Opus Dei?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Feb 10 2005, 04:11 AM'] Don't pheed the phish.  Not even phish phood. [/quote]
You took me too personally. I was trying to provide comic relief to a thread by imitating a "do not feed the bears" sign as a reference to the ferocity of phishies in their debates, since they do not ever listen or back down, but only continue to post arguments which disturb the Church and are opposed to truth, trying to eat away at the Church.

You I have no problem with...your tactics and debate strategies, such as questioning the positions of certain saints and wholly condemning the Talmud, despite [i]some[/i] inherent good, are what I have a problem with.

Mocking a system of debating method and the evil associated with it is not mocking the person who uses that system of debating method. It's not any lack of charity.

[kateri05]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jan 19 2005, 01:01 PM'] I didn't find my option in the poll:

"I am not in Opus Dei, but Opus Dei is good."

Thus, my vote is for the above option.

God bless,
Todd [/quote]
i vote with todd


<edit> whoo, i should read the whole thread before i post. things got ugly in here. why can't everyone play nice? and, lol, i must agree with Raphael's post, but it is just so tempting sometimes to pheed the phish

Edited February 10, 2005 by kateri05

[james]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Feb 10 2005, 08:15 AM']

If you go back, I have written plenty that you could refute (or attempt to), but you use the same tired lines about Rabbi Kreiman and quote popes who lived hundreds of years ago.



[/quote]
Since when does what a pope said hundreds of years ago become "tired" and inadmissible? Communists believe history is irrelevant, and for obvious reasons: they don't want any benchmark to exist which their present ideas and actions can be judged by. That's exactly the opposite of how the teaching magisterium of the church is intended to work. Popes are to honor their predecessors exactly as Pope Leo XIII honored Pope Clement VIII who stated that the Talmud must always remain condemned and that this law must be perpetually observed.

[quote name='Cam42']When those popes said what they said, Leo XIII, et al., they were not speaking infallibly.  They were teaching for the times.  They were speaking about the truth as they knew it.  But unless it were an infallible teaching, I can guarantee you that their understanding of the truth may be less full than that of today.  While the Truth does not change, the understanding of that Truth most certainly does...[/quote]

So popes in the past didn't understand the truth, but now they do? Is that what you're saying? This is not Catholic thinking. It's very close to postmodernism, however.

On the other hand, regarding your point that popes of the past speaking on matters regarding the Talmud did so infallibly and according to social trends, so does JPII, so that argument is disposed with.

For Catholics, the truth, nor their understanding of the truth can change with external social trends. If this was how we operated we would be no different from Communists. Communist countries have state recognized "Catholic" churches, you know, and the teachings of these "Catholic" Communist churches propagate an understanding of the "truth" that wouldn't contradict the ideology of Karl Marx in the slightest. Do you believe that this is what Christ had in mind for His Church?

[quote name='Cam42']You idea of justifiable anger is based off an erroneous notion that popes are automatically definitive.  They are not.  They are only so when speaking [i]ex cathedra[/i] or teaching through the Magisterium (ordinary or extraordinary). [/quote]

Actually, your assumptions about my reasoning are erroneous. I have stated what the church has taught regarding salvation for 2000 years beginning with Christ Himself: that there is no salvation outside the Catholic church. You sought to circumvent that truth by splitting hairs. If you would like to discuss papal infallibility, start another thread and I'd be happy to discuss that with you there. The topic isn't relevant here.

[quote name='Cam42']Heck, my scholarly hero, St. Thomas Aquinas, is wrong, by today's standards on two issues that in his day were perfectly acceptable; slavery and usury.  But, when one reads those entries, one must realize at what point in history he was writing.[/quote]

I'm really glad we're having this discussion because you keep providing support for my point that Opus Dei is Talmud influenced with each of your responses. St. Thomas Aquinas was correct about usury. Usury has always been promoted within Judaism where Christianity traditionally opposed it. When one studies the Talmud it becomes apparent why this was so. St. Thomas Aquinas correctly viewed usury as a form of warfare: a means of oppressing one's enemies. The church opposed usury because it was a threat to the welfare of Christians.

"Today's standards" have changed, but usury is still the same evil it always was. You may side with Escriba (his real name, before he repeatedly changed it) and the Talmudists, I am more of the mind of St. Francis of Assisi.

[quote name='Cam42']That's correct, you are the only one linking Opus Dei and the Talmud.[/quote]

Actually, Rabbi Kreiman made that link originally: a link which Opus Dei saw fit to publish on their official website. I happen to agree Rabbi Kreiman's statement. You yourself stated that Escriba "saw that there is good to be gained from the Talmud," so what is this accusation that I'm the only one making this link?

The rest of your ad hominem remarks don't merit a response.

Edited February 10, 2005 by james

[james]

[quote]"You I have no problem with...your tactics and debate strategies, such as ...wholly condemning the Talmud, despite [i]some[/i] inherent good, are what I have a problem with."[/quote]

Then what of Popes Leo XIII and Clement VIII who wholly condemned the Talmud?

Also, this concept that seems to be in practice here that the Talmud is ok because it contains [i]some[/i] good is very dangerous.

I'm sure that if one tried they could find [i]some[/i] good in any given heretical religion or false philosophy, but what of it?

Using this logic a Catholic would be wrong to object to Protestantism. Do you "have a problem with" those who object to Protestantism on this forum, Raphael?

Edited February 10, 2005 by james

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='james' date='Feb 10 2005, 04:30 PM']
Then what of Popes Leo XIII and Clement VIII who wholly condemned the Talmud?

Also, this concept that seems to be in practice here that the Talmud is ok because it contains [i]some[/i] good is very dangerous.

I'm sure that if one tried they could find [i]some[/i] good in any given heretical religion or false philosophy, but what of it?

Using this logic a Catholic would be wrong to condemn Protestantism. Do you "have a problem with" those who condemn protestantism on this forum, Raphael? [/quote]
I would be right to condemn all Protestantism. That is because any beliefs they hold in common with us are not a part of Protestantism, but of Catholicism. Those things which are Protestant (properly speaking) are not Catholic ideas. Protestants hold many Catholic teachings (Triune God, the place of faith in salvation, etc.)...these are Catholic teachings and not Protestant. Those teachings which are Protestant are those which [b]protest[/b] against Catholic teaching, so such teachings, i.e. Protestantism, can be completely condemned. However, non-Catholic Christianity, in so much as it does hold some things in common with Catholicism, cannot be completely condemned, because we would be condemning some teachings of Catholicism with it.

The parallel does not work logically.

Also, we are not saying to embrace wholly the Talmud, but merely that some of it's teachings are correct. If it has any truth, then we must embrace those parts which have truth, for we are a people of Truth. This does not mean embracing the rest of it.

I also don't think those popes wholly condemned the Talmud.

[james]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Feb 10 2005, 03:57 PM']I would be right to condemn all Protestantism. That is because any beliefs they hold in common with us are not a part of Protestantism, but of Catholicism.[/quote]

Exactly. Now, why should the Talmud be treated any differently than you treat Protestantism here?



[quote name='Raphael' date='Feb 10 2005, 03:57 PM']

I also don't think those popes wholly condemned the Talmud. [/quote]
Really?

Pope Leo XIII was pretty clear.

[quote]Although in the Index issued by Pope Pius IV, the Jewish Talmud with all its glossaries, annotations, interpretations and expositions were prohibited: but if published without the name Talmud and without its vile calumnies against the Christian religion they could be tolerated; however, Our Holy Lord Pope Clement VIII in his constitution against impious writings and Jewish books, published in Rome in the year of Our Lord 1592 … proscribed and condemned them: it was not his intention thereby to permit or tolerate them even under the above conditions; for he expressly and specifically stated and willed, that the impious Talmudic Cabalistic and other nefarious books of the Jews be entirely condemned and that they must remain always condemned and prohibited, and that his Constitution about these books must be perpetually and inviolably observed. (Pope Leo XIII, Index Expurgatorius, 1887[/quote]

In the above quote pope Leo XIII makes reference to the following clear condemnation of the Talmud by pope Clement VIII:

[quote]
"The impious Talmudic, Cabalistic and other wicked books of the Jews are hereby entirely condemned and they must always remain condemned and prohibited and this law must be perpetuallv observed." Pope Clement VIII[/quote]

One must appreciate the unvarnished candor of these statements. There is little room for misinterpretation here. What a refreshing contrast to the ambiguous newspeak which is so common today.

Edited February 10, 2005 by james

[Socrates]

No disrespect, but on the matter of Opus Dei, I think I'll trust the One Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church and the Vicar of Christ, rather than this "james" fellow.

[james]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 10 2005, 06:28 PM'] No disrespect, but on the matter of Opus Dei, I think I'll trust the One Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church and the Vicar of Christ, rather than this "james" fellow. [/quote]
Same here.

That's why I allow church doctrine and the pronouncements of former popes to make my argument for me.

Edited February 10, 2005 by james

[Socrates]

That's good because the same said Church endorsed Opus Dei and canonized its founder and has never issued any statements condemning this organization and its mission or teachings. I rest my case.

[james]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 10 2005, 07:17 PM'] That's good because the same said Church endorsed Opus Dei and canonized its founder and has never issued any statements condemning this organization and its mission or teachings. I rest my case. [/quote]
Rome's endorsement of Opus Dei is of little consequence to me. I just chalk it up as another confused departure from church tradition in an increasing stream of confused departures from church tradition which have been emanating from Rome during the past few decades.

Fortunately, the Catholic religion does not hinge on recent history but on a 2000 year tradition founded in the teaching and sacrifice of Jesus Christ: a tradition in light of which the disconcerting church decisions of recent times must examined.

"If an angel from Heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema" (Gal I, 8).

[dtofdh]

Can someone please explain what this means???

[Socrates]

[quote name='james' date='Feb 10 2005, 09:53 PM'] Rome's endorsement of Opus Dei is of little consequence to me. I just chalk it up as another confused departure from church tradition in an increasing stream of confused departures from church tradition which have been emanating from Rome during the past few decades.

Fortunately, the Catholic religion does not hinge on recent history but on a 2000 year tradition founded in the teaching and sacrifice of Jesus Christ: a tradition in light of which the disconcerting church decisions of recent times must examined.

