Curious about the evolution of the role of the Pope

[nhylan]

Hi all,
I am curious as to why the role of the pope has changed throughout the history of the church. Obviously in the early church there were debates of authority and more recently it seems like while perhaps the authority itself hasn’t changed the activity and role of the Pope in that authority has changed. Would love some context on this. The whole idea is fascinating.

 

[Rence]

Well, first of all, the world has changed, and the people in the world have evolved. I don’t think the role of Pope as a figure of authority has changed over the years, but it’s reception by the people has.

In the earlier Church, it was in the best interests of countries to align themselves with the Vatican because it meant power and allies. So the leaders of such countries were very dedicated (even overly dedicated) to make the Vatican happy by inflicting corporal punishment on laws based on rules of the Church. So if a country displeased the Pope and became ‘excommunicated’, it would open themselves up to war, and they would lose their allies. They would lose favor with other countries.

Today, alignment with the Vatican doesn’t really mean what it did then. And here in the US, the Pope has power over the Church in the context of the Church only. In other words, his power doesn’t extend to making civil laws based on rules of the Church, though he is always trying to get world leaders to conform to the rules of the Church. He constantly addresses world leaders, politicians, law-makers, etc. to encourage them to put into law, the rules of the Church. And I think all religious leaders appeal to world leaders, law makers, and politicians the same way.

Today in the US, there are many different religions represented, and a clear indication that no one religion should be favored, especially when it comes to the law. So the Pope has less and less influence. Today it is important for Catholics to be in alignment with the Church. But it’s just as important for Jewish citizens to be in alignment with their religion. And Muslims with their religion. And Lutherans with their religion, etc.

 

[WatchingMedia]

If you are Catholic, I direct you to the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”, first printed in the US in March 2000.
The accurate answers you are seeking regarding the authority of the Pope in modern history are there. It relates to the Catholic Church.

If you are looking for legal status, I direct you to the US Dept of State.
“The Holy See is the universal government of the Catholic Church and operates from the Vatican City State, a sovereign, independent territory of 0.44 square kilometers (0.17 square miles). The Pope is the ruler of both the Vatican City State and the Holy See. The Holy See, as the supreme body of government of the Catholic Church, is a sovereign juridical entity under international law”.
state.gov/p/eur/ci/vt/ (Click on background)

In the US, the Constitution, 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
In this Country no religion has ever been favored over any other.

 

[jfoges]

Hi all,
I am curious as to why the role of the pope has changed throughout the history of the church. Obviously in the early church there were debates of authority and more recently it seems like while perhaps the authority itself hasn’t changed the activity and role of the Pope in that authority has changed. Would love some context on this. The whole idea is fascinating.

The role of the Pope has indeed changed over the centuries. In classical/Hellenistic era the Pope did not have nearly as much control as he does now. Bishops were elected within their dioceses.

During the Middle Ages the Pope became extremely powerful, claiming not just religious authority and ecclesiastical authority, but temporal authority over all governments of the earth. The famous bull Unum Sanctum, from the Middle Ages, declared that the Pope has the power to remove kings and to tell governments what to do. The Pope used the interdict, an order that told people to stop obeying their king, as a constant threat against any Catholic government that went against his authority. The Church also collected taxes in each country, part of which went to Rome. This tax was known as the Tithe, different from the modern conception of Tithing.

Gradually the Pope lost this monumental power, first as a result of the rise of powerful nation-kingdoms like France and England. These kings established great amounts of control over their countries and resented the power of the Pope. The Protestant Reformation took half of Europe away from the Pope’s control and things were never the same after that. Today the Pope retains a lot of control over the workings of the Church but obviously claims no temporal authority. The history of the Catholic Church is fascinating, and the Church has changed over the years. It is the oldest religious institution, and political institution in the world. It has provided us with the sacraments and with the authentic teaching of the Apostles 2,000 years.

 

[FantomScholar]

The role of the Pope has indeed changed over the centuries. In classical/Hellenistic era the Pope did not have nearly as much control as he does now. Bishops were elected within their dioceses.

During the Middle Ages the Pope became extremely powerful, claiming not just religious authority and ecclesiastical authority, but temporal authority over all governments of the earth. The famous bull Unum Sanctum, from the Middle Ages, declared that the Pope has the power to remove kings and to tell governments what to do. The Pope used the interdict, an order that told people to stop obeying their king, as a constant threat against any Catholic government that went against his authority. The Church also collected taxes in each country, part of which went to Rome. This tax was known as the Tithe, different from the modern conception of Tithing.

