St Thomas More: a question

[JReducation]

I have some questions for you about the quote you made from New Advent.

If we look at several documents written by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, they meet three requirements.

First: it is clear that the pope is speaking as pope, not as the Bishop of Rome or as a theologian, because the documents themselves are for the whole Church. Every letter written on this subject as been written for the entire Church. You can go to the Vatican site and google the term, religious freedom and find all the documents and letters that mention it.

Second, the popes clearly state in these different documents that violations of religious freedom are sinful. Here we apply the principal that the pope cannot teach moral error. If he calls something a sin, it is so, unless it can be proven that the conditions for sin do not apply. This is tricky. Because the pope does have the authority and power to manipulate the conditions for sin. I just saw something rather interesting that I did not know.

In Our Lady’s home at Loreto, there have been attempts to remove a brick here or there to take someplace else as a relic. This is not a grave evil. The proper authorities gave permission to do so. It’s not stealing either. The intent was to venerate the relic, not to do some horrible thing. Under the Ambrosian system of sin, this would not quality. However, the pope manipulated the rules and declared that anyone who takes a relic from that house is in a state of grave sin and is automatically excommunicated. This is binding. That’s why I say that one has to be careful, because popes have the auhority to manipulate (in the good way) the defintion of sin. In other words, they can declare that something is a sin and later declare that it is not. While the law exists, the decree is binding. Another good example is the absitenence on Fridays. It was a mortal sin to eat meat. The pope took it away. He can do that. He can declare that something is a sin and then it becomes a sin. It’s part of the Petrine privilege or the privilege of being Peter.

Third: when speaking about this issue, the popes have stated that this freedom is written into natural law. When they invoke natural law, they are invoking something that we call immanent truth. That means that it is a truth that does not need to be declared a truth by the Church. A good example of this is the complementarity of the sexes. It has never been declared a dogma. There is not such dogma. It’s not necessary. It’s written into natural law. It’s a truth that is immanent. It is very present within us. All that we must do is examine our consciences.

The Church changes her politics on how to deal with other faiths. That’s another issue altogether. She can do that. She cannot change the truth that men are free to worship according to their conscience. The Church has never stated that man cannot worship according to his conscience. The Church has said that you cannot do it here or there. That’s a political move. But to say that you cannot do it at all, is an error. The Church has never taught that error.

Today the Church teaches that it is an error to use politics and civil law to enforce or control religious belief, religious practices, and religious expression. She never did this before, because the hierarchy thought it was not necessary. Remember, they did not have Internet, telephone or TV. They did not know what we know about religious persecution. By the time they found out about it, it was usually to late and it was over. Today we know about these things in an instant. The Holy Father sees the whole picture in 25 seconds, something that his predecessors could not do. He sees that religious intolerance and crimes against humanity in order to control religious expression are out of hand. He must then condemn any law or governmental system whose purpose is to violate human rights and human dignity to control religion. Among all of man’s right, is the right to worship according to his conscience without interference and persecution or prosecution.

The pope’s statements on these matters are not meant for a select few, but for everyone. This is what the article that I gave you states as a requirement for infallibility.

The las paragraph speaks explicitly about ex-cathedra decrees. The other paragraphs are simply stating what the criteria is for infallibility.

1. It is the pope speaking, not the Bishop of Rome.
2. It is intended for the universal Church, not for a few.
3. It is his intention that it be obeyed by all.

An ex-cathedra decree is usually preserved to explain a doctrine or to tie up lose ends regarding a certain belief. It can often be used to close an argument or discussion that cannot be resolved using human reason, such as the Immaculate Conception.

Not everything that is infallible and binding has been declared ex-cathedra, because it’s not necessary. Most of it is clear either because it is in scripture, sacred tradition or in natural law. All it needs is for the pope to identify it as such. It’s rather interesting, because even what’s in scripture is subject to his stamp, not the other way around. Example, if the pope says that a certain passage of scripture means X and not Y. Then that’s what it means. That has not been done in a very long time, not in my lifetime and I’m old.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

The las paragraph speaks explicitly about ex-cathedra decrees. The other paragraphs are simply stating what the criteria is for infallibility.

I thought all these paragraphs were describing ex-cathedra decrees only.

Do you think it’s written in a rather confusing way? Because right before giving the conditions for infallibility, it says, “infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:”

All the conditions you listed look to me as though they are referring to ex cathedra teaching only, because right before the four conditions, it says infallibility is only to be attributed to his ex cathedra teaching, and it adds that the following conditions are the conditions under which an ex cathedra teaching is made. It looked to me, when reading it, like it was saying that only ex cathedra teachings are infallible, and that here are the conditions for an ex cathedra teaching.

If we look at several documents written by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, they meet three requirements.

First: it is clear that the pope is speaking as pope, not as the Bishop of Rome or as a theologian, because the documents themselves are for the whole Church. Every letter written on this subject as been written for the entire Church. You can go to the Vatican site and google the term, religious freedom and find all the documents and letters that mention it.

Second, the popes clearly state in these different documents that violations of religious freedom are sinful. Here we apply the principal that the pope cannot teach moral error. If he calls something a sin, it is so, unless it can be proven that the conditions for sin do not apply. This is tricky. Because the pope does have the authority and power to manipulate the conditions for sin. I just saw something rather interesting that I did not know.

In Our Lady’s home at Loreto, there have been attempts to remove a brick here or there to take someplace else as a relic. This is not a grave evil. The proper authorities gave permission to do so. It’s not stealing either. The intent was to venerate the relic, not to do some horrible thing. Under the Ambrosian system of sin, this would not quality. However, the pope manipulated the rules and declared that anyone who takes a relic from that house is in a state of grave sin and is automatically excommunicated. This is binding. That’s why I say that one has to be careful, because popes have the auhority to manipulate (in the good way) the defintion of sin. In other words, they can declare that something is a sin and later declare that it is not. While the law exists, the decree is binding. Another good example is the absitenence on Fridays. It was a mortal sin to eat meat. The pope took it away. He can do that. He can declare that something is a sin and then it becomes a sin. It’s part of the Petrine privilege or the privilege of being Peter.

