E
- Status
S
Sepharad
Guest
I have to agree with what newton said, about not converting out of ‘sheer cussedness’ if a state religion was mandated.
I know that in the zionist state, because the Orthodox Jews are officially “in charge”, many Jews are antireligious because they feel the religion is being forced on them by law.
Ironically if I lived there I might feel the same way! I have never, ever liked it when anyone tried to impose their beliefs on me, even if it is only in a door to door missionary-type way. I know I’d feel much more so if the government began mandating a religion!
I know that in the zionist state, because the Orthodox Jews are officially “in charge”, many Jews are antireligious because they feel the religion is being forced on them by law.
Ironically if I lived there I might feel the same way! I have never, ever liked it when anyone tried to impose their beliefs on me, even if it is only in a door to door missionary-type way. I know I’d feel much more so if the government began mandating a religion!
D
Dauphin
Guest
No doctrine is involved, but you’re doing serious mental gymnastics if you contend that the teaching of Pius IX doesn’t contradict the Second Vatican Council. Anyone who seriously examines his teaching sees the contradiction.
Pius IX intended to convey exactly what he conveyed, which is that the Catholic state should be confessional and that other religions should be publically suppressed. This is the plain meaning of what he said, and there is absolutely no way to get around it.
The encyclical Immortale Dei concerns the Christian constitution of states. Of course it concerns religious freedom. I’ll repeat the quote so that everyone can see just how clear the position is:
"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).
This is a quote which undeniably concerns religious freedom, since that is the context of the encyclical.
I urge you to read Dignitatis Humanae. Here’s what’s probably the most relevant excerpt:
"Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles*…Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word.**" - Excerpt from Dignitatis Humanae*
Could a plainer contradiction with previous Magisterial teaching be possible? Here, the document fully endorses the public practice and teaching of false religions. This isn’t a statement which says “under the present circumstances, it seems that this sort of tolerance is in order”. Instead, Dignitatis Humanae makes a positive assertion that false religions have* the right* to practice publicly. Any other reading is absurd.
The statement above from Dignitatis Humanae is mirrored in these condemned statements:
“Liberty of conscience and of worship is the proper right of every man…” (Pius IX, Quanta Cura)
“Liberty of conscience and of worship … should be proclaimed and asserted by law in every correctly established society …” (Pius IX, Quanta Cura).
E
elts1956
Guest
What an extraordinary thought. Condescending, but extraordinary.
A
anthony022071
Guest
Suppressing a false religion isn’t the same thing as bringing people to salvation. People must choose of their own free will to belong to the Church. Only the Church can help bring people to salvation.
D
Dauphin
Guest
The key word is “help”. The state can help in this regard by following Magisterial teaching and adhering to Divine Law.
D
Dee_Dee_King
Guest
i’m catholic and go to a byzantine church and novus ordo church.
i wouldn’t want to force american style catholicism on anyone. i would rather force sspx/fssp or eastern christianity on them. if american catholicism is so great, why is it that all of my catholics friends and much of my family don’t go to church on sunday? why is it that most catholic universities are apostate?
it’s hard for me as a man to sit through that feminized novus ordo american mass. i am embarassed of it at times.
S
SanJudas
Guest
What about all the Catholics who have fallen away from the Faith because the way it has been watered down the last forty years? Why is your conversion, and that of a handful of other Protestants, more important than the loss of miliions who were already Catholic and became lapsed or walked away altogether, because the Church decided to “fit in” with everybody else? And please don’t tell me there are “one billion Catholics” today, because we all know that churches in Europe are 10% full, and in the Americas 25-30% of all Catholics attend regularly. Surely you don’t believe that the great drop in attendance, vocations, and adherence to basic doctrine that occurred almost immediately after the closure of the Second Vatican Council and the introduction of the new liturgy was just a coincidence.
S
Spiller
Guest
Quit taking shots at the Church. All you do is come on here and denigrate the Church. Stop it. It’s getting way too old and it’s offensive. Your comments are also bigoted and ludicrous. Very bigoted and ludicrous. Again, stop it.
R
RLT
Guest
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
You know, I’m honestly not convinced of that. For starters, I’m happy we agree that this is not a doctrinal matter, but one that concerns the proper way for the Church to do her work in human society.
So, for one thing, no “contradiction” is possible. If the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church began ordaining married men, for example (which I would definitely not agree with), that would be a disciplinary change, not a contradiction of principles.
