Posted on 01/25/2005 2:58:28 PM PST by csbyrnes84
Why are you, a traditionalist, insisting on the necessity of a definition before there is an obligation of acceptance? St. Pius X never countenanced such an odd doctrine.
Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions. (Praestantia Scripturae)
And of course the decrees of Roman Congregations cannot define anything, as they are not infallible.
"The most Christian King, Louis XVI, was condemned to death by an impious conspiracy and this judgement was carried out. We shall recall to you in a few words the ordering and motives of this sentence. The National Convention had no right or authority to pronounce it. In fact, after having abolished the monarchy, the best of all governments, it had transferred all the public power to the people -- the people which, guided neither by reason nor by counsels, forms just ideas on no point whatsoever; assesses few things in accord ance with the truth and evaluates a great many according to mere opinion, which is ever fickle, and ever easy to deceive and to lead into every excess, ungrateful, arrogant, and cruel..."
--Pope Pius VI, allocution of 17 July 1793, Pourquoi Notre Voix
Writing to the King of Cyprus on kingship, St. Thomas Aquinas forthrightly declared monarchy to be “the best of governments, ” a pronouncement ratified by Pope Pius VI in modern times in the allocution he delivered on the occasion of the execution of Louis XVI of France. St. Thomas says that inasmuch as “the welfare and safety of a multitude formed into a society lies in the preservation of its unity, which is called peace” and “it is manifest that what is itself one can more efficaciously bring about unity than several . . . therefore the rule of one man is more useful than the rule of many. Furthermore it is evident that several persons could by no means preserve the stability of the community if they totally disagreed. . . . So one man rules better than several who come near to being one.
“Again, whatever is in accord with nature is best, for in all things nature does what is best. Now, every natural governance is governance by one. In the multitude of bodily members there is one which is the principal mover, namely, the heart; and among the powers of the soul one power presides as chief, namely, the reason. Among bees there is one king [queen] bee and in the whole universe there is one God, Maker and Ruler of all things. And there is a reason for this. Every multitude is derived from unity. Wherefore, if artificial things are an imitation of natural things and a work of art is better according as it attains a closer likeness to what is in nature, it follows that it is best for a human multitude to be ruled by one person.” This is why God “promises to His people as a great reward that He will give them one head and that ‘one Prince will be in the midst of them’ (Ezech. 34:24; Jer. 30:21).”
St. Thomas only strengthens his case by pointing out that if, according to Aristotle, “it is the contrary of the best that is worst, it follows that tyranny is the worst kind of government. . . . For the same reason that in a just government the government is better in proportion as the ruling power is one -- thus monarchy is better than aristocracy and aristocracy better than polity -- so the contrary will be true of an unjust government, namely, that the ruling power will be more harmful in proportion as it is more unitary. . . . Danger thus lurks on every side. Either men are held by the fear of a tyrant and they miss the opportunity of having that very best government which is kingship; or they want a king and the kingly power turns into tyrannical wickedness.” To be delivered from tyrants, “the people must desist from sin, for it is by divine permission that wicked men receive power to rule as a punishment for sin.”
--Solange Strong Hertz, Democracy, Monarchy, and the Fourth Commandment
Well, I've always kind of wanted to get into you with it about subsistence theory.
See, if we can get into that, if I can corner that one... you know, flush it out and take aim at it, all the other stuff? All the other stuff will fall with that one. All of it.
It's single bolt that holds the synthesis of all heresies together. Take that down, and the whole conciliar experiment falls. It would explain all the rest.
Including why you're more on sinkspur's side than mine, most the time.
And that is rather curious, now, isn't it?
I've been asking you for a while. Let's do it.
Thanks, comrade! lol.
And Leo XIII said monarchy and the republic are equal forms of government.
So, there you are. Battling popes.
Just like you wanted to "get into it" over baptism of desire?
Lots of blow, no show.
Methinks that thou art blissfully ignorant of something called "Americanism" - a heresy, condemned by the very Pope whom you refer to.
Look it up - read about it (probably for the first time). And then enlighten your mind in regard to Americanism and the very famous "McGylnn Controversy" which took place in the Archdiocese of New York around 1890........in which the Rev. Dr. Edward McGlynn was formally excommunicated for publicly espousing tenets of this very heresy.
......and which is why Archbishop Michael Augustine Corrigan of NY never received the Cardinal's red hat.....as his clergy was infected with this heresy!
Oh......I'm sorry........this was not covered in your seminary courses on great "Catholic" teachers like Karl Rahner, Hans Kung, Edward Scheelebex, Teihard DeChardin, etc.
Just merely conforming to the traditional interpretation of CCC section 2105 which gbcdoj quoted in post #13.
Duh, sink.
You just don't get it.......do ya?
Start a special thread. Get refuted really bad.
Solange Hertz is a wonderful author.........well researched, and thoroughly Catholic.
You got pictures of Hugo Chavez in your living room with burning candles in front of them?
I accept the doctrine of baptism of desire. You don't. You disprove it, pal.
You folks are all acting like petty children. Not one of the posts so far has had anything to do with Fr. Paul or his situation. It seems as though none of you people have ever even met the man.
Hahahaha!
Welcome to modernism. Keep the name. Change the meaning.
No matter if the name is the same name as the country where the principles are so paradigmatic of the name itself, that it happens to be named after it...
That's pretty doggone funny, sink. Americanism has nothing to do with America... lol!
"I know all about Americanism"
No - I honestly do not think you really do, or else you would not make that erroneous assertion.
OK then: please explain to the class what Americanism is, examples of this heresy, and the McGlynn Controversy in light of these matters.......and its ramifications both for 1890, and for the present.
I bet you can't do it.
I'm only interested in the erroneous imputation of Americanism by the integrists on this thread to democratic republicanism.
Leo XIII says that imputation is incorrect.
AS to your opinion of how we are acting - that is your opinion.
Yes, it is true that none of hte posters here (so far) actually know the priest in the article. So?????
If you read through the posts, some of us were attemtping to address the issues realted to the trvails of this priest and those who are likeminded. Some of us (like myself) agree 100% with him and are totally supportive of him.
Others are not.
No, not Hugo Chavez. Christ the King, though. We actually have this 1800's picture of Christ, and yes there are candles burning in front of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.