Quanta Cura and Dignitatis Humanae certainly contradict each other
#21
As has been pointed out, the definitive condemnations in QC are irreformable (the CCC wouldn't cite this document on the very points it addresses if it were out of date today.) On the other hand, DH, in as much as its statements are intended for specific times and circumstances, is of a reformable nature and it would not violate any theological principles for it to fall into desuetude at some point. That being said, it would be wrong to say DH is not an act of the Magisterium, because it most certainly is. The sphere of authority of the Magisterium is not limited to abstract principles, but also in applying them to particular needs and circumstances--which is what "pastoral" means. It was one of the (albeit ancillary) errors of the Jansenists to limit the authority of the Magisterium to merely abstract principles.

Overall, in my opinion,  DH is probably analogous in some ways to the decree Frequens from Session 39 of the Council of Constance. While there is nothing intrinsically contrary to the faith in this decree, on its face it is obviously motivated by and imbued with Conciliarism and its history cements this point. Furthermore, the fruits of Pope Martin V's implementation of this decree were the disastrous Councils of Pavia-Siena (not considered ecumenical) and Basel (some sessions considered ecumenical). Basel was continued by Eugenius IV in Ferrera and Florence--although apart from Eugene's decree saying it was a continuation, it was for all practical purposes a different Council. The one in Basel continued on and included different factions passing competing decrees and singing Te Deums at each other and all sorts of craziness. The confusion caused by these Councils led many states to take a stance of neutrality towards both the papalists and conciliarists for a  generation. Ultimately, this was the reason the Reformation was able to spread so easily and achieve permanence (even the learned St. Thomas More was ignorant of the dogma of papal primacy and infallibility until St. John Fisher taught him about it only a few years before Henry abandoned the faith and they both died for it).

However, after Eugenius IV, no Pope summoned another Council for another 70 years, completely ignoring Frequens. That being said, this decree was never condemned or officially considered erroneous. Furthermore, Pope Pius II, who definitively condemned conciliarism as a heresy, and never summoned a Council, still re-affirmed his acceptance of Constance stating in his own work renouncing his own past errors: "With these authorities, we recognize the power and the authority of a General Council as it was declared and defined in our age at Constance when the Ecumenical Council was assembled there. For we revere the Council of Constance and all Councils that were approved by our predecessors."

So to sum it up, I think the principles defined in QC can be strongly affirmed again by the Magisterium without impugning DH or its real--neither exaggerated nor played down--authority (unless DH actually is intrinsically at variance with the faith, which I don't think it necessarily is) and similarly if judged to be prudent, be the practical judgments in DH can be reformed by the Magisterium, again, without directly impugning it with heresy. This seems to be a course of action with strong precedent.



Reply
#22
(07-20-2010, 03:41 PM)SaintRafael Wrote: The dogmas and doctrines of the Church are never dated. They are eternal. Truth never ever changes. Doctrines can be developed, but never ever contradicted.

Dignitatis Humanae is pure error. It was not an act of the Magisterium. It wasn't an act of the extraordinary magisterium, the ordinary magisterium, or any magisterium. Dignitatis Humanae is pastoral paper that contradicts official magisterial teaching. 

Dignitatis Humanae belongs in the trash can. That is ultimately where its "interpretation" will end up. Forgotten and erased as nothing but error from something that was not infallible.


How absurdly hyperbolic. It clearly is an act of the magisterium and no matter how much you try to will it out of existence it will continue to bear magisterial authority. A hermeneutic of rupture must be oh so easy and comfortable, empowering you to rant about "pure error" and trash cans rather than making the precise distinctions that SaintSebastian has, once again, so accurately parsed.

Oh how thinly veiled is the schismatic impulse

Pax Christi,
Reply
#23
(07-23-2010, 11:02 AM)X-Cathedra Wrote:
(07-20-2010, 03:41 PM)SaintRafael Wrote: The dogmas and doctrines of the Church are never dated. They are eternal. Truth never ever changes. Doctrines can be developed, but never ever contradicted.

Dignitatis Humanae is pure error. It was not an act of the Magisterium. It wasn't an act of the extraordinary magisterium, the ordinary magisterium, or any magisterium. Dignitatis Humanae is pastoral paper that contradicts official magisterial teaching. 

Dignitatis Humanae belongs in the trash can. That is ultimately where its "interpretation" will end up. Forgotten and erased as nothing but error from something that was not infallible.

How absurdly hyperbolic. It clearly is an act of the magisterium and no matter how much you try to will it out of existence it will continue to bear magisterial authority. A hermeneutic of rupture must be oh so easy and comfortable, empowering you to rant about "pure error" and trash cans rather than making the precise distinctions that SaintSebastian has, once again, so accurately parsed.

