The Catechism of St. Pius X

Reformed Thomist · #1 (**permalink**) 07-14-2009, 11:18 AM

From the Catechism of St. Pius X (that is, Pope St. Pius X -- Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto, 1835-1914 -- who wrote and published the for-laymen catechism in the early twentieth century)...

28 Q. Is the reading of the Bible necessary to all Christians?

A. The reading of the Bible is not necessary to all Christians since they are instructed by the Church; however its reading is very useful and recommended to all.

29 Q. May any translation of the Bible, in the vernacular, be read?

A. We can read those translations of the Bible in the vernacular which have been acknowledged as faithful by the Catholic Church and which have explanations also approved by the Church.

30 Q. Why may we only read translations of the Bible approved by the Church?

A. We may only read translations of the Bible approved by the Church because she alone is the lawful guardian of the Bible.

31 Q. Through which means can we know the true meaning of the Holy Scripture?

A. We can only know the true meaning of Holy Scripture through the Church's interpretation, because she alone is secure against error in that interpretation.

32 Q. What should a Christian do who has been given a Bible by a Protestant or by an agent of the Protestants?

A. A Christian to whom a Bible has been offered by a Protestant or an agent of the Protestants should reject it with disgust, because it is forbidden by the Church. If it was accepted by inadvertence, it must be burnt as soon as possible or handed in to the Parish Priest.

33 Q. Why does the Church forbid Protestant Bibles?

A. The Church forbids Protestant Bibles because, either they have been altered and contain errors, or not having her approbation and footnotes explaining the obscure meanings, they may be harmful to the Faith. It is for that same reason that the Church even forbids translations of the Holy Scriptures already approved by her which have been reprinted without the footnotes approved by her.

Rich Koster · #2 (**permalink**) 07-14-2009, 11:27 AM

31 A secure against error??????????????

Berean · #3 (**permalink**) 07-14-2009, 12:47 PM

Quote:

We may only read translations of the Bible approved by the Church because she alone is the lawful guardian of the Bible.

More like the guardian of heresy and error.

And "the Church" is a better interpreter of Scripture than the Holy Spirit?

SolaGratia · #4 (**permalink**) 07-14-2009, 01:01 PM

Some Protestants have change their written doctrine to better conform to the Church of Rome. For example, the Pope is no longer the Anti-christ.

The question is

When have the Papist change their doctrines that are against US?

louis_jp · #5 (**permalink**) 07-14-2009, 01:02 PM

The bible has "obscure meanings", but the Pope's footnotes are easily understood. What is it about the bible that they think makes it peculiarly unintelligible?

Reformed Thomist · #6 (**permalink**) 07-14-2009, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by louis_jp

What is it about the bible that they think makes it peculiarly unintelligible?

Why, it sometimes fails to make Romanism appear to be the One True Faith, and the doctrines of the Protestants grievous error. Clearly, that will not do.

-----Added 7/14/2009 at 01:23:23 EST-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolaGratia

Some Protestants have change their written doctrine to better conform to the Church of Rome. For example, the Pope is no longer the Anti-christ.

The question is

When have the Papist change their doctrines that are against US?

Well, to be fair, this catechism is pretty outdated. Since the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), Roman Catholics have been obliged to view Protestants as their 'brothers and sisters in Christ'. Although Protestants lack the 'fullness of the faith', generally speaking they are nonetheless genuine Christians. (You don't necessarily go to Hell for not being a Roman Catholic anymore.)

jambo · #7 (**permalink**) 07-14-2009, 03:24 PM

It is an outdated catechism and I just thank the Lord that more RCs are reading the bible today for themsleves than ever before. Indeed if you remove evangelical Christians from the equation, then probably more RCs are reading the bible than Protestants. I can think of lots and lots of RCs who became true Christians simply be reading the bible and the Holy Spirit illuminating them. I am reminded of Ps 119.130 'The entrance of your word brings light'

The conservative RC may feel he is not qualified to understand the bible but the modern RC will probably read it with a more open mind and understand its simplicity.

I would not worry in the slightest whether RCs view us as heretics or seperated brethren. Their opinion of us has no bearing on anything; it is our attitude to towards them that is important.

Parsifal23 · #8 (**permalink**) 07-30-2009, 08:22 PM

BAck when I contemplateing joining the Roman CatholicChurch (I was unsaved at the time) This is the type of stuff that I would have given a heart amen to now it just horiffies me but that's Pope Pius the X for you of coursehe is a canozied saint now so go figure.

Reformed Thomist · #9 (**permalink**) 07-30-2009, 11:05 PM

As a Roman Catholic, my co-religionists at school and I would often joke about Pius X's hardline tack, as seen in his catechism. "Q: What should a Christian who has inadvertently shaken hands with a Protestant or agent of Protestants do upon realization of the fact?" "A: A Christian who has inadvertently shaken hands with a Protestant or agent of Protestants must, upon realizing his grievous action, scrub his thereby soiled hands with soap and hot water post-haste, and then promptly recite twelve Hail Mary's."

Spinningplates2 · #10 (**permalink**) 07-30-2009, 11:32 PM

Why does anyone think that if Rome was still in control of the world that Protestants would be safe? Did they stop their blood bath because they had a change of heart?

ExGentibus · #11 (**permalink**) 07-30-2009, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spinningplates2

Why does anyone think that if Rome was still in control of the world that Protestants would be safe? Did they stop their blood bath because they had a change of heart?

