Immaculate Conception Church

Old Roman Catholic Church, Hudson Florida

Latest News

Religious Indifferentism

By

Closely connected to the error of Religious Liberty is the error of Religious Indifferentism, the idea that all religions are of equal value or that it is permissible to just ignore the differences between them. Traditionally, the Church insisted that “there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.” Grant for the moment that there might have been some minor discussion about just who was “outside the Church,” and how much ignorance of the Church might excuse one from membership — but the adage was taken pretty literally. For example, the Council of Florence (1438-45) declared:

    The holy Roman Church believes, professes, and preaches that “no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but will go to the ‘everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41) unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church.1

An enormous body of Catholic literature exists, mirroring the pronouncement cited above; so large that the Modernists couldn’t just ignore it. But Vatican II adopted a truly ingenious way of changing this doctrine — it simply (!) redefined the Church:

    This Church constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. (emphasis added)2

The difference between “subsists in the Catholic Church” and “is the Catholic Church” is considerable. “Subsistence” is an accidental relationship, possibly temporary; as if the Church of Christ might subsist somewhere else in the future or the past. Indeed, the terminology would allow the Church to “subsist” in various places, even simultaneously.

It gets better. I won’t bother with the obvious stuff about how we share so much in common with the Orthodox and the Protestants:

    To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”; “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.3

    I spoke of the Jews as our _elder brothers in the faith._ These words were an expression both of the Council’s teaching, and a profound conviction on the part of the Church.4

    The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.5

    Thus in Hinduism men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an unspent fruitfulness of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry…. Buddhism in its multiple forms acknowledges the radical insufficiency of this shifting world. It teaches a path by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, can either reach a state of absolute freedom or attain supreme enlightenment by their own efforts or by higher assistance.6

Why should anyone be a Catholic? Wouldn’t it make more sense to find the religion one finds easiest or otherwise most appealing? Indeed, doesn’t being a Catholic constitute a liability to salvation, requiring the observance of all sorts of difficult rules not required of our separated brethren?

In addition to the theological problems caused by this Religious Indifference, there is a very practical one with regard to the Moslems. Western Civilization has been under siege by Islam for over a thousand years. Early on, they invaded Christian North Africa, whence they proceeded up the Iberian Peninsula as far as Tours and Poitiers in France before being beaten back in 711. They held Spain and Portugal for hundreds of years, not being completely expelled until 1492 after an eight-hundred year occupation. The Holy Lands were conquered, liberated and conquered again in the Middle Ages. By the 1500s Moslems had taken Turkey and represented a long term threat to Austria and Hungary. The fight continues in 1995 in the Balkans.

The Church celebrates Western triumphs over Islam in its feasts of Our Lady of the Rosary, Our Lady of Victories, and the Holy Name of Mary. But today we are told, “the believers in Allah are especially close to us,” and we are asked to follow the example of a fictional Poland, “a country of deeply rooted ecumenical traditions.”7 In reality, several hundred years ago, John Sobieski, the Polish general who liberated Vienna from the Moslems, said, “I came, I saw, and God conquered.”

    1.  Jesuit Fathers of St. Marys, The Church Teaches (Rockford: TAN, 1973), no. 165 (Council of Florence, decree for the Jacobites). 

    2. Lumen gentium #8.2. 

    3. The JPII  Catechism of the Catholic Church, #839. Hereinafter referred to as CCC.

    4. H.H. John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope (NY: Knopf, 1994) p. 99. Hereinafter referred to as CTTOH.

    5. Lumen gentium #16. 

    6. Nostra aetate #2. 

    7. CTTOH, pp. 91 & 145. 

 

[Fr Brusca]

Religious Liberty

By

 

    Perhaps the primary error — because it comes so close to taking the heresy of Modernism and making it into a dogma of the new religion — is that of Religious Liberty. Traditionally, the Church holds that since It alone teaches the truth, all other religions represent a dangerous compromise with error. It forces no one to become a Catholic (you can’t control someone’s mind), but reserves the right to keep non-believers from spreading their errors and from publicly acting in accord with an incorrect moral code. (The discussion assumes that the Church is in a political position to say or do something about such matters.) To a modern American this sounds like a rerun of the Spanish Inquisition, but a little reflection will remind you that virtually all of the nations of the world functioned in this manner until very recently. Even here in these United States we had laws which regulated immoral acts like contraception, divorce, sodomy, abortion, and suicide — only in the past fifty years or so have they been eliminated or greatly liberalized.

Now you might, correctly, point out that even today the Church strongly disapproves of the immoral acts listed immediately above. In fact It does, but you will find a contradictory statement in Dignitatis humanae, the Vatican II declaration on Religious Liberty:

This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs. Nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits. (emphasis added) [6]

Now, the phrase “within due limits” and other statements that hold that the State may protect itself and its citizens from harm perpetrated in the name of religion might seem to make this statement harmless enough — but who defines the “due limits” in a society with religious liberty? certainly not the Catholic Church nor any other Christian body. At best the “due limits” might be determined by the Gallop Poll, but in practice such limits are usually determined by politicians, lobbyists, bankers, and lawyers. (e.g. Kennedy, Cuomo, Rockefeller, Earl Warren, etc.) And guess who decides which religions are or are not harmful to the public?

In Sacred Scripture the psalmist teaches that Christ is to be regarded as King in a literal manner:

The Lord said to Me: “Thou art My Son; this day I have begotten Thee. Ask of Me and I will give Thee the nations for an inheritance, and the ends of the earth for Thy possession. Thou shalt rule them with an iron rod; Thou shalt shatter them like an earthen dish.” And now, O kings, give heed; take warning, you rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice before Him; with trembling pay homage to Him.[7]

Pope Pius XI in establishing the liturgical feast of Christ the King tells us that:

… it is of the Catholic Faith to believe that Jesus Christ has been given to men as Redeemer in whom we are to believe, and as a Lawgiver whom we are to obey…. Anyone would err gravely, on the other hand, who would take away from Christ as man the rule over civil affairs, since He has been given by the Father such complete power over created things that all are subject to His will.[8]

By the mid 1970s, the few remaining Catholic countries in the world amended their constitutions to conform to Vatican II and ceased being officially Catholic. Even the Vatican concordat with Italy was amended to reflect a change in the spiritual status previously enjoyed by the City of Rome.[9] This must have been particularly difficult in South American countries like Ecuador, previously a republic dedicated in its Constitution to the Sacred Heart of Jesus; or Argentina, where the Blessed Virgin Mary was legally Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. (Guess which formerly Catholic continent is rapidly becoming Protestant, and which Armed Force got “creamed” by Queen Elizabeth’s troops after losing their Commander in Chief.)

Modernism

By

At the end of the 19th century the Church recognized that there was a growing movement (called “Modernism”) which held that all forms of truth were subject to change. In brief, the Modernists held that all truth of a doctrinal or moral nature was based on human feelings or intuitions; that the morality of divorce, for example, depended upon how people felt about divorce. Or, one God might be adequate for an isolated Christian society, but several gods might be necessary for a world society with open boundaries, by way of another example. “Truth,” at the moment, is determined by the consensus of the moment. (The Gallop Pollster is infallible, rather than the Pope!) For the Modernist, “truth” is ever evolving.

Modernism was condemned by Pope Pius IX in his “Syllabus of the principal errors of our time,” which is a catalog of the mistaken ideas of the Modernists.[2] Its theoretical principles were more carefully explained and condemned again by Pope Saint Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis, of September 8th 1907. Pius X also authorized a second syllabus of Modernist errors, called Lamentabili sane, and issued by the Holy Office on July 3rd, 1907.[3] Saint Pius referred to Modernism as “the synthesis of all errors,” since it is not just one or more errors but an attack on truth itself. An “Oath against Modernism”[4] was to be required of all men ordained to major orders, and of all those holding pastoral or teaching positions.

There are two errors that are related to Modernism, and which figure into the current problem. The first is a sort of pantheism taught by the Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Teilhard’s works were placed under a “monitum,” or “warning” by the Holy Office in the 1950s (in the 1910s he would have been shot!), but became very popular after Vatican II. They suggest that mankind is collectively evolving into god — I use the lower case “g” purposefully since Teilhard’s god is more of a cosmic consciousness or soul of the universe than the God we know. Teilhard had some impact on the Vatican II document Gaudium et spes on “The Church in the Modern World,”[5] but I think his influence has diminished somewhat except in New Age circles.

A second error, related to Modernism (and Marxism) and very much with us is Existentialism. In traditional Catholic teaching, man’s purpose for existing is defined in terms of God: “Man was created to show forth God’s glory in this world and to share His happiness in the next.” Traditionally, man’s perfection is likewise measured in terms of God — how much did he know God, love God, and serve God? Existentialism, on the other hand, measures man in terms of man: Man is “authentic” insofar as he makes proper use of his “freedom.” Man’s perfection is measured in terms of human industry — how much did he build for mankind, learn for mankind, love for mankind, etc.? [Traditionally, man is what he is because he has an “essence” or “nature” established by God — existentialist man defines himself through his activities (see footnote 28).]

If you are with me so far, you will see that I have tried to give a thumbnail sketch of how the teaching authority of the Church is supposed to work, and how it relates to the immutable nature of truth. I am going to “change course” a bit now and list some of the major ways in which the new church has changed or subverted major articles of Catholic faith and morality. This is not an exhaustive list.

[Fr Brusca]

Infallibility

By

 

    Peter and his successors enjoy the charism known as “infallibility,” a gift that keeps them from giving out a false doctrine or moral teaching when one of them speaks as head of the Church to all Christians. It keeps them from uttering error, but does not cause them to know the truth by any special means other than the careful study of God’s revelation as it is contained in the Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church. The Pope (or the bishops together with the Pope) is (are) infallible when “exercising the extraordinary magisterium of the Church; that is when claiming to teach all men with this divine protection from error.

The Pope and bishops are also infallible (together or separately) when “exercising the ordinary magisterium” of the Church; that is when the contents of their teaching are in agreement with each other and with that of the popes and bishops who have gone before them.

Much of what I have just said about the conditions for the authentic teaching of the Church stems from the nature of truth itself. For example, truth must apply to all people; a doctrinal or moral proposition cannot be true for Czechoslovakians and false for Frenchmen. Likewise, such a proposition cannot be false yesterday, true today, and false again tomorrow; for moral and doctrinal truth is the reality of what is in the unchanging mind of God. Thus a proposition that is capable of being defined infallibly, by its very nature, is not capable of being changed by future popes or councils of bishops.

It should also be noted that the things that are the subjects of the Church’s magisterium (ordinary or extraordinary) are of the utmost importance. Our Lord became man and died on the Cross so that we might know them. They are the things that our loving God wants us to know about Himself, and to do in the conduct of our lives. Should anyone teach something contrary to what has been authentically defined by the magisterium, we are obligated to resist or ignore them. No one can oblige us to believe what is false about God, or to act in a manner contrary to His commands. “If an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema!” (Galatians 1)

If I might digress for a moment, it is important to distinguish the unchangeable pronouncements of the magisterium on faith and morals from two other kinds of pronouncement; pronouncements on knowledge and pronouncements on discipline:

Defective knowledge might, for example, cause theologians to be misinformed about the sun, earth, and stars — which, in turn, might cause them to misinterpret biblical passages concerning these things. More certain knowledge might bring about the revision of such (mis)interpretations. Likewise, a mistaken knowledge of reproductive biology might have led medieval theologians to conclude that a child receives a soul only after the passage of time in the womb of the mother (they thought of the child as a seed that took some number of days to sprout) — the theologians may change their conclusion based on better facts, but they may not change the moral principles by which those facts are evaluated.

The Church also has the power to make binding legislation as to discipline, and to change such disciplinary laws when appropriate. For example, the Church might prescribe abstinence from fish on Fridays at one time, change the abstinence to Wednesdays at another time, and abolish it altogether at another time. (There is, of course, an implied obligation to institute or change such practices only for good reason.)

[Fr Brusca]

Indefectibility

By

The Church enjoys the privilege of “indefectibility”; which is to say that it will be protected against a general failure in achieving its mission of bringing souls to God. “Upon this rock (petra) I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matt. 16) “I will be with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (Matt. 28) It should be obvious that while the Church will always be available some where in some form, it may not always have the same external appearance, and the rejection of Its message by individuals does not constitute a failure on Its part. To use the modern idiom, our Lord has promised that “the devil will never put the Church completely out of business.”

Note that “indefectibility” refers to the Church as an organization, not to any one individual. It does not imply “impeccability,” or freedom from sin on the part of its leaders — no one denies that bad men have, from time to time, ruled the Church. “Indefectibility” does not imply that Church leaders will always make the right strategic decisions, nor that they will be orthodox in their private beliefs and teaching. Indeed, it is sometimes — not quite jokingly — said that the continued existence of the Church in spite of its leaders is proof of divine protection.

[Fr Brusca]