Vatican renovationism

[Cyprian]

A number of accusations have been leveled at the Vatican in this forum of departing from its earlier teaching, whether in dogmatics, in moral theology or in ecumenical relations. It seems appropriate to treat these questions specifically, in a more thorough and particular way than often occurs in other threads. As an example of Vatican modernization, picked not because of its importance, but more because of its simplicity and because of how obvious it is that the Vatican is wrong on this point, is the question of obedience in marriage. John Paul II encyclical, Mulieribus Dignitatem, states the following
24. The text is addressed to the spouses as real women and men. It reminds them of the "ethos" of spousal love which goes back to the divine institution of marriage from the "beginning". Corresponding to the truth of this institution is the exhortation: "Husbands, love your wives", love them because of that special and unique bond whereby in marriage a man and a woman become "one flesh" (Gen 2:24; Eph 5:31). In this love there is a fundamental affirmation of the woman as a person. This affirmation makes it possible for the female personality to develop fully and be enriched. This is precisely the way Christ acts as the bridegroom of the Church; he desires that she be "in splendour, without spot or wrinkle" (Eph 5:27). One can say that this fully captures the whole "style" of Christ in dealing with women. Husbands should make their own the elements of this style in regard to their wives; analogously, all men should do the same in regard to women in every situation. In this way both men and women bring about "the sincere gift of self".

The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife" (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a "mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ" (cf. Eph 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the "head" of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give "himself up for her" (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the "subjection" is not one-sided but mutual.

In relation to the "old" this is evidently something "new": it is an innovation of the Gospel. We find various passages in which the apostolic writings express this innovation, even though they also communicate what is "old": what is rooted in the religious tradition of Israel, in its way of understanding and explaining the sacred texts, as for example the second chapter of the Book of Genesis.49

The apostolic letters are addressed to people living in an environment marked by that same traditional way of thinking and acting. The "innovation" of Christ is a fact: it constitutes the unambiguous content of the evangelical message and is the result of the Redemption. However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual "subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ", and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs. This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew. Saint Paul not only wrote: "In Christ Jesus... there is no more man or woman", but also wrote: "There is no more slave or freeman". Yet how many generations were needed for such a principle to be realized in the history of humanity through the abolition of slavery! And what is one to say of the many forms of slavery to which individuals and peoples are subjected, which have not yet disappeared from history?

But the challenge presented by the "ethos" of the Redemption is clear and definitive. All the reasons in favour of the "subjection" of woman to man in marriage must be understood in the sense of a "mutual subjection" of both "out of reverence for Christ". The measure of true spousal love finds its deepest source in Christ, who is the Bridegroom of the Church, his Bride.The first thing immediately noticeable about this interpretation is its "subtlety". It departs from the plain interpretation of the text, in favour of one more amenable to modern sensibilities, one that renders it inexplicable why St. Paul picks out women especially for the command of obedience. The second noticeable point is that it tries to disguise its implausibility behind the mask of claiming "cultural influence". St. Paul, according to this type of interpretation, was a coward, who didn't have the courage to say what he actually meant, but rather only stated it implicitly, while pandering to sinful cultural prejudices. Thirdly a "progressivist" strain is noticeable. The ages of Christian civilization are presented as needing perfection by modern godless society. Christian civilization did not "realize" the truth of the equality of women (in the modern sense), and needed to be taught this lesson in the fullness of type by heretics and atheists.
A couple illustrations of how far this is from traditional understandings of Christian marriage are enough, given that the point is so obvious, and given that the "holy father" practically admits it himself (thus the progressivist strain)
St. Clement of Rome (first epistle) "Who ever failed to be impressed by your sober and selfless Christian piety...your womenfolk were bidden to go about their duties in irreproachable devotion and purity of conscience, showing all proper affection to their husbands; they were taught to make obedience the rule of their lives..."
St. John Chrysostom "Let us assume then, that the husband is to occupy the place of the head, and the wife that of the body, and listen to what "headship" means: "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church, His Body, and is Himself its Saviour. As the Church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands...(St. Paul) has assigned to husband and wife each his proper place: to the husband one of leader and provider, and to the wife one of submission. Therefore as the Church is subject to Christ-and the Church, remember, consists of both husbands and wives-so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands, as to God."
Again, my intent in posting this is not to draw attention exclusively to this issue, but rather to give an example of the renovationism which the "vicars of Christ" have taken to engaging in, "infallible guides" blatantly and shamelessly contradicting their earlier, equally "infallible", predecessors.

