FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Dignitatis Humanae
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Since the purpose of this subforum is to discuss whether or not VII docs maintain some sort of hermeneutic of continuity, I'll get things started by copying and pasting a current discussion from the "Pope says you must accept VII" thread.

(09-28-2012, 01:15 PM)Adeodatus01 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-27-2012, 11:02 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-27-2012, 10:48 PM)Adeodatus01 Wrote: [ -> ]The Pope has already said that it is inappropriate to read Vatican II (any part of it whatsoever, apparently) in a manner which contradicts any prior Church teaching. In light of that, why wouldn't he expect the SSPX to accept Vatican II? At that point it does not constitute a doctrinal issue.

Also Vatican II is not the Novus Ordo Mass. Those are two different things.

Right, so explain how this steaming pile of anti-Traditional horsedung fits into a hermeneutic of continuity when it's self evidential that it clashes with the Tradition of the Church.  Pope says white wall is black.

Dignitatis Humanae # 4 Wrote:The freedom or immunity from coercion in matters religious which is the endowment of persons as individuals is also to be recognized as their right when they act in community. Religious communities are a requirement of the social nature both of man and of religion itself.

Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles.

Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government, in the selection, training, appointment, and transferral of their own ministers, in communicating with religious authorities and communities abroad, in erecting buildings for religious purposes, and in the acquisition and use of suitable funds or properties.

Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word. However, in spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices everyone ought at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that would be dishonorable or unworthy, especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people. Such a manner of action would have to be considered an abuse of one's right and a violation of the right of others.

In addition, it comes within the meaning of religious freedom that religious communities should not be prohibited from freely undertaking to show the special value of their doctrine in what concerns the organization of society and the inspiration of the whole of human activity. Finally, the social nature of man and the very nature of religion afford the foundation of the right of men freely to hold meetings and to establish educational, cultural, charitable and social organizations, [u]under the impulse of their own religious sense.

I like this. This is getting down to brass tacks, as they say.

What do you think this passage is about, Mith? I always hear that Vat 2 (I'm not a fan, btw) never challenged Communism. Don't you think this is what the quoted passage is about: it is attempting to establish that Christians must be free to worship in states such as Communist regimes or (as we would be concerned with nowadays) Islamic theocracies (which also existed at that time)?

Religion is a part of which virtue? Formulate your answer...
did you think it was "Faith"? Or perhaps "Charity"? Those answers would not be strictly correct, at least according to St. Thomas. Religion is a part of the virtue of Justice. God has given all men (including pagans!) great gifts, and in justice He is owed thanksgiving and reverence.

Please note that the passage singles out the "Supreme Being" as the only object of religious devotion. So the demonic false gods of paganism don't count... there is no relationship of justice there and any respect paid to such creatures is only vice. However, it does appear that devotion to a supreme (singular, perfect, good) god possesses an element of justice secundum quid, although obviously not per se. Thus St. Justin Martyr (patron of philosophers and an oft-neglected father) claims as Christians Socrates and Heraclitus.

We know by natural reason that there is a God and that He must be the Creator. So we know that justice demands some outpouring of reverence for such a being, even if little else is known. That is the requirement for religious community qua religion. And as that which "binds back" our behaviors to their source, it is a requirement of man's social nature (we need something of the kind because we are made for it).

The "just demands of public order", which part you did not bold, cuts both ways. On the one hand, the public order of the Communist is not just. On the other hand, the public order of a Christian confessing state is just; the Communist cannot justly forbid Christianity because he does nothing at all justly; the Christian state can limit the expression of false religions because justice demands the proclamation of the truth and the silencing of falsehood.

Look, if I were called upon to write that document, that is not how I would have written it. It sounds like something written by a Continental. But then, what do you expect? It was written on the Continent, by people whose philosophical language was trained in a Rococo style. I'm a Texan, and I like to think that I speak plainly and say what I mean. But it is what it is.

You have to make quite a few assumptions to even get this text close to the realm of orthodoxy and traditionalism. 

What I "think it means" is entirely irrelevant.  It's the responsibility of the council and churchmen to explain and expound doctrine in such a way that it can be understood.  Which, if I recall, was one of the reasons for calling the council in the first place, to bring Catholicism "down to earth."  Anyways, I'm not going to offer an interpretation based on my thoughts, but an interpretation based on the text.

Assuming you're familiar with earlier documents from, oh, say any major council or encyclical you know that a defining mark of Catholic doctrine, especially in written form, is clarity.  That doesn't mean everything is easy to understand, but it's clear insofar as it could not be confused with meaning something un-Catholic, like the way one could handle this passage.  There is a level of ambiguity to this passage (and most of the post-conciliar work) that is per se not Catholic.  Ambiguity is not Catholic, it is a symptom of modernism.  A failure to clarify what even appears as ambiguous is likewise not Catholic.  "Let your speech be yea, yea &c."

No, VII didn't condemn communism in any certain terms.  To say that DH #4 is some sort of condemnation of communism is to do so without cause.  There is no reason given the text at hand that it could be interpreted to mean that, but that is moot anyways since the ambiguity of it makes it highly suspect in the first place.  Even if you could adequately demonstrate that DH#4 somehow is a declaration against the evils of communism, it falls flat on it's face when it advocates for the freedom of religious groups-- not the Catholic Church, but simply religious organizations, and not just the freedom to exist (as the Church has certainly tolerated evil sects when not doing so would bring about a greater evil) but defending the followers (of such sects) "rights" to act "according to their own religious impulse."

Firstly, it has never been a mark of Catholic doctrine to ever follow one's impulses, let alone grant man a right to do so.  The entire point of original sin is that we must check our impulses, weigh them with reason and divine truth and act virtuously and morally, not simply in accordance to our own religious impulse.  That is false, plain and simple.  That is a justification towards false worship.  Secondly, the entire idea of man having this dignity that demands he be able to worship as he pleases is patently anti Catholic.

The Syllabus of Errors Wrote:#77 [It is an error to believe that...] In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.

#79 Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.

The idea that any non-Catholic sects, doctrines, practices, liturgies etc. have any sort of right to exist and not be interfered with is simply not true, it is a modernist falsity.  Such sects may be tolerated but only tolerated as an evil when not tolerating them would bring about a greater evil.

In short, I think that you are injecting certain terms and conditions into DH that not only aren't there, but that the text itself disagrees with.
Does anyone want to address this problematic passage?
(09-30-2012, 08:20 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Does anyone want to address this problematic passage?

What is there to discuss?

I've talked about this with many trads and fishies, online and in real life, and most concur with me in that even if Pink, Crean, or Harrison's attempt to reconcile this document with e.g. the Syllabus or Quanta Cura works, it's a moot point since the post-concilliar magisterium certainly doesn't agree with their findings.
So... days later.  Can we now say that DH is in direct contrast with what prior pontiffs have taught?

This thread is a symphony of crickets.
(10-03-2012, 09:45 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]So... days later.  Can we now say that DH is in direct contrast with what prior pontiffs have taught?

This thread is a symphony of crickets.

Well, there's this magical and serene "hermeneutics of continuity" that has eluded the best and brightest and undefined by those that propose such a thing and we're all waiting for this spell binding interpretation that reconciles our past and the documents, one of which is the one you pointed out. And not professing continuity is anti-Catholic and schismatic, didn't you get the memo?! *sigh* Read the following. . .
Quote:The general principle is that one owes obedience to the orders of a superior unless, in a particular case, the order appears manifestly unjust. Similarly, a Catholic is bound to adhere interiorly to the teachings of legitimate authority until it becomes evident to him that a particular assertion is erroneous (Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, vol.III, col.1110).

Oh wait, wrong quote....
(10-03-2012, 09:45 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]So... days later.  Can we now say that DH is in direct contrast with what prior pontiffs have taught?

This thread is a symphony of crickets.

Yes, I would say that.  The Catechism's teaching isn't much better, either.
(10-16-2012, 07:13 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-03-2012, 09:45 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]So... days later.  Can we now say that DH is in direct contrast with what prior pontiffs have taught?

This thread is a symphony of crickets.

Yes, I would say that.  The Catechism's teaching isn't much better, either.

I'm still going to hold out hope that one of the posters that thinks VII was simply misinterpreted can come here and tall us what's being misinterpreted.
(09-30-2012, 08:20 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Does anyone want to address this problematic passage?
If you are talking about the question of whether the Catholic church should or should not be the religion of state, I believe that is a matter of discipline and not a matter of doctrine. In the beginning when the United States wrote the constitution offering freedom of religion to all the people, at first the Vatican was skeptical for many years considering the who the founding fathers were their masonic affiliations. But as time went on, they began to see the benefits of what the civil framework for the civil right to a freedom of religlon.
While it is true that no one has the right to profess a false assertion, we also should recognize that no one should be forced to make a profession of faith if he does not sincerely believe in the truth of what he is professing.
(10-17-2012, 12:13 AM)Poche Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-30-2012, 08:20 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Does anyone want to address this problematic passage?
If you are talking about the question of whether the Catholic church should or should not be the religion of state, I believe that is a matter of discipline and not a matter of doctrine. In the beginning when the United States wrote the constitution offering freedom of religion to all the people, at first the Vatican was skeptical for many years considering the who the founding fathers were their masonic affiliations. But as time went on, they began to see the benefits of what the civil framework for the civil right to a freedom of religlon.
While it is true that no one has the right to profess a false assertion, we also should recognize that no one should be forced to make a profession of faith if he does not sincerely believe in the truth of what he is professing.

What are your sources for that?

I know that some late 19th century pope(s?) wrote favorably about America.  I think it was Leo XIII that had kind words for Washington.  He also condemned the heresy of Americanism.  And warned against modernism, as did all the other popes prior to VII (mainly starting with Pius IX).  The modern definition of religious freedom is expressly condemned by the pre conciliar pontiffs.  The Syllabus of Errors specifically says that it is an error to believe that the Catholic faith ought not to be the religion of the state-- and it certainly wasn't a disciplinary declaration.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8