A
aquinasg
Guest
I don’t want to embrace sedevacatism, but I’m confused about many papal statements, like ones by Paul VI which says he “esteems Buddhism” which is a self-worshipping religion
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
H
Heuchler
Guest
Just a couple of tips. It would be really helpful if you quote who you are specifically responding to because a lot of times it is vague who you are speaking to. If you could also show where a Pope condemns something and why they condemn it instead of just saying they condemned it. No offense but your posts tend to be really straight to the point with no reference who you are talking to or any references to a Pope’s judgement on something which makes it confusing to try and follow any conversation with you."People most certainly have a right to conscience, that is, the right to follow the path that they in good conscience believe to be the proper.
Pius IX condemned that.
“It doesn’t mean they have a ‘right’ to pursue the wrong path nor the ‘right’ to subscribe to a wrong theology, especially when they are ignorant of certain facts.”
I see you condemn it as well?
A
aquinasg
Guest
I don’t know how to do that “quote” thing. I’m new here. And I’ve Pius IX a lot of times in this thread, sorry
A
Alfonsus
Guest
“Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.”
If anything, reading this quote only:
If by my light of reason I consider religion, say, iPad-ism to be true… of course my light of reason might be dimmer or brighter to others, but still if this is the only thing I’m able to conclude with my feeble light of reason…
thus, the blessed pope said, I am free to embrace and profess it.
Then that quote is a great summary of what the CCC elaborately said.
If anything, reading this quote only:
If by my light of reason I consider religion, say, iPad-ism to be true… of course my light of reason might be dimmer or brighter to others, but still if this is the only thing I’m able to conclude with my feeble light of reason…
thus, the blessed pope said, I am free to embrace and profess it.
Then that quote is a great summary of what the CCC elaborately said.
H
Heuchler
Guest
There’s the little button in the bottom right of people’s posts that says quote. You just click on the quote button in the person you want to quote’s post.I don’t know how to do that “quote” thing. I’m new here. And I’ve Pius IX a lot of times in this thread, sorry
T
Timothysis
Guest
If Pope Paul “esteems Buddhism” it is because there are aspects of it that he admires; it does not mean that he declares it superior to Catholicism and that the true path to God can be found, in itself, within Buddhism.I don’t want to embrace sedevacatism, but I’m confused about many papal statements, like ones by Paul VI which says he “esteems Buddhism” which is a self-worshipping religion
You really need to stop taking simple words and constructing complex meanings out of them.
A
aquinasg
Guest
“Alfonsus”, he condemned that sentence
P
passer_by
Guest
These are his personal opinions. You don’t have to agree with him and they are DEFINITELY not infallible.I don’t want to embrace sedevacatism, but I’m confused about many papal statements, like ones by Paul VI which says he “esteems Buddhism” which is a self-worshipping religion
It’s definitely unacceptable thing to hear from a Pope and can be scandalizing to the faithful but it does nothing to invalidate his papacy.
H
Heuchler
Guest
Could you give us the Pope’s condemnation of that sentence where he explains why it is wrong or at least a summary of why. I don’t know about everyone else, but most of the time I don’t care to go find this stuff for myself online.“Alfonsus”, he condemned that sentence
T
Timothysis
Guest
Why? Why can the pope not esteem anything that possesses some elements of Truth? Would it be unacceptable if he said he esteemed Judaism?It’s definitely unacceptable thing to hear from a Pope
There are two kinds of people; those who scandalize and those who choose to be scandalized. If Pope Paul’s charitable admiration for another religions tenets scandalizes you, then the problem lies within you and not with he.and can be scandalizing to the faithful but it does nothing to invalidate his papacy.
A
aquinasg
Guest
Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
Its from his Sylabus of Errors
Its from his Sylabus of Errors
A
aquinasg
Guest
I think Buddhism is down right evil. It denies agape love is possible
P
passer_by
Guest
Wow, that’s a lot of heat for making a simple claim.Why? Why can the pope not esteem anything that possesses some elements of Truth? Would it be unacceptable if he said he esteemed Judaism?
There are two kinds of people; those who scandalize and those who choose to be scandalized. If Pope Paul’s charitable admiration for another religions tenets scandalizes you, then the problem lies within you and not with he.
In any case, you seem to make it sound like there is no such thing as scandal.
Buddhism has problematic elements in it. EVERY RELIGION has things that are worthy of esteem.
When a Pope goes out of his way to pick one religion and say that he holds it with esteem, it makes
- Buddhist feel like they got the right religion
- Make some Catholics feel like Buddhism is fair game
- Make some Catholics feel the the Pope is out of his mind
So no, its not something wrong with me. It is what someone who is reasonable will read in to the Pope’s comments on Buddhism. This does not mean that Pope sinned or anything. Just that he said some things that are questionable. In case you didn’t know, some Pope’s do that.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
As GelasianumVetus says (post #40), it is probably a good idea to go back to the source documents themselves, since the Syllabus does not purport to be an infallible document, but just a collection of previously-issued statements. I suspected, as is often the case, that a proper look at the context of this assertion in the Syllabus would shed a lot more light on what it was trying to say.“What Pius IX is condemning is not a natural right to religious freedom, but religious indifferentism, the idea that it does not matter what religion one chooses.”
This is no true!! Pius IX “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the LIGHT OF REASON, he shall consider TRUE.”
Words mean something. You can’t just cite the footnote to explain this away. And it dovetails with Leo XIII’s encyclical on liberty. Again, the Catechism at least made an error in language here. Perhaps it was an accident
Let’s start with Multiplices Inter. This was a condemnation of a book (A Defense of the Authority of Government and Bishops Against the Pretensions of the Roman Curia) urging that the French government should run the church. You can read the decree in Latin and French here. The only portion which deals with the concept of religious liberty comes toward the beginning (this is my pretty literal translation from the Latin):
For, although he is a Catholic, and, it is related, subject to the divine Ministry, the author, in order to pursue more securely and with impunity that indifferentism and rationalism with which he reveals himself to be infected, denies that the power of defining dogmas belongs to the Church and [he also denies] that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion, and he teaches that everyone is free to embrace and profess that religion which by the light of reason he has been led to think true; he brazenly attacks the law of celibacy, and after the fashion of the Innovators he places the conjugal state above the state of virginity: he considers the power of establishing diriment impediments to matrimony, which was given to the Church by her Divine Founder, to derive from the rulers of the land, and impiously asserts that Christ’s Church has arrogated it to herself . . . .
Now let’s look at Maxima Quidem, which you can read here in Latin. Again, my translation of the portion to which the Syllabus refers (pp. 136-37 of the linked book):
Furthermore, with the height of impudence they * do not hesitate to assert not only that divine revelation proceeds from nothing, but even that it harms human perfection; and that this divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continuous and indefinite progress, which must respond to the advancement of human reason. Nor, likewise, do they fear to propound that the prophecies and miracles set forth and told of in holy Writ are the inventions of poets, and that the sacrosanct mysteries of our divine faith are the sum of philosophical investigations, and that myths are found to be contained in the divine books of both Testaments, and that our very Lord Jesus Christ – horrible to say! – is a mythical fiction.
And so these most factious worshipers of perverse dogmas blather that moral laws do not need any divine sanction, and that it is scarcely necessary for human laws to conform to natural right; or they wrest from God the power of binding, and therefore assert that there is no divine law. Moreoever, they dare to deny all action of God in men and the world, and they rashly affirm that human reason, held with no consideration of God at all, is the only arbiter of true and false, good and bad; and that this human reason is a law unto itself, and that by its own natural strength it is sufficient to govern men and people. And because they perversely dare to derive all the truths of religion from the native force of human reason, they then ascribe to each man a sort of primordial right, whereby he can think and speak unrestrictedly about religion, and show whatever honor and worship to God he thinks best, according to his pleasure.
As you can see, then, neither of these papal declarations had anything to do with whether a government could or should ensure religious liberty. They were responding to extreme rationalism, which says “a person’s own reason is the ultimate judge, so whatever he thinks is right must actually be right,” and which denies that God, through Revelation and the Church, is the source of truth.
