Why Is This No Longer Enforced?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CutlerB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CutlerB

Guest
Sorry for the obscure title, but I didn’t want it to be so long.

I’m reading Pope St. Pius X’s Apostolic Constitution Lamentabili Sane Exitu, in which certain propositions are denounced and condemned.

The first of these propositions condemned reads as follows:
The ecclesiastical law which prescribes that books concerning the Divine Scriptures are subject to previous examination does not apply to critical scholars and students of scientific exegesis of the Old and New Testament.
I was wondering why this is no longer enforced? Surely quite a bit of rubbish could be done away with! I have a feeling, though, it’s just beyond the Church’s scope to do so?
 
A reader is free to choose what he reads, but if a Catholic wants to be sure that what he reads is in accordance with Chiurch teachings, he should look for the “Nihil obstat” of the diocese’s Vicar General in the first few pages of the reading material.
 
A reader is free to choose what he reads, but if a Catholic wants to be sure that what he reads is in accordance with Chiurch teachings, he should look for the “Nihil obstat” of the diocese’s Vicar General in the first few pages of the reading material.
Of course, the Nihil obstat merely indicates that there is nothing contrary to Church teaching in the material. It’s not an endorsement for the content. 🙂
 
A reader is free to choose what he reads, but if a Catholic wants to be sure that what he reads is in accordance with Chiurch teachings, he should look for the “Nihil obstat” of the diocese’s Vicar General in the first few pages of the reading material.
Of course, the Nihil obstat merely indicates that there is nothing contrary to Church teaching in the material. It’s not an endorsement for the content. 🙂
Yes, but I would still make a distinction between what is quoted form the document and a Nihil obstat.
 
Sorry for the obscure title, but I didn’t want it to be so long.

I’m reading Pope St. Pius X’s Apostolic Constitution Lamentabili Sane Exitu, in which certain propositions are denounced and condemned.

The first of these propositions condemned reads as follows:

I was wondering why this is no longer enforced? Surely quite a bit of rubbish could be done away with! I have a feeling, though, it’s just beyond the Church’s scope to do so?
How could it be? The Church doesn’t own or have authority over any publishing houses where “rubbish” is published.
 
How could it be? The Church doesn’t own or have authority over any publishing houses where “rubbish” is published.
Well, she didn’t own them before either, did she? I’m not that good at history 🤷
 
Of course, the Nihil obstat merely indicates that there is nothing contrary to Church teaching in the material. It’s not an endorsement for the content. 🙂
Church teaching changes with the times therefore once what was against teaching is now the teaching. Do not consider the Nihil obstat to mean much.
 
Church teaching changes with the times therefore once what was against teaching is now the teaching. Do not consider the Nihil obstat to mean much.
Although I take issue with how you expressed it, I think I understand what you mean to convey.
 
Church teaching changes with the times therefore once what was against teaching is now the teaching. Do not consider the Nihil obstat to mean much.
I wouldn’t use the word “teaching” in this context. I think you mean disciplines are abrogated over time. The Church’s teachings do not change. 🙂
 
Well, she didn’t own them before either, did she? I’m not that good at history 🤷
The Church at one point exercised quite a bit of temporal authority, too much if you ask me, and yes she did indeed own or at least politically control publishing houses.
 
I wouldn’t use the word “teaching” in this context. I think you mean disciplines are abrogated over time. The Church’s teachings do not change. 🙂
Okay I am now confused. Our tenet is summed up in the Apostles Creed. This is all we have to believe, besides the Sacraments, to be called Catholic. What do we call communion is okay in the hand, do not kneel, remove the altar railings, move the tabernacle, kneel, bow, no do not kneel now you stand…are these all disciplines? Remember when the Host was handled with reverence? Is this also a discipline that was abrogated, or a teaching, or a Tenet.
 
