FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Chants for religious freedom: Interreligious prayer gathering in Arlington, VA
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
(07-12-2013, 06:43 PM)Doce Me Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-12-2013, 05:55 PM)Joshua Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-12-2013, 03:38 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-11-2013, 10:38 PM)Joshua Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-11-2013, 07:29 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: [ -> ]No one must either pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: Let him be excommunicated. Council of Carthage

If any clergyman or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meetings of heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of Communion. III Council of Constantinople

I've looked up these two oft-mentioned quotes before, and as far as I can tell, they are not present in any of the actual writings of either council. I'm certainly open to any authoritative citation that someone else has managed to find. Regardless, this event is certainly a terrible scandal.

Canon 64

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3820.htm

Canon 33 & 34 (and others)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm


These are not from the cited councils I posted. You'll have to read through them (they are lengthy!) on New Advent. But they are there.

I'm aware of the citation from Laodicea, but the so-called "Apostolic Canons" are apocryphal as far as I'm aware and not an authority on any issue. I'm curious as to why these quotes are continually attributed to the wrong councils. It's fairly dishonest.

(St. Pius of Trent, I don't think Joshua meant that YOU were dishonest! You didn't make up the citation; it's just that possibly someone else was dishonest in the history of the citation on the internet.  But maybe it was an innocent mistake.  And (as far as I know!) maybe the citation is perfectly legitimate! )

If so, I apologize. To me, it comes down to this:

Is it permitted for Catholics to be present at, or take part in, conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics which aim to associate together under a single agreement all who in any way lay claim to the name of Christian? In the negative! It is clear, therefore, why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics. There is only one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from her. Pope Pius XI


I really don't understand why some can't accept this stance that Church has made in the past. Are the implications just too uncomfortable for them?
(07-12-2013, 06:36 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: [ -> ]Would anyone on this thread go into a place of worship if the pope asked you to, Catholic or otherwise, and pray for a common goal aside from the non Catholics conversion?

As a VII convert, I have prayed with non-Catholics in the past. Although I don't agree with my husband's overall conclusions, he has opened my eyes to pre-Vatican II teaching on this (and on many other things).  It is a very difficult pill to swallow especially when your family is non-Catholic.
(07-12-2013, 06:53 PM)2Vermont Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-12-2013, 06:36 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: [ -> ]Would anyone on this thread go into a place of worship if the pope asked you to, Catholic or otherwise, and pray for a common goal aside from the non Catholics conversion?

As a VII convert, I have prayed with non-Catholics in the past. Although I don't agree with my husband's overall conclusions, he has opened my eyes to pre-Vatican II teaching on this (and on many other things).  It is a very difficult pill to swallow especially when your family is non-Catholic.

Thank you for your candor. I'm glad that someone is at least willing to field this question. My stance is this: "Holy father, with all due respect, and in keeping with the Tradition of the Church, I must respectfully decline to participate in this course of behavior. My conscience will not allow me to partake in such a action."

(07-12-2013, 06:58 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-12-2013, 06:53 PM)2Vermont Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-12-2013, 06:36 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: [ -> ]Would anyone on this thread go into a place of worship if the pope asked you to, Catholic or otherwise, and pray for a common goal aside from the non Catholics conversion?

As a VII convert, I have prayed with non-Catholics in the past. Although I don't agree with my husband's overall conclusions, he has opened my eyes to pre-Vatican II teaching on this (and on many other things).  It is a very difficult pill to swallow especially when your family is non-Catholic.

Thank you for your candor. I'm glad that someone is at least willing to field this question. My stance is this: "Holy father, with all due respect, and in keeping with the Tradition of the Church, I must respectfully decline to participate in this course of behavior. My conscience will not allow me to partake in such a action."

If I wasn't clear, I would not do it if the Pope asked me to do so, and I would like to think that I would have the guts to say to him what you said. 

I do not pray with other non-Catholics (who are not my family) now, but I do still struggle when it comes to my family.  I don't necessarily "pray" with them but I have attended non-Catholic celebrations with them.  At least I know to confess it now if I do it again.  Before I didn't think anything of it.
(07-12-2013, 06:49 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: [ -> ]To me, it comes down to this:

Is it permitted for Catholics to be present at, or take part in, conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics which aim to associate together under a single agreement all who in any way lay claim to the name of Christian? In the negative! It is clear, therefore, why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics. There is only one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from her. Pope Pius XI

I really don't understand why some can't accept this stance that Church has made in the past. Are the implications just too uncomfortable for them?

Here are the two actual sources where I found those quotes (or close):
"Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, 2199" Wrote:http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dmh.htm

Pius XI

Meetings to Procure the Unity of All Christians*

[From the Decree of the Holy Office, July 8, 1927]

2199 Whether it is permitted Catholics to be present at, or to take part in conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics which aim to associate together under a single agreement all who in any way lay claim to the name of Christian?

Reply: In the negative, and there must be complete adherence to the decree ( De participatione catholicorum societati,"ad procurandam christianitatis unitatem") on the participation of Catholics in a society "to procure the unity of Christianity." *
"Mortalium Animos, Pope Pius XI" Wrote:http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM

10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it...
(07-12-2013, 06:36 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: [ -> ]Would anyone on this thread go into a place of worship if the pope asked you to, Catholic or otherwise, and pray for a common goal aside from the non Catholics conversion?

If the Pope commanded me out of obedience (which is very unlikely), then yes. if he merely asked me to, then I'd decline.

Praying together with non-Catholics for some worthy goal is not contrary to Divine or Natural Law. As another poster here, SaintSebastian, already pointed out, ecumenical gatherings and prayer in common was already approved in some circumstances under the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.
Quote:Although in all these meetings and conferences any communication whatsoever in worship must be avoided, yet the recitation in common of the Lord's Prayer or of some prayer approved by the Catholic Church, is not forbidden for opening or closing the said meetings.

The question here is not whether prayer in common is allowed (it is), but whether or not it's prudent under these circumstances.
No one in this thread has addressed the point that whether such common prayer is allowed or not, the meeting was held to pray for an anti-Catholic, heretical end:

Bl. Pius IX, Syllbus of Errors Wrote:15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.—Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum, n. 12 Wrote:It preaches that not only in civil affairs, which is not Our concern here, but also in religion, God has given every individual a wide freedom to embrace and adopt without danger to his salvation whatever sect or opinion appeals to him on the basis of his private judgment.  The apostle Paul warns us against the impiety of these madmen.
St. Pius of Trent Wrote:I clearly stated you have search through both council documents. There is nothing I did that was dishonest and I don't appreciate the insinuation.

I did not mean you, bud. I was referring to how those mistaken citations are found all over the traddy internet spheres, and how they lead folks like you (and myself) to inadvertently post them thinking they're true.
(07-13-2013, 05:41 PM)Joshua Wrote: [ -> ]
St. Pius of Trent Wrote:I clearly stated you have search through both council documents. There is nothing I did that was dishonest and I don't appreciate the insinuation.

I did not mean you, bud. I was referring to how those mistaken citations are found all over the traddy internet spheres, and how they lead folks like you (and myself) to inadvertently post them thinking they're true.

The fact that they (the 2 quotes in question) have mistaken citations and are found in apocryphal sources doesn't mean they are not worth posting at all, or should be just ignored - or that they themselves must be actually false.  Why not just fix the citation and admit that the source is apocryphal? Granted, these mistakes sometimes come from sloppy (or missing) research and expertise, but that's a vice common to many on the internet, not just so-called "traddies". (Granted, this is no excuse).

I found (as best I am able) fairly authoritative sources that show where the quotes come from (and show the fact that the sources are apocryphal).
"Apostolic Canons quote" Wrote:As already pointed out, one quote is from the Apostolic Canons,  Canon 64 (here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3820.htm)  (In another version - also on on the newadvent site - it is listed as Canon 65 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07158.htm)

If any clergyman or layman shall enter into a synagogue of Jews or heretics to pray, let the former be deposed and let the latter be excommunicated.
"Catholic Encyclopedia Apostolic Canons" Wrote:Just a couple of snippets.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03279a.htm

A collection of ancient ecclesiastical decrees (eighty-five in the Eastern, fifty in the Western Church) concerning the government and discipline of the Christian Church, incorporated with the Apostolic Constitutions (VIII, 47).
[So, Canon 64 is not in the Western Church decrees...]

...in a word, they are a handy summary of the statutory legislation of the primitive Church. The last of these decrees contains a very important list or canon of the Holy Scripture (see CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES under sub-title Canon of the New Testament). In the original Greek text they claim to be the very legislation of the Apostles themselves, at least as promulgated by their great disciple, Clement. Nevertheless, though a venerable mirror of ancient Christian life and blameless in doctrine, their claim to genuine Apostolic origin is quite false and untenable. .
...
...as late as the middle of the eleventh century, Western theologians (Cardinal Humbert, 1054) distinguished between the eighty-five Greek canons that they declared apocryphal, and the fifty Latin canons recognized as "orthodox rules" by antiquity.

The Encyclopedia goes into the history of many scholarly controversies surrounding these canons - who drew them up, when, number of them, various versions, etc. It seems clear to me that at least Canon 64/65 is apocryphal.
"4th Council of Carthage quote" Wrote:I saw this version of the quote in Bishop George Hay's book (1822) "The Sincere Christian..."
http://books.google.com/books?id=wbcHAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22George+Hay%22+%22Sincere+Christian%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WiTiUaqXMeGfiQLI9IGwBA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ

"None must either pray or sing psalms with heretics; and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergyman, or laic, let him be excommunicated"  Coun. Carth. iv. 72 and 73

I understand Bishop George Hay was a well known Roman Catholic bishop and writer. He supplied other quotes as well on the same topic.  Writing in 1822, he wasn't an internet "traddie".

I then found the quote in another more authoritative source:

http://media.sabda.org/alkitab-8/LIBRARY/HEF_HCC2.PDF
HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH VOL. 2 (1876)
by Charles Hefele
BY THE RIGHT REV. CHARLES JOSEPH HEFELE, D.D.,
BISHOP OF ROTTENBURG,
FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE
UNIVERSITY OF TUBINGEN


The translation is different:

72. It is not permitted to pray or to sing psalms with heretics.
73. He who holds communion or prays with an excommunicated person shall be excommunicated himself.


But this quote is attributed by Hefele to the "supposed fourth Synod of Carthage".  In other  words (if Hefele is right), it appears that the quote is apocryphal.
"Hefele on so-called Fourth Synod of Carthage" Wrote:One hundred and four canons (Baluze thinks 105) are ascribed to a fourth Carthaginian Synod in 398 (Honorio IV. et Eutychiano consulibus), according to the heading of which 214 bishops were present; and these canons are found in the old Spanish, as well as in the pseudo- Isidorian collection, and in Hardouin.  Christopher Justellus, however, and other ancient scholars have raised objections to the real existence of this Synod; and the Ballerini have shown that many old codices did not ascribe this collection of 104 canons to a Council of Carthage, but gave them the general title of Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua, or a similar one. These codices also give the canons in a different, indeed the original order, as the Ballerini again show; while the Spanish collection has arranged the separate canons more in accordance with their contents. The conclusion obtained from the researches of the Ballerini is, that these 104 canons are certainly very old, but that the heading which ascribes them to the Carthaginian Synod of 398 is spurious. A synod of 214 bishops would have been the greatest and most remarkable among the African Synods, and yet nothing is known of such an one in 398. It is not mentioned either by Dionysius Exiguus, or by Ferrandus, or by the Carthaginian Synod of 525, which renewed so many canons of more ancient African Synods. Besides this argumentum ex silentio, there is also positive evidence against the Synod in question. For instance, the first canon (according to another arrangement the prooemium) plainly refers to Pelagianism, and even to Nestorianism and Monophysitism; besides which, the same canon speaks of metropolitans, which expression was not used in Africa. As we have already seen, primoe sedis episcopus, senex, and primas were used instead.  To this must be added that Donatian of Telepte (Talabricensis), who in the signatures to the 104th canon appears as episcopus primoe sedis, did not in 398 possess this dignity. Moreover, the 104 canons do not proceed from one and the same Synod, nor even from several Carthaginian Synods, but the whole is the compilation of a private individual, who collected that number of ancient canons, partly from African and partly from other Synods, of which many were Eastern ones, for which reason in the Italian manuscripts his work obtained the title of Statuta Orientis.

Probably this collection originated after the commencement of the Pelagian and Monophysite controversies, but still before the end of the sixth century, when was adopted into other collections. 

The often quoted canons of this supposed fourth Synod of Carthage run thus:

He then lists all the canons, including 72 and 73.

These quotes apparently are not officially approved by the Church, but are a part of what has long been taught during the history of the Church.  The Catholic Encyclopedia, Bishop George Hay, and Right Rev.. Charles Hefele are among those who see such quotes as meaningful to Catholics, not as hoaxes to be quickly disposed of because they come from "traddies".

