Posted on 10/16/2015 2:22:11 PM PDT by markomalley
i just came across another RC advocating a Roman monarchy for the US, and which would result in RC version of Sharia law.
As one dreamed,
"....Constitutions can be changed, and non-Catholic sects may decline to such a point that the political proscription [ban] of them may become feasible and expedient. What protection would they have against a Catholic state? What protection would they then have against a Catholic State? The latter could logically tolerate only such religious activities as were confined to the members of the dissenting group. It could not permit them to carry on general propaganda nor accord their organization certain privileges that had formerly been extended to all religious corporations, for example, exemption from taxation. [But] the danger of religious intolerance toward non-Catholics in the United States is so improbable and so far in the future that it should not occupy their time or attention." — The State and the Church (1922), pp.38,39, by Monsignor (and professor) John Augustine Ryan (1869–1945), imprimatur of Cardinal Hayes (http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/sac002.htm).
[It is error to believe that] 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.”
78. “[It is error to believe that] 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. Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus (of Errors), Issued in 1864, Section X (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm)
It was spelled out. "Forsaking the faith once received", is by definition, formal heresy.
And what it can mean and who has forsaken the faith they once received is interpretive.
I think you mean open to interpretation. "Interpretive" means explanatory or providing interpretation of something needing clarification.
Indeed it is open to interpretation. The same is true of most any law, religious or secular. Any time human behavior is measured against a law or some form of standard, interpretation is required.
You have bishops judging liberal RC pols as members, and the pope cordially thanking a manifestly impenitent Teddy K for his prayers, and with the the closest thing we can see to a rebuke being that of a giving him an "apostolic blessing," while giving him a church funeral, which canon law forbids for notorious public sinners
Quite so. It's called scandal and it's plagued the Church since the beginning. See the Gospel accounts of Judas' betrayal and Paul's complaints about those who had abandoned him.
....thus Rome apparently did not judge such as being one who departed from the faith.
"Rome" doesn't decide who gets a Catholic funeral. That responsibility rests with the deceased's bishop.
Or does that mean he would have had to leave Rome and perhaps become a conservative evangelical? No doubt then real concern for his soul would be manifest.
Silly.
So that must be what allows you to converse with such as me, despite what some past teaching said
If you read the "past teaching" in its entirety and think about its purpose you'll see that my conversing with you is entirely consistent with it.
....but the point here is that we see variant interpretations on this matter.....
Yeah..... rather like the multitude of Protestants interpretations of the Bible.......ROFL!!
....while you make made the teaching of Dr. Aquinas determinative on this matter, and thus perhaps we should expect you to affirm something else he said on this subject: On the other hand, there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfil what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received".
No, I don't think so. Aquinas advocated capital punishment for heretics while St. Jerome suggested that Arius and his sons should have been exterminated before their contagion spread. Easy to judge their 13th century (and earlier) ideas by our modern lights. Societies were extremely fragile and libraries, professional schools and universities, were still relatively new institutions frequented only by a few. Heresy was considered to be the principal threat to civil and social order, so it's no surprise that Aquinas advocated drastic solutions to it.
Is there an overarching point in your diffuse, rambling, stream-of-consciousness screed? I'm missing it.
No: you are still missing what i said, which was what was quoted did t spell out the distinction btwn the two kinds of heresy, which would provide any exception clause to the prohibition against praying with heretics. You quoted Augustine as making that but he simply excludes as heretics those who who do not defend their false and perverse opinions with pertinacious zeal, esp. due to ignorance they are not culpable of. Nor does Aquinas in the quote you provided, as he just defines heretics as being unbelievers who have forsaken the faith they once received, either by corrupting the faith, as heretics, or by entirely renouncing the faith, as apostates, which are lumped together as being souls which the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with, not making the distinction between formal and material heresy there.
The only other souls he speaks of are "unbelievers, who have not in any way received the Christian faith," not the material heretic like a Prot who ignorantly believes something to be true church doctrine when in fact is not. Such is not said to be a heretic by Augustine, while as one who corrupted the . faith then a RC is not to communicate with such.
I am not saying the distinction cannot be made or is unreasonable, just as there are degrees of sin, but the commands against praying with "heretics" did not make exceptions for a lesser class of which, not the quotes provided make that distinctions, but define a heretic as a formal one.
I think you mean open to interpretation. "Interpretive" means explanatory or providing interpretation of something needing clarification.
You are correct. Thanks.
Indeed it is open to interpretation. The same is true of most any law, religious or secular.
It is the degree of which, despite many RCs conveying denial of such.
Quite so. It's called scandal and it's plagued the Church since the beginning. See the Gospel accounts of Judas' betrayal and Paul's complaints about those who had abandoned him.
You are more honest than some of your compatriots, yet a pope cannot be corrected under the threat of excommunication.
"Rome" doesn't decide who gets a Catholic funeral. That responsibility rests with the deceased's bishop.
Not quite, as the local is answerable to Rome which does get to decide to correct the decisions of those it delegates. Silence, and continued Silence, is implicit sanction.
Silly.
Not at all. If Teddy K became a conservative evangelical then i am quite sure we would have seen more calls for prayer for his conversion, to come "home."
If you read the "past teaching" in its entirety and think about its purpose you'll see that my conversing with you is entirely consistent with it.
That depends on who you are reading. V2 thought it was entirely consistent with the past.
Yeah..... rather like the multitude of Protestants interpretations of the Bible.......ROFL!!
Irrelevant, as i am not preaching one true church, nor denying variations of beliefs in all that is called Protestantism, but while RCs condemn ascertaining the veracity of teaching by examination of the Scriptures (if the conclusions are not in support of Rome), many do likewise by judging what is binding Cath teaching based upon their interpretation of past teaching, and thus reject aspects of V2 and other modern teaching.
Aquinas advocated capital punishment for heretics while St. Jerome suggested that Arius and his sons should have been exterminated before their contagion spread.
It was not just Aquinas and Jerome who did so, but the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council and which Pope "Innocent IV" fostered.
Easy to judge their 13th century (and earlier) ideas by our modern lights.
Is there an overarching point in your diffuse, rambling, stream-of-consciousness screed? I'm missing it.
I think that has become obvious, since my first sentence to you here was in response to your statement, "Saying a prayer with a non-Catholic has never been proscribed has it?" To which i said That depends on what you consider to be official church teaching, at least today, and listed commands not to pray with heretics (or schismatics), which did not provide for an exception for mere material heretics.
But your response was to raise the distinction between formal and material heresy, which neither Augustine nor Aquinas made manifest they were making, instead excluding as heretics those teachable souls who do not defend their false and perverse opinions with pertinacious zeal, esp. as ignorant, or defining heretics as unbelievers who have forsaken the faith they once received, either by corrupting the faith, as heretics, or by entirely renouncing the faith. Neither mentioned as being heretics such souls as Prots who hold to Christian faith but ignorantly believe some error, nor do the commands against praying with "heretics" make exceptions for a lesser class of which.
But another reason for my responses is to provide another example of how often RC teaching is open to interpretation, in contrast to those RCs who promote the idea that the magisterium is the answer to that problem.
And another reason is to pick your mind, as i do tend to like theological discussion and debate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.