U
Unitas
Guest
I wrote this a while back, about this same topic. Too large to repost here.
Pius IX and modern democratic freedoms
Pius IX and modern democratic freedoms
- Status
A
adrift
Guest
H
Hubriss
Guest
In every instant where there is a miracle or divine intervention in the Bible, error #7 says it is completely true. All of those that I listed above are miracles, as miracles are divine intervention.
The point is that the Catholic Church is totalitarian. It’s goal is to set up and control all the governments of the world and make Catholicism the sole form of worship to the exclusion of all others by any means deemed necessary by the pope. All public policy would be based on religion. This goes directly against all democratic concepts of our day.
And that would incite rebellion.
Are you foremost a Catholic, or are you foremost an American? It is not religion’s place to rule. I would think you’d be more grateful to democratic and liberal ideals than to Catholicism. After all it is what has given you the choice to be Catholic.
P
Petergee
Guest
Obviously you haven’t read it. The article shows how the two papal statements do NOT contradict each other.
Yes. Though not in the extremely rare fundamentalist-literalist sense which you apparently ascribe to all Christians.
No.
Yes.
I’ll ignore that juvenile insult.
No there aren’t.
That’s why I said “proto-Marxist”. Marx and Marxism did not arise in a vacuum. The ignorant ideas which gave birth to it had been a powerful influence since at least 1789.
As I explained, Pius was most certainly NOT condemning, and in fact was positively endorsing, the “separation of Church and state” as 21st century Christians understand the phrase, and which was a concept which the Catholic Church INVENTED in the first century and has fought to defend ever since against those who sought to incorporate religion into the State as all other religions before Christianity were incorporated.
A
adrift
Guest
I am foremost a child of God. My choice to be Catholic comes from God giving me a free will. Others have made this choice to die as martyrs… I would too if that was the only choice Democracy is great but it is not everything. We are after all a Republic.In every instant where there is a miracle or divine intervention in the Bible, error #7 says it is completely true. All of those that I listed above are miracles, as miracles are divine intervention.
I agree they are completely true
The point is that the Catholic Church is totalitarian. It’s goal is to set up and control all the governments of the world and make Catholicism the sole form of worship to the exclusion of all others by any means deemed necessary by the pope. All public policy would be based on religion. This goes directly against all democratic concepts of our day.
The goal of the Church is to guide people to heaven.
And that would incite rebellion.
WHY
Are you foremost a Catholic, or are you foremost an American? It is not religion’s place to rule. I would think you’d be more grateful to democratic and liberal ideals than to Catholicism. After all it is what has given you the choice to be Catholic.
H
Hubriss
Guest
Here’s what the article says about error 15 on freedom of religion:
"Some of the propositions of the Syllabus of Errors, taken at face value, do sound contrary to Vatican II. Regarding personal conscience, Proposition 15 rejects the view that “each individual is free to embrace and profess the religion that he judges true by the light of reason.” DH, however, teaches that “every man has the duty, and therefore the right, to seek truth in matters of religion, in order that he may with prudence form for himself right and true judgments of conscience, with the use of suitable means.”
“Was the Syllabus, then, condemning what would later be approved by Vatican II? Before answering we must inquire what Pius IX meant by the freedom of the individual to follow the light of reason. Proposition 3 of the Syllabus gives the needed clue. It denies that “human reason, without any relation at all to God, is the sole judge of true and false, good and evil, is a law unto itself, and is sufficient by its natural powers to procure the welfare of individuals and peoples.” DH, in harmony with the Syllabus, states that “the highest norm for human life is the divine law-eternal, objective, and universal-whereby God orders, directs, and governs the entire universe.” In a later paragraph DH declares that the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of truth and that all men and women are invited, according to the measure of grace given to them, to accept and profess the faith. Vatican II, therefore, is far from teaching that unaided human reason, without reference to God, is the supreme criterion of truth.”
