Extra ecclesiam - Outside the Church there is no salvation.

Catholic Exchange ^ | Kevin Knight

[armydoc]

I don't see any contradiction whatsoever

Well, I guess words have no real meaning, then.

[InterestedQuestioner]

Hello Doctor,

"Well, I guess words have no real meaning, then."

Certainly they do. Your concern is with the following two statements:


From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." (Excerpted from the Encyclical Quanta Cura, 1864)

and

"This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits." (Excerpted from Dignitatis Humanae, 1965.)

To begin with, both statements have been removed from their context. This includes not only the encyclical and councilar document from which they were excerpted, but the issues to which they were addressed. In the case of Quanta Cura, this is particularly important. As I'm sure you aware, it was part of an extremely controversial document that was censored by the French government. It was illegal for Priests to read it to the faithful or discuss it with them, under penalty of law. Additionally, the government of France banned the press from discussing it in a religious sense. It was also condemned by leading members of the government in the British Empire, (which included Catholic Ireland at the time,) and was the occasion for a series of very vituperative attacks against Catholics by British leaders. William Gladstone, for example, insinuated that Catholics were unfit citizens who were mentally and morally deficient. The bottom line is that if you want a full understanding of the document, you have to look at the source document it references. Otherwise, it is a document which is easily misinterpreted. The reason I say this is because these documents are extremely timely. We are beginning to renew these conversations in our own society today.


In terms of the two statements you excerpted, they are not contradictory. As you've already noted, they don't contradict in a literal sense. Quanta Cura rejects as insanity the idea that " a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way."

Thus Quanta Cura, like our own society, rejects an absolute right to expression without any restriction whatsoever. For example, libel, defamation of character, sedition, harassment, and to a certain extent, public indecency are restricted by our government and our society at large. If an mullah in New Jersey wants to preach that American society is comprised of infidels with an evil government, he's at liberty to do so. If, on the other hand, he declares jihad and says his followers must take up arms against the government today to overthrow it and establish a just government, he has put himself at odds with the Constitution, and is liable to prosecution and criminal penalty if convicted. Treason is forbidden by the Constitution of the United States, whether overthrowing the government and establishing a theocratic government is part of his religion or not.

As you've noted, Dignitas Humanae, speaks of a right to religious freedom, within reasonable limits. Hence it doesn't contradict the excerpt from Quanta Cura, which speaks against an absolutely unrestricted liberty of expression.

It's as you have noted; they do not literally contradict each other, because one speaks against the opinion that there is absolute right without restriction, while the other speaks to a right within reason.

Having noted this, however, it's important to say that this distinction entirely misses the point of the two statements. It's a healthy and important distinction to make, but it's really besides the point. The two statements have entirely different aims.

To begin with, please notice that religious liberty of Quanta Cura and religious freedom of Dignitas Humanae, are defined differently in the statements which you excerpted. Dignitas Humanae declares a right to religious freedom which is a freedom from coercion of the individual, such that they are not to be forced to act against their conscience. So, if you are a doctor who feels that elective abortion is homicide and therefore immoral, you are not to be forced to kill a fetus for the sake of parental convenience or whim. Or, if my friend is a Catholic pharmacist, she is not to be coerced into selling contraceptives against her conscience. Clearly, religious freedom, in this sense, is something with which our society struggles from time to time.

The idea of religious liberty that Quanta Cura is objecting to so stringently is the idea of a complete and unqualified freedom of public expression by any means whatsoever. As we've seen above, this is an idea which our own society rejects as well. This is somewhat beside the point, however, as a key phrase in this statement is where it speaks of "a right....to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil.....

That is to say, the idea being rejected here is that civil and ecclesiastical authorities have no right whatsoever to restrict expression. In essence, while this excerpt from Dignitas Humanae is speaking to the freedom of the individual to not act against his belief. (Later in the encyclical, the idea is expanded.) It is a freedom from coercion;. Quanta Cura, on the other hand is addressing the right of the state and church to restrict expression If I am understanding the context to which Pope Pius is referring, a central concern is the ability of the Church to restrict it's own clergy from teaching error. The statement also applies, however, to a much broader context. For example, following the Catholic Church's condemnation of homosexual "marriages" in Canada last year, suggestions were made that the Catholic Church in Canada should be nationalized by the government, or that Draconian laws be enacted against the Church to destroy it. In these instances, there were statements made by individuals that the Catholic Church should not have the right to speak out against individual liberties, and that the Church should be co-opted to prevent it from doing so. You may also recall the controversies of the Church refusing communion to Catholic politicians who support elective abortion. If the idea which Quanta Cura objects to was in place, the Church would not have the right to do this. The rights to religious expression of the individual would trump the rights of the Church to enforce it's own rules or speak in favor of it's own teachings..

In essence, Dignitas Humanae is speaking of a right to religious freedom of the individual that is a freedom from coercion to act against conscience, and the freedom to act according to conscience, within reason. This idea is further developed and expanded across the document, but as this document itself states, "it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ." For example, it states that "....all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth." That is, Truth is it's own best advocate, and men must be free to seek it, but they are also obligated to live according to the Truth once it is known.

Quanta Cura, on the other hand is addressing the rights of the state and the church, and their relationship to an absolute and completely unrestricted individual liberty, which could take any form of expression, whatsoever. Of central concern is the role of Truth and true doctrine to the state and Church, niether entity of which can be indifferent to Truth in the name of unrestricted liberty.

The individual has rights, but the state too has rights, viv a vis the individual, and so does the church. Ultimately, freedom and responsibility must be balanced.

Does this sound like a reasonable interpretation of these statements to you?

Words do indeed mean something, and with regards to the statements that you have excerpted, that meaning must be respected. If one only reads the first third of the sentence rejected by Quanta Cura, one can certainly see a meaning that was not intended. One must read the whole sentence to assess its meaning fairly. In this case, this is all that the statements give us, although the ideas themselves are further developed to a more definitive extent across these documents and the related documents which form their context.

On a side note, part of the context of these statements is the relationship between church and state. This topic was revisited again last week with the publication of Pope Benedict's first Encyclical, Deus Caritas Est. It is a very timely subject.


With regards to encyclicals and councilar documents, one thing that seems to cause problems is to consider terms in these documents apart from their definitions. This is particularly true with the Council of Trent, where certain persons like to isolate the cannons from the definitions, and we end up with Christians arguing the exact same point against each other.

[Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...]

….. calling Peter the rock on which Christ will build His Church.

Could you explain to me how you've reached the conclusion that Peter is the ‘rock’ in this verse? In scripture, there is much imagery used and in trying to decipher what is what, the Bible uses what scholars refer to as the law of first reference. In other words, when something is compared to something else, the Bible explains what it is and thereafter, it can be assumed to mean the same thing when it is representing something (as opposed to being what it really is). For example, the Bible uses the ‘fig tree’ both in passages where it really is a fig tree but also in passages where it represents something else. In this case, the fig tree is representative of the nation of Israel and you won’t find a passage where the fig tree is representative of anything other than Israel (except as I mentioned where the verse really intended to mean the physical meaning of fig tree’). So, this being the case, what is your case for the ‘rock’ being Peter? In the Bible verse Psalm 118: 22 ‘The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner’………which Jesus himself referred to in three of the four gospels – for example ……Matthew 21:42 ‘Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?’……….who is the ‘stone’? I’d say it’s pretty doggone clear that Christ is identifying HIMSELF as the stone, wouldn’t you? I don’t know about you but I’m not inclined to want to argue with Jesus Christ. And in that reference in Matthew 16:18-19, it is Peter’s confession in Jesus Christ himself that is the rock, not the person of Peter. I can give you a number of other references to round this out more but I’d be interested in hearing how you address my basic question – why do you believe that the rock is Peter in this reference?

With reference to your interpretation of what the ‘keys’ are, please harmonize the passage in Matthew 16 to this passage - Revelation 1: 18 ‘I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.’ In both passages it is Christ that is speaking and he is referring to himself and having ownership of the keys to heaven and hell’. If as you say the passage in Matthew carries the meaning that the keys are ‘… the recognition of Christ and His authority, including His authority to grant perpetual authority to His apostles for the duration of time…’, how does this apply to the passage in Revelation? So Christ is recognizing himself and his authority? Sorry but that doesn't make sense. The keys are simply the ability to choose heaven or hell as your destiny…. Heaven through acceptance of the offer of salvation and forgiveness of sin through Jesus Christ or Hell through the rejection thereof.

[The Cuban]

Yes. Holy Thursday Mass.

[IIntense]

"The four marks of the Church: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic

Why are the Holydays of Obligation different in the U.S. and Europe, for instance? Why aren't they "catholic", as in universal?

The only answer I can come up with is that the established holydays do not fall within the Church doctrine.

IMO, if this is the reasoning, excuse me but it appears to fall flat on it's face.

That an American Catholic is condemned to hell for missing Mass on a "U.S. holyday", while a European Catholic has no obligation to attend Mass the same day goes beyond my ability to logically understand this.

[wmfights]

"In the Bible verse Psalm 118: 22 ‘The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner’………which Jesus himself referred to in three of the four gospels – for example ……Matthew 21:42 ‘Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?’……….who is the ‘stone’? I’d say it’s pretty doggone clear that Christ is identifying HIMSELF as the stone, wouldn’t you?"
_____________________________________________________

Thanks for such a clear explanation. I would just add, who was JESUS asking Peter he was just prior to the statement about the rock. If taken in that context, of the whole passage, it is also clear that the rock he is referring to is himself.

[TradicalRC]

Could you explain to me how you've reached the conclusion that Peter is the ‘rock’ in this verse?

Jesus often would play on words and in this case makes the association between Peter and rock. It strikes me as odd that Jesus would tell Peter his name and then start talking about Himself. It seems patently obvious that the whole paragraph is about Peter and the authority that Christ is granting him. One needs to strain at gnats to think otherwise. I can understand why a Protestant would Not Want to believe it however.

15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? 16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. -Matthew 16: 15-19

[Uri’el-2012]

One method of Hermeneutical understanding of Matthew 16:18
is to do a word study of all the scriptures which were then known
as the Holy Word of G-d when Y'shua spoke these words.

This will allow one to understand that all of the Holy Word of G-d
was inspired by YHvH

The only conclusion that one can come to unless you are
predisposed to believe in man's tradition over the Holy Word of G-d
is that Y'shua was speaking of himself as the "rock"
e.g.

Psalm 92:15 ..... “YHvH is upright; he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him.”

b'shem Y'shua

[JohnRoss]

Being an agnostic is the height of intellectual laziness.

Sort of like not believing you will get killed if you walk in front of traffic on the interstate.

[JohnRoss]

No apostolic succession; no Church. Protestantism rejected the sacraments as means of objective grace.

[JohnRoss]

Prior to Vatican II, Protestants frequently were conditionally baptised. Also, most Protestant sects save for the Lutherans and maybe the Anglo-Catholics deny that Baptism is for the remission of sins and DO NOT have the Church's intent for baptism. Even if they have the proper form, they lack the proper intention.

Liberalism does not change the objective invalidity of Protestant "sacraments".

My Melkite pastor always rebaptises Protestant converts.

[JohnRoss]

The Protestant "Reformation" was one of the greatest apostasies in Church history. I only understood Luther when I renounced Lutheranism.

[sitetest]

Dear JohnRoss,

A sacrament is valid when the minister of that sacrament has the intent to do what the Church DOES in the sacrament, not the intent to do what the Church BELIEVES.

That's why even an atheist may validly baptize. It is unlikely that the atheist will intend to wash away Original Sin and give the soul life through the grace of God, not believing in God & all. However, if he intends to do what the Church DOES, that is, to baptize in the name of the Trinity and with water, then the sacrament is valid.

I'm not sure that the practice of your pastor is correct, but knowing next to nothing about the circumstances, I won't venture more.


sitetest

[muawiyah]

Hey, I know plenty of folks who renounced Lutheranism and became Methodists.

Guess everyone has his own understanding of what an improved religious point of view might be.

[JohnRoss]

To quote Card. Newman, to know history is to cease to be Protestant. There is a huge difference from switching between Protestant sects to becoming either Catholic or Orthodox.

The Orthodox have valid sacraments; Protestants do not.

[muawiyah]

Since neither the Lutherans nor the Methodists are, technically speaking, Protestant, is there a point being made here?

[JohnRoss]

From the perspective of the Eastern Church; the Latin Church errs in its teaching that a non-Christian may baptise validly.

Scholastic theology says the intent is a key portion of sacramental validity. That is why Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican Orders were "utterly null and void."

Many Eastern canonists say Holy Orders is a necessity for sacramental validity; however, a lay Christian may baptise validly in extreme circumstances. Usually, in saner times a priest would conditionally baptise the person who has received an extraordinary baptism to ensure the validity.

Many Evangelicals baptise in the name of Jesus only. I doubt that would be considered valid by any except the most liberal Catholic "theologian."

[Lurker]

Really. Can you prove that assertion?

L

[JohnRoss]

Sure, you refuse to take a side pro or con. So that amounts to intellectual laziness. Besides logic says you cannot disprove a negative, and you have closed your mind.

[Lurker]

How about this one, then:

"Put not your faith in the Princes of the Earth."

I don't think there's a 'side' to take. I believe in God, I believe in Jesus. Why do I need a political instutution (church) to get between me and God?

Besides, whose 'side' am I supposed to take? The Catholics? The Lutherans? The Greek Orthodox? The Baptists? The Methodists? The Anabaptists?

When I want to talk to God, I talk to God. Why do I need a priest to 'intercede' for me? What makes them so special?

Why do I need some guy to throw water on me in order to talk to God? He won't listen to me unless I'm wet? He doesn't love me unless I have the scent of incense on me?

Some people seem to need the ceremonies. That's fine for them. I don't.

Here's another one for you Mr. Ross:

Jesus said: "Go into a closet and pray."

I think the world would be a bit better off if more people took that to heart.

L