Pope apologizes for sack of Constantinople

[EENS]

Calvin:

I do. I just wanted him (her) to say it, for the record so to speak.

I used to wear a St. Thomas Moore medal for many years and considered (consider?) him a personal hero. A few times I daydreamed about what I would do if I were in Herny VIII’s government with St. Thomas and how I would have liked to die with him as a matter of principle. One day I was reading some of his letters where he advocated the execution and torture of Protestants. It was a very sad day for me. I gave my medal to a Catholic friend in law school shortly thereafter and haven’t felt quite the same way about St. Thomas since then…

-C

What he did was correct. Unfortunately because of your personal bias you do not see that. St. Thomas Moore was a very holy man, and his condemnation of the protestant heresy and those who follow it only shows that all the more. May God bless you to bring you to the one and only Church of Christ.

 

[EENS]

Chris Burgwald:

Good point, EENS. How about cloning, though? Does the Church approve of cloning since it has never infallibly condemned it?

No. I wasn’t arguing so much that it had to be infallible. You said that I believed that. What my point was if it has existed throughout time and has yet to be condemned (until the current Pope), who would think that it is? Slavery and torture have been norms in society until the 1800s. The Church had a long time to condemn them and did not. The current Pope now condemns them because they are no longer norms, so it is easy to do so. He also condemns abortion, which is a norm in society. This is a good thing. Wouldn’t the Church of past, much more strict in these matters, have condemned what was an intrinsically evil norm in society just as the now lenient Church does with abortion? God bless.

By the way, about infallible and fallibe: I said I would take something infallibly concerning what we must do to be saved over something fallibly. God bless.

 

[EENS]

Catholic2003:

The Church has never issued an infallible list of infallible statements. By the reasoning you endorse here (i.e., that you can deny any non-infallible teaching of the Church if you disagree with it), then you could in fact deny any Church teaching at all.

Since this conclusion is clearly ridiculous, I must again find your logic faulty.

I didn’t say it had to be infallible. Someone else put that on me concerning this issue, and I merely responded. God bless.

 

[Hesychios]

EENS:

If I am wrong, St. Thomas Aquinas is wrong. Reason is wrong. The Church is wrong!

EENS,
Saint Thomas Aguinas was a wonderful teacher. But he was only a man, and yes, he was wrong on a few things.

He was neither infallible or impeccable. He was just like us, just a bit smarter than most of us.

In the end, he had a mystical vision in which he came to realize that all he had done was “mere straw”.

People don’t have to be completely without error to be saints or even Fathers or Doctors of the church.

In Christ,
Michael

 

[EENS]

yochumjy:

Hmmm, interesting about that statement. Do you have a source on that? I’d like to understand the context which he made that statement.

No, you are wrong. The death penalty has at least some reasoning behind it, to protect innocent life, if there is no other way to secure the guilty. Just saying that the Church partook in torture, therefore it is not wrong is a very weak arguement. Did a pope teach this? Did a doctor of the church ever state that torture was okay in any instance? There is reason why capital punishment is allowable, those reasons are stated in the catachism, but there is no reasoning for torture. You can not equate the two because they are not equal. So, I repeat the original question.

How can torture not be wrong?

I HOPE you don’t jump on a “the ends justify the means” argument…

John

Should we not have harsh interrogations, either, in order not to force someone to admit to something?? If a person will not admit, you should use means to make him tell the truth. Some torture, as I said, is wrong. When people torture and torture until (alomst) anyone would admit that he did the crime, whether or not he did it. Torture is necessary sometimes, just as harsh interrogations often are. God bless.

As far as St. Pius IX on slavery:

Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons… It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given”.
Pius IX (Instruction 20 June 1866 AD).
(That is from womenpriest.org, surprisingly. It was the first means by which I could find the source. That is under “The Errors of Pope Pius IX”…)

 

[EENS]

Hesychios:

EENS,
Saint Thomas Aguinas was a wonderful teacher. But he was only a man, and yes, he was wrong on a few things.

He was neither infallible or impeccable. He was just like us, just a bit smarter than most of us.

In the end, he had a mystical vision in which he came to realize that all he had done was “mere straw”.

People don’t have to be completely without error to be saints or even Fathers or Doctors of the church.

In Christ,
Michael

Does your “mere straw” idea mean everything he wrote should be tossed because he realized that no matter how much he wrote, God could not be fully explained and neither can the Church?

It comes back to: chose the Pope’s opinion or St. Thomas Aquinas’s sound theology with reason, Scripture, Fathers of the Church, etc. backing him. I think there is no question: St. Thomas Aquinas. God bless.

 

[Calvin]

EENS:

What he did was correct. Unfortunately because of your personal bias you do not see that. St. Thomas Moore was a very holy man, and his condemnation of the protestant heresy and those who follow it only shows that all the more. May God bless you to bring you to the one and only Church of Christ.

Thank you for your blessing. I hope one day He does.

Until that day, however, my only bias is against using the sword of Constantine to enforce Church discipline. Didn’t St. Paul warn Christians not to take each other to court? What would he think about Christians using the state to execute other Christians?

If you wish to excommunicate me, do so. If you wish to formally condemn my teachings, that is within your power. If you wish to deny me access to your property, feel free. If you wish to tell your parishoners not to associate with me, that is fine too.

What I think in the temple of my own mind is between me and God. What I teach to a group of people who have freely assembled to listen is between me and God and between them and God. Someday I may have to pay for the things I have thought and taught but that, too, is between me and God. Only fascists believe in thought crimes – if you did a better job of teaching maybe I would believe you and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

(As terrible as it may be) every heresy is a teaching moment – a chance for the Church to clarify what She believes and encourage the faithful. If you dislike my heresy: teach the Faithful (and me) where I’m wrong.

Execution is the easy way out.

-C

 

[Mandi]

Calvin:

I do. I just wanted him (her) to say it, for the record so to speak.

I used to wear a St. Thomas Moore medal for many years and considered (consider?) him a personal hero. A few times I daydreamed about what I would do if I were in Herny VIII’s government with St. Thomas and how I would have liked to die with him as a matter of principle. One day I was reading some of his letters where he advocated the execution and torture of Protestants. It was a very sad day for me. I gave my medal to a Catholic friend in law school shortly thereafter and haven’t felt quite the same way about St. Thomas since then…

-C

I am very sorry to hear this. St. Thomas was one of only 2 men who stood up against Henry VIII. At the time the Catholic Church in England was in moral decay, clergy seeking power, fighting for positions of political gain and immense wealth, corruption, illegal marriages were common among the clergy etc. etc. Just prior to this period England received the name “Jolly old England” and why because it was a beautiful, peaceful Catholic country. When the decay set in England was jolly no more. Can you even begin to imagine what it must have been like to live in that time period and 2 men in all of England would not bend to the corruption. 1st “The church” does not make Saints lightly. and 2nd don’t get all caught up in this false sense of lovey, lovey. I certainly would not advocate the murder of protestants just for being a protestant - that is insane - God will be their judge. But I am also not fighting for a country. Because of what happen in the 16th century England abandoned the faith and they have never regained it. And to this day hate against the papist runs pretty deep. I should know I have alot of English relatives. (I think papist pigs is a fairly common expression)

 

[Hesychios]

EENS:

Does your “mere straw” idea mean everything he wrote should be tossed because he realized that no matter how much he wrote, God could not be fully explained and neither can the Church?

Those were his words, not mine.

It wasn’t my idea.

Michael

 

[Mandi]

Hesychios:

People don’t have to be completely without error to be saints or even Fathers or Doctors of the church.

A saint might be able to error, lets say have a difference of opinion but he absolutely is sinless. To keep placing these extraordinairy examples of human beings on some common level with the average man is ridiculous. It is no wonder “The Church” has such a hard time finding one in todays world. Because everybody is so ready to find fault were there is none instead of trying to live up to their example.

 

[montanaman]

montanaman,

I clearly understand the intent of your post, and I respect your right to your opinion and your request for the opinions of others. That is, after all, why we assemble here at this forum. I do believe, however, that no good can come to our Church’s efforts at reunification with our Orthodox brethern who are not currently in communion with Rome if we use terms like “enemies” with which to refer to them.

I appreciate your understanding.

a pilgrim

Point taken. I wrestled with that word, but I chose it for some reason. “Opponents” would have been better.

 

[Mandi]

Chris Burgwald:

Good point, EENS. How about cloning, though? Does the Church approve of cloning since it has never infallibly condemned it?

Man does not have the right to make man. This right belongs to God.

 

[yochumjy]

EENS:

Should we not have harsh interrogations, either, in order not to force someone to admit to something?? If a person will not admit, you should use means to make him tell the truth. Some torture, as I said, is wrong. When people torture and torture until (alomst) anyone would admit that he did the crime, whether or not he did it. Torture is necessary sometimes, just as harsh interrogations often are. God bless.

Harsh interrogations do not equal torture. I think we can all agree on that. So don’t start jumping to conclusion and please do not start putting words in my mouth. It doesn’t help your argument. You are on a very slippery slope here. You seem to be saying you can do whatever you want to get the truth out of someone as long as it isn’t so bad that anyone would confess. So, how do you know where anyone’s breaking point is? How much is too much, when do you stop? No, the ends do not justify the means, torture is not right. You have, in fact given nothing more than your opinion about this. If you happened to be a Jewish person at the time of Christ, you would have been able to use this type of argument to say that Jesus was wrong about divorce, since it was allowed before, no one else had spoken against it for a thousand (or however many) years, so it must be okay.

I hope your view on this either turns around or you at least can show an instance where torture is not wrong.

John

 

[Trad_Catholic]

yochumjy:

If you happened to be a Jewish person at the time of Christ, you would have been able to use this type of argument to say that Jesus was wrong about divorce, since it was allowed before, no one else had spoken against it for a thousand (or however many) years, so it must be okay.

The Jewish religion does not have infallible Popes that have throughout the ages condemned error.

 

[Chris_Burgwald]

Mandi:

Man does not have the right to make man. This right belongs to God.

Exactly, Mandi.

The point of my post was that in his 12:14 post EENS said that the Church has never condemned torture infallibly, thereby arguing (given his general position on torture) that this is indicates that the Church approves of it. I used the example of cloning to try to show him how his logic was, well, illogical.

 

[Chris_Burgwald]

EENS:

Infanticide and abortion were NOT commonplace. Please bring soem reasonable evidence before you spew out stuff like that. God bless.

EENS, although you have been suspended, you might still read this…

I didn’t “spew out” anything; your lack of awareness concerning the history of infanticide doesn’t mean that I’m spewing anything.

As far as evidence, here’s something:

campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/i/in/infanticide.html

 

[space_ghost]

might white of you to give JPII the beneies… Lets all hope our Lord gives us the benefit of the doubt on our lives…

 

[Mandi]

yochumjy:

How much is too much, when do you stop? No, the ends do not justify the means, torture is not right.

Did you see “The Passion of The Christ” - My Lord could have stopped that at anytime … He did not

If you happened to be a Jewish person at the time of Christ, you would have been able to use this type of argument to say that Jesus was wrong about divorce, since it was allowed before, no one else had spoken against it for a thousand (or however many) years, so it must be okay.

I am not Jewish and I would never put Jesus with the word wrong.:tsktsk:

 

[Southernrich]

EENS:

It comes back to: chose the Pope’s opinion or St. Thomas Aquinas’s sound theology with reason, Scripture, Fathers of the Church, etc. backing him. I think there is no question: St. Thomas Aquinas.

I hear you, EENS. “I will not serve!” It’s been said before.

Thomas’s “sound theology” is his opinion as he doesn’t form part of the Magisterium.

You are a dissenter, EENS and possibly a borderline schismatic. “Vatican II was wrong about this, this Pope was wrong about this, that Pope was wrong about that. I am their Judge.” A few more steps and it might be that you’ve constructively separated yourself from Christ’s Church.

 

[a_pilgrim]

Mandi:

Do not be decieved “The Church” has many, many “enemies” . A smart man recognizes his enemy and deals with it. I do believe Jesus preached and talked about these enemies and to be on your guard against them!

Context, Mandi… context.

I agree - the Church does, indeed, have many “enemies.” Shame on me for quoting only part of montataman’s original post - had I quoted the entire post, you’d have clearly seen the context in which the term “enemies” was used.

The Orthodox are not enemies of the Catholic Church. They are “separated brethren,” to use our Holy Father’s own terminology. Now, I don’t intend to play word games with regard to our relationship as a Church with other Christians, and even non-Christians. I will, however, stand by my belief that the use of the term “enemies,” and the context in which it was used, can only harm our much-sought reunification efforts.

Ummm… we are seeking reunification, right? I mean, we would prefer to see all Christians reassimilated back into communion with Rome, rather than see them die off entirely because their rites, traditions and even their theological viewpoints may differ from those of the Roman Catholic Church… right?

a pilgrim