Most Unheeded Encyclicals?

[Geremia]

First, you equate any kind of birth control with abortion. I would think that very few people do that, since there is no connection. One is used to prevent or reduce the chances of conception, the other is the killing of another human after conception. I personally have known very many Catholic couples and none of them would ever say that if they had an unplanned conception (which some have had) they would have an abortion.

Birth control is not always contraception (i.e., to “reduce the chances of conception”). When Catholics say “birth control,” they do not mean contraception; they mean the prudent usage of Natural Family Planning (NFP).

**You say that birth control is “intrinsically evil”, which I would strenuously disagree with. It may be unacceptable in the eyes of official Church teaching, but there is a huge difference between something that is defined as “wrong” by certain people and something that is generally considered “evil”. I would bet everything I own that if you polled Christians in general and theologians in particular, that the great majority would say that birth control is not “evil”. **

Just like they would say that prudence is a virtue.

Just because a Church doctrine or teaching says something is true or should be followed does not make it so. If “proclaiming something as truth makes it so” is the structure on which the Catholic church is basing its authority, the church is built on a very shaky foundation. This lesson has been taught many times in the history of Christianity and should have been learned many centuries ago, but the Church persists in the idea that any doctrine, once proclaimed, is immutable.

No, She is not the legislator nor the enforcer of God’s laws, both natural and supernatural. Only Christ Himself is that. The Church and Her God-given sacraments are our guide.

The other belief the Church seems to hold that I think affects this and other similar issues is that revelation is a thing of the past and that guidance by the Holy Spirit is limited to a few “chosen” people (mostly the hierarchy of the Church). I think both assumptions are wrong. God gave us the ability to learn, to grow in understanding and knowledge. And we should use that God given ability to learn more about Him, to improve our understanding of His Gospel. But in the minds of the Church that understanding is frozen in a time 2000 years ago, despite that fact that God has revealed so much more to us about Himself and His creation since that time.

From Dominus Iesus:

1. Therefore, the theory of the limited, incomplete, or imperfect character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, which would be complementary to that found in other religions, is contrary to the Church’s faith. Such a position would claim to be based on the notion that the truth about God cannot be grasped and manifested in its globality and completeness by any historical religion, neither by Christianity nor by Jesus Christ.

Such a position is in radical contradiction with the foregoing statements of Catholic faith according to which the full and complete revelation of the salvific mystery of God is given in Jesus Christ. Therefore, the words, deeds, and entire historical event of Jesus, though limited as human realities, have nevertheless the divine Person of the Incarnate Word, “true God and true man” as their subject. For this reason, they possess in themselves the definitiveness and completeness of the revelation of God’s salvific ways, even if the depth of the divine mystery in itself remains transcendent and inexhaustible. The truth about God is not abolished or reduced because it is spoken in human language; rather, it is unique, full, and complete, because he who speaks and acts is the Incarnate Son of God. Thus, faith requires us to profess that the Word made flesh, in his entire mystery, who moves from incarnation to glorification, is the source, participated but real, as well as the fulfilment of every salvific revelation of God to humanity, and that the Holy Spirit, who is Christ’s Spirit, will teach this “entire truth” (Jn 16:13) to the Apostles and, through them, to the whole Church.

The Spirit can and does speak and work through normal, everyday people. You may recall that there was an intinerant preacher in a backwater of a desert country, called Galilee, who many centuries ago proclaimed the “Good News”. Very few accepted His Word, and those who fought it the most were the leaders of the church, the Temple Priests, the Pharisees and the Scholars of the Jewish Law. Their doctrine and practices were immutable, and what was this uneducated, troublemaking son of a common workman doing in trying to tell THEM what God expected of us? But the poor, the sinner, the downtrodden, the centurion, the Samaritan, the fishermen and the tax collectors, they heard and understood His message. The Spirit was speaking TO and THROUGH them, not through the “Fathers of the Church”.

I do not doubt that the Holy Spirit works through everyone to some degree or another. After all, we depend on Him for our mere being.

 

[manualman]

1. NFP, which is still a form of contraception by definition (since it’s purpose is to control or prevent when conception occurs), does not work well for some women with irregular cycles and other issues, as I pointed it out in an earlier post.
2. No, he should have listened to the Holy Spirit, who may have been speaking through the Council and the Commission, and even perhaps through the people who were his flock. The question of whether certain forms of contraception are a “sin against chastity” was at issue here, and Pope Paul didn’t like the answers he was getting from the Bishops and from various learned Catholics. He would have been wise to step back a bit, consider what he was hearing, take a little extra time to pray over it, and perhaps would have come up with something better than his disastrous encyclical. Otherwise, Paul VI was a wise and effective Pope, an evangelist for the faith, and made the Papacy a moral force in the world. A wonderful Pope, except for this one (unfortunately big) mistake.

