Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match!

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion for anyone who adheres to the Extraordinary form of the mass and any issues related to the practices of Eastern Rite Catholicism.

Saint Athanasius is counted as one of the four Great Doctors of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Athanasius

Pascendi Dominici Gregis

Feb 22nd 2014 new
This is an excellent encyclical from Pope Pius X: Pascendi Dominici Gregis(On the Doctrine of the Modernists). It's interesting to note the following passage:

2. That We should act without delay in this matter is made imperative especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary man.

This is striking in that there seems to be a tendancy as viewing Christ as being in the condition of ordinary man(particularly in the apologetics arena).

Feb 22nd 2014 new
(quote) Greg-902815 said: This is an excellent encyclical from Pope Pius X: Pascendi Dominici Gregis(On the Doctrine of the Modernists). It's interesting to note the following passage:

2. That We should act without delay in this matter is made imperative especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary man.

This is striking in that there seems to be a tendancy as viewing Christ as being in the condition of ordinary man(particularly in the apologetics arena).

I especially like his Holy sarcasm directed at the Modernist attitude toward Sacred Scripture:

They seem, in fact, to have constructed for themselves certain types of narration and discourses, upon which they base their decision as to whether a thing is out of place or not. Judge if you can how men with such a system are fitted for practising this kind of criticism. To hear them talk about their works on the Sacred Books, in which they have been able to discover so much that is defective, one would imagine that before them nobody ever even glanced through the pages of Scripture, whereas the truth is that a whole multitude of Doctors, infinitely superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity, have sifted the Sacred Books in every way, and so far from finding imperfections in them, have thanked God more and more the deeper they have gone into them, for His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men. Unfortunately, these great Doctors did not enjoy the same aids to study that are possessed by the Modernists for their guide and rule, - a philosophy borrowed from the negation of God, and a criterion which consists of themselves. [PDG, 34]

You can read it in full from the Vatican website:

www.vatican.va



Feb 22nd 2014 new
(quote) Greg-902815 said: This is an excellent encyclical from Pope Pius X: Pascendi Dominici Gregis(On the Doctrine of the Modernists). It's interesting to note the following passage:

2. That We should act without delay in this matter is made imperative especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary man.

This is striking in that there seems to be a tendancy as viewing Christ as being in the condition of ordinary man(particularly in the apologetics arena).

Which apologists hold that Christ was merely an ordinary man?
Feb 22nd 2014 new
(quote) Paul-866591 said: Which apologists hold that Christ was merely an ordinary man?
Paul, here is an example for you:

In a similar way, a husband and wife express their love for each other through their free, total, faithful, and fruitful gift of themselves. Therefore, this call to love is not only stamped into our bodies, but also the body of Christ in the Eucharist.

This was written by an apologist who seems to think that Christ;s self-sacrifice for us on the cross is the same as the marital act. While both involve self-sacrifice, they are not the same. This statement implies that Christ had the same feelings as ordinary people during marital intimacy and it is sacrilege to say so.
Feb 22nd 2014 new
(quote) Greg-902815 said: Paul, here is an example for you:

In a similar way, a husband and wife express their love for each other through their free, total, faithful, and fruitful gift of themselves. Therefore, this call to love is not only stamped into our bodies, but also the body of Christ in the Eucharist.

This was written by an apologist who seems to think that Christ;s self-sacrifice for us on the cross is the same as the marital act. While both involve self-sacrifice, they are not the same. This statement implies that Christ had the same feelings as ordinary people during marital intimacy and it is sacrilege to say so.
It is an analogy. All,analogies contain and express a truth. But every analogy has the failing of not being able to express the whole truth of what is being illustrated.

All this analogy is saying is that just as a husband and wife give themselves to each other as an ecpression of their love, so Christ gives Himself totally to us in the Eucharist.

Something the Church has faithfully taught since the beginning.

So now explain why you find the statement in error?
Feb 22nd 2014 new
(quote) Greg-902815 said: Paul, here is an example for you:

In a similar way, a husband and wife express their love for each other through their free, total, faithful, and fruitful gift of themselves. Therefore, this call to love is not only stamped into our bodies, but also the body of Christ in the Eucharist.

This was written by an apologist who seems to think that Christ;s self-sacrifice for us on the cross is the same as the marital act. While both involve self-sacrifice, they are not the same. This statement implies that Christ had the same feelings as ordinary people during marital intimacy and it is sacrilege to say so.
I also have to ask the author of the quote you give and the work to know the context.

Other than that I can't comment.
Feb 23rd 2014 new
(quote) Greg-902815 said: Paul, here is an example for you:

In a similar way, a husband and wife express their love for each other through their free, total, faithful, and fruitful gift of themselves. Therefore, this call to love is not only stamped into our bodies, but also the body of Christ in the Eucharist.

This was written by an apologist who seems to think that Christ;s self-sacrifice for us on the cross is the same as the marital act. While both involve self-sacrifice, they are not the same. This statement implies that Christ had the same feelings as ordinary people during marital intimacy and it is sacrilege to say so.
By the way, you never answered the question. Which apologists rationalize sin?

I also take note of the fact that you provide no context for the quote. In my first reply, I made the obvious assumption that the writer was comparing the total giving of husband and wife in amarraigeof love and Christ's total giving in love of Himself to us in the Eucharist.

But the writer could be referring to other things.

In any case, nothing in the quote is against Church teaching so referring to it as an example of some unnamed apologist rationalizing sin is nothing of the sort.
Feb 23rd 2014 new
(quote) Paul-866591 said: By the way, you never answered the question. Which apologists rationalize sin?

I also take note of the fact that you provide no context for the quote. In my first reply, I made the obvious assumption that the writer was comparing the total giving of husband and wife in amarraigeof love and Christ's total giving in love of Himself to us in the Eucharist.

But the writer could be referring to other things.

In any case, nothing in the quote is against Church teaching so referring to it as an example of some unnamed apologist rationalizing sin is nothing of the sort.
This was published in a book: Theology of the Body for Teens, by one Jason everts who also works for "catholic answers". There are a few good websites which keep a vigilant eye on these happenings: remnant newspaper, fisheaters forums, Latin mass network etc. Also, I suggest you read Dawn Eden's critique of Christopher West: In his own image. It's about how Mr. West spins Pope John Paul II's theology into his own interpretation.
Feb 23rd 2014 new
Paul, you tend to come across as trying to be an enforcer. I've noticed how quickly you respond to posts which aren't pro status-quo. Since you asked me to name the apologists I was talking about(which I admit is perfectly fair), i want to take a minute and ask you to name the posters you constantly refer to as "self-styled traditionalists".
Feb 23rd 2014 new
To address what you said earlier Paul: if that writing were a mere anology, then it would have been worded differently. Notice how the author doesn't say "this is analogous to"; he simply goes on to state that "This call to love is also imparted onto the Eucharist". If he had said something indicating a similarity, what you said would have more credence. He doesn't indicate analogy though; he simply joins the two sentances and makes the marital act the subject of his next sentence.

As an undergrad in mathematics, I had to take a class called "Real Analysis". The goal of that class is to learn how to do proofs using logic and in doing so, it is pertinent to observe statements. This includes: what is said, what is NOT said, and the order in which it is said. This discipline also extends to reading theological statements.
Posts 1 - 10 of 21