Saturday, July 06, 2013

Henri!!!

We received this from our underground correspondent we keep on retainer in an eastern seaboard city which knows how to keep its secrets, Guy Noir, Private Eye:
This from the com box at Rorarte C caught my eye and made me chuckle. I imagine DeLubac was probably very much Ratzingerian-like, without the last few decades to furhter shape him:
Johannes de Silentio said...

“If heretics no longer horrify us today, as they once did our forefathers, is it certain that it is because there is more charity in our hearts? Or would it not too often be, perhaps, without our daring to say so, because the bone of contention, that is to say, the very substance of our faith, no longer interests us? Men of too familiar and too passive a faith, perhaps for us dogmas are no longer the Mystery on which we live, the Mystery which is to be accomplished in us. Consequently then, heresy no longer shocks us; at least, it no longer convulses us like something trying to tear the soul of our souls away from us.... And that is why we have no trouble in being kind to heretics, and no repugnance in rubbing shoulders with them. It is not always charity, alas, which has grown greater, or which has become more enlightened: it is often faith, the taste for the things of eternity, which has grown less.”

- Henri de Lubac
See, de Lubac does come in handy every so often!
[Hat tip to JM]


63 comments:








Ralph Roister-Doister

said...

"Ratzinger-like"

That is a good insight, PP. You can see some signs of anxiety in his last years. To my way of thinking, it is as though a man who knew exactly what he was doing and did it his entire life is now seeing the results with a sense of, er, "without his daring to say so," GUILT.

Of course, that may be wishful thinking on my part.

I see something similar in a few works of Balthasar, although the anxiety seems to be more that Rahner is getting more attention than he, the romantic virtuoso, the universal savant, the author of so many reams of fevered theological rutations.

My sense of Balthasar is that he was so pickled in his own ego that he disregarded with absolute recklessness the consequences of it all. Egotism has always been the nervous system of romanticism -- the "larger picture," involving souls other than one's own, somehow has no reality, no meaning. His goofy theosophist muse Adrienne von Speyr was to him more a projection of his own ego than a person in her own right.

In normal times, Balthasar might have been identified as a heretic. But in the sturm und drang century in which he lived, his kinkiness was in the process of becoming the New Normal. That is true of all of the nouvelle poseurs. They lived and eventually prospered in the age of the coronation / canonization of the romantic egotist as Everyman. Of course, if the romantic egotist is Everyman, then every man is a romantic egotist, his coronation / canonization fit and proper, and the basis for all that will follow. And so it has been in the theology of Christ's Church.





bill bannon

said...

The reason the Amish heresies don't bother me is that we burned those people in the 16th century and now they dress modestly and our Catholic school girl uniforms inspired the first Brittany Spears video because our uniforms combine chastity and voyeurism once the skirts are hiked up into mini skirt mode. Amish now have what Catholics hold as a future ideal: large families, no muggings, take care of elderly in home, and rare divorce...and terrific potato salad. If their records are correct, we once burned several of their leaders and threw their wives in the river several days later. Now...in 2013, we're up the creek ourselves not knowing how many active gays are in the Vatican or if anyone can be trusted in the Vatican bank jobs. Pass the Amish macaroni salad from Walmarts.





I am not Spartacus

said...

Dear Dr. Of heretics there is never a shortage but what does the Catholic Conservative Collective (From The Brick By Brick Bund to EWTN to Patheos to NCR) have to say about Pope Francis when he identified as Pelagians those who practice mortification ?

http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-at-mass-we-encounter-the-living-god-through-h

Seriously, can you even imagine any Pope preceding Pope Francis who would say such a thing?





Pertinacious Papist

said...

Ralph, the insight was not mine, but Guy Noir's. Thanks anyway. Good points.





Sheldon

said...

... so pickled in his own ego ...

Har.





I am not Spartacus

said...

Dear Mr. Bannon. Sadly, we missed a few Anabaptists and let them breed and I have no faith in their putative records.

As to your comments about Parochial Uniforms, they are just plain weird and they could apply to the Habits of Sisters as well as to the clothing worn by those you admire; that is, anything good can be perverted.

As to their food, it is High Church Anglican Low Country Cooking for Protestants on mules and it does not hold an ear candle to Italian Catholic Cuisine





bill bannon

said...

    
IANS,
    Actually killing heretics was a non traditional innovation that proved useless in the long run and is now opposed as intrinsic evil by section 80 of the encyclical "Splendor of the Truth"....which denounces "coercion of spirit"..."torture".

St. Cyprian of Carthage of the 4th century like Ambrose and Chrysostom opposed killing heretics and wrote: 
    ” Religion being a matter of the will, it cannot be forced on anyone; in this matter it is better to employ words than blows [verbis melius quam verberibus res agenda est]. Of what use is cruelty? What has the rack to do with piety? Surely there is no connection between truth and violence, between justice and cruelty . . . . It is true that nothing is so important as religion, and one must defend it at any cost [summâ vi] . . . It is true that it must be protected, but by dying for it, not by killing others; by long-suffering, not by violence; by faith, not by crime. If you attempt to defend religion with bloodshed and torture, what you do is not defense, but desecration and insult. For nothing is so intrinsically a matter of free will as religion.” (Divine Institutes V:20)

     Aquinas among others like Innocent IV was a radical break with that earliest tradition when he wrote:
Second Part of the Second part/ Question 11/ article3/ sed contra
    ” I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.
      On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but “after the first and second admonition,” as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death.”

     Vatican II and "Splendor of the Truth" actually are trad on this topic because they go back to St. Cyprian who probably noticed that Christ's "Good Samaritan" was about a heretic who chose morally in an incident in which the orthodox did not.





Sheldon

said...

Bill,

I don't find these matters in the least contradictory or troubling. They seem to me to be developing different aspects of the same issues, considered in relation to different situations and circumstances.

Cyprian and Vatican II are not more compassionate than Aquinas, and Aquinas is not more ruthless in behalf of truth than Cyprian. Simply different aspects too detailed to consider here.





bill bannon

said...

Sheldon,
No actually. Christ then in your paradigm had no way to tell you not to kill heretics. But He did just that here in Luke 9:




51 And it came to pass, when the days of his assumption were accomplishing, that he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem.
52 And he sent messengers before his face; and going, they entered into a city of the Samaritans, to prepare for him.
53 And they received him not, because his face was of one going to Jerusalem.
54 And when his disciples James and John had seen this, they said: Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them?
55 And turning, he rebuked them, saying: You know not of what spirit you are.
56 The Son of man came not to destroy souls, but to save. And they went into another town.





bill bannon

said...

ps
The town was refusing Christ on heretical grounds in that He was heading for Jerusalem and the Samaritan town believed He should be heading for Mt. Gerizim....and they changed a passage in Deuteronomy to establish that Mt. as God's chief Holy Place.





I am not Spartacus

said...