Gradually the Pope lost this monumental power, first as a result of the rise of powerful nation-kingdoms like France and England. These kings established great amounts of control over their countries and resented the power of the Pope. The Protestant Reformation took half of Europe away from the Pope’s control and things were never the same after that. Today the Pope retains a lot of control over the workings of the Church but obviously claims no temporal authority. The history of the Catholic Church is fascinating, and the Church has changed over the years. It is the oldest religious institution, and political institution in the world. It has provided us with the sacraments and with the authentic teaching of the Apostles 2,000 years.

I think you provide a pretty accurate survey, in miniature, of the rise of the authority of the Pope. Given that you seem to indicate in your views that the Pope went far beyond the limits of his authority in Christendom by his seizing of temporal and financial power, how you think the Church has then continued the apostolic faith through 2000 years given at least one glaring misapplication of it vis a vie the papacy?

 

[jfoges]

I think you provide a pretty accurate survey, in miniature, of the rise of the authority of the Pope. Given that you seem to indicate in your views that the Pope went far beyond the limits of his authority in Christendom by his seizing of temporal and financial power, how you think the Church has then continued the apostolic faith through 2000 years given at least one glaring misapplication of it vis a vie the papacy?

The deposit of faith, which the Church has faithfully taught throughout her history, only involves matters of faith and morals. The political activities of popes, the personal lives of popes, are not a part of the Church’s teachings.

 

[FantomScholar]

The deposit of faith, which the Church has faithfully taught throughout her history, only involves matters of faith and morals. The political activities of popes, the personal lives of popes, are not a part of the Church’s teachings.

Was Unam Sanctum a political activity on the part of the Pope or a result of his personal opinion, or was it considered to be a part of the deposit of faith that makes up the teachings of the church?

 

[jfoges]

Was Unam Sanctum a political activity on the part of the Pope or a result of his personal opinion, or was it considered to be a part of the deposit of faith that makes up the teachings of the church?

It’s hard to explain. The teachings of the Church are not just a bunch of texts or statements, but are an implicit understanding about faith and morals that the Church has. When the Church articulates those teachings, the faithful must submit to those articulations. The Church has never changed its teachings, but it can articulate/present them in different ways to different cultures/eras. As for Unum Sanctum, I am no expert but it seems to be a mix of political and theological positions. The main theological point, extra ecclesiam nulla salus (there is no salvation outside the church) is still affirmed to this day. However what exactly that means is more nuanced then some might think. It does not mean, for example, that everyone who is not a Catholic will go to hell. I am not an expert on these matters and I am not completly sure of the answer to your question. I suggest seeking expert help if you want to explore this further. Here is the text of Unum Sanctum:

fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

 

[FantomScholar]

It’s hard to explain. The teachings of the Church are not just a bunch of texts or statements, but are an implicit understanding about faith and morals that the Church has. When the Church articulates those teachings, the faithful must submit to those articulations. The Church has never changed its teachings, but it can articulate/present them in different ways to different cultures/eras. As for Unum Sanctum, I am no expert but it seems to be a mix of political and theological positions. The main theological point, extra ecclesiam nulla salus (there is no salvation outside the church) is still affirmed to this day. However what exactly that means is more nuanced then some might think. It does not mean, for example, that everyone who is not a Catholic will go to hell. I am not an expert on these matters and I am not completly sure of the answer to your question. I suggest seeking expert help if you want to explore this further. Here is the text of Unum Sanctum:

fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

I think the question, though, jfoges, strikes at the heart of why there are concerns about the assertion that Rome has maintained the deposit of faith. If Unam Sanctum was a papal bull that carried the weight of the Pope’s supposed ex cathedra charism, that would mean that the Pope considered his statements in the bull to be of apostolic origin. Given his language in the document itself, I am pretty sure that Boniface considered his writing to be an infallible, ex cathedra one.

Whenever this document is brought up, however, the document dies the death of a thousand qualifications. I know that the Church continues to teach the extra nulla salus clause. But why are its statements as regards temporal authority not given the same continued weight?

 

[jfoges]

I think the question, though, jfoges, strikes at the heart of why there are concerns about the assertion that Rome has maintained the deposit of faith. If Unam Sanctum was a papal bull that carried the weight of the Pope’s supposed ex cathedra charism, that would mean that the Pope considered his statements in the bull to be of apostolic origin. Given his language in the document itself, I am pretty sure that Boniface considered his writing to be an infallible, ex cathedra one.

Whenever this document is brought up, however, the document dies the death of a thousand qualifications. I know that the Church continues to teach the extra nulla salus clause. But why are its statements as regards temporal authority not given the same continued weight?

