From: MX%"ximenez@us.itd.umich.edu" 26-JUN-1995
To:   MX%"nemo@ludens.elte.hu"
Subj: Re: Peter and Paul: Galatians 2

You wrote:

: My opinion

ie.: My heretical, obstinate, filthy Protestant opinion

: after reading THE CHURCH TEACHES, Tan Books and Publishers,
: (first edition in 1955,

containing the everlasting, holy, precious doctrine of The Church,

: the second in 1973, after the IInd Vatican Council
: but never quoting from it)

which seems to me as a sign of the ultra-conservative wing of the Catholic
Church desperately striving to dismiss the spirit of the Council
by constantly quoting ancient "anathema"s on the dissenting opinion,
which has been trampled down a thousand times, but this is not enough
for the Jesuit Fathers of St Mary's College who committed this
compilation of Church doctrines. A very selective compilation. An example:
The most embarrassing sentences from Boniface VII's Unam Sanctam (1302)
about the two swords are omitted, so I can quote them only from the least
reliable book of Peter the Rosa "The dark side of papacy" that:
WHOEVER DENIES THAT THE EARTHLY SWORD IS AT PETER'S DISPOSAL DISTORTS THE
LORD'S WORDS "THRUST YOUR SWORD BACK INTO ITS SCABBARD".

: that papal infallability is DEFINITELY NOT
: a label which indicates the truth value (100%) of a certain statement
: if enclosed to it

ie. it isn't a guarantee label which equates the statement pronounced with
its accompaniment with the divinely inspired Word, although outwardly it
can seem so to the untrained hearer

: but a Jolly Joker, which substitutes arguments and
: demands external and internal obedience.

In other words, it's a loud shout "SHUT UP!! I AM RIGHT!!"

: My opinion is that it has a role
: in accountability, too.

Accountability, maybe it wasn't the proper word. I wanted to say
"taking the responsibility for what is being pronounced".
Or more fittingly:

: If it isn't enclosed to a bull, pronouncement, etc.
: then it can be altered without the Pope's authority being shaken.

So its absence is equal to NOT taking the responsibility for what
is being said.

: See Galilei. He was acquitted in 1992, as far as I know.

Galilei was condemned but not in an infallible decision. So papacy
can get up from the ground and begin to say "I didn't err as the teacher
of the entire Church but only as a single priest or politician".

>  I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here...could you
>explain further?

>  thanks,

I didn't want to cause quarrelling. My intention was to share my
imbalanced Protestant view on the topic. I hope I didn't hurt you.

              God bless you
                                         Ferenc Nemeth
--------------------------------------------------------------------

}yes, my heretical, obstinate, filthy Protestant opinion

>  If you think your opinions are so bad, you should become Catholic B-)

>Seriously, the Church is quite clear that Protestants are practicing a
>valid form of Christianity.

It isn't. Protestants usually reject the Immaculate Conception of Mary,
and behold, the bull Ineffabilis Deus (1854) proclaims:

  "If, therefore, any shall obstinately maintain a contrary opinion to
  that We have defined (God forbid that they do so), let them fully realize
  that they stand condemned by their own judgment, that they have made
  shipwreck of their faith, that they have departed from the union with
  the Church."

Protestants deny the pope's primacy, while the First Vatican Council
roars:

  "And so, if anyone says the Roman Pontiff has only the office of
  inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of
  jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters that pertain to
  faith and morals, but also in matters that pertain to the discipline and
  government of the Church throughout the whole world; or if anyone says
  that he has only a more important part and not the complete fullness
  of this supreme power; or if anyone says that this power is not ordinary
  and immediate either over each and every shepherd and faithful member:
  let him be anathema."

We don't accept the transsubstantiation, but we are hammered with
the decree of the Council of Trent:

  "If anyone denies that the body and blood, together with the soul and
  divinity, of our Lord Jesus Chris and, therefore, the whole Christ
  is truly, really and substantially contained in the sacrament of the
  most holy Eucharist, but says that Christ is present in the Sacrament
  only as a sign or figure, or by his power: let him be anathema."