Dear Mr. Bannon. I leave it to The Rolling Stones to profess sympathy for the Devils (Anabaptists) .

As to Aquinas and Pope Innocent being heretics (for that is your subtext) that is right in keeping with the modern tendency to condemn the Saints and the Church as they/it existed prior to V2 - the best council ever.





bill bannon

said...

ps 2
Correction: Lactantius wrote my above 308 AD quote not Cyprian though Cyprian said the same thing concisely here...(Epistle 61, no. 4) "religion being now spiritual, its sanctions take on the same character, and excommunication replaces the death of the body."





Johannes de Silentio

said...

Well, it seemed like a fitting quotation for the occasion.





Pertinacious Papist

said...

Bill,

Curious. Yours strikes me as a very common Mennonite (Anabaptist) reading of the NT text in question. As you know, the Amish and Mennonites read the Sermon on the Mount as also forbidding killing and even self-defense of any kind, which of course goes beyond your point.

Still, I'm curious how mainline Catholic commentators would interpret the passage. I'm not certain of yours, though I'll admit it's interesting.





bill bannon

said...

PP
I'm totally in favor of execution for murder...totally against it for heresy. Gen.9:5-6 and Rom.13:4 support the former;
Luke 9 above and other NT passages change the OT directive of stoning false prophets. I don't go by emotion but by scripture. If only I could bring that cool to trading the Russel 2000 at the right time rather than the froth time.





Sheldon

said...

"The town was refusing Christ on heretical grounds in that He was heading for Jerusalem and the Samaritan town believed He should be heading for Mt. Gerizim ..."

I think that's a stretch, Bill, even in exegetical terms. Also, Catholic teaching isn't founded upon biblical proof texts like that of some Protestants.





bill bannon

said...

Sheldon,
Your posts are too laconic and proceed via cliches.





Pertinacious Papist

said...

Hey Bill,

Jesus told the woman caught in adultery, when those who would cast the first stone departed because they were not without sin, that her accusers were gone and that neither did he accuse her: "Go and sin no more," He told her.

Was this a pardoning of the eternal punishment for her sin of adultery, and/or a pardoning of the temporal punishment of her sin? It's a relevant question. Catholics insist on the distinction.

Rousas J. Rushdoony, in his Institutes of Biblical Law, suggests that it is not impossible that Jesus forgave her for her eternal punishment but that she was still later stoned in accordance with the law.

Then, there's this:

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." (Mt. 5:17-20)





bill bannon

said...

We keep seeing Christ as all too human. Christ as God knew her heart perfectly... ie that she was also perfectly repentant and therefore He as God could foregive her thoroughly which He did to the good thief who was bypassing Purgatory in that " this day you will be with me in heaven" means just that...no more punishment whereas his death only satiated part of his life's offences technically. God can do that kind of thing...thorough mercy...if He wills.
On the jot and tittle of the law not passing away, Aquinas was correct: the stonings for personal sin are gone but their deeper meaning perdures til the last day ie they meant those sins which called for stoning were mortal sins....killed grace in the soul and still do which in the OT was not sanctifying grace but habitual cooperation with God thru actual grace as in Job's case of being righteous in his generation and in John the Baptist's similar case.





I am not Spartacus

said...

Dear Mr. Barron. As the First Inquisitor, Moses was sanctioned by God to bump-off heretics, so, we have that precedent going for us, which is nice.

Besides Moses bumped-off more souls (women and children too) then all of the Inquisitions together.

Moses, the 1st inquisitor killed 23 thousand one day (Exodus 32)

Moses, the 1st Inquisitor, Killed 24 thousand one day (Numbers 25) including all of the women and children

Forty Seven Thousand killed by The First Inquisitor, Moses, in two days.

Say, I do not recall Mel Brooks writing a funny song about Moses killing free-thinkers; gee, I wonder why?

Non-Catholic historian Edward Peters:, in his work, Inquisition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989, p. 87),

The Spanish Inquisition, in spite of wildly inflated estimates of the numbers of its victims, acted with considerable restraint in inflicting the death penalty, far more restraint than was demonstrated in secular tribunals elsewhere in Europe that dealtwith the same kinds of offenses. The best estimate is that around 3000 death sentences were carried out in Spain by Inquisitorial verdict between 1550 and 1800, a far smaller number than that in comparable secular courts.

Dear Mr. Bannon...

I thought it opportune to parade a few facts by. I doubt one in one hundred million Christian Catholics, say nothing about Jews and Protestants and atheists, know the facts about Moses as the first Inquisitor and how his record compares unfavorably to Frey Tomas De Tourquemada, about whom the vast majority of Catholics are ignorant and so they consider it funny to hear his name and reputation continually blackened

A William Thomas Walsh notes, "Moses put to death, in the name of religion, a far greater number of human beings than Torquemada did. Yet his name has been venerated by orthodox Jews and Roman Catholic alike, and alwys will be, while that of the Dominican monk has become a stench in the nostrils of the modern world, and a symbol of something indefensible." ("Characters of the Inquisition.")

Far too many Christian Catholics internalise the prejudices of their enemies, then end-up reflexively echoing them when a "trigger" is experienced, and then end-up boasting it is all in good fun.

Not me, when I read about , "Temple Police," I think, Holy Moses!!!

Put that in your anti-Catholic Pipe and smoke it





Pertinacious Papist

said...

Bill, what about the distinction between eternal and temporal punishments, though. How does Christ's omniscience change anything in this regard? One can be perfectly repentant and still deserve further temporal punishment for sins already forgiven. In fact, this is the definition of an "indulgence" -- namely the "remission of temporal punishment due to sin, the guilt of which has been [already] forgiven." Thus an indulgence isn't forgiveness, but something else.

While it's possible that the Lord can provide a way for a person to bypass Purgatory, this isn't a necessary reading of the passage of the thief on the cross, whose suffering after Christ forgave him can easily be credited to the purging suffering further required by the temporal punishment for his forgiven sin.

Also, I'm just curious about where the Angelic Doctor makes the distinctions you mention. -- Thanks, PB





bill bannon

said...

IANS,
I am a total supporter of what Moses did and of the dooms of the Canaanites but I recognize the separation of the New Covenant from the Old Covenant which you ignore but Lactantius and Cyprian didn't. As Augustine explained: prior to Christ, men needed great threats just to avoid adultery. Once Christ comes, the stonings for personal sin cease because A. Christ reduces the devil's power on all men B. He brings sanctifying grace ( Jn.1:17).
The Taliban continue the stonings for adultery after Christ does both things...and no one including you admire the Taliban.
Glad to see Ed Peters gave a figure of 3000 for the Spanish Inquisition. I couldn't find him giving any figure at all in the New Catholic Encyclopedia article he did on that topic in an essay that was very concerned with numerical detail otherwise. Let's see....the Inquisition was not bad because others at the time were just as bad or worse. Priest sodomy of boys was not so bad because public school teachers are worse. I'm sensing a pattern here. We have the Eucharist and the true faith but God will judge us on a lower standard than that. Our sodomites were saying Mass...public school teahers were not...but we can be just as bad as they because apparently God will not demand more from those who are given more. Interesting.
But wait. Didn't Moses kill those Jews precisely because they had been given more by God and contemned it. God gave the Canaanites 400 years of light punishment prior to the dooms ( read Gen.15:16 and the entire 12th chapter of Wisdom). But those Jews were doomed quickly.





bill bannon

said...