I don’t see any reason to think it is an ex cathedra statement. Very few statements of the Pope are ex cathedra, most are not. Unfortunately I am not qualified to answer your question. I simply don’t have the theological training. But basically, faith and morals are part of the deposit of faith, political policy is not.

 

[Hesychios]

… Given his language in the document itself, I am pretty sure that Boniface considered his writing to be an infallible, ex cathedra one.

" … therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that …"

Whenever this document is brought up, however, the document dies the death of a thousand qualifications. I know that the Church continues to teach the extra nulla salus clause. But why are its statements as regards temporal authority not given the same continued weight?

The Bull itself was sent directly to one man specifically: Philippe king of France, during a political/military dispute when the king’s armies were possibly going to win big in Italy against an alliance that included the Papal States. This was a political document in no uncertain terms.

“… one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power.”

"… Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. "

This was the position of the Pope at that time, but not everyone agreed with him, especially king Philippe.

Eventually king Phillipe’s soldiers had Pope Boniface under ‘house arrest’ in Anagni, Italy. Pope Boniface VIII excommunicated the king in return.

After the death of Boniface, his successor (Benedict IX) rescinded the excommunication. This man lived only 8 months.

His successor, Clement V, was French and among other things he set aside, or conveniently forgot, the Bull Unam Sanctam. He moved the Papacy to Avignon, within the external bounds of king Phillipe’s realm, and cooperated with the king in destroying the Knights Templars. Clement V also canonized former Pope Celestine V (who was believed to have been murdered upon the order of Boniface VIII).

The Bull seems to have been revived in more modern times, probably after the Council of Constance, but for Catholic apologists it no longer carries the original connotation of a political claim.

 

[Petergee]

The pope’s spiritual authority has never changed. It is the same today as it was when St Peter preached to the nations in Jerusalem on the first Pentecost Sunday. Our theological understanding of the full implications of it has been developed and drawn out, by logical implication (not b y any new revelation) over the centuries.

In ancient times most bishops outside the Italian pen insula were chosen without the explicit involvement of the Pope, which would have been impracticable with the slow speed of communications and the dangers of long distance travel in those days. By the middle ages there were Catholic bishops spread out from Iceland to the Pacific coast of China.

The secular authority fo teh Pope came with the barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire when the hard-pressed Emperor based in Constantinople could no longer enforce law and order in Italy, so the people begged the pope to do so, which he did most effectively for 1400 years beginning with the repulsion of Attilla the Hun who was threatening to sack Rome after having devastated most of Europe.

The pope is still a secular leader today - he is the Sovereign (king) of the Vatican City State. It may be much smaller than the Papal states which the Piedmontese anticlerical thugs stole from him, but it is still a country answerable to no other earthly power. Though it’s not absolutely essential for the pope to have secular authority, it is extremely helpful in preserving the independence of the Church from political pressure. .

 

[PJM]

=nhylan Hi all,
I am curious as to why the role of the pope has changed throughout the history of the church. .

Can you run and adminsiter a “company” with say a dozen branches as you would a company that is World Wide and the Leader in the Industry? The largest in the World?

Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110])
.
Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 inter A.D. 180-190]).

Clement of Alexandria

T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

Optatus

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan

[Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Augustine

Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).*

 

[LongJohnSilver]

But why are its statements as regards temporal authority not given the same continued weight?

This is a very complicated matter.

For instance, in the Syllabus of Errors of 1891, Leo XIII condemned the thesis that “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church”. This was issued in a time when in almost all western countries there already was a separation between Church and State established. Later popes held the same view. The Church’s view on the relation between Church and State is in essence not changed. It is still official Church teaching that in the ideal situation Catholicism should be established as the official religion and that the State should do what is in its power to defend and promote the Catholic faith in society and suppress error (from other (non)religious groups).

In the interest of the common good (the unity of peace, as Thomas called it) however, it is preferable that the Church tolerates other religions and a separation of Church and State, because in the situation of modern time, establishing Catholicism is impossible without disturbing the unity of peace. In the Middle Ages, this was quite different, as all European countries were Catholic and tolerating ‘heretics’ would be the danger to the unity of peace (as was shown by the Kathars and others).

This is of course a very, very short overview. If you would like to know more on this subject, read Religious Liberty by John Courtney Murray (who also was co-author on the Declaration of Religious Freedom).

 

[FantomScholar]

This is a very complicated matter.

For instance, in the Syllabus of Errors of 1891, Leo XIII condemned the thesis that “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church”. This was issued in a time when in almost all western countries there already was a separation between Church and State established. Later popes held the same view. The Church’s view on the relation between Church and State is in essence not changed. It is still official Church teaching that in the ideal situation Catholicism should be established as the official religion and that the State should do what is in its power to defend and promote the Catholic faith in society and suppress error (from other (non)religious groups).

