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


Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  Jehanne on Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:42 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:If the Pope recognizes the intrinsic right of a Catholic prince to execute the law on his land, including, the right to put heretics to death, if, in the judgment of the Church and himself, such individuals constitute a thread to the public order and/or common good of his subjects, then there is absolutely no rupture with Tradition.

As for the idea of the "divine right" of Catholic princes, the arguments for that were set forth in the Wikipedia article which I posted:
Don’t bother, for none of your references even remotely suggest that there exists some alleged “intrinsic right of a Catholic prince … to put heretics to death, if, in the judgment of the Church and himself, such individuals constitute a thread to the public order and/or common good of his subjects, then there is absolutely no rupture with Tradition.”

Palpable nonsense, there is no such "intrinsic right of a Catholic prince", and never has been.

So, are you saying that Catholic princes sinned in putting heretics to death? Or, that the Church, through her Inquisitions, sinned in trying them for heresy? Did Catholic princes have an intrinsic right/i] to put murderers and/or rapists to death? Traitors? Those guilty of fraud? If so, why not heretics, who would "murder the soul"?

Condemned error: 33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit. ([i]Exsurge Domine)

Explain this.

P.S. I did not read any of the other stuff which you posted; it's just too long, so I am going to focus on the above, which speaks to the central issue at hand. If it is not intrinsically evil to punish heretics with death at the stake, then what, exactly, is wrong about a legitimate Catholic government punishing such individuals who are, in fact, guilty of that sin and crime?
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: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  MRyan on Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:25 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:If the Pope recognizes the intrinsic right of a Catholic prince to execute the law on his land, including, the right to put heretics to death, if, in the judgment of the Church and himself, such individuals constitute a thread to the public order and/or common good of his subjects, then there is absolutely no rupture with Tradition.

As for the idea of the "divine right" of Catholic princes, the arguments for that were set forth in the Wikipedia article which I posted:
Don’t bother, for none of your references even remotely suggest that there exists some alleged “intrinsic right" of a Catholic prince … to put heretics to death. ...”

Palpable nonsense, there is no such "intrinsic right of a Catholic prince", and never has been.
So, are you saying that Catholic princes sinned in putting heretics to death?

No, I am not saying that, but they may have.

Jehanne wrote:Or, that the Church, through her Inquisitions, sinned in trying them for heresy?
No, I am not saying that, but some members of the hierarchy may have.

Jehanne wrote:Did Catholic princes have an intrinsic right to put murderers and/or rapists to death? Traitors? Those guilty of fraud? If so, why not heretics, who would "murder the soul"?
As legitimate sovereigns (temporal rulers), they had the right to inflict capital punishment, but they had no “intrinsic right” to execute anyone for spiritual sins against the faith (e.g., heresy). Truth is stronger than any heresy.

Jehanne wrote:
Condemned error: 33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit. (Exsurge Domine)

Explain this.
Again? Actually, Fr. Harrison shed some light on this when he told you that the precise reason the proposition "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit" is condemned is not clear because it is one of many propositions condemned generally: It could be either "heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds", etc. Thus, it is left to interpretation.

Now, if the condemned proposition were “heretical”, it would make it “contradictory to an article of faith." We can rule it out as heretical because the law has changed. Condemned propositions that are not heretical but are otherwise problematic "are to be received with the external respect and implicit obedience due to disciplinary measures, and moreover, with that degree of internal assent which is justified by circumstances."

As such, circumstances having changed, the Church teaches today (as a result of a development in moral theology) “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit”, for the “will of the Spirit” is nothing less than the will of the Church (the will of the Pope).

While it may not have been a sin in ages past to put a heretic to death, it would be today, for it would be “against the will of the Spirit” (there cannot be conflicting wills in the guidance of the universal Church - they are one and the same).

For example, under the Law of Moses, divorce was not a sin (not a culpable sin); but, after the promulgation of the Gospel, it was/is a sin, and our Lord taught why this is so, and why it was allowed for this "stiff-necked" people; for, from the very beginning it was wrong. Distinctions -- very important.

Jehanne wrote:
P.S. I did not read any of the other stuff which you posted; it's just too long, so I am going to focus on the above, which speaks to the central issue at hand. If it is not intrinsically evil to punish heretics with death at the stake, then what, exactly, is wrong about a legitimate Catholic government punishing such individuals who are, in fact, guilty of that sin and crime?
I did not post the rather lengthy articles for your benefit alone; there might be a few folks out there who may find them of interest. But you should still read them when you can find the time.

The “central issue at hand" is your issue, and it is a dead issue, for there is NO “intrinsic right” of “Catholic princes” to execute heretics, and it is NOT “intrinsically evil to punish heretics with death”, though today it would most certainly be immoral. That you cannot recognize this distinction is your problem, not mine.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  Jehanne on Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:56 pm

MRyan wrote:As legitimate sovereigns (temporal rulers), they had the right to inflict capital punishment, but they had no “intrinsic right” to execute anyone for spiritual sins against the faith (e.g., heresy). Truth is stronger than any heresy.

Well, that's your interpretation of Dignitatis humanae, and if that is really the teaching of DF, then, I agree with the SSPX/SSPV/CMRI, etc., that Vatican II promulgated error. However, the Council never said that, at least not "explicitly". (It can, I admit, be an implicit reading of the text.) So, what you saying is that when the Council of Constance, the 16th ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, condemned Jon Hus to be burned alive at the stake, that Council may have sinned or at least erred:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Constance

In particular, you believe the following from that Council, to be in error:

[Sentence against John Hus]

The most holy general council of Constance, divinely assembled and representing the catholic church, for an everlasting record. Since a bad tree is wont to bear bad fruit, as truth itself testifies, so it is that John Wyclif, of cursed memory, by his deadly teaching, like a poisonous root, has brought forth many noxious sons, not in Christ Jesus through the gospel, as once the holy fathers brought forth faithful sons, but rather contrary to the saving faith of Christ, and he has left these sons as successors to his perverse teaching. This holy synod of Constance is compelled to act against these men as against spurious and illegitimate sons, and to cut away their errors from the Lord's field as if they were harmful briars, by means of vigilant care and the knife of ecclesiastical authority, lest they spread as a cancer to destroy others. Although, therefore, it was decreed at the sacred general council recently held at Rome that the teaching of John Wyclif, of cursed memory, should be condemned and the books of his containing this teaching should be burnt as heretical; although his teaching was in fact condemned and his books burnt as containing false and dangerous doctrine; and although a decree of this kind was approved by the authority of this present sacred council ; nevertheless a certain John Hus, here present in person at this sacred council, who is a disciple not of Christ but rather of the heresiarch John Wyclif, boldly and rashly contravening the condemnation and the decree after their enactment, has taught, asserted and preached many errors and heresies of John Wyclif which have been condemned both by God's church and by other reverend fathers in Christ, lord archbishops and bishops of various kingdoms, and masters in theology at many places of study. He has done this especially by publicly resisting in the schools and in sermons, together with his accomplices, the condemnation in scholastic form of the said articles of John Wyclif which has been made many times at the university of Prague, and he has declared the said John Wyclif to be a catholic man and an evangelical doctor, thus supporting his teaching, before a multitude of clergy and people. He has asserted and published certain articles listed below and many others, which are condemned and which are, as is well known, contained in the books and pamphlets of the said John Hus. Full information has been obtained about the aforesaid matters, and there has been careful deliberation by the most reverend fathers in Christ, lord cardinals of the holy Roman church, patriarchs archbishops, bishops and other prelates and doctors of holy scripture and of both laws, in large numbers. This most holy synod of Constance therefore declares and defines that the articles listed below, which have been found on examination, by many masters in sacred scripture, to be contained in his books and pamphlets written in his own hand, and which the same John Hus at a public hearing, before the fathers and prelates of this sacred council, has confessed to be contained in his books and pamphlets, are not catholic and should not be taught to be such but rather many of them are erroneous, others scandalous, others offensive to the ears of the devout, many of them are rash and seditious, and some of them are notoriously heretical and have long ago been rejected and condemned by holy fathers and by general councils, and it strictly forbids them to be preached, taught or in any way approved. Moreover, since the articles listed below are explicitly contained in his books or treatises, namely in the book entitled De ecclesia and in his other pamphlets, this most holy synod therefore reproves and condemns the aforesaid books and his teaching, as well as the other treatises and pamphlets written by him in Latin or in Czech, or translated by one or more other persons into any other language, and it decrees and determines that they should be publicly and solemnly burnt in the presence of the clergy and people in the city of Constance and elsewhere. On account of the above, moreover, all his teaching is and shall be deservedly suspect regarding the faith and is to be avoided by all of Christ's faithful. In order that this pernicious teaching may be eliminated from the midst of the church, this holy synod also orders that local ordinaries make careful inquiry about treatises and pamphlets of this kind, using the church's censures and even if necessary the punishment due for supporting heresy, and that they be publicly burnt when they have been found. This same holy synod decrees that local ordinaries and inquisitors of heresy are to proceed against any who violate or defy this sentence and decree as if they were persons suspected of heresy.

[Sentence of degradation against J. Hus]

Moreover, the acts and deliberations of the inquiry into heresy against the aforesaid John Hus have been examined. There was first a faithful and full account made by the commissioners deputed for the case and by other masters of theology and doctors of both laws, concerning the acts and deliberations and the depositions of very many trustworthy witnesses. These depositions were openly and publicly read out to the said John Hus before the fathers and prelates of this sacred council. It is very clearly established from the depositions of these witnesses that the said John has taught many evil, scandalous and seditious things, and dangerous heresies, and has publicly preached them during many years. This most holy synod of Constance, invoking Christ's name and having God alone before its eyes, therefore pronounces, decrees and defines by this definitive sentence, which is here written down, that the said John Hus was and is a true and manifest heretic and has taught and publicly preached, to the great offence of the divine Majesty, to the scandal of the universal church and to the detriment of the catholic faith, errors and heresies that have long ago been condemned by God's church and many things that are scandalous, offensive to the ears of the devout, rash and seditious, and that he has even despised the keys of the church and ecclesiastical censures. He has persisted in these things for many years with a hardened heart. He has greatly scandalised Christ's faithful by his obstinacy since, bypassing the church's intermediaries, he has made appeal directly to our lord Jesus Christ, as to the supreme judge, in which he has introduced many false, harmful and scandalous things to the contempt of the apostolic see, ecclesiastical censures and the keys. This holy synod therefore pronounces the said John Hus, on account of the aforesaid and many other matters, to have been a heretic and it judges him to be considered and condemned as a heretic, and it hereby condemns him. It rejects the said appeal of his as harmful and scandalous and offensive to the church's jurisdiction. It declares that the said John Hus seduced the christian people, especially in the kingdom of Bohemia, in his public sermons and in his writings; and that he was not a true preacher of Christ's gospel to the same christian people, according to the exposition of the holy doctors, but rather was a seducer. Since this most holy synod has learnt from what it has seen and heard, that the said John Hus is obstinate and incorrigible and as such does not desire to return to the bosom of holy mother the church, and is unwilling to abjure the heresies and errors which he has publicly defended and preached, this holy synod of Constance therefore declares and decrees that the same John Hus is to be deposed and degraded from the order of the priesthood and from the other orders held by him. It charges the reverend fathers in Christ, the archbishop of Milan and the bishops of Feltre Asti, Alessandria, Bangor and Lavour with duly carrying out the degradation in the presence of this most holy synod, in accordance with the procedure required by law.

[Sentence condemning J. Hus to the stake]

This holy synod of Constance, seeing that God's church has nothing more that it can do, relinquishes John Hus to the judgment of the secular authority and decrees that he is to be relinquished to the secular court.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum16.htm

But, my interpretation of the Council of Constance is just "my problem," right? You cannot help at all to understand my confusion, can you?

Did the Council of Constance, an ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, err in condemning Jon Hus to the stake? Did that Council promulgate error or sin in its actions???
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: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  MRyan on Sat Dec 22, 2012 5:24 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:As legitimate sovereigns (temporal rulers), they had the right to inflict capital punishment, but they had no “intrinsic right” to execute anyone for spiritual sins against the faith (e.g., heresy). Truth is stronger than any heresy.

Well, that's your interpretation of Dignitatis humanae, and if that is really the teaching of DF, then, I agree with the SSPX/SSPV/CMRI, etc., that Vatican II promulgated error. However, the Council never said that, at least not "explicitly". (It can, I admit, be an implicit reading of the text.)
No, that is the Church's interpretation of her own teaching. And that you should accuse her of "promulgating error" comes as no surprise at all.

Let's see you back up your assertion that "the SSPX/SSPV/CMRI, etc" hold that "legitimate sovereigns (temporal rulers)" or "Catholic princes", acting as the secular arm of the Church, had the “intrinsic right” to execute anyone for spiritual sins against the one true faith. Such an "intrinsic right" to act as the secular arm of the Church does not exist, though it was certainly lawful at the time.

I am not saying that you cannot back it up, I want to see such an "intrinsic right" in writing.

That such rights might be construed as "implicit" in a ruler's duties in promoting and protecting the common welfare is acknowledged, but it is by no means "intrinsic" to those same duties (as the secular arm of the Church), for those rights come directly from God.

Jehanne wrote:So, what you saying is that when the Council of Constance, the 16th ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, condemned Jon Hus to be burned alive at the stake, that Council may have sinned or at least erred:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Constance

In particular, you believe the following from that Council, to be in error:

[Sentence against John Hus]
You have a serious problem, Jehanne, for nowhere in this decree does "the 16th ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, condemn Jon Hus to be burned alive at the stake"; nowhere.

In fact, it asserts its rightful and just authority:

"to cut away their errors from the Lord's field as if they were harmful briars, by means of vigilant care and the knife of ecclesiastical authority, lest they spread as a cancer to destroy others. Although, therefore, it was decreed at the sacred general council recently held at Rome that the teaching of John Wyclif, of cursed memory, should be condemned and the books of his containing this teaching should be burnt as heretical; although his teaching was in fact condemned and his books burnt as containing false and dangerous doctrine;
And,

On account of the above, moreover, all his teaching is and shall be deservedly suspect regarding the faith and is to be avoided by all of Christ's faithful. In order that this pernicious teaching may be eliminated from the midst of the church, this holy synod also orders that local ordinaries make careful inquiry about treatises and pamphlets of this kind, using the church's censures and even if necessary the punishment due for supporting heresy, and that they be publicly burnt when they have been found. This same holy synod decrees that local ordinaries and inquisitors of heresy are to proceed against any who violate or defy this sentence and decree as if they were persons suspected of heresy.
Please show us, Jehanne, where "the 16th ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, condemned Jon Hus to be burned alive at the stake".

Ah, you say it can be found in the alleged "[Sentence condemning J. Hus to the stake]"? Jehanne, do you know why this "[Sentence...]" is in brackets? Because the author took the liberty to give this section a title of his own creation. While it is true that the Council fully expected the secular court to put him to death, it did NOT render the sentence.

The actual words of the declaration:

This holy synod of Constance, seeing that God's church has nothing more that it can do, relinquishes John Hus to the judgment of the secular authority and decrees that he is to be relinquished to the secular court.
Again, where does "the 16th ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, condemn Jon Hus to be burned alive at the stake"?

Jehanne wrote:But, my interpretation of the Council of Constance is just "my problem," right? You cannot help at all to understand my confusion, can you?
Actually, I've trying to help undo your confusion. Nothing seems to work. And no, its not just your problem, I'm sure there are a few others of the unenlightened who believe that there is some "intrinsic right" of secular rulers to act as the secular arm of the Church in executing heretics, and go so far as to place words into "the 16th ecumenical council" that do not exist, but are at least implied, which is understandable given the relationship of the Church with secular courts that existed during this period.

But, insofar as I understand your understanding of the social reign of Christ the King, I do understand your confusion. But you really should listen to the Church and to her theologians who explain that the doctrine of Christ the King does not necessarily extend to secular kings acting as the judicial/spiritual arm of the Church, especially with respect to capital or severe punishments.

Jehanne wrote:Did the Council of Constance, an ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, err in condemning Jon Hus to the stake? Did that Council promulgate error or sin in its actions???
No, it was an abuse of power; and it did not condemn him to the stake, not explicitly. But, it did so at least implicitly, with the punishment it fully expected, which it obviosuly thought was just. It is not my place to make judgements about prudential "errors" or personal sins, not when the laws permitted such "final" punishments.

However, as the Church teaches today, the courts had and still have every right to tell the Church to settle spiritual crimes against the faith herself -- when such punishments cause undue disruption to the common welfare (not to mention that today it is considered immoral).
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  Jehanne on Sat Dec 22, 2012 6:49 pm

Wow, I am glad that the Council of Constance was only guilty of an "abuse of power" and not something worse like "complicity in murder" for the execution of Jon Hus. But, let's consider this canon from the Fourth Lateran Council:

CANON 3

Text. We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises against the holy, orthodox and Catholic faith which we have above explained; condemning all heretics under whatever names they may be known, for while they have different faces they are nevertheless bound to each other by their tails, since in all of them vanity is a common element. Those condemned, being handed over to the secular rulers of their bailiffs, let them be abandoned, to be punished with due justice, clerics being first degraded from their orders. As to the property of the condemned, if they are laymen, let it be confiscated; if clerics, let it be applied to the churches from which they received revenues. But those who are only suspected, due consideration being given to the nature of the suspicion and the character of the person, unless they prove their innocence by a proper defense, let them be anathematized and avoided by all 1-intil they have made suitable satisfaction; but if they have been under excommunication for one year, then let them be condemned as heretics. Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath. But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler's vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action. The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land.


http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp

As for Exsurge Domine, I don't think that you are reading it correctly:

Condemned Error 33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm
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: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  columba on Sat Dec 22, 2012 9:04 pm

Jehanne,

You're harping back to a time when the Church took seriously such things as heresy and the necessity of a God-fearing State. We are enlightened now and can leave all that nonsense behind. Well, we can when we get done apologizing for the bad Church of the past.


The following article by Marian T. Horvat sums it up well.

My friend Jan was not convinced that the latest papal apology for the Inquisition was really so harmful to the Church.

“Even if the Inquisition was not as bad as historians have portrayed it, there were still some abuses. Doesn’t it show humility and honesty on the part of the Pope to ask pardon for the wrong things the Church may have done?” Jan argued. “Doesn’t it set a good example for us, since that’s what we teach our children to do – apologize when we do something wrong?”

Her comment unknowingly illustrates the exact point I would like to highlight. This apology, as well as the more than 100 others that John Paul II has made for the supposed wrongdoings of the Church, are presenting a new and false progressivist notion of what the Church is. The Church, in fact, does not “do wrong things,” as papal apologies induce the faithful to think.

The Church, as an institution, is pure and sinless, founded by Christ and preserved by God to be free of error, both in the past and in the present. It is only individual Church members, be they Popes, Bishops or the simple faithful, who sin.

This is the authentic teaching of the Church, Jan, as you and I learned it. But do your children or their friends realize this? Or is there some confusion in their minds caused by the constant papal apologies for the past “sins of the Church”? If you analyze these apologies carefully, you can see that most of them insert a short line, a footnote, or a parenthetical phrase attributing the fault to the members of the Church. For the scholars and theologians, therefore, the rule is maintained: no error of the Church but only of her members. However, it is the general line of the apology that normally remains in the minds of the faithful: the Church is sinful. In face of this contradiction, one cannot help but wonder: Is it the Vatican’s intention to cause this second impression?

At any rate, what sticks in the mind of so many Catholics, especially young ones schooled in “Vatican II catechism,” is that the Church made mistakes and even sinned in her past, so now the correct action for the Church is to repent and do penance. This would justify the continuous reform in customs and institutions we have seen since Vatican II. It explains why the Church would supposedly need new structures, because the old would be inherently flawed.

If we had a contaminated Church, which we do not, then we have a Church in need of evaluation and change, uncertain in her teaching. Yesterday she made a mistake. Today she corrects it and repents for her past. Tomorrow, well, who knows what tomorrow will bring as the Church evolves?

This notion of a sinning Church that the progressivists inculcate in the spirit of the naïve faithful, is affirmed in documents of Vatican II. Lumen gentium, for example, states the Church is “at the same time holy and always in need of being purified,” that she must always pursue “the path of penance and renewal.” (LG Cool.

It is not difficult to understand from this that the Church would need a continual reform, as interpreted by Karl Rahner and Yves Congar and so many other progressivist ecclesiastics. Such theologians, suspect for heresy before Vatican II, have suddenly become the experts who cannot be questioned, even though their bad theology did not change. They are the ones who need to make apologies for their past and repent. But they have not. Instead, they are demanding the Church do exactly that: make apologies for her past and repent.

When the Pope apologizes for the past sins of the Church, he does not appear at all like one being humble and honest. He is implicitly affirming a new conception of the Church, and also the Faith, one constantly reforming, changing, and evolving.

I hope this explains, Jan, why there is something profoundly wrong with the Pope’s apology for the Inquisition and for so many other past militant actions of the Holy Catholic Church.
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  MRyan on Sun Dec 23, 2012 11:50 am

Jehanne wrote:Wow, I am glad that the Council of Constance was only guilty of an "abuse of power" and not something worse like "complicity in murder" for the execution of Jon Hus.

Such mocking caricatures demonstrate only how little you understand of the topic.

Tell me, Jehanne, should your family have had the misfortune of being swept away by the Protestant “reform”, perhaps not understanding the full implications of a break they believed to be an authentic return to tradition by the purging of Roman “accretions” (such as the “divine right of kings”, rampant simony, the manifest abuse of indulgences, wanton clerical corruption, to include a string of corrupt popes, some with bastard children), and your father was tried, found guilty and burned at the stake in full view of all of your relative and friends, what do you think would be your opinion of the Church? Would you be just clamoring to return, now that you can see the gravity of your sins? And woe to the Catholic ruler who wasn’t quite on board with the wholesale “extermination” of heretics by showing a bit of mercy, he risked being excommunicated and deposed by the pope. What a wuss – kill ‘em all!

Ah, the good old days when men were men and heretics were burned at the stake. Get the marshmallows; we’ve going to show the Prots we mean business! Of course, the Protestants and other heretics totally misunderstood these actions for they were actually acts of mercy that provided the opportunity for repentance as the sinner was consumed in flames, just like the flames of hell. And look at all of the conversions soon after these bonfires, right? Just look at the “fruits”, doesn’t that justify these acts of mercy?

But let’s read the “letter to Jan” where any apology by the Church for the human failures of her sons in ages past is seen as a sign of weakness, and, even though the Church always qualifies her statements by mentioning the sins and human failings of her members, the impression may be left that it is the Church herself that is stained with sin, and really, isn’t that what the Church seems to want to suggest?

Better that the Church keep her mouth shut and apologize for nothing; besides, heretics deserve to be burned at the stake, and if we’ve gone all soft and don’t have the guts to depose rulers and execute heretics, shame on us. Of course, this "letter" is from the same folks who believe the Pope is a manifest heretic before God, Who is only waiting for the faithful to catch up and realize we have no Pope, so he can be properly deposed by his own apostasy. Yep.

Ah yes, the good old days when “the Church took seriously such things as heresy and the necessity of a God-fearing State”. Of course, this isn’t quite what our Lord and the Fathers had in mind, but what the heck, it sure was fun while it lasted.

Jehanne wrote:But, let's consider this canon from the Fourth Lateran Council:

CANON 3

Text. We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises against the holy, orthodox and Catholic faith which we have above explained; condemning all heretics under whatever names they may be known, for while they have different faces they are nevertheless bound to each other by their tails, since in all of them vanity is a common element. Those condemned, being handed over to the secular rulers of their bailiffs, let them be abandoned, to be punished with due justice, clerics being first degraded from their orders. As to the property of the condemned, if they are laymen, let it be confiscated; if clerics, let it be applied to the churches from which they received revenues. But those who are only suspected, due consideration being given to the nature of the suspicion and the character of the person, unless they prove their innocence by a proper defense, let them be anathematized and avoided by all 1-intil they have made suitable satisfaction; but if they have been under excommunication for one year, then let them be condemned as heretics. Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath. But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler's vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action. The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land.


http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp
And of course, Pope Pius IX, “declaring it to be a pernicious error, to represent the Infallibility as comprising in itself the right to dethrone sovereigns, and release their subjects from their oath of allegiance.”

“This right,”’ the Pope said, “has, indeed, been exercised by Popes in extreme cases, but the right has absolutely nothing in common with Papal Infallibility. It was a result of the Jus publicum then in force by the consent of Christian nations, who recognized in the Pope the supreme judge of Christendom, and constituted him judge over princes and peoples even in temporal matters. The present situation is quite different. Nothing but bad faith could confound things so different and ages so dissimilar; as if an infallible judgment delivered upon some revealed truth had any analogy with a prerogative which the Popes, solicited by the desire of the people, have had to exercise when the public weal demanded it! Such statements are nothing but a mere pretext to excite princes against the Church.”
The Church has long since corrected the “Jus publicum” and will never return to it, as necessary at the time she believed it to be, as circumstances dictated. Get over it. There is no reason to “apologize” for the “Jus publicum”, but only for certain human abuses and a mistaken Jus divino promoted by some.

Jehanne wrote:As for Exsurge Domine, I don't think that you are reading it correctly:

Condemned Error 33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.

With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth
.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm
No, Jehanne, I am reading it correctly. You cannot take “and against Catholic truth” as if it nullifies the fact that some errors “against Catholic truth” are not matters of heresy, but may extend only to being “scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds”, etc.

The “will of the Spirit” in this case may extend only to what is allowed under the law, and the prudential wisdom of the pontiff. Again, the example of divorce being permitted under the Law of Moses is a case in point. Adultery was not at that time “against the will of the Spirit”, but today - it is.

That's what Fr. Harrison was trying to tell you, even when elsewhere he tries to sell the idea that such formal condemnations are "ex cathedra" definitions of the Supreme papal magisterium. Of course, the fact that we can't seem to identify the defined or definitive article of faith or morals kind of puts a hole in that theory, don't you think? I'm pretty sure that's not what Bishop Gasser had in mind when he explained papal infallibility (it extends also to defined or definitive non-revealed secondary truths, as in dogmatic facts) to the assembled Fathers at VCI who were about to vote on the definition.




avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  MRyan on Sun Dec 23, 2012 11:59 am

MRyan wrote:Again, the example of divorce being permitted under the Law of Moses is a case in point. Adultery was not at that time “against the will of the Spirit”, but today - it is.

Oops, scratch "Adultery", replace with "Divorce". Embarassed
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  Jehanne on Sun Dec 23, 2012 1:03 pm

Mike,

Regardless of what you think of the various Catholic Inquisitions who sent some obstinate heretics to the stake for over 1,000 years, their "success rates" were actually quite high. As historians like to say, "facts are facts," and the fact is that most to nearly all heretics brought before the various Inquisitions were reconciled to the Catholic Church and went on to live normal lives in their Catholic societies. Even Jon Hus, whom you so love to defend, was, repeatedly, offered chances to recant his heretical views right up to the moment of his immolation, and after constant refusals, was subsequently burned alive at the stake. Seem cruel? Probably not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_at_the_stake

If the fire was large (for instance, when a number of prisoners were executed at the same time), death often came from carbon monoxide poisoning before flames actually caused harm to the body. If the fire was small, however, the convict would burn for some time until death from heatstroke, shock, the loss of blood and/or simply the thermal decomposition of vital body parts.

This is why Inquisitor Jean Brehal, who oversaw Saint Joan of Arc's ("Saint Jehanne la Pucelle") Trial of Rehabilitation said "said Jeanne suffocated in the flames..." Her execution was a peaceful one. And, yes, the pious belief was that the "flames of the fire", like the "fires of Purgatory" would help cleans an unrepentant soul, allowing it to pass into Purgatory, escaping eternal Hell, which, as Father Harrison acknowledges, is "far, far worse" than any punishment which can be meted out in this life.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

So, you see, even judicial torture has spiritual benefits. As the Church has always taught, "It's pay me or pay me later." You can do penance in this life or due it in the next, assuming, of course, that one escapes eternal Hell.

As for what our Lord said, let's review that again:

Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

If the above verse is not a clear affirmation of the death penalty for heretics, then, pray tell, what could our Lord have said any differently? "I am so sorry, my Lord, for having taken your Word so literally?" If there was a case of "invincible ignorance," then I must be in that class, the present Pope's (and his immediate predecessors) ambiguous statements notwithstanding.

However, in your case, all infants who perish before the Age of Reason go to Heaven, either with the assurance of having had sacramental Baptism or at least with the "certain hope" if they had died without it. This new theology allows you to say that Jon Hus, and people like him, are our "separated brethren", because Jon Hus, like so many Protestants, denies infant baptism. So, Jon Hus, and predecessor, John Wickliffe, did not cause any real harm to anyone even if they convinced large scores of parents not to baptize their newborn babies. No matter, all those babes are in Heaven anyway, for "Truth is stronger than heresy!" Human actions be damned!!

It seems that the only individuals destined for Hell are serial murders and/or rapists along with traditional Catholics, the latter for at least not having fulfilled their Sunday obligation for having attended SSPX Masses.
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: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  MRyan on Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:50 pm

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Regardless of what you think of the various Catholic Inquisitions who sent some obstinate heretics to the stake for over 1,000 years, their "success rates" were actually quite high.
Yes, burning at the stake had about a 100% success rate in accomplishing its intended objective, death.

Jehanne wrote: As historians like to say, "facts are facts," and the fact is that most to nearly all heretics brought before the various Inquisitions were reconciled to the Catholic Church and went on to live normal lives in their Catholic societies.
Why has this turned into some “debate” over the various Inquisitions, most of which were just, meaning relatively few were unjust. Stop with the logical fallacies and the straw-man arguments. I never once objected to Inquisitions, per se. However, this is nothing to be proud of:

The historian Hernando del Pulgar, contemporary of Ferdinand and Isabella, estimated that the Spanish Inquisition had burned at the stake 2,000 people by 1490 (just one decade after the Inquisition began).
I suppose, relatively speaking, an average of 200 stake burnings per year isn't bad, considering the number of trials and the times; but its still 2000 too many for the Church today (and the Church of the Fathers).

Jehanne wrote:Even Jon Hus, whom you so love to defend, was, repeatedly, offered chances to recant his heretical views right up to the moment of his immolation, and after constant refusals, was subsequently burned alive at the stake.
Why do you say that I “love to defend” Jon Hus, when I do no such thing? To say that burning at the stake is barbaric, and to say that to execute someone for spiritual sins can no longer be justified (its immoral), is NOT to “defend” Jon Hus or his heresies.

Jehanne wrote:Seem cruel? Probably not:
Oh no, not “cruel” at all (from the same wikipedia article):

When this method of execution was applied with skill, the condemned’s body would burn progressively in the following sequence: calves, thighs and hands, torso and forearms, breasts, upper chest, face; and then finally death. On other occasions, people died from suffocation with only their calves on fire. Several records report that victims took over two hours to die. In many burnings a rope was attached to the convict’s neck passing through a ring on the stake and they were simultaneously strangled and burnt.
Yes, fine tradition that, just look at its barbaric pedigree:

The Greek tyrant Phalaris, of Akragas in Sicily, is said to have roasted his enemies alive in a brazen bull; it was devised for him by a workman named Perillus or Perilaos, who made it so that the screams of the victims sounded like the roaring of a bull; when Perillus asked for his reward, he became the first victim.[1] Phalaris was later executed in his brazen bull.

Burning was used as a means of execution in many ancient societies. According to ancient reports, Roman authorities executed many of the early Christian martyrs by burning, sometimes by means of the tunica molesta, a flammable tunic.

According to Julius Caesar, the ancient Celts executed thieves and prisoners of war by burning them to death inside giant “wicker men”.

Indigenous North Americans often used burning as a form of execution, either against members of other tribes or against white settlers during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Roasting over a slow fire was a customary method.

Under the Byzantine Empire, burning was introduced as a punishment for disobedient Zoroastrians, because of the belief that they worshiped fire.

The Byzantine Emperor Justinian (r. 527–565) ordered death by fire, intestacy, and confiscation of all possessions by the State to be the punishment for heresy against the Christian faith in his Codex Iustiniani (CJ 1.5.), ratifying the decrees of his predecessors the Emperors Arcadius and Flavius Augustus Honorius.
Not too be undone:

In 1184, the Roman Catholic Synod of Verona legislated that burning was to be the official punishment for heresy. It was also believed that the condemned would have no body to be resurrected in the Afterlife.[dubious – discuss] This decree was later reaffirmed by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215, the Synod of Toulouse in 1229, and numerous spiritual and secular leaders through the 17th century.
And, as a precursor to ecumenism, “Burning was also used by Roman Catholics and Protestants during the witch-hunts of Europe.”

This barbaric legacy you are so fond of continues:

No modern state conducts executions by burning, apart from a mass execution in North Korea in the late 1990s.[14] Like all capital punishment, it is forbidden to members of the Council of Europe by the European Convention on Human Rights. It was never routinely practiced in the United States and in any case the Supreme Court while ruling on Firing Squads in Wilkerson v. Utah from 1879 incidentally determined that it was cruel and unusual punishment.

However, modern-day burnings still occur. In South Africa for example, extrajudicial execution by burning was done via a method called necklacing where rubber tires filled with kerosene (or gasoline) are placed around the neck of a live individual. The fuel is then ignited, the rubber melts, and the victim is burnt to death.[15][16] In Rio de Janeiro, burning people standing inside a pile of tires is a common form of murder used by drug dealers to punish those who have supposedly collaborated with the police. This form of burning is called microondas, “the microwave”. The movie Tropa de Elite (Elite Squad) and video game Max Payne 3 have scenes depicting this practice.[17]

A former Soviet Main Intelligence Directorate officer writing under the alias Victor Suvorov, described in his book Aquarium a Soviet traitor being burnt alive in a crematorium.[18] There has been some speculation[19] that the identity of this officer was Oleg Penkovsky, however during his radio interview to Russian station Echo of Moscow Vladimir Rezun (alias Victor Suvorov) denied this, saying "I never mentioned it was Penkovsky" [20] No executed GRU traitors (Penkovsky aside) are known matching scant Suvorov's description given in "Aquarium"[21][22]

During the 1980 New Mexico State Penitentiary riot, a number of inmates were burnt to death by fellow inmates, who used blow torches.

One of the most notorious extrajudicial burnings of modern times occurred in Waco, Texas in the USA on 15 May 1916. Jesse Washington, a mentally challenged African American farmhand, after having been convicted of the murder of a white woman, was taken by a mob to a bonfire, castrated, doused in coal oil, and hanged by the neck from a chain over the bonfire, slowly burning to death. A postcard from the event still exists, showing a crowd standing next to Washington’s charred corpse with the words on the back “This is the barbecue we had last night. My picture is to the left with a cross over it. Your son, Joe”. This event attracted international condemnation, and is remembered as the Waco Horror.

In the late 1990s, a number of North Korean army generals were executed by being burnt alive inside the Rungrado May Day Stadium in Pyongyang, North Korea.[14]

In Sulaymaniyah, Iraq, there were 400 cases of the burning of women in 2006. In Iraqi Kurdistan, at least 255 women had been killed in just the first six months of 2007, three-quarters of them by burning.[23]

It was reported on 21 May 2008, that in Kenya a mob had burnt to death at least 11 people accused of witchcraft.[24]

On 19 June 2008, the Taliban in Sadda, Lower Kurram, Pakistan burnt alive three truck drivers of the Turi tribe after attacking a convoy of trucks en route from Kohat to Parachinar.[25]
Yes, Jehanne, that legacy of barbarity is really something to be proud of, don’t you think? We really should return to those good old day, no?

Jehanne wrote:
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.
I’m sorry, maybe I missed something, but since when is burning a heretic at the stake “willingly accepted by the guilty party”? Are you daft?

And of course, this same Catechism would condemn the proposition that “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the [spiritual] offense [against the Catholic faith]". Quit trying to put words into the Catechism when it said no such thing. Let’s pick up where you left off, where nowhere is it assumed that the courts have the authority to inflict capital punishment for heresies against the Catholic faith:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68
Sorry, Jehanne, but hi-jacking the CCC won't work.

Jehanne wrote:So, you see, even judicial torture has spiritual benefits. As the Church has always taught, "It's pay me or pay me later." You can do penance in this life or due it in the next, assuming, of course, that one escapes eternal Hell.
I “see” no such thing, for whatever spiritual benefit may be derived from a heretic truly recanting of his heresy before death, there is no proof of this in any measure that can justify such barbarity as burning at the stake (and executions in general for spiritual crimes), and the possible negative spiritual effects on the population at large is grave indeed. You cannot convert heretics (and those associated with them) (true conversion – not conversion by torture and the threat of death) by executing them – it doesn’t work.

Jehanne wrote:As for what our Lord said, let's review that again:

Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

If the above verse is not a clear affirmation of the death penalty for heretics, then, pray tell, what could our Lord have said any differently? "I am so sorry, my Lord, for having taken your Word so literally?" If there was a case of "invincible ignorance," then I must be in that class, the present Pope's (and his immediate predecessors) ambiguous statements notwithstanding.
Our Lord was neither sanctioning nor condemning capital punishment; he was using a metaphor his audience could relate to (possibly relating to the fact that “The ancient punishment among the Greeks for sacrilege was drowning, with a mill-stone fastened about the neck, according to Diodorus Siculus”, see Haydock) in order to tell us in graphic terms what the grave sin of scandal deserves, and what the unrepentant can expect at his judgment. It is similar to his statement that it would have been better for Judas to never have been born than to have committed the sin of despair after having betrayed our Lord (a sin against the Holy Spirit). He says such things for affect, without telling us if Judas might have repented before reaching the end of his rope – for that’s between Our Lord and Judas.

He follows this with “Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh.”

Haydock has a long commentary on this, but here is what it says in closing:

Nor is this without its particular fruit; for it frequently happens, that whom good counsel cannot move, prayers and tears, and the relation of the dismal consequences attendant on sin, bring to repentance. This also manifests his tenderness and boundless charity, since he weeps over the people, who of all others most contradicted him. S. Chrys. hom. lx.
If this sounds familiar, it’s because Pope John XXIII said, in so many words, the same thing in Pacem in Terris:

A man who has fallen into error does not cease to be a man. He never forfeits his personal dignity; and that is something that must always be taken into account. Besides, there exists in man's very nature an undying capacity to break through the barriers of error and seek the road to truth. God, in His great providence, is ever present with His aid. Today, maybe, a man lacks faith and turns aside into error; tomorrow, perhaps, illumined by God's light, he may indeed embrace the truth.
The Church does not give up on sinners.

Jehanne wrote:However, in your case, all infants who perish before the Age of Reason go to Heaven, either with the assurance of having had sacramental Baptism or at least with the "certain hope" if they had died without it.
You are a bit reckless “with the assurance” that “all infants who perish before the Age of Reason [sic] go to Heaven”, for, in the case of unbaptized infants, we are assured (justified) in having a “certain hope”, but we are not “assured” of their salvation. Do you deliberately mangle the truth, or you just can’t help yourself? This reminds me of Columba saying “Unfortunately since VII we are led to believe that ignorance is bliss” and “if they are invincibly ignorant they are infallibly lost even if not because of their inculpable ignorance.”

Priceless, and complete nonsense. Don’t worry, Columba, I’ll return to your posts in due time.

Jehanne wrote:This new theology allows you to say that Jon Hus, and people like him, are our "separated brethren", because Jon Hus, like so many Protestants, denies infant baptism. So, Jon Hus, and predecessor, John Wickliffe, did not cause any real harm to anyone even if they convinced large scores of parents not to baptize their newborn babies. No matter, all those babes are in Heaven anyway, for "Truth is stronger than heresy!" Human actions be damned!!
Jon Hus was found culpable for his heresy, and judged a heretic. That is NOT in dispute, only that his being burned at the stake probably caused more harm than good, and that such acts can no longer be justified.

Jehanne wrote:It seems that the only individuals destined for Hell are serial murders and/or rapists along with traditional Catholics, the latter for at least not having fulfilled their Sunday obligation for having attended SSPX Masses.
The latter, the Church teaches, can fulfill their Sunday obligation at SSPX Masses so long as they do not imbibe in the spirit of the original schism. Judging by some of the comments found on rad-trad forums, the spirit of schism lives.

Why are you so obsessed with who and who is not destined for Hell?






avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  Jehanne on Sun Dec 23, 2012 6:20 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Regardless of what you think of the various Catholic Inquisitions who sent some obstinate heretics to the stake for over 1,000 years, their "success rates" were actually quite high.
Yes, burning at the stake had about a 100% success rate in accomplishing its intended objective, death.

Yes, indeed, and may the One and Triune God Bless those Inquisitors, some of whom are canonized Saints of the Catholic Church. But, you miss, my point:

Most individuals tried before the various Inquisitions recanted and were not burned.

That's a fact, disputed by no one!

MRyan wrote:
The historian Hernando del Pulgar, contemporary of Ferdinand and Isabella, estimated that the Spanish Inquisition had burned at the stake 2,000 people by 1490 (just one decade after the Inquisition began).
I suppose, relatively speaking, an average of 200 stake burnings per year isn't bad, considering the number of trials and the times; but its still 2000 too many for the Church today (and the Church of the Fathers).

So, what was the alternative, Mike??? Let heretics, such as Jon Hus, spread their poisonous lies throughout a Catholic Kingdom?

MRyan wrote:Why do you say that I “love to defend” Jon Hus, when I do no such thing? To say that burning at the stake is barbaric, and to say that to execute someone for spiritual sins can no longer be justified (its immoral), is NOT to “defend” Jon Hus or his heresies.

What was the alternative, Mike? Imprison Hus? Now, that would have been barbaric?! (There were, of course, no prisons in the Middle Ages; such is a recent development.)

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:Seem cruel? Probably not:
Oh no, not “cruel” at all (from the same wikipedia article):

When this method of execution was applied with skill...

Most executioners did not do that.

(snip)

Who cares what non-Catholics did.

MRyan wrote:
In 1184, the Roman Catholic Synod of Verona legislated that burning was to be the official punishment for heresy. It was also believed that the condemned would have no body to be resurrected in the Afterlife.[dubious – discuss] This decree was later reaffirmed by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215, the Synod of Toulouse in 1229, and numerous spiritual and secular leaders through the 17th century.

So, you're saying that Church Councils erred? Legislated punishments which were immoral?

(snip)

Those executions were fundamentally different than ecclesiastical executions during the Middle Ages. Once again, Jon Hus was offered mercy at least several times before his execution; he refused.

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.
I’m sorry, maybe I missed something, but since when is burning a heretic at the stake “willingly accepted by the guilty party”? Are you daft?

Uh, Hus accepted it, did he not?

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:So, you see, even judicial torture has spiritual benefits. As the Church has always taught, "It's pay me now or pay me later." You can do penance in this life or due it in the next, assuming, of course, that one escapes eternal Hell.
I “see” no such thing, for whatever spiritual benefit may be derived from a heretic truly recanting of his heresy before death, there is no proof of this in any measure that can justify such barbarity as burning at the stake (and executions in general for spiritual crimes), and the possible negative spiritual effects on the population at large is grave indeed. You cannot convert heretics (and those associated with them) (true conversion – not conversion by torture and the threat of death) by executing them – it doesn’t work.

Then the One and Triune God is a tyrant for having created Hell and for sending individuals there for all Eternity. Or, perhaps, Hell does not even exist?! If burning at the stake is barbaric, then God is a cosmic barbarian! (You're not too far from modernism or even atheism.)

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:As for what our Lord said, let's review that again:

Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

If the above verse is not a clear affirmation of the death penalty for heretics, then, pray tell, what could our Lord have said any differently? "I am so sorry, my Lord, for having taken your Word so literally?" If there was a case of "invincible ignorance," then I must be in that class, the present Pope's (and his immediate predecessors) ambiguous statements notwithstanding.
Our Lord was neither sanctioning nor condemning capital punishment; he was using a metaphor his audience could relate to (possibly relating to the fact that “The ancient punishment among the Greeks for sacrilege was drowning, with a mill-stone fastened about the neck, according to Diodorus Siculus”, see Haydock) in order to tell us in graphic terms what the grave sin of scandal deserves, and what the unrepentant can expect at his judgment. It is similar to his statement that it would have been better for Judas to never have been born than to have committed the sin of despair after having betrayed our Lord (a sin against the Holy Spirit). He says such things for affect, without telling us if Judas might have repented before reaching the end of his rope – for that’s between Our Lord and Judas.

Our Lord never disputed the death penalty and neither did Saint Paul nor any of the Church Fathers and Doctors.

(snip)

More modernism by Pope John Paul XIII.

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:However, in your case, all infants who perish before the Age of Reason go to Heaven, either with the assurance of having had sacramental Baptism or at least with the "certain hope" if they had died without it.
You are a bit reckless “with the assurance” that “all infants who perish before the Age of Reason [sic] go to Heaven”, for, in the case of unbaptized infants, we are assured (justified) in having a “certain hope”, but we are not “assured” of their salvation. Do you deliberately mangle the truth, or you just can’t help yourself? This reminds me of Columba saying “Unfortunately since VII we are led to believe that ignorance is bliss” and “if they are invincibly ignorant they are infallibly lost even if not because of their inculpable ignorance.”

So, Hus and his Anabaptists successors may have done (or are doing) an intrinsically evil thing (by excluding unbaptized children from Heaven) or they may not be; we just don't know.

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:This new theology allows you to say that Jon Hus, and people like him, are our "separated brethren", because Jon Hus, like so many Protestants, denies infant baptism. So, Jon Hus, and predecessor, John Wickliffe, did not cause any real harm to anyone even if they convinced large scores of parents not to baptize their newborn babies. No matter, all those babes are in Heaven anyway, for "Truth is stronger than heresy!" Human actions be damned!!
Jon Hus was found culpable for his heresy, and judged a heretic. That is NOT in dispute, only that his being burned at the stake probably caused more harm than good, and that such acts can no longer be justified.

Once again, Mike, what was the alternative? To declare Jon Hus a heretic and then say, "See ya, bud!"

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:It seems that the only individuals destined for Hell are serial murders and/or rapists along with traditional Catholics, the latter for at least not having fulfilled their Sunday obligation for having attended SSPX Masses.
The latter, the Church teaches, can fulfill their Sunday obligation at SSPX Masses so long as they do not imbibe in the spirit of the original schism. Judging by some of the comments found on rad-trad forums, the spirit of schism lives.

Why are you so obsessed with who and who is not destined for Hell?

Then Roman Catholicism does not matter. If everyone is destined for Heaven, then I need to stop wasting my time on this.
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: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  MRyan on Mon Dec 24, 2012 2:17 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Regardless of what you think of the various Catholic Inquisitions who sent some obstinate heretics to the stake for over 1,000 years, their "success rates" were actually quite high.
Yes, burning at the stake had about a 100% success rate in accomplishing its intended objective, death.
Yes, indeed, and may the One and Triune God Bless those Inquisitors, some of whom are canonized Saints of the Catholic Church. But, you miss, my point:

Most individuals tried before the various Inquisitions recanted and were not burned.
That's a fact, disputed by no one!
I did not miss your point, and did not contest the point, but the point is irrelevant to the essential point, that being having the threat of corporal and even capital punishment hanging over one’s head, in addition to the practice of confession by torture (a despicable practice), makes one wonder how sincere some of these “recantations” really were. New Advent:

If the accused at once made full and free confession, the affair was soon concluded, and not to the disadvantage of the accused. But in most instances the accused entered denial even after swearing on the Four Gospels, and this denial was stubborn in the measure that the testimony was incriminating. David of Augsburg (cf. Preger, "Der Traktat des David von Augshurg uber die Waldenser", Munich, 1878 pp. 43 sqq.) pointed out to the inquisitor four methods of extracting open acknowledgment:

- fear of death, i.e. by giving the accused to understand that the stake awaited him if he would not confess;
- more or less close confinement, possibly emphasized by curtailment of food;
- visits of tried men, who would attempt to induce free confession through friendly persuasion;
- torture, which will be discussed below.
See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm and scroll down to the section on torture to get the full flavor of this inhumane and worthless practice.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
The historian Hernando del Pulgar, contemporary of Ferdinand and Isabella, estimated that the Spanish Inquisition had burned at the stake 2,000 people by 1490 (just one decade after the Inquisition began).
I suppose, relatively speaking, an average of 200 stake burnings per year isn't bad, considering the number of trials and the times; but its still 2000 too many for the Church today (and the Church of the Fathers).
So, what was the alternative, Mike??? Let heretics, such as Jon Hus, spread their poisonous lies throughout a Catholic Kingdom?
The were several alternatives, one of which was to return to the majority view of the first five centuries. From New Advent:

The ecclesiastical ideas of the first five centuries may be summarized as follows:

- the Church should for no cause shed blood (St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Leo I, and others);
- other teachers, however, like Optatus of Mileve and Priscillian, believed that the State could pronounce the death penalty on heretics in case the public welfare demanded it;
- the majority held that the death penalty for heresy, when not civilly criminal, was irreconcilable with the spirit of Christianity.

(See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm)
"[T]he majority held that the death penalty for heresy, when not civilly criminal, was irreconcilable with the spirit of Christianity."

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Why do you say that I “love to defend” Jon Hus, when I do no such thing? To say that burning at the stake is barbaric, and to say that to execute someone for spiritual sins can no longer be justified (its immoral), is NOT to “defend” Jon Hus or his heresies.
What was the alternative, Mike? Imprison Hus? Now, that would have been barbaric?! (There were, of course, no prisons in the Middle Ages; such is a recent development.)
“No prisons in the Middle Ages”, you have got to be kidding. The Catholic Encyclopedia (New Advent):

The inquisition of the Middle Ages The hardest penalties were imprisonment in its various degrees, exclusion from the communion of the Church, and the usually consequent surrender to the civil power. "Cum ecclesia" ran the regular expression, "ultra non habeat quod faciat pro suis demeritis contra ipsum, idcirco, eundum reliquimus brachio et iudicio saeculari" — i.e. since the Church can no farther punish his misdeeds, she leaves him to the civil authority.
And, from the CE (New Advent) section on “Imprisonment”:

In the Middle Ages the Church founded religious orders which bound themselves by vow to the redemption of captives; the Trinitarians, or Mathurins, established in 1198 by St. John of Matha and Felix de Valois, and the Nolascans, founded in 1223. In Spain, France, and especially Italy, there were, moreover, associations or confraternities labouring to improve the condition of prisoners: the Confraternità della Misericordia and the Compagnia di Santa Maria della croce al Tempio detta de Neri at Florence, the Pia Casa di Misericordia at Pisa, the Casa della pieta at Venice, etc. Besides the prisons depending on the State, there were prisons under the control of the religious authorities. Each convent had one or at times two prisons in which religious were incarcerated. The term of imprisonment was temporal or perpetual. The culprit had to do penance and amend his ways. He was isolated and often chained. Generally the discipline was severe; not unfrequently corporal punishment was added to incarceration and the prisoner put on bread and water. The Church had the right to punish clerics for penal offences and had its own episcopal prisons, but from the middle of the sixteenth century, as a result of the changed relations of Church and State, the privilegium fori disappeared and the State resumed its right of punishing clerics in non-religious matters. In the episcopal prisons clerics were treated more gently than were the monks in convent prisons, nevertheless in certain cases the discipline was very rigorous. The Church had jurisdiction also over the laity in offences of a religious character. Finally, it created a new procedure, differing from the ordinary, viz. The inquisitorial procedure in cases of heresy. Imprisonment was the severest punishment the inquisitors could inflict directly. According to the inquisitional theory, it was not really a punishment, but a means for the culprit to obtain pardon for his crimes, and to amend and be converted, while close supervision prevented him from infecting the rest of the flock. The prisoners were subjected to two regimes: the severe and the milder; but, in either case, the captive was given only bread and water; he was confined to a cell, and forbidden all communication, though the latter provision was not strictly enforced. Those under the milder discipline could, if they behaved well, take a little exercise in the corridors, a privilege granted also to the aged and infirm. Those condemned to the severe regime were cast fettered into a narrow dark cell; sometimes they were chained to the walls. The prisons were constructed without any regard to the health or convenience of the inmates, and the condition of the latter was wretched. The Inquisition sometimes commuted or remitted the punishment. The remission was ad tempus, for a longer or shorter period, according to the case.
Here is a section on the Spanish Inquisition:

The Spanish Inquisition, however, properly begins with the reign of Ferdinand the Catholic and Isabella.[...]

Before long complaints of grievous abuses reached Rome, and were only too well founded. In a Brief of Sixtus IV of 29 January 1482, they were blamed for having, upon the alleged authority of papal Briefs, unjustly imprisoned many people, subjected them to cruel tortures, declared them false believers, and sequestrated the property of the executed. They were at first admonished to act only in conjunction with the bishops, and finally were threatened with deposition, and would indeed have been deposed had not Their Majesties interceded for them. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm)
Jehanne wrote: “There were, of course, no prisons in the Middle Ages; such is a recent development”. Good grief. But, if you said it, it must be true.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:Seem cruel? Probably not:
Oh no, not “cruel” at all (from the same wikipedia article):

When this method of execution was applied with skill...
Most executioners did not do that.
And you know this how? The same history book that tells you that prisons did not exist in the Middle Ages? How is the blue blazes can you assume that “most executioners” opted for the large fires because most of the time the “number of prisoners were executed at the same time”, whereby “death often came from carbon monoxide poisoning before flames actually caused harm to the body.”?

You don’t know this, and you know you don’t know this, but here you are trying to sell the idea that most executions by fire were “humane”. You sound like the neocons who tell us that water-boarding is not “torture”.

Jehanne wrote:Who cares what non-Catholics did.
I have NO idea what you are talking about, but then again, neither do you.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
In 1184, the Roman Catholic Synod of Verona legislated that burning was to be the official punishment for heresy. It was also believed that the condemned would have no body to be resurrected in the Afterlife.[dubious – discuss] This decree was later reaffirmed by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215, the Synod of Toulouse in 1229, and numerous spiritual and secular leaders through the 17th century.
So, you're saying that Church Councils erred? Legislated punishments which were immoral?
Yes, they “erred” on the side of prudence; though I am not one to “judge” the Church or the persons involved with such executions when I have not lived in their shoes (there was often no separation between Church and state). All I know is that today, “such legislated punishments” for heresy are immoral.

Jehanne wrote:Those executions were fundamentally different than ecclesiastical executions during the Middle Ages. Once again, Jon Hus was the decisions offered mercy at least several times before his execution; he refused.
No, they were not “fundamentally different”, for to be burned at the stake in one age is the same as being burned at the stake in another. And the fact that Jon Hus was offered mercy should only he recant is supposed to prove what, that the Church did not turn innocent men over to the courts for execution?

You are the one still missing the point. Jon Hus did not recant for a very simple reason, he actually BELIEVED that he was innocent of the charges against him. He was true to his conscience to the very end, death by fire. The CE:

He refused all formulæ of submission, again declared himself conscious of no error, nor, as he said, had any been proved against him from the Scriptures. He declared that he would not condemn the truth, nor perjure himself. His books were burned by order of the council (24 June). New efforts to obtain a retractation proved fruitless. He was brought for final sentence before the fifteenth session (6 July, 1415), at which the emperor assisted, and on which occasion thirty propositions, taken mostly from the work of Hus "On the Church" (De Ecclesiâ), were read publicly. He refused to retract anything and so was condemned as a heretic, deposed, and degraded, and handed over to the secular arm, which in turn condemned him to perish at the stake, at that time the usual legal punishment of convicted heretics. He suffered that cruel death with self-possession and courage and when about to expire cried out, it is said: "Christ, Son of the living God, have mercy on us!" His ashes were thrown into the Rhine. Owing largely to the dramatic circumstances of his death, he became at once the hero of Bohemian patriotism and the martyr-saint of multitudes in Bohemia and elsewhere who shared his demagogic and revolutionary principles…
Did you catch that, Jehanne, due “to the dramatic circumstances of his death, he became at once the hero of Bohemian patriotism and the martyr-saint of multitudes in Bohemia”.

In other words, he became a martyr, a Czech national hero and a saint to members of the Moravian Church; with his “martyrdom” having influenced “The Hussite Wars (1419-1434)” which “developed when the Catholic Hungarian King, Sigismund of Luxemburg (1368-1437) invaded Bohemia to put down a revolt of Czech followers of Jan (John) Hus 'the Martar' (1369-1415), who were persecuted as heretics. This Bohemian “revolution” and warfare would continue in one form or another (including The 30 Years War) until the 17th century, and would result in the Protestants gaining a significant foothold (“By the middle of the 16th century as many as 90 per cent of the inhabitants of the Czech Crown lands were Protestant” (CE).

We gave the Protestant Hussites a martyr, but isn’t it nice that by doing so we stopped his heresy from spreading!

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.
I’m sorry, maybe I missed something, but since when is burning a heretic at the stake “willingly accepted by the guilty party”? Are you daft?
Uh, Hus accepted it, did he not?
No, he did not "accept it", he didn't exactly have a choice in the matter, unless you are suggesting that it would have better before God had he “recanted” his beliefs, even after having “declared himself conscious of no error.” St. Thomas Aquinas called this a mortal sin.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:So, you see, even judicial torture has spiritual benefits. As the Church has always taught, "It's pay me now or pay me later." You can do penance in this life or due it in the next, assuming, of course, that one escapes eternal Hell.
I “see” no such thing, for whatever spiritual benefit may be derived from a heretic truly recanting of his heresy before death, there is no proof of this in any measure that can justify such barbarity as burning at the stake (and executions in general for spiritual crimes), and the possible negative spiritual effects on the population at large is grave indeed. You cannot convert heretics (and those associated with them) (true conversion – not conversion by torture and the threat of death) by executing them – it doesn’t work.
Then the One and Triune God is a tyrant for having created Hell and for sending individuals there for all Eternity. Or, perhaps, Hell does not even exist?! If burning at the stake is barbaric, then God is a cosmic barbarian! (You're not too far from modernism or even atheism.)
Tell that to Origen, St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Leo I, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. John Chrysostom, the Eastern Church, St. Isidore of Seville, Wazo (Bishop of Liège), etc, all of whom are, according to you “not too far from modernism or even atheism”.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:As for what our Lord said, let's review that again:

Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

If the above verse is not a clear affirmation of the death penalty for heretics, then, pray tell, what could our Lord have said any differently? "I am so sorry, my Lord, for having taken your Word so literally?" If there was a case of "invincible ignorance," then I must be in that class, the present Pope's (and his immediate predecessors) ambiguous statements notwithstanding.
Our Lord was neither sanctioning nor condemning capital punishment; he was using a metaphor his audience could relate to (possibly relating to the fact that “The ancient punishment among the Greeks for sacrilege was drowning, with a mill-stone fastened about the neck, according to Diodorus Siculus”, see Haydock) in order to tell us in graphic terms what the grave sin of scandal deserves, and what the unrepentant can expect at his judgment. It is similar to his statement that it would have been better for Judas to never have been born than to have committed the sin of despair after having betrayed our Lord (a sin against the Holy Spirit). He says such things for affect, without telling us if Judas might have repented before reaching the end of his rope – for that’s between Our Lord and Judas.
Our Lord never disputed the death penalty and neither did Saint Paul nor any of the Church Fathers and Doctors.
We are not speaking of the “death penalty” per se, but the execution of heretics. And the Fathers and Doctors did indeed militate against it.

Jehanne wrote:(snip – citation from Pacem In Terris) More modernism by Pope John Paul XXIII.
The same modernism of “Origen, St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Leo I, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. John Chrysostom, the Eastern Church, St. Isidore of Seville, Wazo (Bishop of Liège), etc”. The same “modernism” of Peter Canter, “the most learned man of his time”, who taught:

“Whether they be convicted of error, or freely confess their guilt, Catharists are not to be put to death, at least not when they refrain from armed assaults upon the Church. For although the Apostle said, A man that is a heretic after the third admonition, avoid, he certainly did not say, Kill him. Throw them into prison, if you will, but do not put them to death (cf. Geroch von Reichersberg, "De investigatione Antichristi III", 42).”
The same “modernism” of St. Bernard of Clairvaux who laid down the axiom:

By persuasion, not by violence, are men to be won to the Faith.
Oh what “modernist” swill!

The same “modernism” we find here:

St. Cyprian of Carthage, surrounded as he was by countless schismatics and undutiful Christians, also put aside the material sanction of the Old Testament, which punished with death rebellion against priesthood and the Judges. "Nunc autem, quia circumcisio spiritalis esse apud fideles servos Dei coepit, spiritali gladio superbi et contumaces necantur, dum de Ecclesia ejiciuntur" (Epistle 61, no. 4) religion being now spiritual, its sanctions take on the same character, and excommunication replaces the death of the body. Lactantius was yet smarting under the scourge of bloody persecutions, when he wrote this Divine Institutes in A.D. 308. Naturally, therefore, he stood for the most absolute freedom of religion. He writes:

Religion being a matter of the will, it cannot be forced on anyone; in this matter it is better to employ words than blows [verbis melius quam verberibus res agenda est]. Of what use is cruelty? What has the rack to do with piety? Surely there is no connection between truth and violence, between justice and cruelty . . . . It is true that nothing is so important as religion, and one must defend it at any cost [summâ vi] . . . It is true that it must be protected, but by dying for it, not by killing others; by long-suffering, not by violence; by faith, not by crime. If you attempt to defend religion with bloodshed and torture, what you do is not defense, but desecration and insult. For nothing is so intrinsically a matter of free will as religion. (Divine Institutes V:20)
It would appear Pope John XXIII and all subsequent “modernist” popes are in the good “modernist” company of the Fathers and Doctors.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:However, in your case, all infants who perish before the Age of Reason go to Heaven, either with the assurance of having had sacramental Baptism or at least with the "certain hope" if they had died without it.
You are a bit reckless “with the assurance” that “all infants who perish before the Age of Reason [sic] go to Heaven”, for, in the case of unbaptized infants, we are assured (justified) in having a “certain hope”, but we are not “assured” of their salvation. Do you deliberately mangle the truth, or you just can’t help yourself? This reminds me of Columba saying “Unfortunately since VII we are led to believe that ignorance is bliss” and “if they are invincibly ignorant they are infallibly lost even if not because of their inculpable ignorance.”
So, Hus and his Anabaptists successors may have done (or are doing) an intrinsically evil thing (by excluding unbaptized children from Heaven) or they may not be; we just don't know.
I have no idea what you are talking about, for the spiritual descendants of Hus are “the partially-Reformed Calixtines, the militant proto-Protestant Taborites, and finally the separatistic 'Bohemian Brethren' (alias the later 'Moravians').” On “The Sacrament of Baptism”, the Morovain Church in America teaches:

Baptism is the sacrament of Christian initiation. Through baptism believers and their children are embodied in the covenant of grace and become a part of the fellowship of the church. (http://www.moravian.org/the-moravian-church/the-moravian-church/history.html)


Also:

Wycliffe and Huss and their followers on infant baptism

Fortunately, however, the Christian Gospel was still preserved --especially in Northern Europe. In 1377, the English 'Pre-Reformer' John Wycliffe (1324-84) assailed the Romish mass. In 1402, the Wycliffite Huss did the same in Bohemia.

Neither of them ever questioned infant baptism. To the contrary, Wycliffe declared: "On account of the words in the last chapter of Matthew [28:19], our church introduces believers who answer for the infant....

"The child of a believer is carried into the church to be baptized, according to the rule of Christ." Yet "it seems hard...to assert" like the Romanists, "that this infant will be lost" if dying unbaptized. Nevertheless, "without a doubt, infants are duly baptized with water."

Wycliffe and his English followers the Lollards rejected baptismal regenerationism. As the great Puritan Rev. Dr. Wall has pointed out, "one of the articles usually enjoined [by their enemies] for the Lollards...to recant, was (as the martyrologist John Foxe recites it) this: 'that an infant, though he die unbaptized, shall be saved.'"

The followers of Huss were called the Hussites. "The Hussites of Bohemia," according to the great Puritan Rev. Dr. Wall, were of the "opinion...that infants dying unbaptized, may be saved by the mercy of God.... Indeed, they were disciples of our Wycliffe." (http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/lee/anab_002.html)
But then again, prisons did not exist in the Middle Ages.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:This new theology allows you to say that Jon Hus, and people like him, are our "separated brethren", because Jon Hus, like so many Protestants, denies infant baptism. So, Jon Hus, and predecessor, John Wickliffe, did not cause any real harm to anyone even if they convinced large scores of parents not to baptize their newborn babies. No matter, all those babes are in Heaven anyway, for "Truth is stronger than heresy!" Human actions be damned!!
Jon Hus was found culpable for his heresy, and judged a heretic. That is NOT in dispute, only that his being burned at the stake probably caused more harm than good, and that such acts can no longer be justified.
Once again, Mike, what was the alternative? To declare Jon Hus a heretic and then say, "See ya, bud!"
You should know by now that execution was not the only alternative. And, his dramatic execution certainly fanned the flames of revolt and helped set the stage for Protestantism.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:It seems that the only individuals destined for Hell are serial murders and/or rapists along with traditional Catholics, the latter for at least not having fulfilled their Sunday obligation for having attended SSPX Masses.
The latter, the Church teaches, can fulfill their Sunday obligation at SSPX Masses so long as they do not imbibe in the spirit of the original schism. Judging by some of the comments found on rad-trad forums, the spirit of schism lives.

Why are you so obsessed with who and who is not destined for Hell?
Then Roman Catholicism does not matter. If everyone is destined for Heaven, then I need to stop wasting my time on this.
Yes, please stop wasting our time on this; such logical fallacies give me a headache.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  MRyan on Mon Dec 24, 2012 2:20 pm

avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  Jehanne on Mon Dec 24, 2012 2:44 pm

As for Medieval prisons, read this:

http://hcc.haifa.ac.il/~medrens/Geltner-reading-07-08.pdf

The creation of prisons as punitive institutions is commonly dated to the late eighteenth century, and is attributed to the influence of Enlightenment ideas about man’s ability to reform his soul and the State’s prerogative in implementing this process.1 The accepted chronology denies the penal role of prisons at any time earlier, at least outside ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Accordingly, the view prevails that throughout the Middle Ages prisons served as places of pre-trial custody or loci of coercion for defaulting debtors; punitive incarceration, in turn, “did not exist or represented, at best, a negligible exception.”

Note the author's credentials and where he works. One thing which he does not discuss is that some imprisoned heretics were good at escaping prison! What, in your opinion, was the crown to do with those folks? As for "ecclesiastical prisons," those were relatively small and could only house a limited number of inmates. And, once again, many individuals were offered that as an alternative punishment, but as with Hus, they refused. Are you suggesting that such folks be allowed to spread their heretical ideas within the confines of a prison?

So, you object to the execution of heretics? How about witches? Sorcerers? How about someone who advocated the overthrow of a monarchy but who was not guilty of any violence against the state? How about someone who had betrayed a king? A traitor?

Funny how you appeal to an alleged plurality of Church Fathers yet you ignore entirely that "This decree was later reaffirmed by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215, the Synod of Toulouse in 1229, and numerous spiritual and secular leaders through the 17th century." Let me "copy and paste" it again for you:

CANON 3

Text. We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises against the holy, orthodox and Catholic faith which we have above explained; condemning all heretics under whatever names they may be known, for while they have different faces they are nevertheless bound to each other by their tails, since in all of them vanity is a common element. Those condemned, being handed over to the secular rulers of their bailiffs, let them be abandoned, to be punished with due justice, clerics being first degraded from their orders. As to the property of the condemned, if they are laymen, let it be confiscated; if clerics, let it be applied to the churches from which they received revenues. But those who are only suspected, due consideration being given to the nature of the suspicion and the character of the person, unless they prove their innocence by a proper defense, let them be anathematized and avoided by all 1-intil they have made suitable satisfaction; but if they have been under excommunication for one year, then let them be condemned as heretics. Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath. But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler's vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action. The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land.

We decree that those who give credence to the teachings of the heretics, as well as those who receive, defend, and patronize them, are excommunicated; and we firmly declare that after any one of them has been branded with excommunication, if he has deliberately failed to make satisfaction within a year, let him incur ipso jure the stigma of infamy and let him not be admitted to public offices or deliberations, and let him not take part in the election of others to such offices or use his right to give testimony in a court of law. Let him also be intestable, that he may not have the free exercise of making a will, and let him be deprived of the right of inheritance. Let no one be urged to give an account to him in any matter, but let him be urged to give an account to others. If perchance he be a judge, let his decisions have no force, nor let any cause be brought to his attention. If he be an advocate, let his assistance by no means be sought. If a notary, let the instruments drawn up by him be considered worthless, for, the author being condemned, let them enjoy a similar fate. In all similar cases we command that the same be observed. If, however, he be a cleric, let him be deposed from every office and benefice, that the greater the fault the graver may be the punishment inflicted.

If any refuse to avoid such after they have been ostracized by the Church, let them be excommunicated till they have made suitable satisfaction. Clerics shall not give the sacraments of the Church to such pestilential people, nor shall they presume to give them Christian burial, or to receive their alms or offerings; otherwise they shall be deprived of their office, to which they may not be restored without a special indult of the Apostolic See. Similarly, all regulars, on whom also this punishment may be imposed, let their privileges be nullified in that diocese in which they have presumed to perpetrate such excesses.

But since some, under "the appearance of godliness, but denying the power thereof," as the Apostle says (II Tim. 3: 5), arrogate to themselves the authority to preach, as the same Apostle says: "How shall they preach unless they be sent?" (Rom. 10:15), all those prohibited or not sent, who, without the authority of the Apostolic See or of the Catholic bishop of the locality, shall presume to usurp the office of preaching either publicly or privately, shall be excommunicated and unless they amend, and the sooner the better, they shall be visited with a further suitable penalty. We add, moreover, that every archbishop or bishop should himself or through his archdeacon or some other suitable persons, twice or at least once a year make the rounds of his diocese in which report has it that heretics dwell, and there compel three or more men of good character or, if it should be deemed advisable, the entire neighborhood, to swear that if anyone know of the presence there of heretics or others holding secret assemblies, or differing from the common way of the faithful in faith and morals, they will make them known to the bishop. The latter shall then call together before him those accused, who, if they do not purge themselves of the matter of which they are accused, or if after the rejection of their error they lapse into their former wickedness, shall be canonically punished. But if any of them by damnable obstinacy should disapprove of the oath and should perchance be unwilling to swear, from this very fact let them be regarded as heretics.

We wish, therefore, and in virtue of obedience strictly command, that to carry out these instructions effectively the bishops exercise throughout their dioceses a scrupulous vigilance if they wish to escape canonical punishment. If from sufficient evidence it is apparent that a bishop is negligent or remiss in cleansing his diocese of the ferment of heretical wickedness, let him be deposed from the episcopal office and let another, who will and can confound heretical depravity, be substituted.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp

Your appeal to some Church father is vacuous; some felt that the death penalty for heretics was appropriate and just, others did not. So, hardly, no "unanimous consent" there.

Wycliffe and Huss and their followers on infant baptism

Fortunately, however, the Christian Gospel was still preserved --especially in Northern Europe. In 1377, the English 'Pre-Reformer' John Wycliffe (1324-84) assailed the Romish mass. In 1402, the Wycliffite Huss did the same in Bohemia.

Neither of them ever questioned infant baptism. To the contrary, Wycliffe declared: "On account of the words in the last chapter of Matthew [28:19], our church introduces believers who answer for the infant....

"The child of a believer is carried into the church to be baptized, according to the rule of Christ." Yet "it seems hard...to assert" like the Romanists, "that this infant will be lost" if dying unbaptized. Nevertheless, "without a doubt, infants are duly baptized with water."

Wycliffe and his English followers the Lollards rejected baptismal regenerationism. As the great Puritan Rev. Dr. Wall has pointed out, "one of the articles usually enjoined [by their enemies] for the Lollards...to recant, was (as the martyrologist John Foxe recites it) this: 'that an infant, though he die unbaptized, shall be saved.'"

The followers of Huss were called the Hussites. "The Hussites of Bohemia," according to the great Puritan Rev. Dr. Wall, were of the "opinion...that infants dying unbaptized, may be saved by the mercy of God.... Indeed, they were disciples of our Wycliffe." (http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/lee/anab_002.html)

If the above in red is true, then the Roman Catholic Church is not the True Church of Jesus Christ, for if all infants who die without sacramental Baptism are saved, then the Catholic Church is wrong and is a lie, and if such is, indeed, the case, the "Church" was wrong to burn Jon Hus.

And, yes, a "Very Merry Christmas to you, also!"
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: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  Jehanne on Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:21 pm

P.S. Just in case any thinks that Mike's portrayal of me as some type of oaf is true, I used the word "prison" in the sense of the modern term. From the above article:

This brief account of medieval prisons does not seek to move the prison’s birth as a total institution five-hundred years back in time, nor to demonstrate the application of punitive imprisonment in the Middle Ages on a modern scale. Although fourteenth-century Europe saw a greater recourse to incarceration than it had ever known before, prisons were nowhere the basis of local penal systems; and despite the fact that these facilities served as important cogs in the administration of contemporary justice, they were never as regimented or enclosed as their modern counterparts. The organization of medieval prisons and their complementary accessibility ensured that, regardless of the grounds and goals of their incarceration, inmates continued to interact with surrounding society. Prison walls in the late Middle Ages did not describe the borders of a social island: their location, routine, and permeability prevents us from defining life inside as hell on earth, even if the perception of prisons as earthly purgatories had by then lost its favor.

So, yes, "prisons" existed in terms of dungeons, towers, locked rooms, etc., as places mostly of temporary incarceration, but nothing on the grand scale which we have today, which is the point which I was trying to make. (Of course, everyone knows from Disney films that dungeons existed in the Middle Ages!)

Finally, referencing Mike's citation from above:

The ecclesiastical ideas of the first five centuries may be summarized as follows:

- the Church should for no cause shed blood (St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Leo I, and others);
- other teachers, however, like Optatus of Mileve and Priscillian, believed that the State could pronounce the death penalty on heretics in case the public welfare demanded it;
- the majority held that the death penalty for heresy, when not civilly criminal, was irreconcilable with the spirit of Christianity.

(See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm)

Of course, the "devil is in the details," but it is clear that those Church fathers who were "opposed" to the execution of heretics would still favor such when a heretic's behavior was "civilly criminal", as such was often the case during the Middle Ages. Heretics were often put to death for other crimes, in addition to the crime of heresy. Consider this instance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_de_Rais

Finally, Mike thinks that "burning at the stake" is abhorrent, apparently, forgetting that God commanded such a punishment:

If a man takes a wife and her mother also, it is wickedness; they shall be burned with fire, both he and they, that there may be no wickedness among you. (Leviticus 20:14)

And the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by playing the harlot, profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire. (Leviticus 21:9)

Of course, the above is perfectly consistent with the existence of an eternal Hell, an "everlasting fire". Finally, as I have pointed out, modern historians agree that most individuals "walked away" from the various Inquisitions without ever being tortured and/or burned. Being put to "the torture" or burned was "the exception" and not "the rule."
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: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  MRyan on Mon Dec 24, 2012 7:51 pm

Jehanne wrote:As for Medieval prisons, read this:

http://hcc.haifa.ac.il/~medrens/Geltner-reading-07-08.pdf

The creation of prisons as punitive institutions is commonly dated to the late eighteenth century, and is attributed to the influence of Enlightenment ideas about man’s ability to reform his soul and the State’s prerogative in implementing this process.(1) The accepted chronology denies the penal role of prisons at any time earlier, at least outside ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Accordingly, the view prevails that throughout the Middle Ages prisons served as places of pre-trial custody or loci of coercion for defaulting debtors; punitive incarceration, in turn, “did not exist or represented, at best, a negligible exception.”
You know, Jehanne, you really should be more careful when you provide a link to an academic study that is supposed to rescue you from your wild claim that "prisons" as we "commonly" know them did not exist in the Middle Ages. You made this false claim to buttress your argument that imprisonment was not an effective tool since they only "existed", allegedly, "in terms of dungeons, towers, locked rooms, etc., as places mostly of temporary incarceration" from which people might actually escape!

Had you actually read the first page or two of the cited paper, you would have realized that the respected academic is refuting the very "commonly" accepted "theory" you are trying to sell. You really should read past the first paragraph in order to avoid these embarrassing moments. However, in reading your subsequent post, it is clear you did skim through it in order to select a citation having little to do with your original claim.

Here is what the author says immediately after the opening paragraph (your citation):

Perhaps the most eloquent refutation of such claims [as yours] was made by Ralph Pugh in his 1968 study Imprisonment in Medieval England. Pugh began by restating what most observers of prison life (including medieval lawyers) already knew, namely, that the distinction among custodial, coercive, and penal incarceration is useful in theory, but fails to describe actual practices. Thus, to say that medieval “penology” consciously avoided incarceration would be anachronistic and misleading. Pugh then demonstrated that, even in a stricter sense, punitive imprisonment was both an articulated legal concept and a practiced penal measure in England throughout the high and late Middle Ages.(3) As many other studies throughout the last century and a half have shown, the same argument can be applied to different European regions from Late Antiquity to the late Middle Ages.(4)
And with that, Jehanne, your entire argument just went up in flames, and you are left holding the match to your own straw-man.

In fact, the author did in fact answer your charge that prisons existed only "in terms of dungeons, towers, locked rooms, etc., as places mostly of temporary incarceration".

Not so:

From the early thirteenth century, the Church was able to implement the incarceration of laymen on a wider scale than ever before through the activity of the Papal Inquisition, which often sentenced heretics to prison.(6) In sum, although imprisonment remained a marginal penalty in the secular world, ecclesiastical practices certainly sowed the seeds of a bond between the prison and spiritual reform, as evinced by the modern term “penitentiary.”

Another type of medieval prison was the castle dungeon, tower, gatehouse or pit, which, as a modern literary trope, still exercises much influence on the popular imagination. No doubt, feudal lords occasionally imprisoned their subjects and political enemies for the duration of a trial, as a penal measure, or simply in order to collect ransom. Conditions inside these prisons differed from place to place and varied widely according the social status of the prisoner. The available information is too scarce to gage the frequency of such practices, but the development of a hagiography of “jail-breaking saints” (headed by St. Leonard) suggests that they were common or simply infamous enough to generate these heroes.(7) In general, it seems that “feudal” incarceration was intermittent; it was often applied ad personam, and never formally regulated.

Against this background, the secular municipal prisons of the late Middle Ages display several key innovations, not least among which are their careful regulation and administrative sophistication. In Florence, for instance, there were four wardens, four to six guards, a notary, a chamberlain, a physician, a chaplain, a caretaker, and two friars who attended to the prisoners’ needs; as well as three different supervisory boards to monitor the officials’ conduct and the inmates’ welfare.The salaried staff itself lived and worked in a new compound – Le Stinche (founded c.1300) – probably the first purpose-built prison in Italy and one of the first in Europe. Turnovers there could exceed eight hundred inmates a year.

... Regional and local studies have shown that Le Stinche was not an isolated case, a fact which renders the years c.1250–c.1350 a watershed period in the history of the prison. How to account for this shift? The proliferation of prison spaces across western Europe coincided with a period of intense urbanization and a growth of urban (communal) liberties.(9) ... Unlike today, then, most medieval prisons were both central and visible.(11)
Better luck next time.

Merry Christmas to all!

avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  Jehanne on Mon Dec 24, 2012 8:36 pm

Mike,

You can misrepresent my position all that you want. Here is the definition of "prison" from Merriam Webster:

Definition of PRISON
1 : a state of confinement or captivity
2 : a place of confinement especially for lawbreakers; specifically : an institution (as one under state jurisdiction) for confinement of persons convicted of serious crimes — compare jail

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prison

Modern prisons did not exist in the Middle Ages, which is how I intended to use the term (with it's "modern" sense). In any case, I admit that I spoke poorly, and in light of what you stated, I "stand corrected" on that historical point alone. (Although, I have read several of Régine Pernoud's books and was fully aware of the existence of ecclesiastical prisons, but perhaps such were more widespread than I imagined, which only buttresses my argument. As for my article above, I did read/skim it, and felt that it both expressed and corrected my position, which is why I posted it -- the author, clearly, has his credentials.) However, it's irrelevant to my thesis. I can point out historical examples, doubted by no historian whatsoever, of individuals who were imprisoned, only to escape, who returned to their "former ways", and who were, on being tried again, condemned to the stake.

All that points which you make only strengthen the case that the various Catholic Inquisitions were merciful ecclesiastical courts who genuinely tried to reconcile heretics, witches, sorcerers, etc., and others to the "bosom of the Church," and it was only after repeated failures that such individuals were "abandoned to the secular arm" for judgment at the stake. You've made my point on that count without addressing at all the real substance of my arguments.

A Merry Christ-mass to all!!!
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: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  MRyan on Tue Dec 25, 2012 12:28 pm


Merry Christmas, Jehanne, et al

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

You can misrepresent my position all that you want. Here is the definition of "prison" from Merriam Webster:

Definition of PRISON
1 : a state of confinement or captivity
2 : a place of confinement especially for lawbreakers; specifically : an institution (as one under state jurisdiction) for confinement of persons convicted of serious crimes — compare jail

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prison

Modern prisons did not exist in the Middle Ages, which is how I intended to use the term (with it's "modern" sense). In any case, I admit that I spoke poorly, and in light of what you stated, I "stand corrected" on that historical point alone. (Although, I have read several of Régine Pernoud's books and was fully aware of the existence of ecclesiastical prisons, but perhaps such were more widespread than I imagined, which only buttresses my argument. As for my article above, I did read/skim it, and felt that it both expressed and corrected my position, which is why I posted it -- the author, clearly, has his credentials.) However, it's irrelevant to my thesis. I can point out historical examples, doubted by no historian whatsoever, of individuals who were imprisoned, only to escape, who returned to their "former ways", and who were, on being tried again, condemned to the stake.
Jehanne, I haven’t “misrepresented” your position in the least, but only revealed, by your own words, and the very paper you provided as “proof”, not only how flawed is your argument, but how it is factually incorrect.

The definition from Webster is precisely the same definition of prisons as they existed and were developed in the Middle Ages, thanks in large part to the Church (from whence was born the “penitentiary”). Whether ecclesiastical or civil, medieval prisons represented:

1: a state of confinement or captivity
2: a place of confinement especially for lawbreakers; specifically: an institution (as one under state [or ecclesiastical] jurisdiction) for confinement of persons convicted of serious crimes — compare jail

For you to argue that medieval prisons were not defined as such is, as I said, factually incorrect. If your point is that we no longer have ecclesiastical prisons, your point is irrelevant to your original argument, which, if I may remind you, claimed that medieval prisons were not viable alternatives to the death penalty for those convicted of the sin of heresy.

The reason, which you keep trying to “prove”, is because they did not exist in the modern sense as secure institutions from which escapes are rare; rather, they only "existed", allegedly, "in terms of dungeons, towers, locked rooms, etc., as places mostly of temporary incarceration" from which people might, and did, actually escape!

After admitting your error about the existence and use of medieval prisons, you insist that I continue to misrepresent your position as you go on and on with your discredited thesis that holds that medieval prisons were not secure; in fact, you tell us you are well read on this subject and can point to “historical examples, doubted by no historian whatsoever, of individuals who were imprisoned, only to escape, who returned to their ‘former ways’, and who were, on being tried again, condemned to the stake.”

I see, and of course, individuals never escape from modern prisons, commit even more heinous crimes, only to be eventually caught and returned to prison.

Did you now, Jehanne, that I can point to historical examples, disputed by no one, where convicted heretics were eventually released from prison as an act of mercy, even when the heretic never recanted of his error?

Your “point” now rests on the notion that it was better to immediately burn the convicted heretic at the stake rather than incarcerate him since he might escape and “return to their former ways". Both the author you cite and the Catholic Encyclopedia refute this argument, the latter of which says:

Imprisonment was the severest punishment the inquisitors could inflict directly. According to the inquisitional theory, it was not really a punishment, but a means for the culprit to obtain pardon for his crimes, and to amend and be converted, while close supervision prevented him from infecting the rest of the flock.
Again, your cited authority states:

… the secular municipal prisons of the late Middle Ages display several key innovations, not least among which are their careful regulation and administrative sophistication. In Florence, for instance, there were four wardens, four to six guards, a notary, a chamberlain, a physician, a chaplain, a caretaker, and two friars who attended to the prisoners’ needs; as well as three different supervisory boards to monitor the officials’ conduct and the inmates’ welfare. The salaried staff itself lived and worked in a new compound – Le Stinche (founded c.1300) – probably the first purpose-built prison in Italy and one of the first in Europe. Turnovers there could exceed eight hundred inmates a year.

... Regional and local studies have shown that Le Stinche was not an isolated case, a fact which renders the years c.1250–c.1350 a watershed period in the history of the prison. How to account for this shift? The proliferation of prison spaces across western Europe coincided with a period of intense urbanization and a growth of urban (communal) liberties.(9) ... Unlike today, then, most medieval prisons were both central and visible.(11)

It’s hard to argue with facts, Jehanne, and the facts do not support your thesis. Even if medieval prisons were as porous and unreliable as you allege, permanent banishment was another alternative, just as Jews were banished from Spain during the Spanish Inquisition.

I also noticed that you have not responded to my response to your question: “So, what was the alternative, Mike??? Let heretics, such as Jon Hus, spread their poisonous lies throughout a Catholic Kingdom?” where I demonstrated:

due “to the dramatic circumstances of his death, he became at once the hero of Bohemian patriotism and the martyr-saint of multitudes in Bohemia”.

In other words, he became a martyr, a Czech national hero and a saint to members of the Moravian Church; with his ‘martyrdom” having influenced “The Hussite Wars (1419-1434)” which “developed when the Catholic Hungarian King, Sigismund of Luxemburg (1368-1437) invaded Bohemia to put down a revolt of Czech followers of Jan (John) Hus 'the Martar' (1369-1415), who were persecuted as heretics. This Bohemian “revolution” and warfare would continue in one form or another (including The 30 Years War) until the 17th century, and would result in the Protestants gaining a significant foothold (“By the middle of the 16th century as many as 90 per cent of the inhabitants of the Czech Crown lands were Protestant” (CE).
There was no more effective way to spread the poisonous lies of Hus throughout the Catholic Kingdom than to make him, under the most dramatic circumstances, a martyr for the Bohemian revolution.

“So, what was the alternative, Mike??? Let heretics, such as Jon Hus, spread their poisonous lies throughout a Catholic Kingdom?”

Well, burning him at the stake turned our rather well, don’t you think?
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  MRyan on Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:28 pm

Jehanne wrote:
Finally, referencing Mike's citation from above:

The ecclesiastical ideas of the first five centuries may be summarized as follows:

- the Church should for no cause shed blood (St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Leo I, and others);
- other teachers, however, like Optatus of Mileve and Priscillian, believed that the State could pronounce the death penalty on heretics in case the public welfare demanded it;
- the majority held that the death penalty for heresy, when not civilly criminal, was irreconcilable with the spirit of Christianity.

(See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm)
Of course, the "devil is in the details," but it is clear that those Church fathers who were "opposed" to the execution of heretics would still favor such when a heretic's behavior was "civilly criminal", as such was often the case during the Middle Ages. Heretics were often put to death for other crimes, in addition to the crime of heresy. Consider this instance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_de_Rais

Jehanne, proving that vicious criminals (who, for example, ravaged and murdered children) were justly executed has nothing to so with the case of those who were convicted of the sin of heresy alone. The case you provided is in fact a striking example of what the Fathers meant by “civilly criminal”, meaning it is NOT the sin of heresy that is “civilly criminal”, but the corporal and material crime of murder.

To the original point made by the Fathers, heresy should only be considered “civilly criminal” when it results in physical violence against the Church, or against one of her ecclesiastics.

So, in “referencing Mike's citation from above” you are missing the essential point, which is summarized by Peter Canter (protégé of Peter Lombard), “the most learned man of his time” whose “capabilities led him to be frequently chosen by the popes as a judge” (CE), who taught:

“Whether they be convicted of error, or freely confess their guilt, Catharists are not to be put to death, at least not when they refrain from armed assaults upon the Church. For although the Apostle said, A man that is a heretic after the third admonition, avoid, he certainly did not say, Kill him. Throw them into prison, if you will, but do not put them to death (cf. Geroch von Reichersberg, "De investigatione Antichristi III", 42).”

Jehanne wrote:Finally, Mike thinks that "burning at the stake" is abhorrent, apparently, forgetting that God commanded such a punishment:

If a man takes a wife and her mother also, it is wickedness; they shall be burned with fire, both he and they, that there may be no wickedness among you. (Leviticus 20:14)

And the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by playing the harlot, profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire. (Leviticus 21:9)
Of course, the above is perfectly consistent with the existence of an eternal Hell, an "everlasting fire". Finally, as I have pointed out, modern historians agree that most individuals "walked away" from the various Inquisitions without ever being tortured and/or burned. Being put to "the torture" or burned was "the exception" and not "the rule."
I love it when the folks who are the first to argue that the Old Dispensation was superseded by the New, appeal to the Old Dispensation to justify burning heretics at the stake as if God’s severe decrees for a stiff-necked people who had not the grace of the Incarnation and Redemption visited upon them, are as valid today as are the Commandments under Moses.

Thus, it is argued, still valid are the Leviticus laws of God which decree, for example: “If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you”; and “A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.’” (Leviticus 20: 14, 27).

However, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, in STl, II, Q. 64, A. 4:

God works in all things without exception whatever is right, yet in each one according to its mode. Wherefore everyone should imitate God in that which is specially becoming to him. Hence, though God slays evildoers even corporally, it does not follow that all should imitate Him in this. As regards Peter, he did not put Ananias and Saphira to death by his own authority or with his own hand, but published their death sentence pronounced by God. The Priests or Levites of the Old Testament were the ministers of the Old Law, which appointed corporal penalties, so that it was fitting for them to slay with their own hands.
The Lord our God decreed these severe measures in order to set His people apart from “the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them.” (Lev. 20: 22) Besides those crimes already mentioned, the “customs” He was referring to (demanding of death) include a man sacrificing “children to Molek”, cursing one’s father or mother, committing “adultery with another man’s wife”, “sexual relations with his father’s wife”, “sexual relations with his daughter-in-law”; “sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman”, and “sexual relations with an animal (man or woman)”.

There was no Christian tradition, there were no true propitiatory sacrifices or sacraments, there were no Inquisitions, there were no prisons based on the ecclesiastical “penitentiary” model, there was among the nations widespread idolatry, some human sacrifice, and the perversion of a people whose nature had fallen into such guilt and dishonour that we had become … ‘the children of wrath’" (Eph. ii., 3).; who were without that [munificent] giving or sending forth of the Holy Ghost after Christ's glorification", which "was to be such as had never been before; not that there had been none before, but it had not been of the same kind" (Pope Leo XIII, Divinum Illud Munus).

The death penalty and other severe measures were the only prescriptions these people understood, the Jus publicum of the time; but, since the Atonement, we have a new Law, a new Gospel and a new dignity, for our Redeemer is “The Son of Man” (the same “Son of man” in Daniel 7:13-14), flesh of our flesh, who “came not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45)

Under the same question 64, article 2, St. Thomas also teaches that evil-doers should be tolerated if their destruction would harm the virtuous:

Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.
In point of fact, Jehanne, your example of the “martyr” Jon Hus is a striking example of our Lord’s command that we should “forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good ... because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2).”

Also, if you are going to defend the justice of burning heretics at the stake, then you must also defend the Church-sanctioned practice of torture, by which confessions of heresy were sometimes extracted. But it wasn’t always so, torture being:

long prohibited in the ecclesiastical courts. Nor was it originally an important factor in the inquisitional procedure, being unauthorized until twenty years after the Inquisition had begun. It was first authorized by Innocent IV in his Bull "Ad exstirpanda" of 15 May, 1252, which was confirmed by Alexander IV on 30 November, 1259, and by Clement IV on 3 November, 1265…. torture was held to be so odious that clerics were forbidden to be present under pain of irregularity. Sometimes it had to be interrupted so as to enable the inquisitor to continue his examination, which, of course, was attended by numerous inconveniences [!]. Therefore on 27 April, 1260, Alexander IV authorized inquisitors to absolve one another of this irregularity.).
By defending this “odious” practice, you are telling us that the inherent possibilities of false confessions and the execution of the innocent is a small price to pay for protecting “the common good” from the poison of heresy. Shall we call it “collateral damage”?

Speaking of “collateral damage”, while the Church eventually put a stop to this particular instance of abuse, it was bound to, and did, happen:

The inquisitors were, as a rule, irreproachable, not merely in personal conduct, but in the administration of their office. Some, however, like Robert le Bougre, a Bulgarian (Catharist) convert to Christianity and subsequently a Dominican, seem to have yielded to a blind fanaticism and deliberately to have provoked executions en masse. On 29 May, 1239, at Montwimer in Champagne, Robert consigned to the flames at one time about a hundred and eighty persons, whose trial had begun and ended within one week. Later, when Rome found that the complaints against him were justified, he was first deposed and then incarcerated for life. (CE)
Incarcerated for life? He probably escaped, right, Jehanne?

The same article says:

It is to be noted that torture was most cruelly used, where the inquisitors were most exposed to the pressure of civil authority. Frederick II, though always boasting of his zeal for the purity of the Faith, abused both rack and Inquisition to put out of the way his personal enemies. The tragical ruin of the Templars is ascribed to the abuse of torture by Philip the Fair and his henchmen. At Paris, for instance, thirty-six, and at Sens twenty-five, Templars died as the result of torture. Blessed Joan of Arc could not have been sent to the stake as a heretic and a recalcitrant, if her judges had not been tools of English policy. And the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition are largely due to the fact that in its administration civil purposes overshadowed the ecclesiastical. Every reader of the "Cautio criminalis" of the Jesuit Father Friedrich Spee knows to whose account chiefly must be set down the horrors of the witchcraft trials.
But, in your mind, Jehanne, all of this is justified, for, as the CE article continues:

Most of the punishments that were properly speaking inquisitional were not inhuman, either by their nature or by the manner of their infliction. Most frequently certain good works were ordered, e.g. the building of a church, the visitation of a church, a pilgrimage more or less distant, the offering of a candle or a chalice, participation in a crusade, and the like. Other works partook more of the character of real and to some extent degrading punishments, e.g. fines, whose proceeds were devoted to such public purposes as church-building, road-making, and the like; whipping with rods during religious service; the pillory; the wearing of coloured crosses, and so on.

All of this is true, but the fact of heresy, while deserving of death, has other considerations that militate against its fulfillment in the temporal realm, as the Church teaches. There is absolutely nothing “vacuous” about the overwhelming tradition of the Church Fathers which “held that the death penalty for heresy, when not civilly criminal [i.e., when it does not involve “armed assaults upon the Church”], was irreconcilable with the spirit of Christianity."

And it is this original tradition and “spirit of Christianity” that the Church rediscovered and developed in Dignitatis Humanae when it teaches that “Revelation... does … disclose the dignity of the human person in its full dimensions. It gives evidence of the respect which Christ showed toward the freedom with which man is to fulfill his duty of belief in the word of God and it gives us lessons in the spirit which disciples of such a Master ought to adopt and continually follow.”

And:

With a firm faith they held that the Gospel is indeed the power of God unto salvation for all who believe.(25) Therefore they rejected all "carnal weapons:(26) they followed the example of the gentleness and respectfulness of Christ and they preached the word of God in the full confidence that there was resident in this word itself a divine power able to destroy all the forces arrayed against God(27) and bring men to faith in Christ and to His service.(28)

Note 26: Cf. 2 Cor. 10:4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty to God unto the pulling down of fortifications, destroying counsels

1 Thess. 5:8-9 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, having on the breastplate of faith and charity, and for a helmet the hope of salvation. For God hath not appointed us unto wrath, but unto the purchasing of salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ
This is why Pope Benedict XVI, in his 2005 Christmas address to the Roman Curia, could say:

The Second Vatican Council, recognizing and making its own an essential principle of the modern State with the Decree on Religious Freedom, has recovered the deepest patrimony of the Church. By so doing she can be conscious of being in full harmony with the teaching of Jesus himself (cf. Mt 22: 21), as well as with the Church of the martyrs of all time.

This is why “the majority [of the Fathers] held that the death penalty for heresy, when not civilly criminal, was irreconcilable with the spirit of Christianity."

St. Augustine (Epistle 100, n. 1), almost in the name of the western Church, says: “… we wish them corrected, not put to death; we desire the triumph of (ecclesiastical) discipline, not the death penalties that they deserve.” St. John Chrysostom says substantially the same in the name of the Eastern Church (Homily 46 on Matthew, no. 1): "To consign a heretic to death is to commit an offence beyond atonement"; and in the next chapter he says that God forbids their execution, even as He forbids us to uproot cockle, but He does not forbid us to repel them, to deprive them of free speech, or to prohibit their assemblies. The help of the "secular arm" was therefore not entirely rejected; on the contrary, as often as the Christian welfare, general or domestic, required it, Christian rulers sought to stem the evil by appropriate measures. As late the seventh century St. Isidore of Seville expresses similar sentiments (Sententiarum, III, iv, nn. 4-6).
"Vacuous" and "modernism"?

Right.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  Jehanne on Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:53 pm

Mike,

I hope that you had a blessed Christmas. First, some old business.

You have never addressed this, which you posted:

MRyan wrote:In 1184, the Roman Catholic Synod of Verona legislated that burning was to be the official punishment for heresy. It was also believed that the condemned would have no body to be resurrected in the Afterlife.[dubious – discuss] This decree was later reaffirmed by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215, the Synod of Toulouse in 1229, and numerous spiritual and secular leaders through the 17th century.

The Fourth Lateran Council was and is an ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church recognized as such and quoted by both Vatican II and the present Catechism. Guided by the Holy Spirit, the Council ordered the "exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church". You can claim that such a decree was only "disciplinary," but as we both know, disciplinary decrees by an ecumenical Council and/or Pope cannot be in error. If such decrees are infallible or not is another issue; theologians have disagreed. Finally, while you have quoted Church fathers who were against the "secular arm" executing heretics, you have not quoted any of the Fathers who favored such a punishment and you have "cherry-picked" Saint Thomas "to death" (pardon the pun); we both know that the Church's principle theologian favored the execution of obstinate heretics.

Next, this quote:

MRyan wrote:No, he did not "accept it", he didn't exactly have a choice in the matter, unless you are suggesting that it would have better before God had he “recanted” his beliefs, even after having “declared himself conscious of no error.” St. Thomas Aquinas called this a mortal sin.

Where? In the past, you have taken me to task for my paraphrasing of Saint Thomas, so please, provide the reference. And, if "freedom of conscience" applied to Jon Hus, why not to Archbishop Lefebvre, Catholics for Choice, Melinda Gates, "Feeneyites" of every stripe, Sedevacantists, the Council of Constance, etc., etc.?

Indeed, Pope Pius IX condemned these very lines of thought:

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

21. The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion. -- Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. -- Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863.

23. Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals. -- Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

24. The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.

63. It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1864; Allocution "Quibusque vestrum," Oct. 4, 1847; "Noscitis et Nobiscum," Dec. 8, 1849; Apostolic Letter "Cum Catholica."

77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

As for the council of Constance, it's not my place to question what they did and did not do or what they could have done. In fact, it has never been my POV to defend their decisions, rather, to say that they had the right to make the decisions which they made, no matter how imprudent those decisions were in the light of subsequent history. Maybe they should have imprisoned Hus; maybe they thought that doing so would likely lead to immediate war. Maybe they thought that if they cut-off the "serpent's head," that his body would die. Hindsight is, after all, 20/20.

With this in mind, history turned out very differently for one of America's "greatest" President who committed his nation to war. Widely regard as being Abraham Lincoln, he committed us to a civil war which cost 625,000 American lives not to mention authorizing the largest mass execution in North American history, where some 38 Dakota Indiana warriors were all hung together. Yet, Lincoln was still a great President, or so Steven Spielberg says. If the North would have lost the Civil War, would Americans, both North and South, have viewed Lincoln so favorably? Maybe "up here" but definitively not "down there".

Did the Fathers at the Council of Constance know how the Hussite Wars would turn out? Hardly. Like Lincoln, they were fighting for the unity of a Kingdom, but one which was (and is) spiritual as opposed to temporal. As with Lincoln, they saw the unity of the Church of Christ as being important and those who were opposed to that unity (such as Jon Hus) as being traitors to the King of Heaven, and who, refusing to repent of their heresies, were deserving of death, a punishment which was firmly rooted in both the Old and New Testament.

Well, they lost; does that mean that the wrong to fight to begin with? Ask that question of a Vietnam vet sometime. I don't think that they were wrong to fight against false beliefs, nor do I believe that it was the will of the One and Triune God that they lost, rather, this is something which God permitted to happen. In addition, I am certain that they offered Hus "some deals" which history did not record, all of which he refused. He likely told them that he would continue to lead his "spiritual rebellion" from his jail cell even if they imprisoned him, as many IRA leaders did.

It took nearly 600 years but Pope John Paul II "apologized" for Hus' execution, stating (per Wkipedia) that he had "deep regret for the cruel death inflicted..." So, was JP II "apologizing" for the fact that Hus was executed or for the manner in which he was executed. After all, the executioner had "bound his neck with a chain to a stake around which wood and straw had been piled up so that it covered him to the neck". Was such "standard practices" or what the executioner being a bit "creative" here? Probably the later, as far as I can tell. Here's one stake execution where the highest authorities truly despised the victim:



She was not, of course, "buried up to her neck," which, by the way, would have involved a very large pile of wood! My suspicion is that Hus passed-out before the flames ever touched his body; still, his death was "cruel" and not typical of most stake executions. Granted, of course, there were sadistic exceptions, as has occurred throughout American history with our practice of botched electrocutions, which does not appear to be upsetting to most Americans. Most medieval executioners were, however, compassionate men who had a difficult job to do, and if their victim cooperated with them, they weren't going to make life any more miserable than it had to be.

Finally, Mike, correct me if I am wrong (perhaps this would be a good time for Mark to jump in here), but as far as I can tell Jon Hus, like his predecessor John Wycliffe, believed, taught, and professed the idea of double predestination, whereby, the One and Triune God, from Eternity past, had selected some human beings for eternal Heaven and others for everlasting Hell, the Elect and the reprobate, irrespective of those individuals' own human free will and/or choices. In other words, God created some human beings, body and soul, with the sole purpose of damning those persons to Hell, infants included, in spite of the "corrections and/or sanctifications" which some followers of John Calvin like to make to his statements.

Think about that for a moment. On the surface, it is absolutely despicable, that God, an Infinite and Perfect Being, would create a person solely for the purpose of damning that individual to eternal Hell. As far as I can tell, few Protestants still hold to this theology, yet this is what Hus and others were proclaiming as being "God's truth". Granted, Hus may not have deserved execution but think about how many lives he lead astray with this despicable teaching -- no need for the Church, Pope, Sacraments, faith, etc., if you are part of the Elect, and if not, there's not a "damned thing" that you can do about it if you are predestined to be part of the reprobate. Pretty disgusting, if you ask me.

Having said that, I respect the Council of Constance's decision to put Hus to death, his repeated refusals to recant notwithstanding. Such a decision was theirs to make, in accordance with the decrees set forth in the Fourth Lateran Council, and no one else's to question.
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: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  MRyan on Wed Dec 26, 2012 8:08 pm

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

I hope that you had a blessed Christmas.
I did indeed; I hope you and yours did as well.

Jehanne wrote:First, some old business. You have never addressed this, which you posted:

MRyan wrote: 1184, the Roman Catholic Synod of Verona legislated that burning was to be the official punishment for heresy. It was also believed that the condemned would have no body to be resurrected in the Afterlife.[dubious – discuss] This decree was later reaffirmed by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215, the Synod of Toulouse in 1229[/b], and numerous spiritual and secular leaders through the 17th century.
Jehanne, I did in fact address this, but you simply ignored, or talked over, my various responses.

In response to your initial volley where you cited St. Aquinas to the same effect, I responded:

That heretics “deserve … to be severed from the world by death” is a subjective judgment, not an “infallible truth” that compels and justifies the state to act as the secular arm of the Church. The Church has tempered (reformed) this teaching (she stopped putting heretics to death centuries ago) by appealing more to a sinner’s “undying capacity to break through the barriers of error and seek the road to truth" (Pope John XXIII, Pacem In Terris), then to any danger (corruption) the heretic poses to the faithful.

The Church still uses, though to a lesser degree, the ecclesiastical (and even temporal) measures at her disposal (e.g., excommunications, censures, edicts) both for the correction of the heretic and to protect the faithful from error. However, she no longer recognizes the state as the secular arm of the Church (only in protecting the rights of the Church, and the civil rights of other faith/religious traditions), “which by state coercion must protect the ‘rights of truth,’ and in this way impose the kingdom of Christ in human society.” (Fr. Rhonheimer)

St. Thomas:

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but 'after the first and second admonition,' as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, 'A little leaven,' says: 'Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame.'” (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.11, a.3)
It should be obvious, Jehanne, that the Church no longer gives up on hope for “the conversion of the wanderer” and “delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death”, as our Popes have expressed in Pacem In Terris and Dignitatis Humanae.
I also said, “As legitimate sovereigns (temporal rulers), they had the right to inflict capital punishment, but they had no “intrinsic right” to execute anyone for spiritual sins against the faith (e.g., heresy). Truth is stronger than any heresy.” To which, you replied:

Well, that's your interpretation of Dignitatis humanae, and if that is really the teaching of DF, then, I agree with the SSPX/SSPV/CMRI, etc., that Vatican II promulgated error.
Also, you asked: “Did the Council of Constance, an ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, err in condemning Jon Hus to the stake? Did that Council promulgate error or sin in its actions???”

I replied:

No, it was an abuse of power; and it did not condemn him to the stake, not explicitly. But, it did so at least implicitly, with the punishment it fully expected, which it obviosuly thought was just. It is not my place to make judgements about prudential "errors" or personal sins, not when the laws permitted such "final" punishments.

However, as the Church teaches today, the courts had and still have every right to tell the Church to settle spiritual crimes against the faith herself -- when such punishments cause undue disruption to the common welfare (not to mention that today it is considered immoral).
You followed by citing can. 3 of the Fourth Lateran Council, which said in part:

But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler's vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action. The same law is to be observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the [/color=orange]extermination of the heretics[/color], shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land.
To which, I replied in typical lengthy fashion (too long to repeat here), with a healthy dose of sarcasm since Columba decided to weigh in with the “letter from Jan”, I summarized with:

The Church has long since corrected the “Jus publicum” and will never return to it, as necessary at the time she believed it to be, as circumstances dictated. Get over it. There is no reason to “apologize” for the “Jus publicum”, but only for certain human abuses and a mistaken Jus divino promoted by some.
That’s the bottom line, and the Catholic rulers who were excommunicated and deposed for not “exterminating” all the heretics from their lands and confiscating their properties because they could not in good conscience justify such extreme acts when they had good reason to believe that it would only bring greater harm to their kingdoms, could stand before God completely justified.

The “bottom line” also extends to the fact that the Church had every right to correct and even to apologize for this abuse of power which authorized torture, execution, the confiscation of property, the deposing of kings and the absolving of vassals from subjection to their legitimate rulers, all in the name of the “common good”. This was the “Jus publicum”, but it does not make it “just”.

So please do not start in again with some implied notion of “practical infallibility”, as if the very disciplines you admit are not “infallible” carry with them some divine immunity from any and all error in judgment. Certainly, the popes were doing what they thought was right, but that does not make it right. The ancient Church knew this, so does the modern Church.

Furthermore, I replied to your erroneous reading of Exsurge Domine (Condemned Error 33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit), where the decree said (with your emphasis):

“With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth.
I replied:

No, Jehanne, I am reading it correctly. You cannot take “and against Catholic truth” as if it nullifies the fact that some errors “against Catholic truth” are not matters of heresy, but may extend only to being “scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds”, etc.
Continuing:

Jehanne wrote:
Finally, while you have quoted Church fathers who were against the "secular arm" executing heretics, you have not quoted any of the Fathers who favored such a punishment and you have "cherry-picked" Saint Thomas "to death" (pardon the pun); we both know that the Church's principle theologian favored the execution of obstinate heretics.
Actually, I did in fact name some of the Fathers “who favored such a punishment”, here:

The ecclesiastical ideas of the first five centuries may be summarized as follows:

- the Church should for no cause shed blood (St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Leo I, and others);
- other teachers, however, like Optatus of Mileve and Priscillian, believed that the State could pronounce the death penalty on heretics in case the public welfare demanded it;
- the majority held that the death penalty for heresy, when not civilly criminal, was irreconcilable with the spirit of Christianity.

(See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm)
Now, why would I bother searching for “quotes” of these same few Fathers when they cannot change the fact that “the majority [of the teachers and Fathers] held that the death penalty for heresy, when not civilly criminal, was irreconcilable with the spirit of Christianity”?

Your accusation that I have “cherry-picked” Saint Thomas "to death" is unconscionable, for if anyone is guilty of “cherry-picking” him it is you by failing to take into consideration what else he had to say on the very same subject. In fact, when you say St. Thomas “favored the execution of obstinate heretics”, you do not have a leg to stand on, for there is a qualitative difference between saying that an obstinate heretic deserves death, and advocating his death as a matter of official policy.

Here is what a Thomistic philosopher, someone who does not “cherry-pick” his teachings, has to say about your favorite passage, in response to someone who makes the same argument as you:

In his influential work, A Theory of Justice, John Rawls accuses Thomas Aquinas of not advocating "even a limited tolerance." (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971), p.216) It seems plausible to accuse Rawls in this matter of a superficial reading of Thomas, depending on one passage in the Summa Theologiae (II-II, q. 11, a. 3) without placing that passage in its larger context. Upon closer examination, one can see that Thomas in fact advocates more than just a limited tolerance, while explicating that a true theory of tolerance is not a theory of neutrality, but rather an admission that the objects of toleration are not themselves positive goods.

[…] Thus far, it seems as if Rawls' criticism is entirely unfounded. We have yet, however, to investigate the singular passage from the Summa which prompts his criticism. This is Thomas' infamous question as to whether heretics should be tolerated. Thomas responds:

Wherefore if forgers or money and other evil-doers are forewith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated, but even put to death. (ST II-II, q. 11, a. 3)
Rawls attacks this passage as being an affront to liberty, and also as being unfair since the danger of heresy is a matter of faith:

...Aquinas justifies the death penalty for heretics on the ground that it is a far graver matter to corrupt the faith, which is the life of the soul, than to counterfeit money. So if it is just to put to death forgers and criminals, heretics may a fortiori be similiarly dealt with. (Rawls, op.cit.,p.215)
First of all, we must closely examine Thomas' actual words. He is not directly advocating the death penalty for heretics. Rather, he is setting up a conditional: if forgers and the like are executed under the law, then heretics should, with much more justification, be likewise punished.

Thomas himself does not directly advocate that forgers should be killed; he is merely describing how they were dealt with within his own society.
Forgers are not executed in modern, liberal democracies; we reserve the death penalty for our most heinous murderers. In medieval society, however, many lesser crimes were punishable by death. Heresy, which endangers a person's eternal salvation, surely is a greater evil than forgery. Furthermore, Thomas reserves the execution of heretics to the secular authority….

If, however, we examine the Thomistic doctrine on the death penalty in general, we can see that he only favors it when the common good is in immediate danger:
Therefore, if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good.... (ST II-II, q. 64, a. 2)
In the same place, however, Thomas adds that evil-doers should be tolerated if their destruction would harm the virtuous:

Wherefore Our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked.(Ibid., ad. 1)
It should be clear from the forgoing that Rawls' accusation that Thomas is intolerant is superficial and false. Thomas advocates tolerance of the rites of unbelievers and even of such evils as prostitution. Moreover, the Thomistic theory of free will and the relationship of God to the free choices of man provides an even stronger basis for toleration than does Rawls' more pragmatic doctrine. (Maria Fontana Magee, A Thomistic Case for Tolerance, approved by Joseph Magee, Ph.D., Philosophy, http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/tolernce.html)

Also, see http://iwasinprison.org/news/2012/feb1.html

See also, Aquinas' Moral, Political, and Legal Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas-moral-political/:

6.4.2 Heresy, unbelief and religious freedom

Aquinas accepts the teaching of the Church of his era that no one can rightly be compelled to accept the Christian faith or membership of the Church, but that those who are members can and should be compelled by both ecclesiastical and state law to abstain from any public renunciation of it. He treats such renunciation as an actionable breach of promise (passing silently over the fact that in most cases the promise was made not by the persons concerned but rather, in their early infancy, by their parents). And he regards public teaching of heresy as comparable to counterfeiting coin of the realm and therefore rightly punishable capitally by the secular authorities (the fact of false teaching having been ascertained by an ecclesiastical trial). His views about this matter are explicitly based on the evolving tradition of the Church and on what historical experience suggested were the effects of more permissive political or legal arrangements.

So there are no theoretical obstacles to his ready acceptance of the judgment of later theologians and Church teachers that, as experience shows, it is more compatible with basic positions in his moral and political philosophy to hold that authentically personal judgment and freely chosen commitment are so important in relation to ultimate questions that all persons (even those whose beliefs about religion are false or ill-formed) have a moral right, and should have the corresponding legal right, to be free from state (and ecclesiastical) coercion in religious belief or action except in so far as their conduct would be contrary to the rights of others or to public peace or to public morality (that is, morality so far as it concerns actions which impact on the public) (Second Vatican Council, Declaration on Religious Liberty (1965)).
Nor is it clear how he could resist the objection that, even if those baptized in infancy ratify the promises made on their behalf at baptism, the subscription of faith is not an undertaking to other people or the community, but rather is a matter which, as he says in a neglected passage elsewhere in his major writings (ScG III c. 80 n. 15), “pertains to that person alone as an individual [secundum se ipsum].”
I’ll pick it up again another time, this is long enough.

But, Abraham Lincoln, really? Let’s imagine Lincoln as a Catholic Prince, who, with the blessing of the pope, goes to war against the heretical and secessionist south; kills the heretics, burns their fields, confiscates their property – all for the “common good”. And the justifications continue. And to think the Pope wrote this kind letter to Jefferson Davis:

Illustrious and honorable sir, greeting:

We have lately received with all kindness, as was meet, the gentlemen sent by your Excellency to present to us your letter dated on the 23d of last September. We have received certainly no small pleasure in learning both from these gentlemen and from your letter the feelings of gratification and of very warm appreciation with which you, illustrious and honorable sir, were moved when you first had knowledge written in October of the preceding year to the venerable brethren, John, archbishop of New York, and John, archbishop of New Orleans, in which we again and again urged and exhorted those venerable brethren that because of their exemplary piety and episcopal zeal they should employ their most earnest efforts, in our name also, in order that the fatal civil war which had arisen in the States should end, and that the people of America might again enjoy mutual peace and concord, and love each other with mutual charity.

And it has been very gratifying to us to recognize illustrious and honorable sir, that you and your people are animated by the same desire for peace and tranquillity, which we had so earnestly inculcated in our aforesaid letters to the venerable brethren above named. Oh, that the other people also of the States and their rulers, considering seriously how cruel and how deplorable is this internecine war, would receive and embrace the counsels of peace and tranquillity. We indeed shall not cease with most fervent prayer to beseech God, the best and highest, and to implore Him to pour out the spirit of Christian love and peace upon all the people of America, and to rescue them from the great calamities with which they are afflicted. And we also pray the same most merciful Lord that he will illumine your Excellency with the light of His divine grace and unite you with ourselves in perfect charity.

Given at Rome at St. Peters on the 3d December, 1863, in the eighteenth year of our pontificate.

PIUS P. P. IX.

http://www.danvilleartillery.org/popeletter.htm
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  Jehanne on Wed Dec 26, 2012 9:26 pm

MRyan wrote:And the justifications continue. And to think the Pope wrote this kind letter to Jefferson Davis:

Illustrious and honorable sir, greeting:

We have lately received with all kindness, as was meet, the gentlemen sent by your Excellency to present to us your letter dated on the 23d of last September. We have received certainly no small pleasure in learning both from these gentlemen and from your letter the feelings of gratification and of very warm appreciation with which you, illustrious and honorable sir, were moved when you first had knowledge written in October of the preceding year to the venerable brethren, John, archbishop of New York, and John, archbishop of New Orleans, in which we again and again urged and exhorted those venerable brethren that because of their exemplary piety and episcopal zeal they should employ their most earnest efforts, in our name also, in order that the fatal civil war which had arisen in the States should end, and that the people of America might again enjoy mutual peace and concord, and love each other with mutual charity.

And it has been very gratifying to us to recognize illustrious and honorable sir, that you and your people are animated by the same desire for peace and tranquillity, which we had so earnestly inculcated in our aforesaid letters to the venerable brethren above named. Oh, that the other people also of the States and their rulers, considering seriously how cruel and how deplorable is this internecine war, would receive and embrace the counsels of peace and tranquillity. We indeed shall not cease with most fervent prayer to beseech God, the best and highest, and to implore Him to pour out the spirit of Christian love and peace upon all the people of America, and to rescue them from the great calamities with which they are afflicted. And we also pray the same most merciful Lord that he will illumine your Excellency with the light of His divine grace and unite you with ourselves in perfect charity.

Given at Rome at St. Peters on the 3d December, 1863, in the eighteenth year of our pontificate.

PIUS P. P. IX.


http://www.danvilleartillery.org/popeletter.htm

What's your point, Mike, that Pope Pius IX wanted an end to the bloody American civil war? (In spite of what the good Pontiff wrote, it is widely accepted that the Vatican, while technically neutral, was, nonetheless, hoping for a Southern victory.) Was Lincoln justified in starting it in the first place? If so, why? Did the "public order" and/or "common good" demand a "war of reunification"? After all, most Southerns wanted independence! Why did the North, and Lincoln in particular, not simply grant them what they wanted? Did not they have "freedom of conscience" not to have others impose their values upon them??? To have their own system of government???

Justify, Mike, Abraham Lincoln's military and violent aggression against the South. How about General William Sherman's "March to the Sea":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman%27s_March_to_the_Sea

He was never prosecuted as the war criminal which he was, but hey, "War is hell," right? For General Sherman, his actions and those of his troops were a necessary evil, or so, he and they thought.

I am waiting on your "not following my conscience is a mortal sin" as not applying to abortion doctors, Melinda Gates, Catholic traditionalists, etc., but, apparently, as applying to Jon Hus and others like him.
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: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  MRyan on Wed Dec 26, 2012 9:43 pm

Jehanne wrote:
Next, this quote:

MRyan wrote:No, he did not "accept it", he didn't exactly have a choice in the matter, unless you are suggesting that it would have better before God had he “recanted” his beliefs, even after having “declared himself conscious of no error.” St. Thomas Aquinas called this a mortal sin.
Where? In the past, you have taken me to task for my paraphrasing of Saint Thomas, so please, provide the reference. And, if "freedom of conscience" applied to Jon Hus, why not to Archbishop Lefebvre, Catholics for Choice, Melinda Gates, "Feeneyites" of every stripe, Sedevacantists, the Council of Constance, etc., etc.?
It's not a matter of "paraphrasing", its a matter of a faulty interpretation. Paraphrasing is fine so long as one sticks to its intended meaning, it's context, what is actually says, and what it doesn't say.

Here is the citation I am referring to:

In his book “Moral Wisdom, Lessons and Texts from the Catholic Tradition” James F. Keenan, s.j., professor of theological ethics at Boston College, wrote that when Thomas Aquinas first arrived at Paris in 1252 to teach (namely, to comment on Peter Lombard’s Sentences, since every budding professor lectured on them as their first university lecture appointment) he dutifully referred to Lombard as the Master. However, on the question of conscience Thomas straightforwardly rejected Lombard. “Here the Master is wrong” (hic magister falsum dicit). Lombard had argued that one is not obliged to follow one’s conscience when at odds with Church teaching. Thomas responded that we ought to die excommunicated rather than violate our conscience. (Moral Wisdom, page 36)

TWO OTHER QUOTATIONS FOR YOUR FURTHER REFLECTION

+ In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience… For man has in his heart a law written by God. To obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his depths….” | Vatican II in the Pastoral Constitution about the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes n.16)

+ Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. ‘He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, esp[i]ecially in religious matters.’
| Catechism of the Catholic Church #1782

(http://www.philipchircop.com/post/31804421355/we-ought-to-die-excommunicated-rather-than-violate)
See also The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought, by Alistair Mason and Hugh Pyper, Oxford Press, 2000, pg. 130, google books (the same citation).

Both authors are citing St. Thomas Aquinas in his Commentary on the Fourth Book of Sentences of Peter Lombard.

OK, I stand corrected, I should have said “St. Thomas Aquinas strongly implied this would be a mortal sin”, for how could it be otherwise if what he says is true?

The CCC backs this up:

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
Again, the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

He [Jon Hus] refused all formulæ of submission, again declared himself conscious of no error, nor, as he said, had any been proved against him from the Scriptures. He declared that he would not condemn the truth, nor perjure himself. His books were burned by order of the council (24 June). New efforts to obtain a retractation proved fruitless. He was brought for final sentence before the fifteenth session (6 July, 1415), at which the emperor assisted, and on which occasion thirty propositions, taken mostly from the work of Hus "On the Church" (De Ecclesiâ), were read publicly. He refused to retract anything and so was condemned as a heretic, deposed, and degraded, and handed over to the secular arm, which in turn condemned him to perish at the stake, at that time the usual legal punishment of convicted heretics. He suffered that cruel death with self-possession and courage and when about to expire cried out, it is said: "Christ, Son of the living God, have mercy on us!" His ashes were thrown into the Rhine. Owing largely to the dramatic circumstances of his death, he became at once the hero of Bohemian patriotism and the martyr-saint of multitudes in Bohemia and elsewhere who shared his demagogic and revolutionary principles…
And yes, Jehanne, this applies equally to "Archbishop Lefebvre", "Feeneyites" of every stripe, "Sedevacantists", etc.

I am not going to comment on other individuals I know nothing about. If they defy a Church's dogma, they are at least material heretical, and if the Church excommunicates them, they stand excommunicated (from the Church) before God, even if He excuses their error.

Note well that I did not say we do not have a right to make judgments in the external forum (we are allowed to protect ourselves from objective heresy); with the Church having jurisdiction in the formal external forum, but only that one's conscience cannot be forced.



avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  Jehanne on Wed Dec 26, 2012 9:51 pm

MRyan wrote:Here is the citation I am referring to:

In his book “Moral Wisdom, Lessons and Texts from the Catholic Tradition” James F. Keenan, s.j., professor of theological ethics at Boston College, wrote that when Thomas Aquinas first arrived at Paris in 1252 to teach (namely, to comment on Peter Lombard’s Sentences, since every budding professor lectured on them as their first university lecture appointment) he dutifully referred to Lombard as the Master. However, on the question of conscience Thomas straightforwardly rejected Lombard. “Here the Master is wrong” (hic magister falsum dicit). Lombard had argued that one is not obliged to follow one’s conscience when at odds with Church teaching. Thomas responded that we ought to die excommunicated rather than violate our conscience. (Moral Wisdom, page 36)

"Amen to that!!!" Jon Hus, no doubt, was following his conscience, and so, too, were the Fathers at the Council of Constance who condemned and then turned him over to secular judgment, and so, too, were the secular judges who condemned him to the stake, and so, too, was the executioner who put him to death. And, so, too was Marcel Lefebvre in consecrating four bishops against Papal mandate, and so, too, was Father Feeney in refusing obedience by not going to Rome, and so, too, is Bishop Williamson, the Traditio fathers, the CMRI, SSPX, SSPV, Saint Benedict Centers, etc., etc.! (Not to forget Good 'Ole Abe and well as Jefferson Davis, also.)

And, so, too, are you, and so, too am I!!!

P.S. Columba, I am not so sure about you! And, especially, you, Rasha!! "Love is blind," right?! (No, guys, just kidding!!) Very Happy
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: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  MRyan on Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:12 pm

Jehanne wrote:
What's your point, Mike, that Pope Pius IX wanted an end to the bloody American civil war? (In spite of what the good Pontiff wrote, it is widely accepted that the Vatican, while technically neutral, was, nonetheless, hoping for a Southern victory.) Was Lincoln justified in starting it in the first place? If so, why? Did the "public order" and/or "common good" demand a "war of reunification"? After all, most Southerns wanted independence! Why did the North, and Lincoln in particular, not simply grant them what they wanted? Did not they have "freedom of conscience" not to have others impose their values upon them??? To have their own system of government???

Justify, Mike, Abraham Lincoln's military and violent aggression against the South. How about General William Sherman's "March to the Sea":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman%27s_March_to_the_Sea

He was never prosecuted as the war criminal which he was, but hey, "War is hell," right? For General Sherman, his actions and those of his troops were a necessary evil, or so, he and they thought..
I’ll justify “Abraham Lincoln's military and violent aggression against the South” and “General William Sherman's ‘March to the Sea’" when you can justify a “Catholic prince’s” violent aggression against heretics in the form of extermination (by fire), torture and the confiscation of property. If Sherman has the blessing of the President, “Catholic prince’s” had the blessing of the pope.

I refuse to recognize the tyrant Lincoln’s unjust war of aggression as “just”, just as I refuse to recognize the so-called “justice” of plunder, torture and the burning at the stake of heretics, all done in the name of the Church.

That you missed the point is sad, but not surprising.

avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  Jehanne on Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:22 pm

Definition of HERESY
1
a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma
b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church
c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
2
a : dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice
b : an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards
See heresy defined for English-language learners »
See heresy defined for kids »
Examples of HERESY

They were accused of heresy.
He was preaching dangerous heresies.

Origin of HERESY
Middle English heresie, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin haeresis, from Late Greek hairesis, from Greek, action of taking, choice, sect, from hairein to take
First Known Use: 13th century

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heresy

Jon Hus chose, per his conscience, to be burned alive at the stake. (Many other individuals chose not to endure such a fate; whether those "choices" were sincere or not likely depended on the unique individual. Some, no doubt, sincerely recognized their errors and corrected them, in accordance with the judgment of the Church.) The innocent victims of General Sherman's March to the Sea did not "choose" to be murdered, raped, plundered, etc. They were truly "collateral" damage.

As you pointed out, it was the consciences of the Fathers at the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Constance, guided by the Holy Spirit, who felt that violence against those who would endanger the eternal salvation of other persons and/or the unity of the Mystical Body of Christ was a "necessary evil." Okay, you disagree, and that's fine.

Ultimately, it is Jesus Christ who will judge, not only them, but people like you who have made judgments about them.
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: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  MRyan on Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:42 pm

Jehanne wrote:
Did the Fathers at the Council of Constance know how the Hussite Wars would turn out? Hardly. Like Lincoln, they were fighting for the unity of a Kingdom, but one which was (and is) spiritual as opposed to temporal. As with Lincoln, they saw the unity of the Church of Christ as being important and those who were opposed to that unity (such as Jon Hus) as being traitors to the King of Heaven, and who, refusing to repent of their heresies, were deserving of death, a punishment which was firmly rooted in both the Old and New Testament.

One again you exonerate Lincoln (while denying it) by comparing his unjust war of aggression to the Council of Constance’s decree to all Catholic prince’s that they are to exterminate every last one of the filthy heretics in their lands, while giving them permission to confiscate all of their properties; after all, didn’t St. Thomas say that a sinner is worse than an animal, and has no dignity ... ergo ….

I get it, for “spiritual unity”, death, destruction, torture and plunder is OK, but NOT for temporal unity. And yet, we are told, the justification for the respective wars within one’s own nation (against an internal enemy who seeks only the freedom to follow his conscience and his religion while respecting the laws and/or religion of the state) is the same, for the welfare (common good) of the nation.

Jehanne, you wrote: “It is unfortunate that the CCC condemns judicial torture, misunderstanding, at it does, the desire of Catholic princes to prevent, as much as they could, the everlasting torture of their subjects, in addition to maintaining the public and spiritual order of their kingdoms in accordance with the common good of their subjects.”

Yes, most “unfortunate” that the CCC would actually condemn judicial torture, especially when we consider that the Church surely misunderstands the benefits to the Church when after a hearty round of torture (never fails to cheer up the “troops”), upon the “extermination” (with the blessing of the Pope) of all of those heretics who infested the “Catholic prince’s” fiefdom, it was common practice to confiscate all of the heretic’s belongings and private property. Nothing like a little plunder to go along with public executions of heretics. Gee, what’s to get upset about? Unintended consequences, what’s that? You mean they don’t hate us because we are good, free, and possess the one true religion? What’s a little torture and some public executions for heresy or “treason” against the “common good” – when justice demands it?

Sure, “Maybe they thought that if they cut-off the ‘serpent's head,’ that his body would die. Hindsight is, after all, 20/20.” Right, Jehanne, they had no way of knowing that the considerable following of Hus in Bohemia would inflame their ranks when he was executed in such a dramatic fashion. “Here, you heretics, take that! (but, its for your own good)”.

It would have been better to have invaded Bohemia and wipe out the entire region of “Hussites”, don’t you think? Oh, they tried that, never mind.

You know, you really do sound like the neocons who do not understand the concept of “blowback”, and act totally surprised when torture and the killing of alleged “insurgents” (“terrorists”) and the “collateral” killing of men, women and children by our troops or by drone attacks breeds only more “insurgents”. You and Giuliani have a lot in common. He's Catholic too. I mean, don’t they know we do these things for their own good, that we are interested only in spreading the “truth” of the one true religion, otherwise known as the one true democracy?

Sometimes I can hardly believe we are having this conversation.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  MRyan on Wed Dec 26, 2012 11:16 pm

Jehanne wrote:
Definition of HERESY
...
Examples of HERESY
...
Jon Hus chose, per his conscience, to be burned alive at the stake.
You mean he "chose" to be burned at the stake rather than to perjure himself and sin against God. That is not a “choice” in the true sense, for the "choice" that could have saved him was a lie. He did not choose death, he accepted it as his only option - it was a sentence of death.

Jehanne wrote:Many other individuals chose not to endure such a fate; whether some of those "choices" were sincere or not likely depended on the unique individual.
Some of the newly baptized Christians in the early age of the martyrs “chose” to offer incense to the idols rather than to suffer a cruel death. The Church had to reign in the more excitable of the early Church members who strongly condemned these lapses and wished to inflict severe penalties upon those who lapsed. Like the Catholic martyrs, however, Hus, in his own eyes, had only one choice if he was to remain true to his conscience, even if he was wrong (which of course he was).

Jehanne wrote:Some, no doubt, sincerely recognized their errors and corrected them, in accordance with the judgment of the Church.
Then I guess they were not actually sincere in holding to their heresy, were they? While fear may be a legitimate motive to reconsider one’s position, only the resolute will remain strong when they believe they are right – strong enough to die for their faith.

Jehanne wrote:The innocent victims of General Sherman's March to the Sea did not "choose" to be murdered, raped, plundered, etc. They were truly "collateral" damage.
Meaning of course that the “innocent victims” of “Catholic princes” who were tortured, plundered and burned to the stake simply do not exist; each one of them, as a convicted heretic, “chose” to be tortured, to have their property plundered, and to be burned at the stake. All they had to do was “surrender”, and confess to heresy, and all would have been well, provided they survived the torture sessions.

Jehanne wrote:As you pointed out, it was the consciences of the Fathers at the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Constance, guided by the Holy Spirit, who felt that violence against those who would endanger the eternal salvation of other persons and/or the unity of the Mystical Body of Christ was a "necessary evil." Okay, you disagree, and that's fine.
Yes, Jehanne, I’m sure it was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that it was determined that the heretics in Catholic lands must be exterminated, and all their possessions confiscated.

Yes, I disagree. The Holy Spirit allowed it; it does NOT mean that He approved of it. The Church can be chastised through these misdeeds in any age, and this was no exception. She has learned her lesson, the hard way.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  Jehanne on Wed Dec 26, 2012 11:45 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
Definition of HERESY
...
Examples of HERESY
...
Jon Hus chose, per his conscience, to be burned alive at the stake.
You mean he "chose" to be burned at the stake rather than to perjure himself and sin against God. That is not a “choice” in the true sense, for the "choice" that could have saved him was a lie. He did not choose death, he accepted it as his only option - it was a sentence of death.

He was lying to himself; God was not lying to him. Are you saying that the Holy Spirit offered Hus no graces to remain "within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church"? Are you saying that the Holy Spirit was leading Hus away from the One True Church? Are you saying that Hus had zero culpability in his heresies and schisms?

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:Many other individuals chose not to endure such a fate; whether some of those "choices" were sincere or not likely depended on the unique individual.
Some of the newly baptized Christians in the early age of the martyrs “chose” to offer incense to the idols rather than to suffer a cruel death. The Church had to reign in the more excitable of the early Church members who strongly condemned these lapses and wished to inflict severe penalties upon those who lapsed. Like the Catholic martyrs, however, Hus, in his own eyes, had only one choice if he was to remain true to his conscience, even if he was wrong (which of course he was).

Yes, Hus was wrong; we agree on that point, don't we?!!

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:Some, no doubt, sincerely recognized their errors and corrected them, in accordance with the judgment of the Church.
Then I guess they were not actually sincere in holding to their heresy, were they? While fear may be a legitimate motive to reconsider one’s position, only the resolute will remain strong when they believe they are right – strong enough to die for their faith.

Or, maybe it was the Holy Spirit who was guiding them back to the bosom of their Mother, the Church.

Why punish people at all, Mike, if everyone's conscience is "to be his/her guide"???

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:The innocent victims of General Sherman's March to the Sea did not "choose" to be murdered, raped, plundered, etc. They were truly "collateral" damage.
Meaning of course that the “innocent victims” of “Catholic princes” who were tortured, plundered and burned to the stake simply do not exist; each one of them, as a convicted heretic, “chose” to be tortured, to have their property plundered, and to be burned at the stake. All they had to do was “surrender”, and confess to heresy, and all would have been well, provided they survived the torture sessions.

You've misunderstood medieval judicial torture. The "right to silence" did not exist in the Middle Ages; if a court (as in the case of Gilles de Rais) found that there was sufficient evidence of your guilt, you were expected to confess. If not, you could be tortured; first, after being warned, and then, after being "shown the instruments." Such was, however, your choice. Now, if you were truly innocent (as was sometimes the case), the judges trying you would sometimes changed their minds about your guilt after you were "put to the torture." One must wonder how many innocent individuals languishing in American jails would welcome the opportunity of being tortured "until they confessed"!

Besides, how were accused heretics "innocent"? Even the CCC states:

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.

Jon Hus was a sinner, Mike; maybe not a formal heretic, but at least a material one to be sure. One thing which we do know is that the Holy Spirit was not guiding Jon Hus away from the One True Church; such was his own doings.

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:As you pointed out, it was the consciences of the Fathers at the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Constance, guided by the Holy Spirit, who felt that violence against those who would endanger the eternal salvation of other persons and/or the unity of the Mystical Body of Christ was a "necessary evil." Okay, you disagree, and that's fine.
Yes, Jehanne, I’m sure it was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that it was determined that the heretics in Catholic lands must be exterminated, and all their possessions confiscated.

Yes, I disagree. The Holy Spirit allowed it; it does NOT mean that He approved of it. The Church can be chastised through these misdeeds in any age, and this was no exception. She has learned her lesson, the hard way.

Perhaps this was the case for Vatican II?
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: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  MRyan on Thu Dec 27, 2012 5:52 pm

Jehanne wrote:

Indeed, Pope Pius IX condemned these very lines of thought:

[snip ...]
No, Jehanne, I’m not getting sucked into these lengthy copy and paste distractions, the complicated details of which we have covered already. If you want to go there, how about a thread dedicated exclusively to the Syllabus? “Lines of thought” is not going to cut it, not after what we’ve already been through.

Jehanne wrote:

As for the council of Constance, it's not my place to question what they did and did not do or what they could have done.
Really? Then why are you questioning the Second Vatican Council? Why do you suggest that the prudential decisions of Pope JPII are deserving of the everlasting torments of Hell?

Jehanne wrote:
In fact, it has never been my POV to defend their decisions, rather, to say that they had the right to make the decisions which they made, no matter how imprudent those decisions were in the light of subsequent history.
I’m not buying this, you have been doing nothing BUT defending their decisions to have heretics tortured and exterminated, and their properties confiscated (stolen). You even took the CCC to task for condemning torture; after all, by burning heretics at the stake, the Catholic prince’s were simply trying to save them from the fires of hell, and it had nothing at all to do with a Vatican sanctioned land grab. That our pope’s had the so-called “right” to make imprudent decisions according to the “Jus publicum”, does not make it right, or moral; such acts do not reflect the Spirit of the Gospel – period.

Jehanne wrote:
It took nearly 600 years but Pope John Paul II "apologized" for Hus' execution, stating (per Wkipedia) that he had "deep regret for the cruel death inflicted..." So, was JP II "apologizing" for the fact that Hus was executed or for the manner in which he was executed. After all, the executioner had "bound his neck with a chain to a stake around which wood and straw had been piled up so that it covered him to the neck". Was such "standard practices" or what the executioner being a bit "creative" here? Probably the later, as far as I can tell.
One can only wonder how these questions come to percolate in your mind. The execution of Hus was morally wrong, end of story, what is it that you do not understand?

Jehanne wrote:
Here's one stake execution where the highest authorities truly despised the victim:

[image - snip]

She was not, of course, "buried up to her neck," which, by the way, would have involved a very large pile of wood! My suspicion is that Hus passed-out before the flames ever touched his body; still, his death was "cruel" and not typical of most stake executions. Granted, of course, there were sadistic exceptions, as has occurred throughout American history with our practice of botched electrocutions, which does not appear to be upsetting to most Americans. Most medieval executioners were, however, compassionate men who had a difficult job to do, and if their victim cooperated with them, they weren't going to make life any more miserable than it had to be.
Oh, please, spare us. Your obsession with how someone expires in the flames is disconcerting, to say the least.

Jehanne wrote:
Finally, Mike, correct me if I am wrong (perhaps this would be a good time for Mark to jump in here), but as far as I can tell Jon Hus, like his predecessor John Wycliffe, believed, taught, and professed the idea of double predestination, whereby, the One and Triune God, from Eternity past, had selected some human beings for eternal Heaven and others for everlasting Hell, the Elect and the reprobate, irrespective of those individuals' own human free will and/or choices. In other words, God created some human beings, body and soul, with the sole purpose of damning those persons to Hell, infants included, in spite of the "corrections and/or sanctifications" which some followers of John Calvin like to make to his statements.
I have no idea what Hus actually believed, except I read that he did not believe in Papal Primacy (as it is defined). I do not know, in other words, if he was in 100% lock-step with Wycliff. And I am not interested in going down this double-predestination trail.

Jehanne wrote:
Having said that, I respect the Council of Constance's decision to put Hus to death, his repeated refusals to recant notwithstanding. Such a decision was theirs to make, in accordance with the decrees set forth in the Fourth Lateran Council, and no one else's to question.
Pope JPII questioned it, and he had every right to – and so do we.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  Jehanne on Thu Dec 27, 2012 6:23 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:

As for the council of Constance, it's not my place to question what they did and did not do or what they could have done.
Really? Then why are you questioning the Second Vatican Council? Why do you suggest that the prudential decisions of Pope JPII are deserving of the everlasting torments of Hell?

Why are you questioning the Fourth Lateran Council? As for Vatican II, I believe that it can be reconciled with Lateran IV via its "within due limits" clause.

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
In fact, it has never been my POV to defend their decisions, rather, to say that they had the right to make the decisions which they made, no matter how imprudent those decisions were in the light of subsequent history.
I’m not buying this, you have been doing nothing BUT defending their decisions to have heretics tortured and exterminated, and their properties confiscated (stolen). You even took the CCC to task for condemning torture; after all, by burning heretics at the stake, the Catholic prince’s were simply trying to save them from the fires of hell, and it had nothing at all to do with a Vatican sanctioned land grab. That our pope’s had the so-called “right” to make imprudent decisions according to the “Jus publicum”, does not make it right, or moral; such acts do not reflect the Spirit of the Gospel – period.

Well, that's your opinion (and, apparently, the opinion of Pope John Paul II). Let's see if Jesus Christ, the Righteous Judge, agrees with you (and him) on the Last Day.

MRyan wrote:Pope JPII questioned it, and he had every right to – and so do we.

If that's true, then we can certainly question what JP II did, said, and wrote, also.
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: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  Lionel Andrades on Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:58 pm

I agree with Fr.Brian Harrison :

“DH does not contradict the Church’s traditional doctrine.”

Once it is seen that the Council has not changed the Church's teaching on other religions it is easier to see how DH is in agreement with Tradition.

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  Lionel Andrades on Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:13 pm

Dignitatis Humanae acknowledges religious freedom in Constituions which are not those of the Catholic confessional states while in principle it acknowledges the right of Catholics to their beliefs including that of the non separation of Church and State and the Social Kingship of Jesus over all legislation and institutions.

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  Lionel Andrades on Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:19 pm


A DIALOGUE ON DIGNITATIS HUMANAE


R.
My concern and issue with DH is not religious indifferentism, strictly speaking, but the matter of proclaming that man has a right to be free of restriction in publicly proclaiming and propagating his theological beliefs, regardless of how wrong and/or anti-Catholic they are, subject only to the due limits of public peace/public safety, the intrinsic moral order, and unsavory forms of expression.

Lionel:
De facto in the present time man is free.Since the Church does not have secular power.

Once we understand that Vatican Council II does not contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus we can believe that de jure (in principle) it is important for all legislation and political instituions to have Christ as their head.

R.
This, along with John XXIII's Pacem in Terris, seems to clash with Mirari Vos and Immortale Dei, at a minimum. I do think it clashes with Quanta Cura interpreted in any reasonable manner, though, admittedly, QC's language is somewhat more vague and generalized than MV or ID. Also, while I can see that DH does not technically clash with Quas Primas, if I look at how Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI have conducted themselves, taught and spoken on this subject, then their interperative application of DH does indeed even contradict Quas Primas, not to mention the others.

Lionel:
In the popes last encyclical he mentions that he has no power on this issue. It is a brief one line comment.

Then there is confusion over the dogma.


R.
from the 1500s, which magisterially proclaims that heretics can be executed.

Lionel:
The Catholic Church does not have the power presently. They can only support these teachings in principle.

R:
FROM MIRARI VOS:
15. Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?

Lionel:
In principle even today the Church has criticized the media over evil.
Defacto the Church has no power as in the past.

R.
16. The Church has always taken action to destroy the plague of bad books. This was true even in apostolic times for we read that the apostles themselves burned a large number of books.[23] It may be enough to consult the laws of the fifth Council of the Lateran on this matter and the Constitution which Leo X published afterwards lest "that which has been discovered advantageous for the increase of the faith and the spread of useful arts be converted to the contrary use and work harm for the salvation of the faithful."[24] This also was of great concern to the fathers of Trent, who applied a remedy against this great evil by publishing that wholesome decree concerning the Index of books which contain false doctrine.[25] "We must fight valiantly," Clement XIII says in an encyclical letter about the banning of bad books, "as much as the matter itself demands and must exterminate the deadly poison of so many books; for never will the material for error be withdrawn, unless the criminal sources of depravity perish in flames."[26] Thus it is evident that this Holy See has always striven, throughout the ages, to condemn and to remove suspect and harmful books. The teaching of those who reject the censure of books as too heavy and onerous a burden causes immense harm to the Catholic people and to this See. They are even so depraved as to affirm that it is contrary to the principles of law, and they deny the Church the right to decree and to maintain it.

Lionel:
The Church does not have defacto power.In principle they can assert themself, they can comment.

R.
MMORTALE DEI:
32. So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue.


I see no theological reconciliation here, if words and beliefs have any concrete form and meaning left.

Lionel:
In principle Vatican Council II does not contradict these texts you have mentioned.
Defacto the Church does not have political power as in the past.

R.
Saying a change has occurred and is somehow justified is a different matter, one that still gives me trouble but does recognize that change has occured, a discontinuity within continuity as our present pope has described it. But, to start with, I do not see any possible chance for a claim of pure continuity, which has been claimed by some, such as Fr. Most and Fr. Harrison.


Lionel:
Can you quote me that exact text from Vatican Council II which contradicts the de jure (in principle) understanding of this issue ?

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  Lionel Andrades on Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:29 pm

A DIALOGUE ON DIGNITATIS HUMANAE -1
R:
I simply see no way that man has a natural right to be free from restriction in propagating theological falsehoods,

Lionel:
Man has a natural right to choose. God leaves him this freedom.

R:
regardless of who does or does not have what kind of power.

Lionel:
regardless of who does or does not have power man has a natural right to choose.

R:
Even if the Church is 'powerless', in principle, nobody has a right to be free to publicly peddle any theological error or evil of their choosing.

Lionel:
True if the Church had the power as in the past nobody has a right to be free to to publicly peddle any theological error or evil of their choosing.

R:
If a current-day, non-Catholic government, for some oddball reason, decided to protect the Catholic faith by restricting the public circulation of theological ideas at odds with the Catholic faith, much the way Catholic confessional governments did before 1960, this should be welcome by the Church

Lionel:
Yes, of course!

R:
and its doctrinal teaching, not condemned in our new doctrinal teaching

Lionel:
And not be not condemned in our new doctrinal teaching !

R:
as an immoral affront against man's very human dignity, which is what we're being taught now, in contrast to the pre-1959 era.

Lionel:
I don’t know who you are referring to precisely.

R:
Nothing I see in our present-day teaching says that Catholic confessional states enjoy any exemption from this, and it really wouldn't make any theological sense, as I illustrated above with my oddball example, to have multiple standards.

Lionel:
There are no Catholic confessional states R.

R:
Our teachings regarding matters like abortion have not fluctuated based on how much power the Church does or does not have.

Lionel:
Correct and neither does are teaching have to change in principle (dejure) on the Social Reign of Jesus, extra ecclesiam nulla salus etc.Vatican Council II in its text does not ask it of us.

R:
Not only has teaching consistently said it's wrong,

Lionel:
Not in the text of Vatican Council II,R.

R:
the teaching has continued to entail an authoritative call to governments to stop such practices, regardless of how little power and influence the Church enjoys.

Lionel:
Please quote the text you are referring to.

R:
There is no reason that I can see how theological change, or multiple contexts of differing doctrinal teaching, is now justified simply because of a lack of power. Nothing wrong with continuing to condemn any non-Catholic public teaching of theology. Why does it matter, how little power the Church has?

Lionel:
No text says that we have to not believe in principle that all political and social legislation must have Jesus as its head.We can still believe it even if the Church does not have the power to implement it defacto. The text of Vatican Council II does not state otherwise.

FROM PACEM IN TERRIS
14. Also among man's rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public. According to the clear teaching of Lactantius, "this is the very condition of our birth, that we render to the God who made us that just homage which is His due; that we acknowledge Him alone as God, and follow Him. It is from this ligature of piety, which binds us and joins us to God, that religion derives its name.'' (l0)

Lionel:
Vatican Council II does not have this same message?

Hence, too, Pope Leo XIII declared that "true freedom, freedom worthy of the sons of God, is that freedom which most truly safeguards the dignity of the human person. It is stronger than any violence or injustice. Such is the freedom which has always been desired by the Church, and which she holds most dear. It is the sort of freedom which the Apostles resolutely claimed for themselves. The apologists defended it in their writings; thousands of martyrs consecrated it with their blood."
[From R: It seems borderline appalling that John XXIII selectively quotes Leo XIII out of context in support of a new teaching that Leo XIII's teaching contradicts and which Leo XIII would never have approved of.]

Lionel:
So in principle we are still free to uphold and affirm this true freedom.

FROM DIGNITATIS HUMANAE:
Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word.

Lionel:
Correct, Catholic religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word.
Non Catholic communities defacto are allowed the same right because of the power of the secular, socialist, Islamic etc state.

R:
In addition, it comes within the meaning of religious freedom that religious communities should not be prohibited from freely undertaking to show the special value of their doctrine in what concerns the organization of society and the inspiration of the whole of human activity.

Lionel:
They may not be prohibited physically.Morally and verbally we can express are Catholic religious views with freedom including the one which says outside the church there is no salvation and all non Catholics are oriented to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.

R:
All the more is it a violation of the will of God and of the sacred rights of the person and the family of nations when force is brought to bear in any way in order to destroy or repress religion, either in the whole of mankind or in a particular country or in a definite community.

Lionel:
We are opposed to the use of force.

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  Lionel Andrades on Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:35 pm

A DIALOGUE ON DIGNITATIS HUMANAE -2

R:
With all due respect, we seem to be completely talking past each other.

As an example, in the beginning of the last email from me, I said I simply see no way that man has a natural right to be free from restriction in propagating theological falsehoods. You respond with man has a natural right to choose and he is left by God in this freedom. That sounds like a non-sequitir that does not address what I had said.

Lionel:
'man has a natural right to be free from restriction in propagating theological falsehoods.'
I would like to agree with you but I am confused when you say' man has a natural right to be free from restriction in propagating theological falsehoods'

R:
My saying that I see no way he is to be free from restriction in propagating falsehoods does not mean I am saying or holding he does not have a natural right to choose. The Catholic Church classically held the view that I am holding to here, at least before 1959. That a person had a right to be free from restriction or coercion in choosing what they'd believe.

Lionel:
O.K So I also believe that a person should have the right to be free from restriction or coercion in choosing what they would believe.
So where is the problem?

R:
But they had no right to be free from restriction in publicly propagating anything from their non-Catholic faith that would contradict Catholic faith and morals.

Lionel:
'not be free from restriction in publicly propagating from their non-Catholic faith that would contradict Catholic faith and morals', since the issue is eternal salvation.So in principle we agree that this is the ideal. I m still not clear with 'not be free from restriction in publicly propagating...'

R:
Also, as an aside, I believe there are still technically a couple of Catholic states in existence, though their scope of activity on behalf of the Catholic faith has been hobbled by the demands of the post-1965 Vatican, as I understand. But whether these states exist or not seems completely irrelevant to a discussion as to what religious truth is, and what are the obligations of all states to the Church.

Lionel:

We agree on what religious truth is and that it is found only in the Catholic Church and that all political states should affirm Catholic teaching and be obedient to the pope or to a political representative of the Holy Father. De jure this should be the relation of the Church and state.
Even though defacto it is otherwise now.

R:
Also, I am rather puzzled that my saying our abortion teaching remains unchanged - I'm actually giving the post 1965 Vatican some credit here - is questioned simply because abortion wasn't dealt with explicitly in Second Vatican???
I would like to try to focus on the first exchange here regarding natural right and choosing. I don't see that while man does indeed have a natural right to choose having most anything to do with the problem at hand, as classical Catholicism generally held that and it - like indifferentism - is not one of the points from DH that traditionalists are questioning and challenging.

Lionel:
Let me repeat again:
We agree on what religious truth is and that it is found only in the Catholic Church and that all political states should affirm Catholic teaching and be obedient to the pope or to a political representative of the Holy Father. De jure this should be the relation of the Church and state.
So in principle Vatican Council II does not contradict this belief. However defacto it seems to acknowledge that states are free to create laws and this is a defacto right or reality.

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  Lionel Andrades on Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:47 pm

A DIALOGUE ON DIGNITATIS HUMANAE-3


R.

The DH problem is not about indifferentism, or baptism of desire or no salvation outside the Church etc.
The problem: in classical pre-1959 Catholic teaching, while people have a right to be free from pressure or coercion in accepting the Catholic faith and moving from being a non-Christian to a Christian, the teaching was fairly clear that they did not have the right to be free from restriction in publicly peddling and propagating their views that did not coincide with Catholic faith and morals. You could believe in Protestantism or Islam, or Judaism or most whatever in a classic Catholic confessional state of the 1940s and 1950s. But you had no natural right to be able to publicly proclaim your erroneous beliefs on TV, radio, in publicly circulated books, magazines, newsletters, or on billboards.

Lionel:
In a Catholic state de facto non Catholics have no right to proclaim their religious beliefs through the media.
Now they de facto have the right since the state is secular or non Catholic.
So the SSPX can say that in principle (de jure) non Catholics should not have the right to proclaim their religous beilefs through the media. De facto the SSPX is unable to stop them.So the SSPX has to defacto acknowledge the right of non Catholics to proclaim their religious beliefs.
The same would apply to the Vatican.
Pope Benedict XVI has said in his last encyclical that he has no power and so it is not an issue in the present time.


R.
A Catholic state had every right, even a duty, to curb the public propagation of these things, at least to the extent it feasibly could. The Church recognized the Catholic state had the option of permitting some or all of these errors to be publicly aired, in situations where the Catholic state felt it would be too difficult and problematic to suppress them, and wishes to obtain a greater good by not engaging in such restrictions. But when that happened, it was merely a toleration being granted to these non-Catholics, and I suppose Catholic dissidents. DH takes us well beyond any optional toleration to proclaiming an objective, normative natural right, something that flies in the face of what Catholic thought had stood for since the 4th century.

Lionel:
Could you say that DH is proclaiming a defacto objective, normative right since now there are no more Confessional states .DH in principle (de jure) is not saying there is such a right for non Catholics ?Since Vatican Council II acknowledges that non Catholic religions are not paths to salvation and all their members, with no known exception need to enter the Catholic Church (AG 7).
Dejure,yes (Dejure means in principle, Defacto means in reality)

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom-DH 2
Lionel:
Dejure and Defacto,yes.

This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.-DH 2
Lionel:
Dejure,yes.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.-DH 2

Lionel:
Dejure,yes.


This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.
Lionel:
Defacto,yes


This right... to religious freedom... is to become a civil right.Note religious freedom only is to become a civil right.

Lionel:
Dejure,yes they are all to seek the truth. The truth is found in only the Catholic Church (AG 7)


It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truthDejure,yes.
However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom.
Lionel:
Defacto,yes, no one is to be forced.


Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.

Lionel:

Dejure and Defacto,yes.


Indeed, religious freedom has already been declared to be a civil right in most constitutions, and it is solemnly recognized in international documents.(DH 15)
Lionel:
Defacto under most constitutions.


In addition, it comes within the meaning of religious freedom that religious communities should not be prohibited from freely undertaking to show the special value of their doctrine in what concerns the organization of society and the inspiration of the whole of human activity. Finally, the social nature of man and the very nature of religion afford the foundation of the right of men freely to hold meetings and to establish educational, cultural, charitable and social organizations, under the impulse of their own religious sense.

Lionel:
So DH acknowledges religious freedom in Constitutions which are not those of the Catholic Confessional states while in principle it acknowledges the right of Catholics to their beliefs inluding that of the non separation of Church and State and the Social Kingship of Jesus over all legislation and institions.

Lionel Andrades

Posts : 260
Reputation : 384
Join date : 2013-01-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Vatican II - Voice of The Church

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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