Quanta Cura+The Syllabus of Errors

[RSiscoe]

Dave:

First, you’re going to have to establish that Lumen Gentium and the CCC have contradicted a *de fide dogma *of Catholicism, because only *de fide *dogmas are immutable Catholic teachings.

Dave,

When did you start believing that? How many times have I argued with you, by quoting a strange teachings of John Paul II, or the new Catechism, and you have said that I must believe those strange teachings (which contradict 2000 years of Catholic belief) since they are “official”.

Remember the quote from John Paul II I provided in which he said that aborted babies are “with the Lord”. That is certainly not a de fide dogma, yet you claimed that, since the Pope said it, it must be infallibly true. You even claimed that the statement from John Paul II defined the matter that had up to that point not been defined.

I am curious, have you changed your belief, and do you now believe that a particular comment by a Pope in an encyclical (when the teaching has never been taught before), is subject to error?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

John_19_59,

Unlike Luther I am not inventing new doctrine and leaving the Church, I am in fact defending Church teaching - the prefectly sound teaching before 1958

1958? What is so magically orthodox about that date?

In your opinion, did Fr. Leonard Feeney teach the “perfectly sound” teachings before 1958? In otherwords, was Pius XII a heretic?

If you believe Fr. Feeney was wrong about Catholic teaching and Pius XII was right, why? Why was the erroneous taught church, represented by Fr. Feeney and Feeneyism different than your thesis? Seems to me that he particulars are different but the substance of your argument is the same–you disagree with the living magisterium as to how to Tradition is to be authentically interpreted.

This is what Pius XII taught contary to Feeneyism:

We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (, n. 1792). …

… dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church. [Letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop of Boston, 1949).

Do you agree with Pius XII or is he a “modernist” as well?
[/quote]

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe:

When did you start believing that?

Since I resolved to be Catholic.

How many times have I argued with you, by quoting a strange teachings of John Paul II, or the new Catechism, and you have said that I must believe those strange teachings (which contradict 2000 years of Catholic belief) since they are “official”.

Firstly, you’ve never shown any “strange teaching” of the magisterium to contradict 2000 years of Catholic belief. Merely claiming that it is so is unconvincing.

Secondly, you are confusing immutability with what is binding. You MUST give your religious assent to ALL doctrines of the living magisterium. That’s canon law. That is binding, obligatory, sinful if disregarded. Yet, all doctrines are not immutable. Only de fide doctrines are immutable.

Non-infallible doctrines which are not immutable ARE BINDING. Do you agree? If not, I suggest you read Humani Generis.

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me” (Pius XII, *Humani Generis *(1950), 20)

The pope, by canon law, binds you to religious submission of will and intellect to all the teachings of the living magisterium. He has the power to bind and loose. If he has not loosed, then you are still bound. What is bound does not mean that it is immutably bound. Only de fide dogmas are immutably bound.

Remember the quote from John Paul II I provided in which he said that aborted babies are “with the Lord”. That is certainly not a de fide dogma, yet you claimed that, since the Pope said it, it must be infallibly true.

Rubbish. Please tell me where I said it is infallible truth. Ridiculous.

You even claimed that the statement from John Paul II defined the matter that had up to that point not been defined.

Wrong again. I said that the particular theology taught by Pope John Paul II was free opinion even before Trent (cf. Cardinal Cajetan, St. Benard, etc.). When Pope John Paul II teaches something in an encyclical letter it is given more authority than mere free opinion. It “demands consent” as Pius XII put it. I never stated it was infallible, nor did I state it was made definitive. I believe the word I used was *sententia certa *(certain teaching). If you open your *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma *by Ludwig Ott, you will find that *sententia certa *is not among free opinion, but neither is it de fide.

I am curious, have you changed your belief …

No, but appearantly you have exegeted my posts much more poorly than I had imagined.

do you now believe that a particular comment by a Pope in an encyclical (when the teaching has never been taught before), is subject to error?

All that the pope writes or states is subject to error, excepting ex cathedra pronouncements. Yet, Encyclical Letters demand the assent of Catholics, according to Pius XII, right? Do you disagree with him? It seems that Catholic dogmatic theology includes teachings that are not immutable but yet are binding upon all Catholics, no?

Pius IX:

we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim 4:3], contend that "without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withold assent and obedience to those judgements and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and it rights and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals." There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how** opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church.**

(Pius IX, Encyclical *Quanta Cura *(1864), Denzinger 1698)

Do you agree with Pius IX, when he states that we cannot withold our assent to the judgements and decrees of the Aposotlic see, even if they do not touch dogmas of faith or morals? Do you agree such is to OPPOSED the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ?

 

[liberal_friend]

Pre-1958:

1. The Catholic Church is the only true religion.
2. Punishment was a form of justice.
3. Church doctrines cannot be changed
4. Church history is glorious.

Post-1958:

1. All religions contain truth. Buddists, Lutherans, Hindus, Jews, and especially Muslims are our spiritual brothers on a fellow quest for light.
2. Punishment can only be used to ensure physical safety: all human life is equally “digniffied.”
3. Many Catholics and the entire secular media seem to expect that if a new Pope is elected who has progressive views–then contraception, abortion, divorce, and priestesses will be permitted. How did this notion develop–that Popes can change Church doctrine???
4. We must apologize for everything any Catholic has ever done. Gallilio was right [the sun is the center of the univere, and the Earth travels arounf the sun in a circle, and the Earth’s rotation causes the tides] and the NAZIs were wrong (I didn’t realize they were Catholic?)

God help us! Pray for an orthodox Pope to be elected.

 

[RSiscoe]

itsjustdave1988:

Since I resolved to be Catholic.

Firstly, you’ve never shown any “strange teaching” of the magisterium to contradict 2000 years of Catholic belief. Merely claiming that it is so is unconvincing.

Secondly, you are confusing immutability with what is binding. You MUST give your religious assent to ALL doctrines of the living magisterium. That’s canon law. That is binding, obligatory, sinful if disregarded. Yet, all doctrines are not immutable. Only de fide doctrines are immutable.

Non-infallible doctrines which are not immutable ARE BINDING. Do you agree? If not, I suggest you read Humani Generis.

The pope, by canon law, binds you to religious submission of will and intellect to all the teachings of the living magisterium. He has the power to bind and loose. If he has not loosed, then you are still bound. What is bound does not mean that it is immutably bound. Only de fide dogmas are immutably bound.

Rubbish. Please tell me where I said it is infallible truth. Ridiculous.

Wrong again. I said that the particular theology taught by Pope John Paul II was free opinion even before Trent (cf. Cardinal Cajetan, St. Benard, etc.). When Pope John Paul II teaches something in an encyclical letter it is given more authority than mere free opinion. It “demands consent” as Pius XII put it. I never stated it was infallible, nor did I state it was made definitive. I believe the word I used was *sententia certa *(certain teaching). If you open your *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma *by Ludwig Ott, you will find that *sententia certa *is not among free opinion, but neither is it de fide.

No, but appearantly you have exegeted my posts much more poorly than I had imagined.

All that the pope writes or states is subject to error, excepting ex cathedra pronouncements. Yet, Encyclical Letters demand the assent of Catholics, according to Pius XII, right? Do you disagree with him? It seems that Catholic dogmatic theology includes teachings that are not immutable but yet are binding upon all Catholics, no?

Pius IX:

Do you agree with Pius IX, when he states that we cannot withold our assent to the judgements and decrees of the Aposotlic see, even if they do not touch dogmas of faith or morals? Do do such is to OPPOSE the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ, right?

Dave,

I am starting a new thread.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

God help YOU liberal friend, as your caricature of Catholic teaching is a deceit of the devil.

 

[RSiscoe]

itsjustdave1988:

God help YOU liberal friend, as your caricature of Catholic teaching is a deceit of the devil.

Dave,

I can’t tell if he is being serious or sarcastic. At the end he prays for an orthodox Pope. It sounds like he is mocking the liberal position.

Not exactly sure. Maybe he (or she) will clarify.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

RSiscoe:

Dave,

I can’t tell if he is being serious or sarcastic. At the end he prays for an orthodox Pope. It sounds like he is mocking the liberal position.

Not exactly sure. Maybe he (or she) will clarify.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon11.gif Perhaps so.

Oddly enough, Fr. Charles Curran (liberal) and MSgr Marcel Lefebvre (traditional) agreed that Vatican II is irreconcilable with pre-councilar doctrine. But they had different motives. The liberals make this claim so they can have hope for changes definitively rejected (like contraception and women priests). Lefebvrists make this claim so they can reject the teachings of the pope and a General Council of Catholicism. They both want the Church to teach their own personal theological perspective, both misusing *probabilism *as their excuse for disobedience to the Roman Pontiff.

When I read the articles on the SSPX web page and the book by Fr. Philip S. Kaufman *Why You Can Disagree and Remain a Faithful Catholic, *they have strikingly similar arguments for their completely opposite positions. It’s rather revealing. Fr. Kaufman advocates changes in Church teaching with regard to: birth control, divorce and remarriage, abortion, and wants a democratic ecclesiastical government.

 

[John_19_59]

I don’t find any General Council or papal pronouncement that declared that the object of Muslim worship, erroneous as it is, is actually directed toward a different God than that of the God of Abraham.

Do the Muslims agree that we worship the same one God as them?

And I think you need to read “Pascendi Dominici Gregis” and see wether Pius X thought Muslims could have a true experience of God.

Muslims believe that their “God” explicitly denied Christ’s divinity, death and resurrection. That “God” is an anti-Christ. That “God” is not our God, and neither is it the God of Abraham, the God of Abraham does not explicitly deny Christ - the Koran is central to their false religion, as is the belief that Mohammed was a prophet of God. Central. Do you not understand that. The denial of the divinity of Christ is as fundemental to them as his divinity is to us.

It’s not the same God, except if you live in a fuzzy “I’d like to teach the world to sing, lets join hands, lets all drink coca-cola, what does it matter” hippy drippy peace and love type world.

The Jews are different, they worship our God but just have decided not to listen to Him. Judaism pre-dated and predicited Christ.

Islam post-dated and denied Christ in the full knowledge of the Gospel.

The idea that we worship the same God as the Muslims is a novel teaching, show me where it was taught before 1958 - you can’t - but I’ll show you were it was taught that all religion except Catholicism is false.

 

[liberal_friend]

itsjustdave1988:

God help YOU liberal friend, as your caricature of Catholic teaching is a deceit of the devil.

What caricature?

Many early popes said Islam and Buddism were based on false teachings. JPII kisses the Koran and praises Budda and Hindu leaders.

Pope Pius XII said in the 1950s that criminals could be punished (even executed) as a form of justice. JPII says they cannot be: as JPII explains only “public safety” factors into decisions of punishment.

Today on ABC several commentators said that the “Pope’s ideology” was what kept Church teachings at odds with American public opinion. JPII opposes female priests, so there are none. JPII opposes condoms, so Catholics are not supposed to use them; etc… How did this impression take hold in the minds of the post-Vatican II world?

Apologizing to Jews and to Gallilio???!!!??? This is necessary at this time? Does this convey to the world (which functions in sound bites) that Catholic teachings do not change?

Please be more specific in your criticism–instead of letting me know how holy you are for asking God to help me. It would be much more useful in terms of this discussion.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

John_14_59,

Do the Muslims agree that we worship the same one God as them?

What they believe has very little to do with the truth. They contend they worship the God of Abraham. Catholicism has never asserted otherwise, but has asserted that their worship is erroneous. Did Abraham worship the same God that Christians worship? Did Cornelius worship the same God that Chrisitans worship? When he was still a PAGAN, before ever meeting Peter in Acts 10, he prayed to God. Which God did he pray to, hmmmmm??? He was a pagan centurion from Rome, right? Does God listen to the prayers of PAGANS in your version of Catholicism? Although Cornelius KNEW about Jesus, he was neither JEW nor CHRISTIAN, yet an angel appeared to him and praised his piety, right?

And I think you need to read “Pascendi Dominici Gregis” and see wether Pius X thought Muslims could have a true experience of God.

I’ve read it and studied it. (see my quotes above). Pius X has not stated that the object of worship for Muslims is not the God of Abraham. He stated that their worship is erroneous, and that it cannot be called “true” simply because of their religious “experience.” Your attempt to rip Pius X’s teachings from its context is absurd.

You thrust out his document as though it supports your claim, but you don’t even attempt to make a cogent argument from the very words that he uses. Instead, you contradict his allocution. I’ve at least quoted from his documents and explained what I believe he means. You don’t seem want to even try to support your thesis.

For the Jews who denied Christ and crucified him, was the object of their worship a different God than the Christian God? If so, at what precise time did the God of Judaism mystically change from Almighty God to a false idol? How do you explain the pagan Cornelius and the angel that appear to him? He wasn’t Catholic after Christ’s resurrection, yet he prayed to God? Was he praying to an idol because he did not yet accept Jesus as his Savior?

You keep wrambling on about nothing and I think it is a dodge from supporting your claim with ACTUAL magisterial sources. WHERE, I ask again, has the magisterium ever taught that the object of worship for Muslims is a different God than that of the God of Abraham? This is necessary to support your claim that Vatican II is heretical. Please provide the exact quote, not some vague passing claim that this or that document says something to that effect.

If you cannot provide the magisterial support, then it is clear to me that your thesis is among the “heterodox opinions,” just as I suspected.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Many early popes said Islam and Buddism were based on false teachings.

Yep, and so has our late John Paul II. You have a simple-minded view which confuses inter-religious dialogue with acceptance of their false beliefs.

John Paul II states, regarding Islam:

"Whoever knows the Old and New Testaments, and then reads the Koran, clearly sees the process by which it completely reduces Divine Revelation. It is impossible not to note the movement away from what God said about Himself, first in the Old Testament through the Prophets, and then finally in the New Testament through His Son. In Islam all the richness of God’s self-revelation, which constitutes the heritage of the Old and New Testaments, has definitely been set aside." (John Paul II, *Crossing the Threshold of Hope, *ch. 15)

“Some of the most beautiful names in the human language are given to the God of the Koran, but He is ultimately a God outside of the world, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God-with-us. Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the Cross and the Resurrection. Jesus is mentioned, but only as a prophet who prepares for the last prophet, Muhammad. There is also mention of Mary, His Virgin Mother, but the tragedy of redemption is completely absent. For this reason not only the theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity.” (ibid.)

Now, support your thesis with fact, if you can. Else I stand by my view that your thesis is merely a caricature.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

John Paul II against the heresy of Indifference:

---

It should be repeated that, on the part of the Church and her members, dialogue, whatever form it takes (and these forms can be and are very diverse, since the very concept of dialogue has an analogical value) can never begin from an attitude of indifference to the truth. On the contrary, it must begin from a presentation of the truth, offered in a calm way, with respect for the intelligence and consciences of others. The dialogue of reconciliation can never replace or attenuate the proclamation of the truth of the Gospel, the precise goal of which is conversion from sin and communion with Christ and the Church. It must be at the service of the transmission and realization of that truth through the means left by Christ to the Church for the pastoral activity of reconciliation, namely catechesis and penance. (John Paul II, *Reconciliation and Penance, *25)

 

[John_19_59]

WHERE, I ask again, has the magisterium ever taught that the object of worship for Muslims is a different God than that of the God of Abraham?
**
Where did the Magisterium ever teach before Vatican II that they did?

Before Vatican II, the Church infallibly taught all all religions and gods except ours were false. That included Islam.

The Muslims don’t need us to tell them which “God” they worship, they have decided for themselves, and it’s not Our God. They have decided that the “God” they worship explicitly excludes Jesus, and they have decided that their “God” explicitly told them this. They explicitly deny Christ. That is anti-Christ.

"Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah himself said, "O Children of Israel, you shall worship GOD; my Lord and your Lord." Anyone who sets up any idol beside GOD, GOD has forbidden Paradise for him, and his destiny is Hell. The wicked have no helpers." (Sura 5, Verse 72)*

That is what Muslims believe - and they believe the “God” they worship said this. It is a CORE belief. Allah is ONE GOD - meaning absolutely NOT Jesus Christ.

Whatever they worship it can not possibly be Our God. It’s not like the jews where they have not accepted fully their own revelation, Muslims have a revelation that is totally, 100% irreconcilable with Catholicism. It is a complete explicit rejection of Christ. Anti-Christ by the very definiton in the New Testament.

You can’t plead ignorance for Islam, it is a positive denial of OUR GOD.

“Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father” (I St. John 2:23)

It is quite obvious that in denying the Son, Muslims do not have the Father. Can you deny this?

That Vatican II has turned this on it’s head in search of some kind of pan-religious-brotherhood is deeply perplexing.

Do Muslims need converting?

Why did we try so hard in the past? Why did so many martyrs shed so much blood in the attempt?

A prayer that says “St John the Baptist protect Islam” is blasphemous. Pope John Paul II made that prayer and it deeply disturbs me because on the surface he seems a lovable man - look at the adulation he has received in the last few days.
But how could me make this prayer? He’s not just saying protect muslims, he’s saying protect Islam - the doctrine that denied Christ. He kisses a Koran, a book that denies Our Lord.

I can’t see how anyone could not be at least puzzled by these blasphemous actions of a Catholic Pope.

I put it to you that Mortalium Animos (see paragraph 2) is directly contracticted by Lumen Gentium.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html

Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, - Pius XI.

They is a “diabolical disorientation” in the Church, “The smoke of Satan” has found its way in.

 

[starrs0]

The way I see it we as a church can’t be hoiler than thou and pounding a self rightous fist comdeming everyone to Hell who aren’t Catholic now those who **know ** the Church and the Gospel is true and still reject it are condemed. I feel John Paul recognised that one attract more flies with honey than vinager by sharing people Christ’s love and showing them by example that the Gospel is true they are in a sense persuaded to come in not bashed over the head and dragged in.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

John_14_59,

Where did the Magisterium ever teach before Vatican II that they did?

I think you’ve lost track of your thesis. Let’s review…

You implied that the solemn magisterium gathered together in General Council at Vatican II, when it asserted that the object of Muslim worship is the the God of Abraham, that it contradicted St. Pius X’s *Pascendi Dominici Gregis. *I’ve asked you to prove your thesis with support from this document or any other pre-Vatican II document. The only part of St. Pius X’s document that discusses Islam asserts that their Muslim worship is not true based merely upon their experience. Vatican II in no way contradicts this. St. Pius X does not address whether or not Muslims worship, untruthfully as it is, the God of Abraham. Jews don’t worship in truth either, but the object of both Jewish and Muslim worship is the God of Abraham according to all magisterial texts that address this.

John Paul II, while respecting that Muslims worship the one true God, states the following: ""Whoever knows the Old and New Testaments, and then reads the Koran, clearly sees the process by which it completely reduces Divine Revelation. It is impossible not to note the movement away from what God said about Himself, first in the Old Testament through the Prophets, and then finally in the New Testament through His Son. In Islam all the richness of God’s self-revelation, which constitutes the heritage of the Old and New Testaments, has definitely been set aside." (John Paul II, *Crossing the Threshold of Hope, *ch. 15)

“… He is ultimately a God outside of the world, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God-with-us. Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the Cross and the Resurrection. Jesus is mentioned, but only as a prophet who prepares for the last prophet, Muhammad. There is also mention of Mary, His Virgin Mother, but the tragedy of redemption is completely absent. For this reason not only the theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity.” (ibid.)

This means that while the object of worship for Muslims (and Jews for that matter), is the God of Abraham, their worship is not true. It is not in accord with the “heritage of the Old and New Testaments.” It is “very distant from Christianity.” In Islam especially, there “is no room for the Cross and the Resurrection.”

What Vatican II and John Paul II affirm is true, and in no way contradictory to magisterial texts that pre-date Vatican II, as you have erroneously asserted.

If they do contradict pre-Vatican II texts, you have FAILED to provide the evidence.

My question remains …where in the pre-Vatican II magisterial texts does it assert that the object of Muslim worship is not the God of Abraham? You are the one making the claim. I presume that since you are making this claim, you have magisterial support for your thesis. I suspect you do not. If you do, simply provide it. Otherwise your thesis will remain heterodox opinion compared to magisterial texts before, during, and after Vatican II. It’s not my responsibility to do YOUR research for you. You made the claim, you need to prove it. If you cant’, I will understand.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

WHERE, I ask again, has the magisterium ever taught that the object of worship for Muslims is a different God than that of the God of Abraham?

Where did the Magisterium ever teach before Vatican II that they did?

Pope St. Gregory VII (pope from 1073 to 1085) to Muslim King Anazir of Maurentania:

“… we believe in and confess the same God, although by different modes (licet diverso modo), that we praise and venerate each day the Creator of the ages and master of this world” [St. Gregory VII, Letter III, 21 to Anazir (Al-Nasir), King of Mauretania PL, 148. 451A.]