3. Not quite, although he did try to make Gentiles fall under Judaic law regarding the need to be circumcised, prompted by the “Pharisees who had become believers” (ACTS 15). But the Apostle Paul (with a boost from the Holy Spirit) convinced him to CHANGE HIS MIND (imagine that!) and instead of having a Christianity that remained a small sect of Judaism in the desert, we have the universal Church of today. Amazing what one little change in DOCTRINE can do! Perhaps Pope Paul should have used that bit of scripture to guide him.

1. No, my reference was more about later Church leadership, to the present time. Sadly, many churches have become exactly what Jesus preached about regarding the religious leadership of His time. My conclusion is that if Jesus were standing amongst us today, he would be saying the very same things that he said to and about the Pharisees and Scholars of the Law in Judea and Galilee, but he would be pointing at Rome, as well as at the leaders of fundamentalist churches and others who preach the hierarchy of rules and doctrine made by man over the importance of leading a life of Christian mercy and love.

Well, we aren’t going to agree, but I’ll give you one more shot for the record.

1. NFP is to contraception in the matter of birth regulation like diet/excercise is to bulemia in the matter of weight control. The former in both cases requires self control and regulation of one’s natural urges to achieve a legitimate goal. The latter seeks to shortcut by allowing on demand indulgence of one’s desires for their own sake while attempting to disconnect the effects of said indulgence from their natural outcomes. (The difference being that bulemia has BOTH physical and spiritual ill side effects while contraception’s are mostly spiritual). Based on a previous response of yours, it doesn’t seem like you are too familiar with groups of catholics who have actually lived in accordance with Humanae Vitae for quite some time. Go find some and be surprised.

You are correct that NFP is more difficult for some women to practice than others. This is actually a problem in the medical field as doctors today prefer to treat symptoms with pills instead of diagnosing and actually correcting problems! There ARE doctors willing to buck this model, most prominent among them Dr. Thomas Hilgers (Creighton U, I think). Healthy women, even those with irregular cycles DO display symptoms of fertility. When underlying medical conditions are resolved, they can learn to spot those symptoms. It IS hard, but much of the good stuff in life often is.

1. Too bad God made such a mistake making Paul VI pope. God should ask for your adivce more often . Sorry, but you have to realize you came off that way.
2. Thanks for the excellent example of how people confuse papal infallibility with papal impeccability (which doesn’t exist). Peter never officially ruled that gentiles had to be circumcised. He went along with the flow of others who were making that mistake. That’s a personal failure. Catholicism has never taught that popes don’t sin or make mistakes. Catholicism DOES teach (see Vatican I) that when the pope teaches ex cathedra on a matter of faith and morals it isn’t a mistake. Far from disproving papal infallibility, the example of Peter teaches the difference between infallibility and impeccability, a lesson the Church sorely needed in future centuries when popes were sometimes utter knaves (but strangely created no self serving false doctrine. Funny that…)
3. Funny thing about the Pharisees. Jesus AFFIRMED their authority and their teachings. Dissenters often conveniently ignore this fact. What Jesus constantly denounced was the way they used rules INSTEAD OF developing a loving and truly obedient relationship with God. Folks like you seem to think he told us that we could have that loving relationship while persisting in sin/disobedience. This is not true. You can’t take scripture out of context. When you look at what Jesus said about the Pharisees, look at the whole picture, not just the versus that justify the opinion you already hold! Catholic teaching on contraception is VERY clear. It is NOT a disciplinary matter like restricting meat eating on Fridays. Contraception has always been condemned because it IS inherently evil. Evil comes in many forms, and I won’t make the comparison like another did here to abortion. Killing is a worse sin than lusting, it just is. You are right about that. But contraception is sin ONLY because it does damage to the loving/giving relationship between man and wife. Step back from the trees and see the forest. Our unusually depraved culture is that way today precisely because we’ve allowed contraception to degrade the meaning of sex.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Well, we aren’t going to agree, but I’ll give you one more shot for the record.