Taking into account proposition 3 of the syllabus in no way changes the meaning of 15. 3 does not deal with the quest through reason to find God, it only deals with the judgments of other truths, good and evil, and law once a person has already found God (and this God 3 is implying is of course the Catholic God). Here the Church is merely making a dance like it always does to justify and/or correct its mistakes.
This refers to separate questions I asked. You seem to deny that the instances in the Bible where God intervenes and smites people or otherwise causes destruction are not miracles. Miracles are solely instances of divine intervention that make things possible which contradicts nature, they are not always positive or heart warming. All instances of divine intervention are miracles, and it is condemned to deny or lessen any instance of miracles in the Bible, as the descriptions are perfect.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. Give examples if you wish.
Where in the world did you get this from? Where was Pius IX endorsing separation of church and state? 21st century Christians most certainly do NOT endorse separation of church and state. Tim Staples, a Catholic apologist I’ve spoken with, absolutely denies that it is in our constitution and believes it is a wrong concept. Obviously Christian fundamentalists don’t like it either. The Catholic church MOST CERTAINLY DID NOT INVENT separation of church and State, Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers did.
And are you telling me that the Catholics in Rome fought so fervently against making Catholicism the official religion of the empire? Are you saying that there was never such a thing as the Holy Roman Emperor?
I’ll ignore this juvenile insult.
P
Petergee
Guest
IMO you are merely making a dance like you have repeatedly done here, to try to put your own perverse interpretation on the Church’s documents. If you don’t mind I prefer the Cardinal’s interpretation of the S of E, which is not new but basically the same as the interpretations which were made by leading churchmen at the time of the S of E and endorsed by Pius IX himself. You are building a paper tiger.
If by this contorted double negative you mean that I agree they are miracles you are correct.
a cute attempt to twist the Church’s definition that a miracle is **beyond or not explicable by **(not contradictory to) **the general laws of **nature (not nature itself).
If they don’t warm your heart, maybe you’re just too cold-hearted. They warm mine. For God to destroy something evil or to punish a sinner is a positive and heartwarming thing. God never destroys or condemns anyone or anything without giving fair warning that this will be the consequences of sin. If they fail to repent and keep sinning, they bring destruction on themselves. It is sad and evil and negative that they sin, but it is positive that God is just and true to His word.
Again you attempt to spout your own creations as if they were the words of the pope, and have the nerve to demand that catholics believe them.
Choose any of an enormous number of histories of the development of Marxism, including those written by Marxists themselves. They are unanimous that Marx did NOT create Marxism ex nihilo, but it was a natural historical development from previous ideas, culture and insititutions. If you don’t even know this, I don’t intend to go into a lengthy education of you re Marxism. I’m busy enough correcting your absurd ideas about Catholic doctrine.
I’ve never met a Christian who does not endorse it in the sense I mentioned.
What a ridiculous little man you are. You think your country is so powerful and important it invented everything, but compared to the history of the Catholic Church, it is just a blip. And the “separation of church and state” in the sense you mean did not become a powerful idea in your country until well over 100 years after Jefferson died.
LOL. You have packed so many implied errors into this little paragraph it’s hard to know where to begin. Making Catholicism the official religion of the Roman Empire was nothing to do with, and indeed antithecal to, the idea that the Church should be controlled by the State. The “Holy Roman Empire”, which was founded centuries AFTER the western Roman Empire collapsed, never ruled Rome and its name has no connection to the so-called “Roman Catholic Church” which was a term invented by anti-Catholic Anglicans in the 17th century.
H
Hubriss
Guest
-Petergee
Ah, you don’t even know what separation of church and state is/does. It’s greatest effect is not to keep a state from controlling a church. The goal of the first amendment for example is to keep religion from playing any role in government, that includes having too much influence on public policy for purely religious reasons. It is to keep any religion from taking control over any part of government. The Holy Roman Emperors were crowned by the Pope to defend the Catholic church. The emperors were considered as part of the Church, but then later emperors attempted to gain more influence and maybe take control of the Church. But it was the Popes who first fused state and church together in order to use the states to uphold its religion.
