What's the Jack Chick Equivalent for "Traditional Catholics?"

[Spiller]

Someone on another thread wrote “I really don’t like arguing with all of these liberals and modernists” and it made me wonder about something. Ignorance and bigotry aside, where do such people get their misinformation? The reason I ask is such comments seem ever more canned. There clearly has been some regrettable programming going on.

More and more I can draw a strong analogy between some fundamentalist Protestants and some self-described “Traditional Catholics” and their myopic ignorance and bigotry. In his first book Karl Keating talked about the sources for many anti-Catholic fundamentalist beliefs. That makes me wonder what sources are used by the type of “Traditional Catholics” who routinely misuse words like “liberal” and “modernist?” It’s certainly not the Bible or official Church documents. They are clearly watching/reading something else.

Could it be SSPX documents? Select TAN re-prints? Something is clearly bringing a very canned and erroneous tone to some “Traditional Catholics’” comments and I would sure like to learn what the source(s) are.

 

[SanJudas]

Someone on another thread wrote “I really don’t like arguing with all of these liberals and modernists”

That would be me.

and it made me wonder about something. Ignorance and bigotry aside, where do such people get their misinformation? The reason I ask is such comments seem ever more canned. There clearly has been some regrettable programming going on.

Such comments are definitely “canned.” The cannery is called “the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.”

More and more I can draw a strong analogy between some fundamentalist Protestants and some self-described “Traditional Catholics” and their myopic ignorance and bigotry. In his first book Karl Keating talked about the sources for many anti-Catholic fundamentalist beliefs. That makes me wonder what sources are used by the type of “Traditional Catholics” who routinely misuse words like “liberal” and “modernist?” It’s certainly not the Bible or official Church documents. They are clearly watching/reading something else.

No, liberal and modern namby-pambyism hadn’t been invented yet when the New Testament was written. However, Jesus Christ knew that someday it would exist, so he left us a Church and Tradition so future faithful could combat it.
The “something else” were reading are the teachings of our Popes and Church Fathers.

Could it be SSPX documents? Select TAN re-prints? Something is clearly bringing a very canned and erroneous tone to some “Traditional Catholics’” comments and I would sure like to learn what the source(s) are.

Try reading some real Catholic literature instead of the “liberation theology” you’ve been perusing and you’ll find out.

 

[Dauphin]

That makes me wonder what sources are used by the type of “Traditional Catholics” who routinely misuse words like “liberal” and “modernist?” It’s certainly not the Bible or official Church documents.

I have a question for you. Do you embrace and accept the teaching contained in the document Dignitatis Humanae from the Second Vatican Council?

If so, I would be very eager to hear your explanation of how you, and all Catholics who agree with this document, are not liberal. It seems very clear that the document proposes liberal ideas.

 

[Spiller]

I have a question for you. Do you embrace and accept the teaching contained in the document Dignitatis Humanae from the Second Vatican Council?

If so, I would be very eager to hear your explanation of how you, and all Catholics who agree with this document, are not liberal. It seems very clear that the document proposes liberal ideas.

How would you explain/define Catholics who reject said document?

 

[Dauphin]

How would you explain/define Catholics who reject said document?

I would define them as traditional Catholics. Or, Catholics who accept the teaching of the magisterium about religious liberty previous to the Second Vatican Council.

Dignitatis Humanae cannot be reconciled with previous magisterial teaching. It explicitly embraced liberal errors which had already been condemned by the Church:

*77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. – Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855. *

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

(From the Syllabus of Errors condemned by Pius IX)

 

[Spiller]

I would define them as traditional Catholics. Or, Catholics who accept the teaching of the magisterium about religious liberty previous to the Second Vatican Council.

Dignitatis Humanae cannot be reconciled with previous magisterial teaching. It explicitly embraced liberal errors which had already been condemned by the Church:

*77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. – Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855. *

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

(From the Syllabus of Errors condemned by Pius IX)

I would define them as dissenting or cafeteria Catholics.

 

[Dauphin]

I would define them as dissenting or cafeteria Catholics.

Interesting… was Pius IX a Cafeteria Catholic?

Buzz phrases may pass muster with most people, but with me, you’re going to have to actually make an argument.

 

[LilyM]

I would define them as traditional Catholics. Or, Catholics who accept the teaching of the magisterium about religious liberty previous to the Second Vatican Council.

Dignitatis Humanae cannot be reconciled with previous magisterial teaching. It explicitly embraced liberal errors which had already been condemned by the Church:

*77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. – Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855. *

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

(From the Syllabus of Errors condemned by Pius IX)

Firstly a lot of uber-traditionalists love to trot out the line that Vatican 2 was purely pastoral and thus contained no binding teaching. That being the case Humanae Dignitatae shouldn’t bother you in the slightest. It can be rejected at will if it is merely a pastoral document and not authoritative teaching.

Secondly - Humanae Dignitate speaks about coercion by government in matters of religion.

