Comments on: “Frank and Frosty” http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/06/frank-and-frosty/ Unity in charity, diversity in truth Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:13:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Tobias Petrus http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/06/frank-and-frosty/#comment-16175 Tobias Petrus Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:56:57 +0000 http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/06/frank-and-frosty/#comment-16175 Royce, I've heard the same about Cardinal Newman's position. I've never figured out how the vindication and clarification of dogma for the exaltation of the Church could be imprudently timed. Royce, I’ve heard the same about Cardinal Newman’s position. I’ve never figured out how the vindication and clarification of dogma for the exaltation of the Church could be imprudently timed.

]]> By: Royce http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/06/frank-and-frosty/#comment-16134 Royce Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:09:19 +0000 http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/06/frank-and-frosty/#comment-16134 As I recall, Newman wasn't so much opposed to infallibility, but rather didn't think it was a good time to define it. Would Newman have been allowed to participate in a Council, since he wasn't a bishop? Or was he actually a bishop as well? I was under the impression that he wasn't. As I recall, Newman wasn’t so much opposed to infallibility, but rather didn’t think it was a good time to define it.

Would Newman have been allowed to participate in a Council, since he wasn’t a bishop? Or was he actually a bishop as well? I was under the impression that he wasn’t.

]]> By: Iosephus http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/06/frank-and-frosty/#comment-16132 Iosephus Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:36:47 +0000 http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/06/frank-and-frosty/#comment-16132 Well said, Clara Well said, Clara

]]> By: Clara http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/06/frank-and-frosty/#comment-16114 Clara Tue, 26 Jun 2007 03:49:02 +0000 http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/06/frank-and-frosty/#comment-16114 As I mentioned before, I really wasn't, in my post, considering <i>whether</i> Blair should be a deacon, so much as what the aftermath of it would be if he did become one. But it occurred to me later that it would also be delightful, in a different way, if Papa told him to go away and think for awhile about some of his wrong, unCatholic views, and come back when he's really ready to convert. Which might be more or less what did happen, though the story isn't clear. One thing I hate about these kinds of reports, though. They always throw the war in Iraq in with other moral issues as if they're on equal footing. That might be the Vatican's fault as much as the media's, actually, but I hear it all the time and I constantly need to explain: political matters (i.e. whether the invasion of Iraq was justified or not) involve <i>prudential</i> considerations, about which the Church does not claim to be infallible. The Vatican has been sounding more and more pacifist in recent years, and we're obliged to give them a respectful hearing but faithful Catholics may still disagree about particular political judgments like this. The other issues are entirely different. All faithful Catholics must agree that abortion is an abomination, and that homosexual marriage is an impossibility (and sodomy a mortal sin). Everyone reading this blog knows all this, of course, but I wish other, silly people would get it straight, and as I say, the fact that they don't may be as much the Vatican's fault as anybody else's. Obviously I care particularly about this, because I do disagree with some of the Vatican's political judgments. But I'm right nonetheless that this distinction needs to be explained more clearly. Blair can convert to the one true faith without repenting the invasion of Iraq. But he would need to repent his support of abortion, gay marriage and so forth, in order to truly convert. Read the comments at the bottom of the link Iosephus sent! The level of hostility against the faith is almost humorous. As I mentioned before, I really wasn’t, in my post, considering whether Blair should be a deacon, so much as what the aftermath of it would be if he did become one. But it occurred to me later that it would also be delightful, in a different way, if Papa told him to go away and think for awhile about some of his wrong, unCatholic views, and come back when he’s really ready to convert. Which might be more or less what did happen, though the story isn’t clear.

One thing I hate about these kinds of reports, though. They always throw the war in Iraq in with other moral issues as if they’re on equal footing. That might be the Vatican’s fault as much as the media’s, actually, but I hear it all the time and I constantly need to explain: political matters (i.e. whether the invasion of Iraq was justified or not) involve prudential considerations, about which the Church does not claim to be infallible. The Vatican has been sounding more and more pacifist in recent years, and we’re obliged to give them a respectful hearing but faithful Catholics may still disagree about particular political judgments like this.

The other issues are entirely different. All faithful Catholics must agree that abortion is an abomination, and that homosexual marriage is an impossibility (and sodomy a mortal sin). Everyone reading this blog knows all this, of course, but I wish other, silly people would get it straight, and as I say, the fact that they don’t may be as much the Vatican’s fault as anybody else’s. Obviously I care particularly about this, because I do disagree with some of the Vatican’s political judgments. But I’m right nonetheless that this distinction needs to be explained more clearly. Blair can convert to the one true faith without repenting the invasion of Iraq. But he would need to repent his support of abortion, gay marriage and so forth, in order to truly convert.

Read the comments at the bottom of the link Iosephus sent! The level of hostility against the faith is almost humorous.

]]> By: Iosephus http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/06/frank-and-frosty/#comment-16113 Iosephus Tue, 26 Jun 2007 03:27:50 +0000 http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/06/frank-and-frosty/#comment-16113 Andrew, I was just kidding about Newman and VII - that's what's often said, that Newman was a sort of spiritual predecessor to the Spirit of Vatican II, which is complete nonsense. Andrew, I was just kidding about Newman and VII - that’s what’s often said, that Newman was a sort of spiritual predecessor to the Spirit of Vatican II, which is complete nonsense.

]]> By: Andrew http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/06/frank-and-frosty/#comment-16112 Andrew Tue, 26 Jun 2007 03:21:12 +0000 http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/06/frank-and-frosty/#comment-16112 I don't think Cardinal Newman was a father of the Second Vatican Council, seeing as he was dead at that point. I'm sure you meant the First Vatican Council. He may have gone to the Council, but my understanding is that Cardinal Newman didn't like the papal infallibility thing when it was being discussed, but of course accepted what the Church taught about it after it was defined. I don't think he was a Father of it though, but I could be wrong. And we should pray for Tony Blair. I think he ought to actually accept what the Church teaches if he wants to convert sincerely and 'formally'. I don't know how the hierarchy is in Britain compared to the U.S., but I would hope that they could guide him to renounce his apparent views concerning moral issues (gay adoption, abortion, etc.) because such a public and sincere conversion like that sends a powerful message to the non-believers and non-Catholic Christians in secular Britain and Europe. I don’t think Cardinal Newman was a father of the Second Vatican Council, seeing as he was dead at that point. I’m sure you meant the First Vatican Council. He may have gone to the Council, but my understanding is that Cardinal Newman didn’t like the papal infallibility thing when it was being discussed, but of course accepted what the Church taught about it after it was defined. I don’t think he was a Father of it though, but I could be wrong.

And we should pray for Tony Blair. I think he ought to actually accept what the Church teaches if he wants to convert sincerely and ‘formally’. I don’t know how the hierarchy is in Britain compared to the U.S., but I would hope that they could guide him to renounce his apparent views concerning moral issues (gay adoption, abortion, etc.) because such a public and sincere conversion like that sends a powerful message to the non-believers and non-Catholic Christians in secular Britain and Europe.

]]> By: JSP http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/06/frank-and-frosty/#comment-16105 JSP Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:46:31 +0000 http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/06/frank-and-frosty/#comment-16105 For selfish prideful reasons I'd like to see Blair convert to the Catholic Church. I work with anti-Catholic British military officers and it would be fun to have their Prime Minister or former-PM convert. It's great bragging rights for Catholics. However, as Iosephus points outs, Blair is probably still a protestant and not fully Catholic in terms of beliefs in faith and morals. So, it will be better for his immortal soul if he stays a protestant until he accepts the Catholic Church 100%. It would be far worse at his Judgment to be a bad Catholic than to be a protestant - Being a Catholic would just be one more thing piled onto him as he suffers eternal hellfire. For selfish prideful reasons I’d like to see Blair convert to the Catholic Church. I work with anti-Catholic British military officers and it would be fun to have their Prime Minister or former-PM convert. It’s great bragging rights for Catholics.

However, as Iosephus points outs, Blair is probably still a protestant and not fully Catholic in terms of beliefs in faith and morals. So, it will be better for his immortal soul if he stays a protestant until he accepts the Catholic Church 100%. It would be far worse at his Judgment to be a bad Catholic than to be a protestant - Being a Catholic would just be one more thing piled onto him as he suffers eternal hellfire.

]]>