Showing posts with label infallibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label infallibility. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Sola Scriptura Logically & Sufficiently Refuted: by Fr. Damen (SJ, 1837)

The following is an abridged version of Fr. Arnold Damen's talk from 1837 called "The Church or the Bible."

"One cannot have God for his Father, who will not have the Church for his Mother," and likewise one cannot have the Word of God for his faith who will not have the Church for his teacher....lest while reading the Scriptures "they wrest them to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16)

"He that believeth and is Baptized," said the Son of the Living God, "shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned." (Mark 16:16). Here, then, Our Blessed Lord laid down the two conditions of salvation:
1.) Faith
2.) Baptism. 

 ...we must have Divine Faith, not human faith.
What is Divine Faith? It is to believe, upon the authority of God, all the Truths that God has revealed...to believe without doubting, without hesitating.
 Human faith is when we believe a thing upon the authority of men – on human authority. 

You hear it said nowadays in this Nineteenth Century of little faith that it matters not what religion a man professes, providing he be a good man. That is heresy.
If a man is at liberty to reject what God revealeth, what use for Christ to send out His Apostles and disciples to teach all nations, if those nations are at liberty to believe or reject the teachings of the Apostles or disciples?

If God reveals a thing or teaches a thing, He means to be believed.
He wants to be believed whenever He teaches or reveals a thing. Man is bound to believe whatsoever God has revealed... bound to worship God, both with our reason and intellect, as well as with our heart and will.

Man must profess the true religion if he would be saved.
What is the true religion? To believe all that God has taught. I am sure that even my Protestant friends will admit this is right...
"But what is the true Faith?"
"The true Faith," say my Protestant friends, "is to believe in the Lord Jesus."
Agreed, Catholics believe in that. Tell me what you mean by believing in the Lord Jesus?
"Why," says my Protestant friend, "you must believe that he is the Son of the Living God."
Agreed again. Thanks be to God, we can agree on something. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God, that He is God. To this we all agree, excepting the Unitarians and Socinians, but we will leave them alone tonight. If Christ be God, then we must believe all He teaches. Is this not so, my dearly beloved Protestant brethren and sisters? And that's the right Faith, isn't it ?
"Well, yes," says my Protestant friend "I guess that is the right Faith. To believe that Jesus is the Son of the Living God we must believe all that Christ has taught."
Without that Faith there is no salvation, without that Faith there is no hope of Heaven, without that Faith there is eternal damnation! We have the words of Christ for it. "He that believeth not shall be condemned." (Jn 3:18)

If Christ commands me under pain of eternal damnation to believe all that He has taught, He must give me the means to know what He has taught, for Christ could not condemn me for believing a thing I do not know. Christ is a good and just God, loves us and desires our salvation...(1 Tim 2:4)

If, therefore, Christ commands me upon pain of eternal damnation, He is bound to give me the means of knowing what He has taught. And the means Christ gives us of knowing this must have been at all times within the reach of all people.
The means that God gives us to know what He has taught must be a means adapted to the capacities of all intellects – even the dullest. For even those of the dullest of understandings have a right to salvation...
The means that God gives us to know what he has taught must be an infallible means. It must be an infallible means, so that if a man makes use of that means, he will infallibly, without fear of mistake or error, be brought to a knowledge of all the truths that God has taught.
RECAP OF NECESSARY MEANS OF SALVATION:
1.) Accessible at all times to all people
2.) Easy to understand
3.) Infallible
Who can object to my premises?


Has God given us such means?
"Yes," say my Protestant friends, "He has."
And so says the Catholic: God has given us such a means.
What is the means God has given us whereby we shall learn the Truth that God has revealed?
"The Bible," says my Protestant friends, "the Bible, the whole of the Bible, and nothing but the Bible."
But we Catholics say, "No; not the Bible and its private interpretation, but the Church God."
I will prove the facts, then, that it is not the private interpretation of the Bible that has been appointed by God to be the teacher of man, but the Church of the living God. (1 Tim 3:15)

Sola Scriptura invented 1500 years after Christ
If God had intended that man should learn His religion from a book – the Bible – surely God would have given that book to man; Christ would have given that book to man. Did He do it? He did not. Christ sent His Apostles throughout the whole universe and said: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." (Mt 28:19)
Christ did not say, "Sit down and write Bibles and scatter them over the earth, and let every man read his Bible and judge for himself."
That injunction was reserved for the Sixteenth Century, and we have seen the result of it. Ever since the Sixteenth Century there have been springing up religion upon religion, and churches upon churches, all fighting and quarreling with one another. And all because of private interpretation of the Bible.