Oh how thinly veiled is the schismatic impulse

Pax Christi,

Well, it's technically not hyberbole which means "an obivous exaggeration". But it's not completely true either. It is a part of the ordinary or authentic magisterium which is simply the apostolic hierarchy in any given time of the Church's history, and as such it is not necessarily guaranteed by the Church's infallibility which doctrine has to be universal in time as well as space to be. Thus St. Vincent's Canon's says "and (taught) in all times."
Reply
#24
(07-20-2010, 10:39 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: As has been pointed out, the definitive condemnations in QC are irreformable (the CCC wouldn't cite this document on the very points it addresses if it were out of date today.) On the other hand, DH, in as much as its statements are intended for specific times and circumstances, is of a reformable nature and it would not violate any theological principles for it to fall into desuetude at some point. That being said, it would be wrong to say DH is not an act of the Magisterium, because it most certainly is. The sphere of authority of the Magisterium is not limited to abstract principles, but also in applying them to particular needs and circumstances--which is what "pastoral" means. It was one of the (albeit ancillary) errors of the Jansenists to limit the authority of the Magisterium to merely abstract principles.

Overall, in my opinion,  DH is probably analogous in some ways to the decree Frequens from Session 39 of the Council of Constance. While there is nothing intrinsically contrary to the faith in this decree, on its face it is obviously motivated by and imbued with Conciliarism and its history cements this point. Furthermore, the fruits of Pope Martin V's implementation of this decree were the disastrous Councils of Pavia-Siena (not considered ecumenical) and Basel (some sessions considered ecumenical). Basel was continued by Eugenius IV in Ferrera and Florence--although apart from Eugene's decree saying it was a continuation, it was for all practical purposes a different Council. The one in Basel continued on and included different factions passing competing decrees and singing Te Deums at each other and all sorts of craziness. The confusion caused by these Councils led many states to take a stance of neutrality towards both the papalists and conciliarists for a  generation. Ultimately, this was the reason the Reformation was able to spread so easily and achieve permanence (even the learned St. Thomas More was ignorant of the dogma of papal primacy and infallibility until St. John Fisher taught him about it only a few years before Henry abandoned the faith and they both died for it).

However, after Eugenius IV, no Pope summoned another Council for another 70 years, completely ignoring Frequens. That being said, this decree was never condemned or officially considered erroneous. Furthermore, Pope Pius II, who definitively condemned conciliarism as a heresy, and never summoned a Council, still re-affirmed his acceptance of Constance stating in his own work renouncing his own past errors: "With these authorities, we recognize the power and the authority of a General Council as it was declared and defined in our age at Constance when the Ecumenical Council was assembled there. For we revere the Council of Constance and all Councils that were approved by our predecessors."

So to sum it up, I think the principles defined in QC can be strongly affirmed again by the Magisterium without impugning DH or its real--neither exaggerated nor played down--authority (unless DH actually is intrinsically at variance with the faith, which I don't think it necessarily is) and similarly if judged to be prudent, be the practical judgments in DH can be reformed by the Magisterium, again, without directly impugning it with heresy. This seems to be a course of action with strong precedent.

That's absurd, because DH was a declaration not a decree of the Council, and it is shown from the very language of the document that its drafters meant it to be doctrinal which is why they mentioned "the traditional doctrine". They speak on a matter of rights (and thus duties) which, it is true, can touch both the sphere of doctrine and the sphere of discipline. These spheres always touch in a manner though, since all rules stem from principles as in comtemplation thought leads to action.
Reply
#25
Godfirst theres a thread on dh in the documents of vii thread thats NOT two and a half years old...  Check it out bro.  I doubt ull ger a reply from xcathedra

From phone
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#26
They don't really contradict each other. You can support both. What you should realize is that The second Vatican Council brought about a change in discipline. The truth is the same. And goal is same. What has changed is the strategy.
:) :) :)
Reply
#27
Poche,
"Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society" (Dignitatis Humanae, n. 1).

I don't think you can maintain that the document was merely concerned with discipline.
Reply
#28
(12-09-2012, 12:12 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Poche,
"Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society" (Dignitatis Humanae, n. 1).

I don't think you can maintain that the document was merely concerned with discipline.
The idea of inviolable rights of the human person goes back to when Jesus said "Do unto others as you whould have them do unto yourself and That which you did for the least of these you did unto me.
Reply
#29
O c'mon Poche that's nonsense.  No serious scripture commentator has a footnote there saying "and here's where Christ supports our right to false worship."

It's a gross mistreatment of the words.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#30
(12-10-2012, 06:35 AM)Poche Wrote:
(12-09-2012, 12:12 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Poche,
"Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society" (Dignitatis Humanae, n. 1).

I don't think you can maintain that the document was merely concerned with discipline.
The idea of inviolable rights of the human person goes back to when Jesus said "Do unto others as you whould have them do unto yourself and That which you did for the least of these you did unto me.

No Catholic disputes that man has a right to true religious liberty, viz. to profess and practice the Catholic religion.  What's disputed is whether Dignitatis Humanae enlarged this right to now include false religious liberty.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)