S
Sancte_Iacobus
Guest
Thank you for your compliments, sir. :tiphat:Sancte Iacobus, excellent work. Your arguments are very logical and orderly.
In Corde Regis,
Joshua
- Status
In Corde Regis,
Joshua
E
Ender
Guest
This may well be necessary but the question is whether this alone is sufficient. Does infallibility apply to everything promulgated by a Dogmatic Council - and what distinguishes a Dogmatic Council from a … Council?
I would like to accept this as it would make supporting my position (which seems pretty much the same as yours) simpler but I am a bit hesitant. I’ve not encountered this argument before and I want to be sure it’s sound before I endorse it. I’m not yet convinced.
This claim is really undeniable but the issue (for most) is not whether the state has the right to do so but whether it also has the right not to do so. It seems the point behind the new Catechism is that in today’s political and moral environment executions do more harm than good. That may or may not be a valid assessment but can it be said to be immoral to believe it is true? Given that the pope and most bishops have taken this position that’s a hard argument to make.
Ender
P
pnewton
Guest
Joshua, remove the log from your own eye before you accuse me of calumny, then re-read my post. Note that I never said that you said anything contrary to the what the Church teaches. I accused you of nothing. Likewise, you accused no one of heresy by quoting the definition of heresy. I point out, and will continue to do so, the danger of the “every Catholic for himself” mentality when it comes to tradition.
If we were to discuss the Catholic Church’s stand on capital punishment through the ages, then the Catechism of Trent migh be of importance. As it is, the Church’s teaching is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. No, it is not infallible, but then that is not the question, is it? It is still the teaching of the Catholic Church. Those that reject it, reject the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Likewise, the teaching of today could change as to its prudent application. I can see several scenarios that would require the Church to go back to a strict teaching on the application of the death penalty. However, since I am not a prophet, it is conjecture to go down that road.
FYI - The Catechism of Trent is not the current Catechism of the Catholic Church. Saying it does not make it so. If you disagree, show me some document since 1992 that supports your claim.
D
distracted
Guest
NOT!!!
there are situations where it is defensible…
such as when a particular governmental agency or country does not have the means to keep a murderer locked up for life…
which apparently describes America… Look at the Bundy case… where he was caught and yet escaped… to kill 2 more times… one victim was a 12 yr old girl.
i am totally in favor of cap punishment in cases where there is NO doubt as to the guilt of the person… serial killers, etc.
i defer to the pope on all my comments on this and all subjects… but if the pope were to say he was against it in all situations, i would do so extremely reluctantly… Fortunately he has said nothing of the kind…
we, the law-abiding non-murderers… should not have to live in fear for our lives or the lives of our children… and other loved ones…
E
Ender
Guest
I disagree that 2267 is a doctrine of the Church. Whatever may be true of the rest of the Catechism, this section is the prudential opinion of JPII to which we have no moral obligation to assent. This is not merely my opinion; it is my understanding based on the comments of Cardinals Dulles and Ratzinger, and of the USCCB.
You take the position that what the Church said in the past is irrelevant if it conflicts with what is taught today, but what is your position when one part of the new Catechism conflicts with other parts of the same Catechism? The current “teaching” on capital punishment is so muddled that it is virtually impossible to understand and literally impossible to reconcile with what is currently taught on other topics that bear on the subject.
Ender
P
pnewton
Guest
I do not know that “conflict” is accurate. There is no contradiction. There is further understanding. I consider this distinction belongs to the Church.
Since Trent, for example, we simply have more data to consider. We also live in a different level of technology, civilization, information, education, globalization, etc. These areas have an impact on what the Church needs to teach the faithful.
Yes, the application of the death penalty today is not a doctrine of the Church, but it is still the Churchs “stand on capital punishment”.
S
Sancte_Iacobus
Guest
"pnewton:
pnewton:
The Roman Catechism differs as it is not an infallible text solely by virtue of its contents, but by virtue of itself!
It, in and of itself, in an infallible piece of ecclesiastical legislature as it was given full approbation by a Dogmatic Council commissioned via the approbation of the Pope.
The pertinent type of Council that we are discussing are generally known as “Ecumenical Councils”. These are councils to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene=ecumenical) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. Ecumenical Councils that defined dogma to be binding upon all Christians are also commonly known as Dogmatic Councils.
The Council of Trent was the 19th Ecumenical Council of the Church and is defined as Dogmatic as all of its decrees (including the commission for the Roman Catechism) carried the official infallible approbation of the three Popes who presided over the 18 years of this grand Council (Popes Paul III, Julius III and Pius IV). The Roman Catechism was completed subsequent to the conclusion of the Council and was given full approbation by Pope St. Pius V as the official Catechism of Holy Mother Church
… what was considered infallible*** then***, will be so for all eternity.
The Council intended this officially commissioned Catechism (the first of its kind) to be the Church’s official manual of popular instruction. The seventh canon, “De Reformatione”, of Sess. XXIV, in reference to the Catechism runs: “That the faithful may approach the Sacraments with greater reverence and devotion, the Holy Synod charges all the bishops about to administer them to explain their operation and use in a way adapted to the understanding of the people; to see, moreover, that their parish priests observe the same rule piously and prudently, making use for their explanations, where necessary and convenient, of the vernacular tongue; and conforming to the form to be prescribed by the Holy Synod in its instructions (catechesis) for the several Sacraments: the bishops shall have these instructions carefully translated into the vulgar tongue and explained by all parish priests to their flocks . . .”.
In Corde Regis,
Joshua
My apologies, but surely you can understand my misunderstanding when your post is written beneath you citing one of my previous posts …
Precisely, Mr. Newton. The CCC is not an infallible text, but it may contain the infallible teachings of the Church. Any fallible text can contain infallible comments. I could logically apply the same reasoning to Wikipedia. It is not in an of itself an infallible text, but it contains infallible statements when it is quoting the teachings of the Church.
The Roman Catechism differs as it is not an infallible text solely by virtue of its contents, but by virtue of itself!
It, in and of itself, in an infallible piece of ecclesiastical legislature as it was given full approbation by a Dogmatic Council commissioned via the approbation of the Pope.
Councils (or synods) are legally convened assemblies of ecclesiastical dignitaries and theological experts for the purpose of discussing and regulating matters of church doctrine and discipline. For the full explanation of the type and definition of the various kinds of councils I direct you to this article from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
The pertinent type of Council that we are discussing are generally known as “Ecumenical Councils”. These are councils to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene=ecumenical) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. Ecumenical Councils that defined dogma to be binding upon all Christians are also commonly known as Dogmatic Councils.
The Council of Trent was the 19th Ecumenical Council of the Church and is defined as Dogmatic as all of its decrees (including the commission for the Roman Catechism) carried the official infallible approbation of the three Popes who presided over the 18 years of this grand Council (Popes Paul III, Julius III and Pius IV). The Roman Catechism was completed subsequent to the conclusion of the Council and was given full approbation by Pope St. Pius V as the official Catechism of Holy Mother Church
… what was considered infallible*** then***, will be so for all eternity.
The Council intended this officially commissioned Catechism (the first of its kind) to be the Church’s official manual of popular instruction. The seventh canon, “De Reformatione”, of Sess. XXIV, in reference to the Catechism runs: “That the faithful may approach the Sacraments with greater reverence and devotion, the Holy Synod charges all the bishops about to administer them to explain their operation and use in a way adapted to the understanding of the people; to see, moreover, that their parish priests observe the same rule piously and prudently, making use for their explanations, where necessary and convenient, of the vernacular tongue; and conforming to the form to be prescribed by the Holy Synod in its instructions (catechesis) for the several Sacraments: the bishops shall have these instructions carefully translated into the vulgar tongue and explained by all parish priests to their flocks . . .”.
Well sure it does. All of us have the right to own property, but refraining to do so for a legitimate reason is certainly not contradicting that right. If one were to reject the right to own property in principle, then this is a tenet of Communism and is most certainly a condemned position. The same applies to Capitol Punishment. A state can refrain from exercising its right to execute evil-doers as long as it is not rejecting to do so in principle as this would indeed run contrary to Church teaching.
In Corde Regis,
Joshua
J
JaneGrey
Guest
Are you saying here that nations separate themselves from church or are simply not Christian/christian dominated are part of a horrible crisis?
Doesnt matter to me if it is clear enough, because I dont need you explaining anything to me on this particular issue. If you say that you were not calling anyone a heretic, then I will give you the benefit of doubt for now.
What s with the ‘‘this nation’’ business? I ll have you know that Im not American, I dont live in America, and yes there actually are other nations in the world. So I was not referring to your country and thus President Obama has nothing to do with what I was saying. Let’s leave abortion and all the other contentious issues out for once please.
Yes of course human followers of a religion can make mistakes in their interpretation of it. You are assuming that this is the case with Catholics against the death penalty. By the way, you yourself are a modern-day Catholic in that you are living in this day and age along with everyone else, and to all those Joe and Jane Catholics you might well appear just another cafeteria Catholic trying to push a view which is popular in society today. Now im not saying you are though, just trying to help you see the bigger picture here.
The human mind is complicated and though we may disagree with others, we simply cannot sum up their mindsets in a paragraph. If you believe you have found the truth and are content with the religion you chose to follow, well good for you. I dont think at all that genuinely good people trying to work things they dont understand out for themselves means they are condemned to hell.
God bless
B
bloke916
Guest
This is what confuses me the most about Catholicism - how is it that there are 21 pages discussing whether capitol punishment is acceptable when to me, in this day and age it is not necessary as there are other means to prevent someone from causing harm to society.
How can a catholic say that as being part of the jury you may sentence someone to death?!? Really?? Cant the catholic church clarify this?
I ask my friends who are in some chatechism groups and they all are divided on the issue. If a catholic is asking this question, there is something wrong with how information is being conveyed or how it is being interpreted, I am just disappointed - that’s all.
How can a catholic say that as being part of the jury you may sentence someone to death?!? Really?? Cant the catholic church clarify this?
I ask my friends who are in some chatechism groups and they all are divided on the issue. If a catholic is asking this question, there is something wrong with how information is being conveyed or how it is being interpreted, I am just disappointed - that’s all.
B
Bengoshi
Guest
Yeah, the Roman Catholic Church is indeed disappointing… tsk, tsk, tsk…
S
severus68
Guest
I don’t believe that it is the Church who has not made its position on this issue. Rather some Catholics do not really know about that stand and some are not in agreement.
B
bloke916
Guest
Not sure what you mean, but to clarify- interpreting things to suit our desires is what disappoints me. I agree with the Roman Catholic Church’s stand and to me it is clear - death penalty only if it is the only way to prevent harm to society.Yeah, the Roman Catholic Church is indeed disappointing… tsk, tsk, tsk…
B
bloke916
Guest
Not being in agreement with the church, tells me that some of us feel that we know better and creates a slippery slope to pick and chose whatever suits us. “I am Catholic but pro-death penalty” , " I am Catholic but … "
B
Bengoshi
Guest
For as long as the RCC does not prohibit the death penalty outright nor would it condemn States which do impose it, then I agree with you!
B
bloke916
Guest
May I ask for an example of a situation where the death penalty would be appropriate today?
For as long as the RCC does not prohibit the death penalty outright nor would it condemn States which do impose it, then I agree with you!
S
Sancte_Iacobus
Guest
The Catholic Church is the sole source of truth in this world. False religions may contain bits and pieces of truth, but this is by virtue of them being in agreement with the Church or a manifestation of the natural law written in all of men’s hearts… not as a testimony to their “religion’s” own legitimacy.
So yes, it is indeed a*** terrible*** crisis to have no nation on Earth codifying its laws in accord with the teachings of the Church, i.e. the truth … either through a historical rejection of Christianity or (perhaps even worse) an apostasy from the Church (such as all of Western Europe).
… then don’t ask.
Yeah, yeah, I got it. You’re not an American. The tone of your post is almost as if you consider it to be an insult.
Regardless, the point I was trying to make is valid. If such a large portion of Catholics are *actively advocating *for positions (some as basic as abortion) that run entirely contrary to the Faith, then why should I take into account their “personal divisions” when discussing defined dogma?
… and by the way, in case you haven’t noticed, Catholics publicly apostacizing from the faith is not an exclusively American phenomenon.
Interpretation? How about rejection?
Truth is objective and anyone can compare what any single person is saying to what the Church clearly teaches. I am not speaking of mere opinions here, ma’am. I am speaking of defined teachings that anyone can locate themselves if they even bother to inquire … and therein lies the problem, doesn’t it?
In Corde Regis,
Joshua
B
Bengoshi
Guest
There are a lot! Look for my long post in this thread wherein I discussed the Biblical principles involved, I forgot what post number that is. A good and recent example would be the criminals who have brutally murdered Ruby Rose Barrameda-Jimenez who was found cemented inside a drum, which was inside a huge vault and thrown into the sea. Others would be cases of fathers who raped their underage children. Still is the person who shot the Ateneo graduate on the head (female musician) while commuting in a passenger jeepney due to a robbery. There are A LOT of heartless criminals who need to be executed for their offenses! Maybe you need to experience it so that you would agree to the wisdom of the death penalty! I know God instituted it!
S
Sancte_Iacobus
Guest
What? That not all of its members are faithful to its teachings?
Yes, really. The Church has indeed clarified it. I think the size of this thread is due to the confusing of really two distinct issues:
1. The right of the state to execute evil-doers. This has been defined by the Church as morally acceptable. Done deal.
and …
2. The parameters in which the state can exercise this right. To some extent this can be debated as long as a decision to refrain from an execution is not done though the rejection of executions in principle.
Precisely. Those Catholics who refuse to acknowledge the right of the state to execute evil-doers, as defined by the Church, are testimony to the mindset you are mentioning.
I wouldn’t go as far as to say that “God instituted it”. The existence and necessity for capitol punishment is due to man’s fallen nature. God does not institute imperfect things. Rather, the correct statement would be that God has deemed it morally acceptable for a lawfully deputed state to employ.
In Corde Regis,
Joshua
B
Bengoshi
Guest
Okay, I see your point and I totally agree with you on this issue!
J
JaneGrey
Guest
- Status