"If an angel from Heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema" (Gal I, 8). [/quote]
There you have it, ladies and gentlemen,

The reason James has that "Hello I do not represent the Church" label.

He sounds like a protestant, not a Catholic.

"Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." Matt. 16:18

[dtofdh]

Once again I humbly ask (in embarassment) what is Opus Dei???

[Cam42]

[quote]Since when does what a pope said hundreds of years ago become "tired" and inadmissible?[/quote]

Well, you certainly have misread my statement. It is NOT the popes who making tired statements, YOU are. And I have never said that the statements by the popes are inadmissable, yet another projection by yourself.

[quote]So popes in the past didn't understand the truth, but now they do? Is that what you're saying?[/quote]

No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is this. Truth is timeless. However, our understanding of the truth may grow through time.

An example. The Church held that the Earth was the center of the solar system. This is obviously not the case, through the use of science a greater understanding of the truth of the matter about the location of the Earth in relation to the solar system, has caused a greater understanding of the truth.

That prinicple is applicable to Sacred Theology as well. So, the understanding of a subject may change and a greater understanding of the truth will illuminate the truth.

The summation, the truth is unchanging, but the understanding may. Popes are not immune.

[quote]On the other hand, regarding your point that popes of the past speaking on matters regarding the Talmud did so infallibly and according to social trends, so does JPII, so that argument is disposed with.[/quote]

Uhhhhh.....you are wrong.

[quote]I have stated what the church has taught regarding salvation for 2000 years beginning with Christ Himself: that there is no salvation outside the Catholic church.[/quote]

That is the first time that you have made that assertion. And also, I agree that there is no salvation outside the Church.

How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. (CCC 846)

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)

"Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men." (CCC 848)

That is what I believe about "There is no salvation outside the Church." No more quibbling about things we agree on.

[quote]St. Thomas Aquinas was correct about usury.[/quote]

[i]The mutuum, or loan of things meant for immediate consumption, does not legalize, as such, any stipulation to pay interest; and [u]interest exacted on such a loan must be returned,[/u] as having been unjustly claimed.[/i] This was the doctrine of St. Thomas and Scotus; of Molina, Lessius, and de Lugo. Canonists adopted it as well as the theologians; and Benedict XIV made it his own in his famous Encyclical "Vix pervenit" of 1 November, 1745, which was promulgated after thorough examination, but addressed only to the bishops of Italy, and therefore not an infallible Decree. On 29, July, 1836, the Holy Office incidentally declared that this Encyclical applied to the whole Church; but such a declaration could not give to a document an infallible character which it did not otherwise possess.
Ok, so we see in this what Aquinas' position was, as well as Benedict XIV. They were wrong.

The Holy See corrected this later.

[i]The Holy See [u]admits practically the lawfulness of interest on loans,[/u] even for ecclesiastical property, though it has not promulgated any doctrinal decree on the subject.[/i] See the replies of the Holy Office dated 18 August, 1830, 31 August, 1831, 17 January, 1838, 26 March, 1840, and 28 February, 1871; and that of the Sacred Penitentiary of 11 February, 1832. These replies will be found collected in "Collectio Lacensis" (Acta et decreta s. conciliorum recentiorum), VI, col. 677, Appendix to the Council of Pondicherry; and in the "Enchiridion" of Father Bucceroni.

So, by seeing this, the Church has changed it's position on this subject. A little thought on this would have been helpful before making an ubsurd statement like that.

[quote]St. Thomas Aquinas correctly viewed usury as a form of warfare: a means of oppressing one's enemies. The church opposed usury because it was a threat to the welfare of Christians.[/quote]

Not so....I'd like documentation on this.

[quote]Actually, Rabbi Kreiman made that link originally: a link which Opus Dei saw fit to publish on their official website.[/quote]

C'mon James....I am quicker than that. You are the one making the assertion here. You are mis-interpreting Rabbi Kreiman, but you will not let it go....you are like a rabid dog. Let me say this again. Rabbi Kreiman is not a member of Opus Dei, although he credits the Work with him coming to a closer relationship with God. You are missing the point of the statement. He is a Jew crediting a Catholic institution. You are so jaded that you cannot see the forest for the trees.

[quote]You may side with Escriba (his real name, before he repeatedly changed it)[/quote]

That is an utterly false statement. The parents of St. Josemaria Escriva are José Escrivá and Maria Dolores Albás. Notice the spelling.....sheesh.

Now, I need for you to prove to me that Opus Dei is linked to the Talmud. I have asked you to do this once before. You artfully dodged it, but I still need the hard proof. I daresay, you will not find it.

Mine: [quote]You need to come with hard proof that Opus Dei ACTUALLY follows these precepts. If you cannot, thanks for the discussion.[/quote]

Still waiting for you to bring it...


Cam42

[Cam42]

[quote]Once again I humbly ask (in embarassment) what is Opus Dei??? [/quote]

Opus Dei is a personal Prelature of the Catholic Church that helps ordinary lay people seek holiness in and through their everyday activities, especially through work.

I hope that helps.

Cam42