Don't forget tree huggers.
Posted on 07/19/2004 8:29:56 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
CARDINAL TAURAN: WARFARE DOES NOT PREVENT REFLECTION
DOHA (QATAR) MAY 27, 2004 (VIS) - Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, librarian and archivist of Holy Roman Church and former Secretary for Relations with States, was one of the principal speakers this morning at the first public session of the Qatar Conference on Muslim-Christian Dialogue, being held in the capital of Doha from May 27 to 29. The conference was organized by the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with Muslims and the Gulf Studies Center of Qatar University.
Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, president of the Pontifical Commission, addressed words of welcome to the invited guests. Other speakers this morning included Sheikh Abdullah Bin Khalifa Al-Thani, foreign minister of Qatar, Sheikh Mohammad Sayed Tantawi, Grand Iman of al-Azhar, His Holiness Anba Pope Shenouda III, Youssef Al-Qaradawi of the University of Qatar and Hamid Bin Ahmad Al-Rifaie, president of the International Islamic Forum for Dialogue.
Cardinal Tauran, in his address in English, called the Qatar meeting "an eloquent witness to fraternity. The sound of warfare, which is heard not far from us, will not prevent us from reflecting upon our responsibilities as believers, or from addressing a message of friendship to all those willing to accept it. Our meeting is first of all a meeting of believers. Since we acknowledge that we are children of the same God, we can accept our differences and together devote ourselves to the service of society, with respect for justice, moral values and peace."
He went on to say that the meeting is "also a dialogue between believers belonging to two different religions. In order to avoid any syncretism or caricature of others, it is important that each person remain loyal to his or her own faith." He quoted Pope John Paul II who on numerous occasions has highlighted the many things that Muslims and Christians have in common as "worshippers of God" and "seekers of God" and "believers in the same God. . The Catholic Church regards with respect and recognizes . the richness of your spiritual tradition. We Christians, too, are proud of our religious tradition."
Cardinal Tauran stated that "for this reason, freedom of conscience and of religion is important, even absolutely necessary. . Religious freedom respects at the same time both God and man! It is absolute and reciprocal. It extends beyond the individual to the community; it has both a civil and social dimension.. Religious freedom thus understood and lived out can become a powerful factor for building peace." He said that believers promote justice, human dignity, and peace and solidarity among peoples.
"Political leaders have nothing to fear from true believers," he said. "Authentic believers are also the best antidote to all forms of fanaticism, because they know that preventing their brothers and sisters from practicing their religion, discriminating against a follower of a religion other than one's own, or worse still, killing in the name of religion, are abominations that offend God and which no cause or authority, be it political or religious, can ever justify.
Cardinal Tauran highlighted the need "to initiate a dialogue of trust between civil and religious authorities, so that the rights and the obligations of believers and their communities will be firmly established and guaranteed, with particular respect for the principle of reciprocity. . One cannot claim to obtain one's legitimate rights and freedoms by tramping upon those of others!
"Here in Doha," he concluded, "all of us can, indeed we must, do our part in paving the way of fraternity and peace!"
He (Cardinal Tauran) went on to say that the meeting is "also a dialogue between believers belonging to two different religions. In order to avoid any syncretism or caricature of others, it is important that each person remain loyal to his or her own faith."
Ecumenical ping
God Himself has made known to mankind the way in which men are to serve Him, and thus be saved in Christ and come to blessedness. We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men ... On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it. ("Dignitatis Humanae", 1)
He (Cardinal Tauran) went on to say that the meeting is "also a dialogue between believers belonging to two different religions. In order to avoid any syncretism or caricature of others, it is important that each person remain loyal to his or her own faith."
You left out the part that says, "Unless they happen to be traditional Catholics. In which case we reserve the right to excommunicate and excoriate them."
POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 7, 1965
Your hero, not mine.
"it is important that each person remain loyal to his or her own faith"
Statements like this prove once again that in the new religion of Vatican 2, conversion to the one, true Faith has given way to "unity in diversity, appreciating our different faith traditions, building a civilization of love, peace and vegetable rights" etc etc - except of course if you want daily access to the traditional Latin Mass and Sacraments.
"Spirit" of Vatican II. See post #3.
What other churches, mosques and temples does "this one true religion" subsist in? Those of the the Hindus, Buddhists, Protestants, Muslims, Jews and Protestants?
