Do There Exist "enemies Of The Church"?

[mortify ii]

Ha Basalisa you beat me to it!

Mortify I'm so glad you're not associated with Jew or synagogue bashing. The phrase "synagogue of satan" isn't used very much, except by radical traditionalists and the like, for that purpose. So to avoid confusion I would encourage you to choose different terms in the future.

 

Actually you suggested I was referring to a racist piece of literature when I was simply using a phrase from scripture. Why your first instinct was to think I was referring to a racist book and not Holy Writ, I do not know  :unsure:

[Perigrina]

There are a ton of examples, but I feel I'm being hypocritical in doing a document dump. If you're confused about the Church's acceptance of democracy as legitimate I'd refer you to Centesimus Annus, which again I don't really want to reproduce.

If you're unaware of the tremendous earthquake this development of doctrine caused in Catholic theology - if you don't know the bitter history of how this issue came to be addressed at the Council, with the parties fighting tooth and nail over the development you believe never occurred - If you can't see the revolution in approach when comparing these words to those of the 19th century reaction - I don't know what to tell you.

Since the "document dump" was quoting the document that I previously linked to and recommended as essential reading for discussing this topic, I'm not sure what your point was. Anyhow, I will address your other comments.

 

I have not questioned that the Church teaches that democracy can be a legitimate form of government.  You claimed that the Church teaches that democracy is important.  I do not see how you get this idea from Church teaching.  I cannot think of anything that suggests that.

 

This is how I would summarize Church teaching on democracy:  Democracy at its best is a good form of government.  In practice, democracy often has serious flaws that need to be changed in order for it to achieve its ideal form.
 

Nor have I denied that there has been development in doctrine.  I fairly explicitly affirmed its existence.  What I denied is that the basic principles of Catholic doctrine can change. 

 

Pope Benedict, reflecting on the 40th anniversary of the Council, gave some important guidelines on how to interpret it in this address: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia_en.html

 

The question arises:  Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult?

 

Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or - as we would say today - on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarrelled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.

 

On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call "a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture"; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the "hermeneutic of reform", of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.

 

The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless. However, the true spirit of the Council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts.

 

I recommend that people read the entire passage.  Later in it Pope Benedict explicitly addresses how we should understand the Council's teaching on religious freedom among other things:

 

These are all subjects of great importance - they were the great themes of the second part of the Council - on which it is impossible to reflect more broadly in this context. It is clear that in all these sectors, which all together form a single problem, some kind of discontinuity might emerge. Indeed, a discontinuity had been revealed but in which, after the various distinctions between concrete historical situations and their requirements had been made, the continuity of principles proved not to have been abandoned. It is easy to miss this fact at a first glance.

 

It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.

On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change.

Basic decisions, therefore, continue to be well-grounded, whereas the way they are applied to new contexts can change. Thus, for example, if religious freedom were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth and thus become a canonization of relativism, then this social and historical necessity is raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning. Consequently, it cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge.

 

It is quite different, on the other hand, to perceive religious freedom as a need that derives from human coexistence, or indeed, as an intrinsic consequence of the truth that cannot be externally imposed but that the person must adopt only through the process of conviction.

 

The passage continues and is all worth reading, but I wish to focus on the need to make distinctions between contingent circumstances and unchanging basic principles.  We need to think in terms of continuity rather than of rupture.  Even using the word "revolution" as you have above is problematic in light of this principle.  

[Credo in Deum]

 

Seriously. Better a Church Father(s), Doctor(s), Pope(s), or Saint's words, than my own.

 

 

[mortify ii]

Democracy is a poor form of government according to Aristotle

[Lilllabettt]

Women are made to be ruled according to Aristotle. 

[MIKolbe]

He was also a cubs fan...

 

so yeah.

[Credo in Deum]

I thought he was a Tennessee Titans fan?   

 

 

[mortify ii]

Women are made to be ruled according to Aristotle.

Source?

[MIKolbe]

I think she's saying the source was Aristotle...

[PhuturePriest]

Women are made to be ruled according to Aristotle. 

 

He was right: they are.

Women as well as men are made to be ruled by God.