You give too much credit to your dogmatic faith. Separation of church and state had been a powerful idea since the beginning. It kept different Christian sects from discriminating against each other in communities sometimes as large as states themselves. Separation was definitely in effect after it was implemented. Puritans for example had wanted to establish total puritan colonies and states and reform a "purified’ Church of England. They discriminated against all non-puritans. Once states were made some state governments tried to pass laws which would have made it so that only people of a certain religion could be voted into elected positions, and in their constitutions tried to implement taxes which would support religious congregations. These were disallowed due to the First Amendment.
P
Petergee
Guest
Hubriss (what a well chosen name) you really need to learn some history, and I don’t mean the pop-TV postmodern secularised revisionist invented “history” but what actually happened. Every sentence in this silly paragraph is pretty much the exact opposite of the historical truth.
LOL. How come numerous of your states still had anti-Catholic laws more than a century after your First amendment was passed? And I do love the charming way you continue to assert “my country = the world”
even after I’ve politely warned you.
H
Hubriss
Guest
You’re doing a superb job correcting me. /endsarcasm
They might have, but dare you give any examples?
“What a ridiculous little man you are. You think your country is so powerful and important it invented everything, but compared to the history of the Catholic Church, it is just a blip.”-you.And I do love the charming way you continue to assert “my country = the world”
I wouldn’t say politely.
Really now you’re just being annoying.
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
Let’s focus on the issues and not on each other and produce proof in support of your position.
Anything less will get this thread closed.
MF
Anything less will get this thread closed.
MF
H
Hubriss
Guest
I’ve been somewhat surprised that Catholics I’ve talked to, including some on these forums, don’t deny that Catholicism is totalitarian. As I said I had thought that Catholicism had developed into more of a moderate religion by the impression that I had been getting by every day Catholics. It seems to me that most in America at least lead a dual life (I have been around Catholics all my life, going to Catholic schools up until the end of high school).
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
I would say all these “bad things” are a result of a deprivation of God’s grace-- their protection being removed due to their personal sins or else the sins of others before them. No, I don’t necesarilly think it’s fair either.
On the other hand, I would say all these “good things” are indeed a positive divine intervention. Many of the bad things actually allowed good things to happen, even if God didn’t desire them to suffer badly prior to the good being given.
Consequently, in this life, we will certainly encounter unfair things. We can, however, rest assured that the final judgement will be fair, with each person being judged in accordance to that which has been revealed to them in contrast to what God has enabled them to grasp.
U
Usagi
Guest
The pertinent bit of the First Amendment goes like this:
The U.S. Constitution:
“The goal” of the First Amendment, as with the rest of the Bill of Rights, is to place a restriction on the power of the state over its citizens. Private citizens and private groups (like churches) are not themselves bound by the First Amendment. So the primary effect of the First Amendment is aimed at the state (specifically, Congress, as it says) and not at churches themselves. Of course, that does mean that attempts by any religious group to get the state to grant it special status or to strike at its rivals by legislation, but that happens because Congress is forbidden to do those things, not because the First Amendment takes a position on whether religion is a good or bad thing in general.
No legitimate U.S. law can create an official national church. The “establishment clause” can likely be extended to cover laws that mandate practices, or forbid taboos, unique to certain religious groups.
The “free exercise” clause provides that no law can stop a U.S. citizen from worshipping (or not) in the way he or she chooses. (Judicial interpretation has created a partial exception for religious practices that are in and of themselves illegal, though acts that don’t hurt other people (like use of certain drugs) can sometimes be allowed for religious reasons even if illegal otherwise.)
Nothing in the First Amendment actually prohibits activities like church leaders trying to influence their congregations’ position on political candidates or issues; those prohibitions are more tied into the tax-exempt status of churches, which they can lose if they poke around too much in the state’s realm.