65 years without the Bible
Christ sent His Apostles with the authority to teach all nations, and never gave them any command of writing the Bible. 
The first word written was by St. Matthew...about seven years after Christ left this earth, so that the Church of God, established by Christ, existed seven years before a line was written of the New Testament.
St. Mark wrote about ten years after Christ left this earth;
St. Luke about twenty-five years,
and St. John about sixty-three years after Christ had established the Church of God.
St. John wrote the last portion of the Bible – the Book of Revelation – about sixty-five years after Christ had left this earth and the Church of God had been established.
The Catholic religion had existed sixty-five years before the Bible was completed, before it was written.

Now, I ask you, my dearly beloved separated brethren, were these Christian people, who lived during the period between the establishment of the Church of Jesus and the finishing of the Bible, were they really Christians, good Christians, enlightened Christians? Did they know the religion of Jesus?
It is admitted on all sides, by all denominations, that they were the very best of Christians, the first fruit of the Blood of Jesus Christ.
But how did they know what they had to do to save their souls? Was it from the Bible that they learned it?
Most assuredly not.
None of the Apostles ever read the Bible; not one of them except, perhaps, Saint John. For all of them had died martyrs... heroes for the Church of Jesus before the Bible was completed.
How, then, did those Christians...know what they had to do to save their souls?
From the teaching of the Church of God.

397 years without the Bible
Not only sixty-five years did Christ leave the Church He had established without a Bible, but over three hundred years.
In the days of the Apostles there were many false gospels. There was the Gospel of Simon, of Nicodemus, of Mary, of Barnabas, and the Gospel of the infancy of Jesus. All of these gospels were spread among the people, and the people did not know which of these were inspired and which were false and spurious.
And so it was in regard to the epistles...people were at a loss for over three hundred years to know which was false or spurious, or which inspired.
It was not until the Fourth Century that the Pope of Rome, the Head of the Church, the successor of Saint Peter, assembled together the Bishops of the world in a council. And there in that council it was decided that the Bible, as we Catholics now have it.

1400 years without the Bible
Not only for three hundred years was the world left without the Bible, but for one thousand four hundred years the Christian world was left without the Sacred Book.
Before the art of printing was invented, Bibles were rare, costly things. You must all be aware that the art of printing was invented about the middle of the Fifteenth Century.
Historians tell us that in the Eleventh Century Bibles were so rare and costly that it took a considerable fortune to buy oneself a copy of the Bible. 
Let us suppose that a man should work at the copying of the Bible for twenty years, as historians say it would have taken him that long, not having the conveniences and improvements to aid him that we have now. Then, at a dollar a day, for twenty years, the cost of a Bible would be nearly $8,000. (~$1-2M in 2016)

Salvation for the Wealthy Only?
You ask, "What are we to do to save your souls?" The Protestant preacher would say to you, "You must get a Bible; you can get one at such-and-such a shop." You would ask the cost, and be told it was $8,000 $2,000,000. You would exclaim: "The Lord save us! And can we not go to Heaven without that book?" The answer would be: "No, you must have the Bible and read it."
This would be a hopeless condition, indeed.
For fourteen hundred years the world was left without a Bible – not one in twenty thousand, before the art of printing was invented, had the Bible. And would our Divine Lord have left the world without that book if it was necessary to man's salvation?
Most assuredly not.

Salvation for the Scholars Only? (Illiterate & Monolingual Not Invited)
But let us suppose for a moment that all had Bibles...that Bibles were written from the beginning, and that every man, woman, and child had a copy. What good would that book be to people who did not know how to read it?
Even now one-half the inhabitants of the earth cannot read. (~15% in 2016)
Moreover, as the Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew, it would be necessary to know these languages in order to be able to read it.
But it is said that we have a translation now in French, English, and other languages of the day. Yes, but are you sure you have a faithful translation? If not, you have not the Word of God. 
"I do not know Greek or Hebrew," says my separated friend; "for my translation I must depend upon the opinion of the learned."
Well, then, dear friends, suppose the learned should be divided in their opinions, and some of them should say it is good, and some false? Then your faith is gone; you must commence doubting and hesitating...

