Which religion?

[VARC]

Without getting into the question (which has already had quite a few thread devoted to it) of why you’re here if you disagree with CAF’s agenda, let me just say that I’m pretty sure that you are permitted to quote Pius IX, and let the quotes speak for themselves.

Concerning those three condemnations, for the moment let me address #17,

1. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ

This sounds very harsh and un-ecumenical (and even harsher toward non-Christians), but it’s not really problematic because he doesn’t say “all the unbaptized are not at all in the true Church of Christ” (bear in mind the possibility of “baptism of desire”) much less that all non-Catholic Christians are not at all in the true Church of Christ.

You are “entertaining good hope” by implying that Pius IX taught that protestants are in the true church which he certainly did not. But even if he did, he surely would have condemned the idea that “the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day”. Any fair an obejective person would conclude that Pius IX taught that this was an error.

 

[Peter_J]

You are “entertaining good hope” by implying that Pius IX taught that protestants are in the true church which he certainly did not. But even if he did, he surely would have condemned the idea that “the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day”. Any fair an obejective person would conclude that Pius IX taught that this was an error.

Well that goes back to what I said in post #36: Just because a Pope says " ________ is incorrect", that doesn’t necessarily count as a condemnation.

Of course, if I were a hard-core “Traditionalist Catholic”, I would presumably believe that “__________ is incorrect” if Pius IX said it was incorrect.

 

[Peter_J]

At the risk of getting further off-topic … it occurs to me that the criticisms of Pope Benedict (or JPII or whoever) could go different ways. On the one hand, some might criticize him for believing something that Pius IX considered incorrect; on the other hand, some others might criticize him for not criticizing Pius IX for his beliefs.

 

[VARC]

At the risk of getting further off-topic … it occurs to me that the criticisms of Pope Benedict (or JPII or whoever) could go different ways. On the one hand, some might criticize him for believing something that Pius IX considered incorrect; on the other hand, some others might criticize him for not criticizing Pius IX for his beliefs.

I don’t think a criticism of previous popes would sit well with RCs. It threatens to undermine the integrity of the papacy. Best to not talk about the differences in doctrine. The important thing is that by adopting protestant practices (such as lay leadership, vernacular liturgy, and women’s particpation in the service) and accepting protestant ideas (such as religious liberty, salvation outside the RCC w/o invincible ignorance, and a downplaying of Mary’s role in salvation) they are on the right track according to modern RCs.

BXVI’s criticism of PIX would only call into question the current popes stand on such things as WO and other issues. If PIX was so wrong about religious liberty maybe the current pope is wrong about such things as well. There would be continious debate about the papacy’s stand on issues. That’s disasterous for the RC. What holds the RC together is obedience to the infallible leader and dissent on some issues is not tloerated. If RCs got it into there heads that there is a possibility that the pope could actually be wrong on some modern issues, too many independent thought alarms might go off.

This might be pretty scary for catholics. Some (not many) of them cling to the idea of papal infallibity to absolve themselves of thinking for themselves. It is always easier, and supposedly safer, to just follow orders.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It is implicitly prohibited in the Torah.

Going by the Torah, sexual attraction.

jonathon

I must’ve missed the staff meeting where we decided to go back to consulting the Torah and the law of Moses when hammering out the do’s and don’t of the Catholic Mass lol…(I kid you)

The Torah also prohibits gnats from going into your mouth, eating pork, menstruating women from going near the temple, encouraged stoning adulterers, you name it. I see your point about using the Torah for possible understanding of traditions that seeped into Christianity but I prefer to trust the Church’s interpretations and not consult the Torah on these things.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

In other words, the SSPX do not submit to the authority of the Holy Father and the Church except when it suits them. They set themselves up as the arbiter of what is and what is not traditional within the Church in opposition to the Holy Father and his bishops gathered in council and guided by the Holy Spirit. Pardon me, but this isn’t a “traditional” interpretation of the authority of the Holy Father and its limits. The bottom line is no, the SSPX do not submit to the authority of the Church and the Holy Father, though they would like you to think they do. One shouldn’t put lipstick on a pig.