Looking at these fierce-spoken dogmas, the cautious manoeuvres of the Second
Vatican Council (Unitatis Redintegratio I.3) seem ridiculously powerless:

  "But those who are in these [separated - FN] communities due to their
  birth nowadays, and partake of Christ's faith through these communities,
  cannot be blamed for the guilt of dissention. The catholic church
  embraces them onto her heart with brotherly respect and love."
                            (Translation from Hungarian)

My opinion: for the unity's sake the Catholic Church ought to deny the
declarations falling into the first category (mountains of "anathema")
publicly. But it would hurt, I have to admit.

}The most embarrassing sentences from Boniface VII's Unam Sanctam (1302)
}about the two swords are omitted, so I can quote them only from the least
}reliable book of Peter the Rosa "The dark side of papacy" that:
}WHOEVER DENIES THAT THE EARTHLY SWORD IS AT PETER'S DISPOSAL DISTORTS THE
}LORD'S WORDS "THRUST YOUR SWORD BACK INTO ITS SCABBARD".

>I checked out the full text of Unam Sanctam, and it is saying
>that the Pope, as head of the church, has ultimate authority over even
>temporal rulers.  I admit that this statement hasn't been altered, and I
>accept it as true.  But it doesn't have a lot to do with Papal infallibility.

I didn't say it has. It was an example to show how selective THE CHURCH
TEACHES is. In the introduction the "hierocratic theory" is mentioned,
and the fact that it isn't a dogmatic definition in this extreme form.
And the book omits a very important part of the proving procedure!
That was my point.

}In other words, it's a loud shout "SHUT UP!! I AM RIGHT!!"

>  An infallible statement is much more than a shout...before any Pope
>says anything (much less something infallible), years of research into
>the history and issues surrounding a document takes place.  Hundreds
>of people are directly involved, and one of the criteria for
>infallibility is that a teaching must already be accepted as true by
>the vast majority of Catholics (that's one of the reasons that the
>forbidding of birth control isn't an infallible teaching).

You are wrong concerning the theory. The pope isn't obliged to do so.
The First Vatican Council clearly states:

  "The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, acting
  in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines,
  by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, doctrine concerning faith
  or morals to be held by the universal Church, possesses through the divine
  assistance promised to him in the person of St. Peter, the infallability
  with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed in defining
  doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that such definitions of the
  Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable because of their nature, but
  NOT BECAUSE OF THE AGREEMENT OF THE CHURCH."

}: My opinion is that it has a role in accountability, too.
}
}Accountability, maybe it wasn't the proper word. I wanted to say
}"taking the responsibility for what is being pronounced".
}Or more fittingly:
}
}: If it isn't enclosed to a bull, pronouncement, etc.
}: then it can be altered without the Pope's authority being shaken.
}
}So its ABSENCE is equal to NOT taking the responsibility for what
}is being said.

>  I see what you're saying here..."accountability" was the right word, but
>my obtuseness exists even in English.
>  To me, it seems obvious that the Pope isn't going to be right all the time.
>But still, decisions need to be made, and the Pope is the person who makes
>them.  There's nothing wrong with looking back later and saying, "this is
>a mistake."  The Church is still accountable for those decisions, and has to
>examine their effects.  (The Church acknowledged its guilt in the genocide
>of Native Americans not too long ago...Christians everywhere committed
>terrible sins, and the Church is still accountable for those actions.)  But
>there still has to be room to change.

I am glad to hear your opinion being different from the declarations
quoted above. But I simply cannot get rid of the feeling that the apparent
purification of the Church doesn't come from the conviction "Ecclesiam
semper reformanda" but rather a reluctant action in order to avoid
becoming an institute that survived itself in all respects. With great
sorrow and pity do I view this grandiose agony. My sarcasm is directed
against those who don't let the stale and rotten dogmas expire silently,
but shout them all day long, getting in the way of the only possible
realization of the reforms.