PP
We disagree that the crucifixion equated to all the purgatory a felon deserved for a lifetime of sin. I believe Christ wiped away most of the good thief's temporal punishment. I also believe the woman in John was not stoned later ...because the men were shown their secret perhaps adulterous sins as Christ wrote in the dirt. Proof? Check the passage. After Christ wrote in the dirt the second time, the men left one by one in order of age....an odd way for a group think posse to depart. Christ probably wrote the name of a woman
this one lusted after....or the name of a widow this man
defrauded....etc....Jeremiah 17:13 " those who turn away from you shall be written in the dust.". Once each man saw Christ's point about their own sin, they would have viewed the woman as not so different than they.





bill bannon

said...

ps tp PP,
Could not find Aquinas passage after 20 minutes of looking. It's in the SummaT somewhere though....I read the entire Summa T and certain things seared in my memory...but not the locations. I read most of Augustine except the Confessions but he is less clarified and thus less memorable.





Ralph Roister-Doister

said...

In a society where Church and state are one, execution of heretics is understandable, appropriate, and a damn fine way to spend a Saturday night. But if the Church instead endorses republicanism, in which Church plays no earthly governing role, then Catholics have no business executing heretics. Anathema will have to do, if leaders have the spinal integrity to exercise it (which they will not, for fear of some sort of reprisal or "bad press"). Catholics' fate is then to suffer persecution and perhaps even martyrdom at the hands of the form of government in which they find themselves (which includes the form that their council has embraced). Oh sure, they can argue their case in the public square, such as it is, and lots of luck with that, but in the end they render unto Caesar, and what Caesar wants Caesar gets. Some have called this religious freedom.





I am not Spartacus

said...

Dear Mr. Barron. Your exegesis is derived from purgatory-denying protestantism; it is not Catholic.

It does not jibe with the exegesis of the Saints as compiled by Saint Thomas Aquinas (Catena Aurea) in which Saint John Chrysostom specifically rejects the idea of the Thief entering Heaven that day.

And here is an excerpt form a Lapide on Saint Dismas:

Ver. 43.—And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, This day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise.

That is, in a place of pleasure where thou mayest be in the beatitude and beatific vision of God, i.e. To-day I will make thee for ever happy; I will make thee a king reigning in the kingdom of glory with me this day. So S. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechet. Lect. c. 13); S. Chrysostom (Hom. ii. de Cruce et Latrone); S. Gregory of Nyssa (Serm. on the Resurrection); S. Augustine (Tract. III on John).

He explains paradise by heaven, that is celestial beatitude. It is certain that Christ on the day on which He died, did not go up to heaven with the thief, but went down into the Limbus Patrum (S. Augustine Lib. ii. de Genese ad litt. chap. 34; and Maldonatus by paradise here understand Abraham’s bosom), and imparted to them the vision of His Godhead and thus made them blest, changing the order of things; for He then made limbus to be paradise, and the lower parts the upper, so that hell should be heaven. For where Christ is, there is paradise; where, the vision and beatitude of God, there, heaven. For, as to what Euthymius and other Greeks say, denying that the souls of the saints see God before the judgment and are happy: by paradise they understand an earthly place; that to which Enoch was carried. But it cannot be so—for it is of the faith that Christ, shortly after His death went down in infernum—that is, the limbus of the Fathers, but He did not go into any earthly paradise. It is, moreover, uncertain whether, after the Deluge, there be any earthly paradise remaining. But grant that there be such, it is the happy and joyful habitation, not of souls, but of bodies only. Hence it is plain from this passage, against the Greeks, Calvin, and the other innovators, that the souls of the saints, when thoroughly purged from sin, do not sleep till the day of judgment, but there behold God, and are beatified by a vision of Him...



Dear Mr. Barron. Stop relying on protestant exegesis. It is really eisegesis in that they read their heretical theology into the sacred text.

Despite the example of he who abdicated quoting a preponderance of protestants in his Jesu of Nazareth trilogy, protestants are not biblical experts.

If they were, they would become Catholics.





I am not Spartacus

said...

Dear Mr. Barron. Your exegesis is derived from purgatory-denying protestantism; it is not Catholic.

It does not jibe with the exegesis of the Saints as compiled by Saint Thomas Aquinas (Catena Aurea) in which Saint John Chrysostom specifically rejects the idea of the Thief entering Heaven that day.

And here is an excerpt form a Lapide on Saint Dismas:

Ver. 43.—And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, This day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise.

That is, in a place of pleasure where thou mayest be in the beatitude and beatific vision of God, i.e. To-day I will make thee for ever happy; I will make thee a king reigning in the kingdom of glory with me this day. So S. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechet. Lect. c. 13); S. Chrysostom (Hom. ii. de Cruce et Latrone); S. Gregory of Nyssa (Serm. on the Resurrection); S. Augustine (Tract. III on John).

He explains paradise by heaven, that is celestial beatitude. It is certain that Christ on the day on which He died, did not go up to heaven with the thief, but went down into the Limbus Patrum (S. Augustine Lib. ii. de Genese ad litt. chap. 34; and Maldonatus by paradise here understand Abraham’s bosom), and imparted to them the vision of His Godhead and thus made them blest, changing the order of things; for He then made limbus to be paradise, and the lower parts the upper, so that hell should be heaven. For where Christ is, there is paradise; where, the vision and beatitude of God, there, heaven. For, as to what Euthymius and other Greeks say, denying that the souls of the saints see God before the judgment and are happy: by paradise they understand an earthly place; that to which Enoch was carried. But it cannot be so—for it is of the faith that Christ, shortly after His death went down in infernum—that is, the limbus of the Fathers, but He did not go into any earthly paradise. It is, moreover, uncertain whether, after the Deluge, there be any earthly paradise remaining. But grant that there be such, it is the happy and joyful habitation, not of souls, but of bodies only. Hence it is plain from this passage, against the Greeks, Calvin, and the other innovators, that the souls of the saints, when thoroughly purged from sin, do not sleep till the day of judgment, but there behold God, and are beatified by a vision of Him...



Dear Mr. Barron. Stop relying on protestant exegesis. It is really eisegesis in that they read their heretical theology into the sacred text.

Despite the example of he who abdicated quoting a preponderance of protestants in his Jesu of Nazareth trilogy, protestants are not biblical experts.

If they were, they would become Catholics.





I am not Spartacus

said...