In the interest of the common good (the unity of peace, as Thomas called it) however, it is preferable that the Church tolerates other religions and a separation of Church and State, because in the situation of modern time, establishing Catholicism is impossible without disturbing the unity of peace. In the Middle Ages, this was quite different, as all European countries were Catholic and tolerating ‘heretics’ would be the danger to the unity of peace (as was shown by the Kathars and others).

This is of course a very, very short overview. If you would like to know more on this subject, read Religious Liberty by John Courtney Murray (who also was co-author on the Declaration of Religious Freedom).

Fascinating, Long. Thank you for the information. I wasn’t aware that the Church still asserted that it possesses the temporal as well as the spiritual sword.

 

[Hesychios]

…

In ancient times most bishops outside the Italian peninsula were chosen without the explicit involvement of the Pope, which would have been impracticable with the slow speed of communications and the dangers of long distance travel in those days. By the middle ages there were Catholic bishops spread out from Iceland to the Pacific coast of China.

The secular authority fo teh Pope came with the barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire when the hard-pressed Emperor based in Constantinople could no longer enforce law and order in Italy, so the people begged the pope to do so, which he did most effectively for 1400 years beginning with the repulsion of Attilla the Hun who was threatening to sack Rome after having devastated most of Europe.

This is a highly romantic, although also (in my opinion) conflated and somewhat inaccurate commentary.

Thanks for sharing.

The pope is still a secular leader today - he is the Sovereign (king) of the Vatican City State. It may be much smaller than the Papal states which the Piedmontese anticlerical thugs stole from him, but it is still a country answerable to no other earthly power. Though it’s not absolutely essential for the pope to have secular authority, it is extremely helpful in preserving the independence of the Church from political pressure. .

Garibaldi is a thug? The king of Savoy is a thug?

I noticed that you did not mention the all -important ‘donation’ of Constantine, which carried so much influence at one time that a Pope used it to persuade the king of the Franks to give him the city and the surrounding countryside (after he demolished the Arian Lombard state), which is the actual foundation of the Papal States.

 

[jfoges]

This is a very complicated matter.

For instance, in the Syllabus of Errors of 1891, Leo XIII condemned the thesis that “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church”. This was issued in a time when in almost all western countries there already was a separation between Church and State established. Later popes held the same view. The Church’s view on the relation between Church and State is in essence not changed. It is still official Church teaching that in the ideal situation Catholicism should be established as the official religion and that the State should do what is in its power to defend and promote the Catholic faith in society and suppress error (from other (non)religious groups).

In the interest of the common good (the unity of peace, as Thomas called it) however, it is preferable that the Church tolerates other religions and a separation of Church and State, because in the situation of modern time, establishing Catholicism is impossible without disturbing the unity of peace. In the Middle Ages, this was quite different, as all European countries were Catholic and tolerating ‘heretics’ would be the danger to the unity of peace (as was shown by the Kathars and others).

This is of course a very, very short overview. If you would like to know more on this subject, read Religious Liberty by John Courtney Murray (who also was co-author on the Declaration of Religious Freedom).

If that is the case, how do you explain this excerpt from Dignitatis Humanae from the Second Vatican Council:

“2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.”

It seems to me that the Church teaching on religious freedom and seperation of church and state has evolved since the time of Piux IX and his syllabus of errors.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

 

[LongJohnSilver]

If that is the case, how do you explain this excerpt from Dignitatis Humanae from the Second Vatican Council:

“2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.”

It seems to me that the Church teaching on religious freedom and seperation of church and state has evolved since the time of Piux IX and his syllabus of errors.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

(In my first post, I meant of course the Syllabus of Pius IX of 1864, I was mixing it up with Leo’s Rerum Novarum of 1891 which I planned to quote first)

Yes, Church teaching on religious freedom and separation of church and state has evolved but it has in essence not changed. One would easily get the impression that it has changed if the Syllabus and Dignitatis Humanae are read next to each other. But careful reading shows that it has not, as Murray argued.

First, Pius in his Syllabus and Leo in his Libertas (1888), wrote polemics against sectarian Liberalists. Their writings are sharp condemnations of liberalist claims and firm defences of Catholic doctrines. Dignitatis on the other hand was written by a ecumanical council and had the motive of bringing faith communities together. The style of writing and the motive for writing the Syllabus and the Dignitatis are thus so different that they seem to be putting forward completely different doctrines, which in reality they are not.