I agree with you thus far that these teachings are intended for the universal Church and are taught as moral issues.

My understanding of how the Pope can manipulate the conditions for sin has been that disobeying him is the sin. When he orders that we not eat meat on Fridays, it becomes a sin to eat meat on Fridays because we would be rebelling against the authority of the Pope, the authority Christ gave him to rule the flock. That rebellion is the sin. And that goes for all rebellion against the Pope’s commands, whether it be taking relics from the Holy House at Loreto or other.

I’m correct in that understanding, right? It’s not relevant to the discussion – I’m just making sure I’m doctrinally correct on that point too.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Third: when speaking about this issue, the popes have stated that this freedom is written into natural law. When they invoke natural law, they are invoking something that we call immanent truth. That means that it is a truth that does not need to be declared a truth by the Church. A good example of this is the complementarity of the sexes. It has never been declared a dogma. There is not such dogma. It’s not necessary. It’s written into natural law. It’s a truth that is immanent. It is very present within us. All that we must do is examine our consciences.

Are all Papal teachings of immanent truth infallible? Suppose a Pope made a theological mistake in his understanding of natural law. Would he be capable of teaching that mistake to the Church?

I’ve got another question about this. The third condition for infallibility listed in the Catholic Encyclopedia was that the Pope has to be speaking, “with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way.”

Does saying that a truth is part of natural law constitute a declaration of the fullness and finality of Apostolic Authority?

The Church changes her politics on how to deal with other faiths. That’s another issue altogether. She can do that. She cannot change the truth that men are free to worship according to their conscience. The Church has never stated that man cannot worship according to his conscience. The Church has said that you cannot do it here or there. That’s a political move.

A sinful or mistaken political move?

Today the Church teaches that it is an error to use politics and civil law to enforce or control religious belief, religious practices, and religious expression. She never did this before, because the hierarchy thought it was not necessary.

I find that view difficult to believe. Sometimes the hierarchy commanded the use of political force and civil law to control religious belief, practices and expression in parts of the world. Popes and councils, even ecumenical councils, have done this. During the greater part of the second millennium, I don’t see much evidence that the hierarchy believed in freedom of religious expression for non-Catholics, heretics or apostates. I see a lot of evidence indicating the reverse. Do you know of some good sources or evidence I should look at, showing the continuity of Catholic belief on this issue?

1. It is the pope speaking, not the Bishop of Rome.
2. It is intended for the universal Church, not for a few.
3. It is his intention that it be obeyed by all.

But 3. required that he speak with his full Apostolic Authority, and I haven’t seen an express statement presenting that as yet. The Vatican taught in the Vademecum for Confessors, “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable.” That is a clear statement of Apostolic Authority. Pope John Paul II gave a similarly clear statement against the ordination of women, expressly invoking his Apostolic Authority and declaring that the Church has no power to change this practice.

Do we need an express declaration of Apostolic Authority like this for infallibility to be certainly present?

Also, is it possible for the Pope to make a statement about morals to the Church, desiring belief and obedience from all, but not invoking his Apostolic Authority? If so, how can one tell the difference between this situation and one in which infallibility is present?

 

[JReducation]

I’m going to pull all of Lief’s questions into one answer, because it’s easier.

1. The pope does not have to use the words “irrevocable, apostolic, ex Cathedra” and so forth to teach infallibly. As long as he’s teaching on faith and morals, as the pope, to the universal Church, with the intent of being obeyed, that’s all that’s required. This goes back to the times of Peter. Peter didn’t know what any of these words meant. Therefore, he never used them. The popes that followed him never used them. These terms come into play several hundred years later. But this does not mean that Peter and those early popes did not teach infallibly.
2. When the rule says that not all of the pope’s activity can be attributed infallibility, this is correct. The operative word here is activity. In other words, what he does. For example, there are traditionalists that say that everyone has to receive communion on their knees and on the tongue because Pope Benedict distributes it that way. That is wrong. That’s an example of an activity. That is something that he does for the reasons that he has explained. But until he revokes the law of communion in the hand, communion on the tongue is not mandatory. It remains the usual and customary way of receiving communion, not the only way. There we have an example of a papal activity, that is not infallible.
3. As far as natural law, when the pope refers to natural law, he’s always going to speak infallibly, because natural law does not make mistakes. He’s making the statement, but it does not come from him. He’s simply stating what exists in natural law. For example, the complimentarity of the sexes. That’s in natural law. The pope is not saying anything new here. He’s just pointint to natural law, which is without error. It is the law that is without error. He’s just pointing to it.
4. When I use the term “manipulating” sin, I’m not using it in a negative way. In this case, I’m using it to mean that he handles sin, the criteria for sin. He can add and delete sins to the list. But we must understand that the pope can only delete sins that that the Church “created”. These are sins against a certain discipline, such as abstinence on Fridays. The sin was the actual eating of meat. It was not a sin of disobedience. Eating meat on Friday was a sin, only for Roman Catholics outside of Spain. It was not a sin for people in Spain, nor for the Oriental Catholics. They had their own rules about fasting and abstinence. But the sin was in eating the meet, not in disobeying. Though disobedience is also a sin, but it’s usually not a mortal sin. Eating meat on Friday was a mortal sin if you were of a certain age and were a Roman outside of Spain. These are sins against a discipline. For example when a priest violates celibacy, he commits two sins: one against purity and another against the discipline of celibacy, only if he’s Roman and only if he’s a secular. In this case, he commits a sin against a virtue (purity) and against a discipline (celibacy). It’s not a sin of disobedience. If an Oriental priests does the same thing, he sins against the virtue of purity, but not against the discipline of celibacy, because they do not have this discipline, even if they are not married. Those oriental priests who are not married must remain celibate, but not because they have a discipline of celibacy, but because deacons, priests and bishops may never marry. If you did not do it before ordination, you missed your chance.
5. Yes, the way that the Catholic encyclopedia explains infallibility is very convoluted. I warned you that it was very wordy. For one thing, the author does not mention that ex-cathedra simply means fromt he chair, but it does not mean that every ex-cathedra statement has to be labled as such. If you read the article form beginning to end, it get more hairy. I understand it, but I don’t like the way that it is written. It’s written for theologians and the encyclopedia should be user friedly for the non-theologian. Many of their articles are user friendly. This is not one of them, probably because this is such a hot issue that they are trying to cover too much ground. I’m just guessing here as to why it’s written this way. But I found it to be wordy.

