal depending on how you interpret the Letter of the Holy Office
Mon May 18, 2015 5:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Church Militant unable to answer questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Sun May 17, 2015 5:55 am by Lionel L. Andrades


Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Page 10 of 10 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:10 pm

Jehanne wrote:
Ultimately, "What is, is." By the way, Mike, please provide a citation for the St. Ambrose quote that you gave earlier where he said that he does "not know whether they can have the honor of the kingdom." I can't find it.
You will find it in Volume 2 of Jurgen's The Faith of Early Fathers, Liturgical Press, 1979, pp. 169-170, under St. Ambrose of Milan, Abraham [A.D. 387], paragraph 1324:

[2, 11, 84] ”Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (4)." No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity. They may, however, have an undisclosed exemption from punishments; but I do not know whether they have the honor of the kingdom (5)."
Note "(5)" by Jurgens says:

"The present sentence makes it clear that when St. Ambrose says that in the preceding "no one is excepted," he means that the Scriptural utterance expresses no exception; he does not know whether or not some logical exception, e.g. state of infancy or actual impossibility or non-culpable ignorance, may have been presumed and left unexpressed."

If you do not have the actual Volume 2 (of a 3 volume set), I can't help you except to say I have cited the volume verbatim. It wasn't until I checked the actual citation that I realized that the commonly cited citation (famous among Feeneyites) omits the last sentence.

Jehanne wrote:Again, we're back to the "null set" thingy which Mike is ready to accept for infants who die without Baptism but seems unwilling to accept for adults who die with serious mortal sins; the latter he ridicules, but not the former.
So, let's follow the "logic tree": That I can accept a "null set" for unbaptized infants who God may in fact choose to remit original sin means that if I am to remain consistent I should accept a "null set" for mortal sinners who, freely consenting to mortal sin, God will not allow to die in mortal sin.

Jehanne, as I said, go sell it to the more gullible among us.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Jehanne on Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:34 pm

How about this guy:

http://www.romancatholicism.org/jpii-quotes.htm

Let's take the first one:

“Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it.” (General Audience — July 28, 1999)

I am okay with it; except for the fact that it creates a multitude of "null sets" throughout the corpus of Catholic teachings.

Thanks for that citation; I'll add it to my blog.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:44 pm

Jehanne wrote:How about this guy:

http://www.romancatholicism.org/jpii-quotes.htm

Let's take the first one:

“Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it.” (General Audience — July 28, 1999)

I am okay with it; except for the fact that it creates a multitude of "null sets" throughout the corpus of Catholic teachings.

Thanks for that citation; I'll add it to my blog.
That "guy" is a former Third Order MICM tertiary, now sedevacantist, who has an an "antit-pope" agenda.

But I'm glad you can see through the hype and understand what the Pope is actually saying. But to object that this creates "null sets" is just one more illogical argument on par with your objection to the CCC, #1261, that posits that even if it is the truth, the Church should not express the truth, because some people will deliberately and/or errantly misinterpret it as confirmation for their own agendas.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  George Brenner on Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:48 pm

Columba said:
Dear God, I know that Jesus taught that we must all be baptised with water with no exceptions; therefore I pray for the souls of all aborted babies and unbaptised infants that, by the infinite merits of Your Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the prayers of the Immaculate Virgin Mary, they may be washed in the saving waters of Baptism, for with God, all things are possible. Amen.


The above prayer that you say is a beautiful prayer, Columba. I have not yet posted my actual prayer that I say which is : My dear God please help these aborted children who are completely defenseless. They are at your loving mercy.

You see Columba, we on earth are bound by the sacraments both as individuals and as Church teaching mandates while at the same time God is not bound. So yes as we would say together ALL things are possible with God. Teach, live and embrace the rigorist and traditional and leave the rest to God without conjecture or limitations to the will of God.
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Jehanne on Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:56 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:How about this guy:

http://www.romancatholicism.org/jpii-quotes.htm

Let's take the first one:

“Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it.” (General Audience — July 28, 1999)

I am okay with it; except for the fact that it creates a multitude of "null sets" throughout the corpus of Catholic teachings.

Thanks for that citation; I'll add it to my blog.
That "guy" is a former Third Order MICM tertiary, now sedevacantist, who has an an "antit-pope" agenda.

But I'm glad you can see through the hype and understand what the Pope is actually saying. But to object that this creates "null sets" is just one more illogical argument on par with your objection to the CCC, #1261, that posits that even if it is the truth, the Church should not express the truth, because some people will deliberately and/or errantly misinterpret it as confirmation for their own agendas.

Wow, what a non-answer; I am glad that you now accept universal salvation, at least as a "good hope."
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:24 pm

Jehanne wrote:

Wow, what a non-answer; I am glad that you now accept universal salvation, at least as a "good hope."
Your "logic" is anything but.

But please, don't let me stand in the way of your "null set" obsession.

Good grief.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:44 pm

columba wrote:
Mryan wrote:
I don't know about anyone else, but my "revulsion meter" is pegging right about now.

Mike's revulsion meter pegs with every poster who doesn't agree with him so if we base decisions on his out of control meter he might be the only one left here.

Get it recalibrated Mike.
Actually, there is a sense in which we can find agreement; for there is an argument that says that Foot's rant is such a comedic farce, we should just ignore it.

That being said, your defense of Foot’s “right” to insult the Holy Father, the Church and Catholics on this forum is actually quite pathetic. Of course, coming from a sede such as yourself who is more concerned with defending the rights of a rabid cult following sedevacantist than the rights of the Church and the “fact” of the Roman Pontiff, and coming from someone who does not have the guts to admit he is a sede, it shouldn’t surprise us.

Sure, columba, no problem at all with telling us that “Regarding Ratzinger, he would be included in our rosary … to convert all sinners, heretics, schismatics and idolaters. We mention his name at times to pray for his conversion to the Catholic faith, not for his intensions as “pope,” since he is not a pope, but in fact, is a heretical AP. FACT”.

Furthermore, this type of sycophant cult-following adoration is extremely nauseating:

“the outstanding, uncompromising work carried out by Brother Michael and Brother Peter Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery. Like Sister Lucia said: It’s time to choose sides, either we are for God or we are for the Devil, there is no other possibilities”.
If I am not mistaken, there were are least three violations of forum rules, not that you care; for, when it comes to the Roman Pontiff, all is fair.

Oh, its just some innocuous “material error” every “Catholic” has the right to spew anywhere and at anytime he wants on this forum; as if it OK that the Holy Father is treated as the apostate devil incarnate, and Catholics who refuse to swallow the schismatic refuse are threatened with hell for not rejecting the Pope and the visible Church of Christ by following Fred and "baptism of blood" into their own particular pit of hell.

Don’t throw this back at me when it is Foot who uses their name on this forum as the saviors of Catholicism.

Columba, we are not of the same faith, and one of us is NOT in communion with the Roman Pontiff. Please stop the charade and join with Foot in whatever that non-visible, pope-less, hierarchy-less, apostolic succession-less, jurisdiction-less sect-driven non-Church he “belongs”.


avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:36 pm

George Brenner wrote: Mike & Mark, and all interested,

With humility and prayer for your review. ( Thank you RG )

http://www.culturewars.com/2010/Tether.htm
George (and RG), thanks for the link ... excellent article; I think this is the first time I read it in its entirety, instead of just snippets provided by others.

There is an interesting (brief) response by Bishop Williamson, followed by an even briefer response by Jones who drills down to the heart of the issue - here:

http://www.culturewars.com/2010/SSPX.htm
(DOCTRINE UNDER-ESTIMATED? OR, BLAMING THE VICTIM?)


avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  George Brenner on Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:13 pm

Thank you Mike for the additional link.


Michael Jones writes:

Even if the Council Fathers failed to eliminate every ambiguity from the texts they approved, that contingency can be dealt with by the formula which Archbishop Lefebvre endorsed, namely, “I accept Vatican II in the light of tradition.” This formula can resolve all doctrinal difficulties. The fact that Bishop Williamson can’t bring himself to sign it is a tragedy for the Church which I lament bitterly and which I lamented to him personally when we met. The SSPX would be more effective if it rejoined the Church, and the Church would be much more effective in dealing with the world’s problems if Bishop Williamson spent less time wasting his considerable talents on blaming the victim.


