Cum Nimis Absurdum

[simspt]

How does one deal with anti-Catholic polemic regarding the teaching of infallibility in relation to teachings such as those found in this papal bull on moral issues relating to Jews?

 

[Polycarp1]

How does one deal with anti-Catholic polemic regarding the teaching of infallibility in relation to teachings such as those found in this papal bull on moral issues relating to Jews?

A temporal decision is never infallible because it is not a doctrine. For instance a teaching on faith or morals would be that sabbaths (sundays) are to be kept holy, however the meaning of keeping the sabbath holy, and what works are or could be carried on sundays is not a teaching but a decision which falls under the temporal authority of the church.

So when the Church teaches what is the fifth commandment and the moral sense of the commandment, she would be exercising the Magisterium, however when the Church explains the way in which the fifth commandment is to be applied, whether or not death penalty is necessary in a particular circumstance, she would be exercising it’s temporal authority which is not a teaching or doctrine, but a decision of the prudential order.

 

[Genesis315]

Remember, the Pope was also essentially the king of the papal states (now reduced to Vatican City).

In this case, he is not definitively declaring a doctrine that binds the whole Church in his role as supreme teacher (in these circumstances it is a dogma of the faith that the Pope is infallible). Rather, he is creating civil laws for only the papal states in his role as temporal ruler of the papal states. There is no Catholic doctrine that the Pope’s civil laws for his dominion will be legislated infallibly.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

How does one deal with anti-Catholic polemic regarding the teaching of infallibility in relation to teachings such as those found in this papal bull on moral issues relating to Jews?

First, I’ve always heard that for a teaching to be certainly infallible, it must be a constant teaching of the Church over a long period of centuries.

Second, this papal bull mostly consists of “disciplinary” measures, not doctrine or theology.

Third, the Church, for most of its history, did not enact and enforce such harsh measures against Jews, and did not degrade Jews and the spiritual value of Judaism to such an extreme extent.

Fourth, the Second Vatican Council extended the right of religious liberty to non-Catholics. Some say that was a reversal of the Church’s earlier teachings. Some say it is not a reversal.

Lastly, just an aside, I think the popes who issues such decrees felt as if Jews were a threat to the spiritual and temporary safety of the Papal States. Many nations has plans to capture the Papal States. The popes felt that the Jews living in the Papal States might conspire with the foreign enemies of the Papal States. Thus, much like the new Homeland Security and anti-terrorism measures that followed the 9/11 attacks, the popes issued decrees to protect the Catholic people. But, as excessive as these papal measures were, and as unnecessary as they probably were, at least this much can be said: the popes never even gave a single thought to carrying out a genocide as did Hitler against the Jews and as did the Turks against the Armenians.

But if someone wants to fish back in history for some reason to condemn the Catholic Church, they can. But to be fair, if they are going to belong to or support any organization of human beings, he or she should study the histories of every human organization they are a part of, and see if they can find crimes and injustices being carried out by the leaders of those organizations too. If John or Joshua is going to renounce or forgo his membership in the Catholic Church because of this old papal bull, he had better also renounce or forgo any citizenship in the U.S.A. or the State of Israel too, since the some of the leaders of those nations have committed crimes and injustices too.

 

[MarcoPolo]

How does one deal with anti-Catholic polemic regarding the teaching of infallibility in relation to teachings such as those found in this papal bull on moral issues relating to Jews?

Although the content may not fall under the umbrella of infallibility, according to this exchange at EWTN, there is some question to the authenticity of all or part of that document.

 

[chosen_people]

Third, the Church, for most of its history, did not enact and enforce such harsh measures against Jews, and did not degrade Jews and the spiritual value of Judaism to such an extreme extent.

