Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren
(10-22-2012, 01:27 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 01:20 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 01:01 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 12:46 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 12:33 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: Censures were not given that way. If someone who wasn't the pope wrote this 80 years ago, they would be asked about it and be able to clarify it before being censured. If censures were actually automatically given for ambiguity, we would all be in trouble!  The Pope is not putting forth a formal proposition. It was an Angelus address.

Uh actually I am pretty sure that censures were given exactly like that, they might well clarify it, but their original statement would still be censurable.

An Angelus address is essentially like a homily. Homilies were censured for ambiguity?

I would hope so!

Certainly a bishop wouldn't let a priest get away with that sort of scandalous ambiguity in the past, and in the case of a pope it is much worse.

That said, this is supposing you are right, you are not, so the issue of the pope making a statement that is contrary to catholic teaching remains.

I would guess that homilies and talks were full of all sorts of ambiguity. It requires a specific context (a written work that is edited and reviewed prior to publication) to avoid ambiguity.

Let any of the older folks answer this: in the old days, did you ever hear a priest say something others considered ambiguous? Did it bring down a censure from Rome?

Oh please, as if the pope just makes up his readings on the spot  :eyeroll:

As for the rest who mentioned censures from Rome? Not me, so don't put words in my mouth.

Besides its beyond absurd to compare a popes angelus address with a priests homily, the former is far more important, its not comparing like with like.

The simple fact is good theologians don't make scandalously ambiguous statements and they certainly don't make statements that are actually contrary to catholic teaching. Perhaps a theologian can make a mistake once or twice, but if that's all they do or it happens many times, its unreasonable to claim they are actually orthodox and yes Pope Benedict XVI and before he was pope cardinal ratzinger have made these sort of statements over and over and over again and never retracted them.
Reply
(10-22-2012, 01:41 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 11:01 AM)TrentCath Wrote: it has to be said Vox that even though you've repeated it many times, It is not at all clear to many on this thread that actually the popes words are perfectly fine and I haven't actually seen an argument that they are, I've just been told that if a Catholic goes and reads the catechism and studies church teaching they will realise this, but people have done that and they completely disagree with the conclusion you have come to.

I keep getting told that it is obvious that current teachings contradict pre-VII teachings and if I can't see that I must be stupid or deliberately misunderstanding.  There are a lot of people on this forum, including you, who refuse to acknowledge that a knowledgeable, intellectually honest person of good will could come to a conclusion that disagrees with their own.  This attitude is not reserved to one side or the other of the debates we have here.

And?

I'm still waiting for some cogent arguments from such people, cause the whole authority red herein is getting kind of old.
Reply
(10-22-2012, 02:46 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 01:41 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 11:01 AM)TrentCath Wrote: it has to be said Vox that even though you've repeated it many times, It is not at all clear to many on this thread that actually the popes words are perfectly fine and I haven't actually seen an argument that they are, I've just been told that if a Catholic goes and reads the catechism and studies church teaching they will realise this, but people have done that and they completely disagree with the conclusion you have come to.

I keep getting told that it is obvious that current teachings contradict pre-VII teachings and if I can't see that I must be stupid or deliberately misunderstanding.  There are a lot of people on this forum, including you, who refuse to acknowledge that a knowledgeable, intellectually honest person of good will could come to a conclusion that disagrees with their own.  This attitude is not reserved to one side or the other of the debates we have here.

And?

I'm still waiting for some cogent arguments from such people, cause the whole authority red herein is getting kind of old.

Well that illustrates my point.  You dismiss everything that is said in disagreement with you as an "authority red herring".
Reply
(10-22-2012, 02:56 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 02:46 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 01:41 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 11:01 AM)TrentCath Wrote: it has to be said Vox that even though you've repeated it many times, It is not at all clear to many on this thread that actually the popes words are perfectly fine and I haven't actually seen an argument that they are, I've just been told that if a Catholic goes and reads the catechism and studies church teaching they will realise this, but people have done that and they completely disagree with the conclusion you have come to.

I keep getting told that it is obvious that current teachings contradict pre-VII teachings and if I can't see that I must be stupid or deliberately misunderstanding.  There are a lot of people on this forum, including you, who refuse to acknowledge that a knowledgeable, intellectually honest person of good will could come to a conclusion that disagrees with their own.  This attitude is not reserved to one side or the other of the debates we have here.

And?

I'm still waiting for some cogent arguments from such people, cause the whole authority red herein is getting kind of old.

Well that illustrates my point.  You dismiss everything that is said in disagreement with you as an "authority red herring".

Not really, read what I wrote. Not everything I get is an authority red herring, though I've not yet heard many cogent arguments, I will admit there have been one or two though after enough poking they tend to collapse into absurdity or serious logical problems, but certainly the authority argument is the most popular one I have encountered on here.
Reply
(10-22-2012, 03:06 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 02:56 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 02:46 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 01:41 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 11:01 AM)TrentCath Wrote: it has to be said Vox that even though you've repeated it many times, It is not at all clear to many on this thread that actually the popes words are perfectly fine and I haven't actually seen an argument that they are, I've just been told that if a Catholic goes and reads the catechism and studies church teaching they will realise this, but people have done that and they completely disagree with the conclusion you have come to.

I keep getting told that it is obvious that current teachings contradict pre-VII teachings and if I can't see that I must be stupid or deliberately misunderstanding.  There are a lot of people on this forum, including you, who refuse to acknowledge that a knowledgeable, intellectually honest person of good will could come to a conclusion that disagrees with their own.  This attitude is not reserved to one side or the other of the debates we have here.

And?

I'm still waiting for some cogent arguments from such people, cause the whole authority red herein is getting kind of old.

Well that illustrates my point.  You dismiss everything that is said in disagreement with you as an "authority red herring".

Not really, read what I wrote. Not everything I get is an authority red herring, though I've not yet heard many cogent arguments, I will admit there have been one or two though after enough poking they tend to collapse into absurdity or serious logical problems, but certainly the authority argument is the most popular one I have encountered on here.

When I say that I do not find opposing arguments cogent, you accuse me of ill will.  Why are you allowed to make judgments regarding what is cogent but I am not?
Reply
(10-22-2012, 03:28 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 03:06 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 02:56 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 02:46 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 01:41 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(10-22-2012, 11:01 AM)TrentCath Wrote: it has to be said Vox that even though you've repeated it many times, It is not at all clear to many on this thread that actually the popes words are perfectly fine and I haven't actually seen an argument that they are, I've just been told that if a Catholic goes and reads the catechism and studies church teaching they will realise this, but people have done that and they completely disagree with the conclusion you have come to.

I keep getting told that it is obvious that current teachings contradict pre-VII teachings and if I can't see that I must be stupid or deliberately misunderstanding.  There are a lot of people on this forum, including you, who refuse to acknowledge that a knowledgeable, intellectually honest person of good will could come to a conclusion that disagrees with their own.  This attitude is not reserved to one side or the other of the debates we have here.

And?

I'm still waiting for some cogent arguments from such people, cause the whole authority red herein is getting kind of old.

Well that illustrates my point.  You dismiss everything that is said in disagreement with you as an "authority red herring".

Not really, read what I wrote. Not everything I get is an authority red herring, though I've not yet heard many cogent arguments, I will admit there have been one or two though after enough poking they tend to collapse into absurdity or serious logical problems, but certainly the authority argument is the most popular one I have encountered on here.

When I say that I do not find opposing arguments cogent, you accuse me of ill will.  Why are you allowed to make judgments regarding what is cogent but I am not?

Actually I believe ill will is one of several options I list, so again don't put words in my mouth.
Reply
Dear brothers and sisters!

The Gospel of this Sunday presents one of those episodes of the life of Christ that, although, reported “in passing,” so to speak, contain a profound meaning (cf. Mark 9:38-41). It tells that someone, who was not one of Jesus’ followers, cast out demons in Jesus’ name. The Apostle John, young and zealous as he was, wanted to stop him but Jesus did not permit it; on the contrary, he takes the occasion to teach his disciples that God can do good and even wondrous things outside of their circle, and that it is possible to work together in the cause of the Kingdom of God in different ways, even offering a simple glass of water to a missionary (9:41).

St. Augustine writes in this regard: “Just as in the ‘Catholica,'” that is in the Church, “we can find that which is not Catholic, so also outside of the ‘Catholica’ there can be something Catholic” (“On Baptism Against the Donatists,” PL 43, VII, 39, 77). For this reason the members of the Church must not be jealous but rejoice if someone outside the community does something good in Christ’s name, as long as he does it with the right intention and with respect. It can also occur that in the Church herself sometimes there is a failure to value and to appreciate, in a spirit of profound communion, the good things done by various ecclesial groups. We must all, however, be always able to appreciate and esteem each other, praising the Lord for the infinite “imagination” with which he works in the Church and in the world.