Rats have always been on the Ark like demonic barnacles and they are rampant in the Ark, knawing at men's souls. This should come as no great revelation for this has been the case in every century. It is now "Our Time" and we are personally presented with the challenge of how we will individually answer the call to remain with Jesus in Gethsemane. I knocked on the Ark boiler room door and the Holy Spirit said to me to have Faith that this will pass. Do not abandon the Ark. Do not abandon the Pope.


avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:00 pm

MRyan wrote:
Don’t throw this back at me when it is Foot who uses their name on this forum as the saviors of Catholicism.

Ok, but many other non-authoritative teachings and names have been used on this forum to shore up ones own particular view, but I believe I'm in agreement with you that none of these should be granted what's only due to the Pope and bishops in union with him, that is, subjection and obedience. If however there be legitimate reasons to believe that the latter's teachings are not in accord with tradition, and doubts exist as to the validity of their claim to be the true successors of the apostles, then it is prudent to proceed with caution. However, I don't believe it is prudent for a lay man to set himself up as judge, jury and executioner and promote this private judgment of his as law.
Likewise. I don't think the contrary view can be promoted as certainty when the arguments put forward in support of the former's have validity in light of the evidence and while the arguments of either side remain unresolved beyond reasonable doubt.

What I do consider acceptable is to hold such views as one does, but to hold them as a personal opinion and not as an infallible truth. If irrefutable evidence is brought forward in support of either view then one would be bound to change ones position. Thus far this type of evidence has not been brought forward.


MRyan wrote:
Columba, we are not of the same faith, and one of us is NOT in communion with the Roman Pontiff.

Can you point to any two Catholics who ARE of the same faith since vat II? The “infallibility of conscience “ act has taken care of that. (CCC, 1782)

MRyan wrote:
Please stop the charade and join with Foot in whatever that non-visible, pope-less, hierarchy-less, apostolic succession-less, jurisdiction-less sect-driven non-Church he “belongs”.

If you wish me to Join with Fatima and declare infallibly that “the chair is empty” I don't have the authority, the certainty or the intelligence to make such a proclamation. If you wish me to join with you and declare that the validity of the occupant of the chair of Peter is beyond refute, I can't do that either as you also lack this charism of infallibility that would assure me that you are correct. The one who actually should possess this infallibility (within already defined limits) is the very one who is suspected of sins against the faith. The suspect is the one to whom you appeal for assurance of the certainty of your position and by doing so the argument goes round in circles ad infinitum.

What I can do however is hold to the dogmas of the faith as once and forever defined as absolute certainties of faith. If it should ever come to pass that a future pope declares that Vat II and it's popes were illegal imposters and had, along with themselves, led millions of unquestioning Catholics astray, then at least I will have been one of those who didn't follow blindly and by the grace of God avoided eternal ruin. If on the other hand he rule in its favor and declare Vat II and its teachings as having been inspired by the Holy Ghost, I still will have lost nothing by having followed the faith that brought salvation to all the generations preceding the council, and all done without ever having to take upon myself the office of judge, jury and executioner.
I refuse to be coerced by you Mike just as you refuse to be coerced by Fatima for Our Times.
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  George Brenner on Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:56 pm

Columba said: What I can do however is hold to the dogmas of the faith as once and forever defined as absolute certainties of faith. If it should ever come to pass that a future pope declares that Vat II and it's popes were illegal imposters and had, along with themselves, led millions of unquestioning Catholics astray, then at least I will have been one of those who didn't follow blindly and by the grace of God avoided eternal ruin. If on the other hand he rule in its favor and declare Vat II and its teachings as having been inspired by the Holy Ghost, I still will have lost nothing by having followed the faith that brought salvation to all the generations preceding the council, and all done without ever having to take upon myself the office of judge, jury and executioner.


Columba, your question has already been answered by Jesus and the Holy Ghost on the very day that Our Catholic Church was founded nearly 2000 years ago. The Church and ALL of its official teachings that make up the deposit of Faith are guaranteed to be pure and free from error. Are you really saying that you even remotely expect some future Pope is going to give thumbs up or thumbs down on the authenticity of five or more recent Popes? Seriously, is your faith in the promise of Jesus really that lacking. If you were to make a list of just some of the exact reasons that you question each of these Popes legitimacy, you would find that some other past Popes would have to be added to your suspect list. Your stance is also one of proclaiming them guilty as charged unless they are proclaimed innocent by a future Pope. Do you not have the rule of law backwards; innocent until proven guilty? I know, I know you would say that you are just protecting your soul. Well guess what, you have no Saint Peter in your life. The Church is perfect and without flaw. You sadly have taken the great abuses, great sins and great lack of many in high and low position within the Church to accurately and piously teach the faith. This is a punishment for modernism and sins of the flesh. You wrongly are attacking the Church itself rather than praying for the return of stability of sound, clear and enforced Catholic teaching. Great Love must be accompanied with great charity and great truth. They are inseparable. It has been and always will be the duty of all who influence souls to teach with all three attributes in mind. Many have failed and hurt God deeply in the last half century. But do not take it out on the Church. Faith, prayer and trust in Jesus and His Church will always fill the gap between our need to have answers and our resolve to trust that good always triumphs over evil. One of the greatest miracles is available to us every day and that is the sacrament of Confession which through Jesus unfathomable mercy empowers the soul to live in Blessed happiness with Our God forever.





avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Tue May 01, 2012 11:42 am

George Brenner wrote:
Columba said: What I can do however is hold to the dogmas of the faith as once and forever defined as absolute certainties of faith. If it should ever come to pass that a future pope declares that Vat II and it's popes were illegal imposters and had, along with themselves, led millions of unquestioning Catholics astray, then at least I will have been one of those who didn't follow blindly and by the grace of God avoided eternal ruin. If on the other hand he rule in its favor and declare Vat II and its teachings as having been inspired by the Holy Ghost, I still will have lost nothing by having followed the faith that brought salvation to all the generations preceding the council, and all done without ever having to take upon myself the office of judge, jury and executioner.

Columba, your question has already been answered by Jesus and the Holy Ghost on the very day that Our Catholic Church was founded nearly 2000 years ago. The Church and ALL of its official teachings that make up the deposit of Faith are guaranteed to be pure and free from error.

Precisely George. And that is why I hold firmly to those teachings.

George Brenner wrote:
Are you really saying that you even remotely expect some future Pope is going to give thumbs up or thumbs down on the authenticity of five or more recent Popes?

If he (a future Pope) doesn't have the authority to decide such matters, who does?
This is exactly where one would expect to receive an authoritative judgment concerning the legitimacy of a council or that of any prior pope.

George Brenner wrote:
Seriously, is your faith in the promise of Jesus really that lacking.

It's because of my faith in the promise of Jesus that I would await a future declaration from the proper authority on such matters before foisting my own personal opinion as infallible truth. I can merely weigh up the evidence in the external forum and from that evidence come to my own personal judgment whatever it my be but without attributing any more status to it other than that which it is; a personal judgment.

George Brenner wrote:
If you were to make a list of just some of the exact reasons that you question each of these Popes legitimacy, you would find that some other past Popes would have to be added to your suspect list.

Which popes do you refer to?

George Brenner wrote:
Your stance is also one of proclaiming them guilty as charged unless they are proclaimed innocent by a future Pope. Do you not have the rule of law backwards; innocent until proven guilty? I know, I know you would say that you are just protecting your soul.

Where Have I passed such a judgment? I've listed instances throughout this forum of present magisterial teachings that stand in contradiction to other magisterial teachings from the past. A suspect remains a suspect even before trial and can be held in custody as such. Do you maintain that this is unjust? Do you believe the state has the rule of law backwards in that regard and that its purpose is not for the protection of others while the suspect remains such?
Yes George, I will say that I am just protecting my soul and I have not only the right to do so but an obligation to do so.

George Brenner wrote:
Well guess what, you have no Saint Peter in your life.

I have the teachings and infallible declarations of at least 250 Peters in my life so why should I limit myself to the teachings of one, two or three. You may do so if you wish George but I feel I'm getting the better deal. Your guess was exactly that, A guess.

George Brenner wrote:
The Church is perfect and without flaw. You sadly have taken the great abuses, great sins and great lack of many in high and low position within the Church to accurately and piously teach the faith.

If the Church is perfect and without flaw, then how can you say that she has failed to accurately teach the faith? What I take it you mean is that the Church is perfect but members in high and low places within it are not necessarily so perfect. Some fail to accurately teach the faith. Of those who fail to accurately teach the faith, some also teach contrary to the faith; when they do so they are called heretics and those who follow their heretical teachings will end up as they do. If you wish George to follow such teachers I can only warn you against it but I can't prevent you. I for one refuse to follow them.

George Brenner wrote:
This is a punishment for modernism and sins of the flesh. .

Do you mean that modernist leaders are the punishment for modernism? If so, don't follow the modernist leaders just as you wouldn't follow the others in their sins of the flesh.

You wrongly are attacking the Church itself rather than praying for the return of stability of sound, clear and enforced Catholic teaching

How am I attacking the Church? I'm attacking the very things that you are attacking and yet you say in my case that this constitutes an attack on the Church and then accuse me of not praying for a "return of stability of sound, clear and enforced Catholic teaching," which happens to be the thing I pray for most. George you really need to stop talking in riddles and say what you really believe rather than adopting this PC approach which is itself a sign that one has become infected with modernism.

Great Love must be accompanied with great charity and great truth.

Are not love and charity both the same thing? And what is great truth? Truth is truth or it's not truth at all.

It has been and always will be the duty of all who influence souls to teach with all three attributes in mind. Many have failed and hurt God deeply in the last half century.

And can you name names? Am I any less charitable than you George for being specific rather than general?

But do not take it out on the Church. Faith, prayer and trust in Jesus and His Church will always fill the gap between our need to have answers and our resolve to trust that good always triumphs over evil.

I don't absolve myself quite so readily of my obligation to seek the truth. If we don't seek answers the Lord won't give us any; "Those who seek will find."

One of the greatest miracles is available to us every day and that is the sacrament of Confession which through Jesus unfathomable mercy empowers the soul to live in Blessed happiness with Our God forever.

The sacrament of confession would be a good subject for a new thread. I see a conexion between the growing abandonment of the vow of celebacy and the new modernized confessional.
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  George Brenner on Tue May 01, 2012 8:46 pm


Columba,

Please excuse my posting format below:

Free Will is our own individual choice to choose the Salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church or not. We are accountable for our beliefs before God and must constantly pray with humility that we remain true practicing Catholics according to the will of God.

Columba's answers to me followed by my responses.

George Brenner wrote:
Columba said: What I can do however is hold to the dogmas of the faith as once and forever defined as absolute certainties of faith. If it should ever come to pass that a future pope declares that Vat II and it's popes were illegal imposters and had, along with themselves, led millions of unquestioning Catholics astray, then at least I will have been one of those who didn't follow blindly and by the grace of God avoided eternal ruin. If on the other hand he rule in its favor and declare Vat II and its teachings as having been inspired by the Holy Ghost, I still will have lost nothing by having followed the faith that brought salvation to all the generations preceding the council, and all done without ever having to take upon myself the office of judge, jury and executioner.

George said:
Columba, your question has already been answered by Jesus and the Holy Ghost on the very day that Our Catholic Church was founded nearly 2000 years ago. The Church and ALL of its official teachings that make up the deposit of Faith are guaranteed to be pure and free from error.

Columba said:
Precisely George. And that is why I hold firmly to those teachings.

George said:
Agreed, If only we both could stop right here. This statement is true from year 0001 to 2012. Columba, do you believe that this is not true since Vatican II ?
or Do you believe that you have uncertainty since Vatican II? or Are you living under only Church teaching in light of tradition before Vatican II? or other?
If you believe that the guarantee by the Holy Ghost for Doctrinal purity is for all time why do you persist in the non Deposit of Faith issues ( which are important) to persecute our last five Popes? Or is part or all of your concern in that the deposit of Faith is no longer pure and thus the only explanation must be possible heresy?

George Brenner wrote:
Are you really saying that you even remotely expect some future Pope is going to give thumbs up or thumbs down on the authenticity of five or more recent Popes?

Columba said:
If he (a future Pope) doesn't have the authority to decide such matters, who does?
This is exactly where one would expect to receive an authoritative judgment concerning the legitimacy of a council or that of any prior pope.

George said:
Columba, do you really believe that a future Pope is going to rule in the affirmative and pass judgement on his immediate predecessors as being worthy as the vicar of Christ. What form would that take? Who would start the process to even do such an undertaking? Would the The Pope declare, We firmly declare that Popes______,
_______,________, __________, _________, were legitimate etc ? What would you do , say oops and head for the confessional. Would you be remorseful or still say that you were just covering the basis for your salvation? Would you be disappointed and say maybe this Pope got it wrong? No sarcasm, I just can not relate to your mindset.


George Brenner wrote:
Seriously, is your faith in the promise of Jesus really that lacking.

Columba said:
It's because of my faith in the promise of Jesus that I would await a future declaration from the proper authority on such matters before foisting my own personal opinion as infallible truth. I can merely weigh up the evidence in the external forum and from that evidence come to my own personal judgment whatever it my be but without attributing any more status to it other than that which it is; a personal judgment.


Columba, you just used the word 'personal' three times and that is fine but there is a strong possibility that none of us will live to see any such declaration on this matter; for no declaration is needed. If that is the mode you choose to live in that is what free will is all about. You are putting much undue pressure on yourself. if you are at peace then proceed but I think you error might be mortal; not my call......just worried for you with Charity. And you would probably say the same back to me. Let it be so written for both of us.

George Brenner wrote:
If you were to make a list of just some of the exact reasons that you question each of these Popes legitimacy, you would find that some other past Popes would have to be added to your suspect list.

Columba said:
Which popes do you refer to?

George said:
Sorry, my question answered first. What are your big five or worst examples of heresy committed by all or some of the post VII Popes? Make sure they contradict the deposit of Faith on Church Doctrine and not some personal book writings or sitting at a chair with an upside down cross ( different subject)

George Brenner wrote:
Your stance is also one of proclaiming them guilty as charged unless they are proclaimed innocent by a future Pope. Do you not have the rule of law backwards; innocent until proven guilty? I know, I know you would say that you are just protecting your soul.

Columba said:
Where Have I passed such a judgment? I've listed instances throughout this forum of present magisterial teachings that stand in contradiction to other magisterial teachings from the past. A suspect remains a suspect even before trial and can be held in custody as such. Do you maintain that this is unjust? Do you believe the state has the rule of law backwards in that regard and that its purpose is not for the protection of others while the suspect remains such?
Yes George, I will say that I am just protecting my soul and I have not only the right to do so but an obligation to do so.

George said:
Yes they are suspect to you and thus you have passed judgement. The very fact you are 'in waiting' for some declaration from some future Pope during your lifetime, thank you please, proves your suspicion. Are you talking all of the post VII Popes equally or weighted different or are all suspects by association to VII?

George Brenner wrote:
Well guess what, you have no Saint Peter in your life.

Columba said:
I have the teachings and infallible declarations of at least 250 Peters in my life so why should I limit myself to the teachings of one, two or three. You may do so if you wish George but I feel I'm getting the better deal. Your guess was exactly that, A guess.

Georeg said:
Do you have an Angie's list for approved Popes? Do you grade on the curve?
What a great prayer: Dear God I feel that I'm getting the better deal on the authenticity of Popes? Please rsvp. Are you really serious? You will say yes. So be it.


George Brenner wrote:
The Church is perfect and without flaw. You sadly have taken the great abuses, great sins and great lack of many in high and low position within the Church to accurately and piously teach the faith.

Columba said:
If the Church is perfect and without flaw, then how can you say that she has failed to accurately teach the faith? What I take it you mean is that the Church is perfect but members in high and low places within it are not necessarily so perfect. Some fail to accurately teach the faith. Of those who fail to accurately teach the faith, some also teach contrary to the faith; when they do so they are called heretics and those who follow their heretical teachings will end up as they do. If you wish George to follow such teachers I can only warn you against it but I can't prevent you. I for one refuse to follow them.

Columba,
The Church has not failed to teach the Faith. Many within the Church have been derelict in their duties to instruct , teach and lead by example. When someone in the Church is not true to the Faith, ease on down the road and/or write your letters. There are many in the church that I will have nothing to do with and there are many, many, many, many( did I say many?) more that live up to their vows and I thank God for them.

George Brenner wrote:
This is a punishment for modernism and sins of the flesh. .

Columba said:
Do you mean that modernist leaders are the punishment for modernism? If so, don't follow the modernist leaders just as you wouldn't follow the others in their sins of the flesh.