[Boleslaw]

First Petr, now you? What the fuck is going on around here?

[Petr]

First Petr, now you? What the fuck is going on around here?
The Vatican is slipping into liberal apostasy, that's what. Don't shoot the messenger, we are just reporting the developments.


Petr

[Boleslaw]

The Vatican is slipping into liberal apostasy, that's what.

I'll concede the Bishops are slipping into such; but I have my doubts the Vatican is. Most "evidence" that's usually presented is not too convincing.

Anyways, for now here's a good link concerning "Traditionalist" arguments about the Church's apostasy:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/traditionalists-catholic-quasi.html

BTW, the guy who runs this site lives in the same general area as me. Nice to know I'm not alone here.

And you can also see a nice photo a "traditional" Novous Ordo parish, St. Joseph's Church.


Don't shoot the messenger, we are just reporting the developments.


Inaccurately reporting the developments I must say. Although I'll be nice and say it's not entirely your fault. One has to be Catholic to fully understand many of these developments.

[Cyprian]

Inaccurately reporting the developments I must say. Although I'll be nice and say it's not entirely your fault. One has to be Catholic to fully understand many of these developments.What's inaccurate about my comments about Mulieribus Dignitatem?

[Königin Luise von Preußen]

One has to be Catholic to fully understand many of these developments.

I agree with this sentence!

Regards, :)

[Cyprian]

I agree with this sentence!

Regards, :)Again I repeat what I said in my last post. Even if one has to be Catholic to "fully" understand these developments, it is surely possible to give some indication where particular complaints, like mine against Mulieribus Dignitatem, go wrong. To simply say, "You just don't understand," but to refuse to give the slightest justification of the claim, is a cop-out, pure and simple.

[Boleslaw]

Again I repeat what I said in my last post. Even if one has to be Catholic to "fully" understand these developments, it is surely possible to give some indication where particular complaints, like mine against Mulieribus Dignitatem, go wrong. To simply say, "You just don't understand," but to refuse to give the slightest justification of the claim, is a cop-out, pure and simple.
Well then forgive me for my lack of time and energy to be engaging in a discussion I have little patience for.

[Königin Luise von Preußen]

Well then forgive me for my lack of time and energy to be engaging in a discussion I have little patience for.

me either..

it is the approach that I'd like to critisice, if at all but .. regardless, it w'd be - needless, or useless.. so I agree again..

[Hartmann von Aue]

, "infallible guides" blatantly and shamelessly contradicting their earlier, equally "infallible", predecessors.

The Pope's commentary you quoted would not be classed as infallible teachings.

The duty of the wife to obey her husband is the constant teaching of the Church. Anyone who denies that is a heretic.

The habit of equivocation and patterns of thought adopted by John Paul are very disturbing, I agree.

[Hartmann von Aue]

74. The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further and assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women has been or ought to be effected. This emancipation in their ideas must be threefold, in the ruling of the domestic society, in the administration of family affairs and in the rearing of the children. It must be social, economic, physiological: -- physiological, that is to say, the woman is to be freed at her own good pleasure from the burdensome duties properly belonging to a wife as companion and mother (We have already said that this is not an emancipation but a crime); social, inasmuch as the wife being freed from the cares of children and family, should, to the neglect of these, be able to follow her own bent and devote herself to business and even public affairs; finally economic, whereby the woman even without the knowledge and against the wish of her husband may be at liberty to conduct and administer her own affairs, giving her attention chiefly to these rather than to children, husband and family.

75. This, however, is not the true emancipation of woman, nor that rational and exalted liberty which belongs to the noble office of a Christian woman and wife; it is rather the debasing of the womanly character and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which the husband suffers the loss of his wife, the children of their mother, and the home and the whole family of an ever watchful guardian. More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as amongst the pagans the mere instrument of man.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11CASTI.HTM

[Königin Luise von Preußen]

so what? preaching to stones?

what is the point of Yours'?

to me it seems, both - Leon and Cyprian - are standing somewhere in time and space - and just got stuck in "hyperreflecting", what is rather very very bizarre, or let me say, at least "funny"..

:confused:

[Cyprian]

so what? preaching to stones?

what is the point of Yours'?

to me it seems, both - Leon and Cyprian - are standing somewhere in time and space - and just got stuck in "hyperreflecting", what is rather very very bizarre, or let me say, at least "funny"..

:confused:My point is precisely the one I made in the first post, that statements have been coming out of the Vatican that go against the traditional teaching of the Church. I brought up this particular issue as an example. I could just as easily have brought up the Vatican's gestures toward Judaism and Islam, or it's authorization and (especially under Paul VI) encouragement of the bastardization of the Mass. Again, the primary point I'm making is that it's not just "some of the bishops" but the Vatican itself that's betraying the old faith.

[Cyprian]

The Pope's commentary you quoted would not be classed as infallible teachings.Could you expand on this? What is lacking in Mulieribus Dignitatem that excludes it from the status of an infallible ex cathedra pronouncement?

[Petr]

My point is precisely the one I made in the first post, that statements have been coming out of the Vatican that go against the traditional teaching of the Church. I brought up this particular issue as an example. I could just as easily have brought up the Vatican's gestures toward Judaism and Islam, or it's authorization and (especially under Paul VI) encouragement of the bastardization of the Mass. Again, the primary point I'm making is that it's not just "some of the bishops" but the Vatican itself that's betraying the old faith.
A blind man could see that in Vatican II, Roman Magisterium backed away from many venerable archaic positions of theirs that had simply become an embarrassment to progressive minds in modern world.


Petr

[Königin Luise von Preußen]

A blind man could see that in Vatican II, Roman Magisterium backed away from many venerable archaic positions of theirs that had simply become an embarrassment to progressive minds in modern world.


Petr

that much is really well said and just so true! I agree, of course. well said!

as there is no "world-law", there is only one question - what is a human being..

the canonian law was the only thing - human being had.. look Cyprian, in France and in England there was up to the 80ies still the death penalty! not in Germany.. of course not..

so, the nazi processes in Nürnberg, the death of Stalin.. these are important terms of conditions, that influenced also the churches, such as of an rather "exclusive" character that one of the roman catholic religious institutions' one first of all..
in the canonian law (what stems from the mediaval and last up to the II. Vatican Council) - there was still the term: Jews are waste of human existance!

so they had the II. Vatican Council, where these corrections were just made and we became slightly to become a little more "humans", the one or the other..
by that fundamental transformation, they could also get a little closer in a dialogue about approach to islam religion, and - the women became to receive a more valueable status in society itself.. look at France, totally or at least very catholic - where women were not allowed to posess even a bank-account up to the 60ies - "HALLO" ?

so, in the end - for some reason - there is of course still one state in Europe left, where women must not vote, go to elections or choose.. and, it is of course not Turkey.. it is - ta ta tarataaa - yes, it is of course the Vatican. So, what?

Best,
Pace + Bene
:)

[Hartmann von Aue]

It is certainly not an ex cathedra pronouncement.

Nor could it be considered the constant teaching of the ordinary magisterium.

Here's the SSPX explanation:

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm

[Königin Luise von Preußen]

It is certainly not an ex cathedra pronouncement.

Nor could it be considered the constant teaching of the ordinary magisterium.

Here's the SSPX explanation:

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm

I don`t understand? :confused:

what does it mean?


EDIT: I like to add: may I ask, what religion you are belonging to..? I just try to understand you. Thank You!

[Hartmann von Aue]

Even though the issue here doesn't involve the question of papal infallibility, it certainly involves the question of the Pope coming precariously close to heresy.

This is especially true because the husband is called the "head" of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give "himself up for her" (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the "subjection" is not one-sided but mutual.

The line in bold does not directly contradict the requirement that wife obey her husband, but seems to try to suggest that the "mutual subjection out for reverence" in Christ means that the husband must consider his wife's wishes in a way similar to the way she must consider his.

When the Pope mentions "the customs of the time" and then talks about slavery, it is really too much to take - he is attempting to placate liberals. But in citing those things he is not actually contradicting previous teaching.

I see the current developments in the Church as being similar to the Babylonian captivity - only more serious.

There is a secular power devoted to the destruction of Christianity that is imposing itself on the Papacy and has infiltrated much of the hierarchy.

That the Church has stopped openly speaking of the planned destruction of Catholicism by anti-Christians, when it used to publicly decry it, cannot be considered a good sign.

Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita (http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/dillon/text.htm#14)
Humanum Genus (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13human.htm)

I have been informed that an important rôle was played in the preparation of the World War directed against the monarchical Central Powers by the policy of the international “Great Orient Lodge”; a policy extending over many years and always envisaging the goal at which it aimed. But the German Great Lodges, I was furthermore told—with two exceptions wherein non-German financial interests are paramount and which maintain secret connection with the “Great Orient” in Paris—had no relationship to the “Great Orient.” They were entirely loyal and faithful, according to the assurance given me by the distinguished German Freemason who explained to me this whole interrelationship, which had, until then, been unknown to me. He said that in 1917 an international meeting of the lodges of the “Great Orient” was held, after which there was a subsequent conference in Switzerland ; at this the following program was adopted : Dismemberment of Austria-Hungary, democratization of Germany, elimination of the House of Hapsburg, abdication of the German Emperor, restitution of Alsace-Lorraine to France, union of Galicia with Poland, elimination of the Pope and the Catholic Church, elimination of every state Church in Europe.

http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/vegyes_/wilhelm2_10.html

[Hartmann von Aue]

I don`t understand? :confused:

what does it mean?


EDIT: I like to add: may I ask, what religion you are belonging to..? I just try to understand you. Thank You!

I'm Catholic.

Ex Cathedra means "from the chair" - that is, the Pope is invoking Petrine authority and his pronouncement is infallible.

[Königin Luise von Preußen]

I'm Catholic.

Ex Cathedra means "from the chair" - that is, the Pope is invoking Petrine authority and his pronouncement is infallible.

Thanks!! :)

[Königin Luise von Preußen]

When the Pope mentions "the customs of the time" and then talks about slavery, it is really too much to take - he is attempting to placate liberals. But in citing those things he is not actually contradicting previous teaching.

Leon, could it just be - I am not sure, but - he (his writers, spin doctors or delegates) might have meant "slave of sin", like slave to idol, like .. that might be a wider understanding, of just the notion he is ascribing to.. because it would be just too much of terminology hyperreflected in a certain context for interpretation, so or so.. didn't he refer to some period of time or any previous sources, when he speaks about specific things..

I mean, when I think about this huge church state, this institution, and how many are in each division, when it gets to just translate or interpretate a little tiny piece of the holy book? for a centimeter of texture - they have units of workforce.. so, there fore I mean just, maybe he meant the word "slave" not in the meaning of a cesar.

Best,
:)

[Boleslaw]

When the Pope mentions "the customs of the time" and then talks about slavery, it is really too much to take - he is attempting to placate liberals.

How so? You can can easily argue that the early Church's attitude towards slavery was indeed governed by the customs of the day. But let's look further into the issue.

Although St. Paul did not condemn slavery per se, he certainly did not accept any and all forms of it either. He told slaves to obey their masters, but he also told masters to treach their slaves fairly and with dignity -since they are after all made in the image of God as anyother person.

And the basic logic that St. Paul promotes here is still very much part of the Church's teachings, in regards to Social Doctrine on the issue of employer-employee relations. So although the Church is largely against slavery now, it hasn't actually repudiated any of its teachings.

The same basic idea probably applies to gender relations within the family as well; hence JPII's point.

I think you people are reading too much into JPII's words.

[Hartmann von Aue]

How so? You can can easily argue that the early Church's attitude towards slavery was indeed governed by the customs of the day. But let's look further into the issue.

Although St. Paul did not condemn slavery per se, he certainly did not accept any and all forms of it either. He told slaves to obey their masters, but he also told masters to treach their slaves fairly and with dignity -since they are after all made in the image of God as anyother person.

How is this relevant unless the Pope is suggesting that the obedience due to a husband is somehow related to the gradual end of legal slavery?

The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church, 75 years ago, certainly did not teach that the requirement for a woman to obey her husband was based on the customs of the time. In fact just the opposite.

And the basic logic that St. Paul promotes here is still very much part of the Church's teachings, in regards to Social Doctrine on the issue of employer-employee relations. So although the Church is largely against slavery now, it hasn't actually repudiated any of its teachings.

Slavery is quite a different issue than spousal relations.

Here is some background on the Papacy's teachings on slavery:

http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a003.html

The same basic idea probably applies to gender relations within the family as well; hence JPII's point.

What point is that? Why don't you spell out EXACTLY what you think that point about gender relations is?

I think you people are reading too much into JPII's words.

He wrote what he did.

If someone (because of the equivocation in the text, it is not unreasonable to think they would) believes the Pope no longer asserts that it is a wifely duty for a woman to obey her husband, because of a change in the "times" and that somehow the requirement, understood as "mutual submission," means that the husband has no God-given authority over his wife (in a way that his wife does not have over him) then there is a very serious problem.

[Königin Luise von Preußen]

just this senctence.. extremely interesting, this rethoric..

How is this relevant unless the Pope is suggesting that the obedience due to a husband is somehow related to the gradual end of legal slavery?

this sentence is so unbelievable.. here I see, You are just a catholic.. he he.. :)

[Hartmann von Aue]

just this senctence.. extremely interesting, this rethoric..



this sentence is so unbelievable.. here I see, You are just a catholic.. he he.. :)

Do you know German better?

Alle diese nun, die so den Glanz der ehelichen Treue und Keuschheit zu verdunkeln trachten, sind es auch, die als Lehrer des Irrtums den treuen und ehrenvollen Gehorsam der Frau gegen den Mann gern erschüttern möchten. Einige Verwegene gehen noch weiter und bezeichnen diesen Gehorsam als eine entwürdigende Versklavung des einen Eheteils durch den andern. Beide Gatten, sagen sie, besäßen völlig gleiche Rechte. Da diese Ebenbürtigkeit durch die Sklaverei des einen Teiles verletzt werde, so rühmen sie sich stolz, eine Befreiung der Frau vollzogen zu haben, oder fordern, daß sie in Bälde vollzogen werde. Je nachdem es sich bei dieser Befreiung um die Leitung der häuslichen Gemeinschaft oder die Vermögensverwaltung oder die Verhütung bzw. Tötung neuen Lebens handelt, unterscheiden sie eine dreifache Emanzipation: eine soziale, wirtschaftliche, physiologische. Die physiologische Emanzipation verstehen sie dahin, daß es der Frau völlig frei stehen soll, die mit dem Beruf der Gattin und Mutter verknüpften natürlichen Lasten von sich fernzuhalten (daß dies keine Befreiung, sondern ein ruchloser Frevel ist, haben Wir schon zur Genüge dargelegt). Die wirtschaftliche Emanzipation soll der Frau das Recht bringen, ohne Vorwissen und gegen den Willen des Mannes ihr eigenes Gewerbe zu haben, ihre Angelegenheiten und Geschäfte selbst zu betreiben, selbst die Verwaltung in Händen zu halten, gleichgültig, was dabei aus Kindern, Gatten und der ganzen Familie wird. Die soziale Emanzipation endlich will die Frau dem engen Kreis der häuslichen Pflichten und Sorgen für Kinder und Familie entheben, um sie freizumachen für ihre angeborenen Neigungen, damit sie sich anderen Berufen und Ämtern, auch solchen des öffentlichen Lebens widmen kann.

Aber das ist keine wirkliche Befreiung der Frau; sie enthält nicht jene der Vernunft entsprechende und gebührende Freiheit, wie sie die hehre Aufgabe der Frau und Gattin fordert. Sie ist eher eine Entartung des weiblichen Empfindens und der Mutterwürde, eine Umkehrung der ganzen Familienordnung, so daß der Gatte der Gattin, die Kinder der Mutter, die ganze Familie und Hausgemeinschaft der stets wachsamen Hüterin und Wächterin beraubt werden. Diese falsche Freiheit und unnatürliche Gleichstellung mit dem Manne wird sich zum eigenen Verderben der Frau auswirken; denn wenn sie einmal von der Höhe und dem Thron herabsteigt, zu dem sie innerhalb der Familie durch das Evangelium erhoben wurde, wird sie bald (vielleicht weniger dem äußeren Schein nach, wohl aber in Wirklichkeit) in die frühere Sklavenstellung zurückgedrängt und wie im Heidentum zu einem bloßen Werkzeug des Mannes werden.

http://www.stjosef.at/dokumente/casti_connubii.htm

[Königin Luise von Preußen]

Do you know German better?



http://www.stjosef.at/dokumente/casti_connubii.htm

thanks, for clearing this up. actually it stays essentially the same, what I think, you are trying to argue.. just clearer and more distinctive, as German structure of the hard language makes more sense, in distinguishing church-spoken-language and colloquial speaking and understanding.. but more dignified - without getting even indifferent about the issue discussed..

your rethorics is very much of a catholic, controversial and direct, and - very difficult to get you nailed down on the cross.. (in German: Jemanden an das Kreuz nageln, auf das Kreuz legen, festnageln), with what you say..

thanks anyway.

regards,