Do There Exist "enemies Of The Church"?

[brandelynmarie]

I'm even wondering about the UN now, especially most recently after they asked the Church to change Its moral teachings on abortion :think:

[Credo in Deum]

 

Disagree.

 

en·e·my

noun \ˈe-nə-mē\

: someone who hates another : someone who attacks or tries to harm another.  

: something that harms or threatens someone or something

: a group of people (such as a nation) against whom another group is fighting a war

 

How is sinning hateful of the Church?  How is it an attack on the Church?

 

 

: someone who hates another : someone who attacks or tries to harm another.  

 

Christ says if we love Him then we will keep His commandments.   When we sin, especially mortal sin, how are we loving Christ? If we are not loving Christ than how can we be said to love the Church when it is Christ's mystical body?  Are you saying Christ and the Church are separate?  Also as Christ said"He who is not with Me, is against Me".  Sin opposes God and is the real enemy of the Church. 

 

: something that harms or threatens someone or something:  

 

Sin harms everyone as Adam and Eve have proven to us.  Sins by professed Catholics harm the Church more than the actions of outsiders.  When commenting on the sex abuse caused by priests Pope Benedict XVI stated: ""Today we see in a truly terrifying way that the greatest persecution of the Church does not come from enemies on the outside, but is born of the sin within the Church,"

 

Out of all of the people who persecuted Christ during His passion, which one do you think hurt His Sacred Heart the most?  Do you think it was the Pharisees, Romans, Pagans, etc?  Or, do you think it was His apostle, Judas?  

[Maggyie]

Nihil, I'll bite. I don't think that's the case. I don't think secularism is necessarily an enemy of the church, either. To be an enemy implies active hostility. When boiled down to its foundation, I don't think the government is hostile to the church, just indifferent. And unhelpful.

[Nihil Obstat]

Nihil, I'll bite. I don't think that's the case. I don't think secularism is necessarily an enemy of the church, either. To be an enemy implies active hostility. When boiled down to its foundation, I don't think the government is hostile to the church, just indifferent. And unhelpful.

With regards to secularism specifically, what about previous condemnations of the popes? They usually attack secularism in the harshest possible terms, as being directly against the social reign of Christ the King.

[Perigrina]

Nihil, I'll bite. I don't think that's the case. I don't think secularism is necessarily an enemy of the church, either. To be an enemy implies active hostility. When boiled down to its foundation, I don't think the government is hostile to the church, just indifferent. And unhelpful.

 

 

I think that it is a matter of hostility when it comes to individuals, but of opposition to Church teaching when it comes to institutions or ideologies.

[Maggyie]

With regards to secularism specifically, what about previous condemnations of the popes? They usually attack secularism in the harshest possible terms, as being directly against the social reign of Christ the King.

I think it depends on what is meant by secularism and the social reign of Christ. Previous popes thought freedom of religion was a huge threat but over time doctrine has developed to greatly favor it. To me there's a difference between a Catholic state and having Christ reign in society. In fact his reign may be more glorious in an officially secular state. Just my opinion.

[Nihil Obstat]

33. To wish the Church to be subject to the civil power in the exercise of her duty is a great folly and a sheer injustice. Whenever this is the case, order is disturbed, for things natural are put above things supernatural; the many benefits which the Church, if free to act, would confer on society are either prevented or at least lessened in number; and a way is prepared for enmities and contentions between the two powers, with how evil result to both the issue of events has taught us only too frequently.

34. Doctrines such as these, which cannot be approved by human reason, and most seriously affect the whole civil order, Our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs (well aware of what their apostolic office required of them) have never allowed to pass uncondemned. Thus, Gregory XVI in his encyclical letter Mirari Vos, dated August 15, 1832, inveighed with weighty words against the sophisms which even at his time were being publicly inculcated-namely, that no preference should be shown for any particular form of worship; that it is right for individuals to form their own personal judgments about religion; that each man's conscience is his sole and all-sufficing guide; and that it is lawful for every man to publish his own views, whatever they may be, and even to conspire against the State. On the question of the separation of Church and State the same Pontiff writes as follows: "Nor can We hope for happier results either for religion or for the civil government from the wishes of those who desire that the Church be separated from the State, and the concord between the secular and ecclesiastical authority be dissolved. It is clear that these men, who yearn for a shameless liberty, live in dread of an agreement which has always been fraught with good, and advantageous alike to sacred and civil interests." To the like effect, also, as occasion presented itself, did Pius IX brand publicly many false opinions which were gaining ground, and afterwards ordered them to be condensed in summary form in order that in this sea of error Catholics might have a light which they might safely follow.(22)

 

Immortale Dei, Leo XIII

[Maggyie]

Yeah yeah. But again doctrine develops. This is not really reflective of the Church's current emphasis and teaching. Is it.