Columba,
Bingo, We agree but you will go on to forget to separate the wheat from the Chaff and you will probably include The VII Popes as suspects right? until the day of declaration?

George said:
You wrongly are attacking the Church itself rather than praying for the return of stability of sound, clear and enforced Catholic teaching

Columba said:
How am I attacking the Church? I'm attacking the very things that you are attacking and yet you say in my case that this constitutes an attack on the Church and then accuse me of not praying for a "return of stability of sound, clear and enforced Catholic teaching," which happens to be the thing I pray for most. George you really need to stop talking in riddles and say what you really believe rather than adopting this PC approach which is itself a sign that one has become infected with modernism.


Columba,
Pope Benedict XVI is calling for a renewal of proper , clear Catechesis in the upcoming year. I know you would say too little too late from your suspect Pope.

George said:
Great Love must be accompanied with great charity and great truth.

Columba said:
Are not love and charity both the same thing? And what is great truth? Truth is truth or it's not truth at all.

Columba, these are two different words with two different meanings, certainly not worthy of a debate as to foil our efforts to be good Catholics.

"Nothing you do makes much of a difference if you do not have charity. You can speak with tongues, have the gift of prophecy, understand all mysteries, and possess all knowledge; even if you have the faith to move mountains, without charity it won't profit you at all....

"Without charity—or the pure love of Christ—whatever else we accomplish matters little. With it, all else becomes vibrant and alive.

and of course truth is truth , you are correct. I was just emphasising BRIDGE OUT AHEAD. instead of bridge out ahead.


George said:
It has been and always will be the duty of all who influence souls to teach with all three attributes in mind. Many have failed and hurt God deeply in the last half century.

Columba said:
And can you name names? Am I any less charitable than you George for being specific rather than general?

George said:
Fair enough, but rather than go back and look up all the letters that I have sent or Bishops that I have e mailed. Let me just say the likes of Father Reginald Foster for example. Those who persecute father Rodriquez. Those who persecute Father Marcel etc. My heart breaks when I feel compelled that I have to do this as I prefer to always see the good in man, especially the Clergy. Columba, do you feel that you are looking and being grateful for the holy religious that are doing the work of God?
You do not post about them too often?????

George said:
But do not take it out on the Church. Faith, prayer and trust in Jesus and His Church will always fill the gap between our need to have answers and our resolve to trust that good always triumphs over evil.

Columba said:
I don't absolve myself quite so readily of my obligation to seek the truth. If we don't seek answers the Lord won't give us any; "Those who seek will find."


George said:
You and I march to a different drummer in what we believe is truth. So be it.

George said:
One of the greatest miracles is available to us every day and that is the sacrament of Confession which through Jesus unfathomable mercy empowers the soul to live in Blessed happiness with Our God forever.

Columba said:
The sacrament of confession would be a good subject for a new thread. I see a conexion between the growing abandonment of the vow of celebacy and the new modernized confessional.

Columba,
Exactly along the same lines as what I mentioned above. You see a growing abandonment of the vow of chastity and I see a renewal of more holy priests especially in third world countries and most especially after what we have been through.

Your friend,

JMJ,

George






































avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Wed May 02, 2012 9:57 am

George Brenner wrote:
Columba, do you really believe that a future Pope is going to rule in the affirmative and pass judgement on his immediate predecessors as being worthy as the vicar of Christ. What form would that take? Who would start the process to even do such an undertaking? Would the The Pope declare, We firmly declare that Popes______,
_______,________, __________, _________, were legitimate etc ? What would you do , say oops and head for the confessional. Would you be remorseful or still say that you were just covering the basis for your salvation? Would you be disappointed and say maybe this Pope got it wrong? No sarcasm, I just can not relate to your mindset.

George, I would suggest a ruling on the matter could take the form of that given at the Third Council of Constantinople where pope Honorius was posthumously excommunicated.

“We find that these documents [including those of Honorius] are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics…there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines…To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!… [The devil] has actively employed them [including Honorius]…we slew them [including Honorius] with anathema, as lapsed from the faith and as sinners, in the morning outside the camp of the tabernacle of God.”

As regards heading for the confessional, that would work both ways.
However, confession is for confessing sins. If I were to suspect someone of a crime without any evidence or reason I would certainly be guilty of sin. If on the other hand I had good reason to believe that a crime had been committed and refused to act on the information, I would be committing a sin, just as in the child sexual abuse scandal where the evidence was there but no action was taken. Those who refused to act are now paying the price for their sinful negligence.
If it were determined later that a suspected criminal was infact found innocent of the charges against him, would all who suspected him be guilty of sin? No. Only those would be guilty of sin who knowingly brought forward false evidence.

George If you can't relate to my mindset I would suggest that you believe the current crisis is but a figment of your own imagination and should be disregarded as such (no sarcasm intended). The crisis for me is real and consists in two conficting understandings of the Church. Is this Church the One, Holy, Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church, or, is it a church that subsists within a wider universal Church, the Church of Christ?
I had always believed and was led to believe that it was the former. If it ever comes to pass that I be declared wrong in my initial understanding, I will have to concede that the Church before the council was not the true Catholic Church. If that be the case, what assurance do I have that the new post conciliar Church is in fact the Catholic Church?

If there be no evidence to suggest that such a conflict exists then declare me anathema. If there is evidence then you have just understood my mindset.
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  George Brenner on Wed May 02, 2012 11:14 am

Columba said,




The crisis for me is real and consists in two conficting understandings of the Church. Is this Church the One, Holy, Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church, or, is it a church that subsists within a wider universal Church, the Church of Christ?
I had always believed and was led to believe that it was the former. If it ever comes to pass that I be declared wrong in my initial understanding, I will have to concede that the Church before the council was not the true Catholic Church. If that be the case, what assurance do I have that the new post conciliar Church is in fact the Catholic Church?


Columba, I think the above quote by you does give closure for me on this discussion on your mindset which up til this I could not completely grasp.

Is this {The Church of the last half century} the One, Holy, Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church? George..... Yes and Columba No
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or, is { the Church of the last half century } a church that subsists within a wider

universal Church, the Church of Christ? Columba.....Yes and George..... No

...... and so we pray
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JMJ,

George

avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Wed May 02, 2012 3:54 pm

"The Church Always Visible"; precisely because it is a body is the Church visible: and because it is the body of Christ is it living and energizing, because by the infusion of His power Christ guards and sustains it, just as the vine gives nourishment and renders fruitful the branches united to it.

Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. … If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man. "Lord, if we be in error, we are being deceived by Thee" (Richardus de S. Victore, De Trin., lib. i., cap. 2). In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy?-without separating himself from the Church?-without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching?

“…To refuse to the Church the primacy is most impious and above measure arrogant. And if all learning, no matter how easy and common it may be, in order to be fully understood requires a teacher and master, what can be greater evidence of pride and rashness than to be unwilling to learn about the books of the divine mysteries from the proper interpreter, and to wish to condemn them unknown?" (St. Augustine, De Unitate Credendi, cap. xvii., n. 35).

It is then undoubtedly the office of the church to guard Christian doctrine and to propagate it in its integrity and purity.

But as this heavenly doctrine was never left to the arbitrary judgment of private individuals, but, in the beginning delivered by Jesus Christ, was afterwards committed by Him exclusively to the Magisterium already named, so the power of performing and administering the divine mysteries, together with the authority of ruling and governing, was not bestowed by God on all Christians indiscriminately, but on certain chosen persons.

"There remains, therefore, the ordinance of truth, and St. Peter, persevering in the strength of the rock which he had received, hath not abandoned the government of the Church which had been confided to him" (S. Leo M. sermo iii., cap. 3).

St. Cyprian: "To be in communion with Cornelius is to be in communion with the Catholic Church" (Ep. lv., n. 1). In the same way Maximus the Abbot teaches that obedience to the Roman Pontiff is the proof of the true faith and of legitimate communion. Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man...but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See. If he be in communion with it, he should be acknowledged by all and everywhere as faithful and orthodox. He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See." (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum)
Here we go again:

columba wrote:
What I can do however is hold to the dogmas of the faith as once and forever defined as absolute certainties of faith. If it should ever come to pass that a future pope declares that Vat II and it's popes were illegal imposters and had, along with themselves, led millions of unquestioning Catholics astray, then at least I will have been one of those who didn't follow blindly and by the grace of God avoided eternal ruin. If on the other hand he rule in its favor and declare Vat II and its teachings as having been inspired by the Holy Ghost, I still will have lost nothing by having followed the faith that brought salvation to all the generations preceding the council, and all done without ever having to take upon myself the office of judge, jury and executioner.
In other words, Columba can hold to the dogmas of the faith as they were once and forever defined as he understands them, not as the Church says she understands them, for the Magisterium, as Columba “presented”, teaches doctrines “that stand in contradiction to other magisterial teachings from the past”.