Our Israelitish Brethren
By James Parton
OCTOBER 1870 ATLANTIC MAGAZINE (excerpt concerning Jews of Rome under Papal State rule)

"Without troubling the reader with a catalogue of similar facts, I can convey some idea of the scorn in which Jews were once held in a more convenient manner by showing how they are now treated in the city of Rome,—Rome being a fragment of the Past preserved, like an Elgin marble, for the inspection of the moderns. In 1860, when there was talk of a congress of European powers for the settlement of international questions, the Jews of Rome prepared a petition for presentation to it, in which some of their grievances were stated. From this paper we learn that no Jew in Rome can be an artist, nor be a pupil in a school of art, nor frequent a public gallery for practice in art. No college, medical school, law school, or scientific institution can receive a Jewish student. No Jew can exercise a mechanical trade, except cobbling shoes. Cruellest and absurdest of all, no Jew, fond as he is of music, and gifted as his race is in music, can sing in public or play on an instrument. “Woe to the Hebrew,” says the petition, “who dares sing or play in public; for the police and the Holy Office immediately pounce upon him and punish the offence with severe penalties.” This is the more abominable, because nature has signalized this people, not so touch by superiority of understanding, as by talent. The gifted among them are formed to sing, to play, to compose, to carve, to paint, to personate, to excel in all those arts by which human nature is enchanted and exalted by being exhibited to itself.
Edmond About’s report of the condition of the Jews in Rome is fresh in the recollection of many. He glances backward at the time, not remote, when every evening at the hour Christians go to the theatre the gates of the Jews’ quarter were locked for the night; when on days of holy festival Jews were made to run races for the amusement of Christians; when every year a city official gave them a representative kick, an honor for which they had to pay four thousand francs; when they were compelled to present publicly to every new Pope a Bible; when they were obliged to pay the salary of a Christian priest employed to preach a sermon to them every Saturday, and they could only avoid attending this service by paying a fine; when their Ghetto bred such deadly pestilence, that some of them almost lost the semblance of humanity, and “they might have been mistaken for beasts, if one had not known them to be intelligent beings, apt for business, resigned to their lot, simple in their requirements, kind-hearted, devoted to their families, and irreproachable in their conduct.” Such was their condition in Rome. M. About tells us what it is. The present Pope, he reminds us, has indeed taken away the gates of the Ghetto, so that Jews can go about the city after dark; he has dispensed them from the annual kick and its annual price, and he has closed the church to which they were required to go on Saturdays to be converted.

But the author adds; “I secretly questioned two well-known inhabitants of the Ghetto. When they understood why I concerned myself with their affairs, the poor men exclaimed; 'For Heaven’s sake, do not publish that we are wretched; that the Pope actively regrets his concessions of 1847; that doors invisible, but impassable, close the Ghetto, and that our condition is worse than ever. All that you might say in our behalf would be visited upon us, and instead of benefiting you would injure us.”’ The inquirer visited the Ghetto, in the low ground near the Tiber, and found it “the most horrible and neglected quarter of the town,” in which not the humblest of the thousand prelates about Rome would set his foot, any more than as Indian Brahmin would cross the threshold of a Pariah’s hovel. "I learned,” says this author, “that the most humble employment in the most humble office would as soon be given to a beast as to a Jew; that for a child of Israel to ask in Rome to be employed as a commissary, would he more absurd than for the giraffe of the Jardin des Plantes to ask for an under-prefectship in Paris.” No Jew can own a foot of land in the papal dominions, nor cultivate one, unless in the name of a Christian; and if a Jew, using this artifice, ventures to cultivate a garden or a farm, his harvest is safe from pillage only so long as the legal device remains a secret. Let but the Christians around learn that the harvest is the property of an Israelite, and “a rage for plunder” seizes them, which leaves the hapless proprietor with desolated fields.

This is the testimony of a witness who is prejudiced, as all modernized minds are prejudiced, against government by priests. Let me summon another witness, a Christian who writes to L’Ami d’Israel an account of his visit to the Roman Ghetto; “It is situated on the borders of the Tiber, in a place subject to inundations; the population is confined in narrow, dirty streets; and although the Jews are much too numerous for this small quarter, they are not allowed to take up their abode beyond the limits of the Ghetto. The closing of the gates is discontinued, but the prohibition as to residence remains the same. I was struck with the activity and industry of the Jews; for while one sees a great many idlers and crowds of beggars in Rome itself, in the Ghetto every one is at work, and there is not a beggar visible.” The struggle for life, this writer remarks, is so severe, that out of a population of more than four thousand, two thousand five hundred are extremely poor, and in part dependent upon the charity of their neighbors"

 

[chosen_people]

Although the content may not fall under the umbrella of infallibility, according to this exchange at EWTN, there is some question to the authenticity of all or part of that document.

