tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post3966063684392453014..comments2024-03-28T10:44:57.324-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Pope Francis on capital punishmentEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger116125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-861879945285865582017-10-22T09:19:23.691-07:002017-10-22T09:19:23.691-07:00Not only that, but the whole exchange takes place ...Not only that, but the whole exchange takes place in a context in which the Jews were constrained by outside forces, and had perforce changed their practices. Hence it does not even <i>purport</i> to represent Judaism as such, or original Judaism: <br /><br /><i>Much more pertinent, however, is a passage of the Talmud which explicitly compares the study of, and the discussion on the various death penalties with that on the sacrifices. The halakhah was established in the case of the death penalty for an adulterous woman. R. Joseph asked, "Is there need to establish a halakhah for the messianic age (the Sanhedrin no longer having jurisdiction in capital offenses)?" Abaye answered, "If so, we should not study the laws of sacrifices, as they also apply to the messianic age. But we say 'Study and receive reward'" (Sanh. 51b). Similarly, the passage in Mishnah Makkot 1:10: "A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called a murderous one. R. Eleazar ben Azariah says 'Or even once in 70 years.' R. Tarfon and R. Akiva said, 'If we had been in the Sanhedrin no death sentence would ever have been passed'; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: 'If so, they would have multiplied murderers in Israel.'" Instructive though this is, it is merely an academic discussion, the right of imposing capital punishment having been taken from the Sanhedrin by the Romans a century before, "40 years before the Destruction of the Temple" (Sanh. 41a; TJ, Sanh. 1:18a). The rabbis agreed that with the destruction of the Temple the Sanhedrin was precluded from inflicting capital punishment (see above).</i> <br /><br />More instructive is the fact that stoning <b>manifestly</b> was practiced earlier (cf Luke 4:29, which was a form of stoning). Nor need we understand that all capital cases throughout Israel referable to the Jerusalem Sanhedrin to try. The passage <i>just does not</i> clarify what was Jewish teaching or practice in the 1000 years from David to Jesus. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52402779761193290672017-10-21T14:10:45.831-07:002017-10-21T14:10:45.831-07:00Why should Matt 16:18 matter? Unless you interpret...Why should Matt 16:18 matter? Unless you interpret it to mean the chair of Saint Peter can never be vacant (as it is whenever the Pope dies) or that the true Church must always be the numerically largest one. Why can't you interpret his words to mean a remnant? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29468449219647255892017-10-21T13:45:09.565-07:002017-10-21T13:45:09.565-07:00That is a good article. I thank God for reasonabl...That is a good article. I thank God for reasonable critics. I don't have to agree with them but they move the discussion forward.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82540658587385774582017-10-21T13:30:18.676-07:002017-10-21T13:30:18.676-07:00I know Michael Flynn's short story Nexus gets ...I know Michael Flynn's short story Nexus gets into it, but I can't find anywhere online.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06971753767414596033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53324419948762242522017-10-21T11:10:36.605-07:002017-10-21T11:10:36.605-07:00John C. Wright is also a Catholic SF writer. And ...John C. Wright is also a Catholic SF writer. And he clearly brings at least some of an A-T background to his writing. But you would have to <i>work</i> at it to actually pull the A-T concepts out of it explicitly (which is, frankly, what you would want of good writing, not moralizing or philosophy class). You could try <i>The Golden Transcendance</i>, for example. He also has a book of short stories, although IIRC they are mostly fantasy. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19125885521516459902017-10-21T09:54:12.440-07:002017-10-21T09:54:12.440-07:00George R. writes:
"However, if, as may possi...George R. writes:<br /><br />"<i>However, if, as may possibly happen, the pastor teaches a heresy so subtle that the common faithful are not able to perceive the lie, then the faithful will actually be bound to assent to the error; for if they were not so bound, the command of the Church for the faithful to submit mind and heart to their pastors would be rendered meaningless, and all the blessings and graces received by the faithful on account of this submission would be taken away from them.</i>"<br /><br />I have to say that this is ridiculous. No-one can have a moral obligation to believe that which is in fact false - especially if it's a religious opinion. It's one thing to ask the faithful to hold their tongues, for fear of giving scandal to non-believers. It's quite another thing to ask them to believe whatever a Pope teaches, even if he teaches non-infallibly, and does not claim to be merely re-asserting the teaching of the Church's ordinary infallible magisterium (which requires a unanimous agreement of bishops that the Catholic Church not only teaches a certain opinion, but also teaches that Catholics are obliged to accept this teaching.<br /><br />When fifteenth-century Popes authorized the African slave trade (albeit under restricted circumstances), were the faithful obliged to believe that this was fine? I could go on, but you get my point.<br />Vincent Torleyhttp://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/index.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20615937729933120392017-10-21T07:35:22.111-07:002017-10-21T07:35:22.111-07:00This article mentions Dr. Feser and a critic:
htt...This article mentions Dr. Feser and a critic:<br /><br />http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/scholars-debate-impact-of-pope-francis-statement-on-death-penalty<br /><br />-Neil P.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79939998348211045382017-10-21T06:58:51.551-07:002017-10-21T06:58:51.551-07:00George R holds too his Sede heresy with the pride ...George R holds too his Sede heresy with the pride Martin Luther held to Sola Fide.<br /><br /><br />The only moral difference between them is George is more High Church then the modern American Lutheran. <br /><br />He needs to return & give up the Sede nonsense. Jesus didn't lie to us in Matt 16:18 as his view implicitly teaches.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90071820526768835642017-10-20T11:39:56.897-07:002017-10-20T11:39:56.897-07:00How is it a sheer guess? If he is indeed faithful,...<i>How is it a sheer guess? If he is indeed faithful, then he knows the faith. </i> <br /><br />Bwahahahahaha! Have you never heard of any of the saints who were, for short or long periods, material heretics, believing error (and teaching it) though <i>unaware</i> that it was error? <br /><br /><i>However, if, as may possibly happen, the pastor teaches a heresy so subtle that the common faithful are not able to perceive the lie,</i> <br /><br />Ah, so the obligation then DOES rest on whether the faithful person is capable of perceiving the error, and if they can see that it is error, then their obligation to obey ceases. <br /><br />But of course, other faithful, less able, will be unable to see it, and then remain obliged to obey. <br /><br />And then we have Protestantism, every man deciding for himself what is doctrinally sound and what is not, at least for every statement by the pastors of the Church that is other than mere verbatim repetition of the words of the Bible or the express dogmatic formulations of solemn definitions. <br /><br /><i>But again, as soon as authority will have condemned the error,</i> <br /><br />But since nobody below the Pope can judge the Pope, who can condemn his error without defying their own definitive obligation to submit to him? Nobody. Unless, that is, they have the right to take what he says, compare it to prior teaching, and decide whether it is conformable? Which is just what you rejected above. You contradict yourself. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55548346564401370702017-10-20T11:37:41.380-07:002017-10-20T11:37:41.380-07:00Wolfe is definitely Catholic and may be A-T for al...Wolfe is definitely Catholic and may be A-T for all I know, but it's the opposite of an easy read.<br /><br />You should by all means try a couple of Father Brown stories (they're short; it's easy to dip in), but specifically A-T points in them are few and far between.<br /><br />Some of Michael Flynn's SF stories do make A-T points -- he occasionally shows up in these comment boxes (the OFloinn), or you can go ask him at TOF Spot. He may also have other people to recommend.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03191412235339403625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33536742275714356762017-10-20T10:57:07.834-07:002017-10-20T10:57:07.834-07:00George, I have one question for you: Suppose a fai...<i>George, I have one question for you: Suppose a faithful, true Catholic is untrained in matters theological, and he listens to one expert A (who is a bishop) say that X is “taught by the Church”, and another expert B (and a bishop) say that X is “heresy”. He is (1) forbidden to assent to X under pain of the mortal sin of heresy if he goes with B and B is right, but is (2) forbidden to refuse assent to X under pain of mortal sin if he goes with A and A is right – WHAT IS HE TO DO? He commits a mortal sin if he guesses wrong, but he has no ability to decide other than by a sheer guess.</i> <br /><br />How is it a sheer guess? If he is indeed faithful, then he knows the faith. And if he knows the faith, he will, by logical implication, also know what is contrary to it. Now, if the pastor speaks contrary to what he knows to be the faith, the faithful Catholic is in no way bound to submit to him. However, if, as may possibly happen, the pastor teaches a heresy so subtle that the common faithful are not able to perceive the lie, then the faithful will actually be bound to assent to the error; for if they were not so bound, the command of the Church for the faithful to submit mind and heart to their pastors would be rendered meaningless, and all the blessings and graces received by the faithful on account of this submission would be taken away from them. Moreover, no sin would be incurred by them for holding this error, and they could in no way be called heretics; but they will have merely been innocently misled by a heretic through no fault of their own. However, as soon as lawful authority condemns their heretical pastor, the faithful, of course, will be bound to submit to this authority and repudiate him. <br /><br />Finally, there might be a rare occasion wherein the pastor himself is innocently unaware of the heresy he is teaching. In this case, neither the pastor nor the flock are to be considered heretics. But again, as soon as authority will have condemned the error, or as soon as it becomes known by them to be contrary to faith, then both pastor and flock will be bound to reject it. George R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72689649879402736402017-10-20T08:20:26.495-07:002017-10-20T08:20:26.495-07:00Faithful, non-sede Catholics: You have to (firstl...Faithful, non-sede Catholics: You have to (firstly) assent unqualifiedly to those teachings of the Church’s teaching authority given as definitive or infallible; and you (secondly) have to assent (but qualifiedly) to those teachings of the Church’s teaching authority – not given in a definitive way and not divinely revealed – in order to explain and support and protect what is divinely revealed…yet the second obligation to submit and assent is qualified and can be superceded when the pastors teach these latter in a way that cannot be conformed to the first sort of teachings. The moral status of having recognition of the latter sort of teaching being so “not in conformity” is capable of a sort of variation, depending on the individual capacity of the person receiving the instruction – a theologian has more ability and duty to recognize it, an untrained layman has less or none. <br /><br />George R and the sedes: you have to assent to <i>everything</i> that the pastors teach on faith and morals; however, if they teach heresy then they cease to be pastors of the Church and you have no further obligation to assent to what they teach. The individual capacity to <i>recognize</i> it as heresy is irrelevant: if they have (ever) taught any single heresy, one is obligated not to accept their claim to authority, and if not one is obligated to assent it even if it is proposed tentatively, prudentially, or with only a tangential (or even debatable) connection to matters of faith and morals. <br /><br />George, I have one question for you: Suppose a faithful, true Catholic is untrained in matters theological, and he listens to one expert A (who is a bishop) say that X is “taught by the Church”, and another expert B (and a bishop) say that X is “heresy”. He is (1) forbidden to assent to X under pain of the mortal sin of heresy if he goes with B and B is right, but is (2) forbidden to <b>refuse</b> assent to X under pain of mortal sin if he goes with A and A is right – WHAT IS HE TO DO? He commits a mortal sin if he guesses wrong, but he has no ability to decide other than by a sheer guess. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33770274971189305512017-10-20T07:58:58.355-07:002017-10-20T07:58:58.355-07:00The Book of the New Sun by Gene WolfeThe Book of the New Sun by Gene WolfeIvan Knezovićhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02295701842135894524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80815330256345800472017-10-20T07:04:31.552-07:002017-10-20T07:04:31.552-07:00Vincent,
As Leo XIII says above, it is the command...Vincent,<br />As Leo XIII says above, it is the command of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that all the faithful submit mind and heart to their own lawful pastors. And since He, desiring only our good, wills this for the sake of our own salvation, it necessarily follows that this submission is the means by which the faithful soul shall arrive at all truth, sanctity, and ultimate salvation. It also follows by implication that those who refuse this commanded submission and, instead, follow their own will and their own reason, will inevitably fall into the darkness of error, mortal sin, and eternal damnation. Therefore, this being undoubtedly the mind of the Church, it is foolish to quibble about the fallibility and infallibility of given statements by these lawful pastors, knowing of faith that the path of submission infallibly leads to life, and the other path just as infallibly leads to eternal destruction. <br /><br />It follows from all this, therefore, that if Bergoglio and the rest of the <i>novus ordo</i> hierachy are indeed the lawful pastors of the Holy Catholic Church, there remains no excuse whatsoever not to follow their instructions and teachings implicitly, and submit yourselves to their direction with your whole hearts and minds. <br /><br />On the other hand, it is also manifest to all who have eyes to see that to submit oneself unreservedly to the instructions and teachings of this same supposed pope and hierarchy inevitably lead to modernist errors, religious indifference, and eventually either apostasy or sentimental pietism…in other words, stumbling along the path to hell.<br /><br />These things being admitted, there is only one valid conclusion to draw:<br /><br />Bergoglio and the rest of the <i>novus ordo</i> hierarchy are not true pastors of the Catholic Church.George R.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66232195151737318142017-10-20T04:55:04.927-07:002017-10-20T04:55:04.927-07:00JohnD cites Benedict, saying
Even the much cited...JohnD cites Benedict, saying <br /><br /><i>Even the much cited Gen 9:6 is a two-edged sword with regard to the death penalty. If taken literally it would mean that those who execute the guilty also need to be executed. We should consider how Pope Benedict XVI cites Gen 9:6 in his 2012 Post-Synodal Exhortation, Ecclesia in Medio Oriente, n. 26:<br /><br /><b>“God wants life, not death. He forbids all killing, even of those who kill (cf. Gen 4:15-16; 9:5-6; Ex 20:13).”</b> </i><br /><br />But if you read the whole passage, it's entire thrust is about religious liberty, and not using the death penalty (such as for heretics) in stifling religious liberty: <br /><br /><i>26. Religious freedom is the pinnacle of all other freedoms. It is a sacred and inalienable right. It includes on the individual and collective levels the freedom to follow one’s conscience in religious matters and, at the same time, freedom of worship. It includes the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public.[21] It must be possible to profess and freely manifest one’s religion and its symbols without endangering one’s life and personal freedom. Religious freedom is rooted in the dignity of the person; it safeguards moral freedom and fosters mutual respect. Jews, with their long experience of often deadly assaults, know full well the benefits of religious freedom. For their part, Muslims share with Christians the conviction that no constraint in religious matters, much less the use of force, is permitted. Such constraint, which can take multiple and insidious forms on the personal and social, cultural, administrative and political levels, is contrary to God’s will. It gives rise to political and religious exploitation, discrimination and violence leading to death. God wants life, not death. He forbids all killing, even of those who kill (cf. Gen 4:15-16; 9:5-6; Ex 20:13).</i> <br /><br />It is not intended to be a general and absolute norm against the death penalty. <br /><br />As Prof. Feser shows in the book, even the staunchest promoters of the idea that the death penalty is always wrong admit that Gen. 9:6 is not easily set aside. The best they can offer at this time seems to be "we'll get back to you on that." Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63619124652336969272017-10-20T01:55:23.443-07:002017-10-20T01:55:23.443-07:00Dear Mr. Feser,
I am currently reading The Last S...Dear Mr. Feser,<br /><br />I am currently reading The Last Superstition and frankly it makes my head hurt. It is definitely not an easy topic. My question would be: did anyone ever put the whole thing in a more digestible literary form? The ideal would be A-T science fiction since I tend to like that genre, but I'd settle for anything. I have heard that Chesterton's Pater Brown stories are roughly in this spirit. I don't like early 20th century British crime novels (Agatha Christie type stuff bores me) but if you or people here say it is okay I give it a go.TheDividualisthttp://dividuals.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73918642746988802142017-10-19T22:57:20.530-07:002017-10-19T22:57:20.530-07:00Francis: a perfect heretic, essentially a freemaso...Francis: a perfect heretic, essentially a freemason. Amazing how blind are so many Catholic intellectuals. The idea of "obedience" has got them by the throat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90070746041679417402017-10-19T20:32:39.993-07:002017-10-19T20:32:39.993-07:00Vincent, we are required to be submissive in mind ...Vincent, we are required to be submissive in mind and will to the teaching authority of the Church even in matters that are not infallibly stated, this is called "religious assent". Prof. Feser explains it so: <br /><br /><i>3. Statements which in a non-definitive but obligatory way clarify revealed truths. Dulles suggests that “the teaching of Vatican II, which abstained from new doctrinal definitions, falls predominantly into this category” (The Craft of Theology, p. 110). According to Donum Veritatis, statements in this category must be accepted by Catholics with “religious submission of will and intellect.” Given their non-definitive character, however, the assent due to such statements is not of the absolute kind owed to statements of categories 1 and 2. The default position is to assent to them, but it is in principle possible that the very strong presumption in their favor can be overridden. Donum Veritatis says:<br /><br />The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions.</i> <br /><br />https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/11/papal-fallibility.html#more<br /><br />I would offer that it implies a <i>habit</i> of assent, a readiness and interior presumption that these authorities will teach aright, and that what they teach is right. It requires an openness of mind and heart to <i>hear</i> what they say in the best light, and to give it every effort to conform yourself to it <i>short of</i> the asset of faith. <br /><br />It remains possible, though, that for one who does all these things, who is trained in doctrine, will find himself unable to conform himself to the proposition set forth, because it seems incompatible with other truths that have a claim to a higher assent. In this case, he is permitted to take a qualified position, which still entails respect for the teaching, but does not entail full unqualified assent (which must be given to the articles of faith). <br /><br />The obligation is still an obligation, and it is still toward assent, but it is not an obligation for an assent as definitive as for the assent of faith. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30208273590420421492017-10-19T16:37:00.919-07:002017-10-19T16:37:00.919-07:00"Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the si..."Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor."<br /><br />What does "assent" mean here?<br /><br />It seems to me that it cannot mean "believe what they say," or we'd then have an obligation to believe even a non-infallible teaching, whose truth is not guaranteed. That cannot be right.Vincent Torleyhttp://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/index.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85215106971704012402017-10-19T15:45:48.911-07:002017-10-19T15:45:48.911-07:00They call it "development" but all they ...They call it "development" but all they do is contradiction. Well, contradiction ain't development. <br /><br />Development is when you have two different threads of teaching, both present from the beginning, yet with some <i>seeming</i> difficulty between them, some sort of tension in accepting both fully...and then RESOLVING that seeming difficulty or tension. That's development. CF: Christ is God. Christ is man. <br /><br />For 1960 years we had <i>no serious tension</i> about the position "the state may justly put to death certain malefactors for the common good". None. The tension comes from a new - novel - revolutionary position that posits suggested reasons to dispute the settled position. The suggestion revolves around a new - novel - revolutionary notion of "dignity of the person" that <i>has yet to be articulated in any clear sense</i> with reference to those who are guilty of grave crimes. <br /><br />Please, those who want Francis' position to be a development: explain (don't just <i>mention</i>) Genesis 9:6, and its explicit positioning of the death penalty BASED ON <i>human dignity</i>. You will not find, in all of the thousands of bishops comments against the death penalty, one single argument about why Gen. 9:6, basing the death penalty on human dignity, is now to be understood 180 degrees in the opposite direction - or even how to do so. <br /><br />It ain't development. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25208041458315695912017-10-19T15:15:00.450-07:002017-10-19T15:15:00.450-07:00If Mark Shea said we should use BCE and CE his fol...If Mark Shea said we should use BCE and CE his followers would give him high 5s<br /><br />mr. anonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52153417610419365082017-10-19T10:04:57.929-07:002017-10-19T10:04:57.929-07:00Tony, I agree except for the last sentence. What i...Tony, I agree except for the last sentence. What in the world does metaphysical necessity have to do with this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40089002421144457952017-10-19T09:40:13.139-07:002017-10-19T09:40:13.139-07:00That's the first century of the common era.That's the first century of the common era.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25810685131313946942017-10-19T09:39:00.597-07:002017-10-19T09:39:00.597-07:00"A Sanhedrin which executes once in seven yea..."A Sanhedrin which executes once in seven years is called a murderous one. R. Eleazar ben Azariah says 'Or even once in 70 years.' R. Tarfon and R. Akiva said, 'If we had been in the Sanhedrin no death sentence would ever have been passed'; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: 'If so, they would have multiplied murderers in Israel.'"<br /><br />Mishnah Makkot 1:10 Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15150936055587129102017-10-19T09:31:19.721-07:002017-10-19T09:31:19.721-07:00That actually only applies to formal teaching not ...That actually only applies to formal teaching not stuff he says off the cuff or even in speeches or sermons otherwise Pope John XXII was not the true Pope. You Sede heretics have to keep pushing back or moving forward who the last True Pope was thus you might as well just profess Protestantism and be done with it.<br /><br />Also even in terms of binding non-infallible teaching there is some wiggle room in terms of interpretation.<br /><br />Mark Shea's malfunction is to excommunicate any Catholic who does not hold to his interpretation of the Pope's non-infallible binding teaching. That as to mix his "I hate Trump" meme into everything & assume all who disagree with him do so to prop up the homos in the Republican Party.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.com