MikeLigalig.com

Viva Il Papa...

Viva Il Papa! Viva Il Papa!

Quote from: Confused Seuss on March 01, 2013, 11:24:39 PM
lisod ispilingon but ill try to answer from my point of view
ang kuripot mo daginot unja dili mo gasto
ang daginotan mo daginot pero ka antigo mo gasto

Thanks for your explanation, Confused Seuss.

Quote from: fdaray on February 27, 2013, 09:57:40 AM
Kinsay kuripot ang Bol-anon o Insek nga maglugaw lugaw man gani?

Okay lang ug kuripot , basta maka asenso ! Chinese are successful because they know how to save and invest money, which leads to profit.

Who neutralized the Sulu Royal Army?


Answer: The Malaysian Elite Special Forces, known in Bahasa Malay as Pasukan Operasi Khusus Malaysia

The Tausug Warriors of Sulu

The Malaysian Special Forces Commando Unit. They were unleashed on the Filipinos.

Malaysian paramilitary troops

hahahaha!

That is a profound question. I want to hear what others have to say before I give my two centavos.

he he, i have been thinking of all things related to france. now, this will probably be my first time to visit france, germany. i have been to the netherlands back in 2006, but would love to explore holland more this time around.

thanks for your recommendation, isles.

Quote from: Mr.Money on March 01, 2013, 04:20:14 AM

money isn't everything, tho. look at steve jobs. he was a billionaire, but na matz gehapon.

don't you know? health is wealth...

hen: oh, darling, my darling, thank you.

rooster: ya, no prob, babe.

hahaha. kaya na nimo, balong, gamay ra na sa milyonaryo.

Quote from: islander on March 01, 2013, 02:00:57 PM
by laying more eggs?  that must be an eggful.

indubitably. however, before that egg is laid, it must be fertilized. the pikoy is useful in this great feat.

I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

John 15:1-5

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love Him, to enable them to fulfill the purpose for which they are called.

Romans 8:28

Quote from: chicogon on March 01, 2013, 01:38:58 PM
Uban ko beh!

he he he! sige, adto ta. pero we need to plan it out ha.

i'm serious on this , Fr. Roel.

i'm overdue for a vacation.

Teach us to number our days,
that we may gain a heart of wisdom.
May the favor of the Lord our God rest on us;
establish the work of our hands for usâ€"
yes, establish the work of our hands

â€"Psalm 90:12, 17

Balong, make it $200 !

Wow, a $20 prize?

Today I pondered on the importance of maintaining equilibrium of work, studies, and reviews. One of my staff members said to me as I wrote an action plan, "Sir, what do you do after work?"

I looked at her and smiled, "Ah, that's the $64 question."

I'm thinking of traveling to Europe this summer. I'm thinking of three countries to visit: France, Netherlands, Germany.

I had a long day today at work, was at work from 8 am, and didn't leave till 9:30 pm. I conducted an interview for a prospective psychology instructor to teach life span developmental psychology and cognitive psychology at the college. Tomorrow, I have to conduct two interviews for two physicians who are interested in being adjunct professors of anatomy & physiology and pharmacology. This evening, I had to stay in a bit later than usual to prepare the new syllabus and curriculum for 3 classes that we're planning to submit to the Illinois board of higher education -- they are kinesiology, human physiology, and muscular manipulation -- classes that are part of the physical therapy program. The deadline for this will be sometime by the end of march, haha. I am quite happy that my staff were able to stay in as late as 9:30 today. Na luoy ko nila that they had to stay in late with me, pero i was uplifted and enlighted when Ms. Elisa, my executive assistant, said to me, "Don't worry Dr. Lorenzo, we'll stay to help you so long as you need us to stay here". What dedication! I like that, really.

So at 8:00 PM, i treated them (4 of them stayed to help me) to Chinese take out. I ordered Lomein, Chicken fried rice, barbeque spare ribs, peking duck and veggetable stir fry.

The good thing: We finished rough draft of the curriculum and syllabi for said classes. Now, onwards to finishing and finalizing the draft this week.

The Lord has been very kind. And today marks a special day, today is the last day for His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to sit on the throne of Peter in administering the Petrine ministry. I do pray for him, that he will be comforted by the Holy Spirit, and I thank God for sending us this most remarkable and awesome Pope. May God have mercy on our Pope.



Sincerely,
I remain,
Lorenzo

Quote from: Pikoy on February 11, 2013, 04:38:21 PM
Maajung Adlaw/Gabie sa Tanan!!

karon pako kabasa ani da..tsk tsk...

para nako lang nuh..magbisaya lang ko ha kay mafi eninglis bya ko..

ang manok nga himungaan gajud ang nahauna dinhi sa kalibutan,  kay nganu??

ato lang gung ibase nga ang Ginoo gihemo nya ang tawo ug giingnan 

As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it." Genesis 9:7

so pareha rapod na sa mga kahuyapan nga iyang gina ingnan:

And you, be you fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

makasabot diay ang itlog kung istoryahan.. saunz..

hahaha. be fruitful eh? kujawa pod.

Quote from: chicogon on February 28, 2013, 01:37:29 AM
Lorenz:

Please answer my question on Papal Infallibilty when view of the world was still flat and a legitimate expert on the subject matter corrected the idea? 2013 naman karon and modernity taught us that the earth is round after all. Infallible man kaha ang Santo Papa? Nganong nanghilabot toinks!

Fr. Roel,

There have been many developments and changes that have occured since the Counter-Reformation of the 16th century and now. In regards to the issue of the world being flat, that was actually an erroneous thought that was widely accepted by many cartographers, physicians, as well as generals during the mideival period. In fact, Cristopher Columbus , otherwise known as Cristobal Colombo, disproved that false theory that the world was flat. It was generally accepted by many cartographers, and men of science during the day. When he discovered the new world in 1492, it was actually the Church who cooperated with the Kingdom of Spain and Portugal in the conquest, colonization and christianization of the new world.

The Philippines' discovery and colonization, christianization was a result of that discovery and support by the Audencia.

There were many archaic thoughts that have been disproved. In medicine for example, before the onset of modern medicine, the doctors of the ancient days and medieval period believed that the body's health depended on the balance of the humors of the body. They believed that disease manifested when there was an imbalance of the body's humors (liquids). This is why they bled people regularly. But that was corrected.

Papa Infallability Ex Catherda, in my humble opinion, only revolves on issues of Faith and Morals. Not so in regards to science or things of empirical, axiologic developments.

I think it was recently where Pope John Paul II formally apologized for the Church's actions in the past and exhonorated the name of Gallileo.

