Name That Cleric!
#31
The point that I'm making is that there seems to be a deliberate attempt to either avoid admitting that he believes in a man and woman named Adam and Eve that ruined paradise for us and left us with this fallen world and fallen nature.  It may be a teaching of the Church, but there is no indication that then-Card. Ratzinger upholds that teaching and there is an inference drawn from the text that he does not believe in Adam and Eve literally.

But on the other hand, in reading through the book, he has no hesitancy whatsoever in agreeing with evolution without explaining a bit of the mechanism and how it relates to the "EVENTS" that are described in Genesis. 

I think that's a bit of spin to call ambiguity and a lack of clarity proof of God's mercy.  It looks more like a rejection of God's willingness to provide clarity when it comes to defining doctrine.  One of the major accusations against the Popes after Pius XII has been their purposeful unwillingness to utilize the infallible magisterium of the Church.  It's as if,  as a King of a nation,  I've got a weapon that will save countless lives, stop the enemy from ruining the land and give everyone reassurance and stability.  But instead of using it, I stand there and never even lift it to take aim against an enemy.  At most I'm neutral, at worst I'm aiding the enemy, but I'm definitely not helping the people I'm supposed to protect.

How someone can believe in evolution (on faith entirely) and reconcile that with the perennial teaching of the Church and Christ's own words with regards to Moses and the beginning of things, and not lead them down into a completely different system of belief than the one taught by the Church is simply not possible. 

Why would a Pope who holds to an idea that is ultimately heretical formalize the heresy and make a ruin of his papacy?  Better to let the error fester.  As long as those who hold this idea of evolution, hold the reigns of power on the magisterium, the error can be permitted to make a wreck of the Church indefinitely. 


Reply
#32
(09-03-2009, 12:36 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(09-02-2009, 09:29 PM)Br. Pio-Francis T.O.S.F. Wrote:
(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. 

Nor did I accuse you of it.  However, on your blog you link to Christian Order, stating "Please read the rest of his work on this subject below link:"  where the same text is cited and the comment is:

"Christian Order" Wrote:First of all, I would suggest that we might search 2,000 years of history and never find another statement so clearly and profoundly heretical made by a member of the Church in as high a position as that occupied by Cardinal Ratzinger.

Quote: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

Those are great quotes, however the problem is that the proper authority to offer a judgment of heresy by Canon Law is the bishop.  You can't have it both ways - you can't cite Canon Law saying that malice is presumed and then ignore the parts where it defines the proper authority to make that judgment. 

The quote above states: "gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity" - note it limits it to juridical presumption, not personal presumption.

But, to use your metaphor, we have the right to presume the guy with the gun is up to no good and not open the door.  We don't have the right to try and execute him for attempted murder.  Likewise, we have the right (and duty) to shut our minds to heretical statements, but we don't have the right to try and convict people for heresy publicly and in the same manner that a legitimate authority has.  And that goes for whomever speaks a heresy whether they be Pope or Pauper.  The juridical authority resides with the bishops, not with us.

Dear Quis,
  The answer to your objections, I believe is answered in the article from which I took those you are commenting on. 

  About the article, I was suggesting reading all of Ratzinger's comments on original sin in that link provided on my blog. 
Reply
#33
(09-03-2009, 07:28 PM)Br. Pio-Francis T.O.S.F. Wrote: Dear Quis,
  The answer to your objections, I believe is answered in the article from which I took those you are commenting on. 

  About the article, I was suggesting reading all of Ratzinger's comments on original sin in that link provided on my blog. 

Frank, it is "Pope Benedict XVI" and for referencing works before becoming the Pope, it is "Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger".
Reply
#34
(09-03-2009, 07:28 PM)Br. Pio-Francis T.O.S.F. Wrote: Dear Quis,
  The answer to your objections, I believe is answered in the article from which I took those you are commenting on. 

Actually, it isn't, not in a way that I find convincing.  It is one thing for a council or subsequent Pope to judge a Pope but another for Johnny on the street to do so.  The Pope can be judged by the Church after a fashion, but the temporal judges of the Church are the bishops not the people in the pews.  There is good reason for this, otherwise when the Church is full of Modernists and Liberals, as it is today, someone like Pope St. Pius V would be burned at the stake for "heresy" by the heretics in the pews.

It only follows logic:  If we laymen have no authority to authoritatively accuse Jane in the pew next to us of heresy, we clearly have no authority to authoritatively accuse the Pope of heresy.


Reply
#35
And on that note, we're wandering too far into a restricted zone, so...  locked.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)