Salvation Exclusively for King-James-Only Believers?
...the most learned among Protestants tell you that your translation – the King James edition – is a very faulty translation and is full of errors.
Your own learned divines, preachers, and bishops have written whole volumes to point out all the errors that are there in the King James translation, and Protestants of various denominations acknowledge it.

Protestants Admit Their Bible is Not Infallible (Full of Errors in Translation)
When I lived in St. Louis, there was held in that city a convention of ministers. All denominations were invited, the object being to arrange for a new translation of the Bible, and give it to the world.
A very learned Presbyterian stood up, and, urging the necessity of giving a new translation of the Bible, said that in the present Protestant translation of the Bible there were no less than thirty thousand errors.
And you say, my dear Protestant friends, that the Bible is your guide and teacher. What a teacher, with thirty thousand errors! The Lord save us from such a teacher! One error is bad enough, but thirty thousand is a little too much.

Men are fallible, with fallible private interpretations
My dear people, how can you be sure of your faith? You say the Bible is your guide....
Let us suppose for a moment that all should have a Bible – should all read it and have a faithful translation; even then it cannot be the guide of man, because the private interpretation of the Bible is not infallible, but, on the contrary, most fallible... the source and fountain of all kinds of errors and heresies, and all kinds of blasphemous doctrines. 
There are now throughout the world three hundred and fifty different denominations or churches [in Fr. Damen's time - some estimate over 30,000 now], and all of them say the Bible is their guide and teacher.
Are all of them true churches? This is an impossibility. Truth is one as God is one, and there can be no contradiction.

"Believers" Divided Amongst Themselves
Opinion #1
Let us suppose that here is an Episcopalian minister.
From the Word of the Bible, he says it is clear that there must be bishops. For without bishops there can be no priests, without priests no Sacraments, and without Sacraments no Church.
Opinion #2
The Presbyterian reads the Bible also, and deduces that there should be no bishops, but only presbyters. "Here is the Bible," says the Episcopalian; and "here is the Bible to give you a lie," says the Presbyterian. Yet both of them are prayerful and well-meaning men.
Opinion #3
Then the Baptist comes in; He is a well-meaning, honest man, and prayerful also. "Well," says the Baptist, "have you ever been baptized?" "I was," says the Episcopalian, "when I was a baby."
"And so was I," says the Presbyterian, "when I was a baby." "But," says the Baptist, "it was done by sprinkling, and that is no baptism at all. Unless you go down into the river, like Christ, it is no baptism." And he gives the Bible for it. "Unless you are baptized over again," says the Baptist, "you are going to Hell as sure as you live."
Opinion #4
Next comes the Unitarian..."Well, allow me to tell you that you are a pack of idolaters. You worship a man for a God who is no God at all." And he gives several texts from the Bible to prove it, while the others are stopping their ears that they may not hear the blasphemies of the Unitarian. And they all contend that they have the true meaning of the Bible.
Opinion #5
Next comes the Methodist, and he says, "My friends, have you got any religion at all?" "Of course we have," they say. "Did you ever feel religion," says the Methodist, "the Spirit of God moving within you?"
"Nonsense," says the Presbyterian, "we are guided by our reason and judgment."
"Well," says the Methodist, "if you have never felt religion, you never had it, and will go to Hell for eternity."
Opinion #6
The Universalist next comes in, and hears them threatening one another with eternal hellfire. "Why," says he, "you are a strange set of people. Do you not understand the Word of God? There is no Hell at all. That idea is good enough to scare old women and children," and he proves it from the Bible.
Opinion #7
Now comes in the Quaker. He urges them not to quarrel, and advises that they do not baptize at all. He is the sincerest of men, and gives the Bible for his faith.
Opinion #8
Another comes in and says: "Baptize the men and let the women alone. For the Bible says, 'unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.' So," says he, "the women are all right, but baptize the men."
Opinion #9
Next comes in the Shaker, and says he: "You are a presumptuous people. Do you not know that the Bible tells you that you must work out your salvation in fear and trembling, and you do not tremble at all. My brethren, if you want to go to heaven – shake, my brothren, shake!"