There have been countries, plenty of examples in medieval Europe, where a single religion was for all intents and purposes enshrined in law - that was by consent of the majority of the governed, who shared that same faith and WANTED it as the basis of their law.

In such situations it was fine, as it would be in some countries today were those countries to be more or less monocultural in matters of religion and willing to have their shared religion enshrined in law.

Pius’ view is that, at least in certain instances, it might be OK to have a single religion in a country, that country being vast majority Catholic, and the citizens willing, and Catholicism enforced by law.

Paul merely says it’s not OK to FORCE Catholic worship in a country where the citizens are opposed to the enshrining of such a religion and where the country ISN’T majority Catholic.

 

[Dauphin]

Firstly a lot of uber-traditionalists love to trot out the line that Vatican 2 was purely pastoral and thus contained no binding teaching. That being the case Humanae Dignitatae shouldn’t bother you in the slightest. It can be rejected at will if it is merely a pastoral document and not authoritative teaching.

Absolutely. I am free to reject it, and I reject it (or at least, I reject the teaching it contains). Nothing in Catholic doctrine binds anyone to accept this document.

So, “cafeteria Catholic” would not be an appropriate term for someone who rejects Dignitatis Humanae.

 

[LilyM]

Absolutely. I am free to reject it, and I reject it (or at least, I reject the teaching it contains). Nothing in Catholic doctrine binds anyone to accept this document.

So, “cafeteria Catholic” would not be an appropriate term for someone who rejects Dignitatis Humanae.

Hang on - I lost most of the post which I’ve since edited to readd. I’d like to see what you think of the extra.

 

[Dauphin]

Secondly - Humanae Dignitate speaks about coercion by government in matters of religion.

There have been countries, plenty of examples in medieval Europe, where a single religion was for all intents and purposes enshrined in law - that was by consent of the majority of the governed, who shared that same faith and WANTED it as the basis of their law.

In such situations it was fine, as it would be in some countries today were those countries to be more or less monocultural in matters of religion and willing to have their shared religion enshrined in law.

Pius’ view is that, at least in certain instances, it might be OK to have a single religion in a country, that country being vast majority Catholic, and the citizens willing, and Catholicism enforced by law.

No, this isn’t what Pius IX said at all. He says clearly that it is an error to say that the Catholic religion should not be the religion of the state, and that false religions should be able to practice and teach in public.

Paul merely says it’s not OK to FORCE Catholic worship in a country where the citizens are opposed to the enshrining of such a religion and where the country ISN’T majority Catholic.

Yes, and in saying so, Dignitatis Humanae contradicted previous Catholic teaching.

Before the Council, the Church had clearly taught that the Catholic Church must be the religion of the state and false religions must not be allowed to practice or teach publicly, whether there is a public consensus or not.

 

[LilyM]

No, this isn’t what Pius IX said at all. He says clearly that it is an error to say that the Catholic religion should not be the religion of the state, and that false religions should be able to practice and teach in public.

Yes, and in saying so, Dignitatis Humanae contradicted previous Catholic teaching.

Before the Council, the Church had clearly taught that the Catholic Church must be the religion of the state and false religions must not be allowed to practice or teach publicly, whether there is a public consensus or not.

Firstly Pius IX specifies that he is talking about CATHOLIC countries. A country the majority of whose citizens AREN’T Catholic cannot be called a Catholic country by any definition. Hence what he says does not apply to, for example, Saudi Arabia.

Secondly, the word ‘expedient’ simply means suitable or advisable. Saying Catholicism as the sole state religion is ‘expedient’ is a far cry from saying it is mandatory for any country, let alone every country.

Finally, making a blanket statement to the effect that it is NEVER expedient in ANY circumstances would indeed be an error according to the syllabus. But Paul nowhere says that. He says much about forcing a state religion on citizens by fear or other imposition, but free choice and consent of the governed don’t constitute any sort of imposition at all. In such a case a law enshrining Catholicism as state religion would be no more an imposition than a law banning murder where all are agreed that murder SHOULD be outlawed.

 

[Freshman88]

Before the Council, the Church had clearly taught that the Catholic Church must be the religion of the state and false religions must not be allowed to practice or teach publicly, whether there is a public consensus or not.

You mean we should actually have a society that is governed by the principles of Truth? Do you dare suggest that there is an objective Truth which should be upheld, regardless of consensus? Now that’s just horribly oppressive of you! Haven’t you heard of the Medieval Church?! The social kingship of Christ you speak of was evil, how dare you…

… On a more serious note, excellent work Dauphin.

 

[Dauphin]

Firstly Pius IX specifies that he is talking about CATHOLIC countries. A country the majority of whose citizens AREN’T Catholic cannot be called a Catholic country by any definition. Hence what he says does not apply to, for example, Saudi Arabia.

The Pope can hardly instruct non-Catholic countries. There should be no doubt, though, that the Church desired all nations to be Catholic.

Secondly, the word ‘expedient’ simply means suitable or advisable. Saying Catholicism as the sole state religion is ‘expedient’ is a far cry from saying it is mandatory for any country, let alone every country.