Dear Mr. Barron. After this time I will not bother to refute your crummy personal exegesis; it is rank protestantism completely divorced from orthodox Catholic Commentary.

You have achieved a rarity, yours is a negative infallibility in that you are incapable of exegeting scripture without error,

Your exegesis of Luke 9 is from what protestant that you rely upon?

Catena Aurea :

AMBROSE; Mark that He was unwilling to be received by those who He knew had not turned to Him with a simple heart. For if He had wished, He might have made them devout, who were undevout. But God calls those whom He thinks worthy, and whom He wills He makes religious. But why they did not receive Him the Evangelist mentions, saying, Because his face was as if he would go to Jerusalem.

THEOPHYL. But if one understands that they did not receive Him for this reason, because He had determined to go to Jerusalem, an excuse is found for them, who did not receive Him. But we must say, that in the words of the Evangelist, And they did not receive him, is implied that He did not go into Samaria, but afterwards as if some one had asked Him, He explained in these words, why they did not receive Him. And He went not to them, i.e. not that He was unable, but that He did not wish to go there but rather to Jerusalem.

THEOPHYL; Or the Samaritans see that our Lord is going to Jerusalem, and do not receive Him. For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans, as John shows.

CYRIL; But our Lord, Who knew all things before they came to pass, knowing that His messengers would not be received by the Samaritans, nevertheless commanded them to go before Him, because it was His practice to make all things conduce to the good of His disciples. Now He went up to Jerusalem as the time of His suffering drew near. In order then that they might not be offended, when they saw Him suffer, bearing in mind that they must also endure patiently when men persecute them, He ordained beforehand as a land of prelude this refusal of the Samaritans.

It was good for them also in another way. For they were to be the teachers of the world, going through towns and villages, to preach the doctrine of the Gospel, meeting sometimes with men who would not receive the sacred doctrine, allowing not that Jesus sojourned on earth with them. He therefore taught them, that in announcing the divine doctrine, they ought to be filled with patience and meekness, without bitterness, and wrath, and fierce enmity against those who had done any wrong to them.

Dear Mr. Barron. You gave you the authority to bring another Gospel to the world?






bill bannon

said...

IANS,
I wish my name were Barron...I'd have a nice financial newspaper at $5 a pop income.
God will show us both who was more Catholic on that Day. Your implied self praise means zilch to Him. The OT says.." do not praise yourself but let another's lips praise thee." That goes for your cuisine too. Let non Italians praise it. If I was left on an island and had to pick one cuisine, I'd want southern Italian cuisine even though I cook French and think it higher than Italian in complexity and nuance, Italian is delightful whereas
French altitude would be weird everyday. Generally you're talking tough but using a pseudonym on the net...widespread compensation syndrome...analyze it in private....customers or boss...but you fear someone in
the real world.





bill bannon

said...

IANS,
Luke 9 tells you why the Samaritans refused Christ...you don't need saints who missed the detail: " 53 And they received him not, because his face was of one going to Jerusalem."
New Vulgate:
" 53 Et non receperunt eum, quia facies eius erat euntis Ierusalem".

You don't need exegesis...you need to read and simply know that Jerusalem versus Mt. Gerizim was their central bone of contention.





I am not Spartacus

said...

Dear Mr. Barron. The Inquisition was perfectly justifiable and absolutely required to defend Holy Mother Church at the tine and I truly wish it were back in operation today.

As the redoubtable Henry Crocker III wrote in, Triumph had Germany an Inquisition at the time, Hitler would never have risen to power - but, you know better, don't you?

That you do not think that The Inquisition is defensible is one incandescent signal that you are a liberal whose break with Tradition is a cataclysm that even a Wallenda would not try to traverse.

Your animus against The Inquisition is a force nearly equalling in power the force of your exegetical errors.

Only a convicted liberal would be so arrogant to think his absurdities would appeal to men who love Catholic Tradition, but, here you are anyways...

Bye, Bye, Red Barron; you have failed to even engage with Tradition, much less shoot it down.





Sheldon

said...

Love the quote. Just wish Henri had been a bit more consistent in his theology over his career. Or, should I say "less consistent" to his Nouvelle Theologie notions?





bill bannon

said...

IANS
According to the Catholic Church that exist in the real palpable world now in 2013 and due to the implications of both an Ecumenical Counil and section 80 of " Splendor of the Truth", the Inquisition was objectively evil as material sin while probably being no sin formally for people like Saint Pius V who pursued and killed people for heresy. He had a sincere erroneous conscience. Did you have any Catholic theology courses at all in college?
Your abusive language toward Amish recently and your heavy dependence on ad hominems toward me are not a great sign that you are recognizing the actual Christ as He walks the streets of your life. And whether you know it or not, you are receiving the same test the pharisees received. You have no use for the Christ of Luke 9 who rebuked the disciples for wanting the Samaritans dead by a technique that Elijah legitimately used twice when drawing fire from heaven under the old covenant only. You couch all arguments as this Church sector against that one but your real problem is the Christ who rebuked the disciples in Luke 9 for wanting heretics dead. And if you really want to attain tough guy reality, use your real name and face at your website. Catholics on the net must be 80% anonymous...and fear is the only explanation.





bill bannon

said...

ps to all Inquisition fans...Spain as she inquisitioned was also robbing Inca territory of a mountain of silver at Pitosi first with paid workers then with slaves because the death toll stopped workers from volunteering. The silver was moved for a century to Spain where it became 40% of Spain's monetary assets. Perhaps thereafter....Providence reduced their standing as a world power. What's that you say? Their current unemployment is c 25%...Portugal too.
I didn't hear you.





Anonymous

said...

Bill,

Dunno about the Inca business, but the question of the Inquisition seems independent of that.

Have you read William T. Walsh's book, Characters of the Inquisition? The publicly received traditions about the Inquisition in the secular and protestant world seem highly disputable, at best.





bill bannon

said...

Anonymous,
No book can justify burning 6000 people for being heretics. Do you really think I'm going to buy that book or was it rhetorical. II Tim. says to ignore a heretic after two or three warnings....nothing about setting him on fire. Original Catholicism knew this. Aquinas innovated just like some accuse Vat.II of doing. Inquisition Trads are nostalgic followers of an innovation from the 13th century...that's not really tradition. And it produced eternal contempt by others for the Church. That's why we convert uneducated Africans quickly and professors
from the best universities rarely unless they're fleeing
Anglican churches. You're not seeing the demographic
damage. Our IQ level is descending because the great
numbers of converts from Africa and Asia don't read
western history. When you see no headlines ever that ten professors from Harvard or MIT or Carnegie Mellon or Stanford convert....that's inquisition plus sex abuse damage. Our increases come from third world farms
because they don't read much...yet.





I am not Spartacus

said...

According to the Catholic Church that exist in the real palpable world now in 2013 and due to the implications of both an Ecumenical Counil and section 80 of " Splendor of the Truth", the Inquisition was objectively evil as material sin while probably being no sin formally for people like Saint Pius V who pursued and killed people for heresy. He had a sincere erroneous conscience.