Why is this such a big deal? It's a big deal because our dear brother Hans Kung speaks contradiction to the Revealed Truth and has challenged the very Foundation of the Roman Catholic Church. You know Father Roel, I had a close conversation with my very good Friend JR, who is a last year seminarian (he will be ordained a priest this summer), and also with my close friend, Fr. Mark, about this issue of Hans Kung and their stance is quite close to mine. In fact, they too are overwhelmed with the revolutionary and acute ideas of Hans Kung.

So, for those who read this topic and want to understand the meat and bone of this issue , they have to understand what Hans Kung wants. This man is vehemently against the following: 1) The Heirarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, 2) He accuses the church of being "Authoritarian" in system, and 3) The selection process of the Bishops and 4) the Power of the Role of the Bishops and the Pope.

He is quite vocal about this , too. Now, as much as we forgive him, the Church is trying to correct him for his heresy. Note that the word heresy is defined as: "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same, " (Catechism 2089).

He challenges the heirarchy of the church as defined by the Catechism. In addition, he challenges the works of the ecclesial ministry. These are many things we have to consider and the debate regarding Hans Kung is seen in many Catholic apologetic forums. Many others refer to him as being guilty of heresy.

These are very important issues that are raised, as well, we hope that there is institutional continuity as was defended by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI and all papal legates regarding this matter. It is in hope that there is reconciliation with Hans Kung, I believe that he is an intellectual, however, his recommendations and personal point of view , which he shares so openly, is  heresy. I do pray for him and we all should, however, he should accept correction. Blessed Pope John Paul II corrected him when he was still alive, and so did his old friend and colleague, Pope Benedict XVI.



Yours In Christ,
Dr. Lorenzo

Fr. Roel,

I want to stay as much as possible through doctrine that is supported and defined by the Catechism of the One, Holy Roman Catholic Church. As you said before, we are judged by our actions. That is true, and it is in prayerful observation that we , the people of God, hope that the actions of Fr. Kung do not further damage the faith. I have read Kung's paper when he accused His Holiness in being to rigid, and accused His Holiness of being reactionary, conservative and old. Why? Simply because His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI's theological viewpoint differs from that of Hans Kung, who, incidentally, was a colleague of his from the past.

The Word and Decision of the Pope and the Ecumenical Council is definitive. The Catechism teaches us:

880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them."398 Just as "by the Lord's institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself."


Reference:
The Catechism of the One, Holy, Roman Catholic Church
Retrieved from: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm#I

Hans Küng reminds us that 'the Council, according to canon law, represents the highest authority in the Catholic Church'. Isn’t this again wicked, since the hypothesis of ignorance has to be excluded? Or schizophrenia? We have to consider that, if Hans Küng had to renounce to teaching theology, it was precisely because he had contested the Councils resolutions, in particular resolution of First Vatican Council about papal infallibility. Yet, on the contrary, not a single word about the impressive social message of Benedict XVI, well-worded in his recent encyclical Veritas in Caritate (which is nonetheless quoted), in which the Pope blames multinationals corporations and calls governments to take control of economy and its rules; he condemns the impoverishment that has reached the middle class in rich countries, delocalisation, the weakening of social State, the lack of rules in the labour world and invites Trade Unions to resist and to defend workers going as far as calling for an international organization to face globalization. Nevertheless, that speech, the call of a sovereign pontiff with a great heart, in favour of the most humble and poor, does it still allow Hans Küng to reach the conclusion of painting an image of Benedict XVI as that of an old Pope, conservative and reactionary?

The question remains, for which church is Hans Küng preaching? Certainly not the Catholic Church in any case...

Pierre Piccinin, Professor of History and Political Science, European School of Brussels.

And, of course, adding as well comments on paedophilia matters which are rocking the Church. Will Hans Küng continue to be ignorant to the fact that the popular John Paul II dealt with these delicate matters internally, and that we owe Benedict XVI the fact that everything has come to light?

Will not he know that it is Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then prefect of the Congregation for the doctrine of faith, who, under John Paul II, was fighting so that the criminals of sexual abuse were subjected to specific measures?

Who convinced John Paul II to create a commission in charge of making all these facts as clear as possible? Who, in the Curia, fought to reopen dossiers that had long been abandoned? Not a word about this reality. Let him feel the urge to call forward scandals and the refusal to accept Benedict XVI’s will of transparency…

In addition, there is the accusation put forward of the Pope betraying the ecumenist intentions of the Second Vatican Council. But, is it not Hans Küng who, in his theological vision, has left the Church for a relativism that suits well, according to the times, where all religions will lead to salvation? The Catholic Church is it not then universal? In this case, it is not catholic any more (catholicos : universal). The antireligious dialogue, nonetheless, would now be universal... From a catholic point of view, it is crystal clear that Hans Küng has gone down the dangerous road of the Reform. To end and among other easy summaries and double talk sentences, he asks for a new Council that will take control of everything and put this authoritarian Pope and his old Curia jealous of its privileges in the place they deserve.

Also: the attack against the will of Benedict XVI to beatify Pope Pius XII, who Hans Küng opposes to Judaism. Always the old process against Pius XII, accused of having kept silent about what happened to Jews during Second World War. Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill or Charles de Gaulle were not more talkative, they, who were perfectly aware of the tragedy that was taking place in camps, in the east. Indeed, when Jewish associations asked the Allies to bomb the railways which carried the unfortunate to death, by hundreds of thousands, their cynical answer was that they had other matters to care for. Then, why this bitterness against Pius XII, less acceptable since it was him, as it has been established by historians long time ago, who organized the rescue of the Jews, with the help of all European monasteries? The Great Rabbi of Rome has thanked Pius XII for this, on repeated occasions. And, as a secretary of Pius XI, he was one of the main writers of the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge that, in 1937, condemned Nazism, encyclical exceptionally written in German to be well understood.

Are these facts unknown to Hans Küng? Furthermore, talking again of the words of the Pope in Africa, about the use of condoms, even though it has been well proved that Benedict XVI did not condemn the use of condoms, contrary of what a sentence out of context might let think; he wanted to emphasize that, besides the use of condoms, fidelity in a couple and respect of the partner are a far better means to fight the spread of the disease.

Among those Catholics, from which more solidarity and support could have been expected for the legitimate leader of the Church, was the Swiss theologian Hans Küng, in a Open Letter to the Catholic bishops. Having taken part in the Second Vatican Council, Hans Küng, who was teaching Catholic theology at the University of Tübingen, saw, nonetheless, how his missio canonica was withdrawn by Rome: partisan of an out of control ecumenism, he had taken stands opposed to the teachings of the Church. Nothing surprising, then, that his open letter has no mercy for the Vatican. But, at least, it could be fair play, if the arguments used were well founded and, even more, if the text could not be blamed for a lot of omissions…

To begin with, Hans Küng attacks Benedict XVI, that 'old and reactionary Pope', on the matter of the 'come back into communion' with the Church of anti-Semitic and schismatic bishops. This critic is repeated several times. The argument is strong and it is used with extent; we can read: he has taken the bishops of the traditionalist Pius X Society back into the Church without any preconditions.