When he commands what is evil, it is an absolute duty to resist him - and it is an enormous sin to obey him, if the evil is a great one.​

What people don’t seem to understand is that the Pope’s authority is not value-free, and his commands are not valid merely by being commands. His authority is given him so that he may build up the Church, not that he may tear it down: as the coronation rite made very clear. When he sins against the faith, he cannot now be judged; but he can be resisted, and should be resisted. If he were to attempt to abolish a Rite, he should be resisted. There are many things he cannot do without sinning - his power is very ample, but it is not boundless. The Church is not a dictatorship, nor is it tolerable that it should allowed to be one. So he cannot do anything whatever, but only some things. This has all been hammered out by the theologians and approved authors of the past (several of them Doctors or Saints).

I’m not even Traditional, particularly - but that much I do know. Venerable Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln (d.1253), opposed corrupt action by Innocent IV, and resisted him, and refused to obey him. It is the bishop, who was renowned for his holiness even in his lifetime, who is reckoned as a holy man: not the Pope he opposed. Disobedience, even to a Pope, can be necessary if God is not to be disobeyed. “We must obey God, rather than men”, said Peter & John (Acts 5.29) Had they obeyed the command of men, there would have no more preaching of Christ.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Possibly. I do know that Pius X would feel a lot more at home at Econe than in the Vatican. He would be absolutely horrified to see altar girls, communion in the hand, vernacular mass, Eucharistic prayer 2-4, and ecumenical prayer services.

A priest who allowed altar girls to serve in 1965 was (IIRC) excommunicated - he certainly got into boiling hot water. Then along comes JP2, and hey presto, a great sin becomes perfectly allowable. All of a sudden, the unthinkable and unspeakable becomes both eminently speakable and anything but unthinkable. So all the JohanniPauline huffing and puffing about the impossibility of ordaining women, can hardly be treated as impossible. One day, even if it’s far off, women are going to be ordained as priests, & condoms are going to be tolerable. And Econe will be recognised as a “sister-Church”. And Abp. Lefebvre will be canonised, on the basis of an “immemorial cultus”. ​

 

[TheQuestioner]

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

You be the judge. It strains the limits of credulity that Pius IX wasn’t condemning aspects of VII 100 years before hand.

Seems to me you don’t really know the circumstances by which a Pope is infallible. If you did the fact that one Pope held one view and his successor held another wouldn’t bother you as you would know that the infallible teachings of the Church (which cannot be wrong) do not depend on what one current Pope believed but what they infallibly declared. I think the Early Christians would be shocked about how the traditionalists celebrate mass and confession (what with it being private) to the point of thinking it was wrong.

Among the errors condemned are:

1. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true

This is not specifically stated. This is moral relativism which is condemned by the Church today. Also you must learn to differentiate between matters of faith and matters of morals. In matters of faith one must defect to the teaching of the Church (a man who is essentially an Arian must conform to the will of the Church and be a Trinitarian) while in matters of morals in which the Church has not made an explicit statement like that of abortion or contreception a man must follow his own conscience until the truth is revealed to him by God through clergy (for example a man who must choose between saving his wife from a killer but having to kill him, or letting her die knowing she is in God’s graces but sparing the killer in order that he man choose God in the future). 15 is a view still held by the Church.

1. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.

This is a view still held by the Church, and the teaching of invincible ignorance is not what this error alludes to. This error says that “by any religion anyone can get to heaven” which is a view currently held by the Church. What the Church actually teaches is that “by any religion anyone can get into heaven so long as they are fully and unwillfully ignorant of the truth or it was presented to them in a distorted way” Both are substansiully different. One can oppose the former view by holding to the other.

1. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ

Once again, not a current view of the Church. Although hope is at least to be entertained of the eternal salvation of EVERYONE, as one is removed farther and farther from the one true Church that hope becomes substantially less and less. The error can be used to state that God will have mercy on non-Catholics because they are non-Catholics while the actual Church teaching is that non-Catholics will receive mercy in spite of being non-Catholic. On the ladder to heaven Catholics are a rung higher than others. If you picture heaven as a ball then the Catholic Church would be a ring around it, and other faiths would be rings around it too, but much bigger rings as they progress further from the truth, the Catholic ring be closest to the actual ball. Also realize that those who are not in the true Church (those of different religions) would be farther out than those who are at least part of the Church (like protestants).

These “errors” are exactly what the RCC teaches today

Upon further and more detailed review…no.

“The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.” DIGNITATIS HUMANAE

There is a difference between saying that “every man can enter heaven regardless of faith” and “every man should be free to worship within the bounds of the law and should not be surpressed in doing so”, the latter being what that quote actually says.

Oh, and btw, the traditional mass wasn’t banned per say. Bishops can authorize the celebration of the old mass if requested by priests and laymen. Also VII is not the first time the mass was changed.

 

[Peter_J]

When he commands what is evil, it is an absolute duty to resist him - and it is an enormous sin to obey him, if the evil is a great one.​

Certainly.

A priest who allowed altar girls to serve in 1965 was (IIRC) excommunicated - he certainly got into boiling hot water. Then along comes JP2, and hey presto, a great sin becomes perfectly allowable. All of a sudden, the unthinkable and unspeakable becomes both eminently speakable and anything but unthinkable.​

Well let’s look at this. A priest wanted to have female altar servers, the Pope (Paul VI, if this was in 1965) didn’t want him have female altar servers, correct? The question to consider here is: when Pope Paul said no female altar servers was he “commanding what is evil”? If so, then certainly the priest had a “duty to resist him”. But if the Pope did not “command what is evil” (which I believe is the case) then the priest had no good reason not to obey the Pope’s directives (until such time as the directives were changed, by Pope John Paul II).

 

[Peter_J]

For the record, I don’t consider myself a hard-core ultramontane or a hard-core “Traditionalist Catholic”.

 

[VARC]

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

Seems to me you don’t really know the circumstances by which a Pope is infallible. If you did the fact that one Pope held one view and his successor held another wouldn’t bother you as you would know that the infallible teachings of the Church (which cannot be wrong) do not depend on what one current Pope believed but what they infallibly declared.
.

Okay fine. So maybe the current pope is wrong about homosexuality, stem cell research, women’s ordination, contraception, etc?

 

[VARC]

Oh, and btw, the traditional mass wasn’t banned per say. Bishops can authorize the celebration of the old mass if requested by priests and laymen. Also VII is not the first time the mass was changed.

The mass was not authorized to be done by anybody until the indult of JPII and even then they needed a bishop’s permission that was hardly ever granted. For 15 years the trad mass was an illegal ceremony in the RCC

 

[VARC]

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

You be the judge. It strains the limits of credulity that Pius IX wasn’t condemning aspects of VII 100 years before hand.

Seems to me you don’t really know the circumstances by which a Pope is infallible. If you did the fact that one Pope held one view and his successor held another wouldn’t bother you as you would know that the infallible teachings of the Church (which cannot be wrong) do not depend on what one current Pope believed but what they infallibly declared. I think the Early Christians would be shocked about how the traditionalists celebrate mass and confession (what with it being private) to the point of thinking it was wrong.

Among the errors condemned are:

1. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true

This is not specifically stated. This is moral relativism which is condemned by the Church today. Also you must learn to differentiate between matters of faith and matters of morals. In matters of faith one must defect to the teaching of the Church (a man who is essentially an Arian must conform to the will of the Church and be a Trinitarian) while in matters of morals in which the Church has not made an explicit statement like that of abortion or contreception a man must follow his own conscience until the truth is revealed to him by God through clergy (for example a man who must choose between saving his wife from a killer but having to kill him, or letting her die knowing she is in God’s graces but sparing the killer in order that he man choose God in the future). 15 is a view still held by the Church.

1. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.