Gawd. You really are a flaming liberal, aren't you?

In the very framing of your crummy arguments you reveal the Catholic Church of today is completely different that the Catholic Church of the past; that is, you are making my point; repeatedly.

I know liberals are generous with the assets of others (thus your claim that the expenditures of confiscated taxes represent charity) but here you are being generous to me by proving my points while subverting all of your own nonsensical claims -that is, you are being generous to me but faulting your own vapid moralising.

Did you have any Catholic theology courses at all in college?

Thankfully, no. Had I suffered under the same education with which you were obviously tortured I'd have spoken-up to the point that I would have been kicked-out of the class.

But, such is the quality of the modern liberal that he quails before the vile novelties of the University Marxists and Heretics and Modernists and Queers (I don't mean that in a bad way) but grouses against the exegesis of the Saints and The Early Church Fathers about whom Trent condemned those dumbass enough to perform exegesis in opposition to those authoritative and orthodox giants.

Your liberry is filled with Raymond Brown texts, isn't it?

Your abusive language toward Amish recently and your heavy dependence on ad hominems toward me are not a great sign that you are recognizing the actual Christ as He walks the streets of your life.

Leave it to a liberal to conflate the Amish with Jesus hanging-out at the Food Court in the Mall. If you REALLY believed the bunk you are peddling you would be required to live a life of quietism for I am as worthy of your praise and unworthy of your criticism as any Ezekiel who just fell off an Amish wagon.

As an aside, I really liked the movie with Harrison Ford about the Amish kid who witnessed a murder and that featured a decent looking broad who wore the Lil' House on the Prairie headgear..that was pretty good entertainment.





I am not Spartacus

said...

And whether you know it or not, you are receiving the same test the pharisees received. You have no use for the Christ of Luke 9 who rebuked the disciples for wanting the Samaritans dead by a technique that Elijah legitimately used twice when drawing fire from heaven under the old covenant only.

Gawd. You are a Vermont farmer named, Bud, and your keyboard is the equivalent of a Manure Spreader - you stink up field and stream in your haste to finish before sunset.

I know that somewhere there are jobs available to guard warehouses filled with unsold WWJD bracelets, but the idea that some Catholic would act like a WWJD prot and tell me he is Jesus putting me to the test is to make of something serious something supercilious; sparkling with gee-gaws, wigs, and sequins.

You couch all arguments as this Church sector against that one but your real problem is the Christ who rebuked the disciples in Luke 9 for wanting heretics dead.

I don't want all of them dead; I'd be happy to put a Billy Pilgrim Amish Pilgrim in a special zoo and mate him with, say, an Indian ( A dot, not a feather).

And if you really want to attain tough guy reality, use your real name and face at your website.

Yes, you epicene exegetical experts are those to whom I would turn to be accredited masculine; besides, were I to publish my photo I would clearly be an occasion of sin for any woman between the ages of 16 and 38, to say nothing of the queers.

Catholics on the net must be 80% anonymous...and fear is the only explanation.

If you say so, Red Baron.

As for the Incas and the other pagan heart-eating malign malingerers who were bumping-each other off nearly to the point of extinction prior to the discovery of America (Yes, discovery) which one of them had any idea of justice or human dignity and who condemned the sinful actions of others like certain famous Spaniards did?

That is, who was the Wolf-head wearing La Casas of the Cannibals condemning the atrocities of both friend and foe?

There is ONE reason you are even able to criticise those whose feet you are not even worthy to be kicked-aisde by and that is it as because the SPANISH wrote about it and then legislated against it.

As another aside, do you know that the blonde, blue-eyed, beautiful, La Catolica Queen Isabella, and her hubby were moved to expel the Jews from Spain due to a trial that exposed the truth that Jews had killed a young Christian and cut out his heart and drank his blood on a Good Friday?

I'll bet ya your education omitted such truths. Who cares, I'll take a dead Spaniard over any live liberal any day of the week.





Anonymous

said...

Well, I had just finished a long note regarding the SSPX, the inquisition Isabella, Torquemada and his contributing to the beginning of Caesaropapism. It was my little rant that I was about to poost. In that rant I referenced William Walsh’s CHARACTERS of the INQUISITION. It seems that others have beaten me to it. I’ll just add for the benefit of someone who said that the SSPX have been guilty of only adhering to traditional Catholicism or words to that effect, the only thing “traditional” about the SSPX is mere outward appearance.

Donna





Anonymous

said...

Donna,

Why would you suggest that there is nothing authentically "traditional" about the SSPX beyond "mere outward appearance"?





bill bannon

said...

IANS,
I don't read your posts anymore. I see no connection between you and Christ. The first 1952 years of the Church was not univocal. Aquinas was correct on about 90% of things but not on killing heretics in which he ignored Ambrose, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Lactantius and early Augustine. Basically he ignored the first five hundred years of the Church. Trads who paint the two time periods as univocal are incorrect. Vatican II which was foolish in some matters was correct on heretics in going back to NT scripture and bak to the first 500 years. Raymond Brown was dangerous...he flippantly suggested that Mary never said the Magnificat...I believe on pages 345 or 349 of Birth of the Messiah...and said that Luke put the words in her mouth from Palestinan anawim literature but he had no examples. His writing on John though was actually helpful.
Your insulting personality makes bad guesses because
there is a sourness eating at you. God blessed you with a daughter...that alone should detroy the sourness.





Anonymous

said...

Well anonymous the short answer is that it is the truth. Catholic 101 is union with Rome. Union with Rome is the beginning of tradition. in the year 417 pope Zosimus threatened to ex-communicate a bishop if he consecrated another bishop without “canonical letters of recognition from Patroclus”. Whether we like it or not the Pope has the right to ex-communicate for that very reason and he did.
The SSPX look good but they are not in any sense traditional. I added it on this thread because the same people who read the other threads read this one. Perhaps in retrospect I should have posted on another one.

Donna





Anonymous

said...

There seems to be more heat than light here. No one who knows me would ever call me a flaming liberal but I have thoughts other than the Irish-Algonquin. I too like Bill Bannon do not see the holiness in the torture during the inquisition. I did not know that Jews had killed a young Christian and cut out his heart and drank his blood on a Good Friday. But were there no true Jewish conversions in Isabella’s Spain? Were they all guilty of that horrible crime? People of my own family have broken the law and I don’t mean running stop lights. Do you think that I should be expelled from my Parish? Many family is chock full of beautiful blue-eyed blond haired women. Is it okay if they insist on having the Bishop of their choice? Do you think that Pope Francis should acquiesce to their demand?
Indeed the indigenous people of the Americas were violent people. So are the people who inhabit the Americas today. Think about the babes who will never be born. If you think of what happens to the babe in the womb do you think that it is any better than what the Incas and the Mayans did pre Columbian days? So logically speaking is it okay with you if another country covets what we have takes it forcefully and murders all of us?

Donna





I am not Spartacus

said...

...use your real name and face at your website

Dear Mr. Bannon. I want to be as fair with you as you have been respectful of Tradition and so I will divluge a little bit of my personal history to give you some indication of whom I am and why I act as I do.

Now, I coud write about many things but one sort of unique aspect of my life is that I once worked as an amateur brain surgeon.

While at University, I was hanging out one weekned with several friends of mine playing Foosball and trying to float a keg when a buddy of mine told me about his Uncle, Marion Cline Feagle, a man who had moved from Decatur, Alabama up into Aroostook County Maine to “get the hell away from that friggin' heat,” and to seek his fortune in the rich potato fields of that famous County that produces almost as many pretty woman as they produce spuds; and some of those women are smarter than the spuds.

In any event, Marion Cline Feagle was a bit careless one day and he got hisself kicked in the head by, “Bub,: his mule and after that he became as useless as tits on a bull; he could only say the word, “Borax,” and his hands were shaking like the vocal cords of Buffy Sainte-Marie singing an impassioned solo about how her tribe was done wrong by Whitey; and, Marion was really starting to piss-off his pals down at “Tinys” on Maine Street.

“Tiny's” is the local Gas Station that sells Texaco,Guns, Ammo, Earthworms, and Shiners and they had about had it with Marion Cline Feagle and his repetitiious speech, his shaking hands and, especially, his damn practice of for voting for Democrats.

So, during winter break at University, I went up to The County (Maine has many counties but saying, “The County,” always refers to to Aroostook County), sat the poor man down on a bale of hay and made an assessment of Marion Cline Feagle and after hearing “Borax” being barked at me repeatedly, I decide to operate right then and there.

Fortunately, if was during the deepest part of winter in the Coungty when every man, woman, and dog in The County is number than a Hake (that is, as unresponsive to tactile stimulation as a Cord of stacked Maple) and so I just grabbed an Auger that was hanging on the side of the barn and I drilled down as deep as I dared and then I quickly heated-up the busines end of a Awl with a blow-torch and I “went in” and poked around a bit, searching for blood clots and what not.

Well, looking back on it now, I have to confess that I was not as prepared for the operation as I coud have been but, nevertheless, I was proud that I at least had the couarge to take action when the other members of his family were just getting drunk on hard cider and scaling frozen cow flaps at wolves.

Marion Cline Feagle? Well, truth be told, my operation was not terrifically successful and now his friends just put him in a wheel barrow, roll him out into the middle of the field, and use him as a Scarecrow, but, he seems happy that he is of some use and his vocabulary has expanded to the point were he now says, Borax, Boysenberry, and Cod.





I am not Spartacus

said...

II Tim. says to ignore a heretic after two or three warnings....nothing about setting him on fire.

The New Testament also says nothing about Cannibalism. So what is on the menu at your Solo Scriptura Diner?

As to the rest of your red-ranting, it is typical leftist heretical bull shit in direct opposition to The Syllabus of Errors: The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power direct or indirect.

Now, that is clearly your belief so I will be kind enough - it is Sunday - to point out that bolded text is a condemned proposition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWBUl7oT9sA







I am not Spartacus

said...

Pope Pius XII:

I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology, and Her soul. I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past.


http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-inquisition

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1154042/posts

http://www.defendingthebride.com/hs/spanish.html

http://www.stpeterslist.com/3159/4-sources-to-understand-even-defend-the-catholic-inquisitions/





Pertinacious Papist

said...

From teaching St. Thomas Aquinas' views to seminarians in Political Philosphy classes, I know how shocking his views can be.

The reason for the reaction is not, however, to be laid entirely at the feet of St. Thomas, but also our own ethos. True, there are things about which this Doctor of all Doctors of the Church may have been mistaken, but I would far rather push my students to search for reasons why he may be right and our reactions confused, than simply to write off the Angelic Doctor's work as a pile of irrelevant medieval opinions.

For one thing, the times in which we live are intensely pluralistic, and the realm of belief radically privatized, whereas St. Thomas inhabited the high middle ages in which Christianity inhabited, not merely the subjective consciousness of individuals here and there, but the entire structure and system of medieval society in which it was incarnated as the Corpus Christianum.

To be a subject of the king or duke or prince of a region in those days was also to be a Catholic, not against one's will but because that's all there was. There was truth, which fleshed itself out not only in the cathedrals and abbeys of the time but also the secular structures of the feudal fiefdoms and castles and palaces and lands of tenant serfs.

(continued)





Pertinacious Papist

said...

(continued ...)

Heretics, furthermore, were not typically academics who happened to question this or that interpretation of dogma in the privacy of their minds or the quiet of their university studies, but, like the Cathars and Albigensians, militant and violent, and suppressed by violence and military crusades. To be a heretic was to challenge, not private opinion of this or that Church theologian, but to call in question the very foundations of the Corpus Christianum and thus sedition against the political order. Moreover, the threat to a society's faith was considered far greater than a threat to its material possessions, since the former could kill the soul and not merely harm the body.

Clearly this situation differs a bit from our own time, as well as the first three centuries of Christendom during which Catholics were generally a persecuted minority (as we soon shall be today, if not already).

Hence, the first real question with which I have my seminarians grapple is how our times differ from those of St. Thomas -- not to illustrate how much more enlightened we are than they, but just to see the difference.

The next question is whether our times and our pluralistic democracies are truly better than the medieval monolithic Catholic political orders, as they generally suppose. Many of them are shocked, yet again, to find that Catholic social teaching emphatically stresses that the body politic as a whole has a duty to profess and defend the Catholic Faith. The whole notion of a confessional state is entirely foreign to most of us today, even though the new Hungarian constitution publicly and proudly declares its Christian affiliations, and even as modern a theologian as Maritain declared in the 1940s that a country like the United States has the duty to publicly acknowledge and profess the existence of God and his moral law.

(continued ...)





Pertinacious Papist

said...

(continued ...)

The most important thing for these seminarians, then, as I see it, is not to throw out St. Thomas as irrelevant, even on issues of heresy as a capital offence; or to see that killings of heretics were carried out by the secular government or their militaries, and not by Church or its clerics; or to note Aquinas' demand that the Church be merciful in offering preliminary warnings and chances to recant and thus restore sinners to God before they are condemned.

Rather, the most important thing is to see how far our framework of thinking about the Kingship of Christ has drifted from the moorings of traditional Catholicism. Jesus may have gone to His crucifixion as a lamb to slaughter, but He was no pluralist. And when He returns, it will not be to declare that the world bow its knee in recognition of His sovereign Lordship only if it wants to. At His second coming, He will "smite the nations" and "rule them with a rod of iron," says the Apostle John in the Apocalypse (Rev. 19:15).

The principle to be recognized here is not that the probable inimical reaction or ridicule by, say, the Obama administration to any suggestion of acknowledging Christ's Kingship makes this notion wrongheaded, as the George Weigel's of contemporary Catholicism will suggest. The fact that we may soon be forced to retreat to the catacombs and leave the public square to the infidels does not mean that Christ has no claim there. In fact the entire realm of Caesar or Herod or Obama, belongs to Christ, whether they recognize it or not.

The Obama administration is not going to burn heretics today, or it would have to raise its own empire to the ground. The Church, for her part, can do little more than censure heretical opinions today -- although it all-too-rarely does even that.

When Christ returns, everyone alive will live subject to His absolute rule. Our government will be a theocracy. The relative proximity of medieval government to that ideal, and the relative distance of our government from it, is not a measure of our more enlightened toleration, but (as Henri's remarks in this post suggest) a measure of something lost in the firmament of our understanding of the world in which we now live.





Pertinacious Papist

said...

In the meantime, given my perverse sense of humour, let me recommend that you go over to the New Oxford Review gear shoppe and purchase the outdoor grilling apron with the "I'd rather be roasting heretics" logo on it; or to the Sokol Blosser winery site for a Pino Noir that "Pairs well with Roasted Heretic."

Yes, yes, I know ... Chances are, it will be much likelier that we Catholics (especially of my perverse sort) who are roasted alive for our views before there's any chance of a real heretic being barbecued. But we can't lose our sense of humour, can we.





Pertinacious Papist

said...

The Sokol Blosser winery website is actually HERE, for what it's worth.





Anonymous

said...

This is just a friendly reminder that those folks who get sloshed on Saturday evening should refrain from receiving our Lord in the Eucharist on Sunday until he has visited the confessional.

Donna





Anonymous

said...

Dear Dr. Blosser,
I very much appreciate what you write on this topic. I am totally against coercion however, I believe in free will. Even in Christendom torture was cruel and I’m betting they got “conversions” out of that. I do see that capital punishment for heretics, at least those who start the heresy would be right but I see torture as satanic. I believe that there were many dirty hands in the hierarchy of the Church at the time of the inquisition as there are today.

Donna





I am not Spartacus

said...

Dear Dr. That is just the sort of cool reason that is likely to dampen the ardor of we combatants.

Thanks. I guess

:)





bill bannon

said...

PP
And you think Mary in Heaven is pleased and smiling with the New Oxford apron humor even though her Son constantly hoped His followers would be one? And instead He got centuries of the baptized killing each other. And Mary has a sense of humor about this? And where in Catholic tradition are you getting a theocracy prior to the new heavens and the new earth (in which there are only the glorified not the still concupiscent)..and...who need a literal government because they are not yet glorified? Where are you getting a theocracy of yet unglorified end of history folk.
Check newadvent. Christ comes and the Last Judgement begins....no theocracy needed.





bill bannon

said...

Donna,
Don't be too quick to accept blood sacrifice stories about the Jews in comboxes where references are not given. Check wiki on blood libel. Here is an exerpt which is probably the one you believed from this thread:
" Christopher of Toledo, also known as Christopher of La Guardia or "the Holy Child of La Guardia," was a four-year-old Christian boy supposedly murdered by two Jews and three Conversos (converts to Christianity). In total, eight men were executed. It is now believed[24] that this case was constructed by the Spanish Inquisition to facilitate the expulsion of Jews from Spain. He was canonized by Pope Pius VII in 1805. Christopher has since been removed from the canon, though once again, a handful of individuals still claim the validity of this case."





Anonymous

said...

Mr. Bannon
I spent some time surfing the web to find information of the canonization of the child. I didn’t check the site that you recommended because wiki is somewhat notorious for bad information from time to time. I did find several sites stating that Pope Pius VII canonized the child but I looked for any church record of the canonization and could find none. If it is true that he was canonized then we must accept it as truth. Canonizations are to be believed de fide. I found one that does state that the child was ritually murdered http://solargeneral.com/jeffs-archive/ritual-murder/st-christopher/ but the fella also presents evidence that the Jews caused 911. I am fairly certain that the “Christopher” who was removed from the canon was the ancient Christopher. The one where high school girls of my era wore his medal as a sign that they were “going steady” and just referred to them as “Christopher medals”.
Regarding the execution of heretics by the authorities in a Catholic country. As Dr. Blosser wrote “Moreover, the threat to a society's faith was considered far greater than a threat to its material possessions, since the former could kill the soul and not merely harm the body”. Jesus said in St. Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
I believe the leaders of that Catholic country had the authority to apply capital punishment for leaders of heretical sects who lead people out of the Church and away from the Sacraments risking damnation of their souls. I simply cannot understand how people who receive Our Lord in the Eucharist can have the coldness to inflict torture on another human being. All of my friends and nearly all of my family (big Irish family) are one flavor of protestant or another except for the atheists. I gave birth to two of these folks. My sadness is profound.

Donna





bill bannon

said...

Donna,
Keep researching. Lol....no body was ever found...no Christian family reported a child missing. Mass delusion is not ancient. We invaded Iraq based on one. Like the Child of La Guardia whose body was never found despite a location given under torture....weapons of mass destruction were never found in Iraq. The story then changed to Hussein moving them to another nearby country. In Spain the story changed to Spaniards saying the child's body was assumed into heaven. After Christ, I know of only one Assumption. Six weeks after the execution of Jews for the non existent child, Torquemada was able to convince the Queen to expel the Jews partly with that as an argument. Write to the CDF and ask them if the Child of LaGuardia was canonized by a Pope or by local acclamation. The internet is the least reliable source on such things.
For me it is rediculous to believe that torture got confessions but did not get the proper location. It did not get the location because a tortured inmate cannot produce a body location when a body never existed. Write to the CDF. I already know the answer based on logic and human nature. And the CDF never answered me years ago when I told them that the NY Archdiocese was switching Petrine privilege cases to the annullment courts which affected the denotation of the children involved. The two processes say radically different things about the first parents. Figures produced years later by Federal Judge John Noonan Jr. comparing NY
to other major cities on privilege cases proved me
100% correct.





I am not Spartacus

said...

Dear Mr Bannon. The case is exhaustively reviewed in The Last Crusader Isabella of Spain by the heroic, William Thomas Walsh.

I would have been disappointed had you not referenced wiki or tossed a handful of hokum hay into the eyes of readers so as to try and blind them to the truth and which truth can be read on pages 342- 372 in the aforementioned book.

The fact is that Jews crucified the youth in the form of which the Jews has crucified Jesus Christ. according to the testimony of a blackguard named, Alfonso.

Such facts are dismissed out of hand by those who fear the Jews and the facts are said to have been developed as the result of torture (this specific case was so dismissed by Jordannes at the Brick By Brick Bund)

Sorry. That ain't what happened.