So if Columba casts his stones at the pope and the Church safely from a distance, and distances himself from communion with the unsuspecting millions who appear to be blindly following a false pope and a false Church (not that he is acting as judge, jury or executioner or anything) he can have a “win-win” and can save his soul by the grace of God by refusing communion with illegitimate imposters, heretics and apostates, regardless if “it should ever come to pass that a future pope declares that Vat II and it's popes were illegal imposters” and the visible Catholic Church a total sham.

See, better safe than sorry, and better to sit on the sidelines where one can cast his stones safely from a distance without being held accountable for refusing submission to and communion with the Roman Pontiff when “Peter” and his immediate predecessors may very well be faithless apostates. And, if columba can place the burden of “proof” on a future pope, he can recuse himself from maintaining communion with the Roman Pontiff and the “conciliar Church” when such communion may result in the loss of his soul.

But then again, does he reserve for the Pope what he says of allegedly “apostate” Bishops in Brazil and Austria:

He is a "leader" within a "church" of his own making and should be ousted from the Church that calls itself Catholic
Ah, he says, that’s different, which is why we “appeal to a future Pontiff” before ousting the Pope from the true Church, and/or leave him to the Church that calls itself Catholic as we cling to the invisible true Church.

Never mind that what Columba proposes was specifically condemned by Pope Leo XIII:

Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future Council, or to a Pope who is better informed." (Epistola tua, June 17, 1885)
Columba sets up opposition between one Pontiff and another by claiming that the latter Pontiffs teach doctrines opposed to the teaching of the Popes in a former age. And so he “holds to the past” and suspends submission and obedience by appealing to a future “Pope who is better informed” and who will one day justify Columba’s non-servium by condemning the apostate Popes. And if it turns out that this never happens (I mean, there is no definite time period – could be centuries) and the Pope one refuses submission to is a true Pope, who cares – no crime, no foul.

Furthermore, Auctorem fidei," Aug. 28, 1794, infallibly condemned, in its Decree de Grat., sec. I, A. Errors about the Church 3. Obscuring of Truths in the Church:

1. The proposition, which asserts "that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ,"—heretical.
And, in his official Relatio of July 11, 1870 (The First Vatican Council), on the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Bishop Gasser stated the following:

This prerogative granted to St. Peter by the Lord Jesus Christ was supposed to pass to all Peter’s successors because the chair of Peter is the center of unity in the Church. But if the Pontiff should fall into error of faith, the Church would dissolve, deprived of the bond of unity. The bishop of Meaux speaks very well on this point, saying: ‘If this Roman See could fall and be no longer the See of truth but of error and pestilence, then the Catholic Church herself would not have the bond of a society and would be schismatic and scattered – which in fact is impossible.’” (Cf. Gasser, The Gift of Infallibility, Ignatius, 2008, pp. 24-25)
And columba says, not “impossible” at all; just look at the “general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ”; and just look at the “error and pestilence” in the “See of truth”; that in itself is all the “proof” we need. Alleged “proof” of what? He cannot say. But, we have the “prophesies” telling us about Rome losing the faith and becoming the seat of the anti-Christ.

The dogmatic truth of VCI, you see, is “conditional”; conditioned upon having a true Pope and a true Church, which only some future Pope may or may not determine – meaning the dogmatic prescriptions of VCI apply only when and if we have a true Pope, and a true Church over which he has full Primacy; but no one can ever know for certain if we have a true Pope and a true visible Church until a future Pope makes an infallible judgment for or against his predecessor(s), for or against the Second Vatican Council and for or against the entire “conciliar Church”.

I counted only two heretical notions therein.

columba wrote:
I've listed instances throughout this forum of present magisterial teachings that stand in contradiction to other magisterial teachings from the past.
What a joke. You have failed miserably in listing any such instances. The only thing you accomplished was to demonstrate your Protestant penchant for private interpretation as you arrogantly accuse the Church of contradicting herself in her official doctrines on matters of faith and salvation.

“[T]his heavenly doctrine was never left to the arbitrary judgment of private individuals … To refuse to the Church the primacy is most impious and above measure arrogant”. For columba, these are empty fallible words when not properly “conditioned” and “interpreted” by the self-styled true arbiter of truth and tradition.

columba wrote:
George Brenner wrote:
Columba, your question has already been answered by Jesus and the Holy Ghost on the very day that Our Catholic Church was founded nearly 2000 years ago. The Church and ALL of its official teachings that make up the deposit of Faith are guaranteed to be pure and free from error.
Precisely George. And that is why I hold firmly to those teachings.
And the game continues.

George, you may be unwittingly playing Columba's game by asking him why he pays attention to books and other non-official statements of the popes in their capacity as private doctors, leaving columba free to ignore his obligation to submit to the authority of the:

authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act." To this paragraph belong all those teachings on faith and morals - presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect. They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with these truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error.
See, Columba is under no obligation to submit to the authentic expressions of the ordinary Magisterium when this same Magisterium is on record as having presented “teachings that stand in contradiction to other magisterial teachings from the past”. In other words, such “authentic expressions” are not really “authentic”, as determined by the arbiters of truth and tradition.

It goes like this: We sift the magisterial true from the magisterial false; cling to the true as it was presented in a former age (as I hold it), and then wait for a future pope to condemn the whole rotten lot of illegal imposters; and won’t all of those millions of souls who “blindly” followed the imposter Popes be in for a big surprise. See, that’s just the way it is; so it is very important that we know the rules of the game.

For columba, the official declarations of the Church on required submission to the various levels of magisterial teachings are not worth the official magisterial paper they are printed on, for the “columba rule of thumb” applies to everything ecclesial; and the rule is simple:

Our Lord established an infallible and indefectible Church; and we know it is infallible and indefectible when I discern that it is acting as such (and when it not otherwise acting fallible and defectible). And, only when the Church exercises its Supreme ex cathedra teaching authority of defining can we “infallibly” know when the Church is infallible and indefectible. Everything else “magisterial” is left to private fallible discernment, and Catholics are under no obligation to submit to what may very well be a false magisterium. After all, the Pope may very well be “a ‘leader’ within a ‘church’ of his own making and should be ousted from the Church that calls itself Catholic.”

So, if it is “de fide” that the Holy See cannot be stained with error, we know that it is not the Holy See if we judge it to be stained with error, such as when “present magisterial teachings … stand in contradiction to other magisterial teachings from the past”. This, then, is the Holy See that only “calls itself Catholic”.

And when VCI declared that “Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world”, left unsaid is the qualification that says this is infallibly true “provided ‘this power’ being exercised by the Roman Pontiff is legitimate; and it is NOT legitimate when the visible universally accepted Roman Pontiff is not really the Roman Pontiff, which the faithful cannot ever really be sure of – so, proceed with caution, if you know what We mean”.

In other words, it is up to individual Catholics to determine if the Pope is really the Pope; and since they can never be “infallibly” certain if we have a true Pope, the next best thing is to simply withhold submission and wait for a Pope who is better informed to strike the apparent imposter down, if he is really an imposter. And, btw, only then can we know with infallible certitude whether the rite of Episcopal consecration and the Sacraments of the Church are actually valid (heresy).

However, we do not have to “wait” to appeal to a Pope who is better informed to determine if the doctrines of the Church are really of the Church (and are really true) when the magisterium teaches doctrines “that stand in contradiction to other magisterial teachings from the past”. We simply reject the ordinary teachings of the magisterium that we find “erroneous” and which stand in opposition to the dogmas of the faith, and we only have to wait for their formal condemnation by a future Pope, while we “hold to the past”, as we understand it.

Doubts? Don’t worry, a future pope may one day declare that all of theses heretical manifestations (and “popes”) stand condemned. He will restore the true faith and the true Church, so long as he does not forget who the true arbiters of faith and tradition really are; and he does not forget that he is subject to the same scrutiny, judgment, “doubt” and “conditional submission” as his “alleged” predecessors.