(Of course, whether churches as such should be tax-exempt is another whole issue. I’ve seen First Amendment-based arguments from both sides. Some say that by recognizing certain groups as “real churches” and not others, Congress is going against the establishment clause. Others, invoking the philosophy that “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” insist that the state could use the power of taxation to discourage certain beliefs or practices, thus going against the free exercise clause.)
Usagi
Q
quasimodo
Guest
The SoE is just that … a syllabus. A list. Each error is discussed in detail in some other document. In the Syllabus they are listed stripped of explanations and limits. You cannot understand the Syllabus unless you study the underlying documents. Also, many of the terms used are technical and the meanings of the words and phrases have changed - they didn’t necessarily say then what you think they say today.
Go do your home work.
Go do your home work.
P
Petergee
Guest
Cite examples? Every Catholic on this thread has denied your assertion.
Sure there are plenty of nominal “Catholics” who subscribe more or less to the politically-correct contradictory nonsense that “every religion is as good and as true as every other religion”. It seems you think “totalitarian” means “thinking that your own beliefs are true and that therefore naturally any contrary beliefs are false”.
Then it’s a sad reflection on Catholic schools that you still have such inverted ideas about history and about what the Catholic Church teaches.
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
I agree with you that this would mean that stories “that are not obviously stories” are “actually perfect and totally true,” but I do not believe that this requires one to disbelieve in the Theory of Evolution or science’s long Earth beliefs. You know, when someone has a vision, the content of the vision is not always literally true. In fact, in the scripture it usually involves symbolic language. It is clear from the texts that this is frequently not meant to be literal. It also is clear from the scripture that the Lord often speaks to humans through this symbolic method of communicating.
Now in Genesis, man was created on the 6th day of creation. Therefore, logically, Adam could not have physically seen for himself what occurred on the five days that passed before he was made. For him to know what occurred on those days, he would have had to have been told by God. How God told humans of these creation events is not clear in the scripture, but two of the common ways in which he speaks are dreams and visions. The number 7 is also commonly used symbolically in visions, or at least it was in the Book of Revelation. So God might easily have told humans what was going on through one of those symbolic channels in the creation story.
This does not mean that the creation story isn’t true. Visions and dreams are true, and I think that many details of the creation story are supported by modern science. For example, according to Genesis 1 “the earth” created the animals according to their kinds (v. 24), an idea supported by science’s claim that the different forms of animals were shaped by environmental change. It also records that the first life created was in the sea (v. 20), a claim modern science also makes. It also says that the waters were originally all “in one place” (v. 9) a claim science has verified in its discoveries about Pangea (indeed, the man who first developed the Pangea hypothesis was derided by the scientists of his time for the similarity between his ideas and Genesis 1). Modern science argues that the sky and the sea were originally one super-ocean, but that they separated due to volcanic activity under the ocean floor. This idea is supported by verses 6-8, “And God said, ‘Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.’ So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse ‘sky.’ And there was evening, and there was morning- the second day.” Genesis also records man as being the last of the line of creations. All the birds, sea creatures and animals came first. This is in line with science’s perspective that our species has been around for a very brief amount of time, from an evolutionary perspective.
There are parts of Genesis 1 that don’t currently fit with the present models, such as the sun being created on the 4th day, but this does not change the impressive degree of similarity that exists between the other verses of Genesis 1 and modern science. In places where the accounts differ, it seems reasonable to trust that science will eventually catch up.
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
Neither the New nor the Old Testament, as far as I understand it, offers any justification for rape. There is one chapter in Numbers, I think Numbers 11, where God tells the Israelites to clobber the Midianites, to kill their men and boys and every woman who had had sex with a man, but to spare those that had not and take them as the wives of the Israelites. I expect that that’s what you’re referring to. However, the marriages between the Israelites and the women of that tribe would not have been rapes. You see, those women had no protectors left at that point (the men and boys were dead), so taking them into Israelite households was an act of mercy. Whether or not killing the Midianite men and boys in the first place was justified is another matter, but this at least disposes of the charge of rape.