My advice is the same as that of Mary, “Do whatever he tells you.” This way, we avoid wracking our brains. Maybe I’m speaking from my monastic perspective here. Feel free to correct me, if I am.

On thing that we who live monastic life are trained to do is not to think too much about what the Church says. We just do it or don’t do it, depending on whether we’re told to do or not do. The important thing for us is to protect our inner silence. The more that we think about something, the less inner silence that we have, because one question triggers another and another and another. As my novice master once said, “If you want to think like a bell tower, the monastery is not the place for you.” In other words, keep it quiet in there so that you can hear the voice of God on the really important matters.

It’s very hard to contemplate when you’re wondering “what did the pope mean when he said X?”

That’s why Benedict, Bernard, Francis, Teresa, Albert and even Augustine always told their followers, 'Shut up." Let me tell you. It works wonders.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

1. The pope does not have to use the words “irrevocable, apostolic, ex Cathedra” and so forth to teach infallibly. As long as he’s teaching on faith and morals, as the pope, to the universal Church, with the intent of being obeyed, that’s all that’s required. This goes back to the times of Peter. Peter didn’t know what any of these words meant. Therefore, he never used them. The popes that followed him never used them. These terms come into play several hundred years later. But this does not mean that Peter and those early popes did not teach infallibly.

This is a good point. I’m interested in knowing some more things about it.

Where did you learn about Papal infallibility on moral teachings, and do you recall what sources you used?

Are there any examples of doctrines aside from religious freedom that are believed to be infallible because of Papal authority, but which have not used explicit words like “ex-cathedra” or “irrevocable”? For example, I noticed that Pope John Paul II has spoken on Mary’s role as Mediatrix of All Graces to the Universal Church. No Ex-Cathedra dogma has been made about this teaching, though it is clearly part of Sacred Tradition. But is it also infallible because of Apostolic Authority?

When explicit words for infallibility like those above first began to be used, did the Popes shift practice and always use these words to speak infallibly, or did these words only surface for emphasis?

1. When the rule says that not all of the pope’s activity can be attributed infallibility, this is correct. The operative word here is activity. In other words, what he does. For example, there are traditionalists that say that everyone has to receive communion on their knees and on the tongue because Pope Benedict distributes it that way. That is wrong. That’s an example of an activity. That is something that he does for the reasons that he has explained. But until he revokes the law of communion in the hand, communion on the tongue is not mandatory. It remains the usual and customary way of receiving communion, not the only way. There we have an example of a papal activity, that is not infallible.

Got it .

1. As far as natural law, when the pope refers to natural law, he’s always going to speak infallibly, because natural law does not make mistakes. He’s making the statement, but it does not come from him. He’s simply stating what exists in natural law. For example, the complimentarity of the sexes. That’s in natural law. The pope is not saying anything new here. He’s just pointint to natural law, which is without error. It is the law that is without error. He’s just pointing to it.

I understand that natural law is infallible. What I don’t understand so well is whether or not the Pope can make mistakes in his understanding of natural law and pass these mistakes on to the faithful while teaching the Church. Is it only the natural law that is infallible, or is the Pope always infallible in his understanding of natural law, when he teaches the faithful about it?

This leads me to a question about the encyclicals. In them, the Pope speaks as the Pope to the Church about faith and morals, with the intent that we believe and obey what he says. Yet I read on the Catholic Encyclopedia that they are not all fully infallible – only parts of them might be.

Seeing as the Pope, in the Encyclicals, is speaking as the Pope to the Universal Church on faith and morals, with the intent that we believe and obey, why doesn’t this fit the criterion for infallibility, if religious freedom does?

There were a few questions I asked that I don’t think you answered, so if you don’t mind, I’m going to bring them up again.

JReducation:

The Church has never stated that man cannot worship according to his conscience. The Church has said that you cannot do it here or there. That’s a political move.

Is this political move always wrong? For instance, the commands of the Fourth Lateran Council obliged all faithful Catholic princes to deny heretics access to important political positions, and restricted heretics in various other ways. Were these commands wrong?

JReducation:

Today the Church teaches that it is an error to use politics and civil law to enforce or control religious belief, religious practices, and religious expression. She never did this before, because the hierarchy thought it was not necessary.

I find that view difficult to believe. Sometimes the hierarchy commanded the use of political force and civil law to control religious belief, practices and expression in parts of the world. Popes and councils, even ecumenical councils, have done this. During the greater part of the second millennium, I don’t see much evidence that the hierarchy believed in freedom of religious expression for non-Catholics, heretics or apostates. I see a lot of evidence indicating the reverse. Do you know of some good sources or evidence I should look at, showing the continuity of Catholic belief on this issue?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Continued from post 105, the most recent post on the previous page . . .

1. When I use the term “manipulating” sin, I’m not using it in a negative way. In this case, I’m using it to mean that he handles sin, the criteria for sin. He can add and delete sins to the list. But we must understand that the pope can only delete sins that that the Church “created”. These are sins against a certain discipline, such as abstinence on Fridays. The sin was the actual eating of meat. It was not a sin of disobedience. Eating meat on Friday was a sin, only for Roman Catholics outside of Spain. It was not a sin for people in Spain, nor for the Oriental Catholics. They had their own rules about fasting and abstinence. But the sin was in eating the meet, not in disobeying. Though disobedience is also a sin, but it’s usually not a mortal sin. Eating meat on Friday was a mortal sin if you were of a certain age and were a Roman outside of Spain. These are sins against a discipline.

I think I understand what you mean, and I don’t think it’s far from what I meant.

A discipline is a practice commanded by a legitimate authority, so violating the practice is disobeying the authority. It’s the disobedience that makes the violation a sin. If there was no authority mandating the practice, it would not be a sin to violate the practice. If the ecclesiastical hierarchy did not say, “perform some penitential act on Fridays,” it would not be a sin to abstain perform no penitential act on Fridays. But they do command it, so we are required to perform a penitential act on Fridays, under pain of grave sin, if I’m not mistaken.