If we had no knowledge of this person and his mastery on Church matters, we could think it is a mistake, an error of the profane or the badly informed. But, coming from an eminent theologian, we are forced to assume there is indeed bad intention. So, at the very beginning the tone is settled… Hans Küng contributes to the confusion that pervades the Pius X Society, because Benedict XVI has never 'taken back' into the Church the schismatic bishops of Lefebvre. Even it is true that the excommunication decided by John Paul II has been dropped by Benedict XVI, that does not mean that the Pius X Society is now part of the Church, who has demanded several conditions for letting them back: the Pope has only made a gesture, looking for dialogue in favour of the unity of the Christians, and it is only the beginning of a long road, that one which might never even be undertaken; yet at this moment, th participation of Catholics in the worship of the Pius X Society is still not allowed.

I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church (…) I will give you the keys to the of kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be lost in heaven
(Matthew, XVI, 18-19).


These were, according to the Holy Scriptures, Jesus’ words, speaking to the Apostle who would become later the first bishop of Rome, a charge which he passed onto his successors and to which the Conclave, inspired by the Holy Spirit, chose Joseph Ratzinger, who took the name of Benedict to wear Saint Peter’s sandals. Since then, even though we do not doubt that the Roman Church does not only have friends in this world, we are nonetheless surprised by the ferocity put by some Catholics in crucifying Peter’s successor, who is already victim of violent attacks from those who, some months ago, have chosen the Holy See as their target.

this is one thing i loved about philippines. when i was back in bohol in 2010, i know that in icm, when the angelus was aired, most of the people, stopped what they were doing and bowed their heads and prayed. i was so amazed.

this is unheard of in the united states.

i love how catholic the Philippines still is. i pray, she remains so.

i have another one:

knowledge is knowing women have menstrual cycles.

wisdom is in not making your wife angry during her time of the month.

Quote from: Lollapalooza on February 27, 2013, 08:40:39 AM
There is a difference between knowledge and wisdom.

Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit not a vegetable.

Wisdom is knowing not to include it in a fruit salad.

bwahahaha! nice.

Quote from: islander on February 27, 2013, 02:28:03 PM
judging from his surname, weigel must also be german, or at least of german descent.  wow!

there was this other intellectual german giant who went against the authorities of the church in his time: martin luther.  we know what happened next.  i daresay the catholic church authorities are more circumspect and enlightened now, not quick to condemn, more tolerant of the noise that comes out in the marketplace of ideas.

Luther was instrumental in the Protestant Reformation, and this lead to the subsequent Catholic Counter-Reformation of the 16th Century. Luther was a vehement , outspoken critic of Church Theology, Church Tradition and even Scripture. So much that he decided, with no authority at all, to remove 7 books from Holy Scripture (incidentally, those 7 books support Sacramental Truths). This resulted in the Protestant version of the Holy Bible.

This resulted in the rise of protestant doctrines of : Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, which are in contradiction to Catholic Church Teachings. The latter stresses that Revealed truth comes through Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

Now, this, is an example of Wisdom that comes from God.

Quote from: chicogon on February 27, 2013, 08:50:53 AM
What theological teachings of Hans Kung, if I may ask, make him a heretic? Is it because he questions the politics and sometimes the actions of a pope in matters of what? Theological teaching? Or adminitrative decisions-making that has nothing to do with faith and morals? Or are we passing a general judgment of heresy because we have nothing else to say? If he, Hans Kung, is a heretic, why didn't the Church - besides asking him to recant (of course they wanted him to recant because he is the respectable Kung of Vatican II fame!) make that official?!! Hmmmm, and the Mother Church is the authority (not any Pedro or Juan or Bran Lucino who may be a firm Catholic defender, LoL). Why? Because the Church knows what it is doing! They just can't fire this man. Again, why? Because he is a redpectable in this field and even though he is some kind of enemical to the Church today, he is a seeker of the truth (a job of a scholarly theologian... not a doctor or yanong priest or just anybody). So, before we judge him... let the Church make the judgment first. After all, you kept insisting the Church is the keeper of the key Christ gave to Peter. Otherwise, you are the ones who sound heretical to me, bwahahaha. Lupig pa man ninyo ang Simbahan. Dako kaayo ang simbahan (the intricacies of the inner sanctum is beyond me!) di na lang ko
mag alig2x ug himo ug comment when I'm too small for the job hah! Aw kung comment lang, pwede ra god. But please don't get tempted to criticize sounding like your the next pope or one from the dead past. Makal lang... hehehe

Fr. Roel,

I did not once claim to be a theologian, so , please don't say that I claim to be a theologian. I do , however, read the Papal Encyclicals as well as study the Catechism on regular basis to see and understand / attain some comprehension on doctrine of the Holy Magesterium. In regards to the question of Kung's heresy, it is not my judgement, actually, but it is something that has been understood and observed by the clergy and by lay people of the Roman Catholic Church.

Let us define the word heresy, shall we?  The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (CCC 2089).

To commit heresy, one must refuse to be corrected. A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic.

A person must be baptized to commit heresy. This means that movements that have split off from or been influenced by Christianity, but that do not practice baptism (or do not practice valid baptism), are not heresies, but separate religions. Examples include Muslims, who do not practice baptism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, who do not practice valid baptism.

Finally, the doubt or denial involved in heresy must concern a matter that has been revealed by God and solemnly defined by the Church (for example, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, the pope’s infallibility, or the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary).

It is important to distinguish heresy from schism and apostasy. In schism, one separates from the Catholic Church without repudiating a defined doctrine. An example of a contemporary schism is the Society of St. Pius Xâ€"the "Lefebvrists" or followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvreâ€"who separated from the Church in the late 1980s, but who have not denied Catholic doctrines. In apostasy, one totally repudiates the Christian faith and no longer even claims to be a Christian.

Now, back to Hans Kung. What are some of the things that he has done or preached to render him being labeled as a heretic? For one, he has challenged the Authority of the Roman Pontiff, in particular, challenging Papal Infallibility. His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI has taken the position of defending institutional continuity. The Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff in terms of Moral and Theological Truth Ex-Cathedra is clearly established as defined by The Catechism.


Respectfully,
Dr. Lorenzo L.

