FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
The Second Vatican Council - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Sacred Scripture & Church Documents (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Thread: The Second Vatican Council (/showthread.php?tid=84904)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


The Second Vatican Council - Augustinian - 07-17-2019

Dignitatis Humanae cannot be reconciled with Catholic Tradition. It eliminates the cause for evangelization and permits the non-Catholic to remain where they are. Which is, quite honestly, a supreme evil because these individuals are not being shown that the Catholic faith is the only means of salvation and are on their way to hell because of it.


RE: The Second Vatican Council - Filiolus - 07-17-2019

(07-17-2019, 02:13 PM)Augustinian Wrote: Dignitatis Humanae cannot be reconciled with Catholic Tradition. It eliminates the cause for evangelization and permits the non-Catholic to remain where they are. Which is, quite honestly, a supreme evil because these individuals are not being shown that the Catholic faith is the only means of salvation and are on their way to hell because of it.

I don't think it eliminates the cause; it's quite clear from the opening paragraph that Catholicism contains the truth.

That said it does eliminate one method that has been considered legitimate means of evangelization most of the Church's existence. And the premises it uses to reach its conclusion are quite new to Catholicism.

However, the conclusion that faith cannot be forced has precedent in St. Augustine, particularly in On Free Choice of the Will

I'm not saying I agree with it; just saying the conclusion itself is not entirely without precedent (though the premises related to human dignity surely are).

I don't like the line of argument in Dignitatis Humanae, but I do think the issue of religious freedom is more one of prudence than of doctrine. I think there can be legitimate arguments for one side or the other, and I think both St. Augustine's and St. Thomas' positions were fitting relating to the societies they lived in. 

Now I should say I'm a philosophy guy (I have a degree in it), not a theology one; so if I'm wrong on this please tell me why. Smile


RE: The Second Vatican Council - Augustinian - 07-17-2019

(07-17-2019, 04:05 PM)Filiolus Wrote:
(07-17-2019, 02:13 PM)Augustinian Wrote: Dignitatis Humanae cannot be reconciled with Catholic Tradition. It eliminates the cause for evangelization and permits the non-Catholic to remain where they are. Which is, quite honestly, a supreme evil because these individuals are not being shown that the Catholic faith is the only means of salvation and are on their way to hell because of it.

I don't think it eliminates the cause; it's quite clear from the opening paragraph that Catholicism contains the truth.

That said it does eliminate one method that has been considered legitimate means of evangelization most of the Church's existence. And the premises it uses to reach its conclusion are quite new to Catholicism.

However, the conclusion that faith cannot be forced has precedent in St. Augustine, particularly in On Free Choice of the Will

I'm not saying I agree with it; just saying the conclusion itself is not entirely without precedent (though the premises related to human dignity surely are).

I don't like the line of argument in Dignitatis Humanae, but I do think the issue of religious freedom is more one of prudence than of doctrine. I think there can be legitimate arguments for one side or the other, and I think both St. Augustine's and St. Thomas' positions were fitting relating to the societies they lived in. 

Now I should say I'm a philosophy guy (I have a degree in it), not a theology one; so if I'm wrong on this please tell me why. Smile

You're not wrong in the sense that we cannot force people to accept Catholicism. But to not make even the effort to actively evangelize anymore goes right against Our Lord's command: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (MT 28:19)

The SSPX say it better than I can, and Dignitatus Humanae is the leading obstacle of their acceptance of Vatican II:

"Even interpreted strictly, this limitation of religious liberty to the “objective moral order” is inadequate because restricted to the natural order of things, thereby omitting consideration of the supernatural order. Such a conception of religious liberty fails to recognize the social kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ, the supernatural rights of His Church, and the supernatural end of man in the common good of the political order. It fails to consider that the false religions, by the mere fact that they keep souls from the Catholic Church, lead souls to hell. In a word, it is naturalism...

The saints have never hesitated to break idols, destroy their temples, or legislate against pagan or heretical practices. The Church—without ever forcing anyone to believe or be baptized—has always recognized its right and duty to protect the faith of her children and to impede, whenever possible, the public exercise and propagation of false cults. To accept the teaching of Vatican II is to grant that, for two millennia, the popes, saints, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, bishops, and Catholic kings have constantly violated the natural rights of men without anyone in the Church noticing. Such a thesis is as absurd as it is impious."

https://sspx.org/en/religious-liberty-contradicts-tradition


RE: The Second Vatican Council - Filiolus - 07-17-2019

(07-17-2019, 04:21 PM)Augustinian Wrote:
(07-17-2019, 04:05 PM)Filiolus Wrote:
(07-17-2019, 02:13 PM)Augustinian Wrote: Dignitatis Humanae cannot be reconciled with Catholic Tradition. It eliminates the cause for evangelization and permits the non-Catholic to remain where they are. Which is, quite honestly, a supreme evil because these individuals are not being shown that the Catholic faith is the only means of salvation and are on their way to hell because of it.

