Maybe Christ was writing in the sand, "And God said to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."

Dies Irae said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

I take it you are a younger Catholic having recently discovered the Traditional Latin Mass?

---

I've always wondered, how do the 26 autocephalous churches that make up the eastern Catholic Churches manage to get by without the Novus Ordo mass and the massive rainbow propaganda machine?

Progressivism is completely overlooking them, why? Because it's not about the mass, it's not about the liturgy, it's not about throwing open the doors of the Church, it's about infiltration and sabotage. The eastern Catholic Churches don't give the huge PR victories that striking right at the heart of Rome do.

There's no problem with the Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom for the Byzantines or the Liturgy of St Mark for the Coptic Catholics, but the traditional Latin mass for the Roman Catholics? Anathema sit

---

Check out what is happening in India... Syro-Malabar. Some want Versus Populum worship. Their tradition is Ad Orientem. Getting rather nasty. I find it rather interesting that Holy See has urged them to maintain their tradition (contrast to the last 60ish years in the Roman Rite).

https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/where-things-stand-in-the-syro-malabar-liturgy-war

lobopride said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

lobopride said:

---

The death penalty isn't because of the Old Testament. It was instituted as an eternal covenant between God and man. A covenant that has not and will never be canceled.

---

Interesting. What is your take on how Jesus handled the woman caught in adultery?

---

I don't believe that is original to the Bible. Most Bibles say it was added later. (At least mine does). If it happened then Jesus is perfectly just in anything he does and his purpose for coming was to fulfill the law. However, the death penalty wasn't part of the Law of Moses. It predates him to the Noahic covenant.

---

I believe this part of scripture is key to our understanding of God's mercy and forgiveness compared to man's. They thought they had Jesus trapped only to encounter the truth, that God decides, not man.

TheGreatEscape said:

---

Maybe Christ was writing in the sand, "And God said to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."

---

I have read elsewhere that Jesus used this as moment to de-escalate the situation before stating the truth.

Thank you for the responses to my post. It was a late night ramble I figure I'd probably want to delete in the morning. Seeing positive feedback made me leave the edit button alone.

When we refer to Catholic heavy to describe our little church we refer to traditional or conservative leadership. Much different from the liberal suburban churches we I raised my kids--big mistake. They were close but they were modern.

747Ag said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

I take it you are a younger Catholic having recently discovered the Traditional Latin Mass?

---

I've always wondered, how do the 26 autocephalous churches that make up the eastern Catholic Churches manage to get by without the Novus Ordo mass and the massive rainbow propaganda machine?

Progressivism is completely overlooking them, why? Because it's not about the mass, it's not about the liturgy, it's not about throwing open the doors of the Church, it's about infiltration and sabotage. The eastern Catholic Churches don't give the huge PR victories that striking right at the heart of Rome do.

There's no problem with the Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom for the Byzantines or the Liturgy of St Mark for the Coptic Catholics, but the traditional Latin mass for the Roman Catholics? Anathema sit

---

Check out what is happening in India... Syro-Malabar. Some want Versus Populum worship. Their tradition is Ad Orientem. Getting rather nasty. I find it rather interesting that Holy See has urged them to maintain their tradition (contrast to the last 60ish years in the Roman Rite).

https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/where-things-stand-in-the-syro-malabar-liturgy-war

---

Yes, the Catholic East has a completely different opinion of Vatican II than the west does, for good reason

PabloSerna said:

---

lobopride said:

---

The death penalty isn't because of the Old Testament. It was instituted as an eternal covenant between God and man. A covenant that has not and will never be canceled.

---

Interesting. What is your take on how Jesus handled the woman caught in adultery?

---

As Dr James White puts it, the woman caught in adultery is my favorite Bible story that wasn't originally in the Bible. This story isn't in the early manuscripts and I believe first appeared around the 4th century and wasn't accepted as canon until the 5th century.

Dies Irae said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

I take it you are a younger Catholic having recently discovered the Traditional Latin Mass?

---

I've always wondered, how do the 26 autocephalous churches that make up the eastern Catholic Churches manage to get by without the Novus Ordo mass and the massive rainbow propaganda machine?

Progressivism is completely overlooking them, why? Because it's not about the mass, it's not about the liturgy, it's not about throwing open the doors of the Church, it's about infiltration and sabotage. The eastern Catholic Churches don't give the huge PR victories that striking right at the heart of Rome do.

There's no problem with the Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom for the Byzantines or the Liturgy of St Mark for the Coptic Catholics, but the traditional Latin mass for the Roman Catholics? Anathema sit

---

I have a very close friend/mentor that is Serbian and is a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church here in downtown Austin. We have discussed the difference between our churches and it seems to settle on a few aspects:

1. Cultural. Most of the people in his parish are from the "old country" as he puts it. So the liturgy serves as a reminder to him and his family of a time when that part of the world was called Yugoslavia.

2. The mission. I would say that this is the most significant area. The RCC, since Vatican II, has placed an emphasis on what is called, "Our Universal Calling" to be priest, prophet, and king. All of the documents point to this calling for the lay faithful. It is impossible to understand what is happening now without understanding Gadium Et Spes, the pastoral constitution on the church in the modern world.

3. The liturgy. As you have already noted, there appears to be a discord between the RCC and EO churches when it comes to the liturgy of the mass. Clearly EO have a long tradition that remains essentially the same while the RCC has emphasized a greater participation by the local church beginning with the vernacular. RCC still maintains the Latin (TLM) is some instances, however, the Novus Ordo mass is the focus. Without completely derailing this thread, it is the NO that dovetails more completely with spirit of Vatican II. No doubt this is a point of contention for some who long for a liturgy that they would argue is more "reverent" in comparison. I would argue that it places the "smells and bells" above the mission and could turn the mass away from the word and toward an ideal (to borrow the Pope's word).

bigcat22 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

lobopride said:

---

The death penalty isn't because of the Old Testament. It was instituted as an eternal covenant between God and man. A covenant that has not and will never be canceled.

---

Interesting. What is your take on how Jesus handled the woman caught in adultery?

---

As Dr James White puts it, the woman caught in adultery is my favorite Bible story that wasn't originally in the Bible. This story isn't in the early manuscripts and I believe first appeared around the 4th century and wasn't accepted as canon until the 5th century.

---

I think there is more to it than that, however, by the time the Vulgate comes out it is included. On top of that, it is a morally correct understanding of how God extends situational mercy instead of a blindly checking off a list. This is central to the scripture and why I think it suggest that mercy, not vengeance, is the focus.

Dies Irae said:

---

747Ag said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

I take it you are a younger Catholic having recently discovered the Traditional Latin Mass?

---

I've always wondered, how do the 26 autocephalous churches that make up the eastern Catholic Churches manage to get by without the Novus Ordo mass and the massive rainbow propaganda machine?

Progressivism is completely overlooking them, why? Because it's not about the mass, it's not about the liturgy, it's not about throwing open the doors of the Church, it's about infiltration and sabotage. The eastern Catholic Churches don't give the huge PR victories that striking right at the heart of Rome do.

There's no problem with the Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom for the Byzantines or the Liturgy of St Mark for the Coptic Catholics, but the traditional Latin mass for the Roman Catholics? Anathema sit

---

Check out what is happening in India... Syro-Malabar. Some want Versus Populum worship. Their tradition is Ad Orientem. Getting rather nasty. I find it rather interesting that Holy See has urged them to maintain their tradition (contrast to the last 60ish years in the Roman Rite).

https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/where-things-stand-in-the-syro-malabar-liturgy-war

---

Yes, the Catholic East has a completely different opinion of Vatican II than the west does, for good reason

---

This is not well thought out and suggest something that is not there. Dive deeper.

Highway6 said:

---

Thank you for the responses to my post. It was a late night ramble I figure I'd probably want to delete in the morning. Seeing positive feedback made me leave the edit button alone.

When we refer to Catholic heavy to describe our little church we refer to traditional or conservative leadership. Much different from the liberal suburban churches we I raised my kids--big mistake. They were close but they were modern.

---

I'm interested in why you see a division when the church has one catechism and one magisterium? It's almost as if you are describing two different denominations, is it not?

Why two creeds?

Dies Irae said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

747Ag said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

I take it you are a younger Catholic having recently discovered the Traditional Latin Mass?

---

I've always wondered, how do the 26 autocephalous churches that make up the eastern Catholic Churches manage to get by without the Novus Ordo mass and the massive rainbow propaganda machine?

Progressivism is completely overlooking them, why? Because it's not about the mass, it's not about the liturgy, it's not about throwing open the doors of the Church, it's about infiltration and sabotage. The eastern Catholic Churches don't give the huge PR victories that striking right at the heart of Rome do.

There's no problem with the Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom for the Byzantines or the Liturgy of St Mark for the Coptic Catholics, but the traditional Latin mass for the Roman Catholics? Anathema sit

---

Check out what is happening in India... Syro-Malabar. Some want Versus Populum worship. Their tradition is Ad Orientem. Getting rather nasty. I find it rather interesting that Holy See has urged them to maintain their tradition (contrast to the last 60ish years in the Roman Rite).

https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/where-things-stand-in-the-syro-malabar-liturgy-war

---

Yes, the Catholic East has a completely different opinion of Vatican II than the west does, for good reason

---

This is not well thought out and suggest something that is not there. Dive deeper.

---

Read Orientalium Ecclesiarum and notice the care that was given to the Orthodox churches in communion with Rome to keep their own distinct liturgical practices, and to move towards returning to their ancestral traditional practices, I'm quoting verbatim here.

The same council that saw sweeping progressivism ushered into the Roman Catholic Church saw a great movement towards preservation of traditionalism in the Catholic East.

What am I missing here?

---

I think its not so much what you are missing, instead what you are implying. That somehow Rome is fine with the eastern churches to remain liturgically distinct. Here is a quote from that document:

30. The Sacred Council feels great joy in the fruitful zealous collaboration of the Eastern and the Western Catholic Churches and at the same time declares: All these directives of law are laid down in view of the present situation till such time as the Catholic Church and the separated Eastern Churches come together into complete unity.

It is clear in almost any commentary you can find that Vatican II understood that these 26 churches (rites) were not at the same point as say Saint Anthony's in NYC. Out of respect and as a gesture of good will to the other orthodox churches (not in communion) Vatican II did not impose the sweeping liturgical changes the rest of the churches were to undergo.

You seem to want to turn this into something it is not.

747Ag said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

747Ag said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

I take it you are a younger Catholic having recently discovered the Traditional Latin Mass?

---

I've always wondered, how do the 26 autocephalous churches that make up the eastern Catholic Churches manage to get by without the Novus Ordo mass and the massive rainbow propaganda machine?

Progressivism is completely overlooking them, why? Because it's not about the mass, it's not about the liturgy, it's not about throwing open the doors of the Church, it's about infiltration and sabotage. The eastern Catholic Churches don't give the huge PR victories that striking right at the heart of Rome do.

There's no problem with the Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom for the Byzantines or the Liturgy of St Mark for the Coptic Catholics, but the traditional Latin mass for the Roman Catholics? Anathema sit

---

Check out what is happening in India... Syro-Malabar. Some want Versus Populum worship. Their tradition is Ad Orientem. Getting rather nasty. I find it rather interesting that Holy See has urged them to maintain their tradition (contrast to the last 60ish years in the Roman Rite).

https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/where-things-stand-in-the-syro-malabar-liturgy-war

---

Yes, the Catholic East has a completely different opinion of Vatican II than the west does, for good reason

---

This is not well thought out and suggest something that is not there. Dive deeper.

---

Read Orientalium Ecclesiarum and notice the care that was given to the Orthodox churches in communion with Rome to keep their own distinct liturgical practices, and to move towards returning to their ancestral traditional practices, I'm quoting verbatim here.

The same council that saw sweeping progressivism ushered into the Roman Catholic Church saw a great movement towards preservation of traditionalism in the Catholic East.

What am I missing here?

---

And why different approaches between the Eastern Churches and Roman Rite? Why preserve for some and then sweeping revisions (all sacraments) for the other? Does not compute.

---

Read my comment above. Rite and Church are the same, BTW.

Dies Irae said:

---

lobopride said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

lobopride said:

---

The Pope has definitely chosen Leftism over Christ

---

Is that what they teach you at NM? Drama queens are so... 80's

---

This pope has called for the ending of the death penalty (leftwing position) when the death penalty was instituted by God Himself before the Law was ever instituted, which means the death penalty is an eternal edict and not something that can be abrogated by mere man.

This pope has railed against free market capitalism (leftwing position) even though there is no better tool to pull man out of poverty. The pope talks out of both sides of his mouth on this issue, but overall he wants government to have a larger role than it has.

This pope says that having nuclear weapons is immoral (leftwing position). This is such a nave position I have contempt for anyone that holds such a view.

This pope has taken leftwing position on climate change, and has called for mankind to ditch fossil fuels. This position alone would lead to massive human death totals and a marked increase in human poverty.

Yes this pope is a leftist and has chosen his Leftism over Christ.

---

You cannot view the Catholic Church through a political lens, we are against the death penalty almost always as ever person regardless how deserves a chance to repent and has a soul. We are no longer in the Old Testament, snd everyone has a chance at repentance and eternal life.

Free market capitalism is neither left or right wing, it just is. It typically is considered right wing due to the far left wing insistence on Communism. The Church is against labor when marxism would destroy private property. It is similarly against capitalism when profits are prioritized over a just wage for the workers.

I seem both virulently right wing and left wing at times by my friends and family, because the wings themself mean nothing. I follow the Body of Christ; not Marx, not Adam Smith, not Hayek not Keynes, and not Friedman.

---

Jan Hus says hi from the stake he was burned at.

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

lobopride said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

lobopride said:

---

The Pope has definitely chosen Leftism over Christ

---

Is that what they teach you at NM? Drama queens are so... 80's

---

This pope has called for the ending of the death penalty (leftwing position) when the death penalty was instituted by God Himself before the Law was ever instituted, which means the death penalty is an eternal edict and not something that can be abrogated by mere man.

This pope has railed against free market capitalism (leftwing position) even though there is no better tool to pull man out of poverty. The pope talks out of both sides of his mouth on this issue, but overall he wants government to have a larger role than it has.

This pope says that having nuclear weapons is immoral (leftwing position). This is such a nave position I have contempt for anyone that holds such a view.

This pope has taken leftwing position on climate change, and has called for mankind to ditch fossil fuels. This position alone would lead to massive human death totals and a marked increase in human poverty.

Yes this pope is a leftist and has chosen his Leftism over Christ.

---

You cannot view the Catholic Church through a political lens, we are against the death penalty almost always as ever person regardless how deserves a chance to repent and has a soul. We are no longer in the Old Testament, snd everyone has a chance at repentance and eternal life.

Free market capitalism is neither left or right wing, it just is. It typically is considered right wing due to the far left wing insistence on Communism. The Church is against labor when marxism would destroy private property. It is similarly against capitalism when profits are prioritized over a just wage for the workers.

I seem both virulently right wing and left wing at times by my friends and family, because the wings themself mean nothing. I follow the Body of Christ; not Marx, not Adam Smith, not Hayek not Keynes, and not Friedman.

---

Jan Hus says hi from the stake he was burned at.

---

2,000 year old institution full of fallible men does bad thing, news at 11

---

Sure. But let's not pretend Rome was always against the death penalty. They were prolific users of it.

It's a material change to now be against it.

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

lobopride said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

lobopride said:

---

The Pope has definitely chosen Leftism over Christ

---

Is that what they teach you at NM? Drama queens are so... 80's

---

This pope has called for the ending of the death penalty (leftwing position) when the death penalty was instituted by God Himself before the Law was ever instituted, which means the death penalty is an eternal edict and not something that can be abrogated by mere man.

This pope has railed against free market capitalism (leftwing position) even though there is no better tool to pull man out of poverty. The pope talks out of both sides of his mouth on this issue, but overall he wants government to have a larger role than it has.

This pope says that having nuclear weapons is immoral (leftwing position). This is such a nave position I have contempt for anyone that holds such a view.

This pope has taken leftwing position on climate change, and has called for mankind to ditch fossil fuels. This position alone would lead to massive human death totals and a marked increase in human poverty.

Yes this pope is a leftist and has chosen his Leftism over Christ.

---

You cannot view the Catholic Church through a political lens, we are against the death penalty almost always as ever person regardless how deserves a chance to repent and has a soul. We are no longer in the Old Testament, snd everyone has a chance at repentance and eternal life.

Free market capitalism is neither left or right wing, it just is. It typically is considered right wing due to the far left wing insistence on Communism. The Church is against labor when marxism would destroy private property. It is similarly against capitalism when profits are prioritized over a just wage for the workers.

I seem both virulently right wing and left wing at times by my friends and family, because the wings themself mean nothing. I follow the Body of Christ; not Marx, not Adam Smith, not Hayek not Keynes, and not Friedman.

---

Jan Hus says hi from the stake he was burned at.

---

2,000 year old institution full of fallible men does bad thing, news at 11

---

Sure. But let's not pretend Rome was always against the death penalty. They were prolific users of it.

It's a material change to now be against it.

---

Have you read this thread? Specifically where I said 80 years ago the Popes explicitly affirmed the death penalty?

---

I missed the post where you made that statement. I apologize.

It's good of you to acknowledge this change, but I hope you also see the problems this causes for Rome? Rome, from the Pope down, was absolutely in support of the death penalty.

From Exsurge Domine:

Quote:

---

30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn.
31. In every good work the just man sins.
32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit

---

They were explicit that burning heretics is not against the will of the Spirit.

We could quibble about papal infallibility and the ebbs and flows of what is considered an infallible statement, but that's not worth it the debate since it's clear where we will both stand.

The bigger and more interesting point is that Romes position on the death penalty is not predicated on the Scriptures, but on the Pope's position when they are in office. Should a pro death penalty Pope get back in, the teaching could easily swing back to the more historic position and you'd have to accept that. Not because of Scripture, but because of a man.

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

lobopride said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

lobopride said:

---

The Pope has definitely chosen Leftism over Christ

---

Is that what they teach you at NM? Drama queens are so... 80's

---

This pope has called for the ending of the death penalty (leftwing position) when the death penalty was instituted by God Himself before the Law was ever instituted, which means the death penalty is an eternal edict and not something that can be abrogated by mere man.

This pope has railed against free market capitalism (leftwing position) even though there is no better tool to pull man out of poverty. The pope talks out of both sides of his mouth on this issue, but overall he wants government to have a larger role than it has.

This pope says that having nuclear weapons is immoral (leftwing position). This is such a nave position I have contempt for anyone that holds such a view.

This pope has taken leftwing position on climate change, and has called for mankind to ditch fossil fuels. This position alone would lead to massive human death totals and a marked increase in human poverty.

Yes this pope is a leftist and has chosen his Leftism over Christ.

---

You cannot view the Catholic Church through a political lens, we are against the death penalty almost always as ever person regardless how deserves a chance to repent and has a soul. We are no longer in the Old Testament, snd everyone has a chance at repentance and eternal life.

Free market capitalism is neither left or right wing, it just is. It typically is considered right wing due to the far left wing insistence on Communism. The Church is against labor when marxism would destroy private property. It is similarly against capitalism when profits are prioritized over a just wage for the workers.

I seem both virulently right wing and left wing at times by my friends and family, because the wings themself mean nothing. I follow the Body of Christ; not Marx, not Adam Smith, not Hayek not Keynes, and not Friedman.

---

Jan Hus says hi from the stake he was burned at.

---

2,000 year old institution full of fallible men does bad thing, news at 11

---

Sure. But let's not pretend Rome was always against the death penalty. They were prolific users of it.

It's a material change to now be against it.

---

Have you read this thread? Specifically where I said 80 years ago the Popes explicitly affirmed the death penalty?

---

I missed the post where you made that statement. I apologize.

It's good of you to acknowledge this change, but I hope you also see the problems this causes for Rome? Rome, from the Pope down, was absolutely in support of the death penalty.

From Exsurge Domine:

Quote:

---

30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn.
31. In every good work the just man sins.
32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit

---

They were explicit that burning heretics is not against the will of the Spirit.

We could quibble about papal infallibility and the ebbs and flows of what is considered an infallible statement, but that's not worth it the debate since it's clear where we will both stand.

The bigger and more interesting point is that Romes position on the death penalty is not predicated on the Scriptures, but on the Pope's position when they are in office. Should a pro death penalty Pope get back in, the teaching could easily swing back to the more historic position and you'd have to accept that. Not because of Scripture, but because of a man.

---

The death penalty is not a Tradition of the catholic church, its not a defined dogma and as such can change. It is one of the "small-t" traditions that the Church that is can evolve; much like married clergy in the Roman Catholic Church.

It is very easy to have a discussion about what is an infallible statement; there have been two infallible statements issued ex cathedra; that's it; it's a very short conversation. The list of dogmas of the church are far more numerous and the Pope cannot and would not be able to change those. The only reason we have the two ex-cathedra statements are to clear confusion; for the vast majority of the dogmas of the church; there is no confusion necessitating a statement (male only priesthood, real presence of the eucharist, confession through the priesthood).

The Pope is a very important person in the Catholic Church; everything he says should be treated with respect and not be instantly discarded. With that being said there are differing levels of gravity between "off-hand comment while boarding Alitalia flight" and "papal encyclical confirming and expounding on the words of previous popes".

---

Like I said, I get it. You have to swing your opinions to match to the Pope. I don't envy that position.

But lets also be clear that the redefining of infallible doctrine is a hallmark of Rome.

Hus was condemned to the stake at the Council of Constance. This Council is considered to be an Ecumenical Council (one of 21 councils).

If your proposing we can just ignore what we dislike from Ecumenical Councils now, things definitely get more interesting.

But then Exsurge Domine was almost certainly meant to be an infallible declaration.

It calls on Peter:

Quote:

---

Rise, Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned above. Give heed to the cause of the holy Roman Church, mother of all churches and teacher of the faith, whom you by the order of God, have consecrated by your blood. Against the Roman Church, you warned, lying teachers are rising, introducing ruinous sects, and drawing upon themselves speedy doom. Their tongues are fire, a restless evil, full of deadly poison. They have bitter zeal, contention in their hearts, and boast and lie against the truth.

---

Of Paul:

Quote:

---

We beseech you also, Paul, to arise. It was you that enlightened and illuminated the Church by your doctrine and by a martyrdom like Peter's. For now a new Porphyry rises who, as the old once wrongfully assailed the holy apostles, now assails the holy pontiffs, our predecessors.

---

Of the Church:

Quote:

---

Let all this holy Church of God, I say, arise, and with the blessed apostles intercede with almighty God to purge the errors of His sheep, to banish all heresies from the lands of the faithful, and be pleased to maintain the peace and unity of His holy Church.

---

It of course reconfirms the Ecumenical Council at Constance "are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn."



You have to say that both the declarations of the Council and the Papal Bull are both fallible and wrong now, but the real question, as is always is the case is would it have been viewed as fallible at that point in history, and it seems pretty clear the answer is no. These were viewed as infallible statements.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

lobopride said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

lobopride said:

---

The Pope has definitely chosen Leftism over Christ

---

Is that what they teach you at NM? Drama queens are so... 80's

---

This pope has called for the ending of the death penalty (leftwing position) when the death penalty was instituted by God Himself before the Law was ever instituted, which means the death penalty is an eternal edict and not something that can be abrogated by mere man.

This pope has railed against free market capitalism (leftwing position) even though there is no better tool to pull man out of poverty. The pope talks out of both sides of his mouth on this issue, but overall he wants government to have a larger role than it has.

This pope says that having nuclear weapons is immoral (leftwing position). This is such a nave position I have contempt for anyone that holds such a view.

This pope has taken leftwing position on climate change, and has called for mankind to ditch fossil fuels. This position alone would lead to massive human death totals and a marked increase in human poverty.

Yes this pope is a leftist and has chosen his Leftism over Christ.

---

You cannot view the Catholic Church through a political lens, we are against the death penalty almost always as ever person regardless how deserves a chance to repent and has a soul. We are no longer in the Old Testament, snd everyone has a chance at repentance and eternal life.

Free market capitalism is neither left or right wing, it just is. It typically is considered right wing due to the far left wing insistence on Communism. The Church is against labor when marxism would destroy private property. It is similarly against capitalism when profits are prioritized over a just wage for the workers.

I seem both virulently right wing and left wing at times by my friends and family, because the wings themself mean nothing. I follow the Body of Christ; not Marx, not Adam Smith, not Hayek not Keynes, and not Friedman.

---

Jan Hus says hi from the stake he was burned at.

---

2,000 year old institution full of fallible men does bad thing, news at 11

---

Sure. But let's not pretend Rome was always against the death penalty. They were prolific users of it.

It's a material change to now be against it.

---

Have you read this thread? Specifically where I said 80 years ago the Popes explicitly affirmed the death penalty?

---

I missed the post where you made that statement. I apologize.

It's good of you to acknowledge this change, but I hope you also see the problems this causes for Rome? Rome, from the Pope down, was absolutely in support of the death penalty.

From Exsurge Domine:

Quote:

---

30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn.
31. In every good work the just man sins.
32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit

---

They were explicit that burning heretics is not against the will of the Spirit.

We could quibble about papal infallibility and the ebbs and flows of what is considered an infallible statement, but that's not worth it the debate since it's clear where we will both stand.

The bigger and more interesting point is that Romes position on the death penalty is not predicated on the Scriptures, but on the Pope's position when they are in office. Should a pro death penalty Pope get back in, the teaching could easily swing back to the more historic position and you'd have to accept that. Not because of Scripture, but because of a man.

---

The death penalty is not a Tradition of the catholic church, its not a defined dogma and as such can change. It is one of the "small-t" traditions that the Church that is can evolve; much like married clergy in the Roman Catholic Church.

It is very easy to have a discussion about what is an infallible statement; there have been two infallible statements issued ex cathedra; that's it; it's a very short conversation. The list of dogmas of the church are far more numerous and the Pope cannot and would not be able to change those. The only reason we have the two ex-cathedra statements are to clear confusion; for the vast majority of the dogmas of the church; there is no confusion necessitating a statement (male only priesthood, real presence of the eucharist, confession through the priesthood).

The Pope is a very important person in the Catholic Church; everything he says should be treated with respect and not be instantly discarded. With that being said there are differing levels of gravity between "off-hand comment while boarding Alitalia flight" and "papal encyclical confirming and expounding on the words of previous popes".

---

Like I said, I get it. You have to swing your opinions to match to the Pope. I don't envy that position.

But lets also be clear that the redefining of infallible doctrine is a hallmark of Rome.

Hus was condemned to the stake at the Council of Constance. This Council is considered to be an Ecumenical Council (one of 21 councils).

If your proposing we can just ignore what we dislike from Ecumenical Councils now, things definitely get more interesting.

But then Exsurge Domine was almost certainly meant to be an infallible declaration.

It calls on Peter:

Quote:

---

Rise, Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned above. Give heed to the cause of the holy Roman Church, mother of all churches and teacher of the faith, whom you by the order of God, have consecrated by your blood. Against the Roman Church, you warned, lying teachers are rising, introducing ruinous sects, and drawing upon themselves speedy doom. Their tongues are fire, a restless evil, full of deadly poison. They have bitter zeal, contention in their hearts, and boast and lie against the truth.

---

Of Paul:

Quote:

---

We beseech you also, Paul, to arise. It was you that enlightened and illuminated the Church by your doctrine and by a martyrdom like Peter's. For now a new Porphyry rises who, as the old once wrongfully assailed the holy apostles, now assails the holy pontiffs, our predecessors.

---

Of the Church:

Quote:

---

Let all this holy Church of God, I say, arise, and with the blessed apostles intercede with almighty God to purge the errors of His sheep, to banish all heresies from the lands of the faithful, and be pleased to maintain the peace and unity of His holy Church.

---

It of course reconfirms the Ecumenical Council at Constance "are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn."



You have to say that both the declarations of the Council and the Papal Bull are both fallible and wrong now, but the real question, as is always is the case is would it have been viewed as fallible at that point in history, and it seems pretty clear the answer is no. These were viewed as infallible statements.

---

You say you get it while proving you clearly do not. You have to give the Pope the respect and consideration that is due the Vicar of Christ on earth and that entails not discarding his lessons because you may not like them.

What is it about Papal Bulls that make them infallible? They're literally just public decrees issued by the Pope. The three most important documents a Pope will issue are an Apostolic Constitution, An Encyclical, and an Apostolic Exhortation; neither of these are infallible and Exsurge Domine didn't even rise to the letter of these, and was never intended to as it was a notice aimed at Martin Luther with proscribed punishment if his scandal was not remedied. It wasn't a teaching document.

Again your point is just to pick things out and say "this is infallible, I know it is" when you haven't the slightest knowledge over what the Catholic Church holds to be infallible and what it doesn't.

Is the church's teaching on fossil fuels infallible? Nuclear proliferation? Capitalism? All of these have been written extensively on by the Popes.

Furthermore the Catholic Church itself didn't even consider the decrees that came from the Council of Constance as valid much less "infallible"

One of the documents said that councils had to be held every 10 years (hunt they weren't) and the other document was literally repudiated by Pope Martin V less than a century later and it was fully excluded at the 5th Lateran council

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

lobopride said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

lobopride said:

---

The Pope has definitely chosen Leftism over Christ

---

Is that what they teach you at NM? Drama queens are so... 80's

---

This pope has called for the ending of the death penalty (leftwing position) when the death penalty was instituted by God Himself before the Law was ever instituted, which means the death penalty is an eternal edict and not something that can be abrogated by mere man.

This pope has railed against free market capitalism (leftwing position) even though there is no better tool to pull man out of poverty. The pope talks out of both sides of his mouth on this issue, but overall he wants government to have a larger role than it has.

This pope says that having nuclear weapons is immoral (leftwing position). This is such a nave position I have contempt for anyone that holds such a view.

This pope has taken leftwing position on climate change, and has called for mankind to ditch fossil fuels. This position alone would lead to massive human death totals and a marked increase in human poverty.

Yes this pope is a leftist and has chosen his Leftism over Christ.

---

You cannot view the Catholic Church through a political lens, we are against the death penalty almost always as ever person regardless how deserves a chance to repent and has a soul. We are no longer in the Old Testament, snd everyone has a chance at repentance and eternal life.

Free market capitalism is neither left or right wing, it just is. It typically is considered right wing due to the far left wing insistence on Communism. The Church is against labor when marxism would destroy private property. It is similarly against capitalism when profits are prioritized over a just wage for the workers.

I seem both virulently right wing and left wing at times by my friends and family, because the wings themself mean nothing. I follow the Body of Christ; not Marx, not Adam Smith, not Hayek not Keynes, and not Friedman.

---

Jan Hus says hi from the stake he was burned at.

---

2,000 year old institution full of fallible men does bad thing, news at 11

---

Sure. But let's not pretend Rome was always against the death penalty. They were prolific users of it.

It's a material change to now be against it.

---

Have you read this thread? Specifically where I said 80 years ago the Popes explicitly affirmed the death penalty?

---

I missed the post where you made that statement. I apologize.

It's good of you to acknowledge this change, but I hope you also see the problems this causes for Rome? Rome, from the Pope down, was absolutely in support of the death penalty.

From Exsurge Domine:

Quote:

---

30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn.
31. In every good work the just man sins.
32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit

---

They were explicit that burning heretics is not against the will of the Spirit.

We could quibble about papal infallibility and the ebbs and flows of what is considered an infallible statement, but that's not worth it the debate since it's clear where we will both stand.

The bigger and more interesting point is that Romes position on the death penalty is not predicated on the Scriptures, but on the Pope's position when they are in office. Should a pro death penalty Pope get back in, the teaching could easily swing back to the more historic position and you'd have to accept that. Not because of Scripture, but because of a man.

---

The death penalty is not a Tradition of the catholic church, its not a defined dogma and as such can change. It is one of the "small-t" traditions that the Church that is can evolve; much like married clergy in the Roman Catholic Church.

It is very easy to have a discussion about what is an infallible statement; there have been two infallible statements issued ex cathedra; that's it; it's a very short conversation. The list of dogmas of the church are far more numerous and the Pope cannot and would not be able to change those. The only reason we have the two ex-cathedra statements are to clear confusion; for the vast majority of the dogmas of the church; there is no confusion necessitating a statement (male only priesthood, real presence of the eucharist, confession through the priesthood).

The Pope is a very important person in the Catholic Church; everything he says should be treated with respect and not be instantly discarded. With that being said there are differing levels of gravity between "off-hand comment while boarding Alitalia flight" and "papal encyclical confirming and expounding on the words of previous popes".

---

Like I said, I get it. You have to swing your opinions to match to the Pope. I don't envy that position.

But lets also be clear that the redefining of infallible doctrine is a hallmark of Rome.

Hus was condemned to the stake at the Council of Constance. This Council is considered to be an Ecumenical Council (one of 21 councils).

If your proposing we can just ignore what we dislike from Ecumenical Councils now, things definitely get more interesting.

But then Exsurge Domine was almost certainly meant to be an infallible declaration.

It calls on Peter:

Quote:

---

Rise, Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned above. Give heed to the cause of the holy Roman Church, mother of all churches and teacher of the faith, whom you by the order of God, have consecrated by your blood. Against the Roman Church, you warned, lying teachers are rising, introducing ruinous sects, and drawing upon themselves speedy doom. Their tongues are fire, a restless evil, full of deadly poison. They have bitter zeal, contention in their hearts, and boast and lie against the truth.

---

Of Paul:

Quote:

---

We beseech you also, Paul, to arise. It was you that enlightened and illuminated the Church by your doctrine and by a martyrdom like Peter's. For now a new Porphyry rises who, as the old once wrongfully assailed the holy apostles, now assails the holy pontiffs, our predecessors.

---

Of the Church:

Quote:

---

Let all this holy Church of God, I say, arise, and with the blessed apostles intercede with almighty God to purge the errors of His sheep, to banish all heresies from the lands of the faithful, and be pleased to maintain the peace and unity of His holy Church.

---

It of course reconfirms the Ecumenical Council at Constance "are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn."



You have to say that both the declarations of the Council and the Papal Bull are both fallible and wrong now, but the real question, as is always is the case is would it have been viewed as fallible at that point in history, and it seems pretty clear the answer is no. These were viewed as infallible statements.

---

You say you get it while proving you clearly do not. You have to give the Pope the respect and consideration that is due the Vicar of Christ on earth and that entails not discarding his lessons because you may not like them.

What is it about Papal Bulls that make them infallible? They're literally just public decrees issued by the Pope. The three most important documents a Pope will issue are an Apostolic Constitution, An Encyclical, and an Apostolic Exhortation; neither of these are infallible and Exsurge Domine didn't even rise to the letter of these, and was never intended to as it was a notice aimed at Martin Luther with proscribed punishment if his scandal was not remedied. It wasn't a teaching document.

Again your point is just to pick things out and say "this is infallible, I know it is" when you haven't the slightest knowledge over what the Catholic Church holds to be infallible and what it doesn't.

Is the church's teaching on fossil fuels infallible? Nuclear proliferation? Capitalism? All of these have been written extensively on by the Popes.

Furthermore the Catholic Church itself didn't even consider the decrees that came from the Council of Constance as valid much less "infallible"

One of the documents said that councils had to be held every 10 years (hunt they weren't) and the other document was literally repudiated by Pope Martin V less than a century later and it was fully excluded at the 5th Lateran council

---

Most all of your paragraphs are irrelevant to the topic.

And yes, I do get it. You do a lot of gymnastics to say "we give the Pope respect" but then when he or even when a supposed Ecumenical Council says the opposite of something today, you flip on the dime and acted like there was some Scriptural reason why your against the death penalty.

The whole point of what I've said from the start is Rome doesn't have a scriptural reason to oppose the death penalty. It was absolutely for it for centuries. Rome's teachings follow the Pope and that is important because in that we see the true authority and once again, it's not Scripture.

Can we please get an American Papacy?

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

lobopride said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

lobopride said:

---

The Pope has definitely chosen Leftism over Christ

---

Is that what they teach you at NM? Drama queens are so... 80's

---

This pope has called for the ending of the death penalty (leftwing position) when the death penalty was instituted by God Himself before the Law was ever instituted, which means the death penalty is an eternal edict and not something that can be abrogated by mere man.

This pope has railed against free market capitalism (leftwing position) even though there is no better tool to pull man out of poverty. The pope talks out of both sides of his mouth on this issue, but overall he wants government to have a larger role than it has.

This pope says that having nuclear weapons is immoral (leftwing position). This is such a nave position I have contempt for anyone that holds such a view.

This pope has taken leftwing position on climate change, and has called for mankind to ditch fossil fuels. This position alone would lead to massive human death totals and a marked increase in human poverty.

Yes this pope is a leftist and has chosen his Leftism over Christ.

---

You cannot view the Catholic Church through a political lens, we are against the death penalty almost always as ever person regardless how deserves a chance to repent and has a soul. We are no longer in the Old Testament, snd everyone has a chance at repentance and eternal life.

Free market capitalism is neither left or right wing, it just is. It typically is considered right wing due to the far left wing insistence on Communism. The Church is against labor when marxism would destroy private property. It is similarly against capitalism when profits are prioritized over a just wage for the workers.

I seem both virulently right wing and left wing at times by my friends and family, because the wings themself mean nothing. I follow the Body of Christ; not Marx, not Adam Smith, not Hayek not Keynes, and not Friedman.

---

Jan Hus says hi from the stake he was burned at.

---

2,000 year old institution full of fallible men does bad thing, news at 11

---

Sure. But let's not pretend Rome was always against the death penalty. They were prolific users of it.

It's a material change to now be against it.

---

Have you read this thread? Specifically where I said 80 years ago the Popes explicitly affirmed the death penalty?

---

I missed the post where you made that statement. I apologize.

It's good of you to acknowledge this change, but I hope you also see the problems this causes for Rome? Rome, from the Pope down, was absolutely in support of the death penalty.

From Exsurge Domine:

Quote:

---

30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn.
31. In every good work the just man sins.
32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit

---

They were explicit that burning heretics is not against the will of the Spirit.

We could quibble about papal infallibility and the ebbs and flows of what is considered an infallible statement, but that's not worth it the debate since it's clear where we will both stand.

The bigger and more interesting point is that Romes position on the death penalty is not predicated on the Scriptures, but on the Pope's position when they are in office. Should a pro death penalty Pope get back in, the teaching could easily swing back to the more historic position and you'd have to accept that. Not because of Scripture, but because of a man.

---

The death penalty is not a Tradition of the catholic church, its not a defined dogma and as such can change. It is one of the "small-t" traditions that the Church that is can evolve; much like married clergy in the Roman Catholic Church.

It is very easy to have a discussion about what is an infallible statement; there have been two infallible statements issued ex cathedra; that's it; it's a very short conversation. The list of dogmas of the church are far more numerous and the Pope cannot and would not be able to change those. The only reason we have the two ex-cathedra statements are to clear confusion; for the vast majority of the dogmas of the church; there is no confusion necessitating a statement (male only priesthood, real presence of the eucharist, confession through the priesthood).

The Pope is a very important person in the Catholic Church; everything he says should be treated with respect and not be instantly discarded. With that being said there are differing levels of gravity between "off-hand comment while boarding Alitalia flight" and "papal encyclical confirming and expounding on the words of previous popes".

---

Like I said, I get it. You have to swing your opinions to match to the Pope. I don't envy that position.

But lets also be clear that the redefining of infallible doctrine is a hallmark of Rome.

Hus was condemned to the stake at the Council of Constance. This Council is considered to be an Ecumenical Council (one of 21 councils).

If your proposing we can just ignore what we dislike from Ecumenical Councils now, things definitely get more interesting.

But then Exsurge Domine was almost certainly meant to be an infallible declaration.

It calls on Peter:

Quote:

---

Rise, Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned above. Give heed to the cause of the holy Roman Church, mother of all churches and teacher of the faith, whom you by the order of God, have consecrated by your blood. Against the Roman Church, you warned, lying teachers are rising, introducing ruinous sects, and drawing upon themselves speedy doom. Their tongues are fire, a restless evil, full of deadly poison. They have bitter zeal, contention in their hearts, and boast and lie against the truth.

---

Of Paul:

Quote:

---

We beseech you also, Paul, to arise. It was you that enlightened and illuminated the Church by your doctrine and by a martyrdom like Peter's. For now a new Porphyry rises who, as the old once wrongfully assailed the holy apostles, now assails the holy pontiffs, our predecessors.

---

Of the Church:

Quote:

---

Let all this holy Church of God, I say, arise, and with the blessed apostles intercede with almighty God to purge the errors of His sheep, to banish all heresies from the lands of the faithful, and be pleased to maintain the peace and unity of His holy Church.

---

It of course reconfirms the Ecumenical Council at Constance "are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn."



You have to say that both the declarations of the Council and the Papal Bull are both fallible and wrong now, but the real question, as is always is the case is would it have been viewed as fallible at that point in history, and it seems pretty clear the answer is no. These were viewed as infallible statements.

---

You say you get it while proving you clearly do not. You have to give the Pope the respect and consideration that is due the Vicar of Christ on earth and that entails not discarding his lessons because you may not like them.

What is it about Papal Bulls that make them infallible? They're literally just public decrees issued by the Pope. The three most important documents a Pope will issue are an Apostolic Constitution, An Encyclical, and an Apostolic Exhortation; neither of these are infallible and Exsurge Domine didn't even rise to the letter of these, and was never intended to as it was a notice aimed at Martin Luther with proscribed punishment if his scandal was not remedied. It wasn't a teaching document.

Again your point is just to pick things out and say "this is infallible, I know it is" when you haven't the slightest knowledge over what the Catholic Church holds to be infallible and what it doesn't.

Is the church's teaching on fossil fuels infallible? Nuclear proliferation? Capitalism? All of these have been written extensively on by the Popes.

Furthermore the Catholic Church itself didn't even consider the decrees that came from the Council of Constance as valid much less "infallible"

One of the documents said that councils had to be held every 10 years (hunt they weren't) and the other document was literally repudiated by Pope Martin V less than a century later and it was fully excluded at the 5th Lateran council

---

Most all of your paragraphs are irrelevant to the topic.

And yes, I do get it. You do a lot of gymnastics to say "we give the Pope respect" but then when he or even when a supposed Ecumenical Council says the opposite of something today, you flip on the dime and acted like there was some Scriptural reason why your against the death penalty.

The whole point of what I've said from the start is Rome doesn't have a scriptural reason to oppose the death penalty. It was absolutely for it for centuries. Rome's teachings follow the Pope and that is important because in that we see the true authority and once again, it's not Scripture.

---

You don't get it. You say a bunch of things using words like "clearly" and "obviously" and then I painstakingly pick them apart and show you how you were incorrect, and then you handwave them away as unimportant.

The death penalty is clearly and frequently mentioned in scripture, it is also warned against in scripture by God the Father, and God the Son himself intervenes where it would have occurred had he not done so.

If you are trying to make a case that the Church itself does not rely on scripture alone but rather on the Magesterium of the Church then yes I agree with you. The Church is the living body of Christ. It exists to teach, and as new moral questions come up (such as fossil fuels, nuclear weapons, global warming, the death penalty) it will provide guidance on them which may be different than in previous centuries.

Pope St.John Paul II, in Envagelium Vitae noted that the societal risks from murderers escaping were no longer the threat they were in the past due to improvements in the penal system, and as such the Death Penalty would only be needed in extreme cases. Since that time as the risk of escape has proved less and less likely, the penalty has been seen as less and less necessary.

---

I view multi-life sentences as inhumane. If someone murders someone and has to live in the prison system for more
than he had life, let him die honorably.

There's a difference between letting someone die and killing them. There is also nothing dishonorable about dying a long lingering death. My father was a Deacon and passed away at age 58 after a long battle with pancreatic cancer and I tell you that you will not find more humility and grace in watching someone carry their cross all the way to the finish line.

Again I'm not saying that to make anyone feel bad, I'm saying the idea that wasting away in a bed or languishing in a cell is less glorious or honorable than a quick end, is theater.

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

lobopride said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

lobopride said:

---

The Pope has definitely chosen Leftism over Christ

---

Is that what they teach you at NM? Drama queens are so... 80's

---

This pope has called for the ending of the death penalty (leftwing position) when the death penalty was instituted by God Himself before the Law was ever instituted, which means the death penalty is an eternal edict and not something that can be abrogated by mere man.

This pope has railed against free market capitalism (leftwing position) even though there is no better tool to pull man out of poverty. The pope talks out of both sides of his mouth on this issue, but overall he wants government to have a larger role than it has.

This pope says that having nuclear weapons is immoral (leftwing position). This is such a nave position I have contempt for anyone that holds such a view.

This pope has taken leftwing position on climate change, and has called for mankind to ditch fossil fuels. This position alone would lead to massive human death totals and a marked increase in human poverty.

Yes this pope is a leftist and has chosen his Leftism over Christ.

---

You cannot view the Catholic Church through a political lens, we are against the death penalty almost always as ever person regardless how deserves a chance to repent and has a soul. We are no longer in the Old Testament, snd everyone has a chance at repentance and eternal life.

Free market capitalism is neither left or right wing, it just is. It typically is considered right wing due to the far left wing insistence on Communism. The Church is against labor when marxism would destroy private property. It is similarly against capitalism when profits are prioritized over a just wage for the workers.

I seem both virulently right wing and left wing at times by my friends and family, because the wings themself mean nothing. I follow the Body of Christ; not Marx, not Adam Smith, not Hayek not Keynes, and not Friedman.

---

Jan Hus says hi from the stake he was burned at.

---

2,000 year old institution full of fallible men does bad thing, news at 11

---

Sure. But let's not pretend Rome was always against the death penalty. They were prolific users of it.

It's a material change to now be against it.

---

Have you read this thread? Specifically where I said 80 years ago the Popes explicitly affirmed the death penalty?

---

I missed the post where you made that statement. I apologize.

It's good of you to acknowledge this change, but I hope you also see the problems this causes for Rome? Rome, from the Pope down, was absolutely in support of the death penalty.

From Exsurge Domine:

Quote:

---

30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn.
31. In every good work the just man sins.
32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit

---

They were explicit that burning heretics is not against the will of the Spirit.

We could quibble about papal infallibility and the ebbs and flows of what is considered an infallible statement, but that's not worth it the debate since it's clear where we will both stand.

The bigger and more interesting point is that Romes position on the death penalty is not predicated on the Scriptures, but on the Pope's position when they are in office. Should a pro death penalty Pope get back in, the teaching could easily swing back to the more historic position and you'd have to accept that. Not because of Scripture, but because of a man.

---

The death penalty is not a Tradition of the catholic church, its not a defined dogma and as such can change. It is one of the "small-t" traditions that the Church that is can evolve; much like married clergy in the Roman Catholic Church.

It is very easy to have a discussion about what is an infallible statement; there have been two infallible statements issued ex cathedra; that's it; it's a very short conversation. The list of dogmas of the church are far more numerous and the Pope cannot and would not be able to change those. The only reason we have the two ex-cathedra statements are to clear confusion; for the vast majority of the dogmas of the church; there is no confusion necessitating a statement (male only priesthood, real presence of the eucharist, confession through the priesthood).

The Pope is a very important person in the Catholic Church; everything he says should be treated with respect and not be instantly discarded. With that being said there are differing levels of gravity between "off-hand comment while boarding Alitalia flight" and "papal encyclical confirming and expounding on the words of previous popes".

---

Like I said, I get it. You have to swing your opinions to match to the Pope. I don't envy that position.

But lets also be clear that the redefining of infallible doctrine is a hallmark of Rome.

Hus was condemned to the stake at the Council of Constance. This Council is considered to be an Ecumenical Council (one of 21 councils).

If your proposing we can just ignore what we dislike from Ecumenical Councils now, things definitely get more interesting.

But then Exsurge Domine was almost certainly meant to be an infallible declaration.

It calls on Peter:

Quote:

---

Rise, Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned above. Give heed to the cause of the holy Roman Church, mother of all churches and teacher of the faith, whom you by the order of God, have consecrated by your blood. Against the Roman Church, you warned, lying teachers are rising, introducing ruinous sects, and drawing upon themselves speedy doom. Their tongues are fire, a restless evil, full of deadly poison. They have bitter zeal, contention in their hearts, and boast and lie against the truth.

---

Of Paul:

Quote:

---

We beseech you also, Paul, to arise. It was you that enlightened and illuminated the Church by your doctrine and by a martyrdom like Peter's. For now a new Porphyry rises who, as the old once wrongfully assailed the holy apostles, now assails the holy pontiffs, our predecessors.

---

Of the Church:

Quote:

---

Let all this holy Church of God, I say, arise, and with the blessed apostles intercede with almighty God to purge the errors of His sheep, to banish all heresies from the lands of the faithful, and be pleased to maintain the peace and unity of His holy Church.

---

It of course reconfirms the Ecumenical Council at Constance "are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn."



You have to say that both the declarations of the Council and the Papal Bull are both fallible and wrong now, but the real question, as is always is the case is would it have been viewed as fallible at that point in history, and it seems pretty clear the answer is no. These were viewed as infallible statements.

---

You say you get it while proving you clearly do not. You have to give the Pope the respect and consideration that is due the Vicar of Christ on earth and that entails not discarding his lessons because you may not like them.

What is it about Papal Bulls that make them infallible? They're literally just public decrees issued by the Pope. The three most important documents a Pope will issue are an Apostolic Constitution, An Encyclical, and an Apostolic Exhortation; neither of these are infallible and Exsurge Domine didn't even rise to the letter of these, and was never intended to as it was a notice aimed at Martin Luther with proscribed punishment if his scandal was not remedied. It wasn't a teaching document.

Again your point is just to pick things out and say "this is infallible, I know it is" when you haven't the slightest knowledge over what the Catholic Church holds to be infallible and what it doesn't.

Is the church's teaching on fossil fuels infallible? Nuclear proliferation? Capitalism? All of these have been written extensively on by the Popes.

Furthermore the Catholic Church itself didn't even consider the decrees that came from the Council of Constance as valid much less "infallible"

One of the documents said that councils had to be held every 10 years (hunt they weren't) and the other document was literally repudiated by Pope Martin V less than a century later and it was fully excluded at the 5th Lateran council

---

Most all of your paragraphs are irrelevant to the topic.

And yes, I do get it. You do a lot of gymnastics to say "we give the Pope respect" but then when he or even when a supposed Ecumenical Council says the opposite of something today, you flip on the dime and acted like there was some Scriptural reason why your against the death penalty.

The whole point of what I've said from the start is Rome doesn't have a scriptural reason to oppose the death penalty. It was absolutely for it for centuries. Rome's teachings follow the Pope and that is important because in that we see the true authority and once again, it's not Scripture.

---

You don't get it. You say a bunch of things using words like "clearly" and "obviously" and then I painstakingly pick them apart and show you how you were incorrect, and then you handwave them away as unimportant.

The death penalty is clearly and frequently mentioned in scripture, it is also warned against in scripture by God the Father, and God the Son himself intervenes where it would have occurred had he not done so.

If you are trying to make a case that the Church itself does not rely on scripture alone but rather on the Magesterium of the Church then yes I agree with you. The Church is the living body of Christ. It exists to teach, and as new moral questions come up (such as fossil fuels, nuclear weapons, global warming, the death penalty) it will provide guidance on them which may be different than in previous centuries.

Pope St.John Paul II, in Envagelium Vitae noted that the societal risks from murderers escaping were no longer the threat they were in the past due to improvements in the penal system, and as such the Death Penalty would only be needed in extreme cases. Since that time as the risk of escape has proved less and less likely, the penalty has been seen as less and less necessary.

---

Sorry to interject, but I disagree with your take here. The modern popes have not changed church doctrine/dogma surrounding the death penalty. In none of our catechism changes has the church stated the death penalty is immoral, evil or anything of the like. The death penalty could come back tomorrow under certain conditions.

What did happen was a change in discipline. Because our prison system has become good enough to keep 99.9% of dangerous criminals out of the population without needing to resort to the death penalty, therefore, it is the Church's prudential judgement that we should keep people incarcerated indefinitely to offer hope of repentance.

As it is a prudential judgement, we are free as Catholics to privately disagree with. We just can't advocate for the death penalty publicly. It also means that should we get hit with an EMP or solar flare and all of our modern means of incarceration went away, the death penalty could come back. I have many thoughts on whether this is wise or not, but I do not believe we have actually changed church doctrine in any way, and saying differently seems dangerous to me

The Banned said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

lobopride said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

lobopride said:

---

The Pope has definitely chosen Leftism over Christ

---

Is that what they teach you at NM? Drama queens are so... 80's

---

This pope has called for the ending of the death penalty (leftwing position) when the death penalty was instituted by God Himself before the Law was ever instituted, which means the death penalty is an eternal edict and not something that can be abrogated by mere man.

This pope has railed against free market capitalism (leftwing position) even though there is no better tool to pull man out of poverty. The pope talks out of both sides of his mouth on this issue, but overall he wants government to have a larger role than it has.

This pope says that having nuclear weapons is immoral (leftwing position). This is such a nave position I have contempt for anyone that holds such a view.

This pope has taken leftwing position on climate change, and has called for mankind to ditch fossil fuels. This position alone would lead to massive human death totals and a marked increase in human poverty.

Yes this pope is a leftist and has chosen his Leftism over Christ.

---

You cannot view the Catholic Church through a political lens, we are against the death penalty almost always as ever person regardless how deserves a chance to repent and has a soul. We are no longer in the Old Testament, snd everyone has a chance at repentance and eternal life.

Free market capitalism is neither left or right wing, it just is. It typically is considered right wing due to the far left wing insistence on Communism. The Church is against labor when marxism would destroy private property. It is similarly against capitalism when profits are prioritized over a just wage for the workers.

I seem both virulently right wing and left wing at times by my friends and family, because the wings themself mean nothing. I follow the Body of Christ; not Marx, not Adam Smith, not Hayek not Keynes, and not Friedman.

---

Jan Hus says hi from the stake he was burned at.

---

2,000 year old institution full of fallible men does bad thing, news at 11

---

Sure. But let's not pretend Rome was always against the death penalty. They were prolific users of it.

It's a material change to now be against it.

---

Have you read this thread? Specifically where I said 80 years ago the Popes explicitly affirmed the death penalty?

---

I missed the post where you made that statement. I apologize.

It's good of you to acknowledge this change, but I hope you also see the problems this causes for Rome? Rome, from the Pope down, was absolutely in support of the death penalty.

From Exsurge Domine:

Quote:

---

30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn.
31. In every good work the just man sins.
32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit

---

They were explicit that burning heretics is not against the will of the Spirit.

We could quibble about papal infallibility and the ebbs and flows of what is considered an infallible statement, but that's not worth it the debate since it's clear where we will both stand.

The bigger and more interesting point is that Romes position on the death penalty is not predicated on the Scriptures, but on the Pope's position when they are in office. Should a pro death penalty Pope get back in, the teaching could easily swing back to the more historic position and you'd have to accept that. Not because of Scripture, but because of a man.

---

The death penalty is not a Tradition of the catholic church, its not a defined dogma and as such can change. It is one of the "small-t" traditions that the Church that is can evolve; much like married clergy in the Roman Catholic Church.

It is very easy to have a discussion about what is an infallible statement; there have been two infallible statements issued ex cathedra; that's it; it's a very short conversation. The list of dogmas of the church are far more numerous and the Pope cannot and would not be able to change those. The only reason we have the two ex-cathedra statements are to clear confusion; for the vast majority of the dogmas of the church; there is no confusion necessitating a statement (male only priesthood, real presence of the eucharist, confession through the priesthood).

The Pope is a very important person in the Catholic Church; everything he says should be treated with respect and not be instantly discarded. With that being said there are differing levels of gravity between "off-hand comment while boarding Alitalia flight" and "papal encyclical confirming and expounding on the words of previous popes".

---

Like I said, I get it. You have to swing your opinions to match to the Pope. I don't envy that position.

But lets also be clear that the redefining of infallible doctrine is a hallmark of Rome.

Hus was condemned to the stake at the Council of Constance. This Council is considered to be an Ecumenical Council (one of 21 councils).

If your proposing we can just ignore what we dislike from Ecumenical Councils now, things definitely get more interesting.

But then Exsurge Domine was almost certainly meant to be an infallible declaration.

It calls on Peter:

Quote:

---

Rise, Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned above. Give heed to the cause of the holy Roman Church, mother of all churches and teacher of the faith, whom you by the order of God, have consecrated by your blood. Against the Roman Church, you warned, lying teachers are rising, introducing ruinous sects, and drawing upon themselves speedy doom. Their tongues are fire, a restless evil, full of deadly poison. They have bitter zeal, contention in their hearts, and boast and lie against the truth.

---

Of Paul:

Quote:

---

We beseech you also, Paul, to arise. It was you that enlightened and illuminated the Church by your doctrine and by a martyrdom like Peter's. For now a new Porphyry rises who, as the old once wrongfully assailed the holy apostles, now assails the holy pontiffs, our predecessors.

---

Of the Church:

Quote:

---

Let all this holy Church of God, I say, arise, and with the blessed apostles intercede with almighty God to purge the errors of His sheep, to banish all heresies from the lands of the faithful, and be pleased to maintain the peace and unity of His holy Church.

---

It of course reconfirms the Ecumenical Council at Constance "are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn."



You have to say that both the declarations of the Council and the Papal Bull are both fallible and wrong now, but the real question, as is always is the case is would it have been viewed as fallible at that point in history, and it seems pretty clear the answer is no. These were viewed as infallible statements.

---

You say you get it while proving you clearly do not. You have to give the Pope the respect and consideration that is due the Vicar of Christ on earth and that entails not discarding his lessons because you may not like them.

What is it about Papal Bulls that make them infallible? They're literally just public decrees issued by the Pope. The three most important documents a Pope will issue are an Apostolic Constitution, An Encyclical, and an Apostolic Exhortation; neither of these are infallible and Exsurge Domine didn't even rise to the letter of these, and was never intended to as it was a notice aimed at Martin Luther with proscribed punishment if his scandal was not remedied. It wasn't a teaching document.

Again your point is just to pick things out and say "this is infallible, I know it is" when you haven't the slightest knowledge over what the Catholic Church holds to be infallible and what it doesn't.

Is the church's teaching on fossil fuels infallible? Nuclear proliferation? Capitalism? All of these have been written extensively on by the Popes.

Furthermore the Catholic Church itself didn't even consider the decrees that came from the Council of Constance as valid much less "infallible"

One of the documents said that councils had to be held every 10 years (hunt they weren't) and the other document was literally repudiated by Pope Martin V less than a century later and it was fully excluded at the 5th Lateran council

---

Most all of your paragraphs are irrelevant to the topic.

And yes, I do get it. You do a lot of gymnastics to say "we give the Pope respect" but then when he or even when a supposed Ecumenical Council says the opposite of something today, you flip on the dime and acted like there was some Scriptural reason why your against the death penalty.

The whole point of what I've said from the start is Rome doesn't have a scriptural reason to oppose the death penalty. It was absolutely for it for centuries. Rome's teachings follow the Pope and that is important because in that we see the true authority and once again, it's not Scripture.

---

You don't get it. You say a bunch of things using words like "clearly" and "obviously" and then I painstakingly pick them apart and show you how you were incorrect, and then you handwave them away as unimportant.

The death penalty is clearly and frequently mentioned in scripture, it is also warned against in scripture by God the Father, and God the Son himself intervenes where it would have occurred had he not done so.

If you are trying to make a case that the Church itself does not rely on scripture alone but rather on the Magesterium of the Church then yes I agree with you. The Church is the living body of Christ. It exists to teach, and as new moral questions come up (such as fossil fuels, nuclear weapons, global warming, the death penalty) it will provide guidance on them which may be different than in previous centuries.

Pope St.John Paul II, in Envagelium Vitae noted that the societal risks from murderers escaping were no longer the threat they were in the past due to improvements in the penal system, and as such the Death Penalty would only be needed in extreme cases. Since that time as the risk of escape has proved less and less likely, the penalty has been seen as less and less necessary.

---

Sorry to interject, but I disagree with your take here. The modern popes have not changed church doctrine/dogma surrounding the death penalty. In none of our catechism changes has the church stated the death penalty is immoral, evil or anything of the like. The death penalty could come back tomorrow under certain conditions.

What did happen was a change in discipline. Because our prison system has become good enough to keep 99.9% of dangerous criminals out of the population without needing to resort to the death penalty, therefore, it is the Church's prudential judgement that we should keep people incarcerated indefinitely to offer hope of repentance.

As it is a prudential judgement, we are free as Catholics to privately disagree with. We just can't advocate for the death penalty publicly. It also means that should we get hit with an EMP or solar flare and all of our modern means of incarceration went away, the death penalty could come back. I have many thoughts on whether this is wise or not, but I do not believe we have actually changed church doctrine in any way, and saying differently seems dangerous to me

---

There has been an evolution of thinking on death penalty though, beginning with the last 3 Popes. Before that previous Pope's spoke not only of the imperative to limit harm, but in the guilty party having forfeited his right to life.

Pope Pius XII: "When it is a question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual's right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live."

With regard to the catechism, the 92 version added in c2267 "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person."

So again, if the teaching has evolved from "this person's crimes themselves warrant his death" to "if he isn't a threat let him live" we needn't worry ourselves that this is some sort of change in church teaching, as you've said, if public order became threatened by criminals being more likely to escape, the appropriateness of the death penalty would increase.

So in short, Catholic teaching on the death penalty does not rise to the level of doctrine or dogma; which isn't to say it isn't important. Again, if the church said that Priests could marry in the Roman rite, it would be eye opening, but not any change of a fundamental dogma of the church.

Zobel said:

---

It's because almost all of our scriptural manuscripts actually come from lectionaries. It was in the lectionaries but not clearly part of any particular gospel. Different later scriptures have it in different books based on where it sat in the cycle of readings in the lectionary. However make no mistake it absolutely is scripture, having been read aloud in the churches as scripture from ancient times. The pericope adulterae is known back as early as the fourth century and that makes it older than the concept of "the Bible".

---

When did the concept of "the Bible" first arise and what is the evidence for that date? What do you mean by your phrase "the concept of the Bible"?

Wouldn't you agree that the church had the concept of "holy scriptures" long before the 4th century, in fact in the 1st century?

When did the term "lectionaries" first start being used?

What is your evidence that the pericope adulterae was "read aloud in the churches as scripture from ancient times"? What date do you mean by "ancient times" - the 4th century?

ETA: Can you be more specific regarding your statement "Different later scriptures have it in different books "? Which later "scriptures"? Do you mean "later manuscripts"? And in which books do they have it?

Quote:

---

You don't get it. You say a bunch of things using words like "clearly" and "obviously" and then I painstakingly pick them apart and show you how you were incorrect, and then you handwave them away as unimportant.

---

This. And it happens over and over and over again on every single thread. This poster used to be nails, but the personal crusade against "Rome" is beyond boring at this point...

When I say "the bible" I'm talking about all the scriptures in a single volume and considered to be one book, one thing. The scriptures are a collection of different works, different books, and it is really relatively recent to consider them as one unit. Even to this day in the East we don't do that. The Gospel is a separate unit from the Epistles, and those are separate from the OT scriptures. Before the NT era the OT scriptures were similarly subdivided, with the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings and all of the various subdivisions within these. This is the grounds for the idea that different Judaisms had different writings - all accepted the Torah, but they either accepted different groups as valid scripture within the Prophets and Writings or they put different rank or emphasis on them.

I think - opinion - that the idea of the bible as most use it today is a post-printing press phenomenon. To really get to where we are to day you also need somewhat widespread literacy. Before that, though, the vast majority of people encountered the scriptures only in the context of the church - read from the lectionary, in the cycle of readings that they were used in every year. Even those who studied the scriptures like the Fathers did not do so with a single volume until recently, because it was not common to have the scriptures in that form until recently. Sure, we have examples of codices like Sinaiticus going back to the 4th century, but that is extremely uncommon.

A lectionary just means a book with readings assigned to certain days. Lectionaries are comparatively old, with evidence for fixed readings based on the calendar going back to the second century. But "the" lectionary or the cycle of readings in use today in the East is probably from the 6th century.

I was not correct earlier when I said almost all our manuscripts are from lectionaries. My apologies. I correct that to a little less than half of our total Greek manuscripts today (around 2500 of 5600 manuscripts) come from lectionaries versus continuous text manuscripts. However, I think it is correct to say that at the time of the Reformation, most of the Greek manuscripts available in the west were from lectionaries versus continuous text manuscripts.

Quote:

---

Wouldn't you agree that the church had the concept of "holy scriptures" long before the 4th century, in fact in the 1st century?

---

yes of course, but the scriptures existed in the form of various books, as I wrote above.

Quote:

---

When did the term "lectionaries" first start being used?

---

no idea. its Latin. But the concept of a liturgical book read in the churches is as ancient as it gets.

Of course, in the very most ancient times churches did not have a common body of scriptures. In the very beginning they had only the scriptures from their local Judaic tradition or traditions. Then they had whatever epistle or epistles, then gospels, and so on. Complete commonality between churches didn't happen until much later - or never, I suppose, if you talk about Revelation and compare east to west.

However, we know that the ancient church considered canon what was read aloud in church and considered authoritative in that role. We know that the epistles from Clement were read aloud as scripture in some churches for a time. Over time - centuries - this homogenized. The lectionary system reflects this and participates in it.

Quote:

---

What is your evidence that the pericope adulterae was "read aloud in the churches as scripture from ancient times"? What date do you mean by "ancient times" - the 4th century?

---

Eh, read aloud in church as scripture is just a point I like to make. I think it is incontrovertible that "scripture" has an identity relationship with "what is read aloud in Church as authoritative". The evidence that I would put forward for that is its citing by St Ambrose, St Jerome, St Pacian, and St Augustine - so absolutely 4th century - as well as a direct reference in the Didascalia Apostolorum which puts it into the 3rd. Eusebius in the 4th suggests that Papias relates this story, which puts it in the first half of the 2nd century.

When you get into hard evidence, the 3rd century is really where things start to light up. Sure, we have some incredibly early manuscript fragments... but realistically the bulk of the historical evidence doesn't come until the 3rd century. If we have it as scripture in the 3rd, it's hard to argue against it before that except by silence.

Quote:

---

Can you be more specific regarding your statement "Different later scriptures have it in different books "? Which later "scriptures"? Do you mean "later manuscripts"? And in which books do they have it?

---

yeah, probably should be more precise. later manuscripts is correct. It floats around between the gospel of St John and St Luke. Some put it in Luke, some between Luke and John, some in different places in John. This probably (maybe?) corresponds to it's place in the lectionary readings.

If I could get even crazier - what if it isn't part of the gospel of John as originally written? What if, say, it was a Johannine tradition, part of the things too numerous to be recorded? But then taught, and taught, and wound up as a saying of the Lord, put into a lectionary reading, and from there into the gospel? Does that in and of itself invalidate it as an authoritative, reliable, and valid teaching of the Lord?

I would say not at all. And I would say that its continual presence in the teaching tradition of the Church is witness to its reliability, authority, and validity of the teaching of Christ.

Dies Irae said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

lobopride said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

lobopride said:

---

The Pope has definitely chosen Leftism over Christ

---

Is that what they teach you at NM? Drama queens are so... 80's

---

This pope has called for the ending of the death penalty (leftwing position) when the death penalty was instituted by God Himself before the Law was ever instituted, which means the death penalty is an eternal edict and not something that can be abrogated by mere man.

This pope has railed against free market capitalism (leftwing position) even though there is no better tool to pull man out of poverty. The pope talks out of both sides of his mouth on this issue, but overall he wants government to have a larger role than it has.

This pope says that having nuclear weapons is immoral (leftwing position). This is such a nave position I have contempt for anyone that holds such a view.

This pope has taken leftwing position on climate change, and has called for mankind to ditch fossil fuels. This position alone would lead to massive human death totals and a marked increase in human poverty.

Yes this pope is a leftist and has chosen his Leftism over Christ.

---

You cannot view the Catholic Church through a political lens, we are against the death penalty almost always as ever person regardless how deserves a chance to repent and has a soul. We are no longer in the Old Testament, snd everyone has a chance at repentance and eternal life.

Free market capitalism is neither left or right wing, it just is. It typically is considered right wing due to the far left wing insistence on Communism. The Church is against labor when marxism would destroy private property. It is similarly against capitalism when profits are prioritized over a just wage for the workers.

I seem both virulently right wing and left wing at times by my friends and family, because the wings themself mean nothing. I follow the Body of Christ; not Marx, not Adam Smith, not Hayek not Keynes, and not Friedman.

---

Jan Hus says hi from the stake he was burned at.

---

2,000 year old institution full of fallible men does bad thing, news at 11

---

Sure. But let's not pretend Rome was always against the death penalty. They were prolific users of it.

It's a material change to now be against it.

---

Have you read this thread? Specifically where I said 80 years ago the Popes explicitly affirmed the death penalty?

---

I missed the post where you made that statement. I apologize.

It's good of you to acknowledge this change, but I hope you also see the problems this causes for Rome? Rome, from the Pope down, was absolutely in support of the death penalty.

From Exsurge Domine:

Quote:

---

30. Some articles of John Hus, condemned in the Council of Constance, are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn.
31. In every good work the just man sins.
32. A good work done very well is a venial sin.
33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit

---

They were explicit that burning heretics is not against the will of the Spirit.

We could quibble about papal infallibility and the ebbs and flows of what is considered an infallible statement, but that's not worth it the debate since it's clear where we will both stand.

The bigger and more interesting point is that Romes position on the death penalty is not predicated on the Scriptures, but on the Pope's position when they are in office. Should a pro death penalty Pope get back in, the teaching could easily swing back to the more historic position and you'd have to accept that. Not because of Scripture, but because of a man.

---

The death penalty is not a Tradition of the catholic church, its not a defined dogma and as such can change. It is one of the "small-t" traditions that the Church that is can evolve; much like married clergy in the Roman Catholic Church.

It is very easy to have a discussion about what is an infallible statement; there have been two infallible statements issued ex cathedra; that's it; it's a very short conversation. The list of dogmas of the church are far more numerous and the Pope cannot and would not be able to change those. The only reason we have the two ex-cathedra statements are to clear confusion; for the vast majority of the dogmas of the church; there is no confusion necessitating a statement (male only priesthood, real presence of the eucharist, confession through the priesthood).

The Pope is a very important person in the Catholic Church; everything he says should be treated with respect and not be instantly discarded. With that being said there are differing levels of gravity between "off-hand comment while boarding Alitalia flight" and "papal encyclical confirming and expounding on the words of previous popes".

---

Like I said, I get it. You have to swing your opinions to match to the Pope. I don't envy that position.

But lets also be clear that the redefining of infallible doctrine is a hallmark of Rome.

Hus was condemned to the stake at the Council of Constance. This Council is considered to be an Ecumenical Council (one of 21 councils).

If your proposing we can just ignore what we dislike from Ecumenical Councils now, things definitely get more interesting.

But then Exsurge Domine was almost certainly meant to be an infallible declaration.

It calls on Peter:

Quote:

---

Rise, Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned above. Give heed to the cause of the holy Roman Church, mother of all churches and teacher of the faith, whom you by the order of God, have consecrated by your blood. Against the Roman Church, you warned, lying teachers are rising, introducing ruinous sects, and drawing upon themselves speedy doom. Their tongues are fire, a restless evil, full of deadly poison. They have bitter zeal, contention in their hearts, and boast and lie against the truth.

---

Of Paul:

Quote:

---

We beseech you also, Paul, to arise. It was you that enlightened and illuminated the Church by your doctrine and by a martyrdom like Peter's. For now a new Porphyry rises who, as the old once wrongfully assailed the holy apostles, now assails the holy pontiffs, our predecessors.

---

Of the Church:

Quote:

---

Let all this holy Church of God, I say, arise, and with the blessed apostles intercede with almighty God to purge the errors of His sheep, to banish all heresies from the lands of the faithful, and be pleased to maintain the peace and unity of His holy Church.

---

It of course reconfirms the Ecumenical Council at Constance "are most Christian, wholly true and evangelical; these the universal Church could not condemn."



You have to say that both the declarations of the Council and the Papal Bull are both fallible and wrong now, but the real question, as is always is the case is would it have been viewed as fallible at that point in history, and it seems pretty clear the answer is no. These were viewed as infallible statements.

---

You say you get it while proving you clearly do not. You have to give the Pope the respect and consideration that is due the Vicar of Christ on earth and that entails not discarding his lessons because you may not like them.

What is it about Papal Bulls that make them infallible? They're literally just public decrees issued by the Pope. The three most important documents a Pope will issue are an Apostolic Constitution, An Encyclical, and an Apostolic Exhortation; neither of these are infallible and Exsurge Domine didn't even rise to the letter of these, and was never intended to as it was a notice aimed at Martin Luther with proscribed punishment if his scandal was not remedied. It wasn't a teaching document.

Again your point is just to pick things out and say "this is infallible, I know it is" when you haven't the slightest knowledge over what the Catholic Church holds to be infallible and what it doesn't.

Is the church's teaching on fossil fuels infallible? Nuclear proliferation? Capitalism? All of these have been written extensively on by the Popes.

Furthermore the Catholic Church itself didn't even consider the decrees that came from the Council of Constance as valid much less "infallible"

One of the documents said that councils had to be held every 10 years (hunt they weren't) and the other document was literally repudiated by Pope Martin V less than a century later and it was fully excluded at the 5th Lateran council

---

Most all of your paragraphs are irrelevant to the topic.

And yes, I do get it. You do a lot of gymnastics to say "we give the Pope respect" but then when he or even when a supposed Ecumenical Council says the opposite of something today, you flip on the dime and acted like there was some Scriptural reason why your against the death penalty.

The whole point of what I've said from the start is Rome doesn't have a scriptural reason to oppose the death penalty. It was absolutely for it for centuries. Rome's teachings follow the Pope and that is important because in that we see the true authority and once again, it's not Scripture.

---

You don't get it. You say a bunch of things using words like "clearly" and "obviously" and then I painstakingly pick them apart and show you how you were incorrect, and then you handwave them away as unimportant.

The death penalty is clearly and frequently mentioned in scripture, it is also warned against in scripture by God the Father, and God the Son himself intervenes where it would have occurred had he not done so.

If you are trying to make a case that the Church itself does not rely on scripture alone but rather on the Magesterium of the Church then yes I agree with you. The Church is the living body of Christ. It exists to teach, and as new moral questions come up (such as fossil fuels, nuclear weapons, global warming, the death penalty) it will provide guidance on them which may be different than in previous centuries.

Pope St.John Paul II, in Envagelium Vitae noted that the societal risks from murderers escaping were no longer the threat they were in the past due to improvements in the penal system, and as such the Death Penalty would only be needed in extreme cases. Since that time as the risk of escape has proved less and less likely, the penalty has been seen as less and less necessary.

---

Sorry to interject, but I disagree with your take here. The modern popes have not changed church doctrine/dogma surrounding the death penalty. In none of our catechism changes has the church stated the death penalty is immoral, evil or anything of the like. The death penalty could come back tomorrow under certain conditions.

What did happen was a change in discipline. Because our prison system has become good enough to keep 99.9% of dangerous criminals out of the population without needing to resort to the death penalty, therefore, it is the Church's prudential judgement that we should keep people incarcerated indefinitely to offer hope of repentance.

As it is a prudential judgement, we are free as Catholics to privately disagree with. We just can't advocate for the death penalty publicly. It also means that should we get hit with an EMP or solar flare and all of our modern means of incarceration went away, the death penalty could come back. I have many thoughts on whether this is wise or not, but I do not believe we have actually changed church doctrine in any way, and saying differently seems dangerous to me

---

There has been an evolution of thinking on death penalty though, beginning with the last 3 Popes. Before that previous Pope's spoke not only of the imperative to limit harm, but in the guilty party having forfeited his right to life.

Pope Pius XII: "When it is a question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual's right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live."

With regard to the catechism, the 92 version added in c2267 "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person."

So again, if the teaching has evolved from "this person's crimes themselves warrant his death" to "if he isn't a threat let him live" we needn't worry ourselves that this is some sort of change in church teaching, as you've said, if public order became threatened by criminals being more likely to escape, the appropriateness of the death penalty would increase.

So in short, Catholic teaching on the death penalty does not rise to the level of doctrine or dogma; which isn't to say it isn't important. Again, if the church said that Priests could marry in the Roman rite, it would be eye opening, but not any change of a fundamental dogma of the church.

---

Maybe we have a different perspective on "teaching" here. For example, I think if the pope came out and said the death penalty is intrinsically evil, that would be changing Church teaching. However, a pope coming out and saying "we don't need to do this anymore now that we have secure enough prisons" is a prudential judgement, not so much a "teaching"