I just started reading this thread from the beginning....A bit of time has passed....The above really hit home - my question is this: How does one stand firm given the current trajectory? I still hear Ralph Martin in my head --- (paraphrasing)--I will take away everything you rely on so you rely only on ME...
The Rosary. The Rosary. The Rosary. 'The Last Arms left to you will be my Holy Rosary.' They will take everything else away, but they cannot take the Rosary so long as you have ten fingers on your hands and the Will to pray it.
by 'firm' are you referring the strength one might need to endure - let us say - persecution? or - might you mean - maintaining one's faith in the face and knowledge of false leaders ? or.. a combo of both? IF 2.. We've been often forewarned by our Lord Jesus... E.G. Pope Peter teaches: There will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Peter goes on to say: Look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells. So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. IF 1 and/or 3? --- We're speaking of the need to cultivate a very strong Faith - with one's eyes glued to God and His coming Kingdom and a strong belief in His Promises of Salvation
Amen! When I'd first came to realize how bad things continued to go - it was depressing. At some point thereafter, so as to maintain a healthy mind and emotions, I sort of 'divorced' myself with respect to the 'Vatican' & Co. .. and shifted more of my focus to Jesus/God and His coming Kingdom - along with having active concern for those who are in need of 'shoring up'.
No pope can change Church teaching? The official teaching of the Church as expounded in the Catechism WAS changed by Pope Francis in respect to the admissibility of the death penalty. I don't know whether or not this falls under the definition of 'ex-cathedra', but if it does, either he or his many successors in office are/were wrong in their teaching. He had no authority to reverse the constant teaching of the Church which was never contradicted by any of his predecessors in office. Where does that leave us? Do we patiently await his next reversal of the Church's constant teaching on another matter? And then the next? If his teaching contradicts that of earlier popes, what does that say about him or them or the catechism? Someone was/is wrong. Who is it? I am amazed that Protestants don't use this reversal as 'proof' that the Church's official teaching is not infallible.
A thorough analysis which shows that even the reformulation of the Catechism under John Paul II broke with Tradition because the primary reason for the death penalty was bypassed. Primary reason: to make reparation Genesis 9:6 Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. Secondary reason: to protect innocent lives. This can be accomplished through adequate incarceration. So the Catechism under Pope John Paul II simply remains silent on the primary cause. Under Francis, CCC2267 states: "in the light of the Gospel" the death penalty is "inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person" and that the Catholic Church "works with determination for its abolition worldwide." So Pope Francis not only bypasses the primary reason, but by using the word, inadmissible, basically abolishes the idea of reparation in the case of murder. Come Lord Jesus.
"Reversal" ? "Tweaking" or "Cleaning it up" .. is more like it.. because the original CCC completely disallowed CP except in one fuzzy-ish area.. connected w/its pure opinion of the ability of State's ability to contain a captured criminal. "'Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ "as per St. John Paul II in Evangelium vitae 56 "Practically non-existent" borders on Zero..
I doubt any of us here will murder anyone, but this condition of reparation plays out in other sins as well, such as stealing. We go to a priest and confess the sin of stealing $100; we are also obligated to repay $100. If I rob someone on a bus and have no recourse to determining who the victim is, I need to repair damage by giving $100 to some good cause, thus divesting myself of the amount I stole. The Cure of Ars taught this forcefully!
FWIW - The first portion of of the original 2267: 2267: The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. [Lk 23:40-43] “If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect 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.
Just as well that this was pubished after the Nuremburg trials since Catholics could have insisted that ten Nazis be saved in the name of human dignity.
Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ confirmed in his dialogue with Pontius Pilate that capital punishment is licit since He told Pilate that his earthly power was mandated from above. John 19:10 So Pilate said to him, “Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?” Jesus answered [him], “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above. For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin.”
Death penalty. So the teaching has changed from 1. Permissible in certain circumstances to 2. Permissible but hardly ever to 3. Not permissible in any circumstances. A slow one I grant but a reversal nevertheless. Since Francis' encyclical was published it is now incumbent on every Catholic to oppose the use of the penalty in all circumstances!
Times have changed with respect to being able to contain and control incarcerated criminals. Not just a few Catholics firmly opposed the 1992 Catechism teaching on the DP for the very reason that it appeared in praxis to virtually and totally exclude any possible reason for employing it. They wanted eye for an eye .. and more - akin to "Kangaroo Court' and 'Cowboy Justice'... Modern popes have expressed their wanting a total ban on the Death Penalty across all nations.
In other weirdness, have you seen that Jimmy Akin was contacted (along with others, it seems) by the Dicastery of Communication to help with another survey for the Synod? The questions are skewed..... Seems like "someone" may not be getting the hoped for answers thru the diocesan process. How much weirder can it get? https://jimmyakin.com/2022/08/you-can-participate-in-a-vatican-survey.html See comments on twitter ~ @JimmyAkin3000
The idea that times have changed with regard to containing and controlling incarcerated criminals seems to me to be Eurocentric or Western centric. There are many parts of the world where prisons are poorly run, and lacking in management and safety.
There has been a definitive change in church teaching with regard to the death penalty. This is a clear break with Scripture and Tradition. Exodus 21:12 states that “whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death”, and Leviticus 24:17 states that “he who kills a man shall be put to death.” The Church teaches that Scriptures cannot err. But the new changes contradict Scripture. So looks like the Scriptures were wrong because these verses clearly show that the death penalty was encouraged and this then clearly was an attack on "the dignity of the human person".
The USofA is one area that can be argued to lack in safety at times.. however... The fault there is not so easily determined except to say that is can be argued to involve at times even purposeful murder - which now becomes the Area of Mortal Sin.. Those Catholics who railed against the original CCC on the DP - were (maybe still are?) OK with fully wanting incarcerated criminals of e.g., rape and/or murder - to be physically mistreated.
That's Mosaic law - Still followed by some (non-Christian) Jews. In our New Covenant from Jesus, and Sitting upon God's Holy Spirit, we're not bound by the Old Covenant Mosaic Law.