}>  I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here...could you
}>explain further?
}
}I didn't want to cause quarrelling. My intention was to share my imbalanced
}Protestant view on the topic. I hope I didn't hurt you.

>B-)  No, I wasn't hurt...although I was a bit confused at times.
>I understand the statements you're making now, but I don't understand
>whether you're making fun of yourself, or of me, when you talk about how
>imbalanced your Protestant views are.

I am 21 years old. I simply cannot find another way to express my
indignation when it comes to the subjects discussed above.
Surely it is more polite than mocking the Catholics with nasty expressions.

>Alan Terlep
>ximenez@umich.edu

God bless you
                   Ferenc Nemeth
----------------------------------------------------------------

}I didn't say it has. It was an example to show how selective THE CHURCH
}TEACHES is. In the introduction the "hierocratic theory" is mentioned,
}and the fact that it isn't a dogmatic definition in this extreme form.
}And the book omits a very important part of the proving procedure!
}That was my point.

  Oh, I see...I haven't read "The Church Teaches," so I won't make any effort
to defend it.

[...] ld.uo.

}I am glad to hear your opinion being different from the declarations
}quoted above. But I simply cannot get rid of the feeling that the apparent
}purification of the Church doesn't come from the conviction "Ecclesiam
}semper reformanda" but rather a reluctant action in order to avoid
}becoming an institute that survived itself in all respects.

  It might be a bit of both.  It's true that the Catholic Church is
resistant to change.  On the other hand, Catholic attitudes toward
non-Catholics have definitely become much more accepting.  The
hierarchy hasn't wanted to do everything mandated by Vatican II, but
they've definitely worked on ecumenical issues.

[...]

}I am 21 years old. I simply cannot find another way to express my
}indignation when it comes to the subjects discussed above.
}Surely it is more polite than mocking the Catholics with nasty expressions.

  Yes, I can see that.  B-)

Peace,

Alan Terlep
----------------------------------------------------------
You wrote:

}  "If, therefore, any shall obstinately maintain a contrary opinion to
}  that We have defined (God forbid that they do so), let them fully realize
}  that they stand condemned by their own judgment, that they have made
}  shipwreck of their faith, that they have departed from the union with
}  the Church."

/  The WWW site from which I get Vatican II files is down, so I can't bring
/up exact quotes right now.
/  However, Lumen Gentium says that non-Catholic Christians receive God's
/grace from the sacraments they practice.  Even the Council of Trent said
/that baptism was valid even when performed by a Protestant minister.
/In Catholic theology, a valid baptism permanently bestows grace upon the
/person who receives it.  If a Protestant can perform a baptism, then that
/Protestant is not cut off from God.

It's very nice and convincing, but it proves only that historical development
can bring about big departures from what was being taught before,
and that completely contradictory statements can live together in the
same Church, if one of them is politely neglected (yet not denied).

"Anathema" is attached to the end of many pronouncements without the subtle
qualification of its scope of effect. Yet Vatican II implies that it
confines one's relationship with the Church but doesn't annul it wholly.
This tolerant tone wouldn't have been imaginable in the 20's, when the
Protestant oecumenical movement began.

/  You might also want to investigate the Feeneyist heresy of the 1940's.
/Feeney was an American priest who insisted that only Catholics could be
/saved, and was excommunicated as a result.
/  Certainly Protestants are not really "in union" with the Church.  But it
/is a requirement of Catholic belief to acknowledge that they are still
/saved because they acknowledge the Savior, Jesus Christ.

Again, the Unam Sanctam is very clear when saying the opposite.
Either Boniface was exaggerating then, or today's Catholic Church
shouldn't make attempts at restoring unity while not stressing this bull.

}My opinion: for the unity's sake the Catholic Church ought to deny the
}declarations falling into the first category (mountains of "anathema")
}publicly. But it would hurt, I have to admit.

