tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post8985056305591218056..comments2024-01-08T10:10:48.074+00:00Comments on That The Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill: Oath Against ModernismThe Boneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10271719805983763595noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-44793306650411149392011-10-04T21:45:41.377+01:002011-10-04T21:45:41.377+01:00I was just about to make the point that JB did.
L...I was just about to make the point that JB did.<br /><br />Liz, you've really shown yourself up on that one. A bit of silence and humility is in order, I think. You've completely disqualified yourself from being taken seriously in doctrinal matters.Dominicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-60797481663413586012011-10-04T20:55:37.136+01:002011-10-04T20:55:37.136+01:00Thank God indeed! JB, I was obviously aware of tha...Thank God indeed! JB, I was obviously aware of that (the document is on the Vatican website under the heading of 'Condemnation of Papal errors'!) - I was illustrating that Laurence the convert knows nothing about theology. Had you not pointed this out he would have assumed this was the words of Pius IX. My point is you should not 'dabble' in theology- the RCC is the body that deals with theology, we deal with trying to save our souls through it. Since neither Laurence nor myself are priests,nor are we elected to the Holy See todiscuss these things, it's fatuous to discuss them online. Glad to see at least one person knows the basics of Papal history though!!!Liznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-83830390765814722932011-10-04T19:33:38.423+01:002011-10-04T19:33:38.423+01:00Thank God for the educated!Thank God for the educated!The Boneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10271719805983763595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-33811949584058220742011-10-04T18:41:19.480+01:002011-10-04T18:41:19.480+01:00Liz, I think you are labouring under a total misap...Liz, I think you are labouring under a total misapprehension, and are in fact misquoting Bd. Pius IX (“the most Enlightened Pope” as you call him); those quotes that you are using for your defence are actually taken out of context from Bd. Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors. The purpose of that Syllabus was to collate all of the relevant erroneous propositions taken from previous Papal condemnations and put them in one place under specific headings, such as “PANTHEISM, NATURALISM AND ABSOLUTE RATIONALISM”, “MODERATE RATIONALISM”, etc. To quote from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllabus_of_Errors" rel="nofollow">Wikepedia</a> on the Syllabus regarding its style “The Syllabus was made up of phrases and paraphrases from earlier papal documents, along with index references to them, and presented as a list of "condemned propositions". For instance, in condemning proposition 14, "Philosophy is to be treated without taking any account of supernatural revelation", the Syllabus asserts the truth of the contrary proposition — that philosophy should take account of supernatural revelation. The Syllabus does not explain why each particular proposition is wrong, but it cites earlier documents to which the reader can refer for the Pope's reasons for saying each proposition is false.” <br /><br />So, to take one of the examples which you quote from the encyclical (under the heading MODERATE RATIONALISM) “The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion...Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals [therefore] the sacred ministers of the Church and the Roman pontiff are to be absolutely excluded from every charge and dominion over temporal affairs", this is actually a condemned proposition; if you were to believe that proposition in any way, shape or form, then you would most certainly not be enjoying the encouragement of Bd. Pius IX but his condemnation! <br /><br />Another example: if you were to say that the Government can change the Church's teachings regarding human sexuality, and interfere in the Sacrament of Marriage as defined as being between one man and one woman, you would fall under this condemned proposition from the Syllabus (no 44): "The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government: hence, it can pass judgment on the instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church. Further, it has the right to make enactments regarding the administration of the divine sacraments, and the dispositions necessary for receiving them."<br /><br />So, I think it is correct to say that St. Pius X does not “directly contradict” his predecessor Bd. Pius IX when he issued the encyclicals and oath against Modernism. And a canonised Saint cannot be a “schismatic” by virtue of the fact that he was Canonised!<br /><br />If I may be allowed to make one further quote from you “A Pope has spoken. Now please be silent on these matters.”JBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-45575234542380441402011-10-04T17:39:47.346+01:002011-10-04T17:39:47.346+01:00I had reservations about the oath's adequacy i...I had reservations about the oath's adequacy in the face of so many current errors but Liz's critique of it has convinced me to sign. Thanks Liz.Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-25824902315382509162011-10-04T17:36:02.195+01:002011-10-04T17:36:02.195+01:00If our Bishops have even heard of Pascendi or know...If our Bishops have even heard of Pascendi or know about Modernism I'd be amazed. So enamoured are they with VII and the 'spirit of VII' they just seem to be under its spell. Its year zero for them. As for Tina and the Tablet I suspect the oath would have no effect - it would just be met with glazed eyeballs.<br /><br />BJCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-73295061868309238402011-10-04T16:39:11.215+01:002011-10-04T16:39:11.215+01:00You will find it ironic when I say that you search...You will find it ironic when I say that you search the letter of the law, but lack the spirit of the law and of Faith in Christ and His Church indeed, the Deposit of Faith guarded by the Pope. The spirit of the Catholic Faith gives assent to all that the Church teaches. The Spirit is He Who has led the Church into all Truth - and to believers also, into the Truth which can only be found in Holy Church.<br /><br />Fancy some light reading?<br /><br />http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/modernism/sa.pdfThe Boneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10271719805983763595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-85502429168633510472011-10-04T16:24:06.802+01:002011-10-04T16:24:06.802+01:00The Church's teaching on sexuality has changed...The Church's teaching on sexuality has changed (sort of). As you will (or should) know, the traditional, millennia-old doctrine was that marriage must be open to conception. Humanae vitae changed this by stating that the position of the RCC was that every sexual act within marriage had to be open to conception. This is a change. No Church father or Pope had ever claimed "every act" within marriage was essentially procreative. They had only claimed that marriage itself was intended to produce children. Now, the reason they didn't need to make the broader claim was that no one had sex outside of marriage. It is only when people start doing that that the Pope has to move the goal posts and change the Church's teachings. So, yeah, those teachings have changed. ClearlyLiznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-74116606566706731262011-10-04T16:02:11.939+01:002011-10-04T16:02:11.939+01:00No, I cited the Church's teaching on human sex...No, I cited the Church's teaching on human sexuality because in a previous comment you suggested that it had changed.<br /><br />Oh no. It has changed in your mind, perhaps (No, I'm not just talking about homosexuality for goodness sake), because in your 'reasoning' it has changed.The Boneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10271719805983763595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-47962485343543461122011-10-04T15:59:44.316+01:002011-10-04T15:59:44.316+01:00No, I am saying that Reason is a gift given by God...No, I am saying that Reason is a gift given by God to men. It is a natural good, but that that Reason being enthroned in the place of Faith, Reason without the supernatural gift of Faith, it is open to grave error.<br /><br />I'll have to leave someone else to tackle you on Pius IX.The Boneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10271719805983763595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-25939271280125147342011-10-04T15:39:12.611+01:002011-10-04T15:39:12.611+01:00Where have I done that? Pius IX (Pope) said reason...Where have I done that? Pius IX (Pope) said reason is necessary. A Pope said it. If you are irrational then I am very sorry, but don't pretend that reason is anti-Catholic. Again, you spit on the encyclical of a Pope to make yourself feel superiorLiznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-55000008886586355392011-10-04T15:38:12.059+01:002011-10-04T15:38:12.059+01:00Why is this now about sexuality? Why do you care s...Why is this now about sexuality? Why do you care so much? Is it such a big thing for you? Is your life exclusively concerned with condemnation and hatred of those who happen to love members of their own sex? Can't you find love in worship and fidelity to God?<br /><br />What do you want? Pius IX (see above) says explicitly that the Church has nothing to do with these issues. Once again:<br /><br />"The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion...Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals [therefore] the sacred ministers of the Church and the Roman pontiff are to be absolutely excluded from every charge and dominion over temporal affairs"<br /><br />So, why does it matter at all? I'm not gay, I have no need to or interest in condemning those who are. It is a temporal affair that falls outside the province of the Church. It is your opinion once again causing confusion. Your wretched sex-obsessed life is causing you to err and, frankly, to befoul the purity of the Church. Just imagine if the Blessed Virgin were among us today - would you honestly speak ENDLESSLY to her about homosexuality? Or would you prefer to focus on something more spiritual than the preferences of others?Liznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-6526115732847358872011-10-04T15:37:26.241+01:002011-10-04T15:37:26.241+01:00Is it possible that you have dispensed with Faith ...Is it possible that you have dispensed with Faith and enthroned reason as your God?The Boneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10271719805983763595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-58471778810437848032011-10-04T15:30:10.081+01:002011-10-04T15:30:10.081+01:00Sorry, I'm still waiting for you to cite any C...Sorry, I'm still waiting for you to cite any Church document that suggests that the Church's teaching on human sexuality has changed...<br /><br />Without wishing to sound silly, you are all talk, and no trousers.The Boneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10271719805983763595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-3373032393853705222011-10-04T15:19:27.619+01:002011-10-04T15:19:27.619+01:00"Oh, sorry, the Pope did just condemn to hist..."Oh, sorry, the Pope did just condemn to history something that emerged under Paul VI's reign - the Roman Missal - now replaced with a more authentic translation."<br /><br />Fine, so we will no longer use the Roman Missal. What's your point? If someone said "it is hardly surprising that heretics do not follow the Roman Missal" you would have a point - that person would be arrogantly and disgustingly daring to issue a proclamation of heresy (which you are expressly forbidden to do by the way) against those who are refusing to continue to abide by a repealed institution. That would be an outrageous thing for a lay person to do. Oh wait, it's exactly what you did. Only you can't see it because you only believe the bits of the faith that you happen to likeLiznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-48962774411246292002011-10-04T15:16:00.817+01:002011-10-04T15:16:00.817+01:00I'd accept it. I accept the Truth of the RCC -...I'd accept it. I accept the Truth of the RCC - there is no other way. Well, there is, but it's deeply schismatic, anti-Catholic, self-centred, and arrogant. I COULD pretend that I am at liberty to point to ANY old encyclical when I want to defend an OPINION I happen to hold. But then why bother being a Catholic at all? Why not just defend my own opinions using reasons, as Pius IX suggested we should do in an encyclical that has yet to be repealed? Why would I feel the need to constantly back up idle gossip with age old documents as if that made my opinions any more valid or reasonable? I would have to be pretty cowardly and simple minded to do such a thing<br /><br />But then the current Pope hasn't issued an encyclical telling us to condemn modernity once again. I suspect he won't, but then I can't see into his mind (I am merely guessing that, as an astute guy, he will realise that the off-on-off-on relationship to modernity that has marked Catholic history since the nineteenth century will start to look a bit silly if the Church turn-coats again - this is after all an institution that is supposed to be infallible. Apart from which, why would he bother? Pius IX was clearly onto something - the teachings of twelfth-century monks can't really guide twenty-first-century believers, our worlds are simply too different. Better to let reason play some part in life.)Liznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-82707636172549034522011-10-04T15:13:02.084+01:002011-10-04T15:13:02.084+01:00Yes, because the opinions of a layman in Brighton ...Yes, because the opinions of a layman in Brighton are really going to split the Church, aren't they? Good grief...The Boneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10271719805983763595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-71500082472173873332011-10-04T15:10:12.265+01:002011-10-04T15:10:12.265+01:00Oh, sorry, the Pope did just condemn to history so...Oh, sorry, the Pope did just condemn to history something that emerged under Paul VI's reign - the Roman Missal - now replaced with a more authentic translation.The Boneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10271719805983763595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-70456436850915365092011-10-04T15:07:20.927+01:002011-10-04T15:07:20.927+01:00And should a future Pope or the present one condem...And should a future Pope or the present one condemn aspects of what emerged from Pope Paul VI's reign to history, you will regard all that emerged from it as 'wreackage'?<br /><br />Let's say a Pope like Benedict XVI issued another Oath that was very similar...<br /><br />what then?The Boneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10271719805983763595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-73205573298791116712011-10-04T14:48:25.556+01:002011-10-04T14:48:25.556+01:00Paul VI chose to condemn that encyclical tot he wr...Paul VI chose to condemn that encyclical tot he wreckage. How else should we label it? It WAS binding, now it is not. The Church cannot err. You know that. So what are our options? Affirm the Church cannot err and that Pius X was wrong and his encyclical is wreckage and opinion. The only other option is to believe it is still valid, but that the Church is in conflict with itself. So what then? Yet another schism? Catholicism=Universal faith. Stop trying to drive a stake into the gaps of her teachings and split the Church. Your own OPINIONS are not worth splitting a Church over. Please, if you can't abide by law it is better not to speak, you're behaving like a jumped up Luther of the modern ageLiznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-73145105284611155062011-10-04T14:44:36.374+01:002011-10-04T14:44:36.374+01:00No, I am insisting that you do NOT believe in the ...No, I am insisting that you do NOT believe in the fullness of Catholic teaching. Come out and celebrate Pius IX if you do. His words were never repealed. Yet they directly contradict those of Pius X who you so lovingly adhere to (even though his oath is now mere opinion and not binding). You will bind yourself to an opinion and ignore the encyclicals of a Pope who directly opposed his ideas. The Church, by writ of Pius IX (never repealed), is not a secular sermonising institution or a public PR machine, it has no license (theologically or politically) to intervene in what people do. It is clear that Pius X was a schismatic: he contradicted his predecessor and his oath was repealed by his successor. Yet you pretend this oath is still in force, and anyone who does not swear allegiance to it is acting as a heretic. WHO THE HECK ARE YOU to call anyone a heretic?? Are you the Pope??? There is a consequence for overstepping the bounds of the laity and it's very hot. You might want to stop pretending to be a mini-priest or you could end up there (please God that you don't suffer the torments of Hell for your own heresy and disgustingly arrogant presumptions to speak for a Being you know not)Liznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-20621491995884950232011-10-04T14:38:27.781+01:002011-10-04T14:38:27.781+01:00Who chooses what documents in Church history are &...Who chooses what documents in Church history are 'wreackage'?<br /><br />Could it be you?<br /><br />Could it be you who place yourself above the authority of Popes down the ages?The Boneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10271719805983763595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-9452585369515483302011-10-04T14:38:18.193+01:002011-10-04T14:38:18.193+01:00Bones you must forgive Liz. She is not so much a ...Bones you must forgive Liz. She is not so much a modernist as someone who believed what her priests told her, and it so suited her lifestyle that she accepted that she knew all about Vatican II. Of course whe will never have read the documents. She will have heard that she can follow her conscience in moral matters, forghet Jesus. Sin is apparently is only commited in some kind of context. What that means I do not know but Liz will believe it. I recently started kneeling for Communuion and receiving on the tongue. Someone will have told Liz that standing and receiving in the hand happened in the first six hundred years so we are returning to that practice. Liz will never ask the question - why? And if the Church both in the East and the West unanimously gave it up, what is the reason we are returning to the first six hundred years. Liz mocks you for being a new Convert but in fact she has been walking in the darkness for I do not know how many years, accepting and trusting and believing ignorance was knowledge. I was like that once, most catholics were. Just look at the remark that it is at 20 when the love of Gos is formed. It is nonsense but someone said this and she believed it. Liz should start reading about the saints of the Chruch, Terese of Lisieux, Maria Gorretti, if we have to wait till 20 no wonder young people are leaving in droves. Be of good heart, Bones. Do not acceplt such rubbish criticism. You are a thinker and the Church needs people like you.John Kearneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13074138642860577242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-54219647193685633632011-10-04T14:36:08.781+01:002011-10-04T14:36:08.781+01:00You are suggesting that I and those who believe th...You are suggesting that I and those who believe the fullness of Catholic teaching are not 'authentic believers'?The Boneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10271719805983763595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2389530333077823143.post-67022230466184549092011-10-04T14:35:19.496+01:002011-10-04T14:35:19.496+01:00You don't even like the documents of the Secon...You don't even like the documents of the Second Vatican Council, do you?The Boneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10271719805983763595noreply@blogger.com