Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

Petey,

I am only interested in your still unproven accusation of heresy of John Paul II relative to the limbo issue. You have not addressed any specific dogma that his CCC conflicts with. I don’t think that the Baltimore Catechism fits the definition. If that is your belief, then we can simply agree that one of us correct. Take your pick on who it is.


To go on tangents other than the limbo issue is not my interest.

RJT

Tu stultus est?
 

Come on, I am waiting for a theological dissertation trying to prove me wrong. I take no pleasure in condemning JP II as he seemed like an alright guy. But theologically the thing is a total disaster.

-Et tu, Karol Wojtyla!?!-

Re: Tu stultus est?
 

Proof is incumbent upon him who asserts something, not on him who disputes such an assertion.

Re: Tu stultus est?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Proof is incumbent upon him who asserts something, not on him who disputes such an assertion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Bluff,

Man, I thought the same thing. Just never could have worded it so eloquently. I need a good ghost writer.

RJT

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

Back to limbo. I made my case above with all the dogmatic sources, so if you have any specific questions regarding those, I'll be happy to answer.

We don't know for certain if Limbo exists, as this is theological speculation. But it is de fide heresy to condemn anyone who holds this opinion. And we also know that salvation is impossible for the unbaptized (in one of the three forms). If they don't go to a type of "limbo" then the only alternative is a really mild Hell. That was St. Augustine's speculation. We will know for certain in the afterlife.

As for the last Pope, we do not know JP II's exact position on the salvation of unbaptized infants through the CCC. He did not write the CCC, although he authourized it. However, from his fairly vast theological writings, it appears he believes in a general efficacious salvation that was merited to man simply by the incarnation of Christ, thus elevating man's dignity. The sacrifice of Christ on the Cross was not in itself necessary, but an act of love. This helps us understand all of JP II's theology and it follows that this belief would bring about the other errors such as false ecumenism.

It will have to be a future Church Council and Pope that will go through the details in all their intricacy to make official pronouncements of condemnation. This is not unprecedented: it happened twice before in Church history with two other Popes. But they only had one little issue, where JP II engrosses all of Catholic thought with his errors.

Roma locuta est, causa finita est.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Back to limbo.

[/ QUOTE ]

De minimus non curat praetor.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

"However, from his fairly vast theological writings, it appears he believes in a general efficacious salvation that was merited to man simply by the incarnation of Christ, thus elevating man's dignity. The sacrifice of Christ on the Cross was not in itself necessary, but an act of love. This helps us understand all of JP II's theology and it follows that this belief would bring about the other errors such as false ecumenism."

Oh my God! Sounds like you practically had a damn Jew for a Pope!

Re: Couple questions about Christianity
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi. Non Christian here wondering if someone could answer a couple questions for me.

1. Before Jesus, were all people sent to Heaven? Or were they all sent to Hell?
If they were all sent to Heaven, then why would God send Jesus down? Why create this opportunity for people to go to Hell? Also, if they were all sent to Heaven, then who if not humans were in Hell before Jesus?

2. I was always told by my Christian friends that those who did not have an opportunity to find out about Christianity and therefore can't accept Jesus (such as indigenous peoples in remote areas) are given the benefit of the doubt and get to go to heaven. If this is the case, then how do missionaries justify doing what they do?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. There were different programs for salvation before Jesus. There were both people who were saved and unsaved. When Jesus came he "sealed the fate" so to speak of those who died before him. They were saved before he came because God is omniscient and knew that Jesus (or really Himself) would save humanity. The act of dying on the cross was God's way of symbolizing to humanity that they did not need "do anything" to be redeemed from sin. He was willing to forgive mankind's act of seperating itself from God and is fully willing to accept anyone who want to come back into God's perfect love. All they have to do is accept this forgivness.

2. Your friend is wrong. God has made it clear that He will make his presence known to all people in some way. I remember studying in my eight grade spanish class that there were Indian tribes in South and Central America that had a religious system that was very close to Christianity. I believe those people are saved. Indigenous people on remote islands, I believe, are more prone to direct revelation through visions and such. I think there are many of these people who are saved but would be completely under the radar. CS Lewis thinks that people of other religions who believe in their religion with a spirit of Christ are saved. If there does exist an all powerfull being who designed and built the universe, he would be capable of having solutions to these problems that we probably can't even imagine. The thing that is very clear is that He wants us to accept Him though.

Hope this helps.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

[ QUOTE ]
it appears he believes

[/ QUOTE ]

Always splitting hairs and parsing statements word by word searching for heresy. Instead of trusting the Vicar of Christ of whom there so many signs he was favored by God. What a grim and joyless experience of the faith. A very puritan outlook.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

[ QUOTE ]
"However, from his fairly vast theological writings, it appears he believes in a general efficacious salvation that was merited to man simply by the incarnation of Christ, thus elevating man's dignity. The sacrifice of Christ on the Cross was not in itself necessary, but an act of love. This helps us understand all of JP II's theology and it follows that this belief would bring about the other errors such as false ecumenism."

Oh my God! Sounds like you practically had a damn Jew for a Pope!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, we already had one for a Savior. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

This is theology, not scrabble. If I want to have lots of "fun" in this life, believe me, I can find another religion to do it in rather then one that has a crucified God. Although JP II has certainly set new standards for Catholics:

http://www.picturehosting.org/images...ndianchief.jpg

http://www.picturehosting.org/images...crobatics3.jpg

http://www.picturehosting.org/images...riestwyd01.jpg

http://www.picturehosting.org/images...wissmass02.jpg

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

JPII faithfully fulfilled his role as "servant of the servants of God" by travelling to meet the faithful in the enviroment in which they live their daily lives. The same as Jesus did. He was a true apostle who took the lamp of faith to the world and its far corners. Whereas you and your confréres place it under a bushel basket and bemoan the loss of past liturgical traditions while missing the essence of the gospel.

I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
- 1 Cor. 9:22

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

But most of the pictures of the silly shows were taken at the Vatican. This is unbecoming of a prelate on sacred ground. And incidentally, the job description of the Pope is to preserve the deposit of the Faith, not travel around inculturating himself.

http://www.picturehosting.org/images...akdancing1.jpg

You're quoting passages like Not Ready too.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

unbecoming != heresy.

You have yet to offer even a shred of proof that JPII was a heretic.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

[ QUOTE ]
You have yet to offer even a shred of proof that JPII was a heretic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Suspicion is good enough for Peter.

Re: ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia
 

What heresy am I adhering to that makes me a Protestant? And I don't use scriptural passages to fitted to my own context to make my points.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

Where have I declared that John Paul II is a heretic? I already explained about that is will require another Pope and Council to make any official decision. I am just showing bits and pieces of evidence that will be taken into consideration regarding him. Besides, he does not have to be a heretic Pope to be a bad Pope.

I proved the CCC was heretical. And why won't I get a straight answer to this question:

Can we hope or not hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants? If we can hope for it, how can you reconcile this with the Dogma that without baptism no one can enter Heaven?

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

"I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."
- 1 Cor. 9:22

I have to add this juicy tid bit. Is this quote from the same St. Paul who condemned St. Peter for eating with the Jews, not because there was anything inherently wrong with it, but because his action caused scandal amongst the faithful?

http://www.picturehosting.org/images...ynagogue03.jpg

condemnant quod non intellegunt
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're quoting passages like Not Ready too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, its so inappropriate to bring the words of scripture into a debate on christianity among christians (as opposed to quoting it to non-believers).

Re: condemnant quod non intellegunt
 

"Is this quote from the same St. Paul who condemned St. Peter for eating with the Jews, not because there was anything inherently wrong with it, but because his action caused scandal amongst the faithful?"

So now you not only are mocking the Vicar of Christ but also God's apostles. What a great example of the faith.

Re: condemnant quod non intellegunt
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yea, its so inappropriate to bring the words of scripture into a debate on christianity among christians (as opposed to quoting it to non-believers).

[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff,

I caution you in using the word Christian so loosely when including Petey. Folk around here are going to get the wrong idea of our Religion.

RJT

Re: condemnant quod non intellegunt
 

How on Earth does that qualify as mocking the apostles or the Pope? That is ridiculous.

So what now? St. Paul did not condemn St. Peter for the scandal he created? Are you going to deny scripture too?

Re: ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia
 

I did quote the entire text of Canon 5. This is my source:

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html

Decree on the Sacraments, Decrees on Baptism:

"CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema."

I don't know what you are referring too.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

[ QUOTE ]
I proved the CCC was heretical. And why won't I get a straight answer to this question:

Can we hope or not hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants? If we can hope for it, how can you reconcile this with the Dogma that without baptism no one can enter Heaven?

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't proved any such thing. All you have done with your constant witch hunt for heresy is to take the words of the CCC to mean something other than they state. It says in my quote of it above that unbaptized infants are entrusted to the mercy of God. That does not extrapolate into "hoping that they are saved".

You strain at gnats in order to justify the disobedience and schism of the SSPX to which you adhere. And accusing the pontiff of heretical views (the same as "suspecting"), in absence of a condemnation of such alleged heresy by a synod of bishops, only makes you the heretic. SSPX has set itself not just against JPII and the CCC, but against the entire church since the episcopate overwhelmingly acknowledges the orthodoxy of JPII and the CCC. And if you say that is just because JPII appointed most of them, then you are denying the efficaceous action of the Holy Spirit as well.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

"All you have done with your constant witch hunt for heresy is to take the words of the CCC to mean something other than they state."

This is too funny. I am directly quoting the CCC and now you claim it does not state what it explicity and implicitly states. You only look at this: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them...." which I fully agree with and do not dispute, while you purposely ignore this: "...Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"[63] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism."" Did I make this up in my evil heretical imagination? What do these words in bold state?

You accuse me of trying to assert that the mercy of God quote "extrapolates" into allowing the unbaptized to be saved, while I am merely quoting the passage as found and taught in the CCC word for word. You have purposely blinded yourself to the exact words of the CCC to slander me by saying I am the one teaching that the CCC says we can hope for the salvation of unbaptized children.

Millions of people and even nations have been separated from the Catholic Church for holding onto one single heresy (the Arian heresy, the Orthodox heresy) and I am accused of "straining at gnats" when I point out an obvious contradiction between the CCC and Catholic Dogma.

You even call me a heretic for "accusing the pontiff of heretical views (the same as "suspecting"), in absence of a condemnation of such alleged heresy by a synod of bishops," When a synod of bishops could not even possibly convene if there were not an accusation of heresy to begin with. What, would they all gather in silence magically to only then make official pronouncements of heresy?

Please point out the dogma or doctrine of the Catholic Church that makes "accusing a Pope of heresy" a heresy. Especially in light of the fact that two other Popes in history were accused of heretical views, and later had their ideas condemned.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

You are trying to turn a statement regarding "hope", which is intended to psychologically comfort, into a doctrinal pronouncement which it clearly isn't because of both the other stament about entrusting to God's mercy, and also because of the wording, "allow us to hope". Thus you are in fact reading more into those words.

Regarding heresy, you are not just accusing one or more popes of heterdox views. You would like to think that so that you don't have to confront the implications of your views. Since the documents of Vatican II (not a dogmatic council) were the result of the synod of bishops and confirmed by Pope Paul VI and subsequent popes (read your Bishop Fellay's comments about his interview with Benedict XVI and Papa Benedict's statements), then the SSPX and you have aligned yourselves against the entire church. Thus any accusations of heterodox views are versus the entire church and that is what heresy is, a denial of truths held by the entire church. You and your group are not just a vox clamatus in deserto to the silent majority being lead astray by a pope, but those who deny that which is held by the vast majority of the episcopate including most importanly the see of Rome. If you really believe the words of scripture that the Holy Spirit will keep the church as a whole as opposed to one pontiff who is not speaking in an infallible pronouncement, free from doctrinal error, then you must see that this is so.

And although SSPX likes to try to use clever canonical arguments to say that they are not really in breach of communion, it is logically clear that by its stated positions, that when the first pontiff who has been ordained a priest according to the "new" rite is elected, that you will then essentially be sede vacantists.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

Peter,

The problem, I think, we have here is in your interpretation of infallibility of Ecumenical Councils. I take it you disagree with the following in which case there isn’t much point in discussion things further.

[ QUOTE ]
How Many Infallible Teachings?
By Father Pat McCloskey, O.F.M.
Q U I C K S C A N St. Anthony Messenger Press
August, 2004

Are Ecumenical Councils Infallible?
Why Did They Want Jesus to Leave?
Why Have a Spiritual Advisor?
'By Faith Alone'

Are Ecumenical Councils Infallible?
Q: I am having a debate with another Catholic.
She says that the Church has spoken infallibly
only twice: Mary’s Immaculate Conception and
Mary’s Assumption.

I say that it has spoken infallibly many times,
especially through its 21 ecumenical councils.
Which one of us is right?

A: Strictly speaking, neither of you is correct.
Papal infallibility was defined by Vatican I in
1870, 16 years after Pope Pius IX had solemnly
declared the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

Various people have gone backwards from 1870 and
sometimes inaccurately labeled various statements
as infallible.

The pope’s infallibility in his extraordinary
magisterium (teaching role) has been used only
once since 1870—when Pope Pius XII solemnly
defined in 1950 that belief in Mary’s Assumption
is part of Catholic faith. Belief in that
teaching had long been reflected in the Church’s
liturgy.

Since 1870, some people have argued that
canonizing a saint is an infallible act, but that
assertion is a debatable point at this time.

Not all decisions by each ecumenical council are
automatically infallible. The Nicene Creed
(adopted by the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.)
states the faith of the Church on a very crucial
point: Is Jesus “of the same substance” [nature]
as God the Father? The Council of Nicaea said
that Jesus is and, therefore, took an existing
Profession of Faith and inserted the term
homoousious (“of the same substance”) at the
proper place. This is an infallible statement of
what the Church believes.

That same creed was expanded at the Council of
Constantinople in 381 A.D., stating more
explicitly the Church’s belief in the Holy
Spirit’s divinity. If you said the creed adopted
in 325 was infallible, you might also argue that
it could not be amended. The Catholic Church does
not understand infallibility to mean that.

Ecumenical councils also make many prudential
judgments and issue disciplinary decrees. Back in
the 1960s, the world’s bishops asked themselves:
Should Vatican II draw up a document on relations
with non-Christians? Should the council’s
treatment of Mary be a separate document or part
of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church?
Should Vatican II issue a document explicitly
condemning Communism?

Even though councils have given infallible
teachings on matters of faith and morals, they
have also made some prudential judgments about
which there can be very legitimate disagreement.

A disciplinary decree approved by an ecumenical
council can be binding without being declared
infallible. A canon of the Second Lateran Council
(1139) forbade Christians to engage in usury
(charging any interest on a loan). Usury was
later understood as charging excessive interest
on a loan.

Vatican I taught that the pope is infallible
when, as the Church’s supreme pastor and
successor of Peter, he solemnly teaches some
revealed truth about faith or morals ex cathedra
(“from the chair”). He must intend to teach
infallibly and make this known at the time of
that teaching.

Most papal and conciliar teachings pertain to the
Church’s ordinary teaching authority
(magisterium) and are understood as authentic
teachings—but not infallible in the sense of
Vatican I’s teaching about infallibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

RJT

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

Umm, as a disinterested and uninvolved party who has nothing to gain by the victory of either argument (I'll definetely go to hell in both cases), I feel I may make a good referee, nothwithsatnding the fact that I was baptised in this august body rites, albeit without anyone asking my opinion or consent on the matter. Even, if some may consider this, not staying in my lane. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Hey, if good enough for you, good enough for me, bigdaddydvo. I am, after all, only trying to bring about a reconciliation from an objective viewpoint. I must say that from a logical point of view, both parties are making some aerobatics, but it seems that Peter has consistently gained the advantage with his application of logic. He seems to have more internal choerence with his arguments. OTOH, was it not for the threat to discontinue or ignore the debate, a sure sign of accepting defeat, or at least used as such by most theist faced with the incontrovertible, the last post of RJT may have diminished Peter's abvantage without quite overcoming it. The game is not over till the fat lady sings. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

RJT, I am very interested in a couple of point you raise in your last post. It seems that I could be a good catholic and still consider the cult of saints and canonisation as supertition and voodoo!? Am I understanding this right? I don't think it will delight some of my catholics friends in our coming discussions.

There seem to be a bit of wobbling regarding infallibility also, or a variety of infallibilities, with different precedences. It seems that what is teaching of the church could change with the seasons. And what is to be believed today may not be tomorrow. Of course, I find this problematic, both as I see it as a form of trying to cheat according to the rules, and also, from a certain compassion I have for all those that may have been mislead in their faith.

Anyway I find this thread most enjoyable and should one party explicitely or implicitely accept defeat, I am sure that there are many other issues which could be traeted in the same fashion.

Thanks guys

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

I don't really disagree with what is said in the quotation you provide (although there have been a lot more infallible statements made by Popes since the 1870's than the priest mentions, including one by JP II). What do you assume my stance is on the infallibility of an ecumenical council? Do you assume that what was taught under Trent in its Canons was not infallible?

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

Anybody who wishes to judge the logic of the parties involved without bias is more than welcome. Nobody needs to agree or be very knowledgable about Catholic Church history or teaching to see logical errors in an argument.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

"You are trying to turn a statement regarding "hope", which is intended to psychologically comfort, into a doctrinal pronouncement which it clearly isn't because of both the other stament about entrusting to God's mercy, and also because of the wording, "allow us to hope". Thus you are in fact reading more into those words."

Even if it is just meant to psychologically comfort, the statement does not make sense. We are comforted by the fact that we can entrust the unbaptized into God's mercy. No problem with this whatsoever. But then we are also allowed to hope in the lie that they are saved?

To put it another way:

The Church teaches with infallible authority: 2+2=4 and anyone who says otherwise can go to hell.

Then the New Catholic Catechism says: 2+2=4, and we can trust those who died unbaptized into God's math. And thank to God's math, we are allowed to hope that 2+2=5.

That is meant to comfort?


Again you bring up the SSPX which is another issue altogether, but to briefly touch upon it: "Thus any accusations of heterodox views are versus the entire church" No, not against the Church, just versus whoever holds an erroneous opinion, because an erroneous opinion is never part of the Church. If you do not believe this, than you will believe that St. Athanasius (who was excommunicated by both a synod of bishops AND Pope Liberius) was really a heretic. There were only 5 bishops who maintained the Catholic Faith along with St. Athanasius during the Arian crisis. You would have defended the Arians back then too like you defend the neo-modernists.

Also the sedevacantist view you mention concerning the new rite of ordination is simply not taught by the SSPX.

Finally, you failed to answer my question in the last post: Where does the Church state anywhere that accusing the Pope of heresy makes one a heretic?

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

Here is basically what it is MG,

Btw, I really would not have gotten involved in the topic had I realized Peter was as militant as he is. Hadn’t really paid all that much attention to his details before. Nor did I really know quite where he was coming from.

Peter is a descent guy, basically. He must be to an extent, he says he is Christian afterall. Sometimes his fascism gets in the way is all. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] He definitely can’t see the forest for the trees in my opinion (as well as Bluff’s I would guess). He is basically a very conservative Catholic. A bit of background:

Back in the early 1960’s, then Pope John XXIII wanted "… to throw open the windows of the Church so that we can see out and the people can see in." He convened an Ecumenical Council commonly known as Vatican II.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council

This Council more or less did some updating in way things go in our Church. This is not uncommon in our Church. We are a living Church. Just as science updates itself with its own new knowledge, so does our Church. We don’t change the basics of what we believe, we simply interpret things in light of new awareness. We evolve so to speak.

Matters such as things discussed here have history going back to Jesus. These details that David S.’s jests about are of course not very meaningful to the non believer. But, these discussion are like different doctors discussing a patient who has yet to be ultimately diagnosed. (Not the best analogy.)

The study of our Religion (I would think most Religions) can be as involved as one wants to get. Folk get Ph.D.s in different branches of theology. Theologians are always discussing thousand year old texts and the meanings.

To many like myself, Catholicism is not static. Peter basically believes it is, imo. He, also, lives pre-Vatican II. Pre/post Vatican II mindset is probably where most debates arise between Pete and others regarding details of Catholicism.

Hope that puts things in perspective for you.

RJT

Pete, If I wrote anything that might be erroneous, it is not meant to be libelous. I apologize and am willing to stand corrected. Just trying to edify the poster.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really disagree with what is said in the quotation you provide (although there have been a lot more infallible statements made by Popes since the 1870's than the priest mentions, including one by JP II). What do you assume my stance is on the infallibility of an ecumenical council? Do you assume that what was taught under Trent in its Canons was not infallible?

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you don’t take into consideration the context of the times it was written.

edited for clarity

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

Hiya RJT,

Thanks for the link. It is obviously a much finer debate than I envisaged. After a first quick reading, I was particularly interested in "Dignitatis Humanae" which addresses some of my issues with catholics and seems to be inspired by a spirit of tolerance even towards atheists. In fact that it seems to me that it could be summarised and obviously grossly simplified by the notion of staying in your lane. I will read further on this, but rest assured that if this is the case I would barrack for/support your position over Peter. However, and not judging church dogmas by its adherents behaviour or notions, it seems to me that from a logical perspective, regardless of desirability of content, I would still have to give Peter the upper hand as things stand in this particular debate.

A contention of mine is that self-contradiction is inherent in christian doctrines or religions and may, indeed be both their strength (in terms of attracting adherents) and its weakness when confronted by a very logical secular world.

Anyway, thanks again for your link, and your admirable discipline and open-mindedness in bothering to reply. I appreciate it and it helps me put a different coloring on to the Christian typing I may hold.

Kind regards,

MidGe

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

MG,

The reason you might lean more towards Peter in the debate probably lays in my inability (as will as disinterest) to accurately explain the details of the debate - it gets involved. It would indeed appear he has the upper hand. I assure you he does not. Again, for no other reason than David’s theory: those smarter/more knowledgeable than I, in this case Pope John Paul II - the Pope who just died.

RJT

p.s. If Bluff chooses to continue the discussion (not asking him to) , he certainly will carry the ball with no problem.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

I didn't say that accusing a pope of heresy by itself is sufficient to label the accuser a heretic. I said that accusing the pope who is supported by the magisterium is such an act of heresy. And that is the crucial difference with the Arian heresy, because the see of Rome never succumbed. A pope supported by a minority of the college of bishops stands yet on firm ground supported by the Holy Spirit. And a pope supported by the vast majority of such bishops cannot be validly accused of heresy.

And you tell me what the position of SSPX will be when a pope who was ordained under the new rite is elected? Will they consider him to possess valid orders? If so then why tell their members not to go to indult Trid Masses celebrated by such priests?

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

Any de fide statement made by the Church holds equal value whether made in 2005 or 205. The context of the times is totally irrelavent to the statement itself, as it is designed to make the truth as clear as possible. After all, what the Church teaches is nothing more than a clarification of the Deposit of Faith left by Christ to the Apostles.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

[ QUOTE ]
Any de fide statement made by the Church holds equal value whether made in 2005 or 205. The context of the times is totally irrelavent to the statement itself, as it is designed to make the truth as clear as possible. After all, what the Church teaches is nothing more than a clarification of the Deposit of Faith left by Christ to the Apostles.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not a matter of the statements made by the Church, rather our (sometimes new) understanding of said statements that changes/or grows.

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any de fide statement made by the Church holds equal value whether made in 2005 or 205. The context of the times is totally irrelavent to the statement itself, as it is designed to make the truth as clear as possible. After all, what the Church teaches is nothing more than a clarification of the Deposit of Faith left by Christ to the Apostles.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not a matter of the statements made by the Church, rather our (sometimes new) understanding of said statements that changes/or grows.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the value/semantic of what catholics are lead to believe by the church changes over time?!

Re: de asini umbra disceptare
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any de fide statement made by the Church holds equal value whether made in 2005 or 205. The context of the times is totally irrelavent to the statement itself, as it is designed to make the truth as clear as possible. After all, what the Church teaches is nothing more than a clarification of the Deposit of Faith left by Christ to the Apostles.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not a matter of the statements made by the Church, rather our (sometimes new) understanding of said statements that changes/or grows.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the value/semantic of what catholics are lead to believe by the church changes over time?!

[/ QUOTE ]

Is our study of DNA and such things finished? Does one ever read a great novel again without new understanding/ awarenesses? Read Soren K. in our book club and see how one man's understanding of the same short story changes over time.

RJT