The Catechism is in complete accord with this. The Catechism does not say that each person, instead of God, is the arbiter of religious truth, and so if you are doing what you truly believe then you can’t be wrong. To the contrary: if you reject even one iota of the Catholic faith, then you are wrong. “Man’s freedom is limited and fallible” (CCC #1739). But, as against the state, the individual has the freedom to determine his religion for himself. “Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility” (#1731). Thus, to say that a man has the freedom (or right) to determine his religion simply means that he has the ability to act, and to enjoy or suffer the consequences – not that whatever he decides is right. That is the proposition that has been condemned, which is a consequence of indifferentism and relativism.
[Continued below …]*
M
MarkThompson
Guest
[Continued from above]
The distinction you have to make is sort of like the one that we make in talking about “freedom of speech” under the U.S. Constitution. When we speak of a “right” to say what you want, we do not mean that whatever you say is right; only that it is not the place of the political government to prevent you from saying something wrong, embarrassing, hurtful, or otherwise incorrect. I still must take personal responsibility for the bad things I say and suffer the consequences, such as losing friends, not getting a job, or having a date slap me in the face and storm out.
Similarly, it should not be illegal for me to hold theologically incorrect views, but again I must take responsibility for my actions, this time before God. To the state, I can say “It is not your place to tell me I am wrong; you are trampling on my rights,” but no one has rights before God, because all rights flow from God. (See CCC #1929-35). The state cannot come kill me in my sleep, because I have a “right to life” – but God can. So there is no contradiction in saying that the state must not judge and punish people because of their religion, but that God can and does. This is what the Catechism says. The error condemned in Inter Multiplices and Maxima Quidem lies in saying that your God is whatever you think he is, and so, clearly, he could never judge you to be wrong.
The distinction you have to make is sort of like the one that we make in talking about “freedom of speech” under the U.S. Constitution. When we speak of a “right” to say what you want, we do not mean that whatever you say is right; only that it is not the place of the political government to prevent you from saying something wrong, embarrassing, hurtful, or otherwise incorrect. I still must take personal responsibility for the bad things I say and suffer the consequences, such as losing friends, not getting a job, or having a date slap me in the face and storm out.
Similarly, it should not be illegal for me to hold theologically incorrect views, but again I must take responsibility for my actions, this time before God. To the state, I can say “It is not your place to tell me I am wrong; you are trampling on my rights,” but no one has rights before God, because all rights flow from God. (See CCC #1929-35). The state cannot come kill me in my sleep, because I have a “right to life” – but God can. So there is no contradiction in saying that the state must not judge and punish people because of their religion, but that God can and does. This is what the Catechism says. The error condemned in Inter Multiplices and Maxima Quidem lies in saying that your God is whatever you think he is, and so, clearly, he could never judge you to be wrong.
A
ANNE_2
Guest
It is heresy to state that man can do whatever he personally believes to be true.
CCC - " 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;
**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 - " 1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt."
CCC - " 1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits. "
In addition one should not use the Media to spread heresy and untruths.
See sections on "Use of the Social Communications Media - CCC # 2493 & 2494.
Each of us has an obligation to read the CCC, rather than assume others “personal” opinions are correct.; persons may misinterpret anything accidentally or to try to prove their own points.
Personal opinions may contain accidental or purposeful errors.
One does not know the intent of persons who write on blog sites, nor do we know their real religion, etc.
The CCC is without error and must be taken as a whole.
CCC - " 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;
**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 - " 1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt."
CCC - " 1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits. "
In addition one should not use the Media to spread heresy and untruths.
See sections on "Use of the Social Communications Media - CCC # 2493 & 2494.
Each of us has an obligation to read the CCC, rather than assume others “personal” opinions are correct.; persons may misinterpret anything accidentally or to try to prove their own points.
Personal opinions may contain accidental or purposeful errors.
One does not know the intent of persons who write on blog sites, nor do we know their real religion, etc.
The CCC is without error and must be taken as a whole.
N
NeedImprovement
Guest
If God did not grant us an absolute freedom , our love for Him would not be genuine - it could never be true love ; and in Christ’s own words to Simon the Pharisee Luke 7:36-50] , the one who was forgiven more, loves more.
If God did not grant us an absolute freedom, Hell would not exist, and (shudder) neither would the sacrament of Reconciliation as we know it.
Perhaps if one shifted one’s focus from the word “but” and concentrated more on the word “putative” some type of expansion or re-think might occur. Among the definitions for the word putative, words presented as synonymous are alleged, supposed …
Our Faith corresponding to Dogma is errorless and, for all intents and purposes, doesn’t change. However,when dealing with morals - when judging the value of a moral act, as reflected in these words putative, alleged and supposed, we cannot deal solely from a simple fixed point of whether something is right or wrong, but must take into consideration all circumstances which may have affected the decision made by the one committing/performing the act . In this process, it sometimes comes to light that someone committing a sinful act was hardly free even to commit the act at all, but rather acted under a force of compulsion, addiction, etc. How can a slave be free ?
We should recall that whether or not we choose the “right religion” , we are still sinners, and that God in His providence draws good out of evil ; as only God can.
In my limited opinion, “putative” is the operative word in that quote from 1747 of the CCC.
If God did not grant us an absolute freedom, Hell would not exist, and (shudder) neither would the sacrament of Reconciliation as we know it.
Perhaps if one shifted one’s focus from the word “but” and concentrated more on the word “putative” some type of expansion or re-think might occur. Among the definitions for the word putative, words presented as synonymous are alleged, supposed …
Our Faith corresponding to Dogma is errorless and, for all intents and purposes, doesn’t change. However,when dealing with morals - when judging the value of a moral act, as reflected in these words putative, alleged and supposed, we cannot deal solely from a simple fixed point of whether something is right or wrong, but must take into consideration all circumstances which may have affected the decision made by the one committing/performing the act . In this process, it sometimes comes to light that someone committing a sinful act was hardly free even to commit the act at all, but rather acted under a force of compulsion, addiction, etc. How can a slave be free ?
We should recall that whether or not we choose the “right religion” , we are still sinners, and that God in His providence draws good out of evil ; as only God can.
In my limited opinion, “putative” is the operative word in that quote from 1747 of the CCC.
A
ANNE_2
Guest
God did give each of us a free will - the “freedom” to choose Heaven or Hell for eternity.
Jesus said to Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be found in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” -
(Mt 16:19)
The keys were not given to each of us.
As we know “putative” means - “Commonly believed or deemed to be the case; accepted by supposition rather than as a result of proof”.
We must guard against “relativism” which is prolific in today’s society.
Relativism - “A theory that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.”
Catholics have been given the gift of the “CCC 2nd Ed”, therefore for those who are literate, there are no excuses.
Pope Benedict expects us to know our ‘stuff’ and evangelize the truth.
Jesus said to Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be found in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” -
(Mt 16:19)
The keys were not given to each of us.
As we know “putative” means - “Commonly believed or deemed to be the case; accepted by supposition rather than as a result of proof”.
We must guard against “relativism” which is prolific in today’s society.
Relativism - “A theory that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.”
Catholics have been given the gift of the “CCC 2nd Ed”, therefore for those who are literate, there are no excuses.
Pope Benedict expects us to know our ‘stuff’ and evangelize the truth.
T
TrueLight
Guest
Hi Anne,God did give each of us a free will - the “freedom” to choose Heaven or Hell for eternity.
Jesus said to Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be found in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” -
(Mt 16:19)
The keys were not given to each of us.
As we know “putative” means - “Commonly believed or deemed to be the case; accepted by supposition rather than as a result of proof”.
We must guard against “relativism” which is prolific in today’s society.
Relativism - “A theory that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.”
Catholics have been given the gift of the “CCC 2nd Ed”, therefore for those who are literate, there are no excuses.
Pope Benedict expects us to know our ‘stuff’ and evangelize the truth.
Please don’t be offended at my question, but I noticed lately all your posts about the CCC 2nd edition. Is there a reason for that? Thanks.
T
Timothysis
Guest
In this example, a person really ought to know what it is that he is criticizing. No one is at liberty to freely embrace error so they should make the effort to understand the issue before they criticize it, kind of like the OP of this thread.When a Pope goes out of his way to pick one religion and say that he holds it with esteem, it makes
Those are not unreasonable conclusions either for a Catholic person who is not well catechized.
- Buddhist feel like they got the right religion
- Make some Catholics feel like Buddhism is fair game
- Make some Catholics feel the the Pope is out of his mind
.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.