Confessor · #12 (**permalink**) 07-31-2009, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reformed Thomist

As a Roman Catholic, my co-religionists at school and I would often joke about Pius X's hardline tack, as seen in his catechism. "Q: What should a Christian who has inadvertently shaken hands with a Protestant or agent of Protestants do upon realization of the fact?" "A: A Christian who has inadvertently shaken hands with a Protestant or agent of Protestants must, upon realizing his grievous action, scrub his thereby soiled hands with soap and hot water post-haste, and then promptly recite twelve Hail Mary's."

I need to get myself a hold of this catechism! This looks to be enjoyable reading.

dudley · #13 (**permalink**) 07-31-2009, 06:05 PM

[quote=Reformed Thomist;653234]

Quote:

Originally Posted by louis_jp

Well, to be fair, this catechism is pretty outdated. Since the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), Roman Catholics have been obliged to view Protestants as their 'brothers and sisters in Christ'. Although Protestants lack the 'fullness of the faith', generally speaking they are nonetheless genuine Christians. (You don't necessarily go to Hell for not being a Roman Catholic anymore.)

I hope not I am an ex roman catholic and now a Reformed Presbyterian Protestant!!!!

Dudley

**Marrow Man** · #14 (**permalink**) 07-31-2009, 09:35 PM

If this is an outdated catechism, why is it posted on the EWTN website?

Michael Turner · #15 (**permalink**) 07-31-2009, 10:21 PM

This is fascinating stuff, really. Listen to what is written about fasting and Communion...

Quote:

[The fast from midnight was the old Eucharistic discipline. In view of evening Masses which became more frequent at his time, Pope Pius XII gave permission to reduce the fast to three hours for solid food and alcoholic drink, and to one hour for non-alcoholic drink (Christus Dominus, 6 Jan. 1953). Later, Pope Paul VI reduced the fast to one hour for everything (see 1983 Code #919). This last regulation practically reduces fasting to nothing! Thus the faithful are encouraged to follow the old rules of fast for morning Masses, and Pope Pius XII's regulations for later Masses, keeping the spirit of the Church as Pope Pius XII wrote: "We intend by this Apostolic Letter to confirm the full force of the law and custom concerning the Eucharistic fast; and We also wish to remind those who are able to comply with that law, that they diligently continue to do so, so that only those who need these concessions may make use of them, according to their need.' (Ibid.)]

38 Q. What sort of fast is required before Communion?
A. Before communion there is required a natural fast which is broken by taking the least thing by way of food or drink.

39 Q. If one were to swallow a particle that had remained between the teeth, or a drop of water while washing, might he still go to Communion?
A. If one were to swallow a particle that had remained between the teeth, or a drop of water while washing, he might still go to Communion, because in both cases these things would either not be taken as food or drink, or they would have already lost the nature of either.

40 Q. Is it ever allowed to go to Communion after having broken the fast?
A. To go to Communion after having broken the fast is permitted to the sick, who are in danger of death, and to those who on account of prolonged illness have received a special dispensation from the Pope. Communion given to the sick in danger of death is called viaticum, because it supports them on their way from this life to eternity.

Reformed Thomist · #16 (**permalink**) 08-01-2009, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

If this is an outdated catechism, why is it posted on the EWTN website?

EWTN is a conservative network with strong ties to traditionalists, who lament many of the Vatican II reforms which have made this catechism and documents like it outdated (in the eyes of the great majority of Roman Catholics today). I'm sure that some EWTN employees totally agree with the letter and spirit of this catechism.

Reformed City Rockers · #17 (**permalink**) 08-01-2009, 10:59 AM

The fun thing is taking old school Catholicism and pitting it against the post Vatican 2 liberalism of modern Eruo/American roman catholicism or now a days pitting modern Catholic apologist against each other who most of have converted to Rome sadly from reformation circles since they are now are battling each other over who has the true Rominism.

The glories of Sola Ecclesia which is a joke and it produces 100 times more confusion than the alleged charge of confusion of sola scripture that Papists give to Protestants.

-----Added 8/1/2009 at 10:59:06 EST-----

Mr. Louis JP I believe you are totally mistaken Roman Catholic theology is not you friendly neighborhood Lutheran Church Missouri Synod buddy who wants to kick down a few pints and discuss the real presence with you while watching the ball game on ESPN. No Romanist theology is a sworn confessional enemy to your soul!!!

The Sixth Session of the Council of Trent:

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

CANON X.-If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

Now Mr. Louis JP let’s compare that to the Westminster Larger Catechism (now you may not believe in the Westminster Larger Catechism but that’s between you and your session but then again you're Baptist so you can believe what ever you want to believe)

Q. 70. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God's free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.

Q. 71. How is justification an act of God's free grace?
A. Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God's justice in the behalf of them that are justified; yet inasmuch as God accepteth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them, and did provide this surety, his own only Son, imputing his righteousness to them, and requiring nothing of them for their justification but faith, which also is his gift, their justification is to them of free grace.

Q. 72. What is justifying faith?
A. Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.

Q. 73. How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?
A. Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification; but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness.

Q. 77. Wherein do justification and sanctification differ?
A. Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ; in sanctification his Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof; in the former, sin is pardoned; in the other, it is subdued: the one doth equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation; the other is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection.

Now Mr. Louis JP you may not believe in this Westminster Larger stuff but let’s get one thing absolutely clear; These two statements on Justification are night and day or the darkness of evil vs the light of God. They are not the same position in the slightest conserning Justification! They are as far away from eachother as the east is from the west or to put it covenantally as different as the covenant of works (Rominism) and the Covenant of Grace (those freed by Christ)

The end!!!