Uncomfortable Catholic Doctrines

[mortify]

These quotes are uncomfortable to our modern ears being that most of us have unconsciously adopted a secular humanistic worldview -- myself included -- which may or may not be a bad thing depending on one's perspective. I meditate on these and wonder in amazement how much we have changed and just how progressive the Second Vatican Council was. Anyway, please feel free to add your own "uncomfortable doctrines" to be meditated upon.

 

 

Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441

"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

 

Pope Leo XII, Encyclical Ubi Primum:

"It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members. For we have a surer word of the prophet, and in writing to you We speak wisdom among the perfect; not the wisdom of this world but the wisdom of God in a mystery. By it we are taught, and by divine faith we hold, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church… For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: 'If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.'"

 

Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Liberatas:

"Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness-namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engravers upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they would provide - as they should do - with prudence and usefulness for the good of the community.

 

 

"May Saint John Baptist protect Islam"

 Blessed John Paul II

[mortify]

Do suppose that statement by Pope Eugene IV would harm our "dialogue" with Jews and Protestants?

[4588686]

You're edgy.  That's hot.  We should hang out, lol.  

Edited April 5, 2013 by Hasan

[the171]

http://youtu.be/RmwqnqL3Hbg

[CatholicCid]

One of the more "uncomfortable" truths of the Catholic Faith, for some, seem to be the use of the royal "we" in such doctrines. It is that reminder that the Pontiff speaks not only for himself, but also with his predecessors. What we read here from Eugene IV, Leo XII, and Leo XIII is in agreement with Peter himself and, as such, with Jesus Christ Himself. What they state in these documents is simply a clearer and more thoroughly developed understanding of Catholic doctrine. We must not forget, however, that, even if no longer used, that royal "we" still applies, even today. What is said in Cantate Domino is in harmony with, say, the documents of Vatican II (e.g. Ad Gentes). As uncomfortable as it might seem for some, there is no conflict. All of these documents do profess the one Catholic faith.

[Nola Seminarian]

We are to obey the current magisterium, meaning, what is Vatican II's understanding of these issues, Bl John Paul's, Benedict XVI's, most importantly, Francis' and the other bishops?

[KnightofChrist]

One of the more "uncomfortable" truths of the Catholic Faith, for some, seem to be the use of the royal "we" in such doctrines. It is that reminder that the Pontiff speaks not only for himself, but also with his predecessors. What we read here from Eugene IV, Leo XII, and Leo XIII is in agreement with Peter himself and, as such, with Jesus Christ Himself. What they state in these documents is simply a clearer and more thoroughly developed understanding of Catholic doctrine. We must not forget, however, that, even if no longer used, that royal "we" still applies, even today. What is said in Cantate Domino is in harmony with, say, the documents of Vatican II (e.g. Ad Gentes). As uncomfortable as it might seem for some, there is no conflict. All of these documents do profess the one Catholic faith.

 

I would take the position that Vatican II can be interpreted in such a way that Tradition is not violated or contradicted and that can be the only right interpretation. However the problem remains that Vatican II is vague in some areas, this is unfortunate because some take that vagueiness and use it to support religious indifferentism and any number of things that contradict what the Church has always taught.

[mortify]

What is said in Cantate Domino is in harmony with, say, the documents of Vatican II (e.g. Ad Gentes). As uncomfortable as it might seem for some, there is no conflict. All of these documents do profess the one Catholic faith.

 

I think what you mean to say is that theologically there can be no conflict. The current Magisterium can not contradict the past Magisterium despite there being many apparent contradictions. Pope Benedict XVI's hermentuic of continuity was a plan of harmonizing between past and future. Another hypothesis is that the Second Vatican Council introduced innovations and doctrinal errors which departed from past teaching. This hypothesis was speculated upon back when Catholic theologians like Cajetan were contemplating upon Papal authority and infallibility. Heresy expressed by a Bishop would render him not a non-Bishop, and this would even render the Bishop of Rome an antipope. A third hypothesis is that Vatican II was a development in the right direction albeit cut off shortly, further development is needed to integrate the Chruch with the modern world. This is the Catholicism of Hanz Kung et al.

[mortify]

I would take the position that Vatican II can be interpreted in such a way that Tradition is not violated or contradicted and that can be the only right interpretation. However the problem remains that Vatican II is vague in some areas, this is unfortunate because some take that vagueiness and use it to support religious indifferentism and any number of things that contradict what the Church has always taught.

 

The ambiguity is a concern. What other council needed interpretation in light of tradition? There was no need because its statements were unambiguous and clear expressions of what was already believed.

[Basilisa Marie]

You know what's an uncomfortable truth? 

 

Doctrine evolves. 

 

 

[CatholicCid]

I would take the position that Vatican II can be interpreted in such a way that Tradition is not violated or contradicted and that can be the only right interpretation. However the problem remains that Vatican II is vague in some areas, this is unfortunate because some take that vagueiness and use it to support religious indifferentism and any number of things that contradict what the Church has always taught.

 

And that would be a misinterpretation of Vatican II. Vatican II can not only be interpreted in such a way that Tradition is not violated or contradicted, that is exactly how it is to be interpreted.

 

This would be part of that "uncomfortable' truth that, as more documents produce a more thorough understanding of doctrine over time, that progression does not invalidate past doctrine, but simply build upon that very doctrine. It is the hermeneutic of continuity that we hear about so often.

[mortify]

You know what's an uncomfortable truth? 

 

Doctrine evolves. 

 

I thought that was heresy?

 

At least in the past it was heresy :unsure:

[mortify]

And that would be a misinterpretation of Vatican II. Vatican II can not only be interpreted in such a way that Tradition is not violated or contradicted, that is exactly how it is to be interpreted.

 

This would be part of that "uncomfortable' truth that, as more documents produce a more thorough understanding of doctrine over time, that progression does not invalidate past doctrine, but simply build upon that very doctrine. It is the hermeneutic of continuity that we hear about so often.

 

Is the following statement heretical:

 

"May Saint John Baptist protect Islam"

Edited April 5, 2013 by mortify

[Basilisa Marie]

I thought that was heresy?

 

At least in the past it was heresy :unsure:

 

Nope.

 

By "doctrine evolves" I affirm that the Catholic Church has the fullest deposit of revelation.  I affirm that there are some things that cannot change (Christ is human and divine. Apostolic Succession is a legit thing. Mary's the theotokos.).  

 

But how we express those truths changes.  The statement "anyone who isn't a baptized and practicing Catholic is going straight to hell" is not infallible.  The truths behind it, "Christ is necessary for salvation" and "The Catholic Church has the full deposit of faith from Christ and is the true Church" are unchanging and infallible.  At one time, people would (rightly) think that you were denying the necessity of Christ for salvation if you said something like it's possible for Jews or non-Catholics to go to Heaven without first becoming Catholic because God is merciful and God's power is not limited to the sacraments (even though sacraments are sure means of God's work, which is one reason why they're so important).  But nowadays I can say something like that without denying the necessity of Christ for salvation.

 

It's like how saying the loss of the papal states was a good thing was an excommunicable offense at one point, not because the loss of the papal states was so bad, but because of what that implied. I can say it worked out for the best, because I have the luxury of history and can say so without denying the goodness of the Church and all that goes with it. 

Edited April 5, 2013 by Basilisa Marie

[CatholicCid]

Is the following statement heretical:

 

"May Saint John Baptist protect Islam"

Given that it is not a doctrinal statement, it seems irrelevant to make such a judgment in this topic.