Quote from: chicogon on February 27, 2013, 10:33:13 AM
I love (not respect) how you defend your Holy Father and Catholic Faith! Like I told you before you are a good Catholic defender just like many of them back home roaming around town and spitting fire and brimstone teaching usually where Jose Rizal is immortalized LoL. But that's what you are, a simple Catholic defender, my dear friend. As far as Catholic theologies are concerned I will give my ears to "registered" (hehehe) Catholic theologians who have studied and taught (many other theologians) and put in the time over the years as a respectable authority on the subject matter. As an orthodox practicioner of the faith I closely watch the Church Magisterium has to say on all of these. If they are not sure either, then I probably will leave it that way, too. Or like Ms Isles said... maybe they have taken a more compassionate and more forgiving approach in these modern age. Sa flat pa bitaw ang kalibutan nasayop man sad ang Simbahan. Sa dihay nisinggit nga lingin ang kalibutan, what did they to him? Toinks! Are you still going to invoke Papal Infallibility?!! LoL

Yes, I am actually fond of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, I also have read into his life and his role as Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. He was personally chosen by Blessed Pope John Paul II. What is also interesting to know that His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, while performing his role as Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, regularly corrected theologians who were committing heresy, straying from official teaching. He was renowned as the "enforcer of Truth".

Blessed Pope John Paul II was the one who personally had removed Hans Kung from his role as professor of theology. Incidentally, it was Hans Kung who repudiated Blessed Pope John Paul calling his inferiority in theology.

Now come on. A priest who dares to say he has greater theological clout than the Bishop of Rome, The Head of The Universal Catholic Church, the Successor of Peter.  The Pope of the One, Holy, Roman Catholic Church is the Vicar of Christ. God's Personal Representative.

I actually do believe in Papal Infallibility. Christ our Lord gave the keys of Heaven to Peter, and to all those who sit on the Chair of Peter.

Permit me to suggest that you owe Pope Benedict XVI a public apology, for what, objectively speaking, is a calumny that I pray was informed in part by ignorance (if culpable ignorance). I assure you that I am committed to a thoroughgoing reform of the Roman Curia and the episcopate, projects I described at some length in God’s Choice: Pope Benedict XVI and the Future of the Catholic Church, a copy of which, in German, I shall be happy to send you. But there is no path to true reform in the Church that does not run through the steep and narrow valley of the truth. The truth was butchered in your article in the Irish Times. And that means that you have set back the cause of reform.

With the assurance of my prayers,

George Weigel

George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of Washington’s Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he holds the William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies.

I therefore speak with some assurance of the ground on which I stand when I say that your description of Ratzinger’s role as quoted above is not only ludicrous to anyone familiar with the relevant history, but is belied by the experience of American bishops who consistently found Ratzinger thoughtful, helpful, deeply concerned about the corruption of the priesthood by a small minority of abusers, and distressed by the incompetence or malfeasance of bishops who took the promises of psychotherapy far more seriously than they ought, or lacked the moral courage to confront what had to be confronted.

I recognize that authors do not write the sometimes awful subheads that are put on op-ed pieces. Nonetheless, you authored a piece of vitriolâ€"itself utterly unbecoming a priest, an intellectual, or a gentlemanâ€"that permitted the editors of the Irish Times to slug your article: “Pope Benedict has made worse just about everything that is wrong with the Catholic Church and is directly responsible for engineering the global cover-up of child rape perpetrated by priests, according to this open letter to all Catholic bishops.” That grotesque falsification of the truth perhaps demonstrates where odium theologicum can lead a man. But it is nonetheless shameful.

That, sir, is not true. I refuse to believe that you knew this to be false and wrote it anyway, for that would mean you had willfully condemned yourself as a liar. But on the assumption that you did not know this sentence to be a tissue of falsehoods, then you are so manifestly ignorant of how competencies over abuse cases were assigned in the Roman Curia prior to Ratzinger’s seizing control of the process and bringing it under CDF’s competence in 2001, then you have forfeited any claim to be taken seriously on this, or indeed any other matter involving the Roman Curia and the central governance of the Catholic Church.

As you perhaps do not know, I have been a vigorous, and I hope responsible, critic of the way abuse cases were (mis)handled by individual bishops and by the authorities in the Curia prior to the late 1990s, when then-Cardinal Ratzinger began to fight for a major change in the handling of these cases. (If you are interested, I refer you to my 2002 book, The Courage To Be Catholic: Crisis, Reform, and the Future of the Church.)

Perhaps, while you and Benedict XVI were drinking beer at Castel Gandolfo in the summer of 2005, you somehow imagined that Ratzinger had changed his mind on this central question. He obviously had not. Why you ever imagined he might accept your view of what an “ongoing renewal of the Church” would involve is, frankly, puzzling. Nor does your analysis of the contemporary Catholic situation become any more plausible when one reads, further along in your latest op-ed broadside, that recent popes have been “autocrats” against the bishops; again, one wonders whether you have been paying sufficient attention. For it seems self-evidently clear that Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI have been painfully reluctantâ€"some would say, unfortunately reluctantâ€"to discipline bishops who have shown themselves incompetent or malfeasant and have lost the capacity to teach and lead because of that: a situation many of us hope will change, and change soon, in light of recent controversies.

In a sense, of course, none of your familiar complaints about post-conciliar Catholic life is new. It does, however, seem ever more counterintuitive for someone who truly cares about the future of the Catholic Church as a witness to God’s truth for the world’s salvation to press the line you persistently urge upon us: that a credible Catholicism will tread the same path trod in recent decades by various Protestant communities which, wittingly or not, have followed one or another version of your counsel to a adopt a hermeneutics of rupture with the Great Tradition of Christianity. Still, that is the single-minded stance you have taken since one of your colleagues worried about your becoming too evident; and as that stance has kept you evident, at least on the op-ed pages of newspapers who share your reading of Catholic tradition, I expect it’s too much to expect you to change, or even modify, your views, even if every bit of empirical evidence at hand suggests that the path you propose is the path to oblivion for the churches.

What can be expected, though, is that you comport yourself with a minimum of integrity and elementary decency in the controversies in which you engage. I understand odium theologicum as well as anyone, but I must, in all candor, tell you that you crossed a line that should not have been crossed in your recent article, when you wrote the following:

    There is no denying the fact that the worldwide system of covering up sexual crimes committed by clerics was engineered by the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger (1981-2005).

Why do you not know these things? You are an obviously intelligent man; you once did groundbreaking work in ecumenical theology. What has happened to you?

What has happened, I suggest, is that you have lost the argument over the meaning and the proper hermeneutics of Vatican II. That explains why you relentlessly pursue your fifty-year quest for a liberal Protestant Catholicism, at precisely the moment when the liberal Protestant project is collapsing from its inherent theological incoherence. And that is why you have now engaged in a vicious smear of another former Vatican II colleague, Joseph Ratzinger. Before addressing that smear, permit me to continue briefly on the hermeneutics of the Council.

While you are not the most theologically accomplished exponent of what Benedict XVI called the “hermeneutics of rupture” in his Christmas 2005 address to the Roman Curia, you are, without doubt, the most internationally visible member of that aging group which continues to argue that the period 1962â€"1965 marked a decisive trapgate in the history of the Catholic Church: the moment of a new beginning, in which Tradition would be dethroned from its accustomed place as a primary source of theological reflection, to be replaced by a Christianity that increasingly let “the world” set the Church’s agenda (as a motto of the World Council of Churches then put it).

The struggle between this interpretation of the Council, and that advanced by Council fathers like Ratzinger and Henri de Lubac, split the post-conciliar Catholic theological world into warring factions with contending journals: Concilium for you and your progressive colleagues, Communio for those you continue to call “reactionaries.” That the Concilium project became ever more implausible over timeâ€"and that a younger generation of theologians, especially in North America, gravitated toward the Communio orbitâ€"could not have been a happy experience for you. And that the Communio project should have decisively shaped the deliberations of the 1985 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, called by John Paul II to celebrate Vatican II’s achievements and assess its full implementation on the twentieth anniversary of its conclusion, must have been another blow.

Yet I venture to guess that the iron really entered your soul when, on December 22, 2005, the newly elected Pope Benedict XVIâ€"the man whose appointment to the theological faculty at Tübingen you had once helped arrangeâ€"addressed the Roman Curia and suggested that the argument was over: and that the conciliar “hermeneutics of reform,” which presumed continuity with the Great Tradition of the Church, had won the day over “the hermeneutics of discontinuity and rupture.”

I say “until recently,” however, because your April 16 open letter to the world’s bishops, which I first read in the Irish Times, set new standards for that distinctive form of hatred known as odium theologicum and for mean-spirited condemnation of an old friend who had, on his rise to the papacy, been generous to you while encouraging aspects of your current work.

Before we get to your assault on the integrity of Pope Benedict XVI, however, permit me to observe that your article makes it painfully clear that you have not been paying much attention to the matters on which you pronounce with an air of infallible self-assurance that would bring a blush to the cheek of Pius IX.

You seem blithely indifferent to the doctrinal chaos besetting much of European and North American Protestantism, which has created circumstances in which theologically serious ecumenical dialogue has become gravely imperiled.

You take the most rabid of the Pius XII-baiters at face value, evidently unaware that the weight of recent scholarship is shifting the debate in favor of Pius' courage in defense of European Jewry (whatever one may think of his exercise of prudence).

You misrepresent the effects of Benedict XVI’s 2006 Regensburg Lecture, which you dismiss as having “caricatured” Islam. In fact, the Regensburg Lecture refocused the Catholic-Islamic dialogue on the two issues that complex conversation urgently needs to engageâ€"religious freedom as a fundamental human right that can be known by reason, and the separation of religious and political authority in the twenty-first century state.

You display no comprehension of what actually prevents HIV/AIDS in Africa, and you cling to the tattered myth of “overpopulation” at a moment when fertility rates are dropping around the globe and Europe is entering a demographic winter of its own conscious creation.

You seem oblivious to the scientific evidence underwriting the Church’s defense of the moral status of the human embryo, while falsely charging that the Catholic Church opposes stem-cell research.

An Open Letter to Hans Küng
April 21, 2010
George Weigel



Dr. Küng:

A decade and a half ago, a former colleague of yours among the younger progressive theologians at Vatican II told me of a friendly warning he had given you at the beginning of the Council’s second session. As this distinguished biblical scholar and proponent of Christian-Jewish reconciliation remembered those heady days, you had taken to driving around Rome in a fire-engine red Mercedes convertible, which your friend presumed had been one fruit of the commercial success of your book, The Council: Reform and Reunion.

This automotive display struck your colleague as imprudent and unnecessarily self-advertising, given that some of your more adventurous opinions, and your talent for what would later be called the sound-bite, were already raising eyebrows and hackles in the Roman Curia. So, as the story was told me, your friend called you aside one day and said, using a French term you both understood, “Hans, you are becoming too evident.”

As the man who single-handedly invented a new global personality-typeâ€"the dissident theologian as international media starâ€"you were not, I take it, overly distressed by your friend’s warning. In 1963, you were already determined to cut a singular path for yourself, and you were media-savvy enough to know that a world press obsessed with the man-bites-dog story of the dissenting priest-theologian would give you a megaphone for your views. You were, I take it, unhappy with the late John Paul II for trying to dismantle that story-line by removing your ecclesiastical mandate to teach as a professor of Catholic theology; your subsequent, snarling put-down of Karol Wojtyla’s alleged intellectual inferiority in one volume of your memoirs ranked, until recently, as the low-point of a polemical career in which you have become most evident as a man who can concede little intelligence, decency, or good will in his opponents.

His Holiness Pope Pius X warned all of us about this in his Encyclical on the Doctrine of the Modernists , 1907. Fr. Kung is the very thesis of his example of men in the priesthood who have been corrupted by modernist theology.


"We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary man."

Encyclical "On the Doctrine of the Modernists" by Pope Pius X, SEPTEMBER 8, 1907

"We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary man."


Encyclical "On the Doctrine of the Modernists" by Pope Pius X, SEPTEMBER 8, 1907

These reasons suffice to show superabundantly by how many roads Modernism leads to atheism and to the annihilation of all religion. The error of Protestantism made the first step on this path; that of Modernism makes the second; atheism makes the next"


ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE MODERNISTS ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X, SEPTEMBER 8, 1907   

"For, as We have said, they put into operation their designs for her undoing, not from without but from within. Hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the very fact that their knowledge of her is more intimate. Moreover, they lay the ax not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers. And once having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to diffuse poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further, none is more skillful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious devices; for they play the double part of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and as audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance"

Encyclical "On the Doctrine of the Modernists" by Pope Pius X, SEPTEMBER 8, 1907

Modernism first started to become prevalent in the early 20th century, and Pope Pius X immediately brought the world's attention to it, condemning it with two encyclicals, (On the Doctrine of the Modernists in 1907) and (The Oath Against Modernism in 1910). Today modernism is very common in the Catholic Church, and Catholics must avoid it all costs. Any Catholic that should dare to approve of Modernism or be a part of it cannot call themselves Catholic!

Described as the "synthesis of all heresies" by Pope Pius X. Modernism is defined as, "A belief who's foundation is from agnosticism and Immanence. From these principles, allied with various evolutionary doctrines, Modernism tended to demolish dogmas (which it called variable symbols), Sacraments (which it reduced to faith-nourishing signs), the authenticity and genuineness of the Scriptures, the Church, and ecclesiastical authority and discipline. It would reduce Christ to human dimensions, and make inspiration a common gift of mankind." (Definition from A Catholic Dictionary, 1951)

For this mother and teacher of all the churches has always preserved entire and unharmed the faith entrusted to it by Christ the Lord. Furthermore, it has taught it to the faithful, showing all men truth and the path of salvation. Since all priesthood originates in this church, the entire substance of the Christian religion resides there also. The leadership of the Apostolic See has always been active, and therefore because of its preeminent authority, the whole Church must agree with it. The faithful who live in every place constitute the whole Church. Whoever does not gather with this Church scatters.
We, therefore, placed inscrutably by God upon this Chair of truth, eagerly call forth in the Lord your outstanding piety, venerable brothers. We urge you to strive carefully and zealously to continually warn and exhort the faithful entrusted to your care to hold to these first principles. Urge them never to allow themselves to be deceived and led into error by men who have become abominable in their pursuits. These men attempt to destroy faith on the pretext of human progress, subjecting it in an impious manner to reason and changing the meaning of the words of God. Such men do not shrink from the greatest insults to God Himself, who cares for the good and the salvation of men by means of His heavenly religion."

"This consideration too clarifies the great error of those others as well who boldly venture to explain and interpret the words of God by their own judgment, misusing their reason and holding the opinion that these words are like a human work. God Himself has set up a living authority to establish and teach the true and legitimate meaning of His heavenly revelation. This authority judges infallibly all disputes which concern matters of faith and morals, lest the faithful be swirled around by every wind of doctrine which springs from the evilness of men in encompassing error. And this living infallible authority is active only in that Church which was built by Christ the Lord upon Peter, the head of the entire Church, leader and shepherd, whose faith He promised would never fail. This Church has had an unbroken line of succession from Peter himself; these legitimate pontiffs are the heirs and defenders of the same teaching, rank, office and power. And the Church is where Peter is, and Peter speaks in the Roman Pontiff, living at all times in his successors and making judgment, providing the truth of the faith to those who seek it. The divine words therefore mean what this Roman See of the most blessed Peter holds and has held."

First Vatican Council (1870):

"the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church -- is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent".

Let us remember that statement, "The Full Power of Nourishing, Ruling, and Governing the Universal Church was given by Christ the Lord."

"In this you must labor and diligently take care that the faith may be preserved amidst this great conspiracy of impious men who attempt to tear it down and destroy it. May all remember the judgment concerning sound doctrine with which the people are to be instructed. Remember also that the government and administration of the whole Church rests with the Roman Pontiff to whom, in the words of the Fathers of the Council of Florence, "the full power of nourishing, ruling, and governing the universal Church was given by Christ the Lord"."

Encyclical On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism, Pope Gregory XVI, 1832

Quote from: hofelina on February 26, 2013, 06:38:07 PM
Professor Hans Kueng is a professor collegeau of now Pope Benedict. He is a harsh critic of the catholic (absolutism)authoritatian system. This has irritated the late blessed Pope John II, he was not allowed to teach Theology and was even warned to be excommunicated. As Pope Benedict took over, Kueng was happy to be invited as personal friend but nothing is said about his personal criticism of the church. Professor Kueng started  "Weltethos" foundation. for more infos http://www.weltethos.de/index-en.php

In my honest opinion, Fr. Kung has been given the grace of forgiveness and tolerance by Blessed Pope John Paul II, considering how Blessed Pope John Paul II did not excommunicate him for his heretical opinions. He was warned and corrected many times. This man challenges the Authority of two popes and the Authority of the Chair of Peter. I do pray that Fr. Kung relents and repents of this sin of heresy before his passing. It is a grave sin he has committed. And how he indirectly and directly propagates. May God have mercy on his soul.

Let us examine the words of His Holiness Pope Leo XIII regarding this issue of heretics:


From the encyclical on "Unity of the Church", by Pope Leo XIII in 1896, "Our Lord Jesus Christ, when in His Gospel He testifies that those who not are with Him are His enemies, does not designate any special form of heresy, but declares that all heretics who are not with Him and do not gather with Him, scatter His flock and are His adversaries: He that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth" (S. Cyprianus, Ep. lxix., ad Magnum, n. I)

"There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" Encyclical on Unity of the Church by Pope Leo XIII, 1896

Quote from: hubag bohol on February 26, 2013, 05:04:44 PM
For others, what they want is to be able to
Get It Up.

And they can do it. We just prescribe them :

1. Sildenafil (Viagra)
2. Tadalafil (Cialis)



note: just don't take it if you're already taking nitrates.

2094 One can sin against God's love in various ways:

- indifference neglects or refuses to reflect on divine charity; it fails to consider its prevenient goodness and denies its power.

- ingratitude fails or refuses to acknowledge divine charity and to return him love for love.

- lukewarmness is hesitation or negligence in responding to divine love; it can imply refusal to give oneself over to the prompting of charity.

- acedia or spiritual sloth goes so far as to refuse the joy that comes from God and to be repelled by divine goodness.

- hatred of God comes from pride. It is contrary to love of God, whose goodness it denies, and whom it presumes to curse as the one who forbids sins and inflicts punishments.


Reference:
Catechism of the One, Holy, Roman Catholic Church
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c1a1.htm#2089

The Church's moral theology has always distinguished between objective or material sin and formal sin. The person who holds something contrary to the Catholic faith is materially a heretic. They possess the matter of heresy, theological error.

This theological distinction remains true, though in keeping with the pastoral charity of the Council today we use the term heretic only to describe those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. Such persons are formally (in their conscience before God) guilty of heresy. Thus, the person who is objectively in heresy is not formally guilty of heresy if 1) their ignorance of the truth is due to their upbringing in a particular religious tradition (to which they may even be scrupulously faithful), and 2) they are not morally responsible for their ignorance of the truth. This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing before God.

By that definition, it is unfortunate to know that our dear brother, Fr. Kung, is guilty of heresy.


Reference:
1. Catechism of the Holy Roman Catholic Church
2. EWTN

Quote from: chicogon on February 26, 2013, 05:17:13 PM
Hans Kung is a formidable theologian and for the longest time, since Vatican II, has been a respectable resource of many students of theology. Wa ta kahibaw basin naa ni siyay kslihotgot nganong wa mahimong obispo kay ang iyang contemporary nga si Ratzinger nahimo mang obispo... eventually a cardinal, then a pope, hehehe

If I may forward my assumption, his inability to take charge further than a diocesan priest, not as a bishop, or a cardinal, is because of his liberal and heretical teachings towards the Roman Catholic Church. This is the very reason why he was not permitted to teach Theology because he intertwines his own personal agenda and biases. He was removed from teaching theology because of his heretical views.

