Posted on 11/05/2003 8:48:22 PM PST by Land of the Irish
Taken from the January, 2000 edition of Catholic Family News.
Editor's note: I was overjoyed when Raymond Marcin, Professor of Law at Catholic University of America, submitted this essay to CFN. Immediately, it reminded me of my dear friend, Father Marian Palandrano (d. 1995), a Traditional priest ordained in 1949 who never once said the New Mass. Often, Father Palandrano explained that he could not accept the progressive doctrine and liturgy of Vatican II because to do so would violate his Oath Against Modernism, a solemn Oath he pledged before Almighty God. Marcin discusses the conflict between the Oath Against Modernism that all the Council Fathers were bound to uphold, and Vatican II’s "counter-syllabus" which, by all appearances, violates that sacred oath.
In his 1982 treatise on Catholic theology, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger – currently the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – made some astonishing statements. He suggested that the documents of Vatican II, and especially Gaudium et Spes (Vatican II’s Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World), were intended to "correct" what he called the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pope Pius IX and Pope Saint Pius X, the Popes whose Syllabi of Errors and Encyclicals warned against the dangers of the heresy of Modernism, called by Saint Pius X "the synthesis of all heresies". Cardinal Ratzinger’s statements began as follows:
"If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus."
In a footnote to that quote, Cardinal Ratzinger explained that "[t]he position taken in the Syllabus [of Pope Pius IX] was adopted and continued in Pius X’s struggle against ‘Modernism’." Returning to his main text, Cardinal Ratzinger went on to write that
"the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution was, to a large extent, corrected via facti, especially in Central Europe, but there was still no basic statement of the relationship that should exist between the Church and the world that had come into existence after 1789."
Cardinal Ratzinger’s observation that at the time of Vatican II "there was still no basic statement of the relationship that should exist between the Church and the [post-1789] world" will seem curious to those familiar with the great encyclicals of the post-1789 popes condemning the modernist errors of the post-1789 world. One presumes that when Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that sentence he meant that there was no such basic statement except the basic statements of
Pope Gregory XVI ( Mirari Vos – On Liberalism, 1832);
Pope Pius IX (Quanta Cura – On Current Errors, 1864, and Syllabus of Errors, 1864);
Pope Leo XIII (Diuturnum Illud – On Government Authority, 1881, Humanum Genus – On Freemasonry and Naturalism1884, Libertas Praestantissimum – On the Nature of True Liberty, 1888, Rerum Novarum – On the Condition of the Working Classes, 1891, and Graves de Communi Re – On Christian Democracy, 1901);
Saint Pius X (Lamentabili Sane – Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists, 1907, Pascendi Dominici Gregis – On Modernism, 1907, On the "Sillon", 1910, and Sacrorum Antistitum – The Oath Against Modernism);
Pope Pius XI (Quas Primas – On the Feast of Christ the King, 1925, Mortalium Animos – On Fostering True Religious Unity, 1928, and Divini Redemptoris – On Atheistic Communism, 1937); and
Pope Pius XII (Humani Generis – On Certain False Opinions Which Threaten to Undermine the Foundation of Catholic Doctrine, 1950); (1)
In other words, there was, at the time of Vatican II, no basic statement of the relationship that should exist between the Church and the post-1789 world, except the several basic statements over several post-1789 generations, and several post-1789 papacies which, with remarkable internal consistency of those generations and those papacies, bespoke a "relationship" of clear opposition between the Church and the post-1789 world – statements with which the majority of the participants in Vatican II apparently wanted to disagree. Cardinal Ratzinger seemed candidly to admit exactly that when he wrote:
"Let us be content to say here that the text [of the Vatican II documents, especially Gaudium et Spes] serves as a counter syllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789." (2)
THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM
At first glance, the statements of Cardinal Ratzinger may not seem to be "astonishing." He was, after all, only stating the obvious, wasn’t he? He was only being candid. His statement was actually quite unremarkable. Reconciling the Church with the modern world was the whole point of Vatican II, wasn’t it?
To place Cardinal Ratzinger’s statements in context, however, one must go back to the events that occurred a half century before Vatican II, in the midst of the era in which the Church was consistently articulating its statements of opposition towards the tenets of liberalism and Modernism that came to characterize the post-1789 age.
On July 3, 1907, Saint Pius X issued a decree called Lamentabili Sane, listing and condemning the errors of the Modernists. Two months later in that same year, on September 8th, he issued an Encyclical Called Pascendi Dominici Gregis, a more lengthy explanatory discussion and condemnation of the heresy of Modernism. (3) Three years later, on September 1, 1910, he issued a motu proprio entitled Sacrorum Antistitum in which he mandated that an Oath Against Modernism, the text of which was prescribed in the motu proprio, be taken by all Catholic clergy before being ordained to the subdiaconate.
That mandate was not rescinded until 1967, (4) and this is the important point. The requirement that all Catholic seminarians who were being ordained to the subdiaconate on their way to the priesthood take the Oath Against Modernism was not rescinded until more than one year after the closing of Vatican II. (5) Every Catholic priest ordained between the years 1910 and 1967 was obliged to take the Oath Against Modernism.
The implications are startling. Every single bishop, Archbishop, and Cardinal who participated in Vatican II and every single Vatican II peritus (expert advisor) who was also a priest, without exception, had taken the Oath Against Modernism mandated for all Catholic clergy by Pope Saint Pius X in 1910 and not rescinded by the Vatican until 1967. To use a portion of the words of the oath, every single participant in Vatican II was under an oath-bound obligation to God Almighty "with due reverence [to] submit and adhere with [his] whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili".
Seen in this light, Cardinal Ratzinger’s statements are truly astonishing. How could the participants of Vatican II set out, intentionally, to "correct", or to set up a "counter syllabus" to, that to which they all, without exception, had sworn, "with [their] whole heart," to "submit and adhere"? It is a puzzlement.
What are we to believe? Are we to believe that those who voted in favor of the "counter syllabus" documents of Vatican II which were intended to "correct" the pronouncements of Pope Pius IX and Saint Pius X (and presumably the pronouncements of Popes Gregory XVI, Leo XIII, Pius XI, and Pius XII as well) violated the Oath Against Modernism which they all had taken? That they forgot their oath? In either case, it is difficult to accept that God the Holy Spirit would watch over and guide the violating or the discarding of an oath taken to God. At the very least this implication would seem to cast serious doubt on the very legitimacy of the Vatican II "counter syllabus" documents that, according to Cardinal Ratzinger, were intended to "correct" or "counter" ("reverse" might not be too strong a word) teachings which all the participants in Vatican II were oath-bound to uphold.
If we are to judge by the fruits of Vatican II, what are we to believe? We have Pope Paul VI’s own evaluation of the aftermath of Vatican II:
"We looked forward to a flowering, a serene expansion of concepts which matured in the great sessions of the Council... [instead, i]t is as if the Church were destroying herself. (6)...
"We have the impression that through some cracks in the wall the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God:... Doubt, uncertainty ,questioning, dissatisfaction, confrontation... We thought that after the Council a day of sunshine would have dawned for the history of the Church. What dawned, instead, was a day of clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties." (7)
The clouds, the storms, the darkness, the searching, the uncertainties – who can say that they are not still with us today, thirty-four years after the close of Vatican II? And if the Church herself is to judge Vatican II by its fruit, should she not heed Our Lord’s injunction given at the close of His Sermon on the Mount: "Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them."(8)?
If one ponders the matter for but a moment, it does not seem a wonder that the fruits of decisions to counter or correct those teachings that the decision makers were oath-bound to uphold would turn out to be clouds, storms, darkness, searching, and uncertainties. Nor does it seem a wonder that it should appear as if the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.
Do we, perhaps, overstate the case? Are we, perhaps, to think that the Oath Against Modernism was, after all, merely a "form" oath, taken only as a matter of routine over all those years between 1910 and 1967 by all those being ordained to the subdiaconate with very little conscious advertence, and then more or less promptly forgotten – just a relic of a past age? Such a mode of thought may, perhaps, provide an explanation or even an excuse for those at the Council who apparently decided to "counter" what they were oath-bound to uphold, but it still leaves the question of whether God the Holy Spirit would actually guide people to discard an oath-bound obligation in that manner, and it still leaves intact the Holy Father’s own candid assessment of the fruits of that discarded oath: the dawning, not of sunshine in the Church, but rather of clouds, storms, darkness, searching, and uncertainties.
In the minds of some, however, there may be another way of resolving the puzzlement. It may be that it was Cardinal Ratzinger who was overstating the case somewhat. It may be that the participants in Vatican II who approved the documents in question saw no conflict at all between, on the one hand, what they were approving and, on the other hand, the prescriptions of the Oath Against Modernism which they had taken. But the implications here are almost as startling. If nothing contrary to the prescriptions in the Oath Against Modernism was intended by the Council participants – and that is, of course, what one would like to believe – then all the Council documents must be interpreted with that fact in mind. In other words, none of the documents of Vatican II can rightly be interpreted as in any way inconsistent with Saint Pius X’s condemnations of Modernist thinking within the Church.
The point here is that any attempts at understanding the "spirit" of Vatican II and any interpretations of its documents must take into account the fact that every Vatican II Father was, at the time he approved those documents, under the prescriptions of the Oath Against Modernism, and presumably intended not to violate that oath. It is, of course, an open question as to whether all the documents of Vatican II can be interpreted consistently with Saint Pius X’s condemnations of modernist thinking within the Church. (9) If what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in 1982 is correct, than the "counter-syllabus" documents most certainly cannot be interpreted consistently with Saint Pius X’s condemnation of Modernist thinking within the Church. According to Cardinal Ratzinger, those documents were intended to "correct" or "counter" Pope Pius IX’s and Saint Pius X’s syllabi on the subject.
VATICAN II: A VIOLATION OF THE OATH?
Despite that very real qualm, however, it does seem to follow that, unless we accept that the Vatican II Fathers violated or discarded their Oath Against Modernism, every interpretation of the documents of Vatican II and every invocation of "the spirit of Vatican II" which over the years has been, or is now, in any way inconsistent with any of the prescriptions of the Oath Against Modernism must be rejected as being contrary to the intent of the Vatican II Fathers. The text of the oath is lengthy, but its purport is clear. In part it states:
"I firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day ["this day" being September 1, 1910]. ...
"Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now ["now" being 1910] understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion.... .
"... The purpose of this [oath] is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
"I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God ..." (10)
It would seem also that, if each and every participant in Vatican II was under the prescriptions of Saint Pius X’s mandated Oath Against Modernism – and recall that they were, since the Oath Against Modernism obligation was not rescinded until more than a year after Vatican II was completed, Catholics concerned with a proper interpretation of the Vatican II documents and a proper understanding of the "spirit" of Vatican II would want to know exactly what the Vatican II Fathers were oath-bound to uphold. They would want to know the full content of the Oath Against Modernism. (11) Michael Davies, an authority on both Modernism and Vatican II, (12) has described the content of the oath as follows:
"The first part of the oath is a strong affirmation of the basic Catholic truths opposed to Modernism: the demonstrability of God’s existence by human reason; the value and suitability or miracles and prophecies as criteria of revelation; the historic institution of the Church by Christ; the inviolable character of Catholic tradition; the reasonableness and supernaturalness of faith.
"The second part of the oath is an expression of interior assent to the decree Lamentabili and the encyclical Pascendi with their contents."
Davies described Lamentabili Sane as Saint Pius X’s condemnation of "sixty-five propositions which were incompatible with the Catholic faith," and he closed with the common observation that has since been made by many that "[w]hen reading the condemned propositions of Lamentabili it is hard to believe that the decree was not addressed to the errors which have been circulating since the Second Vatican Council". (13) One might rightly observe that a similar reading of Saint Pius X’s much more lengthy and explanatory encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, would yield the similar conclusion that the encyclical was prophetically addressed to all the errors and confusions that are besetting orthodox Catholics today and that are being foisted in the name of the "spirit of Vatican II". (14)
Every Catholic who wishes to know the root cause of the errors and confusions that are besetting and dividing the Church today would do well to become familiar with Saint Pius X’s oath and with the Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis and the Syllabus Lamentabili Sane. (15)
Footnotes:
1. The texts of all these documents are reproduced in The Popes Against Modern Errors (ed. Anthony J. Mioni, TAN Books and Publishers, Inc. 1999).
2. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (tr. Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, Ignatius Press 1987), pages 381-382; originally published in German under the title Theologische Prinzipienlehre (Erich Wewel Verlag, Munich 1982).
3. For an excellent discussion of the heresy of Modernism in general and of Pascendi Dominici Gregis in particular see Michael Davies, Partisans of Error: St. Pius X Against the Modernists (Neumann Press 1983).
4. In 1918, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office declared that the prescriptions of the Oath Against Modernism must remain in full force until the Holy See declares otherwise. See The Code of Canon Law: A text and Commentary (eds. James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green & Donald E. Heintschel, Paulist Press 1985), page 585. The mandate was rescinded by a decree of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in July of 1967. See "Oath against Modernism" in The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, on page 926.
5. Pope Paul VI’s discourse closing Vatican II was delivered on December 7, 1965.
6. Pope Paul VI, Address to Lombard College, December 7, 1968.
7. Pope Paul VI, Address on the Ninth Anniversary of His Pontificate, June 29, 1972.
8. Matthew 7:19-20 (Douay-Rheims).
9. See, e.g., Michael Davies’ The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty, contending that the stand taken on religious liberty in the Vatican II Declaration on Religious Liberty is not reconcilable with previous papal teaching.
10. EWTN Internet site, "www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P10MOATH.HTM".
11. The full text of the Oath Against Modernism can be easily accessed on several sites on the Internet, and is reproduced in many books, including Michael Davies’ Partisans of Error (Neumann Press 1983) on page 104.
12. Davies’ publications on both topics are many, but see, e.g., Michael Davies, Partisans of Error (Neumann Press 1983) and Michael Davis, Pope John’s Council, vol. 2 of Liturgical Revolution (Angelus Press 1977).
13. Michael Davies, Partisans of Error (Neumann Press 1983), on pages 104 and 71.
14. Not surprisingly, Michael Davies drew that conclusion in his book, Pope John’s Council, on page 277.
15. Both Pascendi and Lamentabili are published in one volume, and is available from CFN
No. First of all, you are in the habit of lying about what Catholic deacons say; all one has to do is read what you attributed to a Catholic deacon concering Terri Schiavo. Now, you put words in a Catholic deacon's mouth AGAIN, as no Catholic deacon ever said that.
Second, one could deduce that FR was apostate only if every post on FR had to do with apostasy, as every article on Jewish Tribal Review has to do with anti-semitism and hatred of Israel.
YOU'RE the one that needs some logic training.
Then why can I get to Jewish Tribal Review in two clicks from a Traditional Catholic website?
To: narses
The miracle of the Eucharist itself is not enough?
Now, some Catholics need bleeding hosts?
Superstitious nonsense.
6 posted on 11/03/2003 9:29 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a dog or a cat from a shelter. You will save one life, and may save two.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
------------
So which part is the lie, your latest post or your claim to being a deacon?
"Eucharistic Miracle" is an oxymoron. If you need bleeding hosts to believe in the Real Presence, who's the one without belief?
BTW, the-pope.com IS a sede-vacantist website, linked to directly from the homepage of Apologia.
Here's a little teaser:
Our Spiritual Director, Father Mazzarella, said Daily Mass. When we finished, he opened the Tabernacle door, which contained the Bleeding Host. The Host was in flames, bleeding, and there was a pulsating heart bleeding in the center of the Host. I watched this for about 30 seconds or so, then the Host returned to normal. HOWEVER, I did manage to film this miracle with my camcorder!
Great. You've said it twice now, once on this thread. Now answer my question which you have so far dodged. What was the lie, your claim you've never said this or your claim to being a deacon?
Why do you resort to silly little personal attacks?
Abbe de Nantes - "One is dumbfounded by this torrent of shameless lies, concluded by an incredible declaration of the disastrous Second Vatican Council."
Catena Aurea by St. Thomas Aquinas
1. When the morning was come, all the Chief Priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:
2. And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.
Jerome: Observe the evil zeal of the Chief Priests; they watched the whole night with a view to this murder. And they gave Him up to Pilate bound, for such was their practice to send bound to the judge any whom they had sentenced to death.
Chrys., Hom. lxxxiv: They did not put Him to death in secret, because they sought to destroy His reputation, and the wonder with which He was regarded by many. For this reason they were minded to put Him to death openly before all, and therefore they led Him to the governor.
6. And the Chief Priests took the silver pieces, and said, "It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood."
Chrys.: The Chief Priests knowing that they had purchased a murder were condemned by their own conscience; they said, "It is the price of blood."
Jerome: Truly straining out the gnat, and swallowing the camel; for if they would not put the money into the treasury, because it was the price of blood, why did they shed the blood at all?
11. And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, "Art thou the King of the Jews?" And Jesus said unto him, "Thou sayest."
12. And when he was accused of the Chief Priests and elders, he answered nothing.
13. Then said Pilate unto him, "Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee?
14. And he answered him to never a word; insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly.
Jerome: But observe, that to Pilate who asked the question unwillingly He did answer somewhat; but to the Chief Priests and Priests He refused to answer, judging them unworthy of a word; "And when he was accused by the Chief Priests and Elders he answered nothing."
"Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee?"
Jerome: Thus though it is a Gentile who sentences Jesus, he lays the cause of His condemnation upon the Jews.
Chrys.: He said this out of a wish to release Him, if He should justify Himself in His answer. But the Jews, though they had so many practical proofs of His power, His meekness and humbleness, were yet enraged against Him, and urged on by a perverted judgment. Wherefore He answers nothing, or if He makes any [p. 939] answer He says little, that total silence might not be construed into obstinacy.
15. Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would.
16. And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.
17. Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, "Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?"
18. For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.
19. When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, "Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him."
20. But the Chief Priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.
21. The governor answered and said unto them, "Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you?" They said, "Barabbas."
22. Pilate saith unto them, "What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?" They all say unto him, "Let him be crucified."
23. And the governor said, "Why, what evil bath [p. 940] he done?" But they cried out the more, saying, "Let him be crucified."
24. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, "I am innocent of the blood of this just person; see ye to it."
25. Then answered all the people, and said, "His blood be on us, and on our children."
26. Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.
Chrys.: And he sought to rescue Christ by means of this practice, that the Jews might not have the shadow of an excuse left them. A convicted murderer is put in comparison with Christ, Barabbas, whom he calls not merely a robber, but a notable one, that is, renowned for crime.
Jerome: In the Gospel entitled 'according to the Hebrews,' Barabbas is interpreted, 'The son of their master,' who had been condemned for sedition and murder. Pilate gives them the choice between Jesus and the robber, not doubting but that Jesus would be the rather chosen.
Chrys.: "Whom will ye that I release unto you?" &c. As much as to say, If ye will not let Him go as innocent, at least, yield Him, as convicted, to this holy day. For if you would have released one of whose guilt there was no doubt, much more should you do so in doubtful cases. Observe how circumstances are reversed. It is the populace who are wont to petition. [p. 941] for the condemned, and the prince to grant, but here it is the reverse, the prince asks of the people, and renders them thereby more violent.
Chrys.: Then is added something else which alone was enough to deter all from putting Him to death; "When he was set on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man." For joined with the proof afforded by the events themselves, a dream was no light confirmation.
Raban.: It is to be noted, that the bench (tribunal) is the seat of the judge, the throne (solium) of the king, the chair (cathedra) of the master. In visions and dreams the wife of a Gentile understood what the Jews when awake would neither believe nor understand.
Jerome: Observe also that visions are often vouchsafed by God to the Gentiles, and that the confession of Pilate and his wife that the Lord was innocent is a testimony of the Gentile people.
Chrys.: But why did Pilate himself not see this vision? Because his wife was more worthy; or because if Pilate had seen it, he would not have had equal credit, or perhaps would not have told it; wherefore it is provided by God that his wife should see it, and thus it be made manifest to all. And she not merely sees it, but "suffers many things because of him," so that sympathy with his wife would make the husband more slack to put Him to death. And the time agreed well, for it was the same night that she saw it.
Chrys., Hom. iii, in Caen. Dom.: Thus then the judge terrified through his wife, and that he might not consent in the judgment to the accusation of the Jews, himself endured judgment in the affliction of his wife; the judge is judged, and tortured before he tortures.
Chrys.: But none of the foregoing things moved Christ's enemies, because envy had altogether blinded them, and of their own wickedness they corrupt the people, for they "persuaded the people that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus."
Origen: Thus it is plainly seen how the Jewish people is moved by its elders and the doctors of the Jewish system, and stirred up against Jesus to destroy Him.
Origen: But the populace, like wild beasts that rage the open plains, would have Barabbas released to them. For this people had seditions, murders, robberies, practised by some of their own nation in act, and nourished by all of them who believe not in Jesus, inwardly in their mind. Where Jesus is not, there are strifes and fightings; where He is, there is peace and all good things. All those who are like the Jews either in doctrine or life desire Barabbas to be loosed to them; for whoso does evil, Barabbas is loosed in his body, and Jesus bound; but he that does good has Christ loosed, and Barabbas bound.
Pilate sought to strike them with shame for so great injustice, "What shall I do then with Jesus that is called Christ?" And not that only, but desiring to fill up the measure of their guilt. But neither do they blush that Pilate confessed Jesus to be the Christ, nor set any bounds to their impiety, They all say unto him, "Let him be crucified." Thus they multiplied the sum of their wickedness, not only asking the life of a murderer, but the death of a righteous man, and that the shameful death of the cross.
Jerome: Yet even after this answer of theirs, Pilate did not at once assent, but in accordance with his wife's suggestion, "Have thou nothing to do with that just man," he answered, "Why, what evil hath he done?" This speech of Pilate's acquits Jesus. "But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified;" that it might be fulfilled which is said in the Psalm, "Many dogs have compassed me, the congregation of the wicked hath inclosed me;" [Ps 22:16] and also that of Hieremias, "Mine heritage is unto me as a lion in the forest, they have given forth their voice against me." [Jer 12:8]
Aug., de Cons. Ev., iii, 8: Pilate many times pleaded with the Jews, desiring that Jesus might be released, which Matthew witnesses in very few words, when he says, "Pilate seeing that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made." He would not have spoken thus, if Pilate had not striven much, though how many efforts he made to release Jesus he does not mention.
Remig.: It was customary among the ancients, when one would refuse to participate in any crime, to take water and wash his hands before the people.
Jerome: Pilate took water in accordance with that, "I Will wash my hands in innocency," [Ps 26:6] in a manner testifying and saying, I indeed have sought to deliver this innocent man, but since a tumult is rising, and the charge of treason to Caesar is urged against me, I am innocent of the blood of this just man. The judge then who is thus compelled to give sentence against the Lord, does not convict the accused, but the accusers, pronouncing innocent Him who is to be crucified.
"See ye to it," as though be had said, I am the law's minister, it is your voice that has shed this blood. Then answered all the people and said, "His blood be on us and on our children." This imprecation rests at the present day upon the Jews, the Lord's blood is not removed from them.
Chrys.: Observe here the infatuation of the Jews; their headlong haste, and destructive passions will not let them see what they ought to see, and they curse themselves, saying, "His blood be upon us," and even entail the curse upon their children. Yet a merciful God did not ratify this sentence, but accepted such of them and of their children as repented; for Paul was of them, and many thousands of those who in Jerusalem believed.
Leo, Serm., 59, 2: The impiety of the Jews then [p. 944] exceeded the fault of Pilate; but he was not guiltless, seeing he resigned his own jurisdiction, and acquiesced in the injustice of others.
Jerome: This was done that we might be delivered from those stripes of which it is said, "Many stripes shall be to the wicked." [Ps 32:10] Also in the washing of Pilate's hands all the works of the Gentiles are cleansed, and we are acquitted of all share in the impiety of the Jews.
Hilary: At the desire of the Priests the populace chose Barabbas, which is interpreted 'the son of a Father,' thus shadowing forth the unbelief to come when Antichrist the son of sin should be preferred to Christ.
Raban.: Barabbas also, who headed a sedition among the people, is released to the Jews, that is the Devil, who to this day reigns among them, so that they cannot have peace.
30. And they spit upon him, and took the reed and smote him on the head.
Raban.: They smite the head of Christ with a reed, who speak against His divinity, and endeavour to maintain their error by the authority of Holy Scripture, which is written by a reed.
38. Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.
Leo, Serm. 55, 1: "Two thieves were crucified with him, one on the right hand and one on the left," that in the figure of His cross might be represented that separation of all mankind which shall be made in His judgment. The Passion then of Christ contains a sacrament of our salvation, and of that instrument which the wickedness of the Jews provided for His punishment, the power of the Redeemer made a step [p. 952] to glory.
Hilary: Or otherwise; Two thieves are set up on His right and left hand, to signify that the entire human race is called to the Sacrament of the Lord's Passion; but because there shall be a division of believers to the right, and unbelievers to the left, one of the two who is set on His right hand is saved by the justification of faith.
39. And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their beads,
40. And saying, "Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross."
42. "He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
43. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.
Chrys.: Having stripped and crucified Christ, they go yet further, and seeing Him on the cross revile Him.
Jerome: "They revile him" because they passed by that way, and would not walk in the true way of the Scriptures. "They wagged their heads," because they had just before shifted their feet, and stood not upon a rock. The foolish rabble cast the same taunt against Him that the false witnesses had invented, "Aha! thou that destroyest the temple of God and rebuildest it in three days."
Hilary: What forgiveness then for them, when by the resurrection of His body they shall see the temple of God rebuilt within three days?
Chrys.: And as beginning to extenuate His former miracles, they add, "Save thyself; if thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross."
Jerome: Even the Scribes and Pharisees reluctantly confess that "He saved others." Your own judgment then condemns you, for in that He saved others, He could if He would have saved Himself.
Pseudo-Chrys.: [ed. note, d: Hom. de Cruce et Latr. in the Latin Chrys. (ed. Paris. 1588.) vol. iii. p. 750]
But attend to this speech of these children of the Devil, how they imitate their father's speech. The Devil said, "If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down;" [Matt 4:6] and they say now, "If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross."
Leo, Serm. 55, 2: From what source of error, O Jews, have ye sucked in the poison of such blasphemies? What teacher delivered it to you? What learning moved you to think that the true King of Israel, that the veritable Son of God, would be He who would not suffer Himself to be crucified, and would set free His body from the fastenings of the nails? Not the bidden meaning of the Law, not the mouths of the Prophets. Had ye indeed ever read, "I hid not my face from the shame of spitting;" [Is 50:6] or that again, :They pierced my hands and my feet, they told all my bones." [Ps 22:16] Where have ye ever read that the Lord came down from the cross? But ye have read, "The Lord hath reigned from the tree." [ed. note, e: Ps. 96, 10. 'Dominus regnavit a ligno,' in the old Italic Version; and so Tertullian adv. Marc. iii. The Vulg. follows the Heb.]
Jerome: But unworthy of credit is that promise, "And we will believe him." For which is greater, to come down while yet alive from the cross, or to rise from the tomb when dead? Yet this He did, and ye believed not; therefore neither would ye have believed if He had come down from the cross. It seems to me that this was a suggestion of the daemons. For immediately [p. 954] when the Lord was crucified they felt the power of the cross, and perceived that their strength was broken, and therefore contrive this to move Him to come down from the cross. But the Lord, aware of the designs of His foes, remains on the cross that He may destroy the Devil.
62. Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the Chief Priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
63. Saying, "Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
64. Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
65 Pilate said unto them, "Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can."
66 So they went and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.
Jerome: It was not enough for the Chief Priests to have crucified the Lord the Saviour, if they did not guard the sepulchre, and do their utmost to lay hands on Him as He rose from the dead.
Raban.: "Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day." For Christ's disciples were spiritually thieves; stealing from the unthankful Jews the writings of the New and Old Testament, they bestowed them to be used by the Church; and while they slept, that is, while the Jews were sunk in the lethargy of unbelief, they carried off the promised Saviour, and gave Him to be believed on by the Gentiles.
Chrys.: Pilate will not suffer that the soldiers alone should seal. But as though he had learnt the truth concerning Christ, he was no longer willing to be partner in their acts, and says, Seal it as ye will yourselves, that ye may not be able to accuse others. For had the soldiers alone sealed, they might have said that the soldiers had suffered the disciples to steal the body, and so given the disciples a handle to forge a tale concerning the resurrection; but this could they not say now, when they themselves had sealed the sepulchre.
The lie was your saying, two weeks ago, that I ridiculed those who were trying to save Terri Schiavo, when, in fact, I was defending Jeb Bush's efforts.
That was the lie.
However, this is now the fifth thread on to which you have carried this little personal vendetta. You have been warned to stop. Your continued efforts to do this get threads pulled and I'm not going to aid you in this regard.
Continue to post away but I won't be taking the bait.
Yes. They were pulled at your request after I asked you to explain why you were lying about me.
And this "vendetta" is an attempt to call you on a lie, which you will not acknowledge nor apologize for.
Muslims do NOT worhip the same God as Christians, and though the Pope claims their link to Abraham means we have the same God, Jesus Christ condemns this proposition, (John 8: 37 -44).
I always enjoy how you Vatican II-fers like to play with words, such as "let us look at what unites us rather than at what divides us". As though something can be both united and divided at the same time. What rubbish! This is a hollow play on words that should be confined to the politicians and embassadors who seek to make political pacts between their respective nations. But it can only serve to undermine religion, which is the seeking of Truth.
When you have multiple and extreme theological factors that divide two faiths, there is nothing that unifies them, nor is there any 'common ground' for the two to stand on. Error is not a unifying element, and a few apparent surface similarities do not bridge the theological divide. The faiths are either united in the wholeness of Truth or totally divided, because truth evaporates as soon as the smallest error is mingled with it. United or divided, one or the other. Truth is absolute or it is not truth. Even a single heresy separates one from God, but apostacy creates a cavernous divide.
There exists no other term to define the relationship between two different faiths, you are united in truth or divided. 'Things' can be weakly or loosely united, but divided means divided, separate, apart, severed, torn asunder, detached.
To put it even more simply, if the way to salvation is North, then going NorthEast will still lead you to hell, even though you could claim there was the commonality of "North" in both sets of directions.
The Catholic faith is hopelessly divided in faith from Islam. Nothing can unite the two because one represents Truth, the other error. Jesus went out of His way many times to make this clear; for example, though He agreed that the Pharisees were indeed the descendents of Abraham, He none the less told them God was not their father:
(1). "I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you.--- They answered him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do what Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this is not what Abraham did.--- They said to him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God." Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; ---You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires". (John 8: 37-44)
(2). "He that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathers not with Me, scatters". (Mathew 12:30)
(3). "A house divided against itself cannot stand". (Mathew 12:25)
(4). "Is Christ divided"? (I Corinthians 1:13).
Muslims worship a totally false god, an idol which was created by Mohammed. They detest Christians and Jews. Even their heavenly reward consists of filthy carnal pleasures with fleshy 'virgins'. It is utterly unfathomable to me that any Catholic could ever believe that Mohammedism, (which says that Jesus was just man who died and remained dead, and which orders them to convert or kill Christians and Jews), can be from God. That "religion" is straight from the sulphuric bowels of Hell.
Since all worship of God is limited and bound by our understanding of Him, it is a literal impossibility for two different understandings of God to lead to the same God. You are being led by the egregious assumption that God will reveal Himself in a certain way to some, and in a different way to others. Or that Muslims may somehow worship the right God while holding a false understanding of who He is. Strange thinking.
"Jesus Christ is the SAME, yesterday, today, and forever". (Hebrews 13:8)
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.