The women of the Midianite tribe that had had sex with men had been engaged in fertility rites honoring the pagan gods of the tribe. Interestingly, it was many women of Midian that had launched an attack on Israel that resulted in thousands of Israelite deaths. This attack was directed by Balaam. Balaam knew that if they seduced the Israelite men, God would become angry with the Israelites. Therefore he sent the Midianite women to seduce the Israeli men, something they successfully did. So as Balaam predicted, God took vengeance by killing thousands of Israelite men. Then God took vengeance on the Midianite tribe for cooperating with Balaam on that scheme- and that was the battle that involved the destruction of the Midianite men and boys.
You won’t find that part of the story in Numbers 11- that’s in a different part of the Bible. I don’t recall where right offhand.
The idea that marrying the Midianite women would have been rape is not taking into account the conditions of the time. The Midianite women would have been glad to receive protectors and be admitted into a place of honor in their conquerors’ families, rather than being abused and made into whores, as many conquering armies of the time did to the women they gained power over. This was also better by far than being left to fend for themselves among brutal neighboring tribes would have been. It was a far cry from rape.
And the Midianite tribe itself had attacked the Israelites first. If the violence done in retaliation seems excessive, there are two important points we must remember before making that judgment.
First is that our knowledge regarding the cultures of the times is very limited. The practices of the Midianites might have been extremely barbaric. Some of the ones we do know about clearly were evil, such as the use of witchcraft in an attempt to destroy Israel, the use of sexual immorality to seduce and destroy Israel, and promiscuous fertility rites to pagan gods. What other things they may or may not have done, you and I don’t presently know, so we’re not in a position to easily judge either them or actions taken against them.
Second, according to the Bible, God made those people and knows every heart intimately. He loves those people and loves every person dearly. He also knows what is just and never ceases to act justly. Therefore he can be relied upon. We can judged the Midianites justly. God knows everything about every heart- our knowledge is very, very, very limited, though. In fact, the fact that God knows more than we do means that he would behave in different ways from us. When we have more information on which to make decisions, usually we make more informed decisions than we would have without that additional information, and we often make better decisions. God’s omniscience therefore logically means that many of his actions will seem strange to us. Because we do not have the fullness of God’s perspective, we cannot act with God’s wisdom, and God’s actions based upon wisdom we do not have seem odd to us . . . and sometimes might even look wrong to us. Especially since we are ourselves sinful and God is not, which further obscures our ability to understand God’s actions.
This doesn’t mean that it is impossible to understand. As we come closer to God, he makes more and more of his ways and principles clear and understandable to us. Sometimes simple human understanding can also sort problems out for people even when they don’t have that proximity to God, I expect.
The women of the Midianite tribe that had had sex with men had been engaged in fertility rites honoring the pagan gods of the tribe. Interestingly, it was many women of Midian that had launched an attack on Israel that resulted in thousands of Israelite deaths. This attack was directed by Balaam. Balaam knew that if they seduced the Israelite men, God would become angry with the Israelites. Therefore he sent the Midianite women to seduce the Israeli men, something they successfully did. So as Balaam predicted, God took vengeance by killing thousands of Israelite men. Then God took vengeance on the Midianite tribe for cooperating with Balaam on that scheme- and that was the battle that involved the destruction of the Midianite men and boys.
You won’t find that part of the story in Numbers 11- that’s in a different part of the Bible. I don’t recall where right offhand.
The idea that marrying the Midianite women would have been rape is not taking into account the conditions of the time. The Midianite women would have been glad to receive protectors and be admitted into a place of honor in their conquerors’ families, rather than being abused and made into whores, as many conquering armies of the time did to the women they gained power over. This was also better by far than being left to fend for themselves among brutal neighboring tribes would have been. It was a far cry from rape.
And the Midianite tribe itself had attacked the Israelites first. If the violence done in retaliation seems excessive, there are two important points we must remember before making that judgment.
First is that our knowledge regarding the cultures of the times is very limited. The practices of the Midianites might have been extremely barbaric. Some of the ones we do know about clearly were evil, such as the use of witchcraft in an attempt to destroy Israel, the use of sexual immorality to seduce and destroy Israel, and promiscuous fertility rites to pagan gods. What other things they may or may not have done, you and I don’t presently know, so we’re not in a position to easily judge either them or actions taken against them.
Second, according to the Bible, God made those people and knows every heart intimately. He loves those people and loves every person dearly. He also knows what is just and never ceases to act justly. Therefore he can be relied upon. We can judged the Midianites justly. God knows everything about every heart- our knowledge is very, very, very limited, though. In fact, the fact that God knows more than we do means that he would behave in different ways from us. When we have more information on which to make decisions, usually we make more informed decisions than we would have without that additional information, and we often make better decisions. God’s omniscience therefore logically means that many of his actions will seem strange to us. Because we do not have the fullness of God’s perspective, we cannot act with God’s wisdom, and God’s actions based upon wisdom we do not have seem odd to us . . . and sometimes might even look wrong to us. Especially since we are ourselves sinful and God is not, which further obscures our ability to understand God’s actions.
This doesn’t mean that it is impossible to understand. As we come closer to God, he makes more and more of his ways and principles clear and understandable to us. Sometimes simple human understanding can also sort problems out for people even when they don’t have that proximity to God, I expect.
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
Your allegation about slavery is, I think, the result of a modern mindset that doesn’t take into account the economic conditions of the time period we’re talking about.
In modern industrialized countries, slavery is bad. We have a prison system that works fine, and we can put prisoners of war or criminals into it. Also, if a civilian runs out of food, that person can get onto welfare.
In older time periods, these luxuries were not available. There was often not enough food to go around, and in times of war, supporting large numbers of people that were just going to sit around in prison would have been a massive drain on the national economy. The same goes for criminals. Put criminals and prisoners of war in prison much and the whole society has to literally pay for those people’s crime together. Make them slaves, though, and they will earn their own keep and pay for the crime they committed your society by breaking its laws or waging war against it.
Also, there were situations where a person could not pay a debt, so he would voluntarily become a slave for a few years as a way of paying his debt. That is simple economics.
All of this, really, was simply the necessary economics of the times. I don’t view slavery in these forms as bad, and I don’t think you should either. We look too easily at historical slavery through perspectives based on the economic power of our times. The economics of the past were different and usually a lot more desperate, so their needs and solutions were also often necessarily also different from our own. The validity of these forms of slavery obviously necessitates that slaves be well treated by their masters, a point that Saint Paul takes pains to drive home to masters in the Epistles.
All this said, there are times when slavery was in the past just as evil as it is today. Racist slavery is a big one. Slaves held based on their race did nothing to deserve their condition.
In modern industrialized countries, slavery is bad. We have a prison system that works fine, and we can put prisoners of war or criminals into it. Also, if a civilian runs out of food, that person can get onto welfare.
In older time periods, these luxuries were not available. There was often not enough food to go around, and in times of war, supporting large numbers of people that were just going to sit around in prison would have been a massive drain on the national economy. The same goes for criminals. Put criminals and prisoners of war in prison much and the whole society has to literally pay for those people’s crime together. Make them slaves, though, and they will earn their own keep and pay for the crime they committed your society by breaking its laws or waging war against it.
Also, there were situations where a person could not pay a debt, so he would voluntarily become a slave for a few years as a way of paying his debt. That is simple economics.
All of this, really, was simply the necessary economics of the times. I don’t view slavery in these forms as bad, and I don’t think you should either. We look too easily at historical slavery through perspectives based on the economic power of our times. The economics of the past were different and usually a lot more desperate, so their needs and solutions were also often necessarily also different from our own. The validity of these forms of slavery obviously necessitates that slaves be well treated by their masters, a point that Saint Paul takes pains to drive home to masters in the Epistles.
All this said, there are times when slavery was in the past just as evil as it is today. Racist slavery is a big one. Slaves held based on their race did nothing to deserve their condition.
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
This is an accidental post- feel free to delete it, someone.
- Status