FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Dignitatis Humanae and Nostra Aetate Are Non-Binding
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
I don't know about you but this seems like a big one to me. This has got to be the biggest slap in the face of many Vatican II lap dogs.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05...e-and.html

those on religious freedom  [Dignitatis humanae] and on relations with non-Christians [Nostra aetate] -- "do not have a binding doctrinal content, so one can dialogue about them," the cardinal said. "So I don't understand why our friends in the Society of St. Pius X concentrate almost exclusively on these two texts.

This is huge. Much like when a damn begins to crack when there are defects build in to it. So we see the first cracks of Vatican II.
That's what I have been wondering about lately.  If these two Vatican II documents are not binding then why is the SSPX being pressured to conform to them?  Vatican II was not a dogmatic council.

There are no SSPX chapels around where I live but I read Nostra aetate the other day (and just again now) and I find it rather too ecumenical.

Could it possibly be that the former President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Walter Cardinal Kasper and now Kurt Cardinal Koch have stretched the meaning of Nostra aetate with their writings to a lot more than it was originally suppose to mean?

I mean Nostra aetate does state, "All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ."

It seems Kasper and Koch have gone beyond that.

Edit: I just finished reading Dignitatis humanae and I think these two parts need to be stressed in lite of Kasper and Koch's writings.

"He did indeed denounce the unbelief of some who listened to Him, but He left vengeance to God in expectation of the day of judgment.(15) When He sent His Apostles into the world, He said to them: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved. He who does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16)."

"As the Master, so too the Apostles recognized legitimate civil authority. "For there is no power except from God", the Apostle teaches, and thereafter commands: "Let everyone be subject to higher authorities.... He who resists authority resists God's ordinance" (Romans 13:1-5).(29) At the same time, however, they did not hesitate to speak out against governing powers which set themselves in opposition to the holy will of God: "It is necessary to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).(30) This is the way along which the martyrs and other faithful have walked through all ages and over all the earth."

Again to me it seems like Kasper and Koch have gone beyond Dignitatis humanae with their writings.

Nostra aetate
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_counc...te_en.html

Dignitatis humanae
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_counc...ae_en.html         
(05-22-2012, 03:30 PM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]That's what I have been wondering about lately.  If these two Vatican II documents are not binding then why is the SSPX being pressured to conform to them?  Vatican II was not a dogmatic council.

There are no SSPX chapels around where I live but I read Nostra aetate the other day (and just again now) and I find it rather too ecumenical.

Could it possibly be that the former President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Walter Cardinal Kasper and now Kurt Cardinal Koch have stretched the meaning of Nostra aetate with their writings to a lot more than it was originally suppose to mean?

I mean Nostra aetate does state, "All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ."

It seems Kasper and Koch have gone beyond that.

Edit: I just finished reading Dignitatis humanae and I think these two parts need to be stressed in lite of Kasper and Koch's writings.

"He did indeed denounce the unbelief of some who listened to Him, but He left vengeance to God in expectation of the day of judgment.(15) When He sent His Apostles into the world, He said to them: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved. He who does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16)."

"As the Master, so too the Apostles recognized legitimate civil authority. "For there is no power except from God", the Apostle teaches, and thereafter commands: "Let everyone be subject to higher authorities.... He who resists authority resists God's ordinance" (Romans 13:1-5).(29) At the same time, however, they did not hesitate to speak out against governing powers which set themselves in opposition to the holy will of God: "It is necessary to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).(30) This is the way along which the martyrs and other faithful have walked through all ages and over all the earth."

Again to me it seems like Kasper and Koch have gone beyond Dignitatis humanae with their writings.

Nostra aetate
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_counc...te_en.html

Dignitatis humanae
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_counc...ae_en.html         

Well I think thats the whole point there. The fact that the SSPX nor any other Catholic need bend at the knee at the mention of either document. Both of which to me seem as more pastoral suggestions seeing as how they came out of a pastoral council, however it should be to nobodies surprise that the two people whose courier has been to advance the notions written their in those documents view them as dogma which its is now obvious and plain that it is not.
If all of these documents are non-binding, why not return to how everything was before the Council? Just toss all of these non-binding documents in a trash can. Why the need for a preamble then? Why the need for a new 1992 Catechism?
(05-22-2012, 08:26 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]If all of these documents are non-binding, why not return to how everything was before the Council? Just toss all of these non-binding documents in a trash can. Why the need for a preamble then? Why the need for a new 1992 Catechism?

I think that due to the revelations by the Cardinal those are all excellent questions.
It really doesn't make sense. An ecumenical council with a pope and thousands of bishops pass "non-binding" documents and waste everyone's time for five years. All the while, everybody acted like this thing was the greatest event in the history of the Church, everything changed, and those who wanted the old doctrine and liturgy faced marginalization and persecution. It makes absolutely no sense.

Yes, these are non-binding, but look at these beyond trad dom. Everything is basically allowed free reign. Again, my fear is the side altar in the big cathedral.

Traditionalism is Catholicism without any modernist, conciliar, or 1960s novelties, whether they be liturgical, doctrinal, disciplinary, and so on. This isn't just a "charism" or preference or different type of spirituality.
(05-22-2012, 08:34 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: [ -> ]It really doesn't make sense. An ecumenical council with a pope and thousands of bishops pass "non-binding" documents and waste everyone's time for five years. All the while, everybody acted like this thing was the greatest event in the history of the Church, everything changed, and those who wanted the old doctrine and liturgy faced marginalization and persecution. It makes absolutely no sense.

Yes, these are non-binding, but look at these beyond trad dom. Everything is basically allowed free reign. Again, my fear is the side altar in the big cathedral.

Traditionalism is Catholicism without any modernist, conciliar, or 1960s novelties, whether they be liturgical, doctrinal, disciplinary, and so on. This isn't just a "charism" or preference or different type of spirituality.

I think that the whole awe effect of "this has neverr happened before" does have root in the fact that in fact a council like this had never happened before, as it has been beaten to death already this was a "pastoral" council with the aim or reconciling the Church to the world. So therefore hence the ambiguities; the oddness and all the lets say "crap" that followed. At the same time there was no way to know how to treat the council so the default as always has been used and the default is the previous ecumenical councils and hence the Vatican II was elevated to an inappropriate place.
I find the use of things like "non-binding" to be orwellian speech.

Why not simply say "fallible"? "Prone to error"? "Non-binding" is ridiculously presumptuous.
(05-22-2012, 09:03 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]I find the use of things like "non-binding" to be orwellian speech.

Why not simply say "fallible"? "Prone to error"? "Non-binding" is ridiculously presumptuous.

Okay in that case Marian apparitions and private revelations are fallible, prone to error. I find non binding quite accurate and well used but hey as long as we don't sound orwellian.
A Marian apparition is different from a Ecumenical Council allegedly convoked by a Roman Pontiff in union with all Catholic bishops on Earth.
Pages: 1 2