The Pope was condemning the error that says it is no longer expedient for the Catholic religion to be the religion of the state.

You’re playing semantic games if you think that this means the Pope is only suggesting the Catholic religion be the religion of the state. This isn’t the only document of the Church which dealt with religious freedom, and the Church very clearly and consistently proposed that every nation should be Catholic.

Finally, making a blanket statement to the effect that it is NEVER expedient in ANY circumstances would indeed be an error according to the syllabus. But Paul nowhere says that. He says much about forcing a state religion on citizens by fear or other imposition, but free choice and consent of the governed don’t constitute any sort of imposition at all. In such a case a law enshrining Catholicism as state religion would be no more an imposition than a law banning murder where all are agreed that murder SHOULD be outlawed.

No. This clearly isn’t the meaning of the document. You’ve latched on to the word “expedient” and read too much into it. The Pope was condemning these statements, not proposing the literal opposite.

Public practice of false religions could only ever be permitted in order to prevent a greater evil, but the idea of free, public practice of false religion has always been condemned as evil, whether or not Catholics are in the majority.

Here are some more statements of the Catholic position:

"Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth, may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law” (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei).

“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).

There’s no getting around the Catholic position: the Catholic religion should be the official religion of the state, and false religions should not be publicly practiced

 

[LilyM]

The Pope can hardly instruct non-Catholic countries. There should be no doubt, though, that the Church desired all nations to be Catholic.

The Pope was condemning the error that says it is no longer expedient for the Catholic religion to be the religion of the state.

You’re playing semantic games if you think that this means the Pope is only suggesting the Catholic religion be the religion of the state. This isn’t the only document of the Church which dealt with religious freedom, and the Church very clearly and consistently proposed that every nation should be Catholic.

No. This clearly isn’t the meaning of the document. You’ve latched on to the word “expedient” and read too much into it. The Pope was condemning these statements, not proposing the literal opposite.

Public practice of false religions could only ever be permitted in order to prevent a greater evil, but the idea of free, public practice of false religion has always been condemned as evil, whether or not Catholics are in the majority.

Here are some more statements of the Catholic position:

"Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth, may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law” (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei).

“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).

There’s no getting around the Catholic position: the Catholic religion should be the official religion of the state, and false religions should not be publicly practiced

Literal impossibilities don’t a Catholic position make. It is a literal impossibility that every nation can or will become Catholic, by force or otherwise. Short of some MAJOR divine intervention, of course. Much as it would benefit all of us for it to be so.

Such wishes no more constitute official teaching or an official position than Paul’s desire that all people remain celibate.

 

[Dauphin]

No, this is the position of three Popes, it is no more dogma or ‘Catholic position’ than Paul VI’s, which his successors have held as well.

I don’t doubt there were at least a few Popes who disbelieved in the Immaculate Conception - there were certainly more than a few Doctors of the Church who did, I know. Doesn’t make their position the ‘Catholic position’ either.

It’s not an infallible doctrinal teaching, but the magisterium taught it so consistently before the Second Vatican Council, that I think it can be properly called the “Catholic teaching”, since it was the teaching held by the Catholic Church for nearly two millenia.

It is the only teaching in line the faith, because it recognizes the necessity of a state ordered on the promotion and defense of truth. The Church and state rule different spheres, but they both must be ordered for the salvation of the people under their charge.

At the council, the Church basically abandoned the need for the state to help bring its people to eternal salvation - it departed from the Catholic position, the only position that makes any sense from a Catholic perspective.

 

[JuanCarlos]

As stated, to call Trad Caths dissidents for rejecting DH is basically calling every Pope from the 1700’s-1950’s a dissident (modern ideas of “religious liberty” was formulated in the 1700’s)

 

[eelpis]

That would be Flannery O’Connor, she’s way more grotesque than most I know.

 

[anthony022071]

I would define them as traditional Catholics. Or, Catholics who accept the teaching of the magisterium about religious liberty previous to the Second Vatican Council.

Dignitatis Humanae cannot be reconciled with previous magisterial teaching. It explicitly embraced liberal errors which had already been condemned by the Church:

*77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. – Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855. *

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

(From the Syllabus of Errors condemned by Pius IX)

The Syllabus of Errors is not an ex cathedra document,so it is not infallible. The judgement on freedom of religion is the kind of thing that the Church can loosen. Freedom of religion has long since become a reality that the Church has had to accept. The Church doesn’t have temporal jurisdiction over countries,so it has no authority to tell governments that they must enforce the Catholic religion.

 

[eelpis]

The Syllabus of Errors is not an ex cathedra document,so it is not infallible. The judgement on freedom of religion is the kind of thing that the Church can loosen. Freedom of religion has long since become a reality that the Church has had to accept. The Church doesn’t have temporal jurisdiction over countries,so it has no authority to tell governments that they must enforce the Catholic religion.

The teaching of Vatican II does not contradict previous teachings, even though it may seem so. How is this possible? If it did the promise of Christ would be void and it’s not.