Comments on: The Last Sunday after Pentecost http://www.cornellsociety.org/2006/11/the-last-sunday-after-pentecost/ Unity in charity, diversity in truth Sat, 30 Aug 2008 11:12:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Iosephus http://www.cornellsociety.org/2006/11/the-last-sunday-after-pentecost/#comment-3120 Iosephus Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:03:00 +0000 http://www.cornellsociety.org/2006/11/the-last-sunday-after-pentecost/#comment-3120 I did link to Ambrosius' original, <A HREF="http://cornell-catholic-circle.blogspot.com/2005/10/christus-vincit-christus-regnat.html" REL="nofollow">but here it is again</A>.<BR/><BR/>This is a good point that you make, Simple Priest. I did link to Ambrosius’ original, but here it is again.

This is a good point that you make, Simple Priest.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.cornellsociety.org/2006/11/the-last-sunday-after-pentecost/#comment-3121 Anonymous Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:17:00 +0000 http://www.cornellsociety.org/2006/11/the-last-sunday-after-pentecost/#comment-3121 Perhaps this was said in the good Ambrosius' original post, but one aspect of the original day for the Feast of Christ the King that I rarely hear mentioned is that it was meant to be the Sunday immediately preceding All Saints' Day. One can glean this from the rubrics for the Office. Likewise, the hymns for Christ the King are clearly modelled on those of All Saints'. And this arrangement of the feasts certainly provides for a beautiful, annual celebration of Holy Church: first her King, then the Church Triumphant, then the Church Suffering (on All Souls' Day), and throughout it all, by implication, the Church Militant, who recall these great mysteries. A Simple Priest. Perhaps this was said in the good Ambrosius’ original post, but one aspect of the original day for the Feast of Christ the King that I rarely hear mentioned is that it was meant to be the Sunday immediately preceding All Saints’ Day. One can glean this from the rubrics for the Office. Likewise, the hymns for Christ the King are clearly modelled on those of All Saints’. And this arrangement of the feasts certainly provides for a beautiful, annual celebration of Holy Church: first her King, then the Church Triumphant, then the Church Suffering (on All Souls’ Day), and throughout it all, by implication, the Church Militant, who recall these great mysteries. A Simple Priest.

]]> By: Ben Douglass http://www.cornellsociety.org/2006/11/the-last-sunday-after-pentecost/#comment-3122 Ben Douglass Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:07:00 +0000 http://www.cornellsociety.org/2006/11/the-last-sunday-after-pentecost/#comment-3122 I admire your charity, but based on several of his public statements (e.g. in <I>Without Roots</I>, <I>Principles of Catholic Theology</I>, a 1990 interview with <I>L'Osservatore Romano</I>, a Vatican radio broadcast which was reported by <I>Zenit</I> on November 25, 2004), I'm pretty well convinced that Benedict XVI rejects the idea that it is morally obligatory for the state to profess Catholicism. He likes the American model, which according to the pre-conciliar Popes is merely tolerable, and involves the state shirking its moral duty.<BR/><BR/>Fr. Brian Harrison, in his article "Vatican II and Religious Liberty: Contradiction or Continuity?" mentions one of the inadequate solutions to the problem of reconciling <I>Dignitatis Humanae</I> with Catholicism as the idea that the pre-conciliar Popes were only concerned to combat religious indifferentism. "The implication, clearly, is that the Church today will not really contradict the earlier popes in approving the same degree of civil liberty which they condemned, provided only that, in doing so, today’s Church clearly dissociates herself from any possible suggestion that indifferentism is the rationale or motivation for this new decision."<BR/><BR/>I think Pope Benedict adheres to this thesis. He states in <I>Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life</I>, "The teaching on freedom of conscience and on religious freedom does not therefore contradict the condemnation of indifferentism and religious relativism by Catholic doctrine." He then cites: Pius IX, Encyclical Letter <I>Quanta cura</I>: ASS 3 (1867), 162; Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter <I>Immortale Dei</I>: ASS 18 (1885), 170–171; Pius XI, Encyclical Letter <I>Quas primas</I>: AAS 17 (1925), 604–605<BR/><BR/>As he told <I>L'Osservatore Romano</I>, so long as the nucleus remains valid, in this case the Church's condemnation of indifferentism, he feels justified in dispensing with what he regards as mere particulars, such as the Church's condemnation of liberty of conscience and the separation of Church and state. I admire your charity, but based on several of his public statements (e.g. in Without Roots, Principles of Catholic Theology, a 1990 interview with L’Osservatore Romano, a Vatican radio broadcast which was reported by Zenit on November 25, 2004), I’m pretty well convinced that Benedict XVI rejects the idea that it is morally obligatory for the state to profess Catholicism. He likes the American model, which according to the pre-conciliar Popes is merely tolerable, and involves the state shirking its moral duty.

Fr. Brian Harrison, in his article “Vatican II and Religious Liberty: Contradiction or Continuity?” mentions one of the inadequate solutions to the problem of reconciling Dignitatis Humanae with Catholicism as the idea that the pre-conciliar Popes were only concerned to combat religious indifferentism. “The implication, clearly, is that the Church today will not really contradict the earlier popes in approving the same degree of civil liberty which they condemned, provided only that, in doing so, today’s Church clearly dissociates herself from any possible suggestion that indifferentism is the rationale or motivation for this new decision.”

I think Pope Benedict adheres to this thesis. He states in Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life, “The teaching on freedom of conscience and on religious freedom does not therefore contradict the condemnation of indifferentism and religious relativism by Catholic doctrine.” He then cites: Pius IX, Encyclical Letter Quanta cura: ASS 3 (1867), 162; Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Immortale Dei: ASS 18 (1885), 170–171; Pius XI, Encyclical Letter Quas primas: AAS 17 (1925), 604–605

As he told L’Osservatore Romano, so long as the nucleus remains valid, in this case the Church’s condemnation of indifferentism, he feels justified in dispensing with what he regards as mere particulars, such as the Church’s condemnation of liberty of conscience and the separation of Church and state.

]]>