Let us go back and define the two forms of heresy, shall we?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines these three sins against the faith in this way:

2089

Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

apotasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;

schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." [Code of Canon Law c.751]

Quote from: hubag bohol on February 26, 2013, 12:46:02 PM
He he, peanuts ra ani niya ang wan milyon, tikalon gid hang milyonir na ini haw...

awww, ayyy das nat a gud ting bla....

Quote from: chicogon on February 26, 2013, 05:09:55 PM
He doesn't have to, he's a theologian. His job is to seek the truth for us. Mao bitaw bisan ge criticized niya ang Pope imbitado gehapon siya one on one with the pope. Ratzinger is also a theologian so he understand the position of Hans Kung. Kung kita pa to ni criticize, aw, morag di man ta authority on the subject. Basin ma kick out ta nga di ma spelling hehehe

That may be so, him (Kung) being a theologian and all. But, in my honest opinion lang, there comes a time when we also must accept correction. His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI is our Holy Father, the Bishop of Rome, and one who sits on the Chair of Peter. The living and breathing Vicar of Jesus Christ our Lord. The Representative of God on Earth, by whom had received Divine Authority through the Apostolic Succession. And as one who sits on the Chair of Peter is Infallible in dispensing theological as well as moral truth.

As the old saying goes, "Rome has spoken, the matter is closed."

Quote from: Lollapalooza on February 26, 2013, 08:52:41 AM
Today, I faked a smile.. pretending to be okay but deep inside I am crying.. I've been crying since last night.. I thought I lost my father.. He was having difficulty breathing, dizzy and his bp went to 170/90.. I tried to look strong in front of my mom but honestly, I was so worried.. So we rushed him to the hospital  , thankfully, the doctor said he's now stable and gave him medications.. When I went home, I went directly to my room and began to cry.. mao resulta, nagshades samtang nagwork kay hubag kaayo akong mata...

Will pray for you and your papa, jenneth. I hope he is doing better.

Quote from: islander on February 24, 2013, 11:18:45 PM
my personal opinion:

fr, hans kung is the kind of intellectual giant whose tragic flaw could be pride.  while his opinions and proposals are not to be trifled with, pride could not make him wait for these to come to fruition in their own good time.  so he rues others; it's the fault of others and not his impatience. 

we know that every organization, from a neighborhood association to a corporate empire, is supposed to have this kind in varying degrees.  when they talk, they expect others to listen and obey.  so it is with the church as a temporal organization.  this kind will always be poison even if some have actually prevailed.  but confound it, even the heavens had a lucifer.   

the one so close to God had the audacity to challenge the Most High, had the audacity to challenge the authority of Most High. Lucifer, may God rebuke him, was a seraphim. The latter even boasted that he would climb the mountain of God and set up his throne above the Most High.

can we be surprised if there are those who would challenge the authority of Christ's Vicar on Earth?

i am not surprised.

heresy is heresy, and Holy Mother Church must correct them.

Quote from: hubag bohol on February 25, 2013, 07:27:14 PM



Manugklaro gid nga milyonir si Mr. Mani haw...

hmmmm, murag datu gajud ni sija kaajo. ginapiko ginapalo sang kwarta ini nija.

This is a picture of Holy Hill, Jenneth. It's a Roman Catholic Basilica in Wisconsin. It's about a 2 hour drive from Chicago. I am excited. My first Catholic Retreat in a very long time.





Holy Hill, Wisconsin


Route 33, the rustic road to Holy Hill


Inside the Basilica


I'll take pictures tomorrow.

Quote from: Lollapalooza on February 24, 2013, 12:02:41 PM
Yes it was fun.. bisan pa ug bundak ang ulan, nangabot gihapon sila bisan unsa pa kalayo sa ilang school / district... at first, seryoso pa sila sa orientation then pag abot na ug updating sa mga reports, iyahay na sila ug kantyaway kinsay ulahi tapos ang ilang discussion or debate, sagulan nila ug joke bisan lagi lunch break  di ko kakaon ug tarong kay magsige na lang ko ug katawa.. busy kaayo akong work week pero lingaw.. sulit gyud..

kumusta pod ka diha Bran?

he he, i'm glad to know that you had a pleasurable experience , jenneth. may you have a restful and relaxing weekend! i'm getting ready for my pilgrimage tomorrow, jenneth. tomorrow, i'm going with some of my friends to Holy Hill, which is in Wisconsin. Will include you in my prayers tomorrow. God Bless !

Quote from: Lollapalooza on February 22, 2013, 01:05:01 PM
basta seminar or conference sa mga District Planning Officers super lingaw gyud... wala gyud dull moments nila...

he he he! So you had fun! how was your work week diay, jenneth?

Quote5) ”I am emboldened to depict the invisible God, not as invisible, but as he became visible for our sake, by participation in flesh and blood. I do not depict the invisible divinity, but I depict God made visible in the flesh.”

Gloria In Excelsis Deo!

When I read this, i was truly overwhelmed by the words of St. Cyprian. His words are true and soul piercing. It gives me an appreciation why we are called to pray for the conversion of all people, for our protestant brothers and sisters, for the Jews, and for all those who do not believe in the Gospel of Christ.

Listers, it is no secret that St. Peter’s List has great adulation for our Prince of the Church, Cardinal Burke. Previously, SPL published a list of photographs from when the Prince visited the Notre-Dame de Fontgombault, in which there are wonderful shots the the Cappa Magna.

11. Christ Comes Back for the Church

Chapter XXVII concludes the saints work On the Unity of the Church by asking: How will Christ know who to come back for? St. Cyprian’s answer is that He will come for his Bride, the Church.

Let Our Faith Be on Watch

“Let our light shine in good works, and glow in such wise as to lead us from the night of this world to the daylight of eternal brightness. Let us always with solicitude and caution wait for the sudden coming of the Lord, that when He shall knock, our faith may be on the watch, and receive from the Lord the reward of our vigilance. If these commands be observed, if these warnings and precepts be kept, we cannot be overtaken in slumber by the deceit of the devil; but we shall reign with Christ in His kingdom as servants that watch.”

10. The Spouse of Christ Cannot be Torn

Chapter XXIII returns to the reality of the Church as Body of Christ, the Spouse of Christ and the Mother of All Who Live in Christ; therefore, how could this Sacred Body be torn apart via schism and heresy?

The Church is One

“God is one, and Christ is one, and His Church is one, and the faith is one, and the people is joined into a substantial unity of body by the cement of concord. Unity cannot be severed; nor can one body be separated by a division of its structure, nor torn into pieces, with its entrails wrenched asunder by laceration. Whatever has proceeded from the womb cannot live and breathe in its detached condition, but loses the substance of health.”

9. Rebels Against Christ’s Sacrifice

Chapter XVII makes clear that there is no unity in Christ without unity with the Church. Again, notice that he speaks of priests in this paragraph and spoke of bishops, apostles and St. Peter previously. Any notion that the Catholic Church was a medieval invention or developed later in history is simply historically false.

Enemies of the Altar

“Does he think that he has Christ, who acts in opposition to Christ’s priests, who separates himself from the company of His clergy and people? He bears arms against the Church, he contends against God’s appointment. An enemy of the altar, a rebel against Christ’s sacrifice, for the faith faithless, for religion profane, a disobedient servant, an impious son, a hostile brother, despising the bishops, and forsaking God’s priests, he dares to set up another altar, to make another prayer with unauthorized words, to profane the truth of the Lord’s offering by false sacrifices, and not to know that he who strives against the appointment of God, is punished on account of the daring of his temerity by divine visitation.”

8. Non-Catholics Are Not Martyrs

Chapter XIV addresses a topic that our “modern sensibilities” find unsettling. The question at hand is whether or not schismatic or heretical individuals who die in the name of Christ are martyrs. Since we’ve seen that Christ is not amongst them because they gather around a term not a person, the answer of martyrdom will inevitably be no. The saint explains:

Blood Does Not Wash the Stain of Schism

“Even if such men were slain in confession of the Name, that stain is not even washed away by blood: the inexpiable and grave fault of discord is not even purged by suffering. He cannot be a martyr who is not in the Church; he cannot attain unto the kingdom who forsakes that which shall reign there.”

They Can Be Killed, Not Crowned

“They cannot dwell with God who would not be of one mind in God’s Church. Although they burn, given up to flames and fires, or lay down their lives, thrown to the wild beasts, that will not be the crown of faith, but the punishment of perfidy; nor will it be the glorious ending of religious valour, but the destruction of despair. Such a one may be slain; crowned he cannot be. He professes himself to be a Christian in such a way as the devil often feigns himself to be Christ, as the Lord Himself forewarns us, and says, “Many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many.” As he is not Christ, although he deceives in respect of the name; so neither can he appear as a Christian who does not abide in the truth of His Gospel and of faith.”

7. The Person of Christ



Chapter XII address a mainstay argument of both ancient and modern schismatic groups: Isn’t the Church where two or three are gathered together in the name of Christ?

Gathered to One Christ

“For wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, I am with them;” showing that most is given, not to the multitude, but to the unanimity of those that pray. “If,” He says, “two of you shall agree on earth:” He placed agreement first; He has made the concord of peace a prerequisite; He taught that we should agree firmly and faithfully. But how can he agree with any one who does not agree with the body of the Church itself, and with the universal brotherhood? How can two or three be assembled together in Christ’s name, who, it is evident, are separated from Christ and from His Gospel? For we have not withdrawn from them, but they from us; and since heresies and schisms have risen subsequently, from their establishment for themselves of diverse places of worship, they have forsaken the Head and Source of the truth.”

Heretical and schismatic groups â€" which include protestantism â€" cannot be gathered together to the true Christ, because their doctrines, beliefs and actions all point to a pantheon of “Christs.” To wit, protestantism is gathered around the term “Jesus Christ,” not the person.5 The same theme can be seen in Chapter XII:

Priests and Sacrifice

“What sacrifices do those who are rivals of the priests think that they celebrate? Do they deem that they have Christ with them when they are collected together, who are gathered together outside the Church of Christ?”

6. Schism Creeps Like Cancer

Chapter X pulls no punches. After laying a foundation for understanding the true hierarchical and sacramental unity of the Church, the saint speaks candidly about those who decide â€" for any reason, even the infamous “God told me…” â€" to appoint themselves a pastor and/or start their own church.

Those Who Start Their Own Church Vomit Poison

“These are they who of their own accord, without any divine arrangement, set themselves to preside among the daring strangers assembled, who appoint themselves prelates without any law of ordination, who assume to themselves the name of bishop, although no one gives them the episcopate; whom the Holy Spirit points out in the Psalms as sitting in the seat of pestilence, plagues, and spots of the faith, deceiving with serpent’s tongue, and artful in corrupting the truth, vomiting forth deadly poisons from pestilential tongues; whose speech doth creep like a cancer, whose discourse forms a deadly poison in the heart and breast of every one.”

5. The People of God Always Had Unity

Chapter VII gives us the example of the undivided Church and Christ’s undivided garment. Chapter VIII can be characterized by a movement into Eucharistic Unity. The saint utilizes biblical examples from the New and Old Testament to demonstrate that God has always held his people to unity.

No Eucharist Outside the Church

“Also, the sacrament of the passover contains nothing else in the law of the Exodus than that the lamb which is slain in the figure of Christ should be eaten in one house. God speaks, saying, “In one house shall ye eat it; ye shall not send its flesh abroad from the house.”

St. Cyprian pulls from St. John, St. Paul, Exodus and Joshua to show that never before in the history of the People of God as there ever been a time where God did not hold the people to both a spiritual and physical unity. From Moses to St. Peter, the People of God have never been allowed to separate doctrinal unity from structural unity.


The Schismatics of Dante's Inferno by Gustave

4. Church as Mother

In Chapter VI, the saint discusses the Church herself and delivers one of his most famous lines:

    “He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother.”

Can the Spouse of Christ Be Adulterous?

“The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother.”

The Holy Catholic Church cannot be reduced to a simple hierarchy that can historically trace its lineage to Christ, but it is centered and held together by a sacramental unity and the Holy Spirit. The Sacraments and the Holy Spirit further the truth that charity and faith cannot exist in disunity

3. Bishops Protect the Church

Chapter V grants the reader both a practical and an analogous insight. The saint exhorts bishops of the Church to hold together the unity of the Church, and while this may not seem profound, it is a thwart to those who would try and state that the hierarchy of bishops did not exist in this time. The second insight is a well written analogy of the Sun and the Church.

Bishops

“And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole.”

The Analogy of the Sun

“The Church also is one, which is spread abroad far and wide into a multitude by an increase of fruitfulness. As there are many rays of the sun, but one light; and many branches of a tree, but one strength based in its tenacious root; and since from one spring flow many streams, although the multiplicity seems diffused in the liberality of an overflowing abundance, yet the unity is still preserved in the source. Separate a ray of the sun from its body of light, its unity does not allow a division of light; break a branch from a tree,â€"when broken, it will not be able to bud; cut off the stream from its fountain, and that which is cut off dries up. Thus also the Church, shone over with the light of the Lord, sheds forth her rays over the whole world, yet it is one light which is everywhere diffused, nor is the unity of the body separated. Her fruitful abundance spreads her branches over the whole world. She broadly expands her rivers, liberally flowing, yet her head is one, her source one; and she is one mother, plentiful in the results of fruitfulness: from her womb we are born, by her milk we are nourished, by her spirit we are animated.”