When you say, “it’s a sin against a discipline” to abstain from that discipline, you’re saying it’s a sin to violate a practice commanded by proper authority. I absolutely agree with that. I see all these sins against Church discipline as sins of disobedience, because they would not be sins if the Church did not command obedience to these disciplines, and all violations of these disciplines are disobedience to the Church. If my bishop says, “I command you to adhere to the discipline of performing a penitential act each Friday,” and I don’t, I’m disobeying him and sinning, but if my Dad says, “I command you to adhere to the discipline of performing a penitential act each Thursday,” and I don’t, I’m disobeying him but am not sinning. All the moral necessity of following certain disciplines revolves around authority. Don’t you agree?

Here’s a Bible passage that illustrates exactly how I feel about these disciplines and their relationship with authority:
"1 Kings 13:11-25:

11 Now there was a certain old prophet living in Bethel, whose sons came and told him all that the man of God had done there that day. They also told their father what he had said to the king. 12 Their father asked them, “Which way did he go?” And his sons showed him which road the man of God from Judah had taken. 13 So he said to his sons, “Saddle the donkey for me.” And when they had saddled the donkey for him, he mounted it 14 and rode after the man of God. He found him sitting under an oak tree and asked, “Are you the man of God who came from Judah?”

  "I am," he replied.

15 So the prophet said to him, “Come home with me and eat.”

16 The man of God said, "I cannot turn back and go with you, nor can I eat bread or drink water with you in this place. 17 I have been told by the word of the LORD : ‘You must not eat bread or drink water there or return by the way you came.’ "

18 The old prophet answered, "I too am a prophet, as you are. And an angel said to me by the word of the LORD : ‘Bring him back with you to your house so that he may eat bread and drink water.’ " (But he was lying to him.) 19 So the man of God returned with him and ate and drank in his house.

20 While they were sitting at the table, the word of the LORD came to the old prophet who had brought him back. 21 He cried out to the man of God who had come from Judah, "This is what the LORD says: ‘You have defied the word of the LORD and have not kept the command the LORD your God gave you. 22 You came back and ate bread and drank water in the place where he told you not to eat or drink. Therefore your body will not be buried in the tomb of your fathers.’ "

23 When the man of God had finished eating and drinking, the prophet who had brought him back saddled his donkey for him. 24 As he went on his way, a lion met him on the road and killed him, and his body was thrown down on the road, with both the donkey and the lion standing beside it. 25 Some people who passed by saw the body thrown down there, with the lion standing beside the body, and they went and reported it in the city where the old prophet lived.

What do you think?

On thing that we who live monastic life are trained to do is not to think too much about what the Church says. We just do it or don’t do it, depending on whether we’re told to do or not do. The important thing for us is to protect our inner silence.

I’m dwelling on this; it’s a useful comment .

One question I have about it is that you’re always talking about obedience. By obedience, are you referring only to obedient action or also obedient belief?

I expect you’re referring to both, but I just want to be clear .

God bless you, all your brethren, and all those you are trying to minister to and save.

 

[JReducation]

This is a good point. I’m interested in knowing some more things about it.

Where did you learn about Papal infallibility on moral teachings, and do you recall what sources you used?

As far as infallibility, we had to read the Acts, the Church Fathers, the lives and writings of many saints and some current documents, especially the documents of Vatican I and Vatican II. It’s not all summarized in one niftly little book. You have to read quite a bit and extrapolate.

Are there any examples of doctrines aside from religious freedom that are believed to be infallible because of Papal authority, but which have not used explicit words like “ex-cathedra” or “irrevocable”? For example, I noticed that Pope John Paul II has spoken on Mary’s role as Mediatrix of All Graces to the Universal Church. No Ex-Cathedra dogma has been made about this teaching, though it is clearly part of Sacred Tradition. But is it also infallible because of Apostolic Authority?

Yes.

When explicit words for infallibility like those above first began to be used, did the Popes shift practice and always use these words to speak infallibly, or did these words only surface for emphasis?

The words surffaced as language changed.

I understand that natural law is infallible. What I don’t understand so well is whether or not the Pope can make mistakes in his understanding of natural law and pass these mistakes on to the faithful while teaching the Church.

A pope can never pass error on to the faithful in his teaching. He can in his bad example. That’s why the rule speaks about his acts. The scriptures promise that Peter will not teach error. Therefore, when he interprets natural law for the universal Church, it is error free.

This leads me to a question about the encyclicals. In them, the Pope speaks as the Pope to the Church about faith and morals, with the intent that we believe and obey what he says. Yet I read on the Catholic Encyclopedia that they are not all fully infallible – only parts of them might be.

This is true. An encylical is a letter. In the letter there is usually a teaching. The moral and doctrinal teaching is always infallible. But the letters are not usually “Hey guys just a quick note to remind you that stealing is a sin. Yours truly, The Pope.” That part is absolutely infallible. But the pope may go on to talk about different forms of stealing and what to do or not to do when sometone steals. That part is not the doctrine or the moral teaching. His advice is not infallible. The truth is infallible.

Seeing as the Pope, in the Encyclicals, is speaking as the Pope to the Universal Church on faith and morals, with the intent that we believe and obey, why doesn’t this fit the criterion for infallibility, if religious freedom does?

That’s why they are quoted over and over again. They often contain some infallible teaching. Some encyclicals are comments on other matters.

Is this political move always wrong?

They were right for that time. They are wrong for today. In fact, just two days ago, the pope came out again and spoke about religious freedom. He said that you cannot have peace without it. At the time of the Lateran Council it was a political move to ensure peace. Today, it has the opposite effect. Any means that leads to the absence of peace is morally unacceptable.

I find that view difficult to believe. Sometimes the hierarchy commanded the use of political force and civil law to control religious belief, practices and expression in parts of the world. Popes and councils, even ecumenical councils, have done this. During the greater part of the second millennium, I don’t see much evidence that the hierarchy believed in freedom of religious expression for non-Catholics, heretics or apostates. I see a lot of evidence indicating the reverse. Do you know of some good sources or evidence I should look at, showing the continuity of Catholic belief on this issue?