No Authority = Chaos, Doubt, Uncertainty...DIVISION
I have brought together seven or eight denominations, differing one from another, or understanding the Bible in different ways, illustrative of the fruits of private interpretation. What, then, if I brought together the three hundred and fifty different denominations, all taking the Bible for their guide and teaching, and all differing from one another?

Are they all right?

One says there is a Hell, and another says there is no Hell. Are both right?

One says Christ is God; another says He is not.

One says they are unessential.

One says Baptism is requisite, and another says it is not. Are both true?

This is an impossibility, my dear friends; all cannot be true.

Who, then, is true? He that has the true meaning of the Bible, you say. But the Bible does not tell us who that is – the Bible never settles the quarrel. It is not the teacher.

The need for a Supreme Judge
The Bible, my dear people, is a good book. Every Catholic is exhorted to read the Bible. But good as it is, the Bible, my dear friends, does not explain itself.
Your understanding of the Bible is not inspired – for surely you do not pretend to be inspired!
The Catholic Church says the Bible is the Word of God, and that God has appointed an authority to give us the true meaning.
EXAMPLE: The Constitution of the United States...did not say to the people of the States: "Let every man read the Constitution and make a government unto himself; let every man make his own explanation of the Constitution."
What did Washington do? He gave the people the Constitution and the Supreme Law, and appointed his Supreme Court and Supreme Judge of the Constitution.
All are bound to go by the decisions of the Supreme Court, and it is this and this alone that can keep the people together and preserve the union of the United States. The moment the people take the interpretation of the Constitution into their own hands, that moment there is an end of union.
In every well-ruled country there must be such a thing as this – a Supreme Law, Supreme Court, Supreme Judge, that all the people abide by.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." 

So our Divine Savior also has established His Supreme Court
His Supreme Judge – to give us the true meaning of the Scriptures, and to give us the true revelation and doctrines of the Word of Jesus. The Son of the Living God has pledged His Word that this Supreme Court is infallible, and, therefore, the true Catholic never doubts.
"I believe," says the Catholic, "because the Church teaches me so. I believe the Church because God has commanded me to believe her. He said: 'Hear the Church, and he that does not hear the Church let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican.' 'He that heareth you heareth Me,' said Christ, 'and he that despiseth you despiseth Me.' "Therefore, the Catholic believes because God has spoken, and upon the authority of God.

But our Protestant friends say, "We believe in the Bible." Very well; how do you understand the Bible? "Well," says the Protestant, "to the best of my opinion and judgment this is the meaning of the text." He is not sure of it, but to the best of his opinion and judgment. This, my friends, is only the testimony of a man – it is only human faith, not Divine Faith.

It is Divine Faith alone by which we give honor and glory to God, by which we adore His infinite wisdom and veracity, and that adoration and worship is necessary for salvation.

Monday, December 16, 2013

Infallible Declarations: Faith and Morals

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Mt 16:18)


In recent years, there has been and continues to be much debate over which statements of the Church are to be considered "infallible."

There are many people under the misconception that there have only been two infallible declarations: the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

This is incorrect (as will be shown below).

There are then others who know well that the first criteria is that it must have to do with "faith and morals," and that all such matters are infallible.

But many are then left wondering, "what does this mean? what is considered 'faith and morals?'"

Luckily and thankfully, there is still at least one resource which Neo-Cons and Traditionalists alike can agree is reliable: www.newadvent.org (Catholic Encyclopedia)

(sadly, this may be the only source since Neo-Cons call Traditionalists sola scriptura Protestants when we quote the Bible, and accuse us of disobedience when we quote past Papal writings or Doctors of the Church)

There are three questions that will be addressed (I am re-arranging the order from the web site):
1.) Who can declare an infallible (theological) definition?
2.) Who is it directed to?
3.) What are the criteria for an infallible definition?

So let's take a look at the definition for "Theological Definition" from the aforementioned:

1.) It must be a decision by the supreme teaching authority in the Church

There are two organs of supreme doctrinal authority, viz.: 

1.) The pope, speaking in his official capacity of pastor and teacher of all Christians, and the bishops of the Catholic Church dispersed throughout the world or assembled in a general council. The pope, as successor of St. Peter, has definitive authority, in the exercise of which he speaks neither as a private individual, nor as a mere theologian, nor as Bishop of the Diocese of Rome, nor as Metropolitan of the Roman Province, nor as Primate of Italy, nor as Patriarch of the Western Church, nor as head of any Roman Congregation, but as supreme pastor of the whole Church. 

2.) The bishops of the Catholic Church assembled with the pope in a general council have the same doctrinal authority with which the pope is endowed; and so have the bishops dispersed throughout the Catholic world when, in conjunction with the pope, they teach a doctrine of faith or morals to be irrevocably held by all Christians. 

These two supreme teaching authorities are the organs of active infallibility from which alone a theological definition can proceed.


2.) The decision must bind the universal Church

Decrees which bind only a part of the Church are not definitions; but only those which command the assent of all the faithful. It is not, however, absolutely necessary that the decree should be directly sent or addressed to the whole Church; it is quite sufficient if it is made clear that the supreme teaching authority means to bind the Universal Church. Thus, St. Leo addressed his famous dogmatic definition to Flavian, yet it was rightly considered as binding the Universal Church; and Pope Innocent sent his decree to the African Church alone, yet St. Augustine exclaimed: Causa finita est, utinam aliquando finiatur error! (Serm. ii, de Verb. Ap., c. vii).


3a.) The decision must concern a doctrine of faith or morals

Faith means the speculative doctrines of revelation; morals, the practical doctrines of revelation. Faith is what we have to believe, morals what we have to do, in order to obtain eternal life. Both faith and morals are parts of the deposit which Christ left for the guidance of His Church; so far as the obligation of assent is concerned, there is no difference between them; the distinction is made for the sake of convenience rather than for the sake of any substantial difference between them so far as they are the objects of active infallibility. 

Doctrines of faith or morals which are formally revealed are called the direct object of infallibility, while doctrines which are only virtually revealed, or are only intimately connected with revelation, such as dogmatic or moral facts, are called the indirect object of infallibility. The Church has authority to issue definitions in connexion with both the direct and the indirect objects of active infallibility. It is not, however, de fide that the Church has infallible authority over the indirect doctrines of faith and morals, though it cannot be denied without theological censure.



3b.) The decision must be irrevocable or, as it is called, definitive

Arguments contained in conciliar definitions are proposed by the supreme teaching authority in the Church, they concern faith and morals, and they bind the Universal Church; yet they are not definitions, because they lack this fourth condition — they are not definitively proposed for the assent of the whole Church. 

Two things are implied by the statement that a decree, to be a definition, must be (1) final and (2) irrevocable. 

1.) The decree must be the last word of supreme teaching authority; there must be no possibility of re-opening the question in a spirit of doubt; the decree must settle the matter for ever. 

2.) The decree must also, and in consequence of its final nature, bind the whole Church to an irrevocable internal assent. This assent is at least an assent of ecclesiastical faith; and in doctrines which are formally revealed it is also an assent of Divine faith. When the definition commands an irrevocable assent of Divine faith as well as of ecclesiastical faith, the defined dogma is said to be de fide in the technical sense of this phrase. 

It is well to note that the definitive nature of a decree does not prevent the defined doctrine from being examined anew and defined again by the pope or a general council; what it excludes is a re-opening of the question in a spirit of doubt about the truth of the doctrine which has been already definitively settled.

It has been sometimes said that it is impossible to know whether or not a theological definition has been issued; but very few words are needed to show that the assertion is without foundation. At times, doubt will remain about the definitive nature of a decree, but as a rule no possibility of doubt is consistent with the terminology of a definitive decree. Thus in the doctrinal teaching of a general council, anathema attached to condemned errors is a certain sign of an infallible definition. 

Words also like those in which Pius IX solemnly defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin give irrefutable proof of the definitive nature of the decree: "By the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, We declare, pronounce and define the doctrine . . . to be revealed by God and as such to be firmly and immutably held by all the faithful." No set form of words is necessary; any form which clearly indicates that the four requisite conditions are present suffices to show that the decree is a definition in the strict sense. It should be noted that not everything contained in a definition is infallibly defined. Thus, arguments from Scripture, tradition, or theological reason, do not come under the exercise of definitive authority. Incidental statements, called obiter dicta, are also examples of non-definitive utterances. Only the doctrine itself, to which those arguments lead and which these obiter dicta illustrate, is to be considered as infallibly defined.


So, a few things are worth noting from the above:

1.) The condemnations laid out in Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors are indeed INFALLIBLE (as they have an anathema attached to them), and anything stated to the contrary of those condemnations need not be followed, regardless of who is commanding said contrary faith/morals (belief/practice).

