Wednesday, October 30, 2002

Had to switch to Haloscan for comments as enetation was just too slow. Unfortunately, that means the previous comments are lost. Sorry about that.

Tuesday, October 29, 2002

CAI has an article comparing previous Church teaching with what was taught at Vatican II

Of all the teachings listed, the one on the jews seems to me the most difficult to reconcile. Jacob Michael quotes the V2 teaching as follows:

"True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures." (Nostra Aetate, 4)

He then quotes many saints and Popes teaching the exact opposite. One example should suffice:

"Ungrateful for favors and forgetful of benefits, the Jews return insult for kindness and impious contempt for goodness. They ought to know the yoke of perpetual enslavement because of their guilt. See to it that the perfidious Jews never in the future grow insolent, but that they always suffer publicly the shame of their sin in servile fear." (Pope Gregory IX, Epistle to the Hierarchy in Germany)

There is only one way I can reconcile this and I admit it is a bit of strech. If Vatican II was referring to jews as a race instead of a religion, the teaching could be reconciled to previous teaching. There were and are jews by race who accept that Christ was the messiah and believe in Him. Obviously, jews who come to believe in Christ and his holy church would not be accursed by God. Anyway, that's my attempt. Anybody else have any ideas?





Friday, October 25, 2002

Former lutheran and now Catholic liberal Bill Cork castigates converts for denying "justification by faith alone"

The council of Trent decided for all time that sola fide is a heresy. But there is an easier way for people to understand the Catholic teaching on justification. All you have to do is look at our practices. We have this thing called the sacrament of confession. We must avail ourselves of this sacrament if we commit mortal sin. If we don't, and die in that state, we go to Hell. Obviously the lutherans don't do the same because they don't believe the same . This is a fact not withstanding any "joint declaration" statements to the contrary.



Thursday, October 24, 2002

Dave makes a comment I want to address

...The church's teaching on some issues has changed over the years (for instance Slavery for just starters)....

If the Church's teaching can actually change on even one issue, then it is not an infallible church. How do you know then that some future pope won't change the teaching against artificial contraception? Or women priests? Or any of a multitude of issues that are controversial in the Church today? If you believe the Church can change her teachings, why would you criticize liberal catholics like the call to action crowd for demanding more changes?






Tuesday, October 22, 2002

I wonder if the war in Iraq is really about protecting these awful settlers




Wednesday, October 16, 2002

Br. Alexis Bugnolo weighs in with some comments of his own

Under Monday, Oct. 14:

There seems to be a number of queries but not many direct answers.

Before St. Agatho wrote the Oath of Coronation, it is obvious that it was
not obligatory. Why did the Popes take it for the next 1600 years? Good
question: I'd like to see a study on that. But why did John Paul II not
take it (I frankly haven't see any solid reference that he didn't; and I
have heard that Paul VI didn't either, so if anyone has a good reference on
this point I for one would be interested to see it).

Nicea II, in its 4th Anathema, condemned those who reject or dispise any
written or unwritten ecclesiastical tradition (tradition with the small t).
If a pope after 1600 years refuses to take the Oath, then clearly, since
it is an ecclesiastical tradition, he is condemned personally by Nicea II.

If you read the Oath, you can see that it upholds the very principle
contained in the 4th anathema of Nicea II. So I for one would consider any
person refusing to take it as suspect of heresy. And I do not see how one
could avoid this conclusion; but if anyone can, I would like to hear the
explanation.

As for the Oath against Modernism, I guess one could argue that since it
was recently established it is not an ecclesiastical tradition. However
since it is obvious to everyone that Moderism is alive and well; it is only
the worst kind of human resepct, and presumption, to abolish it--both of
which are mortal sins.

Lumen Gentium 25 is not something than any catholic must accept by an
assent of faith; only with religious submission BTW. Anyhow what it
teaches is identical to the prior magisterium, so what's the point of the
question?

The phrase is not "religious assent of mind and will" but rather "obsequium
religiosum" which is "religious submission" The will cannot assent, it
only can consent -- see the dictionary-- it is the intellect that assents.
I believe it would be more correct to say "religious submission of mind and
will". But this requires only presumption of correctness. It does not
require insistence of correctness even when reasonably shown to be otherwise.

The quote from Vatican I is the Catholic Faith and all must accept it with
the assent of divine and catholic faith. But it says nothing about
accepting novel doctrines; infact the same decree elsewhere says the Pope
has no authority to alter the faith; and hence such statements are excluded
from this quote's obligation.

Regarding the opinions that Popes can fall into error or become heretics:
these opinions have been about since the middle ages. It is inconceivable
that Rober Bellarmine could be cannonized if he advocated a heretical
opinion, since his writings were examined by the Holy Office prior to his
canonization and found to be free from error -- yes they did that before
Vatican II -- so to say that this opinion that the pope as a man, can fall
into error (St. Alphonsus also held this opinion) is not licit is false;
but to say that one can be a good catholic and not accept it -- I would say
such an individual will have a hard time explaining the hypotheticals
advanced by Bellarmine and still keeping his faith and obedience, to the
Roman Pontiff. This distinction of no error or heresy in formal judgements
of the Pope and the possibility of error or heresy in private judgements,
is what guarantees the spotlessness of the Papal Magisterium. If you
reject this distinction, you will eventually end up a protestant, for you
will have to either deny Christ or the Pope as HisVicar, while one who does
accept this distinction retains the Faith even when there are errant
popes--and so to sum up I would say that practically speaking one as a
catholic must accept this distinction so as to remain catholic and soundly
refute the arguments of those who reject Papal authority.

Who ever said that the Catholic Encylopedia of 1913 was a rule of Faith:
infact it attempts to distort the teaching of St. Augustine on original sin.

Sincerely in Christ,

Br. Alexis Bugnolo



The Holy Father has released his apostolic letter on the Rosary

I suppose this will create some consternation among traditional Catholics, but I don't have a problem with it. Catholics will still be able to pray the rosary the traditional way if that suits them better.


Tuesday, October 15, 2002

Good news from the Vatican

I'm glad to see the Holy See stand up to these guys. If anyone should apologize, it should be the Russian Orthodox for collaborating with the KGB in suppressing the churches of Eastern Rite Catholics in the former Soviet bloc.