tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14011761.post2290077619038716905..comments2023-11-05T16:19:05.197+08:00Comments on Unam Sanctam: Confusion in the Church - Part 2Andrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09356738924839809045noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14011761.post-3065557915598029972007-12-07T15:43:00.000+08:002007-12-07T15:43:00.000+08:00Bill,This would not the the correct forum to debat...Bill,<BR/><BR/>This would not the the correct forum to debate the beginning of life, so I won't address that.<BR/><BR/>Human experience is not the final arbiter of truth and neither is an appeal to emotionalism. Proponents of the death penalty do it all the time on much more solid grounds, but it would still be wrong given the advancement of society today.<BR/><BR/>The Church does face intelligent opposition, and face it sucessfully. The Catholic Church has a great tradition of debate and dialogue, within and without the Church. She has sent missionaries to evangelize the nations and some of those end up debating Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu apologists in the course of their missionary activity long before MIT or what have you. Even today, the tradition of public debate is upheld by Catholic apologists against Muslims, Protestants, liberals, atheists and all other challengers of the Faith.<BR/><BR/>But I would have to disagree with you about the effectiveness of a live TV style debate. There is a limitation to such things, to how much one can say and the clarity with which it can be said. Such debates are often won by the fiery oratory and appeals to emotionalism rather than result from well thought out and defended arguments.<BR/><BR/>Ultimately though, the point this post was trying to make was the reluctance of the Vatican is disciplining the internal opposition, to upholding its own position has severely and irreparably damaged its authority in the eyes of the whole Church, from the laity upwards. And this crisis of authority is one of the factors that has shaped the confusion that is the Church of today.<BR/><BR/>Surely that point cannot be denied?Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09356738924839809045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14011761.post-49662870237692282572007-03-20T11:12:00.000+08:002007-03-20T11:12:00.000+08:00Above mispelling: fenestrate should read "fenerate...Above mispelling: fenestrate should read "fenerate to all nations."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14011761.post-56335865898414572272007-03-20T01:58:00.000+08:002007-03-20T01:58:00.000+08:00Andrew, Do not like sites like Pontifications tha...Andrew,<BR/> Do not like sites like Pontifications that do not allow comments. That's one of the Church's biggest problems....not facing intelligent opposition in public. Anyone can be all knowing in print. Let your author or our Pope try being all knowing in front of a tv camera with an MIT prof debating you on how can the act be always open to the transmission of life even when what is really open to the transmission of life at all times is the male...not the female and thus not the act.<BR/><BR/> That's why we don't send missionaries to Harvard and Standford and Oxford to debate high IQ'd people. Instead we send them to compliant non educated people. We have to grow up and begin to face intelligent opposition.<BR/> Your author on birth control for example does not cite one real person but dishes out what he imagines are the objectors and their objections. He gives no cites of actual people who said anything. On usury he ignores the section wherein Aquinas indeed quoted scripture on interest and embarassingly misintepreted one that promised the Jews they would "fenestrate to all nations"....wherein Aquinas still maintained that it would be a sin when they did. And your author had to have seen it because it is right near the sections he did quote. Beware the world of internet publishing. And read the above link to Pat Crowley of the Birth control Commission who sent thousands of questionaires to people who were obedient to Rome on the then inaccurate natural methods and how those sincerely dissenting letters from obedient people changed 90% of the theologians on the commission.....and how she never heard from Rome at all after she left her work on the commission. Community anyone? And do some research on why John Paul was appointed to the commission at the time (with his previous name) and yet never showed up and yet proceeded to write Paul VI on his own views....open dialogue anyone?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14011761.post-44339463066076983162007-03-20T01:36:00.000+08:002007-03-20T01:36:00.000+08:00Go here to hear a person who was on the birth cont...Go here to hear a person who was on the birth control commission prior to HV...note the thousands who responded to the commission and note their pedigree:<BR/><BR/> http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n8_v30/ai_14682970Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14011761.post-71170215437668437932007-03-19T17:25:00.000+08:002007-03-19T17:25:00.000+08:00Thanks, Bill, for your well thought out comments. ...Thanks, Bill, for your well thought out comments. I apologize for the late response as I had been quite tied up the past weekend and I wanted to give you a response befitting the time you invested in preparing your comments. I understand what you are trying to say and indeed the issues you raise are part of a larger set of issues that are 'difficult', including the concept of ensoulment and the teaching that life begins at the moment of conception and how twins fit in which I had raised in an earlier post.<BR/><BR/>Although I was not specifically addressing the issues which you raise, as this post was aimed at studying how the culture of dissent spread throughout the Church and the part the issuance of Humanae Vitae and the Vatican's response when it was challenged played in fomenting that atmosphere, I would like to briefly respond to several points that you made.<BR/><BR/>But I also realize that the combox would not be the correct forum for this. As the issue you are raising concerns the development of doctrine and whether doctrinal development in some cases amounts to doctrinal negation.<BR/><BR/>What I would like to do is to refer you to Dr. Mike Liccione's posts on the Pontifications blog on this very issue as well as some other pertinent issues such as extra ecclesiam nulla salus, limbo and on the freedom of religion proposed by Dignitatis Humanae which would seem to be a reversal of established doctrine. The articles and the discussions and comments that follow would give a better overview of these issues than can be presented in the limited space of this combox.<BR/><BR/>But do get back to me and let me know what you think of Dr. Liccione's theses.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again.<BR/><BR/>Here are the links. <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=1095" REL="nofollow">Doctrine: development and negation</A><BR/><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=1100" REL="nofollow">Development and Negation II: extra ecclesiam nulla salus</A><BR/><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=1110" REL="nofollow">Development and Negation III: limbo</A><BR/><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=1141" REL="nofollow">Development and Negation IV: abortion, usury, and religious freedom</A><BR/><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=1298" REL="nofollow">Development and Negation V: Marriage</A><BR/><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=1330<br/>" REL="nofollow">Development and Negation VI: Contraception</A>Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09356738924839809045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14011761.post-39018171817710891312007-03-18T07:47:00.000+08:002007-03-18T07:47:00.000+08:00I was not clear in the above that John Paul wanted...I was not clear in the above that John Paul wanted mutual only subjection in marriage (Dignitatem Mulieris, sect.24, par.3&4 and and the Theology of the Body section 89.3-4)....Casti Cannubii and the NT six times call for husband headship along with mutual subjection.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14011761.post-79462727509092157062007-03-18T06:36:00.000+08:002007-03-18T06:36:00.000+08:00Andrew, The creation of the Family Commission by...Andrew,<BR/> The creation of the Family Commission by Pope John XXIII that became the "birth control commission" led millions at that time to feel that they had an input on this issue and many sent their experiences by letter as to their experiences with the not so exact natural method of that time. I was graduating at the time from college. So it was not as though a commission had been established on an infallible matter like the Assumption so as to revoke it.<BR/><BR/> The implication from Rome was correct...non infallible areas can be reviewable and now Rome was allowing actual laity to have an input. But the creator of that whole process...John XXIII (from a large family)....then died and Pope Paul VI (from a small family by the way like John Paul) inherited the process and unlike John XXIII, he, when he moved from the process and began to write his encyclical... was sending out the opposite implication that birth control was settled.<BR/><BR/> Well...the sinfulness of interest on a loan was seemingly settled for over six hundred years; natural law was cited in that case (Aquinas copying Aristotle on the natural law aspect despite one scripture to the contrary); Scripture was cited in that case (the ones that worked); exceptions were made for business people with extrinsic titles for risk in entrepeneurial ventures....but loaning your cousin 3000 ducats for his trip to France and taking any interest at all was mortal sin.<BR/>Later defenders of the ordinary magisterium (which is not infallible) (like the ordinary universal magisterium is infallible) would argue like Germain Grisez that the Church wisely changed as economies changed. That is emperor's new clothes Catholicism. How then did Calvin arrive at our exact 19th century answer in 1545 in a letter to a friend....accepting our extrinsic titles and interest on loans to the comfortable but condemning such to the poor.<BR/> In short, the ordinary magisterium can change and can have errors that last centuries unless someone does open their mouth.<BR/><BR/> Paradoxically Pope John Paul proceeded to try and change issues of far stronger lineage...the death penalty and mutual subjection only within marriage between husband and wife in both Dignitatem Mulieris and in Theology of the Body in section 89.3.4. Both clearly in the Bible as the opposites of his views whereas Onan as contraception is fading in the new translations which follow the Greek...."whenever Onan went in to Tamar" which implies that God was angry at something far more serious that sexual sins.....Onan was never intending to have children and that risked the non appearance of the Messiah which had to come from one of 4 men in that family and did finally issue in the ancestor...Perez....from Judah's sexual sin FOR WHICH HE IS NOT KILLED IN THE SAME STORY.<BR/> Very simple solution.....let a Pope step forward and infallibly define this area. It was done to three moral issues in Evangelium Vitae in sections 57;62 and 65 on abortion, euthanasia and killing the innocent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14011761.post-164110113407033812007-03-15T12:07:00.000+08:002007-03-15T12:07:00.000+08:00Haha...but the sedevacantists have photographic ev...Haha...but the sedevacantists have <I><B>photographic evidence</B></I>! His nose and ears are different!!<BR/><BR/>Just kidding. LOL!Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09356738924839809045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14011761.post-57285980101738413092007-03-15T11:52:00.000+08:002007-03-15T11:52:00.000+08:00Great post. Pope Paul is such a confusing figure. ...Great post. Pope Paul is such a confusing figure. He had the courage to publish Humanae Vitae yet not courageous enough to sternly deal with the dissenters. No wonder so many 'impostor Paul VI' conspiracy stories still prevailed.The Hymn Selectorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02571266119775747442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14011761.post-66798092544451761372007-03-15T10:14:00.000+08:002007-03-15T10:14:00.000+08:00Haha...thought about this indeed.Glad that you fin...Haha...thought about this indeed.<BR/>Glad that you find this informative.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09356738924839809045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14011761.post-12809528409735877592007-03-15T01:28:00.000+08:002007-03-15T01:28:00.000+08:00Wow, thought about this much, have you? :-)VERY in...Wow, thought about this much, have you? :-)<BR/><BR/>VERY interesting; thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com