Sedevacantism and the index of Forbidden Books

[LausTibiChriste]

I know nothing about Gibbon but found this....

"Edward Gibbon's central thesis in his explanation of how the Roman Empire fell, that it was due to embracing Christianity, is not widely accepted by scholars today. Gibbon argued that with the empire's new Christian character, large sums of wealth that would have otherwise been used in the secular affairs in promoting the state were transferred to promoting the activities of the Church. However, the pre-Christian empire also spent large financial sums on religious affairs and it is unclear whether or not the change of religion increased the amount of resources the empire spent on religion. Gibbon further argued that new attitudes in Christianity caused many Christians of wealth to renounce their lifestyles and enter a monastic lifestyle, and so stop participating in the support of the empire. However, while many Christians of wealth did become monastics, this paled in comparison to the participants in the imperial bureaucracy. Although Gibbon further pointed out that the importance Christianity placed on peace caused a decline in the number of people serving the military, the decline was so small as to be negligible for the army's effectiveness.."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_the_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire

Thank you Acolyte.

I had a history prof who always used to say "Rome never died, it just re-branded as Catholicism"

Perhaps she was right

[Acolyte]

I know nothing about Gibbon but found this....

"Edward Gibbon's central thesis in his explanation of how the Roman Empire fell, that it was due to embracing Christianity, is not widely accepted by scholars today. Gibbon argued that with the empire's new Christian character, large sums of wealth that would have otherwise been used in the secular affairs in promoting the state were transferred to promoting the activities of the Church. However, the pre-Christian empire also spent large financial sums on religious affairs and it is unclear whether or not the change of religion increased the amount of resources the empire spent on religion. Gibbon further argued that new attitudes in Christianity caused many Christians of wealth to renounce their lifestyles and enter a monastic lifestyle, and so stop participating in the support of the empire. However, while many Christians of wealth did become monastics, this paled in comparison to the participants in the imperial bureaucracy. Although Gibbon further pointed out that the importance Christianity placed on peace caused a decline in the number of people serving the military, the decline was so small as to be negligible for the army's effectiveness.."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_the_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire

Thank you Acolyte.

I had a history prof who always used to say "Rome never died, it just re-branded as Catholicism"

Perhaps she was right

Yes, the Empire became Christendom.

[Michael Wilson]

So Catholics no longer need the Church to advise them what to read or not?

What is dangerous to read changes over time. For example, the Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri was originally put on the index, but it was taken off later, I think  in about 1881.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/index-forbidden-books-history-works-impact.html
Today, Pope Francis urges Catholics to read the Divine Comedy.
https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2021/09/10/dante-pope-francis-700-241375
In any case it seems that SV who do not recognize the authority of Pope Paul VI,  are subject to harsh penalties for reading a book on the index, whereas NO Catholics are not subject to these ecclesiastical penalties. As explained in "The Roman Index of Forbidden Books," by Francis S. Betten, the preVatican II penalty for reading a book on the index was a mortal sin.

What harsh penalties? There is no-one left in charge to enforce the old Code or the new.
But would you abide by the decision of the Index if you lived in say 1950 and not read a book that was on the Index w/o permission, or would you?

[AlNg]

What harsh penalties?

Mortal sin.

[Michael Wilson]

What harsh penalties?

Mortal sin.

To incur a Mortal Sin one would read one of the books on the Index with the deliberate intention of showing contempt for ecclesiastical authority.
So then, you refused to respond to the other question, I will have to assume that you would not consider yourself bound by the Index or that the Church has the authority to tell you what to read or not.
What is your view on the authority of the Church on these matters, and what is it based on? 

[Michael Wilson]

I had a history prof who always used to say "Rome never died, it just re-branded as Catholicism"
Perhaps she was right

That would mean that the Catholic Church disappeared in the 4th C. Welcome to Protestantism.

[AlNg]

To incur a Mortal Sin one would read one of the books on the Index with the deliberate intention of showing contempt for ecclesiastical authority.

That is not how it was explained in  "The Roman Index of Forbidden Books," by Francis S. Betten,

[Michael Wilson]

Then just don't refute the statement on "I say so", post the relevant quote.

[AlNg]

Then just don't refute the statement on "I say so", post the relevant quote.

You insist on misrepresenting what I have said. Perhaps that is because your stance is so weak. For example, can you give me a moral justification for enslaving children or for headhunting for slaves in underdeveloped countries?
It was not "I say so". It was a reference to the book: "The Roman Index of Forbidden Books," by Francis S. Betten,
""I am told that a transgression of the Index law is a mortal sin. Can it be true that the Church, the kindest of mothers, should load us down with such a severe obligation?"

According to the theologians, the reading of a forbidden book, or of a considerable part of it, is a mortal sin."

[Miriam_M]

Then just don't refute the statement on "I say so", post the relevant quote.

You insist on misrepresenting what I have said. Perhaps that is because your stance is so weak. For example, can you give me a moral justification for enslaving children or for headhunting for slaves in underdeveloped countries?
It was not "I say so". It was a reference to the book: "The Roman Index of Forbidden Books," by Francis S. Betten,
""I am told that a transgression of the Index law is a mortal sin. Can it be true that the Church, the kindest of mothers, should load us down with such a severe obligation?"

According to the theologians, the reading of a forbidden book, or of a considerable part of it, is a mortal sin."

Did you make a connection for him between the Index and enslavement of children? (For example, are the written works of abolitionists included on the Index?)

Not only in that respect, but in other respects, the way you argue seems disingenuous.  For example, in this post I quote, and in most others, you refer to the Catholic Church and her members as if you were outside of both -- as if you are a chronicler, critic, or have an axe to grind.  Additional signals of this are one-issue fixations not directly related to a topic being debated (such as this one), frequent formula-phrasing of "Some (in the Church) say X, some say Y."  What is your point?  Is it to trap SD members, to collate data on "opinions" about settled dogma not subject to opinion?  (Which is a contradiction in itself.)

Even the most modern of contemporary Catholics don't speak this way.  If they're modernists through and through, they will argue, "This is what the Church says today."  If anything, if they're confirmed modernists, they won't care what the previous language was about the same settled dogma. 

There have been other single-issue or limited-issue posters on this site -- some with axes to grind about clerical sexual abuse. Eventually, single-issue posters, or those trying to trap other posters, end up being ignored.

[LausTibiChriste]

I had a history prof who always used to say "Rome never died, it just re-branded as Catholicism"
Perhaps she was right

That would mean that the Catholic Church disappeared in the 4th C. Welcome to Protestantism.

How so?

[Michael Wilson]

If the Catholic Church that exists today is not the same institution that Christ founded; then she is not what she claims to be; A divine organization for the glory of God and the salvation of men.  In the above scenario of the Roman Empire absorbing the Catholic Church and as it were taking its identity; would mean that what we have had since the 4th C. Is not the Catholic Church that Christ founded, but a man made falsification of the same. If such were the case, the so called Reformers would have been right in claiming (and still claim) that the true Church of Christ had disappeared during the course of history and was replaced by a corrupt and pagan organization that absorbed and combined the teachings of Christ with those of paganism.
Here is Dr. L. Ott in "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" pg. 296:

#12 The Indefectibility of the Church"
In saying that the Church is indefectible we assert both her imperishableness, that is, her constant duration to the end of the world, and the essential impmutabulity of her teaching, her constitution and her liturgy. This does not exclude the decay of individual "churches" (i.e., parts of the Church)and accidental changes.
The Church is indefectible, that is, she remains and will remain the Institution of Salvation, founded by Christ, until the end of the world. (Sent. certa.)
The Vatican Council (I) says of the Church that she is "an unconquered stability"  (invicta stabilitias; D 1794) and that she 'built on a rock, will continue to stand until the end of time"...The indefectibility of the Church was constested: by the spiritualistic sects of antiquity (Monstanists) and of the Middle Ages (Joachim of Fiore, the Franciscan spiritualists) who promised a new age of the Holy ghost, in which a more perfect Church of the Spirit would dissolve the secularised Church of the flesh; by the Reformers, who maintained that under the Papacy the Church had degenerated and departed from the teaching of Christ; by Jansenist (P. Quesnel, Synod of Pistoia), who accused the Church of obscuring individual truths of Faith; by the Modernists, who maintained a substantial development in the teaching and the constitution of the Church. d-1445, 1501, 2053 et seq.

[Michael Wilson]

AINg,
your "take" on this discussion is bizarre:

You insist on misrepresenting what I have said. Perhaps that is because your stance is so weak. For example, can you give me a moral justification for enslaving children or for headhunting for slaves in underdeveloped countries?

So those who defend the Catholic Church's teaching on slavery are providing a "moral justification for enslaving children"?
 

It was not "I say so". It was a reference to the book: "The Roman Index of Forbidden Books," by Francis S. Betten,
""I am told that a transgression of the Index law is a mortal sin. Can it be true that the Church, the kindest of mothers, should load us down with such a severe obligation?"

I asked you to provide for a quote and that is "misinterpreting what you are saying"; So the person who you used as your source is an anti-Catholic and you agree that a "kind mother" would never try to prevent her children from drinking a deadly poison, even if it meant threatening them with a severe punishment if they ever attempted to.
The Church as "the kindest of Mothers" (which she indeed is), in enacting an Index of forbidden books or a Movie rating system; is trying to prevent her children from incurring damage to their souls and even their eternal loss. This is true kindness and not the false kindness of those who give into their children's every whim, to their eternal ruination.

According to the theologians, the reading of a forbidden book, or of a considerable part of it, is a mortal sin."

I have no problem with this, it is you that does.
What I stated above was that if a Catholic happened to read a book that was on the Index, without realizing it, they would not incur a Mortal Sin, since one of the elements was lacking: "sufficient knowledge".

[Miriam_M]

According to the theologians, the reading of a forbidden book, or of a considerable part of it, is a mortal sin."

No orthodox theologian would say that, as mortal sin requires full knowledge of grave matter + willful intent to violate a Church precept, restriction, etc.  "The theologians" is also very vague.

[Stubborn]

According to the theologians, the reading of a forbidden book, or of a considerable part of it, is a mortal sin."

No orthodox theologian would say that, as mortal sin requires full knowledge of grave matter + willful intent to violate a Church precept, restriction, etc.  "The theologians" is also very vague.

Miriam,
This brings up a question based on Our Lord's warning to us. His warning us that we are to beware of false prophets, which is warning us to beware of false teachings. Obviously the Index was published to prevent the faithful from reading false teachings and from reading error. 

Is not Our Lord saying that you can be deceived, if you listen / read error, and you can accept that which is error as truth, that which is deceptively taught in what you read, and that if you get deceived - even if you have good intentions - is not Our Lord saying that you can lose your faith hence soul by being deceived? Is this not the reason for the Index?

OTOH, if it is only the author (false prophet) who God will punish, then why is there any need to "beware?" Which is to say if God is going to hold blameless those who listen / read error and lose their faith on that account, then what's the point of Him telling us to beware at all, and what's the point of the Index?

We must further consider that sometimes the heretical preacher has good intentions - because he also is deceived, after all, he learned the heretical beliefs he is preaching from some other false prophet (perhaps from the Index), and presumably he listened with what he thought was a good will - but he is deceived, and now he is passing his heresies and his scandals onto those who also are deceived. And on and on it spreads, and is still spreading - even among those without full knowledge of grave matter or bad intent.