In today’s liturgy there also echoes the Apostle James’ invective against the dishonest rich, who place their trust in the security of wealth gained unjustly (cf. James 5:1-6). In this connection Caesarius of Arles states: “While riches cannot harm a good man because they make him merciful, they cannot help a bad man inasmuch as he holds on to them greedily or wastes them in dissipation” (Sermons 35, 4). The Apostle James’ words, while they warn against the vain pursuit of material goods, constitute a powerful call to use them with a view to solidarity and the common good, acting always with equity and morality at all levels.

Dear friends, through the intercession of Mary Most Holy, let us pray that we might know how to rejoice in every good deed and initiative, without envy and jealousy, and to use earthly goods wisely in the continuous pursuit of eternal goods.


???

I don't see anything wrong here.
Reply
(10-22-2012, 01:36 PM)Adeodatus01 Wrote:
(10-21-2012, 03:18 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: Maybe if you disconnect this passage from everything else he's done as a pontiff.

Oh, like Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae and only distributing Communion on the tongue and Anglicanorum coetibus and the Benedictine Arrangement and....

Such things only make matters worse, and build a stronger case of modernism against him.

ETA: To expound, it is worse that a prelate should mix heterodoxy with orthodoxy than if he were to be one or the other.  "Let your speech be yea, yea or no, no &c &c"

It isn't desirable to have a parent who feeds you full course nutritious meals if every third meal they slip some poison in to it.  BXVI's pontificate can't be judged on one particular thing, though particular things can certainly be "defining" points of a pontificate, such as The Syllabus of Errors (P IX) or Pascendi (P X).  These works are emblematic of the Pope's body of work as a whole.  BXVI has nothing emblematic of his work, because his work as a pontiff is continually contradicting.  Pre conciliar popes would call this modernism, when one teaches conflicting doctrine or does something other than what he teaches.  Either that or he's stupid.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he's not stupid.  That leaves him being infatuated with the new ever-changing theology.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
(10-22-2012, 03:34 PM)Whitey Wrote: Dear brothers and sisters!

The Gospel of this Sunday presents one of those episodes of the life of Christ that, although, reported “in passing,” so to speak, contain a profound meaning (cf. Mark 9:38-41). It tells that someone, who was not one of Jesus’ followers, cast out demons in Jesus’ name. The Apostle John, young and zealous as he was, wanted to stop him but Jesus did not permit it; on the contrary, he takes the occasion to teach his disciples that God can do good and even wondrous things outside of their circle, and that it is possible to work together in the cause of the Kingdom of God in different ways, even offering a simple glass of water to a missionary (9:41).

St. Augustine writes in this regard: “Just as in the ‘Catholica,'” that is in the Church, “we can find that which is not Catholic, so also outside of the ‘Catholica’ there can be something Catholic” (“On Baptism Against the Donatists,” PL 43, VII, 39, 77). For this reason the members of the Church must not be jealous but rejoice if someone outside the community does something good in Christ’s name, as long as he does it with the right intention and with respect. It can also occur that in the Church herself sometimes there is a failure to value and to appreciate, in a spirit of profound communion, the good things done by various ecclesial groups. We must all, however, be always able to appreciate and esteem each other, praising the Lord for the infinite “imagination” with which he works in the Church and in the world.

In today’s liturgy there also echoes the Apostle James’ invective against the dishonest rich, who place their trust in the security of wealth gained unjustly (cf. James 5:1-6). In this connection Caesarius of Arles states: “While riches cannot harm a good man because they make him merciful, they cannot help a bad man inasmuch as he holds on to them greedily or wastes them in dissipation” (Sermons 35, 4). The Apostle James’ words, while they warn against the vain pursuit of material goods, constitute a powerful call to use them with a view to solidarity and the common good, acting always with equity and morality at all levels.

Dear friends, through the intercession of Mary Most Holy, let us pray that we might know how to rejoice in every good deed and initiative, without envy and jealousy, and to use earthly goods wisely in the continuous pursuit of eternal goods.


???

I don't see anything wrong here.

First two paragraphs.
Reply
(10-22-2012, 01:36 PM)Adeodatus01 Wrote:
(10-21-2012, 03:18 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: Maybe if you disconnect this passage from everything else he's done as a pontiff.

Oh, like Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae and only distributing Communion on the tongue and Anglicanorum coetibus and the Benedictine Arrangement and....
.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)