Fix the citations, note the apocrypha, but give them more credit.
(07-11-2013, 07:49 PM)2Vermont Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-11-2013, 07:29 PM)St. Pius of Trent Wrote: [ -> ]...and the scandal continues...

http://angelqueen.org/2013/07/11/chants-...e-purpose/


No one must either pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: Let him be excommunicated. Council of Carthage

If any clergyman or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meetings of heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of Communion. III Council of Constantinople

Is it permitted for Catholics to be present at, or take part in, conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics which aim to associate together under a single agreement all who in any way lay claim to the name of Christian? In the negative! It is clear, therefore, why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics. There is only one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from her. Pope Pius XI

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 2), Jan. 6, 1928: “For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule.  Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.”

::Sigh::

[size=10pt]This item of news is why I'm in two minds - if not more - about modern Catholicism. If this meeting is compatible with Catholicism, that needs to be clarified. If it isn't, it looks as though past ideas about pan-religious meetings were not about matters of principle, but were purely prudential judgements; even though they sounded uncommonly like rejections of such meetings  on principle.   If ideas can change about what seems in the 1930s and before to be a matter of dogmatic principle, so that such things are allowed now even though they were forbidden in the past - what is to stop abortion, which is currently forbidden on doctrinal grounds, being made out to be a prohibition on prudential grounds, and becoming perfectly permissible ? Logically, there is nothing to prevent that.  If the highest authorities CC today can ignore & even reverse Mortalium Animos, even though it was saying only what had been said for most of the Church's life - then Humanae Vitae too can be reversed in the future; all the supporting teaching of JP2 can also be ignored, when the Church comes to "discover" that abortion is wrong, not for doctrinal reasons, but for prudential ones.  The Catholic Tradition against abortion & infanticide is no more secure than the Catholic Tradition against pan-Christianism & pan-religionism. One has gone - so it is special pleading to  insist that that the other is inviolable. Start knocking down one pillar - and the entire building will collapse.
[/size]

"It was not an evening of praying together, said Father Rooney, but gathering to pray in one another’s presence."

Sophistry. Such reasoning would have allowed thousands of Christians to burn to the Genius of Caesar with a clear conscience - those who did so, would never have been faulted for lapsing from the Faith. The Church would not have been wracked by controversy over how to treat those who had burned incense to Caesar's Genius. His reasoning sanctifies the giving of scandal and the breaking of the First Commandment. Why bother with the Church at all, if it has no problems with justifying idolatry and rejecting the Unique Lordship of Christ ? 

This, from the end of the item, was very revealing:

"The bishop quoted from a USCCB document on religious liberty, “This is our American heritage, our most cherished freedom. If we are not free in our conscience and our practice of religion, all other freedoms are fragile.”"

IOW, the Great Mother, America the Glorious, is the greatest of all deities - so Jehovah can take a hike. America must be adored and served, so when Her Will collides with that of the god of the Christians, what She says always takes precedence. I have no wish at all to offend anyone from the US, but to set the Will of the Great "Goddess" America above that of the only true God is idolatry.

Here's a similar meeting, this time with a cardinal involved:


https://www.facebook.com/notes/vatican-r...1234398151

Representatives

Mrs Annabel Knight-Djalili - Bahá'í

Lama Gelongma Zangmo - Buddhist

Monsignor Peter Fleetwood - Christian

His Holiness Nirliptananda Swami - Hindu

Mr Bakul Mehta and Dr Harshad Sanghrajka - Jain

Dr Jonathan Gorsky - Jewish

Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra - Muslim

Lord Singh of Wimbledon - Sikh

Ervad Shahyan Dastur and Ervad Rustom K Bhedwar - Zoroastrian

http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/Home/News/...-for-Peace

There is plenty of talk of "God" in the cardinal's Address - but which "God" does he mean - Brahma ? Allah ? Jesus ? Some other ? A combo ? If I want biscuits, I don't prattle about "biscuits" in general, because there are many different entities that could be so called. Allah did not die for our sins; Krishna is not the Holy Spirit; Mohammed did not receive the commission St. Paul was given; Zoroaster did not ascend into Heaven to the right hand  of Hanuman. There is so much wrong with the untheology behind these meetings, that it would take a long time to tease all the wrongness out  :(( To seek for the good that is peace by committing the sin that is idolatry is pointless  :((  Tashlanism is bad enough - but this goes far beyond it.
Pages: 1 2 3