Religious Liberty & Church Teaching
#11
(07-22-2011, 02:09 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, n. 14  http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16mirar.htm
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, n. 3  http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm
Syllabus of Errors, nn. 77-79  http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm
Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, n. 36  http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13sta.htm
Libertas Praestantissimum, n. 30  http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13liber.htm
Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, n. 31  http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11BRENN.HTM  (Is he talking about Catholic believers or all believers, regardless of religion?)
Non Abbiamo Bisogno, n. 41  http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11FAC.HTM
Pope Pius XII, Ci Riesce, IV-V  http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/p12ciri.htm

Bishop de Smedt's Relatio on Religious Liberty: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...903.0.html

My post in another thread: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33471239  ["What we know is that: 'that which is not true or moral has no objective right to existence, promotion, or practice' (Bl. Pius XII) and man cannot 'be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will' (Pope Leo XIII).

"Tanquerey stated that the freedom of non-Catholics to practice their false religions was a kind of 'toleration,' but the Roman Pontiffs 'do forbid that these liberties be considered as rights which must be granted to error or to false religion'" (A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, vol. I, sec. 281, p. 168).]

A thread from not so long ago: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...sg33471239

Some articles on the issue:

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives...ussion.htm
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature...iberty.pdf
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature...erty_2.pdf

I think I re-posted this same quote of yours (or close) in the other thread on religious liberty that is going right now. Sorry, I should have let you do it (I did attribute it to you, though!)
Reply
#12
(07-23-2012, 04:51 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(07-22-2011, 09:11 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(07-22-2011, 09:02 PM)Lagrange Wrote: Also, I did find some articles by Fr Harrison who contends Dignitatis Humanae is not per se inconsistent with the pre-conciliar Magisterium.


Not sure how. The Magisterium speaks:

Syllabus errorum Wrote:(It is a condemned proposition that)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.

The Council speaks:

Dignitatis Humanae Wrote:2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

I posted the exact same thing a little while back, and received a negative reaction.

CP, I've been beating this horse since before you were born and here, on FE, since long before you joined. :LOL: There are those who, convinced that the non-infallible, non-dogmatic 'pastoral' Second Council of the Vatican could not teach error. They will twist their minds into pretzels trying to explain that all the heresy in DH can be 'interpreted in the light of Tradition' as being consistent with the Magisterium of the One, Holy, Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church. They know more than Fr John Courtney Murray, one of the major drafters of the Decree, who is reported to have said after it was promulgated, 'The Teaching of the Church has changed 180 degrees. It is now up to the theologians to explain it', and a Roman trained theologian priest friend of mine who has been trying for ten years to reconcile those two quotes.
Reply
#13
Couldn't that quote from DH just mean that everyone has the right to practise the Catholic faith, which is the only true religion - the others being false and therefore not religions at all?  Doesn't it just say that no one can be forced to embrace it?  Isn't it just acknowledging free will? 
Reply
#14
(07-23-2012, 09:07 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: Couldn't that quote from DH just mean that everyone has the right to practise the Catholic faith, which is the only true religion - the others being false and therefore not religions at all?  Doesn't it just say that no one can be forced to embrace it?  Isn't it just acknowledging free will? 

How could you possibly draw that conclusion? 
[quote='DH']'(N)o one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs...' For that to be true, everyone in the world would have to be Catholic.
Reply
#15
I was just referring to the one quote,
Quote:This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

reading it 'in the light of traditional', which teaches that the Church is the only true religion.  So, read this way, it says:

'This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to freely practise the Catholic religion ... and no one is to be forced into conversion'

If it's understood and goes without saying that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, I don't think the rest of that short quote is problematic. 

I know, though, as you do, that V2 produced more documents than all the other councils put together, and I'm in no way suggesting they can all be read the way I'm reading this one short quote, since there's plenty of evidence that they weren't written with the understanding that the Catholic Church is the one and only true religion.  I know that many in the hierarchy were and are proud of how V2 was a 'French Revolution in the Church' and clearly I'm not saying that can possibly be reconciled with anything good.  I'm just saying that this one short quote in and of itself, separated from the rest of all the documents, is not entirely problematic, except in that it doesn't say that the Catholic religion is the only true one.
Reply
#16
(07-23-2012, 10:11 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: I was just referring to the one quote,
Quote:This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

reading it 'in the light of traditional', which teaches that the Church is the only true religion.  So, read this way, it says:

'This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to freely practise the Catholic religion ... and no one is to be forced into conversion'

If it's understood and goes without saying that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, I don't think the rest of that short quote is problematic. 