 

Bazinga.

[mortify ii]

I think she's saying the source was Aristotle...

Yea I got that much, meant where in his writing

[MIKolbe]

iono.. you might wanna try a library

[PhuturePriest]

There is only one enemy of the Church, and his username is MIkolbe.

[arfink]

I think the poll is disingenuous because it asks me to name who I think is an enemy of the Church. Firstly, I do not read souls, and even if I did, I do not think it would be prudent to call the Church's enemies by name. Secondly, I don't exactly see how we should have such deep concern over who are enemies of the Church, as we have been promised by God that the Church will not be prevailed against even by Satan himself.

 

Now Nihil, I'm aware that you've shared your concerns about a pope preaching heresy and all that. And it's a fine hypothetical, which depending on the amount of trad blogs you read could be more or less plausible. But honestly, why should ordinary lay people be concerned over it? We will get no say in these matters, ever. The best we can ever hope for is to approach the judgement seat and account for ourselves, which is hard enough as it is without casting aspersions on anyone by pondering who the Church's enemies are.

[Perigrina]

Now Nihil, I'm aware that you've shared your concerns about a pope preaching heresy and all that. And it's a fine hypothetical, which depending on the amount of trad blogs you read could be more or less plausible. But honestly, why should ordinary lay people be concerned over it? We will get no say in these matters, ever. The best we can ever hope for is to approach the judgement seat and account for ourselves, which is hard enough as it is without casting aspersions on anyone by pondering who the Church's enemies are.

 

 

I don't know much about what has happened on this phorum before I got here, but there was nothing in this thread about the possibility of a pope preaching heresy.  I cannot see how such a topic would even be relevant to anything that anyone posted in this thread.  From my perspective as a new person, this looks like something you dragged in to make Nihil look bad.

[Nihil Obstat]

How is our discussion over whether or not a pope could attempt to teach heresy remotely relevant in this thread?
I do not find the poll disingenuous in the least. The Church Herself has referred to enemies in the past. I am curious if the membership here still considers such references to obtain.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Nihil Obstat

[Lilllabettt]

she has enemies within her and friends outside her.

[Didacus]

Just replied to the poll.

 

Yes, there are individuals and groups who are ennemies of the Church.

 

Those who are damned were ennemies of the Churchf and remain so in hell to my understanding.  The saints tell us that no one is damned alone, thus they certainly exist in groups as well.

 

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

she has enemies within her and friends outside her.

Indeed. Many, many enemies inside. I am sure it causes our Lord great anguish.

[mortify ii]

"We come to you grieving and sorrowful because We know that you are concerned for the faith in these difficult times... We speak of the things which you see with your own eyes, which We both bemoan. Depravity exults; science is impudent; liberty, dissolute. The holiness of the sacred is despised; the majesty of divine worship is not only disapproved by evil men, but defiled and held up to ridicule. Hence sound doctrine is perverted and errors of all kinds spread boldly. The laws of the sacred, the rights, institutions, and discipline -- none are safe from the audacity of those speaking evil. Our Roman See is harassed violently and the bonds of unity are daily loosened and severed. The divine authority of the Church is opposed and her rights shorn off. She is subjected to human reason and with the greatest injustice exposed to the hatred of the people and reduced to vile servitude. The obedience due bishops is denied and their rights are trampled underfoot. Furthermore, academies and schools resound with new, monstrous opinions, which openly attack the Catholic faith; this horrible and nefarious war is openly and even publicly waged. Thus, by institutions and by the example of teachers, the minds of the youth are corrupted and a tremendous blow is dealt to religion and the perversion of morals is spread. So the restraints of religion are thrown off, by which alone kingdoms stand. We see the destruction of public order, the fall of principalities, and the overturning of all legitimate power approaching. Indeed this great mass of calamities had its inception in the heretical societies and sects in which all that is sacrilegious, infamous, and blasphemous has gathered as bilge water in a ship's hold, a congealed mass of all filth"

 

Mirari Vos, Pope Gregory XVI

 

 

No dear Holy Father, you were mistaken about liberty of conscience and freedom to publish! These are wonderful things that your later successors would uphold!