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

[Jack4]

28 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

 

Indeed it is nonsense.  Then "pro-DP folks" are simply attempting rationalisation of an illogical position.  One is either for life or for some life only.  

No. That DP is legitimate in principle is taught by JP2. No one would say that he wasn't pro-life.

On 1/19/2019 at 9:28 PM, Peace said:

There is no new public revelation, just as there are no new scientific truths. Gravity and the inner structure of an atom are exactly the same today as they were 10 million years ago. What the Church does is better understand the revelation over time and the various manners in which it can be applied, just as the scientist better understands the scientific truths that govern the universe over time and the manner in which those scientific truths can applied. Both processes of understanding involve error and the progress is not always linear.

We receive revelation which is free from error.

On 1/19/2019 at 9:28 PM, Peace said:

The apostles did not teach with respect to human cloning, the use of stem cells, in vitro fertilization, gene modification and a boatload of other modern things, but the Church has authority to set limits in all of these areas. What exactly is your point?

The deposit doesn't teach whether DP is justly administere in our time, it only gives principles to evaluate so. 

DP, unlike the other stuff you mention, is legitimate in principle so if it is unjustly administered it is due to logistic factors. 

On 1/19/2019 at 9:28 PM, Peace said:

you do not answer 90% of the questions I ask you.

I'm sorry if I haven't; please direct me to those questions.

On 1/19/2019 at 9:28 PM, Peace said:

I know that Feser is the tradHero and catholicGenius and all, but practically everything he has done violates the principles set forth in Donum Veritatas, the very document that you and he rely to support your right to dissent. Simply put, he has not given us a shining example of how we are to bring our concerns to our clergy.

Leaving aside the fact that Dr Feser, bright as he is, is not afaik a hero in mainstream circles of liturgical traditionalism; 

He has explained in his blog how he obeys DV; I've linked to it here.

On 1/19/2019 at 9:28 PM, Peace said:

Yes.

Thank you. With this, I believe we agree about the central issue at hand. I mean this sincerely.

[Jack4]

4 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

It is not the first time a teaching of The Church has changed, and it won't be the last time.

 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. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. 

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10moath.htm

I can quote more. The point being that Church teaching doesn't "change".

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

I can quote more. The point being that Church teaching doesn't "change".

Galileo for one only

[Guest]

It is obviously very important that in using a word such as "modernism" and the like, that the parties to a conversation on the subject are all talking about the same definition; alternatively, exchanging concepts of the definition:

 

 

CatholicCulture.org  https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34926

Term MODERNISM

Definition

A theory about the origin and nature of Christianity, first developed into a system by George Tyrrell (1861-1909), Lucien Laberthonnière (1860-1932), and Alfred Loisy (1857-1940). According to Modernism, religion is essentially a matter of experience, personal and collective. There is no objective revelation from God to the human race, on which Christianity is finally based, nor any reasonable grounds for credibility in the Christian faith, based on miracles or the testimony of history. Faith, therefore, is uniquely from within. In fact it is part of human nature, "a kind of motion of the heart," hidden and unconscious. It is, in Modernist terms, a natural instinct belonging to the emotions, a "feeling for the divine" that cannot be expressed in words or doctrinal propositions, an attitude of spirit that all people have naturally but that some are more aware of having. Modernism was condemned by Pope St. Pius X in two formal documents, Lamentabiliand Pascendi, both published in 1907. (Etym. Latin modernus, belonging to the present fashion.)

 

 

 

https://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/MODERSM.TXTMODERNIST ERRORS (AS TAKEN FROM <LAMENTABILI>)

4. The magisterium of the Church, even by dogmatic definitions, cannot determine the genuine sense of the sacred Scriptures.

5. Since in the deposit of faith only revealed truths are contained, in no respect does it pertain to the Church to pass judgment on the assertions of human sciences.

7. When the Church proscribes errors, she cannot exact any internal assent of the faithful by which the judgments published by her are embraced.

11. Divine inspiration does not so extend to all sacred Scripture so that it fortifies each and every part of it against all error.

14. In many narratives the Gospel writers related not so much what is true, as what they thought to be more profitable for the reader, although false.

18. John, indeed, claims for himself the character of an eyewitness concerning Christ, but in reality he is nothing but a distinguished witness of the Christian life or of the life of the Christian Church at the end of the first century.

25. The assent of faith ultimately depends on an accumulation of probabilities.

27. The divinity of Jesus Christ is not proved from the Gospels but is a dogma which the Christian conscience has deduced from the notion of the Messiah.

28. When Jesus was exercising his ministry, he did not speak with the purpose of teaching that he was the Messiah, nor did his miracles have as their purpose to demonstrate this.

29. It may be conceded that the Christ whom history presents is far inferior to the Christ who is the object of faith.

35. Christ did not always have the consciousness of his Messianic dignity.

36. The resurrection of the Savior is not properly a fact of the historical order, but a fact of the purely supernatural order, neither demonstrated nor demonstrable, and which the Christian conscience gradually derived from other sources.

52. It was foreign to the mind of Christ to establish a Church as a society upon earth to endure for a long course of centuries; rather, in the mind of Christ the kingdom of heaven together with the end of the world was to come presently.

53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable, but Christian society, just as human society, is subject to perpetual evolution.

55. Simon Peter never even suspected that the primacy of the Church was entrusted to him by Christ.

64. The progress of the sciences demand that the concepts of Christian doctrine about God, creation, revelation, the person of the incarnate Word, and redemption be readjusted.

65. Present day Catholicism cannot be reconciled with true science unless it be transformed into a kind of non-dogmatic Christianity, that is, into a broad and liberal Protestantism.

[Jack4]

22 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Galileo for one only

The Church never taught geocentrism as a doctrine. 

13 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

It is obviously very important that in using a word such as "modernism" and the like, that the parties to a conversation on the subject are all talking about the same definition; alternatively, exchanging concepts of the definition

I did not call you a modernist. Rather, I pointed out that when the Church was combating them, she had to state certain things about the nature of her own teaching - including that it doesn't evolve to a different meaning. 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Jack4 said:

 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. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. 

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10moath.htm

I can quote more. The point being that Church teaching doesn't "change".

The Church teaches many things that are not dogma. Nobody here was suggesting that dogmas change.

You already admited here that doctrine develops and development is a form of change. So logically you have already conceded that Church teaching changes.

I hope that offend your sensibilities youngTrad.

[Jack4]

I have made the distinction between develop and contradict. Please turn down the snark. 

@BarbaraTherese https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-galileo-controversy explains the Galileo controversy.

[Peace]

12 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

The Church never taught geocentrism as a doctrine. 

She taught that it was not acceptable to teach heliocentism, and then at a later time she taught that is was acceptable to teach it. That is a change.

4 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

I have made the distinction between develop and contradict. Please turn down the snark. 

@BarbaraTherese https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-galileo-controversy explains the Galileo controversy.

@Jack4 from our point of view you are being the snark. @BarbaraTherese didn’t write anything about dogma changing or Church teaching contradicting itself.

It seems that your tradRadar went off at the mere mention of the word change. 

Relax

[Guest]

 

Quote

 

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10quam.htm

Quam Singulari

Pope Pius X - 1910

Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Discipline of the Sacraments on First Communion

"The Catholic Church, bearing this in mind, took care even from the beginning to bring the little ones to Christ through Eucharistic Communion, which was administered even to nursing infants. This, as was prescribed in almost all ancient Ritual books, was done at Baptism until the thirteenth century, and this custom prevailed in some places even later. It is still found in the Greek and Oriental Churches. But to remove the danger that infants might eject the Consecrated Host, the custom obtained from the beginning of administering the Eucharist to them under the species of wine only."

 

St Pope Pius X formally enabled children at 7 years or over to first receive Reconciliation and Holy Communion.  I quote the above (although neither doctrine nor dogma) to illustrate that the Church can, has and will change with new insights and understandings.  It reminds me of what Jesus said: "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you." John Chapter 16 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PXO.HTM

 

"What are Doctrine, Dogma and Theology" http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/what-are-dogma-doctrine-and-theology

34 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

 

I did not call you a modernist. Rather, I pointed out that when the Church was combating them, she had to state certain things about the nature of her own teaching - including that it doesn't evolve to a different meaning. 

 

Nor did I state that you did call me a modernist.  Rather, since the word had been raised, I felt that we needed to ensure we had the same definition of the word, "modernism".  (Incidentally as an aside, the Oath Against Modernism has never been abolished, rather the rule and demand that the oath be made by all priests was abolished.)

[Peace]

11 hours ago, linate said:

why you comin at me side ways so much? and they are wondering why the forum is doing so bad. 

Because you are an anti-Catholic and you want to attack and convince us that our Church is wrong, rather than have an fruitful discussion while respecting our views. We are calling spades spades are we not?

[Peace]

10 hours ago, Jack4 said:

No. That DP is legitimate in principle is taught by JP2. No one would say that he wasn't pro-life.

No one would say that he was pro-DP either. The conversation that I and @BarbaraTherese were having did not relate to whether it is intrinsically evil.

 

 

[Jack4]

9 hours ago, Peace said:

@Jack4 from our point of view you are being the snark. @BarbaraTherese didn’t write anything about dogma changing or Church teaching contradicting itself.

The first two sentences of that post of mine was not addressed to @BarbaraTherese; they were addressed to the post immediately above, ie you (@Peace). You using words like "youngtrad" and "tradradar" are what I am referring to.

9 hours ago, Peace said:

She taught that it was not acceptable to teach heliocentism, and then at a later time she taught that is was acceptable to teach it. That is a change.

It is not a matter of doctrine.

9 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

I quote the above (although neither doctrine nor dogma) to illustrate that the Church can, has and will change with new insights and understandings. 

No one denies that "the Church can, has and will change with new insights and understandings" if change in discipline is what you are referring to. It is doctrine that doesn't change*.

*Change in the sense of reversal or contradiction of previous teaching, as opposed to a deeper understanding of the pre-existing doctrine.

9 hours ago, BarbaraTherese said:

Rather, since the word had been raised, I felt that we needed to ensure we had the same definition of the word, "modernism". 

I did not even raise the word. As an aside, I have read Lamentabili numerous times. I have also read many parts of Pascendi.

35 minutes ago, Peace said:

No one would say that he was pro-DP either. The conversation that I and @BarbaraTherese were having did not relate to whether it is intrinsically evil.

JP2 upheld DP in principle.

I read BT as condemning DP in principle. 

@BarbaraTherese, can you clarify whether you think DP is legitimate in principle?

[Peace]

@Jack4

Did I hurt your feelings?

You are young and you are a trad. If you do not want to be called youngTrad all you need to do is cease being young or cease being a trad.

I even capitalized the T for you out of respect.

[Jack4]

Please refer to me as "Jack" or "Jack4" or "J", or when addressing me, "you".

[Peace]

11 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

Please refer to me as "Jack" or "Jack4" or "J", or when addressing me, "you".

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

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Jack4 said:

 

@BarbaraTherese, can you clarify whether you think DP is legitimate in principle?

I find the DP personally revolting.  However, I would always be obedient, Grace prevailing, to what The Church teaches. Certainly, abolition of the DP falls in line with my personal feelings and purely coincidental, because feelings per se are, most often, just about the worst guide to reality that one could have.   Most often too, we are not in control of what we feel, feelings simply are.  It is what we do with feelings that introduces morality.

The Church certainly has a far superior wisdom to anything of mine and:  "My Ways are not your ways".

The subject of the DP and Pope Francis' revision of the CCC is going to be something about which theologians and others  will endlessly debate and never agree I suspect.

It probably depends for most of us what we are reading and why we are reading it.

 

Quote

 

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-and-the-death-penalty-a-change-in-doctrine-or-circumstances-39898

"I would say that what’s happened here is a different balance in the relationship of doctrines rather than the development of a doctrine: the doctrine of state authority, the doctrine of punishment, the doctrine of the dignity of man and the doctrine of mercy.

In that relationship, Pope Francis places mercy and patience as the guiding principle.”

 

 

Edited January 21, 2019 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

---o0o---

 It seems to me that those who refuse to hold to what Pope Francis and others have to state, and want to cling to an earlier time in Church history as truth, are in denial of what The Church is teaching.  Put it any which way one wants to put it, but it is denial of what The Church is teaching.

It is also denial of what Jesus stated to Peter: "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.I will give to you the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it is bound also in Heaven - and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it is loosed also in Heaven". Matthew Ch16 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PVP.HTM

[fides' Jack]

54 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

---o0o---

 It seems to me that those who refuse to hold to what Pope Francis and others have to state, and want to cling to an earlier time in Church history as truth, are in denial of what The Church is teaching.  Put it any which way one wants to put it, but it is denial of what The Church is teaching.

It is also denial of what Jesus stated to Peter: "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.I will give to you the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it is bound also in Heaven - and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it is loosed also in Heaven". Matthew Ch16 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PVP.HTM

I disagree entirely.  As others here have stated, Church doctrine cannot change.  Nor can her teachings on faith and morals (even when they are not doctrine).  The teaching of the Church is that the death penalty is morally permissible in some cases.  This change being added to the Catechism does not change that teaching.

There have been a couple things in the past; areas of Church teaching that I've had to change my own opinion about because I did not initially agree with the Church.  I'm not afraid of changing my own mind or my own opinions on any matter, if it can be shown to me that I am in error.  In this matter, it's clear that the pope and those who support his decision to call the death penalty "inadmissible" (whatever that really means) are simply wrong.  There is no way to justify that statement in light of the last 2 millennia of genuine Church teaching.

We know from Scripture and Tradition that in the last days, the faithful will be led astray by the erroneous teachings coming from the Church herself, so we know it's possible for bishops and even the pope to be wrong.  In fact, even now there are bishops against bishops on this issue - both sides can't be right!  Are those bishops also in denial of Church teaching?  

Those who do not sufficiently understand actual Church teaching will be led astray, and their souls endangered, because they won't be able to recognize the true Christ when He comes again.

8 hours ago, Jack4 said:

The first two sentences of that post of mine was not addressed to @BarbaraTherese; they were addressed to the post immediately above, ie you (@Peace). You using words like "youngtrad" and "tradradar" are what I am referring to.

17 hours ago, Peace said:

She taught that it was not acceptable to teach heliocentism, and then at a later time she taught that is was acceptable to teach it. That is a change.

It is not a matter of doctrine.

Nor is it a matter of faith or morals in general. 

Actually, the statement itself isn't entirely accurate.  It would be more accurate to say, "She taught that it was acceptable to teach heliocentricism, then at a later time she taught that it was not acceptable to teach heliocentricism, and then later she taught that it was acceptable to teach it, again."  And while that's slightly more accurate, it still isn't true.  The Church never taught anything regarding the acceptability of heliocentricism as a model of the universe/solar system.  There were bishops who forbade specific individuals from teaching it for a time, but that is another matter entirely.  They may have been right in doing so!

My spiritual director might tell me that he wants me to avoid certain prayers, in general.  He certainly has the authority to do that.  And he might even be right in doing that.  It doesn't mean the prayers themselves are bad, merely that I am meant to obey and focus on something else, instead.  

[Guest]

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.  

 

To my way of thought again, the question at Judgement will not be "What have you believed?" but rather "How have you loved?" 

The latter is confirmed by Jesus :

"I give you a new commandment: 12 love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

Edited January 21, 2019 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

 

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