Contradictions of the modern popes
#21
(08-14-2012, 12:50 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: 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.

a) that is quite simply absurd, that is not what the pope is saying, St Gregory VII may have had diplomatic actions, he sure as hell didn't praise their religion!
b) That is a sophisitc distinction, the old covenant is finished, gone, over, finito, period. The popes and councils are explicit on that. Pope John Paul II says the exact opposite.
c) I'm glad you agree pope john paul II is wrong there.
Reply
#22
We had an interesting discussion on Casti Connubii, n. 24 on this forum a couple of years ago: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...=3429332.0

From Dr. Ludwig Ott's, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

"In their efforts to evaluate marriage as more than a personal contract, many modern theologians, as against the traditional teaching of the purpose of marriage, whose principal exponent is St. Thomas, have submitted that the primary purpose of marriage is the mutual completion and personal perfection of the marriage partners, or their mutual love and unity. The Holy Office, in the year 1944, in answer to an enquiry, re-asserted the traditional teaching, according to which is the generation and bringing-up of children, and according to which the secondary purposes of marriage are essentially subordinate to the primary one. D 2295." (p. 462)

Holy Office, 1 April 1944 Wrote:2295. Certain publications concerning the purposes of matrimony, and their interrelationship and order, have come forth within these last years which either assert that the primary purpose of matrimony is not the generation of offspring, or that the secondary purposes are not subordinate to the primary purpose, but are independent of it.

In these works different primary purposes of marriage are designated by other writers, as for example: the complement and personal perfection of the spouses through a complete mutual participation in life and action; mutual love and union of spouses to be nurtured and perfected by the psychic and bodily surrender of one's own person; and many other such things.

In the same writings a sense is sometimes attributed to words in the current documents of the Church (as for example, primary, secondary purpose), which does not agree with these words according to the common usage by theologians.

This revolutionary way of thinking and speaking aims to foster errors and uncertainties, to avoid which the Most Eminent and Very Reverend Fathers of this supreme Sacred Congregation, charged with the guarding of matters of faith and morals, in a plenary session, on Wednesday, the 28th of March, 1944, when the question was proposed to them "Whether the opinion of certain recent persons can be admitted, who either deny that the primary purpose of matrimony is the generation and raising of offspring, or teach that the secondary purposes are not essentially subordinate to the primary purpose, but are equally first and independent," have decreed that the answer must be: In the negative.

http://www.onetruecatholicfaith.com/Roman-Catholic-Dogma.php?id=37&title=Denzinger+2203+-+2300&page=3
Reply
#23
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.


It doesn't matter how it appears or how you perceive it, it matters how it is, the ends are quite clearly inverted and twice. Unless you deny this fact, there is no discussion to be had about it.

Quote:
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.


And yet that same encyclical quite clearly states that the primary end of marriage is the raising of children.

Quote:
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:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03532a.htm  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. 


Which we are all well awareof, but again none of this changes the facts that the arguments behind the reform and the ones presented by pope paul VI were censured by pope Pius VI and condemned by Pope Pius XII.


Quote:
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. 


Not true. The New Mass was never properly promulgated besides which we are rather interested in the specifics of the reform condemned by Pope Pius VI, which is not merely a condemnation of the errors about papal power, but specifically the use of the vernacular, the simplifying of the mass and so on.

Quote:
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.


Wrong, that is exactly what the pope was trying to do, as is rather evident from his words and all that we have seen since, to reconcile the church with the modern world, a project which was probably one of the biggest failures in church history.

Quote:
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.


And yet these are the exact arguments used by the reformers, it is therefore quite irrelevant to claim it is double edged for traditionalists, if the reformers fall under its condemnation then clearly the reform that they came up with is tainted. And your interpretations of Pope Paul VI are way off, as usual with those who live in a state of permenant cognitive dissonance you cannot actually use the words in the document but must instead insert your own.

Quote:
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.


This is all very well and good but its entirely irrelevant. Aside from the mountain of testimony of other popes both Popes Pius VI and VII condemned these rights explicitly, rights expressed in the exact same way as in the declaration Pope Paul VI so lavishly praises.
Reply
#24
(08-14-2012, 09:44 AM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-14-2012, 06:39 AM)TrentCath Wrote: Ignoring Vatican 2 and leaving it for another thread, we have:

Quote: 12. That teaching, often set forth by the magisterium, is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman. By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man's most high calling to parenthood. We believe that the men of our day are particularly capable of seeing the deeply reasonable and human character of this fundamental principle.
Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI

Here the pope reverses the true order of the ends of marriage, he places the unitive act before the procreative act on two different occassions so let no one claim it by chance or a mistake! The true teaching of the Church however is laid down in the 1917 code of  Canon law and explained by  Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubi

I don't have time to go through all of these today, so I'll just address this first one, so you know I'm not ignoring you.

Your first example of "heresy" is ridiculous.  Naming the unitive end first, in no way implies it has  primacy.   There were no statements about primacy in the passage you quoted.  There was nothing to contradict previous teaching and it was completely orthodox.

Humanae Vitae also happened to be courageous and prophetic.  You are clearly grasping at straws if this is how you start your list of heresies.

:shame:

I said serious theological errors and close to heresies, whine all you want, but I assure you this will be a very very very long thread.

Your excuses for pope paul VI are quite frankly ridiculous, the primary and secondary ends of marriage are always referred to in that order, why would you refer to them in reverse order? Its not only confusing its bizzare, and why do it twice? It seems far more likely that he was reversing the order just as happened in the new code of canon law, which does the same thing then that he just happened to twice refer to the primary and secondary ends in reverse order.
Reply
#25
How can we have a conversation when you post a million things? It would have been better to start separate thread based on topic.
Reply
#26
(08-14-2012, 01:13 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: How can we have a conversation when you post a million things? It would have been better to start separate thread based on topic.

For your purposes perhaps, but not for mine. I simply intend to find all the relevant contradictions and put them in one place.
Reply
#27
(08-14-2012, 01:15 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-14-2012, 01:13 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: How can we have a conversation when you post a million things? It would have been better to start separate thread based on topic.

For your purposes perhaps, but not for mine. I simply intend to find all the relevant contradictions and put them in one place.

Why don't you start "contradictions of TrentCath" first, and then come back to this thread.
Reply
#28
(08-14-2012, 01:15 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-14-2012, 01:13 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: How can we have a conversation when you post a million things? It would have been better to start separate thread based on topic.

For your purposes perhaps, but not for mine. I simply intend to find all the relevant contradictions and put them in one place.

You seem to be trying to create an illusion of overwhelming evidence by posting a large quantity of points.  The quantity is indeed overwhelming.  The quality, however, is not.  The very first point on your list was laughable.

I am more convinced than ever that there are no serious theological problems with the recent popes, since these are the sort of tactics necessary to attempt to make a case against them.
Reply
#29
There is no conversing with TrentCath. There is just the hammer of his own interpretation of doctrine coming down on all us "modernist-heretics", based on what he's been taught by others. I'm waiting for a reply to the links in the EENS thread about the links Ray M. Facere posted which basically says what I've been saying all along. I'm sure that theologian is wrong too.

What I want to know, per this thread, is how we've now had Popes preaching "heresy" for 40+ years. How on earth does one maintain that position without being a sede, and not find themselves getting laughed at by both the sede's and everyone else? It's kinda ridiculous.

Reply
#30
(08-14-2012, 01:09 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Your excuses for pope paul VI are quite frankly ridiculous, the primary and secondary ends of marriage are always referred to in that order, why would you refer to them in reverse order? Its not only confusing its bizzare, and why do it twice? It seems far more likely that he was reversing the order just as happened in the new code of canon law, which does the same thing then that he just happened to twice refer to the primary and secondary ends in reverse order.

I cannot believe you are seriously making this argument.  Is English your first language?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)