Second, Leo XIII, who wrote extensively on the subject, was not condemning religious freedom or tolerance as such, but the liberalist ideology behind it. So when he wrote that an individual does not have the right to choose freely what religion he considers to be true, he did not mean to condemn freedom of conscience of the individual but the liberalist thesis that ‘all religions are equally true’, which goes in against Catholic doctrine that catholicism is the true faith.

The same goes for the separation of Church and State. Leo condemned not the principle an sich, but the liberalist claim that ‘the government is subject to no law higher than the will of the sovereign people’. The liberalist purpose was to effect a complete divorce between the order of human law and Gods law. Leo however maintained that human law is subject to Gods law. So he condemned the separation of Church and State for the goal of isolating human law as the highest norm, but not a separation of temporal and spiritual tasks by Church and State.

Third, Dignitatis Humanae is still based on the Catholic doctrines that there is a distinction between truth and error, and that truth may receive the positive sanction of law, whereas error may not. The premisses are not changed, but the conception of these premisses in the light of historical developments and the terms that are used are.

So, their is definitely evolvement in the conception of religious freedom and separation of Church and State, as historical developments forced popes to rethink Catholic approaches to society. But the doctrines of all popes of the 19th and 20th century are based on the same premisses and grounded in the same Tradition.

 

[jfoges]

(In my first post, I meant of course the Syllabus of Pius IX of 1864, I was mixing it up with Leo’s Rerum Novarum of 1891 which I planned to quote first)

Yes, Church teaching on religious freedom and separation of church and state has evolved but it has in essence not changed. One would easily get the impression that it has changed if the Syllabus and Dignitatis Humanae are read next to each other. But careful reading shows that it has not, as Murray argued.

First, Pius in his Syllabus and Leo in his Libertas (1888), wrote polemics against sectarian Liberalists. Their writings are sharp condemnations of liberalist claims and firm defences of Catholic doctrines. Dignitatis on the other hand was written by a ecumanical council and had the motive of bringing faith communities together. The style of writing and the motive for writing the Syllabus and the Dignitatis are thus so different that they seem to be putting forward completely different doctrines, which in reality they are not.

Second, Leo XIII, who wrote extensively on the subject, was not condemning religious freedom or tolerance as such, but the liberalist ideology behind it. So when he wrote that an individual does not have the right to choose freely what religion he considers to be true, he did not mean to condemn freedom of conscience of the individual but the liberalist thesis that ‘all religions are equally true’, which goes in against Catholic doctrine that catholicism is the true faith.

The same goes for the separation of Church and State. Leo condemned not the principle an sich, but the liberalist claim that ‘the government is subject to no law higher than the will of the sovereign people’. The liberalist purpose was to effect a complete divorce between the order of human law and Gods law. Leo however maintained that human law is subject to Gods law. So he condemned the separation of Church and State for the goal of isolating human law as the highest norm, but not a separation of temporal and spiritual tasks by Church and State.

Third, Dignitatis Humanae is still based on the Catholic doctrines that there is a distinction between truth and error, and that truth may receive the positive sanction of law, whereas error may not. The premisses are not changed, but the conception of these premisses in the light of historical developments and the terms that are used are.

So, their is definitely evolvement in the conception of religious freedom and separation of Church and State, as historical developments forced popes to rethink Catholic approaches to society. But the doctrines of all popes of the 19th and 20th century are based on the same premisses and grounded in the same Tradition.

I see what you are saying but you said earlier that the Church still holds that governments should have Catholicism as their officially sanctioned religon. Is that still the case? Can you find an American bishop who will say that Catholicism should be the official religion of the United States and the first amendment should be scrapped?

 

[LongJohnSilver]

I see what you are saying but you said earlier that the Church still holds that governments should have Catholicism as their officially sanctioned religon. Is that still the case? Can you find an American bishop who will say that Catholicism should be the official religion of the United States and the first amendment should be scrapped?

It is still the case that in Church teaching, in the ideal situation the State is Catholic, which means that it is the duty of the State to do what is in its power and jurisdiction to care for and promote the true religion. The primary and indispensible care which government owes to religion is a care for the freedom of the Church, to see to it by appropriate measures that the Church’s exclusive task of caring for the needs of souls is accomplished.

Read more on this issue in the very relevant article on Church and State by the Catholic Encyclopedia: State and Church - newadvent.org/cathen/14250c.htm
Please do so, because I am aware that I am not capable of summarizing such a complicated subject in my post here.

It is funny that you mention America, because the situation in America is what lead to bishops and theologians rethinking the Catholic approach to a pluralist society, resulting in the Declaration of Religious Freedom. However, as Leo XIII wrote to Americans in *Longinqua *(1895):

… it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority.