Romancatholicism.org is a self-proclaimed Jansenist site! Jansenist and proud of it, in fact!

And it has a whole section dedicated to National Socialism.

The only truth that these "Roman Catholic" heretics have on their side is that theological history is a lot more embarrassing than traditional apologetics would have us believe.

Augustine is long overdue for being taken down a peg. The Church clearly prefers Aquinas. Augustine couldn't stand kids. Just couldn't stand 'em.

I don't mean to quibble, but I do think we should make it clear where they stand on the National Socialism in their "section" devoted to it. I have the feeling that it's in the way of next in line for sauerbraten luncheon at Eagles Nest with Adolf and Eva.

"The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell." -Pope Innocent III (Maiores Ecclesiae causas, Dz 780).

"(De malo 5, 3), such a pain of loss" (as that of the vision of God) "is compatible with a certain natural happiness. At the last judgment, when the bodies will rise to share in the punishment or reward of heaven or hell, the bodies of those who are in Limbo will also rise. Although separated from God, in which way they share the punishment of the damned in hell, they will not be tormented by remorse nor will they suffer the pain of the sense which the damned suffer forever in hell." St. Thomas Aquinas

Typical Latin splitting hairs. The Eastern Church never bothered to "define" the punishments of the damned. Eastern Fathers often taught, that there WAS NO DIFFERENCE between the punishment of the damned, and the love of God for the saved. Rather, God's love, given to all, torments the damned, and at the same time comforts the saved.

I don't believe that the Church has ever dogmatically "defined" the fires of hell in such a way which binds all of the faithful to believe that the "fires" are indeed literal fires.

The reason that obstinate heretics were burned at the steak was to save them from the punishment of burning in hell. I take the doctrine literally.

Except maybe for schismatics there is no question of an "Eastern Church" that is in a position to "DEFINE" anything.

It's a really bad idea to start dismissing the teachings of the Vicar of Christ as "Latin," let alone as "Latin hair-splitting."

I don't see why the question of literal hellfire should now pop up here. The citation from Aquinas mentions pain of sense. Are we going to philosophize that away too?

In the olden days our Catholic Sense understood that it would be not heretical but rash and impious to deny what the most highly approved authors taught: that the fires of hell are real in some mysterious sense.

What's next? Grumbling against a maximalist Latin interpretation of the existential effects of the Immaculate Conception in the blessed virgin's day to day life because one EASTERN Father of the Church found fault with her behavior at Cana and opined that she was one vain little lady?

Except maybe for schismatics there is no question of an "Eastern Church" that is in a position to "DEFINE" anything.

It's a really bad idea to start dismissing the teachings of the Vicar of Christ as "Latin," let alone as "Latin hair-splitting."

I don't see why the question of literal hellfire should now pop up here. The citation from Aquinas mentions pain of sense. Are we going to philosophize that away too?

In the olden days our Catholic Sense understood that it would be not heretical but rash and impious to deny what the most highly approved authors taught: that the fires of hell are real in some mysterious sense.

What's next? Grumbling against a maximalist Latin interpretation of the existential effects of the Immaculate Conception in the blessed virgin's day to day life because one EASTERN Father of the Church found fault with her behavior at Cana and opined that she was one vain little lady?

 I never said that the Eastern Catholic Church had the power to "define" anything. However, I was merely commenting that Latins often think about everything in a very precise and literal way, whereas, Eastern Fathers tend to be more mystical in their explaination of Church doctrines.

Catholics may legitimately disagree, or "dismiss" the personal opinions of some Popes. And yes  most of the doctrinal teachings of the Popes are formulated in LATIN terminology, because the Pope, after all, is the Patriarch of the West.

No one ever said that anyone ever said that the Eastern Church was ever in a position to "define" anything.

But if someone points out that the Eastern Church never "defined" something, it is a propos to point out that the Eastern Church has never been in a position to define anything in any way at any time. Only Council Fathers and Roman pontiffs define things.
The pope recently cited in this thread was not just expressing a personal opinion. He was teaching the Universal Church. Catholics are free to dismiss the personal opinions of ALL popes. They are not free to dismiss the doctrinal and moral teaching of ANY popes.

You seem to forget that the first SEVEN Ecuмenical Councils were held in the EAST presided over by a MAJORITY of Eastern bishops.  Most of the first seven councils were called by the Byzantine Emperor, who more or less forced Rome to agree to participate in the councils. So yes, the Eastern Church Fathers did DEFINE, in union with the Pope of Rome, the most basic doctrines of the Catholic faith which are contained in the First Seven Councils.

The writings of the pope referenced, ARE NOT BINDING upon the faithful.