/  That is, to me, a bit ridiculous.  Why not tell the Baptists to accept
/infant baptism, or Calvinists to accept free will?  Catholicism has a
/specific set of beliefs, just as all Christian denominations do.  Why
/should Catholicism be forced to deny its beliefs?

You are right. I should have written "some declarations".

}You are wrong concerning the theory. The pope isn't obliged to do so.
}The First Vatican Council clearly states:
}
}  [When the Pope speaks "ex cathedra," the decisions of the]
}  Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable because of their nature, but
}  NOT BECAUSE OF THE AGREEMENT OF THE CHURCH."

/  Catholicism has a concept of the *sensus fidei*, the gift of
/discernment given to all the faithful.  The Pope can't make a decision
/that goes counter to the *sensus fidei*.  The language of Vatican I is
/true, in the sense that if the church later changed, the Papal
/doctrine would remain true.

Yet popes speak to their present flock, not for eternity. They demand
obedience, and not the attention of the church historians who study the
evolution of dogmas.

On the other hand, the statement of Vatican I is built up somehow like that:

1. "First draft", on which there was no vote, according to The Church
Teaches:

The Church is the mystical body of Christ
Outside this society there is no true religion of Christ
The Church is a perfect society
The Church is a visible society
The Church is infallible
The Church is indefectible

2. And the final version is built up in an utterly different way:

Apostolic primacy in St Peter
It is continued in the Roman Pontiffs
The nature of the primacy
His infallible teaching authority

The logic of the construction seems to point at papal infallability
as the major issue. Everything moves towards this goal: "The pope is..."
As I can read, nothing is said about "sensus fidei".
This implies that papal infallability is stronger than this concept.

Or how do you want to reconcile these ones? Maybe like this:

When the Pope speaks ex cathedra, his decisions are therefore
irreformable because of their nature, including their accordance with
sensus fidei - the gift of discernment given to all the faithful - but
NOT BECAUSE OF THE AGREEMENT OF THE CHURCH.

/  I think that the evidence bears me out--the only infallible
/statements made were both about doctrinal issues that had both long
/been accepted by pretty much everyone in the Church.
/  (Even Luther believed in the Immaculate Conception).

True, if you mean by "Church" those who petitioned for the Assumption
before 1950. The Church really believed in papal infallability if you
exclude those German theologians who were condemned for their contrary
opinion after 1870.

OTOH, I knew that Luther believed in her perpetual virginity. But the
Immaculate Conception? It sounds weird to me. If true - thanks.

/There has been a lot of
/pressure on the Pope from conservatives to make other ex cathedra
/statements, and the Popes have consistently refused to do so.

For example, Paul VI was expected to issue an infallible teaching on
abortion etc. in 1968, but he simply didn't dare to face this great
responsibility. In my opinion, the reason for this is quite simple:
disbelief in the Marian dogmas can be concealed, that is, banned
to the high-flighted level of theologians, while eg. artificial insemination
or abortion becomes more and more a social question than a moral one.
In moral terms (as people understand morality: "don't murder" etc.) almost
everyone accepts the pope's ideas eg. about war. But when it comes to those
issues that closely affect one's personal affairs (mentioned above), then
MUCH of the Catholics refuses to obey the pope. He, in turn, recognizes the
danger of remaining alone and becoming a living fossil, so he maintains the
opportunity of changing his mind without obviously contradicting himself.
That's my theory for what you said.

}My sarcasm is directed against those who don't let the stale and rotten dogmas
}expire silently, but shout them all day long, getting in the way of the only
}possible realization of the reforms.

/  What stale and rotten dogmas are you complaining about?
/Transubstantiation?  Papal infallibility?  If you're talking more
/about the attitude that Catholicism is the truth, I don't know...it
/would depend on what kind of change you wanted to make.

I call those statements stale which are too aggressive towards other
Christian denominations in their constant efforts to prevent Catholics
from leaving the Mother Church (mostly after Trent).

God bless you.
                     Ferenc Nemeth