Contradictions of the modern popes
(08-14-2012, 09:38 AM)TrentCath Wrote: ???

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here. You can't have your cake and eat it, either the earlier popes were right and later popes were wrong or vice versa, they cannot both be right. It has nothing to do with 'liking it or not', it has to do with who is right.

Is my english so bad? I'm very sorry, I am not native speaking english  :)

However, it seems that you cannot live with contradictions in the history of theology.
Was St. Augustine wrong because St. Thomas Aquinas made 'corrections'? Was St. Jerome wrong while quarrelling with St. Augustine?
I hope they will all have a good laugh high above in heaven about our black/white theology and continue adoring the same Lord.

Of course, historical views on theology, showing that there is always development, is a modernist invention of the Nouvelle Theologie. Of course it is one of the basic mistakes of V2 that they looked back into theology of the ages before the Middle Ages and Trent. Of course, it's an error that Pope Benedict is accepting so much patristic theology. Or?

Come on, don't tell me that you don't understand that a Pope in this century is not saying that a Pope in the 19th century is wrong, just because he is changing things that particular Pope said. They are both right and making a kind of math of theological matters is always wrong. Theology = development and one of the major mistakes of the SSPX theology is that they in fact reject history, and make their strict interpretation of tradition a iron ball, like: Trent is always right and everything else is wrong. Whaha! Thát is so un-catholic!

:O shocking huh?

And btw the virtues of humility and obedience are no modernist inventions, so... don't call me naive when I bow my head for the magistery of Pope Benedict XVI. I don't reject our Pope, I try to understand what he writes. And from a deeper understanding my obedience is founded.
Quote: Does it not sometimes happen that the firm belief of the followers of the non-Christian religions-a belief that is also an effect of the Spirit of truth operating outside the visible confines of the Mystical Body-can make Christians ashamed at being often themselves so disposed to doubt concerning the truths revealed by God and proclaimed by the Church and so prone to relax moral principles and open the way to ethical permissiveness.
Pope John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis

Here the pope quite clearly states that the firm beliefs of non christians can be the result of the holy spirit, I don't think it needs to be explained how absurd a statement that is!

And let us see what another pope has to say on this issue:

Quote: 6. We are thankful for the success of apostolic missions in America, the Indies, and other faithless lands. The indefatigable zeal of many apostolic men has led them abroad into those places. Relying not on wealth nor on any army, they are protected by the shield of faith alone. They fearlessly fight the Lord's battles against heresy and unbelief by private and public speech and writings. They are inspired with a burning love and undeterred by rough roads and heavy toil. They search out those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death to summon them to the light and life of the Catholic Religion. So, fearless in the face of every danger, they bravely enter the woods and caves of savages, gradually pacify them by Christian kindness, and prepare them for true faith and real virtue. At length they snatch them from the devil's rule, by the bath of regeneration and promote them to the freedom of God's adopted sons.
Pope Gregory XVI, Probe Nostis

It doesn't sound like this pope believes their 'firm beliefs' were a result of the holy spirit does it?

Quote: The first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God [cf. Rom. 11:29], and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time a dialogue within our Church, that is to say, between the first and the second part of her Bible. In this connection, the directives for the application of the conciliar declaration Nostra Aetate say: "The effort must be made to understand better everything in the Old Testament that has its own, permanent value . . . since this value is not wiped out by the later interpretation of the New Testament, which, on the contrary, gave the Old Testament its full meaning, so that it is a question rather of reciprocal enlightenment and explanation" [11].
  Pope John Paul II, Address to Jews in Mainz, West Germany, Nov. 17, 1980

And yet:

Quote: However they are not attempting to observe the precepts of the old Law which as everybody knows have been revoked by the coming of Christ...The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel.
EX QUO (On the Euchologion)
Pope Benedict XIV

Quote: It firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation. 
Council of Florence

Quote: Miremos hacia el Calvario donde fue alzada la cruz. En esta cruz murió Cristo, y después fue colocado en el sepulcro. Miremos hacia la cruz, en la que se ha realizado el misterio del divino "legado" y de la divina "heredad". Dios, que había creado al hombre, restituyó a ese hombre, después de su pecado —a cada hombre y a todos los hombres—, de modo particular, a su Hijo.
Pope John Paul II, Homily, April 27, 1980: Roughly translated it means "We look at Calvary where the cross was raised. On this cross Chris died and afterwards was taken to the sepulcre. We look at the cross, on which the mystery of divine legation and divine inheritance was realised. God, who had created man, reconciled this same man, after his sin, each man and all men, in a particular way, to his son. "

Compare to the following:

Quote: It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.
Council of Florence

Now how could each and every man be reconciled in a particular way, to Christ, if all outside the Catholic Church are going to hell? (Whether they belong to the soul of the Church or not, the point here is merely that Pope John Paul II doesn't even try to claim they are somehow part of the Church)

Quote: From this there are derived certain fundamental criteria which should govern the entire new Code, both in the sphere of its specific matter and also in the language connected with it. It could indeed be said that from this there is derived that character of complementarily which the Code presents in relation to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, with particular reference to the two constitutions, the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium and the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes.

Hence it follows that what constitutes the substantial "novelty" of the Second Vatican Council, in line with the legislative tradition of the Church, especially in regard to ecclesiology, constitutes likewise the "novelty" of the new Code.

Among the elements which characterize the true and genuine image of the Church, we should emphasize especially the following: the doctrine in which the Church is presented as the People of God (cf. Lumen gentium, no. 2), and authority as a service (cf. ibid., no. 3); the doctrine in which the Church is seen as a "communion," and which, therefore, determines the relations which should exist between the particular Churches and the universal Church, and between collegiality and the primacy; the doctrine, moreover, according to which all the members of the People of God, in the way suited to each of them, participate in the threefold office of Christ: priestly, prophetic and kingly. With this teaching there is also linked that which concerns the duties and rights of the faithful, and particularly of the laity; and finally, the Church's commitment to ecumenism.

This is interesting for two reasons:

1) It rebuts the tiresome claims of some on here that actually Vatican 2 is perfectly traditional and we are just misunderstanding it, and
2) It contradicts the teaching of Vatican 1 on Papal Power, which you can see below

Quote: For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter, not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,  but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
First Vatican Council

(08-14-2012, 10:13 AM)kingofspades Wrote:
(08-14-2012, 09:38 AM)TrentCath Wrote: ???

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here. You can't have your cake and eat it, either the earlier popes were right and later popes were wrong or vice versa, they cannot both be right. It has nothing to do with 'liking it or not', it has to do with who is right.

Is my english so bad? I'm very sorry, I am not native speaking english  :)

However, it seems that you cannot live with contradictions in the history of theology.
Was St. Augustine wrong because St. Thomas Aquinas made 'corrections'? Was St. Jerome wrong while quarrelling with St. Augustine?
I hope they will all have a good laugh high above in heaven about our black/white theology and continue adoring the same Lord.

Of course, historical views on theology, showing that there is always development, is a modernist invention of the Nouvelle Theologie. Of course it is one of the basic mistakes of V2 that they looked back into theology of the ages before the Middle Ages and Trent. Of course, it's an error that Pope Benedict is accepting so much patristic theology. Or?

Come on, don't tell me that you don't understand that a Pope in this century is not saying that a Pope in the 19th century is wrong, just because he is changing things that particular Pope said. They are both right and making a kind of math of theological matters is always wrong. Theology = development and one of the major mistakes of the SSPX theology is that they in fact reject history, and make their strict interpretation of tradition a iron ball, like: Trent is always right and everything else is wrong. Whaha! Thát is so un-catholic!

:O shocking huh?

And btw the virtues of humility and obedience are no modernist inventions, so... don't call me naive when I bow my head for the magistery of Pope Benedict XVI. I don't reject our Pope, I try to understand what he writes. And from a deeper understanding my obedience is founded.

Your english is fine, but what you say is senseless.

Development is not contradiction and theologians are not popes, yes St Thomas Aquinas was wrong about the immaculate conception, at least the way he expressed it in the Summa, the exact reasons he was wrong are a matter for discussion elsewhere, yes Suarez was wrong when certain prepositions of his were condemned by the holy office, and so on. A thing cannot be both A and B, it is EITHER A or B, two people cannot say completely opposite things and both be right. Either the previous popes were right or the modern popes were right, there is no third alternative.

You are by the way not espousing the orthodox view of doctrinal development such as that explained by Bl Cardinal Newman but instead expressing plain and simple modernism, I will quote from the relevant encyclicals of St Pius X later to prove that or someone else can.

Your references to humilitiy and obedience are irrelevant, neither of those virtues countenance blind obedience in the light of clear contradiction and immoral actions.
Quote: During my visit to Kenya I am very pleased to be able to greet a group of Muslim leaders. Your coming here today is deeply appreciated as an expression of your fraternal courtesy and respect.

Be assured that I reciprocate these sentiments in your regard and towards all the Muslim people of this land.

2. On other occasions I have spoken of the religious patrimony of Islam and of its spiritual values. The Catholic Church realizes that the element of worship given to the one, living, subsistent, merciful and almighty Creator of heaven and earth is common to Islam and herself, and that it is a great link uniting all Christians and Muslims. With great satisfaction she also notes, among other elements of Islam which are held in common, the honour attributed to Jesus Christ and his Virgin Mother. As the Catholic Church makes every effort to sustain religious dialogue with Islam on the basis of existing bonds, which she endeavours ever more to reflect on, she likewise extends the invitation that her own heritage be fully known, especially to those who are spiritually attached to Abraham, and who profess monotheism.

3. On my part I wish therefore to do everything possible to help develop the spiritual bonds between Christians and Muslims.

Prayer, almsgiving and fasting are highly valued in both of our respective traditions and are beyond doubt a splendid witness to a world that runs the risk of being absorbed by materialism. Our relationship of reciprocal esteem and the mutual desire for authentic service to humanity urge us on to joint commitments in promoting peace, social justice, moral values and all the true freedoms of man.

Nairobi (Kenya)
Wednesday, 7 Mai 1980

Quote: Dear Friends,

It is a special joy for me to be able to welcome you, our guests who follow the faith of Islam, to Rome for the colloquium on “Holiness in Christianity and Islam”. My fraternal greetings go as well to those Christians who have been taking part in the colloquium. As I have often said in other meetings with Muslims, your God and ours is one and the same, and we are brothers and sisters in the faith of Abraham. Thus it is natural that we have much to discuss concerning true holiness in obedience and worship to God.

All true holiness comes from God, who is called “The Holy One” in the Sacred Books of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Your Holy Qur’an calls God “Al-Quddus”, as in the verse: “He is God, besides Whom there is no other, the Sovereign, the Holy the (source of) Peace” (Al-Qur’an 59, 23). The prophet Hosea links God’s holiness with his forgiving love for mankind, a love which surpasses our ability to comprehend: “I am God, not man; I am the Holy One in your midst and have no wish to destroy” (Os. 11, 9). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus teaches his disciples that holiness consists in assuming, in our human way, the qualities of God’s own holiness which he has revealed to mankind: “Be holy, even as your heavenly Father is holy” (Matth. 5, 48).

Thus, the Qur’an calls you to uprightness (al-salah), to conscientious devotion (al-taqwa), to goodness (al-husn), and to virtue (al-birr), which is described as believing in God, giving one’s wealth to the needy, freeing captives, being constant in prayer, keeping one’s word, and being patient in times of suffering, hardship and violence (Qur’an 2, 177). Similarly, Saint Paul stresses the love we must show towards all, and the duty to lead a blameless life in the sight of God: “May the Lord be generous in increasing your love and make you love one another and the whole human race as much as we love you. And may he so confirm your hearts in holiness that you may be blameless in the sight of our God and Father when our Lord Jesus Christ comes with all his saints” (1 Thess. 3, 12-13). In today’s world, it is more important than ever that men and women of faith, assisted by God’s grace, should strive for true holiness. Self-centred tendencies, such as greed, the lust for power and prestige, competition, revenge, the lack of forgiveness, and the quest for earthly pleasures - all these threaten to turn mankind from the path to goodness and holiness which God has intended for all of us. The countless numbers of good people around the world - Christians, Muslims, and others - who quietly lead lives of authentic obedience, praise, and thanksgiving to God and selfless service of their neighbour, offer humanity a genuine alternative, “God’s way”, to a world which otherwise would be destroyed in selfseeking, hatred, and struggle.

May the God of holiness bless your efforts throughout these days!

And yet:

Quote: In Our letter mentioned above, We designated that abuse as a cowardly concealment of the Christian profession, approaching infidelity. Since then, We have learned with great mental anguish that many people in that province continue to take Turkish or Mohammedan names despite the consideration of their eternal salvation. They do so not only in order to be immune and free from those taxes and burdens which have often been and continue to be imposed on the faithful of Christ, but also in order that neither they themselves nor their parents may be thought to have abandoned the Mohammedan sect, thereby avoiding the requisite penalties. For all this cannot take place without a pretense of the errors of Mohammed, even if the faith of Christ is adhered to in the heart, and this is at variance with Christian sincerity. It involves a lie in a most serious matter and includes a virtual denial of the Faith, most insulting to God and scandalous to their neighbors. It even gives the Turks themselves a suitable opportunity to rate all Christ's faithful as hypocrites and deceivers, and accordingly to persecute them justly and deservedly. ...Finally, gravely advise those who have converted from Mohammedanism or the children of such converts, if they lack confidence in their constancy in the Faith, fearing punishment by their rulers if they abandon their Turkish names, to emigrate secretly from those territories and come for refuge to Christian lands. There they shall in no way lack the help of God who gives food to all flesh, or the charity of the faithful, especially if their Bishops provide them with letters of recommendation. In the meantime, We lovingly grant you Our Apostolic Blessing, venerable brothers and beloved sons, and We desire each Venerable Brother Bishop to extend it in Our name to all the orthodox faithful of Christ in his own diocese.
Pope Benedict XIV Quod Provinciale  'On Christians using mohammedan names'

Quote: When the impious Mohammedan power, trusting in its powerful fleet and war-hardened armies, threatened the peoples of Europe with ruin and slavery, then -- upon the suggestion of the Sovereign Pontiff -- the protection of the heavenly Mother was fervently implored and the enemy was defeated and his ships sunk. Thus the Faithful of every age, both in public misfortune and in private need, turn in supplication to Mary, the benignant, so that she may come to their aid and grant help and remedy against sorrows of body and soul. And never was her most powerful aid hoped for in vain by those who besought it with pious and trustful prayer. 

Quote: There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the Antichrist. They are descended from Ishmael, [who] was born to Abraham of Agar, and for this reason they are called both Agarenes and Ishmaelites. They are also called Saracens, which is derived from Sarras kenoi, or destitute of Sara, because of what Agar said to the angel: ‘Sara hath sent me away destitute.’ [99] These used to be idolaters and worshiped the morning star and Aphrodite, whom in their own language they called Khabár, which means great. [100] And so down to the time of Heraclius they were very great idolaters. From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, [101] devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration.

He says that there is one God, creator of all things, who has neither been begotten nor has begotten. [102] He says that the Christ is the Word of God and His Spirit, but a creature and a servant, and that He was begotten, without seed, of Mary the sister of Moses and Aaron. [103] For, he says, the Word and God and the Spirit entered into Mary and she brought forth Jesus, who was a prophet and servant of God. And he says that the Jews wanted to crucify Him in violation of the law, and that they seized His shadow and crucified this. But the Christ Himself was not crucified, he says, nor did He die, for God out of His love for Him took Him to Himself into heaven. [104] And he says this, that when the Christ had ascended into heaven God asked Him: ‘O Jesus, didst thou say: “I am the Son of God and God”?’ And Jesus, he says, answered: ‘Be merciful to me, Lord. Thou knowest that I did not say this and that I did not scorn to be thy servant. But sinful men have written that I made this statement, and they have lied about me and have fallen into error.’ And God answered and said to Him: ‘I know that thou didst not say this word.” [105] There are many other extraordinary and quite ridiculous things in this book which he boasts was sent down to him from God. But when we ask: ‘And who is there to testify that God gave him the book? And which of the prophets foretold that such a prophet would rise up?’—they are at a loss. And we remark that Moses received the Law on Mount Sinai, with God appearing in the sight of all the people in cloud, and fire, and darkness, and storm. And we say that all the Prophets from Moses on down foretold the coming of Christ and how Christ God (and incarnate Son of God) was to come and to be crucified and die and rise again, and how He was to be the judge of the living and dead. Then, when we say: ‘How is it that this prophet of yours did not come in the same way, with others bearing witness to him? And how is it that God did not in your presence present this man with the book to which you refer, even as He gave the Law to Moses, with the people looking on and the mountain smoking, so that you, too, might have certainty?’—they answer that God does as He pleases. ‘This,’ we say, ‘We know, but we are asking how the book came down to your prophet.’ Then they reply that the book came down to him while he was asleep. Then we jokingly say to them that, as long as he received the book in his sleep and did not actually sense the operation, then the popular adage applies to him (which runs: You’re spinning me dreams.) [106]

When we ask again: ‘How is it that when he enjoined us in this book of yours not to do anything or receive anything without witnesses, you did not ask him: “First do you show us by witnesses that you are a prophet and that you have come from God, and show us just what Scriptures there are that testify about you”’—they are ashamed and remain silent. [Then we continue:] ‘Although you may not marry a wife without witnesses, or buy, or acquire property; although you neither receive an ass nor possess a beast of burden unwitnessed; and although you do possess both wives and property and asses and so on through witnesses, yet it is only your faith and your scriptures that you hold unsubstantiated by witnesses. For he who handed this down to you has no warranty from any source, nor is there anyone known who testified about him before he came. On the contrary, he received it while he was asleep.’

Moreover, they call us Hetaeriasts, or Associators, because, they say, we introduce an associate with God by declaring Christ to the Son of God and God. We say to them in rejoinder: ‘The Prophets and the Scriptures have delivered this to us, and you, as you persistently maintain, accept the Prophets. So, if we wrongly declare Christ to be the Son of God, it is they who taught this and handed it on to us.’ But some of them say that it is by misinterpretation that we have represented the Prophets as saying such things, while others say that the Hebrews hated us and deceived us by writing in the name of the Prophets so that we might be lost. And again we say to them: ‘As long as you say that Christ is the Word of God and Spirit, why do you accuse us of being Hetaeriasts? For the word, and the spirit, is inseparable from that in which it naturally has existence. Therefore, if the Word of God is in God, then it is obvious that He is God. If, however, He is outside of God, then, according to you, God is without word and without spirit. Consequently, by avoiding the introduction of an associate with God you have mutilated Him. It would be far better for you to say that He has an associate than to mutilate Him, as if you were dealing with a stone or a piece of wood or some other inanimate object. Thus, you speak untruly when you call us Hetaeriasts; we retort by calling you Mutilators of God.’

They furthermore accuse us of being idolaters, because we venerate the cross, which they abominate. And we answer them: ‘How is it, then, that you rub yourselves against a stone in your Ka’ba [107] and kiss and embrace it?’ Then some of them say that Abraham had relations with Agar upon it, but others say that he tied the camel to it, when he was going to sacrifice Isaac. And we answer them: ‘Since Scripture says that the mountain was wooded and had trees from which Abraham cut wood for the holocaust and laid it upon Isaac, [108] and then he left the asses behind with the two young men, why talk nonsense? For in that place neither is it thick with trees nor is there passage for asses.’ And they are embarrassed, but they still assert that the stone is Abraham’s. Then we say: ‘Let it be Abraham’s, as you so foolishly say. Then, just because Abraham had relations with a woman on it or tied a camel to it, you are not ashamed to kiss it, yet you blame us for venerating the cross of Christ by which the power of the demons and the deceit of the Devil was destroyed.’ This stone that they talk about is a head of that Aphrodite whom they used to worship and whom they called Khabár. Even to the present day, traces of the carving are visible on it to careful observers.

As has been related, this Mohammed wrote many ridiculous books, to each one of which he set a title. For example, there is the book On Woman, [109] in which he plainly makes legal provision for taking four wives and, if it be possible, a thousand concubines—as many as one can maintain, besides the four wives. He also made it legal to put away whichever wife one might wish, and, should one so wish, to take to oneself another in the same way. Mohammed had a friend named Zeid. This man had a beautiful wife with whom Mohammed fell in love. Once, when they were sitting together, Mohammed said: ‘Oh, by the way, God has commanded me to take your wife.’ The other answered: ‘You are an apostle. Do as God has told you and take my wife.’ Rather—to tell the story over from the beginning—he said to him: ‘God has given me the command that you put away your wife.’ And he put her away. Then several days later: ‘Now,’ he said, ‘God has commanded me to take her.’ Then, after he had taken her and committed adultery with her, he made this law: ‘Let him who will put away his wife. And if, after having put her away, he should return to her, let another marry her. For it is not lawful to take her unless she have been married by another. Furthermore, if a brother puts away his wife, let his brother marry her, should he so wish.’ [110] In the same book he gives such precepts as this: ‘Work the land which God hath given thee and beautify it. And do this, and do it in such a manner” [111]—not to repeat all the obscene things that he did.

Then there is the book of The Camel of God. [112] About this camel he says that there was a camel from God and that she drank the whole river and could not pass through two mountains, because there was not room enough. There were people in that place, he says, and they used to drink the water on one day, while the camel would drink it on the next. Moreover, by drinking the water she furnished them with nourishment, because she supplied them with milk instead of water. Then, because these men were evil, they rose up, he says, and killed the camel. However, she had an offspring, a little camel, which, he says, when the mother had been done away with, called upon God and God took it to Himself. Then we say to them: ‘Where did that camel come from?’ And they say that it was from God. Then we say: ‘Was there another camel coupled with this one?’ And they say: ‘No.’ ‘Then how,’ we say, ‘was it begotten? For we see that your camel is without father and without mother and without genealogy, and that the one that begot it suffered evil. Neither is it evident who bred her. And also, this little camel was taken up. So why did not your prophet, with whom, according to what you say, God spoke, find out about the camel—where it grazed, and who got milk by milking it? Or did she possibly, like her mother, meet with evil people and get destroyed? Or did she enter into paradise before you, so that you might have the river of milk that you so foolishly talk about? For you say that you have three rivers flowing in paradise—one of water, one of wine, and one of milk. If your forerunner the camel is outside of paradise, it is obvious that she has dried up from hunger and thirst, or that others have the benefit of her milk—and so your prophet is boasting idly of having conversed with God, because God did not reveal to him the mystery of the camel. But if she is in paradise, she is drinking water still, and you for lack of water will dry up in the midst of the paradise of delight. And if, there being no water, because the camel will have drunk it all up, you thirst for wine from the river of wine that is flowing by, you will become intoxicated from drinking pure wine and collapse under the influence of the strong drink and fall asleep. Then, suffering from a heavy head after sleeping and being sick from the wine, you will miss the pleasures of paradise. How, then, did it not enter into the mind of your prophet that this might happen to you in the paradise of delight? He never had any idea of what the camel is leading to now, yet you did not even ask him, when he held forth to you with his dreams on the subject of the three rivers. We plainly assure you that this wonderful camel of yours has preceded you into the souls of asses, where you, too, like beasts are destined to go. And there is the exterior darkness and everlasting punishment, roaring fire, sleepless worms, and hellish demons.’

Again, in the book of The Table, Mohammed says that the Christ asked God for a table and that it was given Him. For God, he says, said to Him: ‘I have given to thee and thine an incorruptible table.’ [113]

And again, in the book of The Heifer, [114] he says some other stupid and ridiculous things, which, because of their great number, I think must be passed over. He made it a law that they be circumcised and the women, too, and he ordered them not to keep the Sabbath and not to be baptized.

And, while he ordered them to eat some of the things forbidden by the Law, he ordered them to abstain from others. He furthermore absolutely forbade the drinking of wine.
St John of Damascus, Fount of Knowledge, Heresies in Epitome: How They Began and Whence They Drew Their Origin
TrentCath, I don't dare to ask you whether you accept the beatification of John Paul II, or?
Quote: I think a couple points can be made here.

Regarding the primary end of marriage, Humanae Vitae doesn't deny this any more that St. Paul denies St. Peter's primacy when listing him second in Gal 2:9.  First, it isn't speaking of marriage  as a whole, but of the conjugal act.  Second, it's point is to emphasize that both elements are essential and cannot be separated. If we put this in the greater context of the encyclical it doesn't appear he is trying to downplay the important of the procreative significance at all.

As an aside, it is lawful to talk of other things as the chief end.  See Casti Connubii 24:

Casti Connubii Wrote:24. This mutual molding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof.

Regarding the liturgical reform, the theological censure of Pius VI does not mean those reasons are per se wrong or heretical, etc.  Here's a good article on theological censures:  In that case, the censures used are very circumstance specific, rather than defiining any immutable principles. It's about how and why something is said.  The Jansenists at Pistoia were calling into question the authority of the Church to have changed the liturgy over time and were asserting that the contemporary forms were harmful to the faith.  Pius XII appears concerned with the same thing, as he emphasizes the implication that the all the rites promulgated by the Church are introduced accrding to the dispositions of Divine Providence.  But this cannot be taken to mean the certain restorations or simplifications cannot come from the same source, since this has happened often over time.  For example, in Quo Primum, St. Pius V speaks of appointing a committee of learned men to restore and revise the Missal (ironically, Quo Primum was the end of true organic development as it issued in the era of liturgy by committee)--obviously he thought things needed to be corrected for his circumstances and situation (to use Pius XII's words) .  Pius XII himself restored the Holy Week rites to older forms.  This does not necessarily imply that Divine Providence was not also at work in the more immediate forms which St. Pius or Pius XII had their committees go back and revise to more closely resemble older forms. 

This is why Mediator Dei and the condemnation from Pius VI are a double-edged sword.  Mediator Dei affirms the authority of the Roman Pontiff to issue new rites and says such new rites must be considered to come from the same divine Providence as older ones.  Applying the underlying immutable principle being expressed, it would be logically just as "offensive to pious ears" or "insulting to the Church" to say her ordinary rite (which was promulgated by the Church with the express intention for the good of its time and situation) is also somehow unlawful or bad in and of itself. 

Skipping over the big one on rights, for a moment, the reference to the Syllabus doesn't really apply.  As the Catholic Encyclopedia notes on this proposition: " According to the words of this allocution, then, it is evident that the eightieth thesis of the Syllabus applies to false progress and false Liberalism and not to honest pioneer-work seeking to open out new fields to human activity."  It is clear from Pope Paul's discourse that he is not trying to be reconciled to anti-Christian things, since he speaks of errors being condemned and remedies being offered.  Granted, he may have been overly enamored with certain aspects of progress in his time and too optimistically thought that they would work for good, but that hardly falls under the intended meaning of the Syllabus's 80th proposition. 

Regarding the idea of rejuvenation, it is clear from the context of Mirari Vos (see the preceding paragraph to what you cited) that he is countering the idea that the Church's dogmas, rites, and disciplines are contrary to the natural law or harmful to the faith and therefore need to be fixed by the civil authority.  Again, this is a double-edged sword since it is the traditionalist position that certain disciplines and laws of the Church are such.  In this context, it is clear Pope Gregory is not ruling out any kind of calls for renewal or reuvenation or increase in holiness and decrease of sin in the Church, otherwise every reformer Saint ever would fall under the condemnation as well as pretty much every Pope and ecumenical Council which changed canon law, etc.. Again, it is clear Pope Paul is not talking about fixing the Church's evil laws and rites, but of purifying her members and increasing evangelical zeal, etc.

Back to the rights sections.  Compare, what Pope Paul is saying the good of law is with what Pius XII said in his Christmas message of 1942 on how states can achieve peace (note, he is not just addressing Catholics here, but rather he says he turns to "beloved children, who recognized and adore in Christ your Savior; We turn to all those who are united with Us at least by the bond of faith in God; We turn, finally to all those who would be free of doubt and error, and who desire light and guidance."):

Pius XII Wrote:1. Dignity of the Human Person. He who would have the Star of Peace shine out and stand over society should cooperate, for his part, in giving back to the human person the dignity given to it by God from the very beginning; should oppose the excessive herding of men, as if they were a mass without a soul; their economic, social, political, intellectual and moral inconsistency; their dearth of solid principles and strong convictions, their surfeit of instinctive sensible excitement and their fickleness.

He should favor, by every lawful means, in every sphere of life, social institutions in which a full personal responsibility is assured and guaranteed both in the early and the eternal order of things. He should uphold respect for and the practical realization of the following fundamental personal rights; the right to maintain and develop one's corporal, intellectual and moral life and especially the right to religious formation and education; the right to worship God in private and public and to carry on religious works of charity; the right to marry and to achieve the aim of married life; the right to conjugal and domestic society; the right to work, as the indispensable means towards the maintenance of family life; the right to free choice of state of life, and hence, too, of the priesthood or religious life; the right to the use of material goods; in keeping with his duties and social limitations

2. Defense of Social Unity. He who would have the Star of Peace shine out and stand over society should reject every form of materialism which sees in the people only a herd of individuals who, divided and without any internal cohesion, are considered as a mass to be forded over and treated arbitrarily; he should strive to understand society as an intrinsic unity, which has grown up and matured under the guidance of Providence, a unity which within the bounds assigned to it and according to its own peculiar gifts -- tends, with the collaboration of the various classes and professions, towards the eternal and ever new aims of culture and religion.

As an aside, it is good to note here that Pius XII taught that “the healthy laicity of the State is one of the principles of Catholic doctrine.” (AAS 50 (1958), p. 220).

These are the same goods Paul VI seems to be trying to emphasize, but what of his reference to the the UN's declaration? As far as I know, Pius XII strongly supported the UN (read his many, many radio addresses and allocutions) and did not condemn its declaration of rights in 1948 (unlike the different declaration of rights which Pius VI did condemn). 

Even though written  very generally, perhaps Pius XII did not see them as necessarily establishing an absolute freedom in these areas (which is what is condemned, along with actively supporting and favoring non-Catholic ministers in France, in the quotes provided) or as speaking on the metaphysical level, and saw them more as practical norms for law, co-existence, and peace? In that latter sense they are fine. Which way is Paul VI receiving them? He doesn't mention specifics, but I think we can assume the the same as Pius XII given the topic of the rest of document on the purpose of law.  The authenitc meaning and value of the Syllabus, Quanta Cura, etc. have been discussed elsewhere in depth in recent threads, but suffice it to say that it has never been judged that such "rights" (undestood in the sense above) with the appropriate limits were impermissible in all cases and on the other hand have been judged as necessary for the common good in many cases. [/quote]

Quote: The mere fact of your visit to me, for which I am grateful, is in itself a proof of the constant development and deepening of such relations. Indeed, when one looks back to the years before the Second Vatican Council and its Declaration "Nostra Aetate" and tries to encompass the work done since, one has the feeling that the Lord has done "great things" for us (cf. Luc 1, 49). Therefore we are called to join in a heartfelt act of thanksgiving to God. The opening verse of Psalm 133 is appropriate: "How good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity".

Because, my dear friends, as I have often said since the beginning of my pastoral service as Successor of Peter, the Galilean fisherman (cf. Ioannis Pauli PP. II, Allocutio ad Praesides et Legatos Consociationum Hebraicarum de dialogo inter Christianos et Hebraeos ad universorum hominum utilitatem fovendo, die 12 mart. 1979: Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, II [1979] 528 ss.), the encounter between Catholics and Jews is not a meeting of two ancient religions each going its own way, and not infrequently, in times past, in grievous and painful conflict. It is a meeting between "brothers", a dialogue, as I said to the Representatives of the German Jewish community in Mainz (November 11, 1980), "between the first and the second part of the Bible". And as the two parts of the Bible are distinct but closely related, so are the Jewish people and the Catholic Church.

This closeness is to be manifested in many ways. First of all, in the deep respect for each other’s identity. The more we know each other, the more we learn to assess and respect our differences.

But then, and this is the great challenge we are called to accept: respect does not mean estrangement, nor is it tantamount to indifference. On the contrary, the respect we speak of is based on the mysterious spiritual link (cf. Nostra Aetate, 4)  which brings us close together, in Abraham and, through Abraham, in God who chose Israel and brought forth the Church from Israel.

Quote: Following also in particular in the footsteps of Paul VI, I entend to foster spiritual dialogue and to do everything in my power for the peace of that land which is holy for you as it is for us, with the hope that the City of Jerusalem will be effectively guaranteed as a centre of harmony for the followers of the three great monotheistic religions of Judaism, Islam and Christianity, for whom the City is a revered place of devotion.

I am sure that the very fact of this meeting today, which you have so kindly asked to have, is in itself an expression of dialogue and a new step towards that fuller mutual understanding which we are called to achieve. By pursuing this goal we are all sure of being faithful and obedient to the will of God, the God of the Patriarchs and Prophets.

To God, then, I would like to turn at the end of these reflections. All of us, Jews and Christians, pray frequently to him with the same prayers, taken from the Book which we both consider to be the Word of God. It is for him to give to both religious communities, so near to each other, that reconciliation and effective love which are at the same time his command and his gift[10]. In this sense, I believe, each time that Jews recite the "Shema’ Israel" each time that Christians recall the first and second great commandments, we are, by God’s grace, brought nearer to each other.

As a sign of the understanding and fraternal love already achieved, let me express again my cordial welcome and greetings to you all with that word so rich in meaning, taken from the Hebrew language, which we Christians also use in our Liturgy: Peace be with you.Shalom, Shalom!

For the contradictions simply see the teaching of Pope Benedict XIV, the previous quote from the council of florence, the quote from pope pius VII where he refers to 'jewish perfidy' and the following from The Council of Florence:

Quote: The holy general synod of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, representing the universal church, for an everlasting record. This holy synod following in the footsteps of our saviour Jesus Christ, desires in deepest charity that all may acknowledge the truth of the gospel and thereafter abide in it faithfully. By these salutary instructions it desires to provide measures whereby Jews and other infidels may be converted to the orthodox faith and converts may remain steadfastly in it. It therefore decrees that all diocesan bishops should depute persons well trained in scripture, several times a year, in the places where Jews and other infidels live, to preach and expound the truth of the catholic faith in such a way that the infidels who hear it can recognize their errors. They should compel infidels of both sexes who have reached the age of discretion, to attend these sermons under pain both of being excluded from business dealings with the faithful and of other apposite penalties. But the bishops and the preachers should behave towards them with such charity as to gain them for Christ not only by the manifestation of the truth but also by other kindnesses. The synod decrees that Christians of whatever rank or status who in any way impede the attendance of Jews at these sermons, or who forbid it, automatically incur the stigma of being supporters of unbelief.

Since this preaching will be more fruitful in proportion to the linguistic skill of the preachers, we decree that there must be faithful observance of the constitution of the council of Vienne, which ordered the provision in certain universities of teachers of the Hebrew, Arabic, Greek and Chaldean languages. So that this may be more adhered to, we wish that the rectors of these universities should add to what they swear to on taking office, that they will endeavour to observe the said constitution. It should be clearly laid down, at the councils of the provinces in which these universities are situated, that the teachers of the said languages are to be adequately recompensed.

Furthermore, renewing the sacred canons, we command both diocesan bishops and secular powers to prohibit in every way Jews and other infidels from having Christians, male or female, in their households and service, or as nurses of their children; and Christians from joining with them in festivities, marriages, banquets or baths, or in much conversation, and from taking them as doctors or agents of marriages or officially appointed mediators of other contracts. They should not be given other public offices, or admitted to any academic degrees, or allowed to have on lease lands or other ecclesiastical rents. They are to be forbidden to buy ecclesiastical books, chalices, crosses and other ornaments of churches under pain of the loss of the object, or to accept them in pledge under pain of the loss of the money that they lent. They are to be compelled, under severe penalties, to wear some garment whereby they can be clearly distinguished from Christians. In order to prevent too much intercourse, they should be made to dwell in areas, in the cities and towns, which are apart from the dwellings of Christians and as far distant as possible from churches. On Sundays and other solemn festivals they should not dare to have their shops open or to work in public. 
Concerning the world being reconciled in some sense, see 2 Cor. 5:19.  I've seen this reconciliation which came with the redemption calld "provisional."
A couple quick notes (as it is all I have time for at the moment; well, maybe I'll post my own contradictions later...).

The JPII stuff about Islam is not that much different than St. Gregory VII's diplatic actions with Muslims, affirming commonalities and mutual charity, etc. A distinction must be made between the Abarahmic covenant and the Mosaic.  The Mosaic is transitory and was done away with, the Abrahamic, the covenant of faith, is what remains.  God's covenant remains with the Jews in the sense that He is always waiting for their faithful response, and after a sufficient number of Gentiles have come in, they will to.  Read St. Thomas' commentary on Romans.

The thing in Redemporis Hominis about the Spirit of truth, does not make much sense to me either, especially since the whole point of that paragraph and the preceding ones is that indifferentism towards revealed truth is bad.  There is the traditional idea that the Spirit uses little bits of faith and charity as seeds for more.  He first draws one to acknowledge the existence of the Creator, and then to pray, and then to give alms, and then to an even greater faith, etc. (cf. St. Robert Bellarmine's works on those in good faith outside the Church) so those aspects would no doubt come from the Spirit, but I don't think one can say a firm belief in something contrary to revealed truth can come from the Spirit of truth, unless indirectly after the impulse to cling tenaciously to truth is corrupted or turned to something else.
(08-14-2012, 12:49 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: Concerning the world being reconciled in some sense, see 2 Cor. 5:19.  I've seen this reconciliation which came with the redemption calld "provisional."

Fisheaters has gone weird, I accidentally modified your post instead of writing a new one and can't fix it!  :blush:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)