What Is Your Authority?

[NotWorthy]

The Immaculate Conception was debated at least into the high middle ages. It was defned in the nineteenth century. I don’t think there was much if any debate on the death penalty until the twentieth century. I could be wrong, but suspect JPII was the first pope to strongly oppose it. He said that society no longer needed it to protect itself. That could be, but what is presumed in this is that it was once needed. No other pope that I know of said this was a last resort punishment.

You seem to underestimate the Immaculate Conception. It may not have been universally accepted, but it was certainly the overwhelming school of thought. The “defined” was simply an “officiating” of what was already taught by the Church.

 

[jmcrae]

The Immaculate Conception was debated at least into the high middle ages.

Based on the media, one could say that the Divinity of Christ is being debated today. But ordinary Catholics believe firmly in Christ’s divinity - they know what the Church teaches, and they can distinguish between Church teaching and media hype.

It was the same in the past - if we just look at the quantity of writing, we can say, “Oh, this was a question, and people were debating it,” but if we look more closely at who was debating it, and what the ordinary Catholics believed, we can see that the Church where the ordinary people were was teaching the Immaculate Conception, but that there were people around who had a lot of questions and doubts about it.

 

[Metaron]

Well; I didn’t start this topic to discuss “burden of proof.” I am asking specific questions about a specific Catholic article I read on this web site. As I stated in my first post:

Are you dense? Your theory has been proven wrong, Protestant101. Just give up on your out-dated theory already. The multiplicity of Protestant sects is proof enough.

 

[Janet_S]

If capital punishment were intrinsically immoral then the Church stood by and said nothing for almost 2000 years in the face of a common evil practice, at best. At worst she was complicit.

The Church does not teach that the death penalty is intrinsically evil. This is from the CCC:
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

2267 **Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. **

**If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. **

 

[Janet_S]

More about the death penalty from Evangelium Vitae:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

1. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”.46 Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. 47

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.48

 

[grandfather]

Based on the media, one could say that the Divinity of Christ is being debated today. But ordinary Catholics believe firmly in Christ’s divinity - they know what the Church teaches, and they can distinguish between Church teaching and media hype.

It was the same in the past - if we just look at the quantity of writing, we can say, “Oh, this was a question, and people were debating it,” but if we look more closely at who was debating it, and what the ordinary Catholics believed, we can see that the Church where the ordinary people were was teaching the Immaculate Conception, but that there were people around who had a lot of questions and doubts about it.

The debate was not from skeptics. Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, thought if Mary called God her savior in the Magnificat that showed she was not sinless. This was in the thirteenth century. He was not exactly a media type Church basher. My point is that the theological understandings we have today developed over time. They were not in place in the first century although the germ or seeds of them were. They were clarified over time. The Church is led into truth by the Holy Ghost as promised by Jesus. Our understanding increases, but never contradicts the truths that have always been held by the Church.

 

[Janet_S]

The debate was not from skeptics. Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, thought if Mary called God her savior in the Magnificat that showed she was not sinless. This was in the thirteenth century. He was not exactly a media type Church basher. My point is that the theological understandings we have today developed over time. They were not in place in the first century although the germ or seeds of them were. They were clarified over time. The Church is led into truth by the Holy Ghost as promised by Jesus. Our understanding increases, but never contradicts the truths that have always been held by the Church.

You are right, there was debate among theologians about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

I’m no expert on this topic, but I know it took the insight of the philosopher Duns Scotus, a Franciscan priest, to fully explain the doctrine of the IC we understand today.

Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia article about the IC:
newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

Also *Ineffabilis Deus * from Pius IX, 1854:
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

 

[agangbern]

OK. The Church teaches that all life is sacred. She has condemned the death penalty and abortion and contraception.

These clowns who call themselves Catholic think it’s the woman’s choice.

“Your honor, we find the defendants GUILTY.”

Oh no! The accuser and the judge has become one! That is not allowed in law!
But wait. The “clowns” are not the Church. The stand of the Church remains no matter what the clowns think and teach.

 

[agangbern]

I didn’t know that. Who is the Bishop of the Moon?

Ha ha ha! humors in uniform. Somehow jmcrea made my heart light…

 

[jmcrae]

I didn’t know that. Who is the Bishop of the Moon?

I think his name is Wisegard? Or Wishart? Something like that - I was reading about him, recently. (He also has a day job as co-adjuatant of Orlando.)

 

[justasking4]

You are in danger of becoming JustKidding4.

To the Apostles:
Luke 10:16 “He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

To Cepha:
Matthew 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

You can easily see that this was made up - by Christ.

Lets look at historical situation and see how your claims work out. Were there inquisitions that went on for centuries with the approval of a number of popes the will of Christ?

Did Christ give these popes the authority to do these things?

If a person resisted these inquistions were they resisting Christ?

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3059206]The Protoevangelium of James was written during the first century, and contains this idea. While the Protoevangelium is obviously the product of popular piety, and not a Magesterial document (and contains much that is doubtful), it’s certain that the idea of Mary’s Immaculate Conception has been part of popular piety from the very beginning. There was even a cult (which was suppressed by the Early Church) that worshipped her as a goddess because of her sinlessness.

Should we then take with what you write here that the origin of Mary’s immaculate conception has its source in this false work?

With regard to the death penalty, the Church has always taught that it is only to be used when other methods of correction are either not available, or not likely to work.

St. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake by English politicians in clerical garb; not by any official body of the Roman Catholic Church. The fact that she was declared a Saint shortly afterwards shows what the true stand of the Church was, in her case.

Wasn’t Joan of Arc condemned by a church tribunal and sentenced to death as as a relapsed heretic.in which the state carried out?
Did not the catholic church support the state in this?

 

[jmcrae]

Should we then take with what you write here that the origin of Mary’s immaculate conception has its source in this false work?

No - obviously whoever wrote the Protoevangelium didn’t invent the idea. He got it from the popular piety of the ordinary people. That’s who he was writing for.

Wasn’t Joan of Arc condemned by a church tribunal and sentenced to death as as a relapsed heretic.in which the state carried out?
Did not the catholic church support the state in this?

No - she was condemned as a witch and as an enemy of the state (she was French; the court was in England) - the reason she was tried as a witch was because she had been doing men’s work (General of an Army), and in those days they didn’t just consider that to be inappropriate - they thought it was physically impossible - and she won against the English army (which was run entirely by men) because of her superior strategies, so they assumed she was in league with the Devil.

But she was executed by the English government as an enemy of England; not as a heretic, and not as a witch.

The Catholic Church, as far as I know, didn’t even know the trial was going on. The fact that she was canonized as a Saint tells us something important about the Church’s attitude toward Joan of Arc, I think?

We don’t normally Canonize people that we actually think were in league with the Devil, or practicing witchcraft - if it had been a Church court, then it seems schizophrenic to declare her a witch, then execute her, and then as soon as the noose is cut, declare her a Saint. So I think that it could not have been a Church court.

 

[grandfather]

Lets look at historical situation and see how your claims work out. Were there inquisitions that went on for centuries with the approval of a number of popes the will of Christ?

Did Christ give these popes the authority to do these things?

If a person resisted these inquistions were they resisting Christ?

The Inquisitions are a different topic, but looking at them from the perspective of a modern who does not understand the medieval mind makes it impossible to comprehend what truly went on. If anyone would be interested we should start another thread and I will defend the Inquisition. That should be impossible right?

 

[Petergee]

Lets look at historical situation and see how your claims work out. Were there inquisitions that went on for centuries with the approval of a number of popes the will of Christ?

Yes! insofar as the popes approved them.

Did Christ give these popes the authority to do these things?

Yes!

If a person resisted these inquistions were they resisting Christ?

Yes! if by “resisted” you mean, “rejected the Church’s right to conduct them”.

 

[po18guy]

Lets look at historical situation and see how your claims work out. Were there inquisitions that went on for centuries with the approval of a number of popes the will of Christ?

Yes.

Did Christ give these popes the authority to do these things?

Yes.

If a person resisted these inquistions were they resisting Christ?

Yes.

Simple! Next completely irrelevant question, please!

 

[justasking4]

The Inquisitions are a different topic, but looking at them from the perspective of a modern who does not understand the medieval mind makes it impossible to comprehend what truly went on. If anyone would be interested we should start another thread and I will defend the Inquisition. That should be impossible right?

My point in bringing this up was to determine if the catholic church truly had the authority of Christ to carry out these inquisitions in His name. If catholics want to claim their church has authority from Christ and being led by the Spirit then its going to be extemely difficult to defend things like the inqusitions as being the will of Christ and His giving the church the authority to do such things.

 

[Verita]

My point in bringing this up was to determine if the catholic church truly had the authority of Christ to carry out these inquisitions in His name. If catholics want to claim their church has authority from Christ and being led by the Spirit then its going to be extemely difficult to defend things like the inqusitions as being the will of Christ and His giving the church the authority to do such things.

The Church doesn’t claim that everything it does is done with the authority of Jesus and the guidance of the Spirit. The Church is still made up of fallible human beings and human beings are generally acknowledged to be able to screw up just about everything.

 

[po18guy]

My point in bringing this up was to determine if the catholic church truly had the authority of Christ to carry out these inquisitions in His name. If catholics want to claim their church has authority from Christ and being led by the Spirit then its going to be extemely difficult to defend things like the inqusitions as being the will of Christ and His giving the church the authority to do such things.

If the catholic church had no authority to do this, how could any church derived from the catholic church have any authority at all? JA4, does Christ know men’s hearts? I would say, of course he does. With this knowledge, and all knowledge of the future, and his founding of one church, why would he then grant “whatever you bind on earth” authority to Cepha? Examine Christ’s prophecy of the future and the end times. Lots of evil there, and He knew that His church would be in the thick of it, but that the power of hell would not prevail. He gave no time frame for this. Since the Inquisitions are in the past, would you agree that Christ’s church has repented of past evils - has learned from its mistakes? Did the Apostles know everything right from the start, or was it revealed to them gradually? How many times did Christ chide them over their lack of understanding and faith? Yet, he continued teaching them and left them in charge.

It is unreasonable for us to believe or expect that the church would be sinless, since it was founded upon, and continues to be filled with sinful men.

Christ’s peace.

 

[grandfather]

My point in bringing this up was to determine if the catholic church truly had the authority of Christ to carry out these inquisitions in His name. If catholics want to claim their church has authority from Christ and being led by the Spirit then its going to be extemely difficult to defend things like the inqusitions as being the will of Christ and His giving the church the authority to do such things.

There is a difference between policy and dogma. Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to lead His Church into all truth and not leave her, but be with her until the end of time. The things of faith the Church teaches are true. He did not promise to keep us from making errors in policy.

Nevertheless, the Inqusition was a military effort to take back lands from Muslims they had conquered by blood. If Canada were invaded and conquered by a foreign military, or your neighboring state, a military response would be justifiable. This does not mean that every crusader or action was commendable. Bad things happen in war. Surely not every U.S. soldier in WWII behaved perfectly. Whether there was some looting or enemies shot when they should have been taken prisoner we will never no. This does not mean that the war was unjustified. The countries of the world that are Muslim today were all conquered by force. They did not hold elections or persuade populations of their doctrines. This was the policy of the founder of Islam. Resisting this is certainly defensible. We should not get on this topic here.