I know, though, as you do, that V2 produced more documents than all the other councils put together, and I'm in no way suggesting they can all be read the way I'm reading this one short quote, since there's plenty of evidence that they weren't written with the understanding that the Catholic Church is the one and only true religion.  I know that many in the hierarchy were and are proud of how V2 was a 'French Revolution in the Church' and clearly I'm not saying that can possibly be reconciled with anything good.  I'm just saying that this one short quote in and of itself, separated from the rest of all the documents, is not entirely problematic, except in that it doesn't say that the Catholic religion is the only true one.

I see your point, but that becomes increasingly diificult as one reads further into the document. Paragraph four goes into great detail about how religious communities (note the plural and I'm sure they're not talking about Orders and Institutes  :)) possess rights and paragraph five states, 'Parents, moreover, have the right to determine, in accordance with their own religious beliefs, the kind of religious education that their children are to receive.' If it applies only to freedom to worship as Catholics, both of these paragraphs are meaningless.

As I pointed out, one of the principal drafters of the Decree made it clear that he knew it was an attempted change in the Teaching of the Church.
Reply
#17
Jovan,

The quote from the Syllabus you have often provided and have provided earlier in the thread is not really related to the what is in DH--this one especially doesn't take a whole lot of complex analysis, just a knowledge of what the Syllabus is.  It points to other documents and leaves their meaning as originally intended. For example, the Catholic encyclopedia says the following of the quote you provided (the whole article is a good explanation of the history and level of authority of the Syllabus):

"For instance the fifteenth thesis, "Everyone is free to adopt and profess that religion which he, guided by the light of reason, holds to be true", admits in itself of a right interpretation. For man can and must be led to the knowledge of the true religion through the light of reason. However, on consulting the Apostolic Letter "Multiplices inter", dated 10 June, 1851, from which this thesis is taken, it will be found that not every possible meaning is rejected, but only that particular meaning which, in 1848, Vigil, a Peruvian priest, attached to it in his "Defensa". Influenced by Indifferentism and Rationalism, Vigil maintained that man is to trust to his own human reason only and not to a Divine reason, i.e. to the truthful and omniscient God Who in supernatural revelation vouches for the truth of a religion. In the sense in which Vigil's book understands the fifteenth thesis, and in this sense alone does the Syllabus understand and condemn the proposition."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14368b.htm

DH is not dealing with this (in fact it affirms man's duty to seek out and embrace the true religion, etc.), but merely the lack of an inherent power of coercion over religious matters in the state.

(as an aside, those who claimed man could not or should not use his reason to come to knowledge of the true religion were also condemned in the 19th century under the errors of fideism and traditionalism.)
Reply
#18
Even if DH meant to say 'Everyone has the right to practise the Catholic faith, and no one is to be forced to convert', it still would show a weakening of the Church.  It seems to me that to declare that no one can be forced to convert is to imply that the Church once encouraged forced conversions, and that's a lie.
Reply
#19
(07-24-2012, 11:54 AM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: It seems to me that to declare that no one can be forced to convert is to imply that the Church once encouraged forced conversions, and that's a lie.

I don't see how this follows.  Just because the Church proclaims Jesus Christ to have risen from the dead doesn't imply that the Church once taught  the opposite.  The same can be said of any truth the Church proclaims.  The Church has affirmed the truth you say is a weakening on multiple occasions--off the top of my head, by Leo XIII and Pius XII just prior to Vatican II, and Bl. Gregory X even earlier. There must have been a reason for it other than the Church encouraging the opposite, no?

Like much of the documents of Vatican II (or of various ecumenical Councils), different contributors to the document had different aims.  For DH, one issue sought to be addressed was communist, socialist, and other secular states suppressing all public, religious activity (or all religious activity, period).  To adequately address this, however, one must first establish certain principles concerning the relationship between God and man, and the nature of the act of faith by which man must adhere to God.  I don't think at the time there was much of a worry about forced conversions (unless this accusation was raised from some outside the Church and the Church felt the need to respond).
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)