The Church nowadays embraces and promotes freedom of religion, freedom of the press, primacy of conscience etc. that's THE Church, the one Christ founded and said the gates of hell would not prevail against. I mean I don't want to be too personal here but if you're going to be Catholic you're going to have to get over it. There's no going back.

[chrysostom]

Doctrinal development does not and cannot contradict or be prejudiced against what came before - what was Catholic and true at one point will always remain Catholic and true.  If you're going to say that, let's get some quotes from the other "side" and we can hash it out.  :)

[Nihil Obstat]

"It is necessary, therefore, that understanding, knowledge and wisdom grow and advance strongly and mightily as much in individuals as in the group, as much in one man as in the whole Church, and this gradually according to age and the times; and this must take place precisely within its own kind, that is, in the same teaching, in the same meaning, and in the same opinion."

 

However doctrine develops, it can never contradict that which came before it. That would then not be development but change, and Catholic doctrine cannot change.

[chrysostom]

I'll have another go:

 

If a doctrine is not true now, it was never true.  But the Catholic Church cannot teach falsehood.  So whatever is taught now must be understood without prejudice to previous teachings.

[Maggyie]

Yes yes yes I know the whole thing about how doctrine can not change. Development is kind of a weasel word around that. But the distinction is important I agree.

Im not interested in providing quotes. One thing that really annoys me about the church is that we easily become a Church of Documents where we play dueling document quotes. It's no different than what Protestants do with parsing Scripture. The Lord didn't found a library he founded a church you know.

The quotes are easy to find though. Read the catechism. Read the Second Vatican Council. Sure there's a way to make it all hang together. But do you really have the energy? Smarter people than you or I have done it. I promise they (the bishops, the popes etc) did it at the time the developments happened. That's why things developed the way they did.

So yes "nothing has been changed" (slight eye roll) but the fact remains you can't just post that encyclical from Leo XIII and interpret it yourself. You haven't been gifted by the Holy Spirit in that manner. The valid interpretation of it is the one offered by the Church, which doesn't see it in contradiction to the current teaching emphasis that applauds freedom if conscience, religion, press, democracy etc.

Again if you're taking Leo at face value and you expect the Church to ever go back to a similar interpretation, don't kid yourself.

[Nihil Obstat]

All I expect, and all the Church has ever expected, is that doctrine is held unchangably for all times. Truth is truth.

[Perigrina]

Again if you're taking Leo at face value and you expect the Church to ever go back to a similar interpretation, don't kid yourself.

 

There are a lot of people around who interpret religious liberty in such a way that it supports religious indifferentism.  We know that is wrong.  When recent documents talk about religious liberty, it does not mean what many people think it means.  One way to make sure we are understanding recent documents correctly is to also read older ones.  Any correct understanding is one that is compatible with all the documents.  

[Maggyie]

Augh. This is what I'm talking about. Yes all the documents hang together. It takes A LOT of mental gymnastics but it's possible to make it all work. Especially since most of this stuff is not dogma.

But re-read what you wrote Perigina from the POV of someone unchurched like the majority of people in the western world. Who are these people obsessed with documents? Where does the word document appear in the gospel? If they overheard us chatting would it light a fire under someone to join Document Church? I'm not saying they aren't important but think of this from the outside view I guess. I'm just sick and tired I guess. There's so much navel gazing in the church and parsing. This isn't even a thread about that so I'm sorry.

I mean is this what the church is reduced to? Warming our hearts by listing our documents and our enemies. You'd almost think the Church would cease to exist without these 2 things.

Without a foe to condemn and without documents (and it's best if the documents actually list things to condemn, thereby combining the 2 things. that's the BEST. Syllabus of errors, YUMMY).

Then we have the fantasy where we pretend that clearly the bishops in communion with Peter in Leo's time would have the exact same theological opinions as the bishops of Paul VI's time. If we don't maintain this fantasy the whole edifice of the church will collapse for some people. That's not what the church really says about her doctrine but that's how many of the devout interpret it.

I feel like I totally get when Franciscus talks about the self referential church. Maybe I need to take a break from phatmass and spend more time in my parish. I feel like people in parishes don't get their Christianity from documents as much. Which to be honest is how it always has been in the past - my immigrant grandparents certainly weren't pouring over documents from the 19th century and trying to shove them to make them fit together with new ones. I just can't take the feeling of spiritual deadness of all these "documents! Documents!" conversations. Plus the mental gymnastics and parsing and cognitive dissonance that apparently no one feels but me!