Gaudium et Spes 36. and Faith & Reason
#41
(11-25-2011, 09:18 AM)Scotus Wrote: I think that this, for me, is the biggest cross I have to bear in my faith: what teaching has greater authority when documents/allocutions/statements seem to contradict one another? I am often confused in my faith when two statements from the authentic Magisterium appear to contradict each other.

Speaking to most priests, it seems that whatever the current and last Popes have said outweighs what previous Popes have said. For example, the papal condemnations of Pius IX concerning the idea of "separation of Church and State" and the statement by the present Holy Father that separation of Church and state was one of the great achievements of Christianity.

Now, I suppose someone might say that both are true and that I have to believe that these seemingly contradictory truths are capable of reconciliation. But this seems to me a kind of fideism.

Given the principles for receiving Magisterial pronouncements, I don't think a comment from one Pope needs to be reconciled with one from another. When it comes to non-definitive Magisterial pronouncements, they are due a "religious assent" so we have a duty to make a good-faith attempt to reconcile them. However, as non-defintive and therefore potentially (if improbably) subject to error, if they can't be reconciled, one can withhold assent to one if it is deemed to be the one that does not fit with the greater corpus of pronouncements.

The Catholic principles as I understand them on the topic you mention is that the State is subject to truth and God and ideally the Church and State work harmoniously together. At the same time, there is an authentic separation. We do not have priest-kings (with the exception of the Pope in his realm, but that is to ensure that authentic separation--the Pope is not wedded or subject to any state or nation). The Church and State each have their own sphere to govern--the spiritual and temporal.

In the Syllabus, when the Separation is condemned, the allocution cited refers to Spain where the harmonious relationship between Church and State in a nation of practically all Catholics came under attack by Rationalists who wanted them to have nothing to do with each other.

So in this case, these isolated comments are reconcilable. The Church as a distinct society from any state or nation was a pretty unique Christian idea, but it is also true that since the Church and State are subject to the same God and care for same good of persons, they should have a harmonious relationship.
Reply
#42
(11-25-2011, 09:18 AM)Scotus Wrote: Speaking to most priests, it seems that whatever the current and last Popes have said outweighs what previous Popes have said. For example, the papal condemnations of Pius IX concerning the idea of "separation of Church and State" and the statement by the present Holy Father that separation of Church and state was one of the great achievements of Christianity.
Which statement was that? Thanks
Reply
#43
(11-26-2011, 12:04 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(11-25-2011, 09:18 AM)Scotus Wrote: Speaking to most priests, it seems that whatever the current and last Popes have said outweighs what previous Popes have said. For example, the papal condemnations of Pius IX concerning the idea of "separation of Church and State" and the statement by the present Holy Father that separation of Church and state was one of the great achievements of Christianity.
Which statement was that? Thanks

I got it from a talk by Fr Chad Ripperger: http://www.sensustraditionis.org/webaudi.../State.mp3
Reply
#44
(11-25-2011, 08:35 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote: the Council states that man cannot be saved "without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”
Which theologian(s) do not see this as a reference to baptism of desire? Thanks
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)