2.) The following statement by then Cardinal now Pope Emeritus proves all the more disconcerting:
"Gaudium et Spes is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus...Since then many things have changed." (Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1987, pp. 381-382)

This is indeed the same man who would later, as Pope, insist upon a Hermeneutic of Continuity.
I spent a great deal more time on this in the following post:
http://tylernethercott.blogspot.com/2013/06/what-do-stanley-kubrick-and-vatican-ii.html

And for anyone who says the Syllabus is not infallible and need not be followed, that has already been dealt with as well:

Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, What is Liberalism? (Imprimatur 1899)[Liberalists] have a horror of any coercive element in faith; any chastisement of error shocks their tender susceptibilities, and they detest any Catholic legislation in the direction of what they are please to call intolerance. THE SYLLABUS OF PIUS IX IS A NIGHTMARE TO THEM, a most inopportune, dominating, harsh and peremptory document, calculated to offend the sensibilities of the Protestant and modern world; it need not be accepted as an infallible utterance, and, if accepted, must be taken in a very modern sense.

For now, let us consider the following INFALLIBLE condemnations by Pope Pius IX along with some more "modern" quotes...and let the reader honestly and prudently decide if they jive.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, 1864, #4
All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind - CONDEMNED

Pope Pope Paul VI, Nostra Aetate, 1965, #1
Men expect from the various religions answers to the unsolved riddles of the human condition, which today, even as in former times, deeply stir the hearts of men...
_________________________________________________________________________________

Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, 1864, #15
Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true - CONDEMNED

Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris Missio, 1990 #8

...the Second Vatican Council replies to those concerned with safeguarding freedom of conscience: "The human person has a right to religious freedom.... All should have such immunity from coercion by individuals, or by groups, or by any human power, that no one should be forced to act against his conscience in religious matters, nor prevented from acting according to his conscience, whether in private or in public, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits."
_________________________________________________________________________________

Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, 1864, #55

The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church - CONDEMNED

Pope Paul VI, Dignitatis Humanae, 1965, #4
...government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship [toward any one religion].

Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, 1864, #77

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 - CONDEMNED

Pope Paul VI, Dignitatis Humanae, 1965, #4
Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word...Finally, the social nature of man and the very nature of religion afford the foundation of the right of men freely to hold meetings and to establish educational, cultural, charitable and social organizations, under the impulse of their own religious sense.

ibid, #6
If, in view of peculiar circumstances obtaining among peoples, special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional order of society, it is at the same time imperative that the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice...It follows that a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the profession or repudiation of any religion, or when it hinders men from joining or leaving a religious community.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, 1864, #80

The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization - CONDEMNED

Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, #14

[The] meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding. 

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Faith & Future, 1970, p. 26

People want to be liberated from this just as much as from the old-fashioned faith that, by its contradiction of modern knowledge, has become such an oppressive burden to them.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Pope Pius IX, The First Vatican Council, Chapter 4, Canons, #2 On Revelation, #4

If anyone does not receive as sacred and canonical the complete books of Sacred Scripture with all their parts, as the holy Council of Trent listed them, or denies that they were divinely inspired : let him be anathema.

ibid, Session 3, Chapter 4, #3

If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.


Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Faith and the Future, 1970, pp. 15,17,19-20

The very first page of the Bible…is in direct contradiction of all that we know today about the origins of the universe…long before man existed, pain and death were in the world…for us, is all of this not just the ancient East...a phase in human consciousness...not the expression of divine utterance?...All the miraculous stories of the Old Testament are still there, not so much a sign of faith for us today as an obstacle to it...

ibid, p. 46

It is quite clear that the Pauline exegesis of the Old Testament follows a method that is no longer recognized as valid, so that his interpretation is almost wholly unacceptable to modern philogists and historians.

(in other words, St. Paul's words in his epistles about the Jews and the Old Testament [Covenant] are in error)
_________________________________________________________________________________

Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, 1864, #38

The Roman pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western - CONDEMNED

Pope John Paul II, Common Christological Declaration Between The Catholic Church And The Assyrian Church Of The East, 1994
The controversies of the past led to anathemas, bearing on persons and on formulas. The Lord's Spirit permits us to understand better today that the divisions brought about in this way were due in large part to misunderstandings.




~ Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum