Author Topic: The Catholic Encyclopedia (Read 3249 times)

2Vermont · « **on:** July 02, 2014, 02:45:33 PM »

Is this a reliable source? I thought it was because it is dated from 1907 but was just reading through its sections related to Islam and not once does it state that the religion is false. How could a Catholic Encyclopedia discuss Islam without mentioning this? Honestly, it reads more like a secular encyclopedia.

Matto · « **Reply #1 on:** July 02, 2014, 02:56:25 PM »

Well the Catholic encyclopedia was written by many people. We know that modernism was a big problem in the Church already in the time of Pope Pius X and he tried to fight it. Because modernism was a problem and there were a lot of writers of the encyclopedia it would make sense if some of the writers were modernists. I remember an old thread at Cathinfo that also talks about some of the modernism in the encyclopedia. One part I remember from the thread was that an article in it said that it was likely that more than half of the people who lived were saved.

2Vermont · « **Reply #2 on:** July 02, 2014, 04:53:46 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Well the Catholic encyclopedia was written by many people. We know that modernism was a big problem in the Church already in the time of Pope Pius X and he tried to fight it. Because modernism was a problem and there were a lot of writers of the encyclopedia it would make sense if some of the writers were modernists. I remember an old thread at Cathinfo that also talks about some of the modernism in the encyclopedia. One part I remember from the thread was that an article in it said that it was likely that more than half of the people who lived were saved.

Ah, I found that section (under Predestination section):

But supplementing these two sources by arguments drawn from reason we may safely defend as probable the opinion that the majority of Christians, especially of Catholics, will be saved. If we add to this relative number the overwhelming majority of non-Christians (Jєωs, Mahommedans, heathens), then Gener* ("Theol. dogmat. scholast.", Rome, 1767, II, 242 sq.) is probably right when he assumes the salvation of half of the human race, lest "it should be said to the shame and offence of the Divine majesty and clemency that the [future] Kingdom of Satan is larger than the Kingdom of Christ" (cf. W. Schneider, "Das andere Leben", 9th ed., Paderborn, 1908, 476 sq.).

Um, wut? LOL

Stubborn · « **Reply #3 on:** July 02, 2014, 05:20:33 PM »

It is not entirely reliable - like the catechisms they have all been tainted with error.

You would have better luck if you had the actual encyclopedia books from 1917, the online editions have all been edited, screwed with and revised to be brought "up to date" - which is why we find garbage like this in a 1917 online encyclopedia.

2Vermont · « **Reply #4 on:** July 02, 2014, 06:16:32 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

It is not entirely reliable - like the catechisms they have all been tainted with error.

You would have better luck if you had the actual encyclopedia books from 1917, the online editions have all been edited, screwed with and revised to be brought "up to date" - which is why we find garbage like this in a 1917 online encyclopedia.

That's what I figured. By the way, funny you should link NA. What do you know of the "Letter" referenced in Footnote #5? It's used to support the claim that Muslims worship the same God as we do. I can't find the letter as a whole and it's not on the Vatican website. You'd think there would be more to support this preposterous non-Traditional claim, but this is all they reference.

Mabel · « **Reply #5 on:** July 02, 2014, 08:00:54 PM »

Take it in context for what it is, mainly just articles of interest on Catholic topics to inform. It isn't a catechism, moral or dogmatic theology manual.

I would think that Islam was not an issue or something that was familiar to English-speaking Catholics in the early 1900s. If you will notice, many Catholic historical writings usually make mention of them as a group in a context where the nature of the conflict or an event is explained, without regard to their errors. (Actually, Islam is considered a heresy). Heresies are generally dealt with in books for laity in a less detailed manner, depending on the type of book. It probably has to do with the danger of the material or ideas on innocent, but untrained, minds.

John · « **Reply #6 on:** July 02, 2014, 08:14:17 PM »

When given a copy of the first volume of the Catholic Encyclopedia, Pope St. Pius X took a quick glance through it and threw it across the floor commenting, "modernism!"

Mabel · « **Reply #7 on:** July 02, 2014, 08:25:20 PM »

Quote from: John

When given a copy of the first volume of the Catholic Encyclopedia, Pope St. Pius X took a quick glance through it and threw it across the floor commenting, "modernism!"

Proof?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** July 02, 2014, 08:36:07 PM »

Quote from: Mabel

Quote from: John
When given a copy of the first volume of the Catholic Encyclopedia, Pope St. Pius X took a quick glance through it and threw it across the floor commenting, "modernism!"

Proof?

While I don't know the original source, this story was related by a seminary professor at Winona (SSPX) -- could have been Bishop Williamson, but I don't recall exactly. There are certainly a fair number of sections that have a very distinct modernist tone to them.

JohnGrey · « **Reply #9 on:** July 02, 2014, 08:37:21 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

It is not entirely reliable - like the catechisms they have all been tainted with error.

You would have better luck if you had the actual encyclopedia books from 1917, the online editions have all been edited, screwed with and revised to be brought "up to date" - which is why we find garbage like this in a 1917 online encyclopedia.

At least in the case of the Predestination text that 2VT quoted, that text appears unchanged in the 1913 edition.

John · « **Reply #10 on:** July 02, 2014, 09:41:52 PM »

Quote from: Mabel

Quote from: John
When given a copy of the first volume of the Catholic Encyclopedia, Pope St. Pius X took a quick glance through it and threw it across the floor commenting, "modernism!"

Proof?

Sorry, I just related something that Bishop Sanborn said in one of his sermons. I am going through them now to find which one so I can post it here for you. I have no other source for this anecdote.

Matto · « **Reply #11 on:** July 02, 2014, 09:54:09 PM »

I have also heard that about Pope Pius X and the encyclopedia, but I don't remember where I heard that. I know that one of the posters here, Ambrose also heard this and he said he looked for proof that it was true but could not find any so he concluded that it was probably not true.

clare · « **Reply #12 on:** July 03, 2014, 01:38:32 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Is this a reliable source? I thought it was because it is dated from 1907 but was just reading through its sections related to Islam and not once does it state that the religion is false. ...

Why would it need to? Catholics knew that back then!

Ambrose · « **Reply #13 on:** July 03, 2014, 01:48:40 AM »

Quote from: Matto

I have also heard that about Pope Pius X and the encyclopedia, but I don't remember where I heard that. I know that one of the posters here, Ambrose also heard this and he said he looked for proof that it was true but could not find any so he concluded that it was probably not true.

Yes, that is correct, I first heard this story about Pope St. Pius. X allegedly being disgusted with modernism in the Catholic Encyclopedia and throwing it on the floor.

I have searched for years for any proof to support this, and I have found none whatsoever.

I also find the story very suspicious because St. Pius X was not a pushover. If he was so disgusted with the work, all he had to do was forbid it to be published, or order it to amended. I find it difficult to believe that he would have just given a work that he saw a infected with modernism a pass and allow it to be published and sold to Catholics all over the English speaking world.

The last problem I have is that Pope St. Pius X could not speak or read English, so how was he able to make this determination in the first place?

This story harms the good names of all of the men who worked so hard to put together the Catholic Encyclopedia. This allegation taints them with modernism, and the supposed disfavor of the great St. Pius X, without even a shred of proof.

I do not trust this story, and unless someone can provide evidence, I do not believe it.

Stubborn · « **Reply #14 on:** July 03, 2014, 05:17:50 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Stubborn
It is not entirely reliable - like the catechisms they have all been tainted with error.

You would have better luck if you had the actual encyclopedia books from 1917, the online editions have all been edited, screwed with and revised to be brought "up to date" - which is why we find garbage like this in a 1917 online encyclopedia.

That's what I figured. By the way, funny you should link NA. What do you know of the "Letter" referenced in Footnote #5? It's used to support the claim that Muslims worship the same God as we do. I can't find the letter as a whole and it's not on the Vatican website. You'd think there would be more to support this preposterous non-Traditional claim, but this is all they reference.

I don't know what to make of the letter, my first guess is that the "Letter" was taken completely out of context in order to justify the heresy.

Either way, to reverse Church teaching using some hitherto unheard of "Letter" as reference is pretty ridiculous.