After studying Papal Bulls and Edicts as well as Catholic Church history I believe you will discover the role of the Catholic Church in:

burning of Jewish books.

making Jews live in ghettos, forcibly removing them from their homes, making areas “Jew free” and confiscation and stealing of Jewish property.

blood purity rules that deemed you are a Jew even if say only one grandparent had been Jewish.

making Jews wear special clothing marking them as Jews.

denial to Jews of basic civil and legal rights, including the right to freely engage in occupations and professions and the right to education.

cutting off Jews from any social interaction with non Jews.

Promulgation of the view that Jews are a detrimental force to society.

Now of course there might have been good reason for these acts, considering how insidious the Jews are, but this begs the question what happened to no longer require their enforcement?

I believe the answer is not in denying historical facts but in working to change past attitudes, as was done in Vatican II

 

[MarcoPolo]

I believe the answer is not in denying historical facts

No one is denying historical facts. If the bull is fake, it’s fake–maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. But in accord with the OP’s question regarding infallibility, even if it’s real, and even if all you just posted were 100% true, none of those things fall under the purview of what infallibility means.

 

[chosen_people]

No one is denying historical facts. If the bull is fake, it’s fake–maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. But in accord with the OP’s question regarding infallibility, even if it’s real, and even if all you just posted were 100% true, none of those things fall under the purview of what infallibility means.

Wasn’t Papal infallibility as Catholic dogma adopted only at the first Vatican Council of 1869 -1870?. That would be the very tail end of the the last Papal state and the power to enforce such edicts against Jews.

 

[Polycarp1]

Wasn’t Papal infallibility as Catholic dogma adopted only at the first Vatican Council of 1869 -1870?. That would be the very tail end of the the last Papal state and the power to enforce such edicts against Jews.

It was defined not adopted as something new.

 

[Polycarp1]

How does one deal with anti-Catholic polemic regarding the teaching of infallibility in relation to teachings such as those found in this papal bull on moral issues relating to Jews?

The Papal Bull “Cum Nimis Absurdum” is often used by the critics of the Catholic Faith to attack the doctrine of Papal Infallibility and the Catholic Church in general. First of all a Papal Bull is not a doctrine or dogma of the Church but is more akin to an internal memo aimed at the administration of a diocese by its Bishop. In this case it was Pope Paul the IV acting in his capacity of the Bishop of Rome. In terms of its content Paul IV was reacting (perhaps badly) to a political situation happening at the time. He was not making a ruling on faith or morals that is binding on all the faithful which are the key elements of an infallible statement.

I have no doubt that many Popes have come out with personal opinions and things that did and would raise eyebrows; in fact we can’t and don’t deny that some Popes over our long history were real stinkers. None of these however misguided and evil they were ever made infallible declarations. Had they attempted to do so the Holy Spirit would have stopped them dead in their tracks! The Church has had to deal with crack pot members ever since they walked out of the room at Pentecost! When we read the Gospels and Acts we see that the Apostles spent most of their time putting out fires in the early Church in many case started by wayward “believers” and those who were trying to counter and discredit the Faith.

It is apparent that as a man Paul IV was fed up with what he perceived to be abuses of the Jewish people in Rome against Christians. Was it an overreaction? Perhaps. Without having been there it is hard to make an informed judgment but on the surface it does certainly appear that it doesn’t adhere to our Lord’s command that we love our enemies and do good to those that hurt us. While I am hesitant to criticize clergy, let alone a Pope I remember that we are all sinners and as such we have never had a perfect Pope, Prophet, Priest, Catholic or Christian (Jesus and Mary excepted). In fact Jesus came to call sinners so it makes sense that the Church He founded is full of them. The Faith is perfect, the faithful aren’t! If your church doesn’t have sinners you can be reasonably sure that it’s not God’s True Church.

 

[simspt]

The Papal Bull “Cum Nimis Absurdum” is often used by the critics of the Catholic Faith to attack the doctrine of Papal Infallibility and the Catholic Church in general. First of all a Papal Bull is not a doctrine or dogma of the Church but is more akin to an internal memo aimed at the administration of a diocese by its Bishop. In this case it was Pope Paul the IV acting in his capacity of the Bishop of Rome. In terms of its content Paul IV was reacting (perhaps badly) to a political situation happening at the time. **He was not making a ruling on faith or morals that is binding on all the faithful which are the key elements of an infallible statement. **

I have no doubt that many Popes have come out with personal opinions and things that did and would raise eyebrows; in fact we can’t and don’t deny that some Popes over our long history were real stinkers. None of these however misguided and evil they were ever made infallible declarations. Had they attempted to do so the Holy Spirit would have stopped them dead in their tracks! The Church has had to deal with crack pot members ever since they walked out of the room at Pentecost! When we read the Gospels and Acts we see that the Apostles spent most of their time putting out fires in the early Church in many case started by wayward “believers” and those who were trying to counter and discredit the Faith.

It is apparent that as a man Paul IV was fed up with what he perceived to be abuses of the Jewish people in Rome against Christians. Was it an overreaction? Perhaps. Without having been there it is hard to make an informed judgment but on the surface it does certainly appear that it doesn’t adhere to our Lord’s command that we love our enemies and do good to those that hurt us. While I am hesitant to criticize clergy, let alone a Pope I remember that we are all sinners and as such we have never had a perfect Pope, Prophet, Priest, Catholic or Christian (Jesus and Mary excepted). In fact Jesus came to call sinners so it makes sense that the Church He founded is full of them. The Faith is perfect, the faithful aren’t! If your church doesn’t have sinners you can be reasonably sure that it’s not God’s True Church.

What criteria are used when deciding the authority of a Bull like this one?

If bulls can be in substance morally reprehensible in what way can we argue that Popes are protected from error regarding morals? (obviously there have been bad popes but im referring to their official teachings like this one)In a very limited sense regarding faith and morals? But doesn’t something like this Bull relate to morals?

Im still trying to wrap my head around the theological arguments that separate infallibility from non infallible teaching contained in church documents.

 

[Genesis315]

Here’s the key, my emphasis:
Pastor Aeternus:

1. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when,** in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians**, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the declaration must be made in his capacity as supreme teacher and be binding on the whole Church. Again, as I mentioned before, in the case at hand the Pope was creating civil law for one country, the papal states. Creating civil law is not done in his capacity as supreme teacher of the Church, but as the sovereign of a particular country. Likewise, creating civil law for one country is not binding the whole Church to believe or hold some particular truth.

 

[mercytruth]

After studying Papal Bulls and Edicts as well as Catholic Church history I believe you will discover the role of the Catholic Church in:

burning of Jewish books.

making Jews live in ghettos, forcibly removing them from their homes, making areas “Jew free” and confiscation and stealing of Jewish property.

blood purity rules that deemed you are a Jew even if say only one grandparent had been Jewish.

making Jews wear special clothing marking them as Jews.

denial to Jews of basic civil and legal rights, including the right to freely engage in occupations and professions and the right to education.

cutting off Jews from any social interaction with non Jews.

Promulgation of the view that Jews are a detrimental force to society.

Now of course there might have been good reason for these acts, considering how insidious the Jews are, but this begs the question what happened to no longer require their enforcement?

I believe the answer is not in denying historical facts but in working to change past attitudes, as was done in Vatican II

denial will get us no where. there is no defense for the indefensible. Pope John Paul II
knew as much.

shalom

 

[mercytruth]

What criteria are used when deciding the authority of a Bull like this one?

If bulls can be in substance morally reprehensible in what way can we argue that Popes are protected from error regarding morals? (obviously there have been bad popes but im referring to their official teachings like this one)In a very limited sense regarding faith and morals? But doesn’t something like this Bull relate to morals?

Im still trying to wrap my head around the theological arguments that separate infallibility from non infallible teaching contained in church documents.

The only discipleship, and by inference, the only authority that is legitimate and honorable in the eyes of Jesus Christ comes from not only hearing and teaching, but also living the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ.

**“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness. “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. **

God’s peace be with you

micah

 

[tomarin]

After studying Papal Bulls and Edicts as well as Catholic Church history I believe you will discover the role of the Catholic Church in:

burning of Jewish books.

making Jews live in ghettos, forcibly removing them from their homes, making areas “Jew free” and confiscation and stealing of Jewish property.

blood purity rules that deemed you are a Jew even if say only one grandparent had been Jewish.

This is just one item on your list but what good would the Vatican get out of promoting blood purity rules? Didn’t they want the Jews to convert (in which case holding it against those converts that their ancestors were Jewish would seem to undercut that desire)?