 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Carlus Magnus
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 15 |
| First Name: | Leo | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist, Pentecostal, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 07:57 pm |
|
"It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture.
The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.
The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to dispense themselves from reading it.
The Lord's Day ought to be sanctified by Christians with readings of pious works and above all of the Holy Scriptures. It is harmful for a Christian to wish to withdraw from this reading.
It is an illusion to persuade oneself that knowledge of the mysteries of religion should not be communicated to women by the reading of Sacred Scriptures. Not from the simplicity of women, but from the proud knowledge of men has arisen the abuse of the Scriptures and have heresies been born.
To snatch away from the hands of Christians the New Testament, or to hold it closed against them by taking away from them the means of understanding it, is to close for them the mouth of Christ.
To forbid Christians to read Sacred Scripture, especially the Gospels, is to forbid the use of light to the sons of light, and to cause them to suffer a kind of excommunicati - Declared and condemned as false, captious, evil-sounding, offensive to pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, rash, injurious to the Church and her practice, insulting not only to the Church but also the secular powers seditious, impious, blasphemous, suspected of heresy, and smacking of heresy itself, and, besides, favoring heretics and heresies, and also schisms, erroneous, close to heresy, many times condemned, and finally heretical, clearly renewing many heresies ...in that sense in which these have been condemned Dogmatic Constitution issued by Pope Clement XI on Sept. 8, 1713.
How to reconcile that with the reading of the Bible as Christians do now?
____________________
Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem: Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit.
|
|
|
mg57
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tolland County, Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 180 |
| First Name: | mg57 | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Infant Baptised Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 10:28 pm |
|
Some context -
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15128a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08285a.htm
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5350 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 11:41 pm |
|
Carlus Magnus wrote: How to reconcile that with the reading of the Bible as Christians do now?
Easily. As mg57 pointed out, the condemnation was against the heresy of Jansenism. The Church has always condemned heresy. If you believe that heresy should be permitted, you are not a Christian.
Then again, you have demonstrated before that you are an anti-Catholic bigot. You take the teachings of the Church out of context and attempt to condemn the Church falsely. Such anti-Catholic bigotry is not permitted here. If it is your intention to learn about the Church and its teachings, you are welcomed. Otherwise, you are not. This post did not fit within the forum guidelines. I left it only because mg57 answered with clear references to the truth of the papal document you quoted out of context. Such postings will not be tolerated in the future. You have received your last warning.
If it is your intention to throw stones at the Catholic faith, as you have done in the past, you need to find another forum.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Carlus Magnus
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 15 |
| First Name: | Leo | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist, Pentecostal, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 3rd, 2007 01:05 am |
|
Easily. As mg57 pointed out, the condemnation was against the heresy of Jansenism. The Church has always condemned heresy.
If you believe that heresy should be permitted, you are not a Christian. Then again, you have demonstrated before that you are an anti-Catholic bigot. You take the teachings of the Church out of context and attempt to condemn the Church falsely. Such anti-Catholic bigotry is not permitted here. If it is your intention to learn about the Church and its teachings, you are welcomed. Otherwise, you are not. This post did not fit within the forum guidelines. I left it only because mg57 answered with clear references to the truth of the papal document you quoted out of context. Such postings will not be tolerated in the future. You have received your last warning. If it is your intention to throw stones at the Catholic faith, as you have done in the past, you need to find another I don't think heresy should be tolerated, so on that issue you can't malign me.
Now that's just not fair, I've never attacked the Church, and I've never been against fellow Catholics, so what's your problem? I don't understand your statements on that, because I NEVER take religion lightly, and I went through too much become Catholic to sit here and read your telling me that I'm not for one, and then telling me that I'm against Catholicism. I ask for help on a contention that I had in a sola scriptura discussion, I want to know how to answer the objection, and you tell me I'm anti-Catholic bigot!
This post did not fit within the forum guidelines. I left it only because mg57 answered with clear references to the truth of the papal document you quoted out of context.
That was quoted to ME in a discussion, I repost it here in order to find out more about it, because I can't believe what I was being told about the Church, NOT to attack my own faith! I should have taken time to explain this but I did not have it when I did post this thread, so, I wanted to know about this quote, did the Pope really forbid the reading of the Bible here? Can I have a polite answer to that - thank you.
Such postings will not be tolerated in the future. You have received your last warning. If it is your intention to throw stones at the Catholic faith, as you have done in the past, you need to find another
I indeed have NO such intention. I wanted to find out how to deal with a discussion with a separated brother in a discussion about Martin Luther and the reading of the scriptures, I was given this quote in substantiation from a claim that I challenged a protestant to answer, I did not know how to take this one since I'd never seen it before, what I do, find a place where these kinds of misunderstandings are cleared up and questions answered, was I wrong to do that?
____________________
Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem: Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit.
|
|
|
Carlus Magnus
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 15 |
| First Name: | Leo | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist, Pentecostal, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 3rd, 2007 01:09 am |
|
Thanks mg57, it helps a lot.
mg57 wrote:
Some context -
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15128a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08285a.htm
____________________
Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem: Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit.
|
|
|
rrammfcitktturjsp012006
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Midland, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 42 |
| First Name: | Anne | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | C of C, Wicca, Satanist, Atheist, Agnostic, Baptist, Unity, and ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 3rd, 2007 01:16 am |
|
Hi,
I could not help but read this topic and as this has prompted me to ask a question. What exactly is a dogmatic constitution? Is it written ex cathedra or is it infalliable? Thanks.
May the peace of Christ be with you.
Anne
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2068 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 3rd, 2007 02:17 am |
|
Hello again, Anne. You ask about the definition of “dogmatic constitution.” This is one of the Church’s most authoritative documents, a type of apostolic constitution.
Here is a rundown on “apostolic constitution” from the Second Exodus website:
Document of the highest authority, issued by the Pope, or by a Church Council with the Pope’s approval. Apostolic constitutions today have the authority of the ancient apostolic constitutions, a collection of laws from the late fourth century, which included 85 canons attributed to the Apostles dealing with ordinations, official responsibilities, and the moral behavior of bishops and priests. They eventually became the basis for canon law in the West.
When used to proclaim a Church dogma, called a Dogmatic Constitution. When used for pastoral teaching, called a Pastoral Constitution.
Vatican documents include, in descending order of formal authority: apostolic constitution, encyclical letter, encyclical epistle, apostolic exhortation, apostolic letter, letter and message.
Two of the documents of the Second Vatican Council are dogmatic constitutions: Lumen Gentium, on the Church; and Dei Verbum, on divine revelation.
Ordinarily, a dogmatic constitution is the vehicle of a dogmatic definition, which would be a solemn ex cathedra proclamation and would therefore be infallible. In the case of the Second Vatican Council, the above listed constitutions do not contain any new definitions of dogma, but merely reiterate existing ones with a view to their application in the present day, as opposed to the times in which they were solemnly defined. This does not diminish their authority, however, since the dogmas remain infallible.
David
|
|
|
rrammfcitktturjsp012006
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Midland, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 42 |
| First Name: | Anne | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | C of C, Wicca, Satanist, Atheist, Agnostic, Baptist, Unity, and ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 3rd, 2007 10:09 am |
|
David,
Thanks. I kinda wish I knew or could be able to read the catechism or canon law but they have big words and it gets boring pulling out the dictionary every time I run into a word I have not heard before. This made sense.
Thanks for posting the website as well.
May the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
|
|
|
Ken Follis
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | San Antonio, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 40 |
| First Name: | Ken | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Charismatic Episcopal Church; Roman Catholic Church (1999) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 3rd, 2007 10:54 am |
|
Ken Follis wrote: Carlus Magnus referenced the Unigentus Dogmatic Constitution issued by Pope Clement XI on Sept. 8, 1713.
You also asked, "How to reconcile that with the reading of the Bible as Christians do now?"
Carlus Magnus,
That is a great question. However I would recommend reading the actual document. As an intelligence analyst by trade, it is essential I go to the source and read it in context. Reading the source will also reveal the authority of the document. You may find, as I often do, that the Church's position is taken out of context just as folks take Scriptural passages to defend their already preconceived notions. However some Protestants will take historic Protestant quotes and doctor them to sound better than they are and leave off crucial points of contention, as in your example, so please be aware of this.
I would have preferred seeing the quotes of Unigentus that you ask the above question about. However let me put it back at you: As a Catholic, how do you reconcile Unigentus with the reading of the Bible as Christians do today?"
This forum, as good as it is, is just that- a forum. It's real purpose should always be to point us to the Magisterium and to the Church's official interpretation. If not, it is just another opinion.
____________________
Jer. 6:16 "Stand, Look, Ask and Walk!"
|
|
|
Pani Rose
Member
| Joined: | Fri Oct 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Irondale, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 544 |
| First Name: | Rose | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Ruthenian Byzantine in a Melkite Greek Catholic Parish, raised ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 3rd, 2007 12:17 pm |
|
rrammfcitktturjsp012006 wrote: David,
Thanks. I kinda wish I knew or could be able to read the catechism or canon law but they have big words and it gets boring pulling out the dictionary every time I run into a word I have not heard before. This made sense.
Thanks for posting the website as well.
May the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
David there is a really good 'visual thesaurus ' online, it runs about $20. I have found it to be really - really helpful in reading and writing. Something to consider you can do a trial version of it http://www.visualthesaurus.com/
But, alas I tried this word ' Unigenitus ' and they didn't have it, so I still don't know what it means :?
Last edited on Sat Nov 3rd, 2007 12:21 pm by Pani Rose
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5350 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 3rd, 2007 01:46 pm |
|
Carlus Magnus wrote:Now that's just not fair, I've never attacked the Church, and I've never been against fellow Catholics, so what's your problem?
My problem is that your post followed a standard Protestant tactic of taking an excerpt of a Church document out of context and making what appeared to be an accusation against the Church. The first part of your message was a litany of statements that scripture should be available to all, and to forbid the reading of scripture is "to forbid the use of light to the sons of light", and then you post a quote from a papal document which doesn't do that at all, but in the form in which it's edited and in the context of the prior quotes, appears to say exactly that.
You used quotes from somewhere without attribution, so it was impossible to determine their source. I took it as an attack on the Church, and so did several of our users who expressed concern about it to me privately. If that was not your intention, you should have explained it your actual intention, because it certainly looked like you were claiming the Church had forbidden the reading of the bible. I have encountered that charge in several forums using extremely similar words, and even the same quote.
I can't read your intentions, and neither can our other users. If someone has expressed something to you and you want to know how to reply to it, tell us that. If you are going to post a message that looks and sounds like an attack against the Church, don't be offended if we take it that way.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5350 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 3rd, 2007 01:54 pm |
|
Pani Rose wrote: But, alas I tried this word ' Unigenitus ' and they didn't have it, so I still don't know what it means :?
Most Church documents are known by the first two words of the document or the title in its Latin version. "Unigenitus" is the first word of the document in Latin.
A good example is "Humanae Vitae" which begins with the phrase, "The transmission of human life". In Latin, the first two words are "Humanae vitae", so that's the title.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
mg57
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tolland County, Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 180 |
| First Name: | mg57 | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Infant Baptised Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 3rd, 2007 10:13 pm |
|
Carlus -
Glad to help.
You might like to consider using the emoticons within posts in the future. To echo Rick & others, it's often difficult to read the disposition of the participant just by their text content. In retrospect, at times my own posts have looked :X:X:X while I was only making an effort to be concise :?.
|
|
|
Carlus Magnus
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 15 |
| First Name: | Leo | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist, Pentecostal, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 5th, 2007 11:48 am |
|
My problem is that your post followed a standard Protestant tactic of taking an excerpt of a Church document out of context and making what appeared to be an accusation against the Church.
Which is what the Protestant intended it to be, and what I wanted to know more about.
The first part of your message was a litany of statements that scripture should be available to all, and to forbid the reading of scripture is "to forbid the use of light to the sons of light", and then you post a quote from a papal document which doesn't do that at all, but in the form in which it's edited and in the context of the prior quotes, appears to say exactly that.
My point exactly, it appears to do that doesn't it, and that's why all the concern.
You used quotes from somewhere without attribution, so it was impossible to determine their source.
Unigenitus, a document that can be found easily on papal encyclicals and EWTN's document library.
I took it as an attack on the Church, and so did several of our users who expressed concern about it to me privately.
I had concern about it, and that is why I posted it here, these things mentioned in this document are listed as errors and condemned as such, it appears to be condemning the reading of the Bible, but I can't believe that is so, and that is why I must find out the truth of the matter, so I posted it here to see if someone else maybe has had the same experience and knows the truth about this accusation.
If that was not your intention, you should have explained it your actual intention, because it certainly looked like you were claiming the Church had forbidden the reading of the bible.
I apologize for not posting an explanation, I posted this thread in a big hurry, with about 30 sec. to spare, so I simply ran out of time and what I said was all I had time for which is explained in one of my above posts.
I have encountered that charge in several forums using extremely similar words, and even the same quote.
Excellent, maybe you can help out on this then?
I can't read your intentions, and neither can our other users. If someone has expressed something to you and you want to know how to reply to it, tell us that. If you are going to post a message that looks and sounds like an attack against the Church, don't be offended if we take it that way.
I tried to ask the question in a non-offensive way, as it was a question from a Protestant, my question is, "If this is the correct context of this quote, and the reading of the Bible is condemned, then how do we Catholics reconcile this apparently authoritative constitution with the reading of the Bible now, and in defense of accusations from the Lutherans?"
Perhaps you can help me out with this,
CM
______________________
MG57,
I see your point, and I'll try to do that, thank you for the advice,
CM
____________________
Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem: Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit.
|
|
|
Annie
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Columbus, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 731 |
| First Name: | Annie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nothing, Quaker, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 5th, 2007 01:00 pm |
|
Unigenitus = only-begotten
uni = one
genitus = begotten, generated, genesis, etc.
____________________
Annie
Ora et labora
|
|
|
Ken Follis
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | San Antonio, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 40 |
| First Name: | Ken | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Charismatic Episcopal Church; Roman Catholic Church (1999) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 5th, 2007 01:06 pm |
|
Ken Follis wrote: Ken Follis wrote: Carlus Magnus referenced the Unigenitus Dogmatic Constitution issued by Pope Clement XI on Sept. 8, 1713.
You also asked, "How do we reconcile that with the reading of the Bible as Christians do now?"
Carlus Magnus,
That is a great question. However I would recommend reading the actual document. As an intelligence analyst by trade, it is essential I go to the source and read it in context. Reading the source will also reveal the authority of the document. You may find, as I often do, that the Church's position is taken out of context just as folks take Scriptural passages to defend their already preconceived notions. However some Protestants will take historic Protestant quotes and doctor them to sound better than they are and leave off crucial points of contention, as in your example, so please be aware of this.
I would have preferred seeing the quotes of Unigentus that you ask the above question about. However let me put it back at you: As a Catholic, how do you reconcile Unigentus with the reading of the Bible as Christians do today?"
This forum, as good as it is, is just that- a forum. It's real purpose should always be to point us to the Magisterium and to the Church's official interpretation. If not, it is just another opinion.
____________________
Jer. 6:16 "Stand, Look, Ask and Walk!"
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1644 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 5th, 2007 01:57 pm |
|
Here are a few papers I have written about the general topic of "Catholics and the Bible." There are tons of misunderstandings and myths about this:
Was the Catholic Church an Avowed Enemy of Scripture in the Middle Ages (or at any other time)?
The Catholic Church Has Always Been the Enemy of the Bible (???)
"Why Don't Catholics Read Their Bibles?"
The Freedom of the Catholic Biblical Exegete
In the third article above (published in shorter form in This Rock), I wrote some fairly "tough" words (no, I was never a pastor!):
But the "solution" of many Catholics - to NOT read the Bible at all, so as to not be "confused" or "led astray" - is a sort of lamentable, pitiful "kindergarten Christianity" and a laziness. The same people manage to find plenty of time to devote to the "study" of sports, politics, their latest boyfriend or girlfriend, or their lawns and gardens, or to 10,000 different subjects they will learn all about in high school or college, but somehow they can't find any time to read their Bibles and soak in the words of the very Lord they worship and receive every week. Why? Something is out of whack there. This practice is NOT Catholic teaching. So Catholics have the Church to guide them. So what? That doesn't mean they sit and let the Church do everything for them with regard to biblical learning and literacy; to get by on the bare minimum of effort.
They simply don't want to do the work, and want Mother Church to spoon-feed everything to them (they want to remain "babes in Christ" who drink "milk," as St. Paul says). That is not Catholicism in essence. Catholics are to work and strive to understand their faith just as much as any evangelical Protestant does, and that includes Bible-reading. The fact that they don't do so, for the most part, is an indictment of Catholic catechetics in the last generation, but not on the Church's teaching itself, because that is not what is taught.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Carlus Magnus
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 15 |
| First Name: | Leo | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Baptist, Pentecostal, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 6th, 2007 12:43 am |
|
Hi Dave,
you must be somewhat new as an admin, You run an excellent blog regarding apologetics and I commend it. My question is, these things appear to be condemned as errors, as the Protestant who originally posted it said "Look at the context, it's self-evident!", what does this mean, are they really errors condemned as heretical, and thus the reading of scripture by laymen?
Thanks,
CM
____________________
Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem: Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit.
|
|
|
Current time is 07:49 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
