Encylical on hope?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thinkandmull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thinkandmull

Guest
Pope Benedicts encyclical says the following:
  1. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (cf. Lk 16:19-31), Jesus admonishes us through the image of a soul destroyed by arrogance and opulence, who has created an impassable chasm between himself and the poor man; the chasm of being trapped within material pleasures; the chasm of forgetting the other, of incapacity to love, which then becomes a burning and unquenchable thirst. We must note that in this parable Jesus is not referring to the final destiny after the Last Judgement, but is taking up a notion found, inter alia, in early Judaism, namely that of an intermediate state between death and resurrection, a* state in which the final sentence is yet to be pronounced*.
Isn’t this a denial of the private judgment? “After death comes judgment”
(Edited)
 
He seems to be talking about the limbo of the Fathers. I don’t see the problem.
 
Well he says in paragraphs 45 that only “people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves” go, or “are” in hell. I am sure even Hitler loved some people. It seems to deny that there a good person can commit a mortal sin and go to hell, as if there is time to change after death
 
Here this will help:

The Compendium that he issued (Pope Benedict XVI) (and worked on before being Pope)

212. In what does hell consist?

1033-1035
1056-1057

Hell consists in the eternal damnation of those who die in mortal sin through their own free choice. The principal suffering of hell is eternal separation from God in whom alone we can have the life and happiness for which we were created and for which we long. Christ proclaimed this reality with the words, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire” (Matthew 25:41).
**
213. How can one reconcile the existence of hell with the infinite goodness of God?**

1036-1037

God, while desiring “all to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9), nevertheless has created the human person to be free and responsible; and he respects our decisions. Therefore, it is the human person who freely excludes himself from communion with God if at the moment of death he persists in mortal sin and refuses the merciful love of God.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

To die in mortal sin…yes is to choose hell.
 
thinkandmull said:
It seems to deny that there a good person can commit a mortal sin and go to hell, as if there is time to change after death
Click to expand...
Ya such would be a misunderstanding.

Here again from the Compendium he issued as Pope:
  1. When does one commit a mortal sin?
1855-1861
1874

One commits a mortal sin when there are simultaneously present: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. This sin destroys charity in us, deprives us of sanctifying grace, and, if unrepented, leads us to the eternal death of hell. It can be forgiven in the ordinary way by means of the sacraments of Baptism and of Penance or Reconciliation.
  1. When does one commit a venial sin?
1862-1864
1875

One commits a venial sin, which is essentially different from a mortal sin, when the matter involved is less serious or, even if it is grave, when full knowledge or complete consent are absent. Venial sin does not break the covenant with God but it weakens charity and manifests a disordered affection for created goods. It impedes the progress of a soul in the exercise of the virtues and in the practice of moral good. It merits temporal punishment which purifies.
 
agnes_therese said:
You wonder about Pope Benedict’s orthodoxy? And your qualifications are . . .?
Click to expand...
😛 Yeah, I’m pretty sure if anyone is orthodox, a pope is going to be orthodox. 🙂

It is far more likely that we are misunderstanding things.
 
well, the compedium isn’t the encyclical, which is ambiguous. I once studied all of the “quotes if heresy” on the post-Vatican II Church by sedevacantist. Most of it was garbage, accept for some quotes by Cardinal Ratzinger from his Principles of Catholic Theology which questions papal primacy. I have debated James Larson in defense of Cardinal Ratzinger on transubstantiation, but his article on the decree on Rosmini is very troubling. Blantant heresy was dismissed as “not cosmological”. I can give the quotes if anyone is unfamiliar with this
 
Maybe it contradicts it. Perhaps the Pope meant that at the end of one’s life a reprobate will give up on all natural goodness, but it doesn’t say as much. The SSPX were mad about it. I am not a traditionalist, but I am open to the truth
 
thinkandmull said:
\ I am not a traditionalist, but I am open to the truth
Click to expand...
The Truth is what the Church Teaches is what Pope Benedict held (holds) - as one can find in a more precise way in his Compendium.

And also I would stay away from SSPX etc.
 
(Edited)
Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 198-199: "In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the ecclesial content of the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more.”

Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 216-217: “Patriarch Athenagoras spoke even more strongly when he greeted the Pope [Paul VI] in Phanar: ‘Against all expectation, the bishop of Rome is among us, the first among us in honor, ‘he who presides in love’. It is clear that, in saying this, the Patriarch did not abandon the claims of the Eastern Churches or acknowledge the primacy of the west. Rather, he stated plainly what the East understood as the order, the rank and title, of the equal bishops in the Church – and it would be worth our while to consider whether this archaic confession, which has nothing to do with the ‘primacy of jurisdiction’ but confesses a primacy of ‘honor’ and agape, might not be recognized as a formula that adequately reflects the position that Rome occupies in the Church – ‘holy courage’ requires that prudence be combined with ‘audacity’: ‘The kingdom of God suffers violence.’”
 
Pope Benedict XVI is quite orthodox.

(all quotes that sites throw at one to suggest that he is not - one can take in a similar way at those of Fundamentalist Protestants–out of context and of private interpretation of their own…)
 
thinkandmull said:
Pope Benedicts encyclical says the following:
  1. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (cf. Lk 16:19-31), Jesus admonishes us through the image of a soul destroyed by arrogance and opulence, who has created an impassable chasm between himself and the poor man; the chasm of being trapped within material pleasures; the chasm of forgetting the other, of incapacity to love, which then becomes a burning and unquenchable thirst. We must note that in this parable Jesus is not referring to the final destiny after the Last Judgement, but is taking up a notion found, inter alia, in early Judaism, namely that of an intermediate state between death and resurrection, a* state in which the final sentence is yet to be pronounced*.
Isn’t this a denial of the private judgment? “After death comes judgment” (Edited)
Click to expand...
I don’t see that. He’s explaining the belief of early Judaism to give the context of Jesus’ words as his original listeners would have understood him.

It doesn’t follow from that that he denies the particular judgment.
 
thinkandmull said:
Maybe it contradicts it. Perhaps the Pope meant that at the end of one’s life a reprobate will give up on all natural goodness, but it doesn’t say as much. The SSPX were mad about it. I am not a traditionalist, but I am open to the truth
Click to expand...
It seems strange to say that he would contradict a compendium that he promulgated and had a hand in don’t you think?
 
He mentions early Judaism. That means Old Testament to me. Before Jesus came, I think it was the case that people that died were in some sort of sleep or stasis until Jesus’s death. Remember Jesus descended to the dead. He brought back all the righteous people that deserved to go to heaven. Those people did not receive their judgment until Jesus’s death. Jesus has already come before all of us these days, so we receive our judgment immediately after death. Those ancient people had to wait years, in some cases, thousands of years.
 
thinkandmull said:
(Edited)

Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 198-199: "In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the ecclesial content of the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more.”

Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 216-217: “Patriarch Athenagoras spoke even more strongly when he greeted the Pope [Paul VI] in Phanar: ‘Against all expectation, the bishop of Rome is among us, the first among us in honor, ‘he who presides in love’. It is clear that, in saying this, the Patriarch did not abandon the claims of the Eastern Churches or acknowledge the primacy of the west. Rather, he stated plainly what the East understood as the order, the rank and title, of the equal bishops in the Church – and it would be worth our while to consider whether this archaic confession, which has nothing to do with the ‘primacy of jurisdiction’ but confesses a primacy of ‘honor’ and agape, might not be recognized as a formula that adequately reflects the position that Rome occupies in the Church – ‘holy courage’ requires that prudence be combined with ‘audacity’: ‘The kingdom of God suffers violence.’”
Click to expand...
All he said is it may be more prudent to use the language of primacy the Church used for the first thousand years. He never denies the Catholic understanding, but says the language the EO uses might actually be understood in a way that accurately reflects Church dogma. He didn’t say the dogma itself was wrong, which would be heresy.

You could disagree with his opinion, but I don’t think we can go so far as to say it’s unorthodox.

Besides, he wrote this decades before he was pope, he could have changed. But even if he didn’t, what does it matter? We’ve had a pope who held a heretical view before he was elected, and even was planning on infallibly declaring it once he was consecrated. And then he changed his mind. The Church survived, because God’s in control.

I’m afraid too many radical traditionalists seem to forget that unfortunately.
 
Robyn_p said:
(Edited) All he said is it may be more prudent to use the language of primacy the Church used for the first thousand years. He never denies the Catholic understanding, but says the language the EO uses might actually be understood in a way that accurately reflects Church dogma. He didn’t say the dogma itself was wrong, which would be heresy.

You could disagree with his opinion, but I don’t think we can go so far as to say it’s unorthodox.

Besides, he wrote this decades before he was pope, he could have changed. But even if he didn’t, what does it matter? We’ve had a pope who held a heretical view before he was elected, and even was planning on infallibly declaring it once he was consecrated. And then he changed his mind. The Church survived, because God’s in control.

I’m afraid too many radical traditionalists seem to forget that unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Which Pope was that?
 
If you put the two quotes together it says “Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated, having nothing to do with primacy of jurisdiction, and was lived in the first millennium.” I don’t see anyway out of this one. I’ve always questioned his papacy because of this and Cum EX Apostolitis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top