Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Josh

Pope Francis: Former popes ignored mercy in using ‘inhuman’ death penalty

Recommended Posts

fides' Jack
23 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

I will always, Grace prevailing, hold to what The Church teaches.

Conversely, perhaps denial of what The Church is teaching and holding to a previous time in The Church is the error coming out of The Church.  

Me, too.

That is an interesting point of view, since it seems to be the advice of 2000 years of theologians, Church teachings, approved apparitions, and even the Bible itself that in these times, one should "hold fast to tradition".  

7 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

 

And Jesus loved us while we were still sinners and sinful.  "But God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us" Romans Ch5 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PYT.HTM

That's a good quote.  I'm not sure what your point is, though...  sorry.  Understood that the 2nd greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself.  

Edited by fides' Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BarbaraTherese

 

 God bless, Jack.  I am not going to post any more, it is time consuming to no avail I think.  It is obvious we disagree and we can indeed agree to disagree.  The Peace and Joy of The Lord be with you and yours all the days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fides' Jack
5 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

 

 God bless, Jack.  I am not going to post any more, it is time consuming to no avail I think.  It is obvious we disagree and we can indeed agree to disagree.  The Peace and Joy of The Lord be with you and yours all the days.

You, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack4
10 hours ago, Peace said:

Please refer to me as "PrincePeace" or "WiseMaster" thank you.

WiseMaster,

1. DP is legit in principle (we agree on this)

2. Whether DP is justly administered in our times involves prudential judgement.

3. The Church may err in matters of prudential judgement.

4. Prudential judgements may be disagreed with - not simply out of rejection of the hierarchy but with logical arguments. eg The Second Vatican Council's prudential judgements that there is an increasing awareness of human dignity or that vernacular liturgies may be pastorally advantageous (the judgement, not the change in discipline based on this judgement) may be disputed. Or a Pope's judgement whether a particular war is just. These do not belong to the deposit of faith.

5. Error has no rights.

6. In matters of faith and morals, antiquity is sacred and to be held fast (cf. St Vincent) (The Commonitorium has been quoted approvingly by Popes.)

7. Popes can be criticised (cf Feser).

8. Donum Veritatis considers situations where the Magisterium says one thing and theologians another. In the DP debate (on whether it is legit in principle (there are PF's supporters who dispute this point)), the traditional Magisterium and theologians are on the same side. 

9. Feser has joined other scholars in an appeal to Cardinals about DP (Canon Law says they have a right to do this). Like scholars' appeals on Amoris, this was not regarded. 

10. See https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6463 Jimmy Akin is no one's example of a Francis-hating-traddie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BarbaraTherese

Jimmy Akin: "In view of these considerations, it is easier to understand why Cardinal Ratzinger would state that there is a "legitimate diversity of opinion" among Catholics regarding war and capital punishment. Good Catholics should not make the mistake of thinking there is not." https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6463

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace
16 hours ago, Jack4 said:

WiseMaster,

1. DP is legit in principle (we agree on this)

2. Whether DP is justly administered in our times involves prudential judgement.

3. The Church may err in matters of prudential judgement.

4. Prudential judgements may be disagreed with - not simply out of rejection of the hierarchy but with logical arguments. eg The Second Vatican Council's prudential judgements that there is an increasing awareness of human dignity or that vernacular liturgies may be pastorally advantageous (the judgement, not the change in discipline based on this judgement) may be disputed. Or a Pope's judgement whether a particular war is just. These do not belong to the deposit of faith.

5. Error has no rights.

6. In matters of faith and morals, antiquity is sacred and to be held fast (cf. St Vincent) (The Commonitorium has been quoted approvingly by Popes.) 

7. Popes can be criticised (cf Feser).

8. Donum Veritatis considers situations where the Magisterium says one thing and theologians another. In the DP debate (on whether it is legit in principle (there are PF's supporters who dispute this point)), the traditional Magisterium and theologians are on the same side.  

9. Feser has joined other scholars in an appeal to Cardinals about DP (Canon Law says they have a right to do this). Like scholars' appeals on Amoris, this was not regarded. 

10. See https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6463 Jimmy Akin is no one's example of a Francis-hating-traddie. 

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20180801_catechismo-penadimorte_en.html

The death penalty

2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

20 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

God bless, Jack.  I am not going to post any more, it is time consuming to no avail I think.  It is obvious we disagree and we can indeed agree to disagree.  The Peace and Joy of The Lord be with you and yours all the days.

You are much wiser than me, obviously.

Edited by Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fides' Jack
20 hours ago, Peace said:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20180801_catechismo-penadimorte_en.html

The death penalty

2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

You are much wiser than me, obviously.

I'm not sure what quoting the catechism is supposed to accomplish.  I think we're all aware of what it now says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack4
8 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

I'm not sure what quoting the catechism is supposed to accomplish.  I think we're all aware of what it now says.

It quotes me, so I think it's a response to me - perhaps a meticulous, incisive, perspicacious response to each of the ten points I had raised in the quoted post. :rain:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace
5 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I'm not sure what quoting the catechism is supposed to accomplish.  I think we're all aware of what it now says.

I just wanted you to read it one more time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fides' Jack

It's already been brought up, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as a book, holds absolutely zero authority on its own.  The authority that it did once have was due to the (then) pope's statement holding everything it contained as genuine Church teaching (Fidei Depositum).  Once anything is added, the addition does not, by virtue of its placement inside the same book, carry the same weight of required belief.

It occurred to me yesterday that while Pope John Paul II was celebrated for giving an authoritative document to the Church to serve as a sort of summary of all Church teaching on morality (most especially by moderate conservatives), he could not have known that the enemy, who is now residing within the Church, would be able to use it as such an effective weapon against otherwise faithful Catholics.  For a couple decades, we as Catholics had something we could very easily point to or look to if we had any questions regarding at least the basics of Catholic faith.  Now we don't.

I wonder if that was really the devil's plan for it, all along...

Edited by fides' Jack
Wanted to address additional point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack4
1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

For a couple decades, we as Catholics had something we could very easily point to or look to if we had any questions regarding at least the basics of Catholic faith.  Now we don't.

We still do. There are other Catechisms. JP2 explicitly said that other Catechisms may be used. Jimmy Akin's compilation is valuable: http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/master2.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace
3 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

It's already been brought up, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as a book, holds absolutely zero authority on its own.  The authority that it did once have was due to the (then) pope's statement holding everything it contained as genuine Church teaching (Fidei Depositum).  Once anything is added, the addition does not, by virtue of its placement inside the same book, carry the same weight of required belief.

If Pope Francis authored an apostolic constitution and wrote "The Catechism of the Catholic Church, as last revised in August 2008 and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion" would you accept the revised paragraph of the Catechism, or formally declare Pope Francis to be a heretic?

3 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

It occurred to me yesterday that while Pope John Paul II was celebrated for giving an authoritative document to the Church to serve as a sort of summary of all Church teaching on morality (most especially by moderate conservatives), he could not have known that the enemy, who is now residing within the Church, would be able to use it as such an effective weapon against otherwise faithful Catholics.  For a couple decades, we as Catholics had something we could very easily point to or look to if we had any questions regarding at least the basics of Catholic faith.  Now we don't.

I wonder if that was really the devil's plan for it, all along...

One change to one paragraph and now the whole Catechism is worthless, apparently.

By the enemy are you referring to the devil, Pope Francis, any catholic who disagrees with you concerning that paragraph of the Catechism, or some combination of the above?

Well, in any case you may be correct. But another possibility is that the devil is using folks like you to sow division in the Church, to bring Christians apart, and to continue to foster a culture of death and vengeance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack4
5 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as a book, holds absolutely zero authority on its own.  The authority that it did once have was due to the (then) pope's statement holding everything it contained as genuine Church teaching (Fidei Depositum).  Once anything is added, the addition does not, by virtue of its placement inside the same book, carry the same weight of required belief.

I don't understand the second sentence.

Ratzinger says that the CCC is merely  a compilation of sorts - if a statement was authoritative already, it is still authoritative. If it was not, it doesn't become authoritative simply by being included. 

Many things in it are definitely true, many things are almost certainly true, nothing is definitely false. Hence no one holding a proposition in the CCC can be censured for heresy The CCC is reliable to frame catechisms to be used. 

The CCC can be "updated" in principle by the Pope, even though it is pastorally unwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fides' Jack
On 1/23/2019 at 5:19 PM, Jack4 said:

We still do. There are other Catechisms. JP2 explicitly said that other Catechisms may be used. Jimmy Akin's compilation is valuable: http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/master2.htm

Thanks, I do agree with this statement.  I own several other catechisms myself, and I do reference them, but none of them are really in the same level of completeness as the CCC, save possibly the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which is still valid.

On 1/23/2019 at 7:41 PM, Peace said:

If Pope Francis authored an apostolic constitution and wrote "The Catechism of the Catholic Church, as last revised in August 2008 and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion" would you accept the revised paragraph of the Catechism, or formally declare Pope Francis to be a heretic?

One change to one paragraph and now the whole Catechism is worthless, apparently.

By the enemy are you referring to the devil, Pope Francis, any catholic who disagrees with you concerning that paragraph of the Catechism, or some combination of the above?

Well, in any case you may be correct. But another possibility is that the devil is using folks like you to sow division in the Church, to bring Christians apart, and to continue to foster a culture of death and vengeance.

I believe it's extremely dangerous to question the Magisterium, and such a thing can only be done when there is a legitimate concern over false teachings on faith or morals, as evidenced by tradition.  I've been considering the question you're asking me for months.  Personally, I want to believe the Holy Spirit would preserve us from the pope changing existing teaching in a way that he attempts to invoke ex cathedra.  That being said, the rules for speaking ex cathedra make it clear that it's not valid if it's a change to traditional Church teaching on those matters, since Church teaching simply can't change.  To answer your question, no, I would not accept the revised paragraph of the Catechism even if the pope did issue a statement like that.  As far as I know, he has not, yet.  But I would like to know if I'm wrong about that - and if so, do you have a link to the statement itself?  If you want to know why I answer "no", read the bottom of this post.

The Catechism is not worthless, but any change like that should be suspect. 

By "the enemy" I'm referring to the devil.

I definitely understand why you think I'm the one sowing division in the Church (even though I'm not).  Can you explain your accusation that I'm fostering a culture of death and vengeance?  In what way?  Are you referring to the death penalty itself?  Because I haven't actually stated my position on the matter - at least not in this thread.  Or do you mean my arguments against the change to the Catechism?  If that's the case, then you would have to accuse Pope John Paul II of the same thing, as it's his position that I'm defending.

On 1/23/2019 at 10:06 PM, Jack4 said:

I don't understand the second sentence.

Ratzinger says that the CCC is merely  a compilation of sorts - if a statement was authoritative already, it is still authoritative. If it was not, it doesn't become authoritative simply by being included. 

Many things in it are definitely true, many things are almost certainly true, nothing is definitely false. Hence no one holding a proposition in the CCC can be censured for heresy The CCC is reliable to frame catechisms to be used. 

The CCC can be "updated" in principle by the Pope, even though it is pastorally unwise.

I'm not the most articulate person.  You are correct, if a statement was authoritative already, it is still authoritative.  And it does not become authoritative simply by being included in the CCC.  I'm not accusing anyone of heresy.  

And as you say, the catechism can be updated.  But the essence of a moral truth in it cannot be changed.

 

Now, with all that said, I want to point out that while I believe Pope Francis has done considerable damage making this change to the Catechism, one of which that it has further divided the Catholic Church on Earth, I can still find ways to argue that it doesn't contradict existing Church teaching (if the pope's argument is that the dp is morally permissible, but inadmissible in the light of technological advances - which is still wrong, but perhaps not a change to moral teaching).  I also believe that the footnote in a previous apostolic exhortation claiming that divorced and remarried persons can receive communion remains the more damaging "footnote" to this pope's legacy.

Finally, I want to add this link to the discussion: http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2001/features_mar01.html - in this article Fr. Ripperger provides a fantastic understanding of problems like this, and while the article is fairly old now (2001), it's even more true today.  It gives a great description of the error of magisterialism, which so many Catholics are guilty of today, including very many posters here on Phatmass.

Edited by fides' Jack
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...