This is a view still held by the Church, and the teaching of invincible ignorance is not what this error alludes to. This error says that “by any religion anyone can get to heaven” which is a view currently held by the Church. What the Church actually teaches is that “by any religion anyone can get into heaven so long as they are fully and unwillfully ignorant of the truth or it was presented to them in a distorted way” Both are substansiully different. One can oppose the former view by holding to the other.

1. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ

Once again, not a current view of the Church. Although hope is at least to be entertained of the eternal salvation of EVERYONE, as one is removed farther and farther from the one true Church that hope becomes substantially less and less. The error can be used to state that God will have mercy on non-Catholics because they are non-Catholics while the actual Church teaching is that non-Catholics will receive mercy in spite of being non-Catholic. On the ladder to heaven Catholics are a rung higher than others. If you picture heaven as a ball then the Catholic Church would be a ring around it, and other faiths would be rings around it too, but much bigger rings as they progress further from the truth, the Catholic ring be closest to the actual ball. Also realize that those who are not in the true Church (those of different religions) would be farther out than those who are at least part of the Church (like protestants).

These “errors” are exactly what the RCC teaches today

Upon further and more detailed review…no.

“The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.” DIGNITATIS HUMANAE

There is a difference between saying that “every man can enter heaven regardless of faith” and “every man should be free to worship within the bounds of the law and should not be surpressed in doing so”, the latter being what that quote actually says.

.

But is there is a huge contradiction between the statement that “the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself” and that no “man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true”

Also a huge contradiction in saying the “plan of salvation includes…the Muslims” and that "Good hope [should not] be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ

 

[Ghoti]

**I don’t think a criticism of previous popes would sit well with RCs. It threatens to undermine the integrity of the papacy. **

I don’t know, I think it depends on the former pope.

For example, I think it safe to say that John XX was a total nobody.

 

[Peter_J]

The mass was not authorized to be done by anybody until the indult of JPII and even then they needed a bishop’s permission that was hardly ever granted. For 15 years the trad mass was an illegal ceremony in the RCC

Ah. Thank you for clarifying that – I wondered what you meant when you spoke of it being “banned”.

 

[Peter_J]

Also a huge contradiction in saying the “plan of salvation includes…the Muslims” and that "Good hope [should not] be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ

That is not a contradiction, because it is not correct to say that all Muslims are “not at all in the true Church of Christ”.

 

[VARC]

That is not a contradiction, because it is not correct to say that all Muslims are “not at all in the true Church of Christ”.

That probably would have been news to the pre-conciliar popes especially because thoses popes would require muslims to be invincibly ignorant. The CCC doesn’t require said ignorance for the salvation of muslims.

 

[Peter_J]

^^ If previous Pope(s) said “no Muslim is a part of the true Church in any way”, then that is the statement you ought to criticize.

The CCC doesn’t require said ignorance for the salvation of muslims.

I wasn’t aware of that. Can you quote the relavent paragraphs?

 

[VARC]

^^ If previous Pope(s) said “no Muslim is a part of the true Church in any way”, then that is the statement you ought to criticize.

I wasn’t aware of that. Can you quote the relavent paragraphs?

Yeah, hold on a minute…

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day

para 841

One can’t possibly reconcile this with the views of pre-conciliar Roman Catholics.

BTW Peter I miss your old tag-line. I’m going to steal your idea of quoting The Simpsons for my tag line

 

[Peter_J]

Yeah, hold on a minute…

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day

para 841

I was about to say that I find that a bit troubling in its tone and connotation – then I realized that I was misremembering the quote. I was think that it said “The plan of salvation also includes the Muslims” whereas it actually says “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims”.

One can’t possibly reconcile this with the views of pre-conciliar Roman Catholics.

If so, then perhaps the pre-conciliar Roman Catholics in question were wrong.

BTW Peter I miss your old tag-line. I’m going to steal your idea of quoting The Simpsons for my tag line

Why thank you.

I used to put a new quote in my signature every week … then after a while a slacked off a little, reusing quotes and/or leaving the same quote there for more than one week.