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

[Peace]

17 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

Christ taught the Apostles, they taught the Early Church. Faith is handed down. The Magisterium is not the Master of revelation but its servant, as V2 teaches. If the first is wrong and the new is correct, then revelation is alleged to be in need of correction. 

Qui Pluribus

I don't understand 

No, it does not logically follow from what I wrote that revelation is in need of correction. Revelation is true because it is God breathed, not because it was made at any particular point in time. Obviously if anything contradicts revelation it is wrong, but that result follows regardless of the timing.

[Jack4]

I'm making the point that the 'old' consensus is the revelation that was handed down. 

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Jack4 said:

I'm making the point that the 'old' consensus is the revelation that was handed down. 

No, that does not logically follow. The mere fact that something is older does not mean that it is more true.

[Jack4]

Quote

 

[51.] Such being the case, when I think over these things, and revolve them in my mind again and again, I cannot sufficiently wonder at the madness of certain men, at the impiety of their blinded understanding, at their lust of error, such that, not content with the rule of faith delivered once for all, and received from the times of old, they are every day seeking one novelty after another, and are constantly longing to add, change, take away, in religion, as though the doctrine, Let what has once for all been revealed suffice, were not a heavenly but an earthly rule — a rule which could not be complied with except by continual emendation, nay, rather by continual fault-finding; whereas the divine Oracles cry aloud, Remove not the landmarks, which your fathers have set, Proverbs 22:28 and Go not to law with a Judge, Sirach 8:14 and Whoever breaks through a fence a serpent shall bite him, Ecclesiastes 10:8 and that saying of the Apostle wherewith, as with a spiritual sword, all the wicked novelties of all heresies often have been, and will always have to be, decapitated, O Timothy, keep the deposit, shunning profane novelties of words and oppositions of the knowledge falsely so called, which some professing have erred concerning the faith. 1 Timothy 6:20

[52.] After words such as these, is there any one of so hardened a front, such anvil-like impudence, such adamantine pertinacity, as not to succumb to so huge a mass, not to be crushed by so ponderous a weight, not to be shaken in pieces by such heavy blows, not to be annihilated by such dreadful thunderbolts of divine eloquence? Shun profane novelties, he says. He does not say shun antiquity. But he plainly points to what ought to follow by the rule of contrary. For if novelty is to be shunned, antiquity is to be held fast; if novelty is profane, antiquity is sacred. ...

 

[61.] Profane novelties of words. What words are these? Such as have nothing sacred, nothing religious, words utterly remote from the inmost sanctuary of the Church which is the temple of God. Profane novelties of words, that is, of doctrines, subjects, opinions, such as are contrary to antiquity and the faith of the olden time. Which if they be received, it follows necessarily that the faith of the blessed fathers is violated either in whole, or at all events in great part; it follows necessarily that all the faithful of all ages, all the saints, the chaste, the continent, the virgins, all the clergy, Deacons and Priests, so many thousands of Confessors, so vast an army of martyrs, such multitudes of cities and of peoples, so many islands, provinces, kings, tribes, kingdoms, nations, in a word, almost the whole earth, incorporated in Christ the Head, through the Catholic faith, have been ignorant for so long a tract of time, have been mistaken, have blasphemed, have not known what to believe, what to confess.

 

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm

[Peace]

I see you have been reading youngTrad. Impressive.

Did you read that the author was a semipelagian and the "novelties" he railed against are otherwise known as St. Augustine's doctrine of grace?

Thank you for proving my point.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15439b.htm

Quote

He died before 450, and probably shortly after 434. St. Eucherius of Lyons calls him a holy man, conspicuous for eloquence and knowledge; there is no reliable authority for identifying Vincent with Marius Mercator, but it is likely, if not certain, that he is the writer against whom Prosper, St. Augustine's friend, directs his "Responsiones ad capitula objectionum Vincentianarum". He was a Semipelagian and so opposed to the doctrine of St. Augustine. It is believed now that he uses against Augustine his great principle: "what all men have at all times and everywhere believed must be regarded as true". Living in a centre deeply imbued with Semipelagianism, Vincent's writings show several points of doctrine akin to Casian or to Faustus of Riez, who became Abbot of Lérins at the time Vincent wrote his "Commonitorium"; he uses technical expressions similar to those employed by the Semipelagians against Augustine; but, as Benedict XIV observes, that happened before the controversy was decided by the Church.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Vincent-of-Lerins

Quote

For the Semi-Pelagians of whom Vincent was a leading spokesman, St. Augustine of Hippo was a dangerous innovator teaching contrary to tradition. The Commonitoria is now generally admitted to be an indirect attack on Augustine, who is not named but to whom the work alludes. In the Commonitoria Vincent tries to provide a valid criterion for orthodoxy and, in doing so, enunciates the classic formula for traditional doctrine: “What is believed everywhere, at all times, and by all.” Most of Vincent’s other works are lost.

 

Edited January 19, 2019 by Peace

[Jack4]

12 minutes ago, Peace said:

I see you have been reading youngTrad. Impressive.

I don't even know what youngtrad is.

The Commonitorium of St Vincent has been quoted approvingly numerous times by Popes - including Pope Francis.

JP2:

Quote

Only from a faith perspective can we see the Council event as a gift whose still hidden
wealth we must know how to mine.At this juncture the significant words of St Vincent of Lérins come to mind:  "The
Church of Christ, the concerned and careful guardian of the dogmas entrusted to her, never changes anything in them;
she removes nothing and adds nothing; she does not cut what is necessary and does not add what is unnecessary; she
never loses what is hers and never appropriates what belongs to others; but with all zeal, she attends faithfully and wisely
to the ancient dogmas and desires only to perfect and hone those which had in ancient times been given an initial form
and first outline, to strengthen and reinforce those which are already prominent and developed, and to preserve those
which have already been confirmed and defined" (Commonitorium, XXIII)

https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/2000/jan-mar/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20000227_vatican-council-ii.pdf

 

Quote

You are responsible for regions where the Christian faith took root very early and bore praiseworthy fruit. Regions linked to distinguished names who worked very hard to implant and spread the Kingdom of God in this world: martyrs such as Photinus and Blandina, great theologians such as Irenaeus and Vincent of Lérins, teachers of Christian spirituality such as Bruno, Bernard and Francis de Sales and many others. The Church in France has a long line of saints, doctors, martyrs and confessors of the faith.

https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2012/november/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20121130_ad-limina-francia.html

 

Quote

 

The expression of truth can take different forms. The renewal of these forms of expression
becomes necessary for the sake of transmitting to the people of today the Gospel message in its
unchanging meaning.38 38 Cf. SAINT VINCENT OF LERINS, Commonitorium primum, 23: PL 50, 667-668.

https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint.pdf

 

 

(* The second quote was from B16)

Pope Francis:

Quote

 “Faith never changes. Faith is the same, but it moves; it grows; it broadens”, he explained. “Saint Vincent of Lérins, an elderly monk from the 5th century, said these words: ‘the truths of the Church go forward’; ‘ut annis consolidetur, dilatetur tempore sublimetur aetate’” . That is, Francis explained, “they strengthen with the years, develop with time and become deeper with age”. That is, “they become stronger with time, with the years; they broaden with time and grow with the age of the Church”. This is the way, he stressed. “It is the same truth, but it helps us understand better”. https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/cotidie/2017/documents/papa-francesco-cotidie_20170508_god-of-surprises.html

 

[Peace]

14 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

I don't even know what youngtrad is.

The Commonitorium of St Vincent has been quoted approvingly numerous times by Popes - including Pope Francis.

JP2

That's nice, but none of that proves that something is more reliable merely because it happens to be older. Look, you are never going to win that argument, because it simply is not true.

I suppose you still believe that the sun revolves around the Earth.

Edited January 19, 2019 by Peace

[Jack4]

The word "novelty" comes here from St Paul. St Vincent is commenting on St Paul. Popes, including Pope Francis, quote the Commonitorium approvingly. He has been called a "great theologian" by B16.  Shouldn't Catholics docile to the Magisterium agree with St Vincent at least in those parts quoted approvingly by Popes? 

[Peace]

5 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

The word "novelty" comes here from St Paul. St Vincent is commenting on St Paul. Popes, including Pope Francis, quote the Commonitorium approvingly. He has been called a "great theologian" by B16.  Shouldn't Catholics docile to the Magisterium agree with St Vincent at least in those parts quoted approvingly by Popes? 

He is a saint so obviously there is a lot of good in him. I am tired of debating this. Have a good weekend.

[Jack4]

When he says, "if novelty is to be shunned, antiquity is to be held fast; if novelty is profane, antiquity is sacred" he is a reliable teacher. It logically follows from St Paul in the Bible. 

"Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport." http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10moath.htm

"Far, far from the clergy be the love of novelty!" http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html

 

 

[Peace]

14 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

When he says, "if novelty is to be shunned, antiquity is to be held fast; if novelty is profane, antiquity is sacred" he is a reliable teacher. It logically follows from St Paul in the Bible. 

"Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport." http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10moath.htm

"Far, far from the clergy be the love of novelty!" http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html

 Geocentrism is old. Heliocentrism is new. So you believe that the sun revolves around the Earth.

You can proof text to your heart's content. But neither St. Vincent of Lérins or anybody else you cited teaches that something is more reliable merely because it happens to be older. The Church does not teach that, despite the fact that tradition is obviously of great importance in our faith.

[Jack4]

55 minutes ago, Peace said:

Geocentrism is old. Heliocentrism is new. So you believe that the sun revolves around the Earth.

Strawman. I (and those I quote) refer to the doctrines of faith, not scientific theories.

57 minutes ago, Peace said:

But neither St. Vincent of Lérins or anybody else you cited teaches that something is more reliable merely because it happens to be older.

 I am at a loss to see how the statement "if novelty is to be shunned, antiquity is to be held fast; if novelty is profane, antiquity is sacred" does not mean that antiquity is "sacred" and to be "held fast". 

[Jack4]

13 hours ago, Peace said:

Revelation is true because it is God breathed, not because it was made at any particular point in time. Obviously if anything contradicts revelation it is wrong, but that result follows regardless of the timing.

 

9 hours ago, Peace said:

The mere fact that something is older does not mean that it is more true.

We know revelation is true because it is revealed by God. However, that revelation was revealed a long time ago and is handed down to us. The consensus of Popes, Fathers and Doctors contains and transmits truth. I'm not saying that Revelation is true because it is old as though it was not true in the first century; instead, it is true and it is now old, so we must receive with the obedience of faith this old deposit of faith. The new ideas that contradict this deposit (I say 'contradict' to refer to corruption vis-a-vis organic, authentic doctrinal development) are false. 

These new falsehoods are the "profane novelties" that St Paul and St Vincent refer to, and that's what I'm getting at as well.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Jack4 said:

Strawman. I (and those I quote) refer to the doctrines of faith, not scientific theories.

 I am at a loss to see how the statement "if novelty is to be shunned, antiquity is to be held fast; if novelty is profane, antiquity is sacred" does not mean that antiquity is "sacred" and to be "held fast". 

Because if you read through the entire document you can easily see that the author discusses numerous different factors and situations that should be taken into account when attempting to distinguish between truth and falsity. His argument is not simply that because one thing is older than another we can conclude that it is true and the other false.

And I do not think the distinction you attempt to draw between faith and science is relevant. All truths be they religious, moral, or scientific truths are from the same God.

[Peace]

Lastly, obviously if you have a situation where everybody has been teaching A for a long time, and then somebody new comes along and teaches B, you are going to give a strong benefit of the doubt to A and put the burden of proof on B. But there is still a judgment to be made here, one still needs to weigh various different factors (see the St. Vincent document you cited) and make a final determination. The point is that the Church has the authority to weigh the different factors, to determine what is truly a part of the deposit of faith, and to determine how the newer teaching relates to it. It is not within the authority of a lay Catholic like you or me to get on the internet, read a couple blog posts by Ed. Feser and read a few articles on New Advent and declare to ourselves "Pope Zebra in the year 182 stated ABC therefore the deposit of faith must be X about the death penalty, so if the Pope and the bishops teach Y then they must be wrong."

Edited January 19, 2019 by Peace

[Jack4]

27 minutes ago, Peace said:

All truths be they religious, moral, or scientific truths are from the same God.

Science is not "revealed" by God in the way religious doctrine is. In science, discarding old theories is a common thing. eg first Dalton said that the atom is indivisible, then Thomson, Rutherford and Bohr came up with their models and the quantum mechanical model of the atom we use now. 

In religious doctrine, this doesn't happen - a total reversal, a contradiction does not take place. Divorce,contraception, blasphemy etc will never be approved with Magisterial authority. Nor will, say, the doctrine of the Trinity be denied.  

21 minutes ago, Peace said:

Lastly, obviously if you have a situation where everybody has been teaching A for a long time, and then somebody new comes along and teaches B, you are going to give a strong benefit of the doubt to A and put the burden of proof on B.

If A is a matter of faith and morals and has been held always and everywhere, and they also argue for A from Scripture and reason, 

and,

if B cannot be harmonized with A,

then,

either proponents of B will have to argue against each and every argument in favour of A made by A's proponents and also prove from Scripture and reason that B is true,

or,

B is to be rejected. 

Do you agree?

[Jack4]

42 minutes ago, Peace said:

The point is that the Church has the authority to weigh the different factors, to determine what is truly a part of the deposit of faith, and to determine how the newer teaching relates to it.

I agree that the Church determines thus authoritatively and the children of the Church should obey this voice.

Yet lay theologians may, albeit without this authority, judge these matters in accordance with their knowledge and competence. After all, the Church's judgement recognizes that X is (already) true/false, its doesn't make X so. 

"Among the vocations awakened in this way by the Spirit in the Church is that of the theologian. His role is to pursue in a particular way an ever deeper understanding of the Word of God found in the inspired Scriptures and handed on by the living Tradition of the Church." DV6

Of course, as the same instruction makes clear, theologians may not simply "dissent" from the Magisterium.

42 minutes ago, Peace said:

get on the internet, read a couple blog posts by Ed. Feser and read a few articles on New Advent

The issue I have with you phrasing it this way is that it leaves out the fact that Feser et al raise logical arguments and also quote the Magisterium.

Edited January 19, 2019 by Jack4

[Jack4]

48 minutes ago, Peace said:

declare to ourselves "Pope Zebra in the year 182 stated ABC therefore the deposit of faith must be X about the death penalty, so if the Pope and the bishops teach Y then they must be wrong."

The only thing in the deposit directly about DP is, afaik, that it is legitimate in principle; there is also the virtue of justice, to ensure that the putative accused is actually guilty, the punishment is proportional to the crime, etc. Obviously, it doesn't teach about the current time's state of criminal justice and punishment system. Hence, the deposit doesn't teach whether it is justly administered in our times, vide EV 56. 

The problem I see with "Y" , ie the new CCC para, is that it is not an improvement over the old para. The reasons for this are detailed in the First Things article I've linked to. Put simply, it is less clear that DP is permissible in principle.

59 minutes ago, Peace said:

declare to ourselves "Pope Zebra in the year 182 stated ABC therefore the deposit of faith must be X about the death penalty, so if the Pope and the bishops teach Y then they must be wrong."

Let me give you a hypothetical situation:

Pope Francis is just elected and hasn't spoken on contraception yet. Bishop Somebody says that contraception is wrong. A person SomeoneElse asks you what the Church teaches on contraception. Pope Zebra (Paul) and Dr Feser say it's wrong, but Bishop Somebody says it's okay. What will you say?

[KnightofChrist]

Holy Scripture, the Fathers, Doctors, Saints, popes, and councils of the Church for 2000 years have taught that capital punishment can be legitimate in principle.

Not just one Pope in the year yadda yadda, not just the Papacy. 

"If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture." — Avery Cardinal Dulles

 

[ithinkjesusiscool]

I'd say that Pope Francis isnt as clear in moral discussion as Pope Benwdict XVI. I think Pope Francis want to give the murderer a chance instead of killing them due to anger and revenge. 

But calling the death penalty anti-christian is wrong. You are allowed to kill someone if you really have to.  But never as revenge. Only for protection of society. Pope Francis should have explained it better. What about nomadic societies without prisons? Anti-christian to use death penalty then?

Pope Francis need to talk about this. Now people only think he goes against church teachings.