I don't think it eliminates the cause; it's quite clear from the opening paragraph that Catholicism contains the truth.

That said it does eliminate one method that has been considered legitimate means of evangelization most of the Church's existence. And the premises it uses to reach its conclusion are quite new to Catholicism.

However, the conclusion that faith cannot be forced has precedent in St. Augustine, particularly in On Free Choice of the Will

I'm not saying I agree with it; just saying the conclusion itself is not entirely without precedent (though the premises related to human dignity surely are).

I don't like the line of argument in Dignitatis Humanae, but I do think the issue of religious freedom is more one of prudence than of doctrine. I think there can be legitimate arguments for one side or the other, and I think both St. Augustine's and St. Thomas' positions were fitting relating to the societies they lived in. 

Now I should say I'm a philosophy guy (I have a degree in it), not a theology one; so if I'm wrong on this please tell me why. Smile

You're not wrong in the sense that we cannot force people to accept Catholicism. But to not make even the effort to actively evangelize anymore goes right against Our Lord's command: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (MT 28:19)

The SSPX say it better than I can, and Dignitatus Humanae is the leading obstacle of their acceptance of Vatican II:

"Even interpreted strictly, this limitation of religious liberty to the “objective moral order” is inadequate because restricted to the natural order of things, thereby omitting consideration of the supernatural order. Such a conception of religious liberty fails to recognize the social kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ, the supernatural rights of His Church, and the supernatural end of man in the common good of the political order. It fails to consider that the false religions, by the mere fact that they keep souls from the Catholic Church, lead souls to hell. In a word, it is naturalism...

The saints have never hesitated to break idols, destroy their temples, or legislate against pagan or heretical practices. The Church—without ever forcing anyone to believe or be baptized—has always recognized its right and duty to protect the faith of her children and to impede, whenever possible, the public exercise and propagation of false cults. To accept the teaching of Vatican II is to grant that, for two millennia, the popes, saints, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, bishops, and Catholic kings have constantly violated the natural rights of men without anyone in the Church noticing. Such a thesis is as absurd as it is impious."

https://sspx.org/en/religious-liberty-contradicts-tradition

Yes, but DH does not say we shouldn't evangelize, actually the contrary. It merely says people can't (and shouldn't) be compelled by the state to be Catholic. Which is precisely St. Augustine's argument in the work mentioned above.


RE: The Second Vatican Council - Filiolus - 07-17-2019

Just to reiterate I agree that the reasoning in DH is off. But the conclusion is not without precedent, and as I said before, the discrepancy between Ss. Augustine and Thomas lead me to believe that how involved a government should be in religion is a matter of prudence not of doctrine, and at different times there will be different roles for the government. In an entirely Christian society, it makes sense for the Christian government to preserve the Christianity of the society. In a pagan or semi-Christian society (such as St. Augustine's and our own), it would be imprudent for the government to take the same measures as in a Christian one (such as St. Thomas'). The important thing is that government preserves natural law.


RE: The Second Vatican Council - yablabo - 07-17-2019

(07-16-2019, 11:07 PM)Filiolus Wrote: Now, this is the part of your post that really made me wince. For the peanut gallery, here's the Latin:

Qui vero ad sacramentum poenitentiae accedunt, veniam offensionis Deo illatae ab Eius misericordia obtinent et simul reconciliantur eum Ecclesia, quam peccando vulneraverunt, et quae eorum conversioni caritate, exemplo, precibus adlaborat.

The translation for which is completely accurate above.

The literal sense of the words is indeed "whoever approaches the sacrament of penance". Nota bene, the confessional itself is not mentioned in the Latin or in the English translation. LG is not saying nor could it be understood to say that a person is forgiven automatically just for approaching the confessional. The confessional is literally not mentioned once; not in the English, not in the Latin.

To take the LG sentence to mean that absolution is unnecessary is unbelievably nasty.

First of all, it does not take into account the... er, um... poetic tone that many VII documents have. The word "approach" is clearly not meant to mean "walks up to"; it means one who confesses his sins and receives absolution. One cannot in good conscience read that sentence to mean that one who literally walks up to the sacrament (btw, how would one do that?) automatically has his sins forgiven. To read it in such a way is just bad-faith reading.

Second, the sacramentum is explicitly mentioned. Now, let me ask you a question - if a priest denies absolution to a penitent, does the penitent receive a sacrament? The answer is no. If there was no sacrament, neither did they approach it; they couldn't have, because there wasn't one. Therefore LG's words cannot be understood to mean that that person too is forgiven of his sins. This is a horribly semantic argument, but unfortunately it seems necessary.

Now the reading you provided is horribly misguided. The Latin did not mean what you claimed it did and rather than reading the documents in the light of tradition (not difficult to do with your particular objections), you chose overstate your case; your reading basically makes LG an overtly Protestant document [insert joke here]. This is uncharitable and impious. And if you honestly believed the document said what it did, please understand that you are misleading people with such interpretations. This is dangerous for people's souls, and that is no joke.

I disagree entirely with your figurative interpretation.  Were Lumen Gentium to have contained the statement "Now, the very difficulty of a confession like this, and the shame of making known one’s sins, might indeed seem a grievous thing, were it not alleviated by the so many and so great advantages and consolations, which are most assuredly bestowed by absolution upon all who worthily approach to this sacrament," (cf. Council of Trent, Sessio XIV) I would have no argument with you.  However, Lumen Gentium makes a novel statement that cannot be understood in line with catholic doctrine as it stands EXCEPT by wresting the words against their meaning.  I contend the words from Lumen Gentium can ONLY be understood literally as opposed to catholic doctrine.  I put forth my proposition, and that of another scholar with whom I conferred.  You put forth yours.  Fine.  

I did not claim the confessional was mentioned.  I gave my opinion on the only interpetation which seemed to correspond to the words.  

When you translate the Latin word "adcedo/accedo" into the English word "approach" it is clear that nothing other than "to go near" in time or place (or possibly "to resemble") is meant.  The statement "qui vero ad sacramentum poenitentiae accedunt, &c." or "those who in truth approach the Sacrament of Penance, etc.", it is just plain error.  The Council of Trent uses the form and one of the parts of the matter of the Sacrament of Penance in its statement to inform the use of the word "approach" in its statement and to modify it with the term "worthily" to the clear meaning in English of having recourse to the sacrament.  

The concept of approach in English is very clear.  We can approach the Sacrament of Penance in this sense, exactly as we approach graduation from a University.  Your position appears to be that you cannot approach your graduation until you have graduated.  Convention in English and the denotation of the word "approach" do not allow it to be used after the completion of the act.  It is only an invocation of priors.  It would therefore be to opposed natural reason to say that a person can only approach if he has finished.

It is also interesting to note that the Council of Trent does not mention the term "pardon" in its treatment of the approach to the Sacrament of Penance.  Pardon is mentioned e.g., where it is stated that "The movement of contrition was at all times necessary for obtaining the pardon of sins; and, in one who has fallen after baptism, it then at length prepares for the remissions of sins, when it is united with confidence in the divine mercy, and with the desire of performing the other things which are required for rightly receiving this sacrament", "But, whereas all mortal sins, even those of thought, render men children of wrath, and enemies of God, it is necessary to seek also for the pardon of them all from God, with an open and modest confession", and "...it beseems the divine clemency, that sins be not in such wise pardoned us without any satisfaction, as that, taking occasion therefrom, thinking sins less grievous, we, offering as it were an insult and an outrage to the Holy Ghost, should fall into more grievous sins, treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath"(cf. Council of Trent, Sessio XIV).   Pardon is used in context of the parts of penance, not the approach (whether committed worthily or unworthily) to the sacrament.

While the name of the Sacrament of Penance is there in the quote from Lumen Gentium, it is not framed in the same sense you find in the 14th Session of the Council of Trent.  In Lumen Gentium "pardon" is contingent upon "approach", i.e., approaching the Sacrament of Penance.  In Trent "pardon" is contingent upon "contrition," "confession," and "satisfaction."  

Finally, it is a disingenuous method to interpret a lacking of information in a proposition as being filled with an extra-textual context that changes the literal meaning of the words used.  Catholics do not have a secret mystery cult language like the gnostics of old that is revealed gradually as people advance in "perfection" of secret knowledge.  Human nature and catholic doctrine bind us to understand propositions by their words.


RE: The Second Vatican Council - Lavenderson - 07-17-2019

(07-16-2019, 05:03 PM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote:
(07-16-2019, 03:02 PM)Alphonse il Segundo Wrote:
Quote:Part of the art of diplomacy, like it or not.  

Below is a story about St. Elias, Patron of Saint of Diplomats and Interreligious Dialogue,

Somebody should really get around to deleting this out of the Bible. Otherwise, people might know the bad things that St. Peter did.


Your post is a little flat.  First, there is no patron saint for diplomats though few come close, peacemakers, foreign missions, etc.  Secondly, the Pope is judged by no one but God, so perhaps you shouldn't.  Prudence.  It doesn't help except to make it harder for you to find some sort of reconciliation with your issues.  

I really don't want the usual diatribe that means nothing in this thread, but rather genuine issues.  Pick your most difficult passage from any of the Documents of V2, and tell me why it is not okay.  Then we can talk.  

God bless.  Ginnyfree.
Let's open up with a passage from Lumen Gentium article 16:
".....But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind....."
Christ is God. Muslims deny Christ as God. Yet, Muslims via Islam adore God along with us Catholics? That's like dialing two different phone numbers but insisting we are speaking to the same person. Islam being monotheistic doesn't mean they worship God, because only the Catholic faith has God's phone number. Need I say more why this passage in article 16 is not ok?


RE: The Second Vatican Council - Filiolus - 07-18-2019

yablabo, we are not going to agree. But I think it's disingenuous to read accedo in this context to literally mean physically approach a Sacrament that cannot be physically approached. By the way, according to Lewis & Short, accedo can mean to "undertake" something; it does not always mean to walk up to something.

It's not a stretch to read the sentence to mean that someone must receive the Sacrament to have their sins forgiven... since that's actually what the sentence says. Again, the Sacrament is not approached unless there's a Sacrament there to approach. There's no Sacrament unless the penitent receives absolution.

I'll repeat what I said before; your interpretation is uncharitable and impious. It is uncharitable to the body of bishops because it is a false accusation, and it is impious because it makes the claim that VII explicitly denied the necessity of absolution. I'm not aware of even the SSPX making such a bold claim. And it's a claim not warranted by the natural, literal reading of the text. Please stop spreading this calumny.

I know that I'm being pretty harsh. But I do think your claim is clearly unwarranted by the text, and is unpersuasive to the average observer. It makes the job more difficult for people who have legitimate gripes with LG and the other VII documents.


RE: The Second Vatican Council - BC - 07-18-2019

(07-17-2019, 02:13 PM)Augustinian Wrote: Dignitatis Humanae cannot be reconciled with Catholic Tradition. It eliminates the cause for evangelization and permits the non-Catholic to remain where they are. Which is, quite honestly, a supreme evil because these individuals are not being shown that the Catholic faith is the only means of salvation and are on their way to hell because of it.

To add to this:

Modernist Father Yves Congar, a V II Council peritus, stated:

“It cannot be denied that such a text [the Conciliar document on Religious Liberty] says anything but what the Syllabus of 1864 said, and even practically the contrary of propositions 15, 77 and 79 of that document.”

Those specific condemned propositions from the Syllabus mentioned by Yves Conger that have now been contradicted by Vatican II's New Church are:

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

77. 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. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

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. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

Vatican II's Dignitatis humanae # 2 states :

"This Vatican synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom.  Such freedom consists in this, that all should have such immunity from coercion by individuals, or by groups, or by any human power, that no one should be forced to act against his conscience in religious matters, nor prevented from acting according to his conscience, whether in private or in public, within due limits."

Vatican II's Dignitatis humanae # 3:

"So the state, whose proper purpose it is to provide for the temporal common good, should certainly recognize and promote the religious life of its citizens.  With equal certainty it exceeds the limits of its authority, if it takes upon itself to direct or to prevent religious activity."


RE: The Second Vatican Council - Ginnyfree2 - 07-18-2019

O boy! Yippie-doodles! I see you guys n gals have been busy. Thank you so very much for bringing some of your issues here. I've got an hour now to answer some of the objections posted. I have to go back to Adoration soon as we are having a heatwave and some of my regulars can't make it. I love spending time with my Jesus, so it really doesn't bother me to have to spend more time then my usual. I wish I could go every day like I used to. Sigh. A gal can hope. Be right back. The coffee's ready. God bless. Ginnyfree.