Thank you for saying that. I do appreciate your viewpoints and actually can agree with many of them. I think it comes down to viewing doctrine as unchanging and permanent vs. a maturing view of God and developing doctrine as our understanding improves. I don’t see the Church as static, but as growing and (hopefully) becoming more enlightened. I think that this has happened in some areas, as can be easily seen from reviewing the records of Church history. In some cases, we may be returning to the more basic tenets that Jesus gave us. NOTE: For sake of brevity, I did not quote from all of “manualman’s” post and therfore refer readers to his full post.

1. Based on a previous response of yours, it doesn’t seem like you are too familiar with groups of catholics who have actually lived in accordance with Humanae Vitae for quite some time. Go find some and be surprised.

You are correct, although I have known a few. But most are from the generation before me. For example, I am acquainted with a Catholic family that had seven or eight children. The most children of any one of the 7 or 8 was four, with most having two or three. I do not think any of the third generation has had more than two, so far. I did not inquire into their family planning practices, but one can make a fairly accurate assumption that most of the second and third generations practiced some form of birth control.

I have also known some couples who TRIED to live in accordance with *Humane Vitae *but were unsuccessful. It didn’t appear to be from lack of faith or from lack of trying. And the unfortunate result was despair and guilt. Totally unecessary and not conducive to a good marriage.

1. Too bad God made such a mistake making Paul VI pope. God should ask for your advice more often . Sorry, but you have to realize you came off that way.

If that is the way I sounded, my apologies. God did not make a mistake, nor did I mean to say or imply that. I said Pope Paul made the mistake, which you readily admit Popes can do. Thank you. If one accepts that the Holy Spirit can act and speak through anyone, than yes, the Pope (and all of us) need to be alert to that Spirit, from whatever direction it may come. Actually, I like Paul VI very much. He apparently relied on his long legalistic background to make this decision, instead of appealing to his heart and listening to the Spirit speaking to him and us through others (That is my opinion as to what was happening, and have no evidence for it other than my reading of church history and biography, and my gut feelings.)

1. Peter never officially ruled that gentiles had to be circumcised…

I have seen that exact same point made several times in other posts in trying to cover for the actions (or non-actions) of some Popes. “Never officially ruled”? Based on recent world history, that is a somewhat scary position to maintain, by either Popes or Presidents.

But as you say, Peter was in agreement with others and then CHANGED his position, whether “official” or not. BTW, since no minutes were kept of these meetings, and all we have are some rather sketchy recollections, how do we really know what was official and what wasn’t? Do we have any written rulings of Peter while he was in Rome?

1. Funny thing about the Pharisees. Jesus AFFIRMED their authority and their teachings. Dissenters often conveniently ignore this fact. What Jesus constantly denounced was the way they used rules INSTEAD OF developing a loving and truly obedient relationship with God. Folks like you seem to think he told us that we could have that loving relationship while persisting in sin/disobedience. This is not true. You can’t take scripture out of context. When you look at what Jesus said about the Pharisees, look at the whole picture, not just the versus that justify the opinion you already hold!

Sorry for appearing to take things out of context, but doesn’t the Church do that every Sunday (actually every day)? Here is the text from which I quoted, from Luke 11, and the part below is actually MORE than the part used in the Gospel reading coming up in about a month:

After he had spoken, a Pharisee invited him to dine at his home. He entered and reclined at table to eat.
**The Pharisee was amazed to see that he did not observe the prescribed washing before the meal. **The Lord said to him, “Oh you Pharisees! Although you cleanse the outside of the cup and the dish, inside you are filled with plunder and evil.
You fools! Did not the maker of the outside also make the inside?
But as to what is within, give alms, and behold, everything will be clean for you.
Woe to you Pharisees! You pay tithes of mint and of rue and of every garden herb, **but you pay no attention to judgment and to love for God. These you should have done, without overlooking the others. **
Woe to you Pharisees! **You love the seat of honor in synagogues **and greetings in marketplaces.
Woe to you! You are like unseen graves over which people unknowingly walk.”
Then one of the scholars of the law said to him in reply, “Teacher, by saying this you are insulting us too.”
And he said, "Woe also to you scholars of the law! You impose on people burdens hard to carry, but you yourselves do not lift one finger to touch them.

OOPS! Looks like Jesus broke a law and defied the authority of the Temple!

We can argue until Judgment Day about whether Jesus came to leave every OT law and rule intact, or whether He came to create a new rule, based on love of God and neighbor. I prefer to believe the latter.

Contraception has always been condemned because it IS inherently evil…contraception is sin ONLY because it does damage to the loving/giving relationship between man and wife. Step back from the trees and see the forest. Our unusually depraved culture is that way today precisely because we’ve allowed contraception to degrade the meaning of sex.

I cannot accept that it is evil or that it is even a sin; I do not see it condemned in exact words or by implication in any NT scripture, a point I made in an earlier post. I also do not agree that contraception damages a marital relationship; there are many other things that do a much more thorough job of that. And I cannot agree with your last point, as the meaning of sex was and would have been degraded without the help of birth control. One can see that from a cursory review of today’s popular culture.

The OP was asking abou the most “unheeded” encyclical; *Humanae Vitae *appears to be both the most “unheeded” and the most “heated” encylical of recent times.

Peace.

 

[manualman]

…

1. But as you say, Peter was in agreement with others and then CHANGED his position, whether “official” or not. BTW, since no minutes were kept of these meetings, and all we have are some rather sketchy recollections, how do we really know what was official and what wasn’t? Do we have any written rulings of Peter while he was in Rome?
2. Sorry for appearing to take things out of context, but doesn’t the Church do that every Sunday (actually every day)? Here is the text from which I quoted, from Luke 11, and the part below is actually MORE than the part used in the Gospel reading coming up in about a month:

OOPS! Looks like Jesus broke a law and defied the authority of the Temple!

We can argue until Judgment Day about whether Jesus came to leave every OT law and rule intact, or whether He came to create a new rule, based on love of God and neighbor. I prefer to believe the latter.

1. I cannot accept that it is evil or that it is even a sin; I do not see it condemned in exact words or by implication in any NT scripture, a point I made in an earlier post. I also do not agree that contraception damages a marital relationship; there are many other things that do a much more thorough job of that. And I cannot agree with your last point, as the meaning of sex was and would have been degraded without the help of birth control. One can see that from a cursory review of today’s popular culture.

I must compliment you on your tone and charity. These things often get heated and tempers get lost. Thank you for keeping it about the issues, not personal. That’s hard to do when the issue is close to our hearts, and nothing is closer than our faiths.

1. Sure we have those written records. Once Peter had been rebuked by St. Paul for his scandalous BEHAVIOR, he sat down in “the chair” and promulgated St. Paul’s insight into doctrine. It’s right there in Scripture. Same thing when God gave him the vision about eating ‘unclean’ animals. Clear as day. It’s CRUCIAL to distinguish the personal behavior of popes from their teachings. You can find popes that fornicated, stole and lied, but you can’t say that that behavior constituted church approval of those ideas. Peter failed to respond to the converted pharisee’s coup in requiring gentiles to be converted. That’s just not the same as PETER saying that it must be so.
2. You mistake disciplinary rules for moral laws. Jesus broke Mosaic laws of the disciplinary variety when the greater glory of God required him to do so. That’s still true today (no point in mortifying your host if they serve you meat on a Friday in lent, eh? Personally, I just abstain the next day instead.) You won’t find Jesus telling a lie, or envying or stealing. Such things can never bring about the glory of God, even if they might make somebody near you feel temporarily better. It simply isn’t love to endorse the sin of one’s neighbor, even if denying that endorsement offends them. Read Matthew 23 and especially ponder this part:
   “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens (hard to carry) and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them.”

As I said before, Jesus excoriates the hypocrisy of the Pharisees all the time. But hypocrisy doesn’t mean failure to live out what you profess. It means SAYING you believe something that you really don’t. The rules and burdens the Pharisees set forth WOULD have value if the person embracing them did so out of love for God and willingness to submit to him. But those rules are worthless if they are obeyed out of a lawyerly attempt to ‘meet the contract’ without loving obedience.

I would suggest to you that you reconsider your attitude towards those you consider Pharisees today. Even if you are right about contraception( and you’re not! ), and the Church has been wrong for 2,000 years on the topic, Jesus left us with a command to obey those he left in authority over us, whether they be saints or crooks.

Good conversation.

 

[chaunceygardner]

I must compliment you on your tone and charity. These things often get heated and tempers get lost. Thank you for keeping it about the issues, not personal. That’s hard to do when the issue is close to our hearts, and nothing is closer than our faiths.

Thanks and same to you. I agree it is difficult to keep emotions in check at times.

1. Sure we have those written records. Once Peter had been rebuked by St. Paul for his scandalous BEHAVIOR, he sat down in “the chair” and promulgated St. Paul’s insight into doctrine. It’s right there in Scripture. Same thing when God gave him the vision about eating ‘unclean’ animals. Clear as day. It’s CRUCIAL to distinguish the personal behavior of popes from their teachings. You can find popes that fornicated, stole and lied, but you can’t say that that behavior constituted church approval of those ideas. Peter failed to respond to the converted pharisee’s coup in requiring gentiles to be converted. That’s just not the same as PETER saying that it must be so.

I agree about differentiating between the position of Pope and the behavior of some Popes.

My question regarding written records was aimed at the time following ACTS, when Peter was in Rome. I am not aware of any written records of decisions, proclamations or teachings from Peter (and likely the first few Popes). I recall reading that there are poor records of some of the earliest councils. It was somewhat off the topic, but is related to how we know what the earliest teachings were (post Gospels and Epistles) on which much of church law is based.

1. You mistake disciplinary rules for moral laws. Jesus broke Mosaic laws of the disciplinary variety when the greater glory of God required him to do so. That’s still true today (no point in mortifying your host if they serve you meat on a Friday in lent, eh? Personally, I just abstain the next day instead.) You won’t find Jesus telling a lie, or envying or stealing. Such things can never bring about the glory of God, even if they might make somebody near you feel temporarily better. It simply isn’t love to endorse the sin of one’s neighbor, even if denying that endorsement offends them.

Interesting and valid point. I will have to consider what Jesus did say, and what He meant by His words and actions on this topic. I am certainly open to examining scripture and teachings about this, which I will do. What about the possibility that we add to the moral law side of the ledger certain proscriptions that perhaps shouldn’t be considered “moral law”? Birth control could be one of those.

I do agree that love must be “tough” at times, if it is to be true.

Read Matthew 23 and especially ponder this part:
“The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens (hard to carry) and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them.”

I have read and pondered this section of Matthew, which is one of my favorites, as you might readily discern. It is interesting to note that the line “do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you” is found only in Matthew’s version of this story, and not in Luke or Mark. Was it because his audience was predominantly Jewish-Christian, rather than Gentile Christian, and Matthew was emphasizing the link between the old faith and the new? That may be a question for the Scriptures forum, if it hasn’t been discussed already.

As I said before, Jesus excoriates the hypocrisy of the Pharisees all the time. But hypocrisy doesn’t mean failure to live out what you profess. It means SAYING you believe something that you really don’t. The rules and burdens the Pharisees set forth WOULD have value if the person embracing them did so out of love for God and willingness to submit to him. But those rules are worthless if they are obeyed out of a lawyerly attempt to ‘meet the contract’ without loving obedience.

I believe hypocrisy refers to both not believing what you say AND not living out what you profess. Both are a lie. That is exactly why we disagree on some points, because we both must say what we believe.

I would suggest to you that you reconsider your attitude towards those you consider Pharisees today. Even if you are right about contraception( and you’re not! ), and the Church has been wrong for 2,000 years on the topic, Jesus left us with a command to obey those he left in authority over us, whether they be saints or crooks.

Here is where we may part company again. My view of authority is somewhat different, and I would question whether Jesus meant to have certain people in authority. My feeling is that some times those choices, made by humans, may run contrary to what Jesus would have wanted us to do. I think that applies to both the people who are in authority and to some of their decisions. I can see Him looking down, slapping His forehead, and saying to Himself, “What were those people thinking!”.

So I would say a wrong decision made by a bad Pope should not to be obeyed. In fact, I would say that to disobey that Pope’s decision would be obeying a higher moral law and being true to Jesus. I know some people will be upset when I say that about a Holy Father, but folks, you gotta know that some of them weren’t very holy, and some of them really messed up.

Good conversation.

Quite enjoyable.
Regards.

 

[Geremia]

There is actually a book called Popes Against Modern Errors by TAN Books. It compiles all the following encyclicals:

On liberalism (Mirari Vos) / Pope Gregory XVI –
On current errors (Quanta Cura) / Pope Pius IX –
Syllabus of errors / Pope Pius IX –
On government authority (Diuturnum Illud) / Pope Leo XIII –
On Freemasonry and Naturalism (Humanum Genus) / Pope Leo XIII –
On the nature of true liberty (Libertas Praestantissimum) / Pope Leo XIII –
On the condition of the working classes (Rerum Novarum) / Pope Leo XIII –
On Christian democracy (Graves de Communi Re) / Pope Leo XIII –
Syllabus condemning the errors of the Modernists (Lamentabili Sane) / Pope St. Pius X –
On Modernism (Pascendi Dominici Gregis) / Pope St. Pius X –
Our Apostolic Mandate (On the “Sillon”) / Pope St. Pius X –
The oath against Modernism / Pope St. Pius X –
On the Feast of Christ the King (Quas Primas) / Pope Pius XI –
On fostering true religious unity (Mortalium Animos) / Pope Pius XI –
On atheistic communism (Divini Redemptoris) / Pope Pius XI –
On certain false opinions which threaten to undermine the foundations of Catholic Doctrine (Humani Generis) / Pope Pius XII.

 

[Yomic]

chaunceygardner, I reflect what Geremia said in his/her previous post (post #21). I’d like answers against those rebuttals as well.

I’d like to add, what is the purpose of Christ starting His Church (and thus the leaders) if they don’t have the authority to speak Truth in their encyclicals? It would be a heresy to deny that they have none.

“And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in Heaven.” --Matthew 16:19

 

[PhanxicoXavier]

*“What’s an encyclical?” **

*is the answer that the majority of Catholics would give…

 

[Genesis315]

*“What’s an encyclical?” **

*is the answer that the majority of Catholics would give…

And this is why the Liturgy and external solemnities, feasts, and other traditions are so important. Pope Pius XI explained this well when explainin why he instituted the Feast of Christ the King:
Quas Primas:

For people are instructed in the truths of faith, and brought to appreciate the inner joys of religion far more effectually by the annual celebration of our sacred mysteries than by any official pronouncement of the teaching of the Church. Such pronouncements usually reach only a few and the more learned among the faithful; feasts reach them all; the former speak but once, the latter speak every year - in fact, forever. The church’s teaching affects the mind primarily; her feasts affect both mind and heart, and have a salutary effect upon the whole of man’s nature. Man is composed of body and soul, and he needs these external festivities so that the sacred rites, in all their beauty and variety, may stimulate him to drink more deeply of the fountain of God’s teaching, that he may make it a part of himself, and use it with profit for his spiritual life.

1. History, in fact, tells us that in the course of ages these festivals have been instituted one after another according as the needs or the advantage of the people of Christ seemed to demand: as when they needed strength to face a common danger, when they were attacked by insidious heresies, when they needed to be urged to the pious consideration of some mystery of faith or of some divine blessing. Thus in the earliest days of the Christian era, when the people of Christ were suffering cruel persecution, the cult of the martyrs was begun in order, says St. Augustine, “that the feasts of the martyrs might incite men to martyrdom.”[34] The liturgical honors paid to confessors, virgins and widows produced wonderful results in an increased zest for virtue, necessary even in times of peace. But more fruitful still were the feasts instituted in honor of the Blessed Virgin. As a result of these men grew not only in their devotion to the Mother of God as an ever-present advocate, but also in their love of her as a mother bequeathed to them by their Redeemer. Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy. We may well admire in this the admirable wisdom of the Providence of God, who, ever bringing good out of evil, has from time to time suffered the faith and piety of men to grow weak, and allowed Catholic truth to be attacked by false doctrines, but always with the result that truth has afterwards shone out with greater splendor, and that men’s faith, aroused from its lethargy, has shown itself more vigorous than before.
2. The festivals that have been introduced into the liturgy in more recent years have had a similar origin, and have been attended with similar results. When reverence and devotion to the Blessed Sacrament had grown cold, the feast of Corpus Christi was instituted, so that by means of solemn processions and prayer of eight days’ duration, men might be brought once more to render public homage to Christ. So, too, the feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus was instituted at a time when men were oppressed by the sad and gloomy severity of Jansenism, which had made their hearts grow cold, and shut them out from the love of God and the hope of salvation.

 

[CWBetts]

Noting that encyclicals are the Word of God,

WRONG. Encyclicals fall under the Ordinary (reformable) Magisterium. Though they may contain infallible statements, they are not themselves infallible, neither are they to be considered inspired.

 

[WFS5801]

This encyclical, and the one prior to it about priestly celibacy, showed to the world a church at odds with itself. It highlighted the debate over the concentration of Papal powers. It exposed a church that valued unchanging doctrines more than growth and revelation through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. It effectively destroyed much of the good will and positive PR for the Church that came out of Vatican II.

Oh, well, preserving good “PR” with “the world” is so much more important than Catholic Doctrine and Eternal Truth. How could Pope Paul have done that? What was he thinking? Just being “stubborn” and “willful,” like St. Paul who wrote to the Romans:

“1 I BESEECH you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service. 2 And be not conformed to this world; but be reformed in the newness of your mind, that you may prove what is the good, and the acceptable, and the perfect will of God.” --Rom 12

The Church has always been a Kingdom, not a Democracy.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I think it was Chesterton who said he’d rather belong to a Church that was 2000 years behind the times than one that was a year behind and trying to catch up.

I go with that.

 

[Shin]

There is actually a book called Popes Against Modern Errors by TAN Books. It compiles all the following encyclicals:

On liberalism (Mirari Vos) / Pope Gregory XVI –
On current errors (Quanta Cura) / Pope Pius IX –
Syllabus of errors / Pope Pius IX –
On government authority (Diuturnum Illud) / Pope Leo XIII –
On Freemasonry and Naturalism (Humanum Genus) / Pope Leo XIII –
On the nature of true liberty (Libertas Praestantissimum) / Pope Leo XIII –
On the condition of the working classes (Rerum Novarum) / Pope Leo XIII –
On Christian democracy (Graves de Communi Re) / Pope Leo XIII –
Syllabus condemning the errors of the Modernists (Lamentabili Sane) / Pope St. Pius X –
On Modernism (Pascendi Dominici Gregis) / Pope St. Pius X –
Our Apostolic Mandate (On the “Sillon”) / Pope St. Pius X –
The oath against Modernism / Pope St. Pius X –
On the Feast of Christ the King (Quas Primas) / Pope Pius XI –
On fostering true religious unity (Mortalium Animos) / Pope Pius XI –
On atheistic communism (Divini Redemptoris) / Pope Pius XI –
On certain false opinions which threaten to undermine the foundations of Catholic Doctrine (Humani Generis) / Pope Pius XII.

That book probably sums up a good deal of it!

 

[Thomas58]

Pascendi Dominici Gregis describes perfectly the Vatican II Religion

 

[Aramis]

Humanae Vitae…

If more Catholics throughout the world paid attention to it, we’d definitely be more than replacing ourselves.

 

[CWBetts]

Pascendi Dominici Gregis describes perfectly the Vatican II Religion

There is no “Vatican II Religion.” There are faithful Catholics who accept it for what it is, an infallible council, and Neo-Protestants, who protest the validity of the council.

 

[Thomas58]

There is no “Vatican II Religion.” There are faithful Catholics who accept it for what it is, an infallible council, and Neo-Protestants, who protest the validity of the council.

I don’t want to get off the original topic of this thread, but when you have a Council that has decreed and implemented teachings previously condemned by the Infallible Teaching Magisterium of the Church, including several encyclicals by numerous past Popes, then you have a problem.

Furthermore, anyone who is not totally blind cannot deny the disastrous fruits of Vatican II. Far from ushering in the promised “New Springtime” of the Church, it has brought about an unprecedented deterioration

Thomas.

 

[CWBetts]

I don’t want to get off the original topic of this thread, but when you have a Council that has decreed and implemented teachings previously condemned by the Infallible Teaching Magisterium of the Church, including several encyclicals by numerous past Popes, then you have a problem.

Furthermore, anyone who is not totally blind cannot deny the disastrous fruits of Vatican II. Far from ushering in the promised “New Springtime” of the Church, it has brought about an unprecedented deterioration

Thomas.

Vatican II was infallible. To reject it is to reject the Church.

 

[Miss_Linda]

In your opinions, what are the currently most unheeded encyclicals in the Church?

There are two that I am reading and meditating on currently:

Miranda Prorsus (On the Communications Field: Motion Pictures, Radio, Television) issued by Pius XII

and

Vigilanti Cura (On Motion Pictures) issued by Pius XI

The instructions in these wonderful Encyclicals seem to be quite unheeded, to the detriment of our souls.

I haven’t read through all the posts in this thread, so please forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but there is a wonderful on-line resource for the Papal Encyclicals: www.PapalEncyclicals.net

 

[WFS5801]

Vatican II was infallible. To reject it is to reject the Church.

No, Vatican II specifically was not infallible. It was a “pastoral” council. How can a non-dogmatic council be infallible?

“*There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” *(General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966) – Pope Paul VI