You will find is that the Church has never taught that religious freedom is a sin. She has condemned heresy and apostasy. That has not changed. To condemn it and to take away the right of the person to live by it are not the same thing. That is the part that changes.

Also, if I may add, this was a concern only in Europe and the American colonies. This was never a concern in Asia and Africa. When St. Francis Xavier, St. Maximilian Kolbe and St. Paul Miki and others served as missioanries in Japan they never attempted to get the state to enact laws against the Asian religions. What they condemned was the violations of religious freedom against the Christians. In fact, St. Francis Xavier wrote a letter to Ignatius Loyola and said that the only way to make Catholicism more acceptable in Japan was to make it less European.

St. Maximilian Kolbe wrote the Franciscans in Poland to come to Japan, but leave the Franciscan habit behind, because it was an inconvenience. The first missionaries to Japan were Jesuits and later Francisans and they adopted many Asian practices, including building churches that looked like pagan temples and dressing as the local wise and holy men did, instead of habits and cassocks.

That’s why monastics do not dwell on this stuff as much as you guys in the world… Because we know the whole story. It would drie us crazy keeping it all sorted out in our heads. In the end, it’s not important to us. The importance is our fidelity to our vocation to holiness.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

One question I have about it is that you’re always talking about obedience. By obedience, are you referring only to obedient action or also obedient belief?

I expect you’re referring to both, but I just want to be clear .

God bless you, all your brethren, and all those you are trying to minister to and save.

Our Holy Father Francis actually built on what St. Benedict had taught his monks. The way that he passed it on to us and told us to pass it on to you, the laity is this way.

We must be obedient in all things and at all times. True obedience is always filled with love for the law giver. It is not only an act of submission, but also an act of charity. Even when we know that the law-giver is mistaken, as long as he does not command us to sin, we must obey because this makes us pleasing to both men and God.

It’s very interesting to see how Francis and Benedict tell us that it is important to be pleasing to men. The God part, everyone accepts. But many people today scream and hollar about how unimportant it is to please others. Well, Benedict and Francis would say, “Nonsense.”

Pleasing others is part of charity. What is never allowed is to sin in order to please others. There is not charity in that. That’s where Pope Benedict XVI got his title for his encyclical. It comes from an old Franciscan teaching by St. Bonaventure. Charity must alwasy be practiced in truth. But notice that Bonaventure says that we must practice charity

To obey is an act of charity. We obey in our assent and in our compliance. The assent is harder than the compliance. We often obey with reluctance. But Francis added to Benedict’s writings. Benedict said that you must obey, whether you like it or not. Francis added that you must obey and learn to like it.

Benedict was concerned with justice. Justice requires that you obey.

Francis was concerned with love. Love does more than what is required.

Both are correct.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

As far as infallibility, we had to read the Acts, the Church Fathers, the lives and writings of many saints and some current documents, especially the documents of Vatican I and Vatican II. It’s not all summarized in one niftly little book. You have to read quite a bit and extrapolate.

Darn.

A pope can never pass error on to the faithful in his teaching. He can in his bad example. That’s why the rule speaks about his acts. The scriptures promise that Peter will not teach error. Therefore, when he interprets natural law for the universal Church, it is error free.

Got it . I’ve looked this up elsewhere and found more Catholic sources that appear to agree with you.

Why does the Pope bother to give dogmas “ex-cathedra” if he can speak easily speak infallibly without going through the formality?
"JReducation:

This is true. An encylical is a letter. In the letter there is usually a teaching. The moral and doctrinal teaching is always infallible. But the letters are not usually “Hey guys just a quick note to remind you that stealing is a sin. Yours truly, The Pope.” That part is absolutely infallible. But the pope may go on to talk about different forms of stealing and what to do or not to do when sometone steals. That part is not the doctrine or the moral teaching. His advice is not infallible. The truth is infallible.

. . . You will find is that the Church has never taught that religious freedom is a sin. She has condemned heresy and apostasy. That has not changed. To condemn it and to take away the right of the person to live by it are not the same thing. That is the part that changes.

I have a question about an encyclical that appears to infallibly affirm that freedom of religious expression is a sin.

“They do not hesitate to put forward the view which is not only opposed to the Catholic Church, but very pernicious for the salvation of souls — an opinion which Gregory XVI, Our Predecessor, called absurd. This is the view that liberty of conscience and worship is the strict right of every man, a right which should be proclaimed and affirmed by law in every properly constituted state… When they rashly make these statements, they do not realize or recall to mind that they are advocating what St. Augustine calls a liberty of perdition” (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura).

Quanta Cura was released by the Pope to all the faithful. The statement in Quanta Cura says that religious freedom is “opposed to the Catholic Church” and “very pernicious for the salvation of souls.” That sounds like an explicit teaching about faith.

Vatican I also appears to offer a similar teaching, though it doesn’t talk so explicitly about civil law as the above teachings do.

Canon 4.2 says,
“If anyone says that human studies are to be treated with such a degree of liberty that their assertions may be maintained as true even when they are opposed to divine revelation, and that they may not be forbidden by the church: let him be anathema.”

This canon looks like it condemns the idea of people having a “right” to propagate error.

Why are these teachings not infallible, or if they are true and good, how does one explain their apparent complete opposition to current teaching on religious freedom and expression?

JReducation:

They were right for that time. They are wrong for today. In fact, just two days ago, the pope came out again and spoke about religious freedom. He said that you cannot have peace without it. At the time of the Lateran Council it was a political move to ensure peace. Today, it has the opposite effect. Any means that leads to the absence of peace is morally unacceptable.

But doesn’t natural law apply to all times and places, and isn’t the use of civil law to prohibit people’s religious freedom a violation of natural law, whether in the Medieval Ages, the 19th century or the 21st?

If so, how can the Fourth Lateran Council’s call for princes to use civil law against heretics have been “right for that time”?

Benedict was concerned with justice. Justice requires that you obey.

Francis was concerned with love. Love does more than what is required.

Both are correct.

But do you have to also agree with it? If these Papal teachings truly are infallible, then giving the assent of faith is a necessary part of obedience, right?

JReducation:

Also, if I may add, this was a concern only in Europe and the American colonies. This was never a concern in Asia and Africa. When St. Francis Xavier, St. Maximilian Kolbe and St. Paul Miki and others served as missioanries in Japan they never attempted to get the state to enact laws against the Asian religions. What they condemned was the violations of religious freedom against the Christians. In fact, St. Francis Xavier wrote a letter to Ignatius Loyola and said that the only way to make Catholicism more acceptable in Japan was to make it less European.

St. Maximilian Kolbe wrote the Franciscans in Poland to come to Japan, but leave the Franciscan habit behind, because it was an inconvenience. The first missionaries to Japan were Jesuits and later Francisans and they adopted many Asian practices, including building churches that looked like pagan temples and dressing as the local wise and holy men did, instead of habits and cassocks.

That’s why monastics do not dwell on this stuff as much as you guys in the world… Because we know the whole story. It would drie us crazy keeping it all sorted out in our heads. In the end, it’s not important to us. The importance is our fidelity to our vocation to holiness.

Well, I look forward to having it all sorted out in my head, too .

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Do you have any thoughts regarding what I wrote about disobedience and violating discipline, by the way?

 

[JReducation]

Why does the Pope bother to give dogmas “ex-cathedra” if he can speak easily speak infallibly without going through the formality?

There are times when ceremony, pomp and circumstance is necessary to drive home a point.

I have a question about an encyclical that appears to infallibly affirm that freedom of religious expression is a sin.

(Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura).

This is a perfect example of a passage where the Holy Father was describing a situation that is not specifically mentioned in the document, but everyone knew what he was talking about. He was talking about relativism. He was saying that you cannot say that everyone is right, because that’s ridiculous. That is still the rule today. Everyone cannot be right. The Holy Father was speaking about that mind-set that we have that goes something like this, “What’s true for you may not be true for him, but you have to accept it.” He was saying that this was nonsense. Which it is.

Sometimes, these alleged truths are not only wrong, but they are sinful, such as the pro-choice “truth”. Notice the quotation marks. In those cases, the state has a moral duty not to create laws that promote protect sin. It is one thing to protect freedom of conscience and quite another to protect the killing of unborn children.

What you believe is your problem. When you use your beliefs to violate the rights of another, then you forfeit that freedom. At the time that Quo Primum was written, people were already beginning to speak in such a way that it was clear where they were heading. They were heading to where we are today, that you can do whatever you want, regardless of whom it hurts. That’s not the real defintion of religious freedom. That abuse of freedom. That kind of abuse is dangerous at many levels.

For example, we must allow Muslims to worship and to live according to the laws of Islam. That’s religious freedom built into natural law. We cannot allow radical extremists to terrorize people. You have the right to search for God and the right to find him. You do not have the right to terrorize in the name of God. You see the difference?

Canon 4.2 says,
“If anyone says that human studies are to be treated with such a degree of liberty that their assertions may be maintained as true even when they are opposed to divine revelation, and that they may not be forbidden by the church: let him be anathema.”

You lost me here. What canon 4.2 are you looking at? There is no canon 4.2 in the code of 1983.

However, the statement is true. You cannot say that something is true if it is contrary to revelatioin. The Church has the right and duty to forbid anything that is contrary to revelation. That’s what the statement is saying. But I’m not sure where you got it.

This canon looks like it condemns the idea of people having a “right” to propagate error.

You may never teach error. But that does not mean that the state has the right to punish you for it. What we are looking at today is the Church’s attempt to curtail the power of the state over religious belief, because the state has abused it. That’s why the Holy Father said the other day the the only way to peace is through religious freedom. There is no freedom if we punish people for their beliefs. But that does not mean that we agree, big difference.

But doesn’t natural law apply to all times and places, and isn’t the use of civil law to prohibit people’s religious freedom a violation of natural law, whether in the Medieval Ages, the 19th century or the 21st?

Naturla law does not change. What changes is how we enforce it. Today we take a different approach. It’s a preventative approach. Instead of telliing the state that they have to keep everyone Catholic, we tell the state that it cannot legalize what is contrary to moral truth. Beyond that, people have to be given the freedom to search for truth.

If so, how can the Fourth Lateran Council’s call for princes to use civil law against heretics have been “right for that time”?

What the Lateran Council authorized was not an infallible teaching. It authorize for princes to use civl law against heretics. That’s not an infallible teaching. That’s a legal move. In fact, St. Francis of Assisi and St. Dominic were at the Fourth Lateran Council. When they were asked about this, they both protested. Francis argued that this was against peace. Dominic argued that it would only make martyrs out of the heretics and criminals out of the Catholics. History proved both saints to be right.

But do you have to also agree with it? If these Papal teachings truly are infallible, then giving the assent of faith is a necessary part of obedience, right?

Thanks kind of tricky. You are requierd to open your mind and explore what the Church is teaching. You are required to try something other than your preconceived notions. The hope is that you will see the wisdom in these truths and fall in line with them, without too much violence to your psyche.

Well, I look forward to having it all sorted out in my head, too .

You would definitely not make a good monk. LOL The last thing that we want to do is to sort this stuff out. If it happens fine, if not fine too. It takes way fronm inner silence. In the day to day life of every Christian what are the real choices that we grapple with? Those are the things that we have to focus on. In order to deal with the day to day, we must have inner silence to hear the voice of God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I’m going to respond to your post, but tonight it’s gotten too late for me. So I just want to ask one more question before going to bed. Can you provide me with substantial evidence from popes prior to the 20th century showing that they believed in freedom of religious expression? Right now, I have statements from the 20th century that look very much in favor of freedom of religious expression, and statements from the past that all appear to reject it. I would very much like to know that this is indeed part of our Tradition, that our hierarchy in historic councils and official documents, and in Papal encyclicals or bulls, has supported religious freedom throughout our history. Catholicism is a historic and traditional faith. You’ve said religious freedom is in the deposit of faith, which means it’s apostolic. So I’d like to see the apostolic evidence, the evidence from Church history supporting this teaching and showing that the Church has consistently believed in freedom of religious expression.

 

[Shin]

In fact, St. Francis of Assisi and St. Dominic were at the Fourth Lateran Council. When they were asked about this, they both protested. Francis argued that this was against peace. Dominic argued that it would only make martyrs out of the heretics and criminals out of the Catholics.

Would you mind primary sourcing this statement J.R.?

I am aware of the story of the two’s meeting at the Lateran, a moving story, what so far as I have read is singly sourced in Gerard de Frachet, but not anything much further than the beautiful statement made at their greeting, except in the Golden Legend.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

There are times when ceremony, pomp and circumstance is necessary to drive home a point.

One very good thing has come out of our discussion thus far. You and my research outside this thread have convinced me that the Pope is indeed infallible whenever he speaks to the Church on faith or morals. I see this as a very, very, very beautiful truth as well.

I also believe the teaching on religious freedom looks very much like it has been infallibly taught. My problem now could be even bigger than it was before, though, because, by this broader understanding of Papal infallibility, it also looks very much to me as though the reverse of freedom of religious expression has been infallibly taught by some of the other Popes. That leaves me in a very tight space, only alleviated by faith that there is a sound answer I’m not seeing.

This is a perfect example of a passage where the Holy Father was describing a situation that is not specifically mentioned in the document, but everyone knew what he was talking about. He was talking about relativism. He was saying that you cannot say that everyone is right, because that’s ridiculous. That is still the rule today. Everyone cannot be right. The Holy Father was speaking about that mind-set that we have that goes something like this, “What’s true for you may not be true for him, but you have to accept it.” He was saying that this was nonsense. Which it is.

Sometimes, these alleged truths are not only wrong, but they are sinful, such as the pro-choice “truth”. Notice the quotation marks. In those cases, the state has a moral duty not to create laws that promote protect sin. It is one thing to protect freedom of conscience and quite another to protect the killing of unborn children.

What you believe is your problem. When you use your beliefs to violate the rights of another, then you forfeit that freedom. At the time that Quo Primum was written, people were already beginning to speak in such a way that it was clear where they were heading. They were heading to where we are today, that you can do whatever you want, regardless of whom it hurts. That’s not the real defintion of religious freedom. That abuse of freedom. That kind of abuse is dangerous at many levels.

For example, we must allow Muslims to worship and to live according to the laws of Islam. That’s religious freedom built into natural law. We cannot allow radical extremists to terrorize people. You have the right to search for God and the right to find him. You do not have the right to terrorize in the name of God. You see the difference?

Yes, but I can’t for the life of me see how you got that interpretation from those words.

He appears to explicitly and directly address, “liberty of conscience and worship,” or freedom of religion, and condemn it, just as he does in his Syllabus of Errors. He also does so while addressing the Church, which should make this statement infallible, right?

You lost me here. What canon 4.2 are you looking at? There is no canon 4.2 in the code of 1983.

However, the statement is true. You cannot say that something is true if it is contrary to revelatioin. The Church has the right and duty to forbid anything that is contrary to revelation. That’s what the statement is saying.

So you’re saying the canon is saying that views contrary to Divine Revelation may not morally be propagated, but civil law should not suppress them . . .

But I’m not sure where you got it.

Vatican 1, canon 4, .2: intratext.com/IXT/ENG0063/_PC.HTM

Sorry for not being clearer .

Natural law does not change. What changes is how we enforce it. Today we take a different approach. It’s a preventative approach. Instead of telliing the state that they have to keep everyone Catholic, we tell the state that it cannot legalize what is contrary to moral truth. Beyond that, people have to be given the freedom to search for truth.

If natural law does not change and denying someone’s religious freedom is a violation of natural law, then the Church hierarchy for centuries has authorized what is contrary to natural law whenever it denied people religious freedom, and thus our hierarchy has done and encouraged what is immoral, even if they did so ignorantly, correct?

JReducation:

What the Lateran Council authorized was not an infallible teaching.

Yes, true.

JReducation:

You would definitely not make a good monk. LOL The last thing that we want to do is to sort this stuff out. If it happens fine, if not fine too. It takes way fronm inner silence. In the day to day life of every Christian what are the real choices that we grapple with? Those are the things that we have to focus on. In order to deal with the day to day, we must have inner silence to hear the voice of God.

That makes sense. It’s a perspective built on faith, focused on holiness, and information is lower priority and even can be a bad thing when it impedes the goal. I certainly don’t deny the value and beauty of this approach.

On the other hand, I’m very glad I’ve learned what I have about Papal infallibility. It’s important for me to know that. Now I can see clearly why the dissenters are always all plainly wrong. This also helps me put religious freedom in proper perspective. Learning has its value, too .

By the way, I’m still eager to see pre-20th century Papal statements affirming freedom of religion and freedom of religious expression.

 

[JReducation]

One very good thing has come out of our discussion thus far. You and my research outside this thread have convinced me that the Pope is indeed infallible whenever he speaks to the Church on faith or morals. I see this as a very, very, very beautiful truth as well.

I also believe the teaching on religious freedom looks very much like it has been infallibly taught. My problem now could be even bigger than it was before, though, because, by this broader understanding of Papal infallibility, it also looks very much to me as though the reverse of freedom of religious expression has been infallibly taught by some of the other Popes. That leaves me in a very tight space, only alleviated by faith that there is a sound answer I’m not seeing.

Yes, but I can’t for the life of me see how you got that interpretation from those words.

He appears to explicitly and directly address, “liberty of conscience and worship,” or freedom of religion, and condemn it, just as he does in his Syllabus of Errors. He also does so while addressing the Church, which should make this statement infallible, right?

So you’re saying the canon is saying that views contrary to Divine Revelation may not morally be propagated, but civil law should not suppress them . . .

Vatican 1, canon 4, .2: intratext.com/IXT/ENG0063/_PC.HTM

Sorry for not being clearer .

If natural law does not change and denying someone’s religious freedom is a violation of natural law, then the Church hierarchy for centuries has authorized what is contrary to natural law whenever it denied people religious freedom, and thus our hierarchy has done and encouraged what is immoral, even if they did so ignorantly, correct?

Yes, true.

That makes sense. It’s a perspective built on faith, focused on holiness, and information is lower priority and even can be a bad thing when it impedes the goal. I certainly don’t deny the value and beauty of this approach.

On the other hand, I’m very glad I’ve learned what I have about Papal infallibility. It’s important for me to know that. Now I can see clearly why the dissenters are always all plainly wrong. This also helps me put religious freedom in proper perspective. Learning has its value, too .

By the way, I’m still eager to see pre-20th century Papal statements affirming freedom of religion and freedom of religious expression.

On religious freedom you’ll have to read the Fathers and extrapolate it from there. That’s what John Paul II and Benedict XVI have done…

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Would you mind primary sourcing this statement J.R.?

I am aware of the story of the two’s meeting at the Lateran, a moving story, what so far as I have read is singly sourced in Gerard de Frachet, but not anything much further than the beautiful statement made at their greeting, except in the Golden Legend.

As far as I know, and I may be wrong, there is no written transcript of this. It has been handed down by oral tradition among Franciscans and Dominicans. It was part of our formation in Franciscan Ecclesiology while in novitiate.

But you have to remember that much of what has been handed down by the old religious orders has been handed down by word of mouth, because many documents have been lost and many things were never written.

Again, it may be in writing some place. I have not seen it. I do know that the report has been handed down independently by both religious families, the Friar Preachers and the Friars Minor. The fact that it has been transmitted independently, the fact that both orders have lived by this code since the 13th century, and the fact that there are discrepancies in the wording, gives credibility to the report. In other words, the Franciscans have always held that the violation of religious freedom interferes with peace. Domnicans have always held that the persecution of heretics makes marytrs. There are some very good examples of this in history too where Dominicans and Franciscans were involved in certain trials and they tried to persuade the rest to tone down the reaction or response. They were not alwasy heard, but they tried.

It’s interesting that you mention the encounter between the two founders. It is common tradition to the Dominicans and Franciscans that Dominic and Francis were at the Lateran Council, but never met. They expressed great respect for each other’s mission and vision among their own brothers and that’s how the relationship between the two orders begins.

This has nothing to do with this question, but just an example of how the oral tradition works and how powerful it is. As early as Aquinas and Bonaventure, there was always mutual cooperation and support between the two mendicant orders. They protected each other when the clerks regular tried to oust them from Paris. This relationship was based on the oral tradition regarding the mutual admiration and respect between Dominic and Francis, to the point that we refer to both of them as Holy Father: Holy Father Dominic and Holy Father Francis.

Just to avoid confusion to other readers, I’m sure that Shin may know this. Franciscans did not call the pope Holy Father until much later. He was Lord Pope. That’s why we can call Dominic and Francis Holy Father.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[30miller]

Seems to be very knowledgeable posters on this thread - so I hope you all don’t mind if I ask a quick question off-topic. Thanks. For the saint St. Francis de Sales - does anyone know exactly what the “de Sales” part of his name means?

 

[JReducation]

Seems to be very knowledgeable posters on this thread - so I hope you all don’t mind if I ask a quick question off-topic. Thanks. For the saint St. Francis de Sales - does anyone know exactly what the “de Sales” part of his name means?

de Sales was his father’s house. For example, Prince William’s last name is Mountbatten. But he is not called William Mountbatten. He is called William of Windsor.

Francis’ father was also a Francis and he was of the French house of Sales. Since Francis this is Francis Jr, he inherits the line of the father. He became Francis de Sales. But his actual last name was Boisy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[30miller]

de Sales was his father’s house. For example, Prince William’s last name is Mountbatten. But he is not called William Mountbatten. He is called William of Windsor.

Francis’ father was also a Francis and he was of the French house of Sales. Since Francis this is Francis Jr, he inherits the line of the father. He became Francis de Sales. But his actual last name was Boisy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Just one followup question, if you don’t mind. When you say his father’s “house” - are you talking about an actual property (like “Tara” is the mansion/estate in “Gone with the Wind” - thus making the heroine “Scarlet de Tara”) - or by “house” do you mean a family lineage (like JFK’s daughter Caroline, whose married name is Caroline Schlossberg - would she be termed Caroline de Kennedy, i.e. Caroline of the house of Kennedy). Thanks for your knowledge and indulgence in answering my question.

 

[JReducation]

Just one followup question, if you don’t mind. When you say his father’s “house” - are you talking about an actual property (like “Tara” is the mansion/estate in “Gone with the Wind” - thus making the heroine “Scarlet de Tara”) - or by “house” do you mean a family lineage (like JFK’s daughter Caroline, whose married name is Caroline Schlossberg - would she be termed Caroline de Kennedy, i.e. Caroline of the house of Kennedy). Thanks for your knowledge and indulgence in answering my question.

Neither of the above. In Gone With the Wind the name refers to a place. In the Kennedy case, the name is a family name. The Kennedys are not a royal house.

I gave the example of young Prince William of Wales. His legal name is William Mountbatten. But he is Prince of Wales. Therefore he is William of Wales. His anscestors are of the Royal House of Windsor. When he entered the Briths Armed Forces, he was registered as William of Windsor and his badge simply said Windsor, just like a Armed Forces people have a badge with their family name: Smith etc.

Francis de says was of royal lineage. He belong to the Royal House of Sales. He did not use his last name, but his royal name. Francis of Sales or in French Francois de Sales.

This is not the same as Francis of Assisi. In his case, his legal name remains. St. Francis of Assisi was burried as Giovanni Bernadone or John Bernadone. Francesco was his nickname and Assisi was his home town. There was no royal house of Assisi. There is an interesting anecdote about this, which has nothing to do with this thread. But some people may enjoy it.

For over 200 years no one could find the grave of St. Francis of Assisi. The reason was that everyone looked for a grave with that name. It was by accident that the grave of Giovanni Bernadone was discovered. Then everyone remembered that that was his real name. But no one knows him by that name, unless you’re a Franciscan.

Another example is Teresa of Calcutta. Her baptismal name was Agnes and there is no Royal House of Cacutta. In de Sales case, he was an aristocrat from the Royal House of Sales

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF