Name That Cleric!
#11
This may or may not help clear things. ..I think the title "desires change" is misleading.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14509

Reply
#12
OP    DO you ever think about anything else...lets see some of that instead.
Reply
#13
I am in no way a sede and, indeed, I abhore that disease, but he does have a point with this passage.  What is then Cardinal Ratzinger talking about?  Surely we are reeading this out of context or incorrectly.
Reply
#14
(09-02-2009, 12:27 AM)Walty Wrote: I am in no way a sede and, indeed, I abhore that disease, but he does have a point with this passage.  What is then Cardinal Ratzinger talking about?  Surely we are reeading this out of context or incorrectly.

Well, one way to look at it is the way I did.  Read it as written in the context of Catholic theology and then it can be reconciled.  Note that I am not assuming what he actually meant - neither heterodox or orthodox, I'm reading it as written.  So the words in and of themselves can be understood in an orthodox manner.

There are two questions here, actually: 1) Is what is written orthodox? A: It can be.  2) Did he mean it in an orthodox manner? A: There is no way to tell without questioning him, which also means we can't assume he meant it in a heterodox manner.

There was a reason the Holy Office was called the Inquisition - it asked questions, it asked what people meant before condemning them as heretics.  Sometimes what might seem to be heresy can be misunderstanding, imprudence, etc.
Reply
#15
Sorry Quis.  I hadn't seen your longer post above.  Makes perfect sense to me.  I actually just bought this text a few weeks ago so maybe I'll dive in for some more context, but this sounds very interesting.
Reply
#16
(09-02-2009, 02:36 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(09-02-2009, 12:27 AM)Walty Wrote: I am in no way a sede and, indeed, I abhore that disease, but he does have a point with this passage.  What is then Cardinal Ratzinger talking about?  Surely we are reeading this out of context or incorrectly.

Well, one way to look at it is the way I did.  Read it as written in the context of Catholic theology and then it can be reconciled.  Note that I am not assuming what he actually meant - neither heterodox or orthodox, I'm reading it as written.   So the words in and of themselves can be understood in an orthodox manner.

There are two questions here, actually: 1) Is what is written orthodox? A: It can be.  2) Did he mean it in an orthodox manner? A: There is no way to tell without questioning him, which also means we can't assume he meant it in a heterodox manner.

There was a reason the Holy Office was called the Inquisition - it asked questions, it asked what people meant before condemning them as heretics.  Sometimes what might seem to be heresy can be misunderstanding, imprudence, etc.

Actually Quis, I did not state in my post that this was in fact heresy. 

But as far as your answer regarding the judgment of heresy, heretics and the Holy Office (unless I misunderstand you), if one were to judge the actions of heretics in that manner, you would not be able to say that a certain Lutheran or Calvinist was or was not a heretic. This may help, it was an article to Mr. Ferrara by Fr. Cekada.  Remember, it is illicit to judge the internal conscience of an individual, but one can and must judge externals.  For example if a man knocks at your door, and you notice in the peep hole he holds a revolver in his hand, but he has a nice smile, you still may judge that it would not be a good idea to open the door! :

"No. Canon 2200.1 lays down the general principle: “When an external violation of the law occurs, in the external forum the existence of malice (dolus) is presumed until the contrary is proved.”

      The reason such presumptions exist in the law, says the canonist Michels, is that “in the external forum one acts based on the way things ordinarily happen and externally appear. And indeed ordinarily, each person of sound mind customarily acts reasonably and freely, fully knowing and deliberately willing whatever he really does.” (De Delictis, 1:134)

      (B) Heresy and Burden of Proof: In the case of heresy, though, wouldn’t canon law at least require the prosecutor to prove that Mr. Ferrara’s client was “pertinacious” or “obstinate” in the alleged heresy?

      No again. “The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity… [E]xcusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist.” (McKenzie, The Delict of Heresy, 35.)"

These quotes from this article:

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=66&catname=14
Reply
#17
Further Quis,
  The fact that this quote may be interpreted as a denial of original sin is a problem: "Nothing seems to us today to be stranger or, indeed, more absurd than to insist upon original sin, since, according to our way of thinking, guilt can only be something very personal, and since God does not run a concentration camp."  This is bad.

  Remember, this man is a theologian, who served under a German Cardinal.  He has two doctorates in sacred theology, he is very very intelligent.  The works of an astute mind such as this must not write texts such as this. 

  Heresy is not only a denial of a revealed truth but a doubt or denial.  A theologian or any Catholic for that matter, cannot even raise doubts about the dogmas of the faith.   

 
Reply
#18
Quote: Nothing seems to us today to be stranger or, indeed, more absurd than to insist upon original sin, since, according to our way of thinking, guilt can only be something very personal, and since God does not run a concentration camp, in which one’s relative are imprisoned because he is a liberating God of love, who calls each one by name. What does original sin mean, then, when we interpret it correctly?"

All you have here is a statement of fact by Ratzinger.  What he says is the truth, read it again.  It does seem absurd and strange to modern man, to believe in Original Sin.  What we need, if we are to decide if this is heresy, is the rest of it.  How does he answer his own question "What does original sin mean, then, when we interpret it correctly?".  It might be heretical, but you have to supply the rest of the quote.  If Ratzinger printed something materially heretical in a fallible book, that doesn't bother me at all.  But at this point, we can't conclude it.

Here, try this one.  Ask Traditionalists what the Bread is and what the Wine is.  If they answer that the Bread is the Body of Christ, and the Wine is the Blood of Christ, they commit material heresy.  I bet quite a few Traditionalists would get that question wrong.
Reply
#19
(09-02-2009, 02:36 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: There was a reason the Holy Office was called the Inquisition - it asked questions, it asked what people meant before condemning them as heretics.  Sometimes what might seem to be heresy can be misunderstanding, imprudence, etc.

An interesting comment since Cardinal Ratzinger was the prefect of the Holy Office. :)
Reply
#20
(09-02-2009, 10:01 PM)Br. Pio-Francis T.O.S.F. Wrote: Further Quis,
  The fact that this quote may be interpreted as a denial of original sin is a problem: "Nothing seems to us today to be stranger or, indeed, more absurd than to insist upon original sin, since, according to our way of thinking, guilt can only be something very personal, and since God does not run a concentration camp."  This is bad.

  Remember, this man is a theologian, who served under a German Cardinal.  He has two doctorates in sacred theology, he is very very intelligent.  The works of an astute mind such as this must not write texts such as this. 

  Heresy is not only a denial of a revealed truth but a doubt or denial.  A theologian or any Catholic for that matter, cannot even raise doubts about the dogmas of the faith.   

 
That sentence makes perfect sense, actually. The key word is "seems."

Looking from the outside, for Catholics to get marital advice - binding, in many cases - from an 80 year old celibate virgin seems also absurd. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)