Okay I am now confused. Our tenet is summed up in the Apostles Creed. This is all we have to believe, besides the Sacraments, to be called Catholic. What do we call communion is okay in the hand, do not kneel, remove the altar railings, move the tabernacle, kneel, bow, no do not kneel now you stand…are these all disciplines? Remember when the Host was handled with reverence? Is this also a discipline that was abrogated, or a teaching, or a Tenet.
They are all disciplines, not tenets, teachings, doctrines or dogmas. 🙂 This thread is not the place to discuss reverence in the Mass. But I will say that reverence resides in the hearts of those who participate. If it isn’t there, no amount of communion rails or kneeling will make any difference. I have seen a definite upswing in reverence since the new translation of the Liturgy of the Mass has been in use in our parishes. It’s the language and our disposition that is most important for reverence.
 
They are all disciplines, not tenets, teachings, doctrines or dogmas. 🙂 This thread is not the place to discuss reverence in the Mass. But I will say that reverence resides in the hearts of those who participate. If it isn’t there, no amount of communion rails or kneeling will make any difference. I have seen a definite upswing in reverence since the new translation of the Liturgy of the Mass has been in use in our parishes. It’s the language and our disposition that is most important for reverence.
I agree that reverence resides in the hearts of man.
 
Sorry for the obscure title, but I didn’t want it to be so long.

I’m reading Pope St. Pius X’s Apostolic Constitution Lamentabili Sane Exitu, in which certain propositions are denounced and condemned.

The first of these propositions condemned reads as follows:

I was wondering why this is no longer enforced? Surely quite a bit of rubbish could be done away with! I have a feeling, though, it’s just beyond the Church’s scope to do so?
Re: this statement

"The ecclesiastical law which prescribes that books concerning the Divine Scriptures are subject to previous examination does not apply to critical scholars and students of scientific exegesis of the Old and New Testament. "

It seems to me to be seperating those in the “scientific” area of study, from other disciplines of study.
 
Re: this statement

"The ecclesiastical law which prescribes that books concerning the Divine Scriptures are subject to previous examination does not apply to critical scholars and students of scientific exegesis of the Old and New Testament. "

It seems to me to be seperating those in the “scientific” area of study, from other disciplines of study.
Who’s making the distinction, me or the Pope?
 
Who’s making the distinction, me or the Pope?
in context

"These errors are being daily spread among the faithful. Lest they captivate the faithful’s minds and corrupt the purity of their faith, His Holiness, Pius X, by Divine Providence, Pope, has decided that the chief errors should be noted and condemned by the Office of this Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition.

Therefore, after a very diligent investigation and consultation with the Reverend Consultors, the Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, the General Inquisitors in matters of faith and morals have judged the following propositions to be condemned and proscribed. In fact, by this general decree, they are condemned and proscribed.
  1. The ecclesiastical law which prescribes that books concerning the Divine Scriptures are subject to previous examination does not apply to critical scholars and students of scientific exegesis of the Old and New Testament. "
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm

As I read it, probably “scholars” are the ones trying to seperate the Church from jurisdiction over this area. And in extension anybody who agrees with this opinion. The pope considers this opinion, one of many errors of modernism.
 
in context

"These errors are being daily spread among the faithful. Lest they captivate the faithful’s minds and corrupt the purity of their faith, His Holiness, Pius X, by Divine Providence, Pope, has decided that the chief errors should be noted and condemned by the Office of this Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition.

Therefore, after a very diligent investigation and consultation with the Reverend Consultors, the Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, the General Inquisitors in matters of faith and morals have judged the following propositions to be condemned and proscribed. In fact, by this general decree, they are condemned and proscribed.
  1. The ecclesiastical law which prescribes that books concerning the Divine Scriptures are subject to previous examination does not apply to critical scholars and students of scientific exegesis of the Old and New Testament. "
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm

As I read it, probably “scholars” are the ones trying to seperate the Church from jurisdiction over this area. And in extension anybody who agrees with this opinion. The pope considers this opinion, one of many errors of modernism.
Yes, indeed. But he is condemning the idea that “books concerning the Divine Scriptures are subject to previous examination does not apply to critical scholars and students of scientific exegesis”. In short: Books written by even these people have to be reviewed by the Church.
 
Yes, indeed. But he is condemning the idea that “books concerning the Divine Scriptures are subject to previous examination does not apply to critical scholars and students of scientific exegesis”. In short: Books written by even these people have to be reviewed by the Church.
True.
 
Sorry for the obscure title, but I didn’t want it to be so long.

I’m reading Pope St. Pius X’s Apostolic Constitution Lamentabili Sane Exitu, in which certain propositions are denounced and condemned.

The first of these propositions condemned reads as follows:

The ecclesiastical law which prescribes that books concerning the Divine Scriptures are subject to previous examination does not apply to critical scholars and students of scientific exegesis of the Old and New Testament.

I was wondering why this is no longer enforced? Surely quite a bit of rubbish could be done away with! I have a feeling, though, it’s just beyond the Church’s scope to do so?
Hi Cutler!

I hope you find a happy home in the Catholic Church. 🙂

I think that the principle claim that’s being condemned here is the notion that the scientific and scholarly conclusions of textual critics and exegetes trump the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Magisterium. It’s a role reversal that seeks to give autonomy to the scholars such that they can follow the data wherever they think it leads to the disregard of the doctrine and practice of the church.

The canons regarding this are found here. There is also an instruction from the CDF about this. The following book helped me locate these resources: The Permission to Publish.

Here is a statement from the Congregation for Divine Worship that has direct relevance to this proposition of Lamentabili Sane and the work of critical scholars:

“Determining which texts belong to the Church’s canon and which texts are prescribed for the Sacred Liturgy, however, lie outside the area of competence of biblical scholars in general, or of textual critics in particular. It is the Church herself, on the basis of her tradition, that has established the canon, and it is the competent ecclesiastical authority that prescribes the use of specific texts for liturgical use. As regards the rites of the Latin Church, that authority is the Holy See” (Translations and the Consultation of the Nova Vulgata).

And I think that this thought from Pope Benedict has direct bearing upon the sentiment expressed by Lamentabili Sane towards exegetes:

“Whenever Sacred Scripture is separated from the living voice of the Church, it falls prey to disputes among experts.

“Of course, all they have to tell us is important and invaluable; the work of scholars is a considerable help in understanding the living process in which the Scriptures developed, hence, also in grasping their historical richness.

“Yet science alone cannot provide us with a definitive and binding interpretation; it is unable to offer us, in its interpretation, that certainty with which we can live and for which we can even die. A greater mandate is necessary for this, which cannot derive from human abilities alone. The voice of the living Church is essential for this, of the Church entrusted until the end of time to Peter and to the College of the Apostles.

“This power of teaching frightens many people in and outside the Church. They wonder whether freedom of conscience is threatened or whether it is a presumption opposed to freedom of thought. It is not like this. The power that Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors is, in an absolute sense, a mandate to serve. The power of teaching in the Church involves a commitment to the service of obedience to the faith. The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law. On the contrary: the Pope’s ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He must not proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God’s Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism” (Homily, 5/7/2005).

Here are a couple of other more recent references to other sections of Lamentabili Sane:

“Thus, however much the Sacred Magisterium avails itself of the contemplation, life and study of the faithful, its office is not reduced merely to ratifying the assent already expressed by the latter; indeed, in the interpretation and explanation of the written or transmitted Word of God, the Magisterium can anticipate or demand their assent (cf. Lamentabili Sane, 6)” (Mysterium Ecclesiae).

“The dogmatic pragmatism of the early years of this century, which viewed the truths of faith as nothing more than rules of conduct, has already been refuted and rejected (cf. Lamentabili Sane, 26)” (Fides et Ratio).

With love in Christ,
Pete
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top