That afternoon Yuce remembered having seen the conversos - the Francos, Benito and Juan de Ocana - take a Christian boy, three or four years old, into the cave, and after they stripped him, they crucified him on some crossed poles, and gagged him him, buffeted him, pulled his hair, whipped him spat on him, and crowned him with thorns from a gorge bush. Alfonso Franco opened the veins of both arms and let him bleed for half an hour, and caught the blood from one arm in a copper cauldron, and that from the other "in a yellow cup such as they call toscas in Ocana.

Lope Franco whipped the boy and Juan de Franco crowned him with thorns. Juan Franco opened the victim's side with his knife. Garcia Franco, the fourth brother. took out the heart from under the breast and put a little salt on it.....

Garcia and Juan Franco took the small corpse from the cave, Juan holding the hands and Garcia holding the feet (and they buried him in a secret valley)

Alfonso kept the heart until they al gathered in the cave a second time when Tazarte (Jewish Physician) made his conjuro


Bill, you better stick with describing as Charity the the Governmental expenditures of confiscated tax monies for you are woefully ignorant about everything else.

Now that is it for me as far as responding to you.

I know I wrote I was done with you before but a few of your inanities had to be set right but your combination of historical ignorance and arrogant promotion of novelties as tradition are too irksome to tolerate.

And besides, you do not even have the common decency to admit error even when your false claims have been proven wrong right in front of your face.

Well, Bill, everybody can see your pertinacity in error; except for you.

Ta-ta.





bill bannon

said...

Donna PS...
Here from a Jewish source that praises Popes for opposing these libels...is the most intelligent essay you'll find and it solves the Pius VII alleged canonization...it never happened....he confirmed the cult but did not canonize in the new formal investigative manner.

you'll find ( link below):

" Not too much, accordingly, should be made also of the confirmation of local cults of children allegedly slaughtered by Jews for ritual purposes in Spain, such as Dominguito del Val (reported to have been found dead in 1250) and the unnamed "Child from La Guardia" (who was alleged to have been killed in 1490). Although there was a trial for the "Niño of La Guardia" in 1491, and the incident was even mentioned as a reason for the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492, no body was ever found and both the Niño and Dominguito del Val may never have existed, although Pope Pius VII (1742-1823) "confirmed" their cult in 1805, as did Pius IX (1792-1872, beatified in 2000) for Lorenzino Sossio (1480-1485) of Marostica, Italy, in 1867."

http://www.covenant.idc.ac.il/en/vol1/issue2/introvigne.html

The link gives a history of the Popes' efforts to suppress erroneous charges of blood libel against the Jews. The child of LaGuardia was the old style popular acclamation saint not one who underwent formal canonization...two Popes simply never investigated but confirmed the cult in a non infallible venue. Removed from the calender of saints later probably based on a pattern of these libels and the fact that no body was found even under torture...nor did any Christian family report a child missing.
The link is great as to praising Vatican action against this tradition.





bill bannon

said...

Donna,
From Fordham University site confirming what the Jewish link said....three Popes...Innocent III, Innocent IV and Gregory X all wrote bulls against this recurring phenomenon of stories of children killed by Jews among the laity in several countries:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g10-jews.asp

Here is the final paragraph of Pope Gregory X from the link:

" And most falsely do these Christians claim that the Jews have secretly and furtively carried away these children and killed them, and that the Jews offer sacrifice from the heart and blood of these children, since their law in this matter precisely and expressly forbids Jews to sacrifice, eat, or drink the blood, or to eat the flesh of animals having claws. This has been demonstrated many times at our court by Jews converted to the Christian faith: nevertheless very many Jews are often seized and detained unjustly because of this. We decree, therefore, that Christians need not be obeyed against Jews in a case or situation of this type, and we order that Jews seized under such a silly pretext be freed from imprisonment, and that they shall not be arrested henceforth on such a miserable pretext, unless-which we do not believe-they be caught in the commission of the crime. We decree that no Christian shall stir up anything new against them, but that they should be maintained in that status and position in which they were in the time of our predecessors, from antiquity till now."





bill bannon

said...

IANS
Your author Walsh was praised by Fr. Feeney. No red flag there...eh.





I am not Spartacus

said...

Dear Donna. You simply are going to have to become an autodidact to find out the truth of these matters for the crummy website you were directed to is teeming with tendentious Anti-Catholic claptrap.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/judaism/jewrope.htm

All questions are considered resolved by appeals to Bulls which, naturally, condemned unproven and unfounded and undocumented cases while the Jesus-Deniers at that site attribute animus against the Jews to Catholic bigotry and hatred; that is, we are forever guilty while they are sempiternally innocent.

I actually snickered when I read its description of the fantastic publication, La Civilta Cattolica which had this presecient editorial warning Christians to stop the evil of civil and political equality, or else:

October 23, 1890 La Civiltà Cattolica, on The Jewish Question


Ultimate Defense: Setting Aside Civil Equality

But as long as Christianity doesn't shed the political yoke of Masonry, it will be vain to propose and discuss possible solutions for liberation. The only solution and, at the same time the most reliable one, is to turn back and retake the way where one has gone astray. If the Hebrews are not put in their place by humane and Christian laws, certainly, but nevertheless by laws of exception which deprive them of civil equality, to which they have no right and which is even no less pernicious for them than it is for Christians, little or nothing will be accomplished. Seeing the inevitability of their presence in the various countries; seeing their unalterable nature of their being foreigners in every country, and of their being enemies of each country that tolerates them, and of their being a society always separated from the societies in which it lives; seeing the Talmud's morality that they follow, and the fundamental dogma of their religion which impels them to seize, by any means whatsoever, the goods of all peoples, because it assigns to their race the possession of, and the domination over, all the world; seeing that the experience of many centuries, and that one which we are undergoing at present, has proven and still proves, that the legal equality with Christians conceded to them in the Christian states results either in their oppression of Christians or in their slaughter by Christians, there emerges the consequence that the only way of reconciling the Hebrews' residence with the Christians' rights is to regulate it with such laws which, at the same time, impede the Hebrews from offending the Christians' welfare, and impede the Christians from offending that of the Hebrews.

And this is just what, in a more or less perfect manner, has been done in the past; this is what, for a century, the Hebrews have tried to abolish; but this is also what, sooner or later, willingly or unwillingly, will have to be restored, and perhaps the Hebrews themselves will be constrained to ask that it be restored. For the predominance to which today's revolutionary law has helped them is digging an abyss under their feet, whose depth corresponds to the height to which they have risen. And at the first burst of the storm they are provoking by their very predominance at present, they will suffer such an enormous ruin, heralding an event as unequaled in their history as their modern audacity is also unequaled and with which they have trampled the nations that have madly exalted them.


(On January 30, 1930, German President Paul Von Hindenburg named Adolph Hitler Chancellor – only forty years after the official Catholic Church's media organ, La Civilta Cattolica , issued its onimous warning).

And now I will quit this thread entirely as I know this topic can bring ruin to those who treat of it seriously and the very last thing I desire is to be the cause of pressure directed against the good Dr.