And on a side note, the question concerning religious freedom is so closely embedded in the more general issue of how the Church is to operate within society that I can’t help but think that any answer is subjective and depends on changing circumstances, because of the very nature of the issue.
So in all honesty, you and I may not actually disagree enough to make me feel justified in continuing this argument. If you simply don’t agree with the Catholic Church’s embrace of religious freedom (as opposed to claiming some kind of dogmatic contradiction), I see no reason to continue the argument; to hold that opinion obviously would not constitute dissent in any way.
Given your statement that “No doctrine is involved,” would it be accurate to characterize your position as a mere disagreement with the policies of the post-Vatican II Catholic Church? You’re not actually claiming that the post-Vatican II Catholic Church has compromised Sacred Tradition, are you?
Of course he intended to convey “that the Catholic state should be confessional and that other religions should be publicly suppressed,” just as you say. But leaving aside for the moment the fact that not every state is a Catholic state (which is a relevant factor here), did he intend to mandate that policy for the Church until the end of time? I see nothing in the quotations you’ve provided that indicate that that is the case.
Oh, I wouldn’t think to deny that Blessed Pius IX would probably have said - if asked - that he could not *possibly * foresee societal circumstances which would justify the Church’s embrace of religious freedom, but - as I don’t think you’ll deny - it is the decisions he made binding and not his personal opinions that are authoritative.
Basically, I don’t at all deny that Pius IX rejected religious freedom and taught quite plainly “that the Catholic state should be confessional and that other religions should be publicly suppressed.”
But the Church’s decision in Dignitatis Humanae leaves little room for doubt regarding the answer to the question, "Was the Church’s rejection of religious freedom intended to be authoritatively irreversible?"
So I cannot honestly concede that this change constitutes a “contradiction” in any way.
You may find what I am about to say exasperating, but in the context of the entire document, I find it pretty clear that Dignitatis Humanae is assuming that it will be applied only in the circumstances in which it was written. Just look how the document begins:
A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man, and the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty. - DIGNITATIS HUMANAE
That’s the very beginning of the document, and the tone it sets for the whole document conveys unmistakably that these new standards are being applied directly in light of different circumstances. Phrases like “has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man (emphasis mine)” and “the demand is increasingly made (emphasis mine)” couldn’t be clearer.
Heck, the comments about “responsible freedom” and being “motivated by a sense of duty” rather than being “driven by coercion” are a very well-written explanation of what makes religious freedom seem so necessary to the modern mind. By summarizing the attitudes that characterize modern society’s circumstances, in the very beginning, no less, the document couldn’t make it any clearer that this change in Church policy is a direct result of different circumstances.
And it’s not just the beginning. Near the end, the document states the following:
ll nations are coming into even closer unity. Men of different cultures and religions are being brought together in closer relationships. There is a growing consciousness of the personal responsibility that every man has. All this is evident. Consequently, in order that relationships of peace and harmony be established and maintained within the whole of mankind, it is necessary that religious freedom be everywhere provided with an effective constitutional guarantee and that respect be shown for the high duty and right of man freely to lead his religious life in society. - DIGNITATIS HUMANAE, emphases mine
Yes, of course the document champions religious freedom as a human right that naturally follows from our creation in the Divine Image and Likeness. But it does so unmistakably in the context of the standards of our times.
Thus, the document cannot be construed as a rejection of previous Church policy.
As I explained above, I will simply give Blessed Pius IX the benefit of the doubt and assume that those assertions were not valid demands in the nineteenth century.
I mean, Pius IX once ruled over the Papal States; he had them when he became pope, but they were gone by the end of his papacy. I don’t think even the most modern-minded orthodox Catholic would demand that contemporary American standards of religious freedom be forced upon every past society.
Some things don’t change - ever. Some things do. How the Church works within different societies - and what she expects of each - differ from age to age. I have never seen the Church’s policy change on religious freedom as a “contradiction” **or ** as a rejection of past policy.
E
elts1956
Guest
What makes you think if Catholicsm was the State religion you would think the Church would be more perfect in your eyes?
D
Dauphin
Guest
Of course not. The Church cannot defect from the Catholic faith. If an Ecumenical Council taught doctrinal error, the game would be up - the promises of Christ would be void.
