Contradictions of the modern popes
#51
(08-14-2012, 02:26 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: Just to supplement TrentCath, here are some more alleged contradictions which have appeared obvious to a great many as well:

Can we resist temptation, confess Christ etc. without grace or can we?

(References are to the old Denzinger)

Popes Innocent I, Zosimus, and Boniface II

Quote:105 Can. 5. It has likewise been decided that whoever says that the grace of justification is given to us for this reason: that what we are ordered to do through free will, we may be able to accomplish more easily through grace, just as if, even if grace were not given, we could nevertheless fulfill the divine commands without it, though not indeed easily, let him he anathema. For concerning the fruits of His commands the Lord spoke not when He said: "Without me you can accomplish with greater difficulty," but when He said: "Without me you can do nothing" [John 15:5].

135 Chapter 6. That God thus operates in the hearts of men and in the free will itself, so that a holy thought, a pious plan, and every motion of good will is from God, because we can do anything good through Him,without whom we can do nothing."

180 Can. 7. If anyone affirms that without the illumination and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,--who gives to all sweetness in consenting to and believing in the truth,--through the strength of nature he can think anything good which pertains to the salvation of eternal life, as he should, or choose, or consent to salvation, that is to the evangelical proclamation, he is deceived by the heretical spirit, understanding the voice of God speaking in the Gospel:"Without me you can do nothing" [John 15:5]; and that of the Apostle: Not that we are fit to think everything by ourselves as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is,from God[2 Cor. 3:5; cf. St. Augustine].

181 Can. 8. If anyone maintains that some by mercy, but others by free will, which it is evident has been vitiated in all who have been born of the transgression of the first man, are able to come to the grace of baptism, he is proved to be inconsistent with the true faith. For he asserts that the free will of all was not weakened by the sin of the first man, or assuredly was injured in such a way, that nevertheless certain ones have the power without revelation of God to be able by themselves to seek the mystery of eternal salvation. How contrary this is, the Lord Himself proves, who testifies that not some, but no one can come to Him, except whom the Father draws[John 6:44], and just as he says to PETER:"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because fles h and blood hath not revealed it to you, but my Father, whois in heaven"; and the Apostle: No one can say Lord Jesus except in the Holy Spirit.

182 Can. 9 . "The assistance of God. It is a divine gift, both when we think rightly and when we restrain our feet from falsity and injustice; for as often as we do good, God operates in us and with us, that we may work"

186 Can. 13. The restoration of free will. Freedom of will weakened in the first man cannot be repaired except through the grace of baptism; once it has been lost, it cannot be restored except by Him by whom it could be given. Thus Truth itself says: If the Son liberates you, then you will be truly free."

193 Can. 20."That without God man can do no good. God does many good things in man, which man does not do; indeed man can do no good that God does not expect that man do".

195  Can. 22. "Those things which are peculiar to men. No one has anything of his own except lying and sin. But if man has any truth and justice, it is from that fountain for which we ought to thirst in this desert, that bedewed by some drops of water from it, we may not falter on the way."

Compare with various Popes (again see Denzinger for specific citations)

Quote:1027 27. Free will, without the help of God's grace, has only power for sin. CONDEMNED

1028 28. It is a Pelagian error to say that free will has the power to avoid any sin. CONDEMNED

1029 29. Not only are they "thieves" and "robbers" who deny that Christ is the way and "the door" of the truth and life, but also whoever teaches that there can be ascent to the way of justice (that is to any justice) otherwise than through Him, 1030 30.or, that man can resist any temptation without the help of His grace, so that he may not be led into it and not be overcome by it. CONDEMNED

1065 65. Some good, or at least not bad use of free will can be admitted only by a Pelagian error; and he who knows and teaches this, does injury to the grace of Christ. CONDEMNED

1352  2. The grace of Jesus Christ, which is the efficacious principle of every kind of good, is necessary for every good work; without it, not only is nothing done, but nothing can be done. CONDEMNED

1359 9. The grace of Christ is a supreme grace, without which we can never confess Christ, and with which we never deny Him. CONDEMNED

1388 38. Without the grace of the Liberator, the sinner is not free except to do evil. CONDEMNED


Here's an interesting one, is each power supreme in its own sphere, or is one subordinated to the other?

Pius XI
Ubi Arcano Dei

Quote:Christ reigns where the position in society which He Himself has assigned to His Church is recognized, for He bestowed on the Church the status and the constitution of a society which, by reason of the perfect ends which it is called upon to attain, must be held to be supreme in its own sphere; He also made her the depository and interpreter of His divine teachings, and, by consequence, the teacher and guide of every other society whatsoever, not of course in the sense that she should abstract in the least from their authority, each in its own sphere supreme, but that she should really perfect their authority, just as divine grace perfects human nature, and should give to them the assistance necessary for men to attain their true final end, eternal happiness, and by that very fact make them the more deserving and certain promoters of their happiness here below.


Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam
Quote:Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: 'There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God' [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.

See here the alleged contradictions of St. Leo put forth by Severus of Antioch and others:

Tome of Leo Wrote:For each of the forms effects in partnership with the other that which belongs to itself, the Word doing that which belongs to the Word, and the body performing the things which belong to the body.
---
"He whom Herod impiously designs to slay is like humanity in its beginnings; but he whom the Magi rejoice to adore on their knees is Lord of all."
----
"Accordingly, he who, as man, is tempted by the devil's subtlety, is the same to whom, as God, angels pay duteous service. To hunger, to thirst, to be weary, and to sleep, is evidently human. But to satisfy five thousand men with five loaves, and give to the Samaritan woman that living water, to draw which can secure him that drinks of it from ever thirsting again; to walk on the surface of the sea with feet that sink not, and by rebuking the storm to bring down the "uplifted waves," is unquestionably Divine."

Council of Ephesus
Quote:"If anyone distributes between the two persons or hypostases the expressions used either in the gospels or in the apostolic writings, whether they are used by the holy writers of Christ or by him about himself, and ascribes some to him as to a man, thought of separately from the Word from God, and others, as befitting God, to him as to the Word from God the Father, let him be anathema."

And here's a classic--is the idea of a universal bishop condemned or required?

St. Gregory the Great, Epist. VII, 33:
St. Gregory Wrote:“I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others”

Benedict XIV, Ex Quo:
Benedict XIV Wrote:In the decrees of this synod, which were confirmed after proper investigation by Pope Benedict XIII, the following words are found under the heading de fide Catholica: "For the same reason"-that is, to remove all suspicion of schism-"and to show a sincere union of the members with their head, it has decided and commanded under penalties to be applied at the judgment of the Ordinary that wherever a Roman pontiff is to be commemorated, especially at the Offertory of the Mass, it should be made in clear and definite words which can signify none other than the universal Bishop of Rome."
(Boniface III of course being the first to use this title.)

Here's a good one with the Syllabus--should we follow our reason or not when deciding how to love God?
Bl. Pius IX Wrote: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. CONDEMNED
Bl. Innocent XI, Coelestis Pastor Wrote:19. He who loves God in the way which reason points out or the intellect comprehends, does not love the true God. CONDEMNED

We could go on and on, especially regarding various broad and restrictive EENS quotes,  quotes on slavery, quotes on usury, quotes on the civil power of the Pope, etc., etc., etc..

Of course, I hope all are ready to jump in and show all the proper context and explain all the proper meanings of each quote (I personally believe it can be done and that making a good faith attempt at doing so is the traditional Catholic response; of course, as people know by now on this forum, I believe that Vatican II cannot annul this traditional principle; others might disagree of course).

We can't seriously compare alleged contradictions of pre V2 popes, with the far clearer ones later on down the line.
Reply
#52
Quote:There are four major points to address here:

i) the obsession with ecumenicism
ii) the argument that all christians are in some way united through baptism, that they have some form of communion
iii) the argument that whole schismatic churchs and heretical sects are in some way in some form of communion with the Catholic Church
iv) as a follow on from the above that heretics and schismatics have 'access to the community of salvation'

1) What's wrong with ecumenism in its proper understanding? Nothing. Honey vs Vinegar; See 5th Joyful Mystery in contrast with 1st Sorrowful. There is a connection if you're willing to look.

2) You're now denying the truth on the doctrine of baptism. Baptism > Mystical Body of Christ > connection of a sort though imperfect in its full scope.

3) They are, via Baptism, and even doctrine in various degrees.

4) They do, though imperfectly, as there are varying degrees. Orthodox have valid Eucharist whereas Baptists have basically... Baptism.
Reply
#53
(08-14-2012, 02:29 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-14-2012, 01:58 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: You're "sinning" against the standard you hold others to. Don't we all? Shoot, at least I include a response in my jabs at people like Mikemac for the most part.

I'm not dictating rules to you in your thread insofar as what you can do with this thread, but rather, physically, so to speak, in "your" thread, I'm saying you need to go tell us why that theologian is all wrong.

Have fun playing with yourself while you turn this into SSPX Copy/Paste game time.

Another post of ad hominems. Don't get me wrong it doesn't affect me, I just don't see why you wasted your time posting it or expected me to respond to it.

Then step up to the plate "Trent"Cath. I'm calling you out.
Reply
#54
(08-14-2012, 02:32 PM)TrentCath Wrote: We can't seriously compare alleged contradictions of pre V2 popes, with the far clearer ones later on down the line.

They were just as clear to the people that opposed them as the ones you oppose.  Likewise, the one's you oppose are not so clear to others.  Unless we put in a good forth effort to reconcile them and demonstrate that to the opposition, they sit in the same boat.
Reply
#55
In Regards to baptism and salvation outside the Church.

I was listening to Al Kresta interviewing a priest last week.
They were talking about Colombine.
Fr. said that a very good example of salvation outside the Church was what happened to the little girl whom one of the shooters asked "Are you Christian?". She could have answered "no". But she said "Yes!". He executed her while kneeling. End of story.

:)
(And no, "that's not one for the books")
Reply
#56
(08-14-2012, 02:35 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: There are four major points to address here:

i) the obsession with ecumenicism
ii) the argument that all christians are in some way united through baptism, that they have some form of communion
iii) the argument that whole schismatic churchs and heretical sects are in some way in some form of communion with the Catholic Church
iv) as a follow on from the above that heretics and schismatics have 'access to the community of salvation'
i) having all the Baptized one in Catholic unity is bad how?
ii,iii) tradtionally, all baptized persons were considered to fall within the jurisdiction of the Church. How could this be if there was no link at all? Pagans and Jews are not subject to that jurisdiction.
iv) aren't you one of the guys on here constantly arguing that heretics and schismatics can be saved against the alleged "feeneyites"? (if in good faith, of course)
Reply
#57
(08-14-2012, 02:35 PM)jonbhorton Wrote:
Quote:There are four major points to address here:

i) the obsession with ecumenicism
ii) the argument that all christians are in some way united through baptism, that they have some form of communion
iii) the argument that whole schismatic churchs and heretical sects are in some way in some form of communion with the Catholic Church
iv) as a follow on from the above that heretics and schismatics have 'access to the community of salvation'

1) What's wrong with ecumenism in its proper understanding? Nothing. Honey vs Vinegar; See 5th Joyful Mystery in contrast with 1st Sorrowful. There is a connection if you're willing to look.

2) You're now denying the truth on the doctrine of baptism. Baptism > Mystical Body of Christ > connection of a sort though imperfect in its full scope.

3) They are, via Baptism, and even doctrine in various degrees.

4) They do, though imperfectly, as there are varying degrees. Orthodox have valid Eucharist whereas Baptists have basically... Baptism.

i) the understanding isnt the same, the documents show that
ii) if a heretic is baptised as an adult and isnt in invincible ignorance he is not a member of the church, even if he was in invincible ignorance he wouldnt be a member of the body of the Church
iii) it is heretical to believe that whole church's or communities are somehow in communion with  The Catholic Church, individuals may be, but communities are not
iv) not unless they have invincible ignorance
Reply
#58
(08-14-2012, 02:38 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(08-14-2012, 02:32 PM)TrentCath Wrote: We can't seriously compare alleged contradictions of pre V2 popes, with the far clearer ones later on down the line.

They were just as clear to the people that opposed them as the ones you oppose.  Likewise, the one's you oppose are not so clear to others.  Unless we put in a good forth effort to reconcile them and demonstrate that to the opposition, they sit in the same boat.

If you wish to start another thread on that so be it, it doesn't belong on this thread. Frankly though, they are not as clear, vis a vis the text anyway.
Reply
#59
(08-14-2012, 02:42 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(08-14-2012, 02:35 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: There are four major points to address here:

i) the obsession with ecumenicism
ii) the argument that all christians are in some way united through baptism, that they have some form of communion
iii) the argument that whole schismatic churchs and heretical sects are in some way in some form of communion with the Catholic Church
iv) as a follow on from the above that heretics and schismatics have 'access to the community of salvation'
i) having all the Baptized one in Catholic unity is bad how?
ii,iii) tradtionally, all baptized persons were considered to fall within the jurisdiction of the Church. How could this be if there was no link at all? Pagans and Jews are not subject to that jurisdiction.
iv) aren't you one of the guys on here constantly arguing that heretics and schismatics can be saved against the alleged "feeneyites"? (if in good faith, of course)

i) don't be coy, what pope john paul ii means by ecumenicism and what the previous popes mean are two very different things
ii) formal heretics aren't in the church, even material heretics aren't part of its body. To carte blanche claim theres a type of communion for all baptised as Pope John Paul 2 does is wrong, the popes themselves have said it
iii) a caricature, if in invincible ignorance there is a chance they may be saved, Pope John Paul II goes far further and does so explicitly.

Moreover pope John Paul II claims that whole communities are somehow in communion with The Catholic Church, he is not merely talking about individuals, The Church has never taught that heretical or schismatic communities were corporately somehow part of The Church.
Reply
#60
(08-14-2012, 02:42 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(08-14-2012, 02:35 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: There are four major points to address here:

i) the obsession with ecumenicism
ii) the argument that all christians are in some way united through baptism, that they have some form of communion
iii) the argument that whole schismatic churchs and heretical sects are in some way in some form of communion with the Catholic Church
iv) as a follow on from the above that heretics and schismatics have 'access to the community of salvation'
i) having all the Baptized one in Catholic unity is bad how?
ii,iii) tradtionally, all baptized persons were considered to fall within the jurisdiction of the Church. How could this be if there was no link at all? Pagans and Jews are not subject to that jurisdiction.
iv) aren't you one of the guys on here constantly arguing that heretics and schismatics can be saved against the alleged "feeneyites"? (if in good faith, of course)

I was quoting TrentCath. My answers are properly numbered 1),2), etc.

(08-14-2012, 02:35 PM)jonbhorton Wrote:
Quote:There are four major points to address here:

i) the obsession with ecumenicism
ii) the argument that all christians are in some way united through baptism, that they have some form of communion
iii) the argument that whole schismatic churchs and heretical sects are in some way in some form of communion with the Catholic Church
iv) as a follow on from the above that heretics and schismatics have 'access to the community of salvation'

1) What's wrong with ecumenism in its proper understanding? Nothing. Honey vs Vinegar; See 5th Joyful Mystery in contrast with 1st Sorrowful. There is a connection if you're willing to look.

2) You're now denying the truth on the doctrine of baptism. Baptism > Mystical Body of Christ > connection of a sort though imperfect in its full scope.

3) They are, via Baptism, and even doctrine in various degrees.

4) They do, though imperfectly, as there are varying degrees. Orthodox have valid Eucharist whereas Baptists have basically... Baptism.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)