Albert Cipriani

Dear Helen,
Congratulations. You've asked a most excellent question. I respect you're methodical method of getting to the core of the matter and apologize for my delayed response.



The standard a Traditional Catholic uses to determine the "mind of the Church" is the same standard used by scientists and atheists everywhere to determine reality as they know it, the law of non-contradiction. The not so hidden assumption is that we can determine a priori what is so that we can consequently determine what is not.

Protestants and apostate Catholics may have faith, but they've lost plain old garden-variety confidence in being able to determine what is. That is why they cannot determine how what passes for Christian and Catholic teaching today IS NOT.

Case in point, until 1930, all denominations of Protestants believed that the bible taught that birth control was a sin. They caved under the influence of Margaret Sanger (sp?) of Planned Parenthood fame who was an elitist and on record for being a fan of Hitler's euthanasia programs.

Either the Protestants were wrong for 400 years or they started being wrong in 1930. It's that simple. Ditto, for the Catholic Church. What she has always taught is the gold standard whereby we assay the dross of her present-day modernistic novelties.

Thus we conform to St. Paul's dictum: "But though WE (the royal we used until this day by the Pope to identify his authority with Christ Whose Vicar the Pope is) or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8).

The implicit assumption in that verse is that the laity can know what was preached. We can have the confidence to apply the law of non-contradiction to what the Church taught in the past compared to what she teaches in the present. Traditional Catholics, alone, are the remnant that still does this. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

HelenM

Hi Albert

I appreciate your reply.

How is what you do, different from retrospectively defining the true 'mind of the church' to be whatever the church has said or done, which makes sense to you in 2002, and everything else the church has ever said or done was not 'the true mind of the church'?

And if that is what you do, that seems more subjective than the Protestants who at least do give a lot of weighting to the Bible (well, depending how conservative they are, I suppose), which is somewhat objective. At least they don't say "oh, that sentence was not 'the true mind of the church' - and anyone who ever thought it was did not have the 'true mind of the church'".

I hope you can see what I am asking.

love
Helen

Albert Cipriani

Sorry Helen,
I'm not understanding you.

There's 500 pages of de fide doctrine that says what the mind of the Church has been up until the 1960's.

The tons of paper and ink squandered on the mind of the Church since 1960 isn't worth reading because none of it, not one jot or tittle is de fide. The Church herself says we are not obliged to believe that tripe. But if you don't believe that tripe, evil apostate people in the Church say that you are in schism and excommunicate you.

I've just posted my formal rebutal to a paper written on this subject at:
<a href="http://www.catholic-convert.com/wwwboard/messages/12297.html" target="_blank">http://www.catholic-convert.com/wwwboard/messages/12297.html</a>

-- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

HelenM

Hi Albert

I guess I'm having trouble believing that the pre-1960s [true] Roman Catholic church held the view of the Bible that you do, as best I can tell.

I have trouble believing they felt as free in their way of reading it, using it, applying it, as you.

Doesn't your approach to the Bible make you a somewhat liberal Catholic? And if so isn't that somewhat different from the pre-1960 Catholic church?

I have always been told - and I don't unquestioningly believe everything I hear so I'm open to what you have to say about it - that the Protestants have one authority: the Bible. The Roman Catholics (traditionally, if you like) have two, the Bible and the Church. Not just one: the Church.

If you can clarify anything for me, please do!

love
Helen

ex-preacher

And who exactly interprets those 500 pages? Or perhaps they don't need any interpretation, the way that many Protestants say the Bible doesn't need to be interpreted?

Albert Cipriani

Dear Helen,


You can't get any more conservative than me, unless, I suppose, you live in Montana and wear camouflage vests.

Each supreme court justice has a different "approach" to the constitution. Some interpret it according to the minds of its framers, other interpret it according to whatever furthers their activist legislative agenda.

As a Catholic, I have NO approach to the Bible. As a Catholic, I must read it in the light of Catholic teaching, not the other way around. By contrast, Protestants read it as the light which informs and is reflected by their Protestant teaching.



Actually, we have three. Like the US government, with its land-based, submarine-based, and B52 air-based nuclear arsenal, the Church Militant also has a triad. It’s the oral, written, and magisterial tradition of the Catholic Church.

The oral tradition is what the Church has done or believed everywhere and at all times. The written Church tradition is the Bible as well as patristic writings (1st through 6th centuries). The magisterial tradition is the de fide decisions the Church has officially promulgated via her 20 ecumenical councils and ex cathedra papal pronouncements.

The "one authority" of the Protestants' Bible is no authority. For it was through the Catholic Church's authority that the Bible was authorized as the Bible.

1200 years later the Protestants removed old testament books that the Jews rejected and tossed out a few New Testament books for good measure and claimed the book as their own. To the degree that they have a bible as their authority, it is actually through the Catholic Church's authority that they have that authority. -- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Albert Cipriani ]</p>

John Page

Albert, its me again. Sorry for the abbreviation of your explicit response to Helen's question. I'd like you to comment on three facts:

1. The catholic church was founded on a set of beliefs based on falsified apostolic documents. Falsified by the catholic church, that is. A number of biblical scholars have commented on this, including being liberal with the truth about the so called ressurection. Here's a link to a reference to start with<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300054211/qid=1015721443/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/103-1674154-4447850" target="_blank">Enoch Powell's book</a>.

2. With authority from god the catholic church has committed some of the worst human rights abuses recorded, including the Spanish Inquisition sanctioned and supported directly by the pope. Hardly consistent with the PR image.

3. What you have said earlier may all be very well and good from your standpoint. However, for us atheists, there is no evidence of any special connection from those in power at the vatican to your supposed #1.

Is it any wonder that protestants rebelled against a force misusing its supposed authority. It seems entirely reasonable that a religion espousing voluntary belief would gain support.

For my part, the only way that I would join the catholic church, based on the evidence or lack thereof highlighted above, is if I was forced to commit heresey in order to avoid execution for heresey as were so many under Cardinal Ximenez.

If you think I am mistaken as to the facts, I am willing to listen. In return, you need to open those pod bay doors and let reality in.

Cheers.

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

Not Prince Hamlet

Don't forget that one pope who sided with Hitler during WWII!

(Bonduca, I know this is a favorite topic of yours. Perhaps you can elaborate?)

Jeff

bonduca

My boy, Pius XII, and the Reich Concordat? Ah, yes. Not the Catholic Church's proudest moment.

As you all probably know, the Reich Concordat (negotiated by Pius XII, or Eugenio Pacelli, who began his career as a Vatican lawyer) basically ensured that the Nazi party would rise without opposition from the Catholic community.

to quote from Cornwell's book "Hitler's Pope-The Secret History of Pius XII"

The Center Party, while a viable obstacle to Nazi control, was also seen as an independent force outside Papal control. Pius XII sought centralized Church control, and felt the Reich Concordat would accomplish this. As for the Jews, his famous quote, "The Jews can look after themselves," pretty much sums up his concern for them.

Any instances of brave resistance undertaken by individual members of the Catholic church to aid and assist the Jews were taken not only without the support of the Vatican, but expressly against policy.

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

Not Prince Hamlet

Bonduca,

Brilliant post!

Jeff

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Not Prince Hamlet ]</p>