See post #8.
It's not even a religion anymore. Man comes before God. It's a social club.
Don't forget tree huggers.
The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,[Cf. Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum 18; Pius XII AAS 1953,799.] (John Paul II, Catechism 2108)
Error: Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.
God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him ... (Ad gentes 8)
The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels
To reconcile the axiom "Outside the Church, no salvation", with the doctrine of the possible salvation of those who remain ignorant of the Church in all good faith, there is no need to manufacture any new theory. All we have to do is to apply to the Church the traditional distinction made in connection with the necessity of Baptism, the door by which the Church is entered. To the question: Can anybody be saved without Baptism? St. Thomas, who here draws on the thought of St. Ambrose, replies that those who lack Baptism re et voto, that is to say who neither are nor want to be baptized, cannot come to salvation, "since they are neither sacramentally nor mentally incorporated into Christ, by whom alone is salvation". But those who lack Baptism re, sed non voto, that is to say "who desire Baptism, but are accidentally overtaken by death before receiving it, can be saved without actual Baptism, in virtue of their desire for Baptism, coming from a faith that works by charity, by which God, whose power is not circumscribed by visible sacraments, sanctifies man interiorly".[85] Conformably with this distinction we shall say that the axiom "No salvation outside the Church" is true of those who do not belong to the Church, which in herself is visible, either visibly (corporaliter) or even invisibly, either by the sacraments (sacramentaliter) or even in spirit (mentaliter); either fully (re) or even by desire (voto); either in accomplished act or even in virtual act.[86] The axiom does not concern the just who, without yet belonging to the Church visibly, in accomplished act (re), do so invisibly, in virtual act, in spirit, by desire (mentaliter, voto), that is to say in virtue of the supernatural righteousness of their lives, even while, through insurmountable ignorance, they know nothing of the sanctity, or even of the existence, of the Church.[87]85 III, q. 68, a. 2
86 Speaking of the way in which one can be deprived of Baptism, St. Thomas opposes the terms re and voto; cf. III, q. 68, a. 2. Speaking of the way in which one can be incorporated in Christ, he opposes the words sacramentaliter and mentaliter (ibid.) or corporaliter and mentaliter: "Adulti prius credentes in Christum sunt ei incorporati mentaliter; sed postmodum, cum baptizantur, incorporantur ei quodammodo corporaliter, scilicet per visibile sacramentum, sine cujus proposito nec mentaliter incorporari potuissent" (III, q. 69, a. 5, ad. 1
87 It is in fact to these distinctions made by St. Thomas in connection with the necessity of Baptism that St. Robert Bellarmine and later theologians have recourse to explain the axiom "outside the Church, no salvation", St. Robert Bellarmine, speaking of catechumens, begins by saying that they are of the Church, not "actu et proprie, sed tantum in potentia, quomodo homo conceptus sed nondum formatus et natus non dicitur homo nisi in potentia", and it is easy to see from this example—borrowed, he believes, from St. Augustine—that the in potentia of St. Robert Bellarmine is equivalent to what we have called a virtual act: the man already conceived but not brought forth, although not man in accomplished act, is man in act begun. St. Robert continues: "Quod dicitur: Extra Ecclesiam neminem salvari, intelligi debet de iis qui neque re ipsa, nec desiderio sunt de Ecclesia, sicut de baptismo communiter loquuntur theologi. Quoniam autem catechumeni, si non re, saltem voto sunt in Ecclesia, ideo salvari possunt" (De Ecclesia Militante, lib. III, cap. 3) Suarez has the same doctrine: "Melius ergo respondendum juxta distinctionem datam de necesitate in re vel in voto ita enim nemo salvari potest, nisi hanc Christi Ecclesiam vel in re, vel in voto saltem et desiderio ingrediatur" (De Fide disp. 12, sect. 4, no. 22) Billuart notes that catechumens "non sunt re et proprie in Ecclesia"; yet when they have charity, they are in the Church proxime et in voto as if one should say that a man under the porch was already in the house, they belong to the Church "inchoative et ut aspirantes.... et ideo salvari possunt. Nec obstat quod extra Ecclesiam non sit salus; id namque intelligitur de eo qui nec re, nec in voto est in Ecclesia" (De Regulis Fidei, dissert. 3, a. 2, 3) See on this point E. Dublanchy, art. "Eglise", Dict. de theol. cathol., cols. 2163-2165
What is to be gained by substituting some new explanation of the axiom: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus for this traditional exegesis? "The result is that the apologists are out of accord with the theologians and deviate from the traditional teaching. When it is introduced simply as it stands into the formula 'outside the Church, no salvation" the distinction between the body and soul of the Church might easily falsify its meaning.... When the Fathers and the Councils made use of this formula, they did so to convey that all who would be saved must not only belong to the soul of the Church but must enter the external communion. It was without any detriment to the truth of the formula that the theologians reconciled it with the universality of grace and the universal possibility of salvation. They distinguished, like their predecessors, a real adhesion and an implicit adhesion to the visible Church" (L. Caperan, Le probleme du salut des infideles, essai historique, vol. I, p. 477) Happily, not all the apologists are here incriminated. In his 36th conference at Notre Dame de Paris, for example, Pere de Ravignan made admirably clear that the dogma "outside the Church, no salvation" condemns those who live in "voluntary and culpable error", but not those who have at least "The implicit aspiration and desire for the Church and for Baptism"
In his very stimulating book on the Church A. D. Sertillanges, O. P., more perspicacious than the apologists here criticised, clearly sees what is in fact obvious to every Thomist, that the soul and body of the Church must be coextensive, but to reconcile this truth with the doctrine of the possible salvation of those in Invincible ignorance of the Church, he looks in a direction which seems at first sight contrary to that followed here. He does not reduce the soul of the Church to the dimensions of its normal body by the distinction between grace simply sanctifying, which certainly overflows this normal body, and the sanctifying grace that comes of the sacramental power and is ruled by the jurisdictional power, which is the very soul of the Church, conformed to her normal body. On the contrary he leaves the expression "soul of the Church" an undifferentiated and universal significance, and enlarges the concept of the body of the Church so as to make it universal like the soul. "In the measure in which these organizations [pagan religions] favoured not vice and error as they did too often, but virtue and true religious feeling, they were, through God and His Christ, salutary; they were so to speak occasional uncovenanted supports for the universal soul of the Church." And again: "Just as the soul of our Catholic Church envelops all souls that belong to God no matter where they live, so does her body envelop as extrinsic dependencies, all other religious forms [dissident religions are here meant] which in themselves are her antagonists, but also partially, and n the way I have just described, her servants" (L'Eglise, 1917, vol. II, pp. 112 and 119. My italics) These views should surely be made more precise. What has to be determined is this: what is there of the soul of the Church outside the Church, and what is there of the body of the Church outside the Church? (Charles Cardinal Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate Ch. 1, III, 3)
Now inasmuch as the idea or form, known as the "Church of Christ", the Mystical Body, is distinct from a substantial reality, one cannot use this similar term (substo) and say that the form of the Church substat in Ecclesia catholica; since properly speaking a substance alone substat. And so, just as one says that the human person subsists in a human being [15]; so one says that the Church of Christ subsistit in (subsists in) the Catholic Church.Hence there is no reason derived from the official texts themselves to warrant any misunderstanding of this term in of itself, despite what modernists after the Council may claim.[16]
15 The human person is the real, substantial, individual thing (considered as individual) constituted by the union of soul and body at conception as a human being. Not every human being is a human person (e.g. Christ, though a human being, according to His Humanity, is a Divine Person according to His individual idenity); every human person is destroyed by the disjunction of soul and body, for in this the human being is also destroyed. In technical philosophic terminology "to exist" signifies only the act of real being, whereas "to subsist" signifies the act of real being as circumscribed by another. For this reason it would not be proper to speak of the human soul as "subsisting in" the human person, since the human person, though constituted as an individual substance by both soul and body, nevertheless can cease to exist without this imparing the existence of its human soul. The human soul has existence in the human person; but not subsistance in virtue of it; it has subsistance in virtue of its own immortal being. It is for this reason that the statement "The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church" excludes the possibility of the existence of "The Church of Christ" outside the Catholic Church in any manner except in that circumscribed by the metaphysical term "accident," which excludes real, substantial, individual being. Hence it is that Lumen gentium speaks of "ecclesial," since what is outside the True Church is only "church-like". This distinction is often repeated in post-conciliar documents, and represents a careful, terminological re-affirmation of the unicity of the Mystical Body, the Catholic Church.
16 H.E. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in a book condemning Leonardo Boff wrote: "....In order to justify it, L. Boff appeals to the constitution Lumen Gentium n.8 of the Second Vatican Council. From the Council's famous statement, Haec ecclesia (sc. unica Christi ecclesia) Catholica subsistit in ecclesia Catholica ( This Church---namely the sole Church of Christ---subsists in the Catholic Church) he derives a thesis which is exactly contrary to the authentic meaning of the council text, for he affirms: 'In fact it (sc. the sole Church of Christ) may also be present in other Christian churches' (p.75). But the Council had chosen the word subsitit--subsists--exactly in order to make it clear that the one sole 'subsistence' of the true Church exists, whereas outside her visible structure only 'elementae ecclesia'--elements of the Church exist: these being elements of the same Church tend and conduct toward the Catholic Church (Lumen gentium 8). The decree on ecumenism expressed the same doctrine (Unitatis redintegratio 3,4) and it was restated in Mysterium Ecclesiae." (U.S. Catholic Conference Documentary Service, April 4, 1985, Vol. 14, No. 42, pp 685, 686). Cf. also the next footnote in this essay. (Br. Alexis Bugnolo, "The History and Significance of 'Subsistit in'")
Realize that in posting nothing of my own words but only the words of the Church, that your response is directed to the Church.
No, my response is directed to you, if you misunderstand those citations - I suppose you are attacking the Declaration on Religious Liberty, since that's all I posted in this thread before you.
Of course. I accept all those statements, according to the sense in which the Holy Church has understood and understands them.
Right - I was criticizing the Cardinal by pointing out that the declaration on religious liberty (to which doctrine he refers), condemns his foolish idea "it is important that each person remain loyal to his or her own faith".
bookmark
Yes, a doctrine concerning civil immunity so long as the religious activities do not threaten the rights of citizens, the public morality, or a genuine public peace - that is, so long as the common good is not threatened. A determination of this is to be based on the objective moral order as interpreted by the Church (DH 7), since the state is to have the Catholic Church of Christ as her established religion (DH 1).
Of course, almost all false religions threaten public morality. And this right to be tolerated applies only to monotheistic religions - polytheists have no rights at all under the Declaration: "Provided the just demands of public order [common good] are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may ... honor the Supreme Being in public worship" (DH 4).
In no way does the Declaration repeal the traditional doctrine that "that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated".
Yes, a doctrine taught by the supreme magisterium of the Church, which "ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council" (Nota Praevia).
Please state the exact doctrine, or rather, please show the exact document which declares the doctrine to which you are referring? Thanks.
2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.
7. The right to religious freedom is exercised in human society: hence its exercise is subject to certain regulatory norms. In the use of all freedoms the moral principle of personal and social responsibility is to be observed. In the exercise of their rights, individual men and social groups are bound by the moral law to have respect both for the rights of others and for their own duties toward others and for the common welfare of all. Men are to deal with their fellows in justice and civility.
Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order. These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality.
These matters constitute the basic component of the common welfare: they are what is meant by public order. For the rest, the usages of society are to be the usages of freedom in their full range: that is, the freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary.
Ping. Using classical Thomism against "traditionalists," so-called.
Ping.
Ping.
Ping.
Didn't you said you did your Masters' thesis on religious liberty, Mershon?
Didn't you say you did your Masters' thesis on religious liberty, Mershon?
Specifically, the title was the following:
"Dignitatis Humanae & Vatican II Reaffirm the Traditional Teaching of Christ’s Kingship Over Hearts, Minds and Wills, Families and Societies"
65 pages, with 60-plus sources, mostly original (encyclicals, councils and Scripture), heavily footnoted with authoritative Church documents from pre-Vatican II, Vatican II, and post-Vatican II, showing the harmonization. Thesis was accepted and approved by Holy Apostles College and Seminary. Am awaiting word on a "nihil obstat" and "imprimatur" for possible publishing consideration.
You are doing a fine job in your defense. 65 pages is a little bit long to post here.
According to the common opinion of theologians, and apparently, the Vatican, the teaching on religious liberty, in the limited and restricted sense in which the Council Fathers and magisterium after Vatican II teaches it, is most likely a level 3 or level 4 teaching. It is at the least part of the "authentic" magisterium, issued in a solemn ecumenical council. Or it is a development (NOT a contradiction: Any trads OR modernists who interpret it as a contradiction of the previous, continuous ordinary magisterial teaching are both in error, and is a teaching of the ordinary magisterium. In either case (level 3 or 4), it is owed the "religious respect of mind and will" referenced in Lumen Gentium due to all teachings of the living or ordinary magisterium. Levels 1 and 2 are believed to be infallible teachings. Just because DH is not necessarily infallible, does not mean Catholics may freely disregard it or call the ideas of its texts into question. "Religious assent (respect) of mind and will" means exactly what it says.
Let's keep a focus on the Cardinal's brand of ecumenism. I'd be willing to be sidetracked eventually, but just for now...
As a traditional Catholic myself, I am the first one to have a sensitive side toward the false ecumenism of priests, bishops, cardinals and the pope.
However, let's keep this in mind. First, dialogue with Muslims is NOT ecumenism--as that is reserved for non-Catholic Christians, and for some reason, the Jews. Second, if the Catholic Church is going to have any "liberty" at all to teach in non-Catholic countries, it had better continue to "beat the drum" for religious liberty, even if the real meaning is limited to allowing teaching the Catholic Faith. Without at least a "civil right" to religious liberty, the Church will cease to be allowed to teach in Israel and in newly-formed Islamic governments, which will happen increasingly in yours and my lifetime. This "right," properly understood (which is NOT the same meaning of religious liberty or religious freedom that is condemned in the 19th and early 20th centuries), is solely for allowing the truth to be promulgated in hostile nations. In fact, DH itself, states within the first few paragraphs that "the traditional teaching on religious liberty" is to be maintained. So anyone (liberal or traddie) who reads the document without the traditional understanding in mind, is not reading it according to the mind of the Church.
I see very little wrong with anything Cardinal Tauran said in this address. How are we going to win any adherents or favorable ears in the Muslim world without these sorts of symposiums? Perhaps he should just go and state Unam Sanctam, ask them to repent and convert, and then turn around and walk out? I'm sure that will accomplish a lot toward calming flames of Islam. I'm not certain these methods will do a whole lot of good, but we can always speculate that whatever happens in the class of civilizations in the future, it could have gotten worse faster without these sort of "reflections" and "dialogues."
Since you responded to one point of my post, I will assume the rest of it was not objectionable.
Of course, prayer and fasting are part of the mix--and are the most important part. And do you know the good Cardinal does not do this?
I agree with you that prayer and fasting are the most important. Maybe we can get them to do a news article on that??? Then you can post it?
It took you you 65 pages to "prove" "harmonization" of Dignitatis Humanae with traditional teaching? That's a red flag right there. And you had to rely on Vatican II and post-Vatican II documents? That's like asking the fox who ate the chickens.
By the way, I'm not surprised that Holy Apostles College and Seminary accepted and approved your thesis. Some of their summer courses this year:
STD 703 - Mariology This course will focus on the various dogmas surrounding Mary, including ever virgin, Mother of God, and free from sin. Some time will be given to new proposed dogmas, as well as Christological errors which create confusion regarding Marian dogmas. Apparitions may also be discussed. Fr. Joseph Olczak Tues. & Thurs. 1:30 - 4:15 p.m.
STM 635A - John Paul II's Theology of the Body This course examines John Paul II's Theology of the Body in detail and makes applications of his insights to a variety of contemporary issues including same-sex marriage, traditional marriage, contraception, abortion, and nature of the human being. The text is The Integral Person in a Fractured World by Dr. Donald DeMarco. This course will run for four weeks only. Dr. Donald DeMarco Mon. Wed. Thur. 6:30 - 9:15 p.m.
Mary, Mediatrix of all graces, Co-Redemptrix, and Advocate. Quite simply, a dogmatic definition of this:
Yet, since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Jesus Christ, and has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption, she merits for us de congruo, in the language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us de condigno, and she is the supreme Minister of the distribution of graces. Jesus "sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high" (Hebrews i. b.). Mary sitteth at the right hand of her Son - a refuge so secure and a help so trusty against all dangers that we have nothing to fear or to despair of under her guidance, her patronage, her protection. (St. Pius X, Ad Diem Illum 14)
same-sex marriage, traditional marriage, contraception, abortion, and nature of the human being
So explaining why contraception is sinful is a bad thing? Those with a Masters' in theology should be ignorant of Catholic teaching on "same-sex marriage, traditional marriage, contraception, [and] abortion"?
against forced conversions, which reaffirms Leo XIII's teaching in Libertas and the continuous ordinary magisterial teaching. Also, it affirms the right of the Catholic Church to promulgate its doctrine in any government, as well as securing the right for individuals NOT to be coerced against their will to accept any religion. There is also a teaching on "civil rights" of religious liberty, but I would not say this is above level 4 teaching at best. It also may be a practical decision based on the "signs of the times" to allow the Catholic Church to teach anywhere and everywhere.
Irishman note:
Ping to GBCDOJ on his post explaining how "subsists" is more narrow and more specific than "is" per Cardinal Ratzinger.
Ping.
It took you you 65 pages to "prove" "harmonization" of Dignitatis Humanae with traditional teaching?
BCM: Since patience is a virtue, I will be patient with, and instruct the ignorant, one of the spiritual works of mercy. Since most thesis are at least 50 pages, this would not be unusual. Why, was your theology master's a lot fewer pages than this? Would this be the mark of a good degree program to allow fewer pages for a thesis or not to have one at all?
That's a red flag right there.
For the uninformed.
And you had to rely on Vatican II and post-Vatican II documents?
Read the entire text again three times. I showed the harmonization between the teachings of Vatican II, esp. LG and DH, with the post-Vatican II interpretations (found in JPII encyclicals, Ratzinger's theological note to politicians, Fr. Brian Harrison, Fr. William Most and the Catechism, which has a lucid explanation and tightens up the misunderstandings nicely. Try reading it.
However, probably 60 percent of the thesis showed exactly what the pre-Vatican II teaching, which DH says it affirms, was. So more than 60 percent of my paper dealt with encyclicals, catechisms and theologically sound writings from the 1800s on. Not that I owe you an explanation, but I am practicing the virtue of patience.
By the way, I'm not surprised that Holy Apostles College and Seminary accepted and approved your thesis. Some of their summer courses this year:
STD 703 - Mariology This course will focus on the various dogmas surrounding Mary, including ever virgin, Mother of God, and free from sin. Some time will be given to new proposed dogmas, as well as Christological errors which create confusion regarding Marian dogmas. Apparitions may also be discussed. Fr. Joseph Olczak Tues. & Thurs. 1:30 - 4:15 p.m.
STM 635A - John Paul II's Theology of the Body This course examines John Paul II's Theology of the Body in detail and makes applications of his insights to a variety of contemporary issues including same-sex marriage, traditional marriage, contraception, abortion, and nature of the human being. The text is The Integral Person in a Fractured World by Dr. Donald DeMarco. This course will run for four weeks only. Dr. Donald DeMarco Mon. Wed. Thur. 6:30 - 9:15 p.m.
Your point here is so obvious that it is lost on me. Is there something obviously or inherently unorthodox here? Once again, trying to be patient, but in case you didn't know, theology is not the same as catechesis. However, I would recommend you read the new Catechism, as well as the Roman Catechism, the Vatican II documents the post-Vatican II encyclicals as well as the pre-Vatican II encyclicals. You just might be surprised that the seeming caricature painted by popular traditionalist media outlets is perhaps giving you a one-sided and distorted picture of what the Pope and the post-Vatican II magisterium truly teaches.
Absolutely pathetic that Novus Ordo catholics are ignorant of "same-sex marriage, traditional marriage, contraception, abortion, and nature of the human being" until they strive for a master's degree in theology.
Who are the evil bishops who are confirming such ignorant people? The same ones dishing out Communion to John Kerry, Gray Davis, Tom Daschle, etc?
Another rotten fruit of VC II.
You have to get a master's in theology to realize same-sex marriages and abortion are mortal sins.
Why are you using two screen names? Do you suffer from multiple personalities? If so, I'm not surprised.
LOTI, you are rising to the heights of absurdity to find things to criticize.
I suppose St. Thomas should never have written in his Summa the article "Does God exist?" - since, after all, Catholics all know that he does.
St. Thomas was proselytizing (now discouraged by Rome), he wasn't passing out master degrees in theology.
Who disputes that forced conversion is against Church doctrine and practice? I wouldn't. But I'm not sure why that approached is used in response to bad ecumenism instead of the more obvious and direct doctrinal approach.
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.