The statements stand on their own. Things which are condemned as error and absurdities cannot all of a sudden be made correct by the circumstances. The Magisterium took a principled stand at that time, but has since departed from those principles.
He condemned religious freedom as an error, like two plus two equals five. Two plus two will never equal five (no matter how dramatically the circumstances change), and religious freedom, as condemned by the Church, will always be an error.
**
leaves little room for doubt regarding the answer to the question, “Was the Church’s rejection of religious freedom intended to be authoritatively irreversible?”**
Yes:
“Amidst, therefore, such great perversity of depraved opinions, we, well remembering our Apostolic Office, and very greatly solicitous for our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls which is intrusted to us by God, and (solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought it right again to raise up our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.” - Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura
When a Pope invokes his apostolic authority to condemn an opinion, it is to be held condemned by all the Church’s faithful until the end of time.
I don’t feel that any of the quotes you’ve provided are relevant. What matters is what the document actually says, not an introduction which describes the situation in the world.
The words from the document which I have already provided clearly state that men have a right to religious freedom, that false religions have a right to public worship, and that these things should be enshrined in law. This contradicts Magisterial teaching as plainly as it can.
Religious freedom can be allowed as a concession in order to prevent a greater evil, but it can never properly be called a “right”. The ideal of a Christian state never changes. The state should adhere to Divine law, and should work within its own sphere for the benefit of its people’s salvation.
L
LilyM
Guest
Sometimes 2+2 = 4, sometimes it equals 2 squared, sometimes it equals 8/2, sometimes it equals the square root of 16. Depending on the circumstances, dare I say it. Sorry, couldn’t resist.
To the point - the Pope in Gallileo’s time taught that he was in error in his teaching of the theory of heliocentrism, and surely taught that all good Catholics should believe likewise. But was that because it was meant to be abominated for all time?
Or was he (as is much more likely) simply rebuking Galileo’s precipitous certitude that he was right on an issue which both the church and the scientific community were still in the process of debating, and which was only resolved in Gallileo’s favour later?
Not all condemnations of error are meant to be condemnations for all time. It’s not a case of trying to make 2+2 = 5, rather a case of determining whether Pius even meant the equation to be an addition of constant numbers in the first place, or an addition of variables that in his day added up to 4.
P
pnewton
Guest
I will not presume to tell you that which you already know. The Church is growing in other areas, post VII and all. In America and Europe all Christian denominations have struggled over the last century. Do you think the Catholic Church is the only place with doctrinal difficulties and declining attendance? Look at the liberalism that has entered the Episcopals lately. I witnessed a decline in things, such as belief in miracles, among Baptist when I was in seminary. Modern theology had picked up ground in all of Christendom. The common denominator is not VII. It is our western culture.
Now the question remains, and it is one I have asked myself, is VII a response to modernism or a reflection of it? I have decided for the former. The core of the documents are still orthodox, at least in my opinion. But the strongest reason is Faith, simple Faith. I can not except that the Holy Spirit has abandoned the Church after guiding her for all these years. I could never accept Catholicism and reject all that Catholicism is today. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why converts are so hard to persuade.
Traditionalists who have separated from the Church to a greater or lesser extent go on and on about the decline in the belief in the Real Presence. My question is why is there such a decline among them in the belief of the leadership of the Holy Spirit who will lead us into all truth.
E
elts1956
Guest
:tiphat: Great post.
E
ethelzguy
Guest
You can believe that, but we can never KNOW that to be true. It could be equally true, that without Vatican II that our Churches would be empty, save for a few fringe.
There is no way to know that for sure, one way or the other…pure speculation to forward an agenda.
F
Fitswimmer
Guest
I’ve always thought that the decline came more from the surrounding societal upheavals going on at the same time than from VII itself, but as you said, it’s impossible to prove.
The 60’s were a time when every authority was being challenged, not just the Church. The loss of the “pray, pay and obey” mentality went along with the loss of unquestioned belief in the government during Vietnam and Watergate. It’s really one of those “which came first” questions.
E
elts1956
Guest
Hello there. Not to pat myself on the back, but I am, because I have said this more than once too. How anyone can blame Vatican II for liberalism is beyond me given as was said in another post, the social upheaval at that time. We went through it all. Those that are unhappy with post Vatican II have somehow forgotten the basic theology, documents and dogmas of the Catholic Church have never changed. Christ promised the Holy Spirit would protect us and Christ didn’t lie.
- Status