If the future Pope, if he is a true Pope (one can never know), behaves himself and acts in accord with one’s perceived idea of tradition, he’ll do just fine; and we can go back to reading the documents of VCI “as they are written” and remove all the “ifs” that were written in invisible ink, but are clearly understood as rendering its formal declarations “conditional” on the premise that the Roman Pontiff, is, you know, the Roman Pontiff, and not some heretical imposter who happened to have fooled the universal Church and “led millions of unquestioning Catholics astray” into “eternal ruin”.

Doubts? Let’s put VCI into “Columbian context”:

our Lord, established in the person of the Blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution, necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church, which, being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world. For none can doubt ... The disposition made by Incarnate Truth (dispositio veritatis) therefore remains, and Blessed Peter, abiding in the rock's strength which he received (in accepta fortitudine petrae perseverans), has not abandoned the direction of the Church.
So if one does in fact “doubt” that Peter abides in the rock's strength which he received, and “doubts” that he has NOT abandoned the direction of the Church”, especially when he allegedly “present[s] magisterial teachings that stand in contradiction to other magisterial teachings from the past”, and promulgates “doubtful” Sacraments, a “doubtful” Mass and “doubtful” documents of an ecumenical Council, then this is exactly how our Lord told us we can fallibly discern a true Pope from a false one (Peter, the apostate wolf in the Shepard’s clothing who seeks to destroy the Church); though, sitting on our fence, we’ll have to wait for a future pope to make this declaration “official”, and until then, we should remember VCI pertains only to legitimate Pope’s -- and not to pretend Popes who only appear to be true Popes who are recognized by the universal Church as Christ’s true Vicars.

So, dogmatic words such as the following are all “conditioned” upon the unknowable fact that Peter is really Peter, and not some imposter:

“the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Church; by the same institution, necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church”. Yes, but not necessarily with the visible institution we might mistake for the one true Church of Christ; and, where the “true Church” is – is anyone guess, though we know it must be out there somewhere, like in Columba’s or Foot’s house; though Columba cannot seem to locate the true Pope, and Foot says he is has been AWOL for some 54 years. Where Columba and Foot are, there is the true “remnant” Church; just ask them.

“will stand firm to the end of the world; none can doubt; cannot fail of its effect”. True, but the false visible Church of Christ will not stand firm to the end of the world, and we can certainly doubt that this same visible structure cannot fail in its effect, for it may be an imposter Church. Columba’s and Foot’s visible houses, however, will remain for ever, so long as there is a faithful remnant of believers in communion with one of these homes.

“To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church”. Well, this “full power … in blessed Peter” is conditioned upon: 1) Peter ruling and governing within the prescribed limits determined by the true arbiters of faith and tradition (aka, Columba); 2) Actually promulgating a valid Liturgy, valid Sacraments and valid laws and disciplines; and 3), All bets are of if he is not really “blessed Peter”, which we cannot know with “infallible” certainty until our appeal to a future Pope bears infallible fruit.

“perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church”. Sure, but “perpetual successors” means whenever a true pope actually sits in the Chair of Peter; and we can never be certain that we have a true perpetual successor; so “perpetual” and “visible” actually mean “theoretically speaking”.

So if a some future Pope were to “judge” all of his predecessors (back to and including Pope Leo XIII) as being apostate anti-popes, for example, he would be the perpetual successor to the last valid Pope, Pope Pius IX, with an interregnum lasting from 1878 until the last of the validly ordained Bishops died off and who knows how many generations of Catholics elapse without valid apostolic (Episcopal) succession, a valid hierarchy, valid Sacraments and a valid visible Church.

According to columba, this is the visible, infallible and indefectible Church established by our Lord. He’ll then argue that a vacant See going back to Pope Pius IX is “unrealistic” (despite the fact there are certain sede’s who hold Leo XIII as an “anti-pope”), as if going back to Pope Pius XII is more “realistic”.

“it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church”. True, but only when the Roman Church does not contradict the teachings of previous magisteriums, and/or only when the Roman Church does not promulgate doubtful Sacraments, a doubtful Mass or a doubtful Ecumenical Council.

So, one does NOT have to be in agreement with the visible Roman Church when it may not actually be the Roman Church; which, of course, only a future Pope can determine “infallibly”. I hope forum members are getting the hang of this, for this is how the Columba game is played.

“whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church.” Of course, provided he is the true Pope; though we cannot know with any infallible certainty that he is the true pope. And without “infallible” certainty, it’s all a “conditional” crap-shoot, just as our Lord intended it.

“So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received”. Well, if he appears to have abandoned that guidance of the Church which he once received, he may not be the true Pope, though we cannot know this with infallible certitude, so we simply “hold to the past” and wait for a future Pope to condemn him, or not. Do I repeat myself?

“our lord Jesus Christ … established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time”. OK, OK; this is getting repetitious. All of this is “conditional”, and “forever” is relative.

See, if you haven’t caught on by now, the dogmatic prescriptions of VCI are absolutely and infallibly true, provided the Roman Pontiff is actually the Roman Pontiff, and provided the visible Church of Christ is actually the one true Church of Christ, neither of which can be “infallibly” determined.

Let that sink in. If anyone has any cause to "doubt", for any reason whatsoever, the legitimacy of the visible Roman Pontiff (who is recognized by the universal Church as Christ's true Vicar), the dogmatic pronouncements of VCI can all be set aside until it is "infallibly" certain that we have a true Pope, which we may never know for sure.

Please let that heresy sink in.

So we sift everything the “Pope” says and does, and throw stones from the sidelines when he allegedly deviates from the truth (as the arbiters of truth and tradition determine them), and wait for a future Pope to condemn him as an anti-pope, and while he is at it, to condemn VCII and the entire conciliar Church, and all of the other recent “anti-popes”. Or, maybe not.

Honest, that’s what VCI infallibly and dogmatically declared, and that is precisely how our Lord wanted it. Haven’t you read the “prophesies”?

columba wrote
George Brenner wrote:
Are you really saying that you even remotely expect some future Pope is going to give thumbs up or thumbs down on the authenticity of five or more recent Popes?
If he (a future Pope) doesn't have the authority to decide such matters, who does? This is exactly where one would expect to receive an authoritative judgment concerning the legitimacy of a council or that of any prior pope.
The “authenticity” of these popes has already been determined, and thus, there is no one, not even another pope, who can strip these popes of their authentic Primacy as Christ’s true Vicars and successors to Peter, for no one can judge the Pope but God alone (de fide).

We are not speaking about legitimate “doubts” over valid elections where it becomes immediately apparent that the election may have been defective, or the Pope did not accept the office. Neither are we talking about multiple claimants to the papacy, or of a false pope who usurps the throne when the true Pope is in exile. Never; never in the history of the Church has a usurper to the Papacy been universally accepted as Christ’s true Vicar.

“Immunity of the Roman Pontiff. ‘The First See is judged by no one.’ (Canon 1556 - [1917 Code]). This concerns the Apostolic See or the Roman Pontiff who by the divine law itself enjoys full and absolute immunity.” (Cappello, Summa Juris Canonici 3:19.)

In justifying lawful resistance by kings and councils, St. Bellarmine wrote of the Pope:

“It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior.” (De Romano Pontifice. II.29) As Vatican I makes clear, this also applies to future popes, for no one pope is “superior” to another.

Popes can "judge" the reformable laws and acts of their predecessors and can amend and abrogate as they see fit; but they do not have the power to legally “judge” the fitness of their predecessors by stripping them of their title and office after they were validly elected and were recognized by the Church as true successors to St. Peter.

Look up the name of Pope Formosus, and you’ll see that he is listed in the roll call of valid Popes, notwithstanding the politically motivated sham show-trial of Pope Stephen VII (or VI), and Pope Sergius III who collaborated with him to render “null” the papacy of Formosus. A “judgment” against the divine law is null and void upon delivery - even when it first appears it is not.

In point of fact, the entire viability of the Catholic Church of England hinges on a valid Pope Formosus - for without him Episcopal succession falls apart! From “THE EPISCOPAL SUCCESSION OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/success.htm):

[…]I believe, possible to show that the succession which the Church of England has inherited is identical with that which was carefully preserved in the Holy See of Rome from Apostolic times and which derives, according to some authorities, from Ss. Peter and Paul, or, according to others, from St. Peter alone. This is the subject of the first document below.The second document gives the main unbroken list of consecrations from Pope Formosus in 864 to George Carey in 1987, a succession which is perpetuated today every time His Grace consecrates a new bishop. It should be noted that, for the purposes of extending the list as far back as possible, I have assumed that a Bishop inherits the lines of succession of all those who consecrate him, and not just that of his principal consecrator, and have listed such consecrations when the line through the principal consecrator is not known...
Sorry if the link cannot be accessed; I found this some time ago when I posted on “Fisheaters” (not for very long).
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  George Brenner on Wed May 02, 2012 6:44 pm

MRyan said: “our lord Jesus Christ … established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time”.


Thank you very much, Mike as always for the extensive post. All doubting Thomas's would do well to print a copy and refer to this as often as needed. This certainly is not for the weak of soul. The sin of pride can lead one to destroy truth and justify their position with an increasing magnitude of falsehoods in order to stay on their course of spiritual chaos and self imposed uncertainty.

The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is on a continuous journey through the ages. The Church has not been on some hiatus or sabbatical leave for the last half century. This is 'our time' in this continuous journey and we must live in the present with love, support and loyalty to our Holy Father. It is much better if we do this freely out of love rather than duty.

I was trying to draw out of Columba , his top five or so reasons why so many Popes are suspect to him. Maybe by doing this the light will go off as to the impossibility of such a position. I mean does Columba think that Pope John XXIII had a premeditated plan to call VII and destroy the church and all the Popes after him were part of this conspiracy.

Furthermore does the following quote sound like a Vicar of Christ who is not concerned and currently addressing issues of grave concern. The more that I post the more impatient I become with those who attack or undermine Our Pope under the pretense of searching for understanding in being a good Catholic.


Quoted May 1, 2012 from Fatima Center
The Church in Europe is threatened with schism. More than 400 priests and deacons in Austria have issued a worldwide “Call To Disobedience.” They are being supported by similar movements, including We Are Church, throughout Europe, Australia and in the Americas.

The situation is so dire that Pope Benedict XVI used his Holy Thursday homily to address it directly. Referring to the dissident clergy in Austria, the Holy Father asked, “Is disobedience the way to renewal?”


Columba would you say to this quote that the Holy father along with the other VII Popes caused this and/or the Pope is throwing out a bone to the conservatives as I think you will or would you say that our Pope is our Pope and he suffers much and we support him as He battles against this disobedience? I think that I know your answer. Back in your time machine.
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Jehanne on Wed May 02, 2012 7:28 pm

Mike,

Awhile back Columba posted this:

“Most exegetes [Scripture scholars] take the view that Luke is exaggerating here in his apologetic zeal, that a statement of this kind seems to draw Jesus back to the empirical physicality that had been transcended by the Resurrection. Thus Luke ends up contradicting his own narrative, in which Jesus appears suddenly in the midst of the disciples in a physicality that is no longer subject to the laws of space and time.” (Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, page 269)

I am glad, delighted, and ecstatic to know that Pope Benedict believes none of what he just stated; rather, I am overjoyed to know that the Holy Father believes St. Luke's Gospel account to be absolutely historical and without error of any kind and that he is in complete and total agreement with each and every one of his predecessors on this dogma of our Catholic Faith.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Thu May 03, 2012 11:52 am

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Awhile back Columba posted this:

“Most exegetes [Scripture scholars] take the view that Luke is exaggerating here in his apologetic zeal, that a statement of this kind seems to draw Jesus back to the empirical physicality that had been transcended by the Resurrection. Thus Luke ends up contradicting his own narrative, in which Jesus appears suddenly in the midst of the disciples in a physicality that is no longer subject to the laws of space and time.” (Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth, page 269)

I am glad, delighted, and ecstatic to know that Pope Benedict believes none of what he just stated; rather, I am overjoyed to know that the Holy Father believes St. Luke's Gospel account to be absolutely historical and without error of any kind and that he is in complete and total agreement with each and every one of his predecessors on this dogma of our Catholic Faith.
Well, Jehanne, I’m glad, delighted and ecstatic to know that you know that Pope Benedict does NOT “take the view” of “Most exegetes” who claim that with our Lord’s physical appearance “in the midst of the disciples”, that “Luke is exaggerating” the “empirical physicality” of our Lord’s Bodily Resurrection which, they say, “had been transcended by the Resurrection … that is no longer subject to the laws of space and time”.

Before I cite a recent address of Pope BXVI on the physical Resurrection of our Lord, we would do well to read from the Introduction of the subject “Jesus of Nazareth”, where the Pope sums up the views of theologians (like Raymond Brown) who openly question the core tenets of the Christian faith, specifically the Virgin Birth and Resurrection:

One thing is clear to me: in two hundred years of exegetical work, historical-critical exegesis has already yielded its essential fruit. If scholarly exegesis is not to exhaust itself in constantly new hypotheses, becoming theologically irrelevant, it must take a methodological step forward and see itself once again as a theological discipline, without abandoning its historical character. It must learn that the positivistic hermeneutic on which it has been based does not constitute the only valid and definitively evolved rational approach; rather, it constitutes a specific and historically conditioned form of rationality that is both open to correction and completion and in need of it.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger also made this devastating critique in 1984:

The link between Bible and Church has been broken. Historico-critical interpretation of Scripture has made of it an entity independent of the Church: The Bible is read not starting from the Church and in company with the Church, but starting from the latest method claiming to be "scientific." Only thus it is asserted, can the Bible be read correctly . . .

Thus the final word on the Word of God no longer belongs to the lawful pastors, to the magisterium, but to the expert, to the professor, to everchangeable hypotheses. We must begin to see the limits of an exegesis which really is itself a reading conditioned by philosophical prejudices, by ideological pre-understandings, and which does nothing but substitute one philosophy for another. (Msgr. George A. Kelly, Inside My Father's House {New York: Doubleday, 1989}, p.291)
And, in his review “Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth Part II, Jesus’ Resurrection From The Dead”, the author writes:

In this chapter, two strands, already partially mentioned, are identified: a confessional tradition, based on creedal statements like the one mentioned previously, as well as the narrative tradition. The Pope makes note of the fact that the narrative tradition has all the marks of eyewitness testimony dispersed throughout several regions of Palestine. He also notes that the appearance of women in the narrative tradition would be very bizarre if it were not an eyewitness tradition, since not only would larger society of the time in Palestine not admit women as witnesses, but also the confessional tradition seems to omit them because of that very reason.

The Pope begins to close this chapter with a close look at the ‘meal stories’ of Christ with his disciples, particularly the one on the Sea of Galilee. This is because it establishes both the true physicality yet spiritual mystery of the Lord’s risen life. Also, these meals constantly hearken back to both the Last Supper, and point toward the ‘table fellowship’ which we shall always have with Christ in the Liturgy. (http://souloftheology.com/2011/12/pope-benedict-xvi-jesus-of-nazareth-part-ii-jesus-resurrection-from-the-dead/)
Here are the words of Pope Benedict XVI, from his General Audience, Saint Peter's Square, Wednesday, 11 April 2012:

[…] With Jesus’ arrival the disciple’s situation of anguish changes radically. He enters through closed doors, he stands in their midst and gives them the peace that reassures: “Peace to you” (Jn 20:19b). It is a common greeting but it now acquires new significance because it brings about an inner change; it is the Easter greeting that enables the disciples to overcome all fear. The peace that Jesus brings is the gift of salvation that he had promised in his farewell discourses: “peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid” (Jn 14:27).

On this day of the Resurrection he gives it in fullness and for the community it becomes a source of joy, the certainty of victory, and security in relying on God. “Let not your hearts be troubled”, (Jn 14:1), do not be afraid, he also says to us.

After this greeting, Jesus shows the disciples the wounds in his hands and in his side (cf. Jn 20:20), signs of what has occurred and will never be cancelled: his glorious humanity remains “wounded”. The purpose of this act is to confirm the new reality of the Resurrection: Christ, now among his own, is a real person, the same Jesus who three days earlier was nailed to the cross. And it is in this way that in the dazzling light of Easter, in the encounter with the Risen One, the disciples perceive the salvific meaning of his passion and his death. Then sorrow and fear turn into full joy. The sorrow and the wounds themselves become a source of joy. (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2012/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20120411_en.html)
In other words, Jehanne, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope St. Pius X stand with one magisterial voice when the latter condemned the following false opinions in his Motu Proprio Lamentabili:

The resurrection of the Savior is not properly a fact of the historical order, but a fact of the purely supernatural order, neither demonstrated nor demonstrable, and which the Christian conscience gradually derived from other sources. (no. 36) ... Faith in the resurrection of Christ was from the beginning not so much of the fact of the resurrection itself, as of the immortal life of Christ with God. (no. 37)
Believe it, and do not believe the rad-trads who attempt to take the words of Benedict XVI out of context (and who are forever searching for and fabricating heresies with which to justify their schism).

Having confirmed the truth of our Lord's Bodily Resurrection, it also true to say that our Lord's "physicality ... is no longer subject to the laws of space and time"; which is why Pope Benedict XVI could say in the same book Jesus of Nazareth, and without any contradiction:

Essential, then, is the fact that Jesus’ Resurrection was not just about some deceased individual coming back to life at a certain point, but that an ontological leap occurred, one that touches being as such, opening up a dimension that affects us all, creating for all of us a new space of life, a new space of being in union with God.' (p. 274)

Therefore,

In this sense, it follows that the Resurrection is not the same kind of historical event as the birth or crucifixion of Jesus. It is something new, a new type of event (p.275).

And it certainly is.

Finally, read carefully this excerpt from “The Ratzinger Report, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger with Vittorio Messori, translated by Salvator Attanasio and Graham Harrison, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1985, 71-72, 73-76”:

. . . a church without a credible biblical foundation is only a chance historical product, one organization among others, and the humanly constructed framework of which we spoke. But the Bible without the Church is also no longer the powerfully effective Word of God, but an assemblage of various historical sources, a collection of heterogeneous books from which one tries to draw, from the perspective of the present moment, whatever one considers useful. An exegesis in which the Bible no longer lives and is understood within the living organism of the Church becomes archaeology: the dead bury their dead. In any case, the last word about the Word of God as Word of God does not in this conception belong to the legitimate pastors, the Magisterium, but to the expert, the professor with his ever-provisional results always subject to revisions . . .

. . . Scripture has again become a closed book. It has become the object of experts. The layman, but also the specialist in theology who is not an exegete, can no longer hazard to talk about it. It seems to have almost been withdrawn from the reading and the reflection of the believer, for what would result from this would be dismissed as "dilettantish'. The science of the specialists has erected a fence around the garden of Scripture to which the nonexpert now no longer has entry . . . . .

Every Catholic must have the courage to believe that his faith (in communion with that of the Church) surpasses every 'new magisterium' of the experts, of the intellectuals . . . The rule of faith, yesterday as today, is not based on the discoveries (be they true or hypothetical) of biblical sources and layers but on the Bible just as it is, as it has been read in the Church since the time of the Fathers until now. It is precisely the fidelity to this reading of the Bible that has given us the saints, who were often uneducated and, at any rate, frequently knew nothing about exegetical contexts. Yet they were the ones who understood it best.

Amen to that.

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Thu May 03, 2012 1:55 pm

As I often say, context is everything; and in this case a little context can go a long way in understanding the mind of the Pope who gave this televised interview response to a question "on the theme of Resurrection" (http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/EN1/Articolo.asp?c=480959):

Q. The next question is also on the theme of Resurrection and comes from Italy. "Your Holiness, when the women reach the tomb on the Sunday after Jesus' death, they do not recognize their Master but confuse him with another. It also happens to the apostles: Jesus shows them his wounds, breaks bread, in order to be recognized, precisely by his actions. He has a true body, made of flesh, but it is also glorified. What does it mean that His risen body didn't have the same characteristics as before? What, exactly, does a glorified body mean? Will the Resurrection also be like that for us?"

A. Naturally, we cannot define the glorified body because it is beyond our experience. We can only note the signs that Jesus has given us to understand, at least a little, in which direction we should seek this reality. The first sign: the tomb is empty. That is, Jesus dead not leave his body behind to corruption. This shows us that even matter is destined for eternity, that it is truly resurrected, that it does not remain something lost. But he then assumed this matter in a new condition of life. This is the second point: Jesus no longer dies, that is, He is beyond the laws of biology and physics because He endured this one death. Therefore there is a new condition, a different one, that we do not know but which is shown in the fact of Jesus and which is a great promise for all of us: that there is a new world, a new life, toward which we are on a journey. Being in this condition, Jesus had the possibility of letting himself be felt, of offering his hand to his followers, of eating with them, but still of being beyond the conditions of biological life as we live it. We know that, on the one hand, He is a real man, not a ghost, that he lives a real life, but a new life that is no longer submitted to the death that is our great promise. It is important to understand this, at least as much as we can, for the Eucharist. In the Eucharist, the Lord gives us His glorified body, not flesh to eat in a biological sense. He gives us Himself, this newness that He is in our humanity, in our being as person, and it touches us within with His being so that we might let ourselves be penetrated by His presence, transformed in His presence. It is an important point because we are thus already in contact with this new life, this new type of life, since He has entered into me and I have gone out of myself and am extended toward a new dimension of life. I think that this aspect of the promise, of the reality that He gives Himself to me and pulls me out of myself, toward on high, is the most important point. It is not about noting things that we cannot understand but of being on a journey to the newness that always begins again anew in the Eucharist.
Returning to Jesus of Nazareth, it becomes clear that Pope Benedict XVI does not contradict the traditional understanding of the resurrection of the body.

As Pope Benedict states (on page 241), "the Christian Faith stands or falls with the truth of the testimony that Christ is risen from the dead. If this were taken away, it would still be possible to piece together from the Christian tradition a series of interesting ideas about God and men, about man's being and his obligations, a kind if religious world view: but the Christian faith would be dead."

When Pope Benedict speaks of an "evolutionary leap", he admits this analogy "is easily misunderstood. (p. 244)" And, as I read on another blog:

Benedict argues that Christ's resurrection is totally different from anything that has ever happened before, especially when one considers that Jesus had already raised Lazareth from the dead. In particular Benedict stresses that the evangelists stress that the risen Christ was fully corporeal, but also seemingly no longer constrained by the laws of nature. So Thomas could feel Christ's wound, but at the same time Jesus can walk through walls. Benedict stresses there is something very different about the way the evangelists describe the risen Christ compared to anything that had come before it. Christ is clearly stated not to be a ghost, but nor is he like Lazereth who also came back from the dead.

As Benedict states "the paradox was indescribable. He was quite different, no mere resuscitated corpse, but one living anew and forever in the power of God. And yet at the same time, while no longer belonging to our world, he was truly present there, he himself. It was an utterly unique experience which burst open the normal boundaries of experience and yet for the disciples was quite beyond doubt. This explains the unique character of the Resurrection accounts: they speak of something paradoxical, of something that surpasses all experience and yet is utterly real and present," (p. 246).

Furthermore, "theological speculation arguing that Jesus' decomposition and Resurrection could be mutually compatible belong to modern thinking and stand in clear contradiction to the biblical vision." (p. 257).
I realize that this will not stop the rad-trads and sede's from misrepresenting what Pope Benedict XVI is actually saying, for they clearly have an agenda, and that is to make Pope Benedict XVI into a caricature of their own creation, that of the "modernist" who "can sound like an orthodox Catholic one minute, while sounding like a complete rationalist the next. He sometimes retains the standard terms of Catholic dogmatic formulations but guts them of their real sense". (Fr. Cekada)

He continues:

So, a modernist tries to find away around the notion of Christ's soul returning to His body and revivifying His corpse, and substitutes instead an "evolutionary leap" and "experience." What rationalist would deny evolution or experience? But in the process the modernist gives the dogma another sense, a meaning alien to the one the Church has always given the dogma.
Perhaps Fr. Cekada should be placed under suspicion for heresy, for it seems that he is arguing that it is the same non-glorified "corpse" of our Lord (subject to death, like Lazarus), that rose from the dead, rather than the glorified corpus of the Risen Lord ("no mere resuscitated corpse, but one living anew and forever in the power of God.")

See how easy it is to play this game?

But it is precisely such sede tripe that is music to Columba's twitching ears.

And what say you, Jehanne?
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Jehanne on Thu May 03, 2012 3:09 pm

I am glad that the Holy Father has, with the Tradition of the Church, affirmed the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, the Gospel accounts in particular. A neat image of the Blessed Mother:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-17lbDDjPuks/T58V8ARB8GI/AAAAAAAAAoM/IwkbMW2eX40/s1600/coronation+of+mary.jpg
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 10 of 10 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum