Bull interpretation

[Strength]

Is this statement something that should be interpreted within the context of it’s time…or no?
How would should it be interpreted.

“We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: ‘Behold, here are two swords’ [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: ‘Put up thy sword into thy scabbard’ [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.”

 

[Tabitha773]

… and lead us not, into temptation…

May I inquire where you personally obtained the quote from? How you went about obtaining it? Hope I don’t sound like a math teacher here asking you to show your work, but I’m interested.

 

[Strength]

---

---

---

This was written in 1302…Pope Boniface VIII…from his Unam Sanctam. A long time ago…just looking for a good interpretation of what this could possible mean…is it still valid…etc…???

Tabitha773:

… and lead us not, into temptation…

May I inquire where you personally obtained the quote from? How you went about obtaining it? Hope I don’t sound like a math teacher here asking you to show your work, but I’m interested.

 

[Genesis315]

It means the Church can use force when necessary. I’d say it’ still valid today, but the necessity for the Church to use force would be rare. Most likely in self defense–see the Swiss Guard. They are a modern example of the temporal sword of Peter. I’d say this teaching is similar to the death penalty. The power is there but it should only be used an absolutely last resort.

 

[Strength]

I’m not sure how you get the death penalty idea out of it? I hope it is not still valid…maybe there have been some corrections in a later encyclical but have not found them. The implications regarding God, government, and military are too worrisome.

Genesis315:

It means the Church can use force when necessary. I’d say it’ still valid today, but the necessity for the Church to use force would be rare. Most likely in self defense–see the Swiss Guard. They are a modern example of the temporal sword of Peter. I’d say this teaching is similar to the death penalty. The power is there but it should only be used an absolutely last resort.

 

[Genesis315]

Strength:

I’m not sure how you get the death penalty idea out of it?

The Church says the state has the authority to use the death penalty when necessary, but that it really isn’t necessary nowdays in most places.

maybe there have been some corrections in a later encyclical but have not found them. The implications regarding God, government, and military are too worrisome.

Eh, don’t worry, the Swiss Guard aren’t gonna be able to do much.

 

[Tabitha773]

Strength:

This was written in 1302…Pope Boniface VIII…from his Unam Sanctam. A long time ago…just looking for a good interpretation of what this could possible mean…is it still valid…etc…???

Yes, sir, but my questions were the following:
May I inquire where you personally obtained the quote from? How you went about obtaining it?

It has only been less than one hour since you asked. Surely you could hit the history button in your browser, and check the order you have been places online today, and show where you were when asking this question.

Thanks.

 

[trth_skr]

Tabitha773:

Yes, sir, but my questions were the following:
May I inquire where you personally obtained the quote from? How you went about obtaining it?

It has only been less than one hour since you asked. Surely you could hit the history button in your browser, and check the order you have been places online today, and show where you were when asking this question.

Thanks.

You can find a translation of Unum Sanctum in the CAtholic Encyclopedia online here:

newadvent.org/library/docs_bo08us.htm

Christ is the Lord of Lords and King of Kings. The Church has temporal power, but is not in control of it now, or at least willfully not exercising it. That is not to sy that at some future time it may not take it up again (as it did to save the world from the collapse of Rome).

MJW

 

[Strength]

geeez…it’s a website that has a library of all of the papal encyclicals? I’ve been reading a lot of them for scholarly purposes…what do you mean how I went about obtaining it? Are you ok?? hheheee

Tabitha773:

Yes, sir, but my questions were the following:
May I inquire where you personally obtained the quote from? How you went about obtaining it?

It has only been less than one hour since you asked. Surely you could hit the history button in your browser, and check the order you have been places online today, and show where you were when asking this question.

Thanks.

 

[JimO]

Strength:

Is this statement something that should be interpreted within the context of it’s time…or no?
How would should it be interpreted.

I’m curious as to your motives in digging up a 700-year-old passage from a Papal Bull that you clearly want to use to support your belief that the Catholic Church, and religion in general, is the primary cause of violence in the world. You’ve stated this belief elsewhere even though you frame your question innocently. If you truly want an interpretation of the Bull, then ask one of the apologists. Or, are you attempting to plants seeds of doubt in us amateurs?

Look Strength, I have no problem debating with you about the merits of Catholicism, Christianity, or theism in general, but the more I read of your posts, the less I am inclined to believe that you are sincerely searching for answers. I’m beginning to believe that you just want to show us Catholics how superstitious and foolish we are in holding to our faith. This is particularly evident since you start these threads and then avoid responding explicitly to individuals who make strong points. You strung several of us along in this manner on the “Crutch” thread.

It would be one thing if you were jumping in on threads started by others who were criticizing atheists and defending your position. Other atheists do this and that is perfectly reasonable. However, if you are such a devout athiest and have no real interest in the Catholic faith, then why do you start these types of threads and why are you here?

 

[mercygate]

trth_skr:

You can find a translation of Unum Sanctum in the CAtholic Encyclopedia online here:

newadvent.org/library/docs_bo08us.htm

Christ is the Lord of Lords and King of Kings. The Church has temporal power, but is not in control of it now, or at least willfully not exercising it. That is not to sy that at some future time it may not take it up again (as it did to save the world from the collapse of Rome).

MJW

. . . and from the Ottoman Empire later on (think: Lepanto). We in the west would probably all be Moslems today without the “second sword.”

It was Leo the Great (who saved Rome from Attila the Hun) who first interpreted the “two swords” as spiritual and temporal. The empire was in ruins, and the Church stepped in to pick up the debris.

 

[Strength]

Jimo,

I thought we were at some sort of agreement earlier.

1. The crutch thread became way out of hand, and I could not obviously commit the time to answering every question - let alone questions that I thought were beneath us…meaning me, you, mutant and maybe 1 or 2 others. Call me an elitist if you want - but I had to grab at what I thought was provoking, and compelling.
2. Is this not the Apologist room? I actually would like someone who may be a bit more clear in the interpretation/context of papal encyclicals. Are they bound for eternity?.. etc…etc…
3. That “700 year old passage” happens to be very germane to our times.
4. If you want the url fine…it’s just a list of encyclicals?..that’s it? How is it relevant to my question?
5. You must not have a grasp of my identity, because I accurately stated that I am not an atheist.
6. I AM VERY INTERESTED IN THE CATHOLIC FAITH…why would I “waste” so much of my time here if not?

You seem to have a serious persecution complex…great men/minds have been debating, and arguing over heady things such as these since…well let’s just say a very, very long time. hehehe
If I can poke holes in your faith, and plant seeds of doubt in your mind…THEN YOU NEED WHAT STRENGTH HAS TO GIVE YOU!..you need STRENGTH!..You need debate…you need critical analysis…this is how we learn…we need to be pressed…we need to doubt…even Jesus himself had doubt…stay strong jimo…God loves you.

Peace

JimO:

I’m curious as to your motives in digging up a 700-year-old passage from a Papal Bull that you clearly want to use to support your belief that the Catholic Church, and religion in general, is the primary cause of violence in the world. You’ve stated this belief elsewhere even though you frame your question innocently. If you truly want an interpretation of the Bull, then ask one of the apologists. Or, are you attempting to plants seeds of doubt in us amateurs?

Look Strength, I have no problem debating with you about the merits of Catholicism, Christianity, or theism in general, but the more I read of your posts, the less I am inclined to believe that you are sincerely searching for answers. I’m beginning to believe that you just want to show us Catholics how superstitious and foolish we are in holding to our faith. This is particularly evident since you start these threads and then avoid responding explicitly to individuals who make strong points. You strung several of us along in this manner on the “Crutch” thread.

It would be one thing if you were jumping in on threads started by others who were criticizing atheists and defending your position. Other atheists do this and that is perfectly reasonable. However, if you are such a devout athiest and have no real interest in the Catholic faith, then why do you start these types of threads and why are you here?

 

[Catholic2003]

Strength:

Is this statement something that should be interpreted within the context of it’s time…or no?
How would should it be interpreted.

Every magisterial statement needs to be interpreted within the context of its time.

From the CDF Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian:

In fact, the theologian, who cannot pursue his discipline well without a certain competence in history, is aware of the filtering which occurs with the passage of time. This is not to be understood in the sense of a relativization of the tenets of the faith. The theologian knows that some judgments of the Magisterium could be justified at the time in which they were made, because while the pronouncements contained true assertions and others which were not sure, both types were inextricably connected. Only time has permitted discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress.

 

[JimO]

Strength:

Jimo,

I thought we were at some sort of agreement earlier.

We did indeed come to a “meeting of the minds” of sorts, and I am glad of that. As stated in my PM, the pitfalls of written communication are that much of the intent is lost and the tone can be misunderstood.

Strength:

1. The crutch thread became way out of hand, and I could not obviously commit the time to answering every question - let alone questions that I thought were beneath us…meaning me, you, mutant and maybe 1 or 2 others. Call me an elitist if you want - but I had to grab at what I thought was provoking, and compelling.

The thread did get out of hand, but there were many good points made by me and others that simply went unanswered. You grabbed what was “provoking and compelling” to you. Some of the “counter punches” you received clearly didn’t meet these criteria.

Strength:

1. Is this not the Apologist room? I actually would like someone who may be a bit more clear in the interpretation/context of papal encyclicals. Are they bound for eternity?.. etc…etc…

Okay, fair enough. However, if you want a fully informed interpretation, there are professional apologists at CA who are much better educated on the subject than amateurs like me.

Strength:

1. That “700 year old passage” happens to be very germane to our times.

I believe a previous poster put it best, that it indeed has to be taken in context, so it probably isn’t that germane.

Strength:

1. If you want the url fine…it’s just a list of encyclicals?..that’s it? How is it relevant to my question?

Someone else asked for this.

Strength:

1. You must not have a grasp of my identity, because I accurately stated that I am not an atheist.

My sincere apologies for my presumptions and I don’t mean this with any sarcasm. I shouldn’t presume.

Strength:

1. I AM VERY INTERESTED IN THE CATHOLIC FAITH…why would I “waste” so much of my time here if not?

Based on your posts and the threads you have started, I cannot reconcile this statement. But, I won’t make the mistake of presuming again and will take you at your word.

Strength:

You seem to have a serious persecution complex…great men/minds have been debating, and arguing over heady things such as these since…well let’s just say a very, very long time. hehehe
If I can poke holes in your faith, and plant seeds of doubt in your mind…THEN YOU NEED WHAT STRENGTH HAS TO GIVE YOU!..you need STRENGTH!..You need debate…you need critical analysis…this is how we learn…we need to be pressed…we need to doubt…even Jesus himself had doubt…

Ah, the old “you have a serious complex” tactic. Well, truthfully, I don’t. After many years of personal struggles, doubts, fears and dealing with the human condition, I am quite secure in my faith. There is an element of choice and excercise of the will in coming to faith and I have done that. I chose to believe and found personally that what Augustine said is so very true, “I used to think that I had to understand in order to believe, but found that I had to believe in order to understand”.

I was unsure of myself years ago and have come to a point of personal clarity through dealing with doubts and questioning every element of my faith. Thus, I have no problem debating with you. My concern is for those who are still struggling with their faith, who aren’t into intellectual debate, and who may truly be tripped up. I feel compelled to openly challenge your intentions for their sake. Sorry, nothing personal.

Oh yes, I need strength indeed, but not the kind you have to offer because (setting aside the sarcasm for a moment) one cannot intellectualize oneself to God. As Blaise Pascal said, “The mind is a cul-de-sac when it comes to meeting God”, it can only take you so far and then faith is required. And, as I said before, faith involves choice. It is a gift from God, but God gives each one of us a seed of faith, perhaps that is why you are here. Whether the seed germinates is our choice and our choice alone.

Strength:

stay strong jimo…God loves you.

Peace

As Paul says, and I paraphrase, “in my weakness I am made strong…because Christ lives within me.” I know very well that God loves me. I have experienced it. And that is the wonder of it all.

Peace to you

 

[Strength]

Well I think we have settled this…the above posted URL is quite a good resource. JimO, we will probably talk more…If you ever want to send me specific questions that did not get answered regarding the crutch thread, that would be fine - incidentally I was watching “philosophy 101” on ewtn last night…and the topic was “Is religion a crutch?”.Craugherty stated plainly and simply that it WAS…he stated that the CC was made for the sinner…and yes it was his crutch…because we need it. Fair enough.