Teachings Contrary to Tradition? Religious Liberty
#61
(02-03-2012, 03:30 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 02:30 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote:
Quote:Of course, no-one knew. It's a gnostic teaching to this very day.

Oh bother. Just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's gnostic. The Church has clarified it several times since the Council in a matter that suggests that DH is compatible with different forms of government, including a Catholic state. The document itself envisions a Catholic state in some cases (DH 6#3). Clearly the diplomats were just plan wrong about what the Council was suggesting.

And apparently Rome didn't know it any better too since she let those things happen everywhere. It's not like she stepped in and shouted: "Hey, you're getting it wrong!"

Again, this whole line of reasoning has a gnostic flavour to it. Only the initiate know what are the true teachings regarding the relationship between Church and state. What had been made explicitly clear throughout centuries of Christendom, as such that any peasant knew that it was the responsibily of kings and the state to protect orthodoxy and punish dissenters, suddenly became a cloudy object of perpetual clarifications and contradictions for the past 40 years. So much so that even Rome herself didn't know any better and pressured Spain and Portugal to drop Roman Catholicism as the official religion of the state in accordance with the directives of the council! What a mess...

Yes, the Catholic Church was sooo cozy with the Portuguese Leftist Regime that removed the Church of her privileges in 1976 (the Church had already been disestablished in 1940). 

[Image: scaled.php?server=838&filename=portugal1.png&res=medium]

[Image: scaled.php?server=560&filename=portugal2.png&res=medium]
Reply
#62
(02-03-2012, 03:48 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 03:30 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(02-03-2012, 02:30 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote:
Quote:Of course, no-one knew. It's a gnostic teaching to this very day.

Oh bother. Just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's gnostic. The Church has clarified it several times since the Council in a matter that suggests that DH is compatible with different forms of government, including a Catholic state. The document itself envisions a Catholic state in some cases (DH 6#3). Clearly the diplomats were just plan wrong about what the Council was suggesting.

And apparently Rome didn't know it any better too since she let those things happen everywhere. It's not like she stepped in and shouted: "Hey, you're getting it wrong!"

Again, this whole line of reasoning has a gnostic flavour to it. Only the initiate know what are the true teachings regarding the relationship between Church and state. What had been made explicitly clear throughout centuries of Christendom, as such that any peasant knew that it was the responsibily of kings and the state to protect orthodoxy and punish dissenters, suddenly became a cloudy object of perpetual clarifications and contradictions for the past 40 years. So much so that even Rome herself didn't know any better and pressured Spain and Portugal to drop Roman Catholicism as the official religion of the state in accordance with the directives of the council! What a mess...

Yes, the Catholic Church was sooo cozy with the Portuguese Leftist Regime that removed the Church of her privileges in 1976 (the Church had already been disestablished in 1940). 

You're quoting newspaper articles - your specialty, apparently - from the time of the post-revolutionary establishment which was violently anti-authoritarian, anti-fascist and anti-clerical. That has nothing to do with the point I was making and I'm not sure what you're even trying to say. Is this another one of your famous gotcha moments?

The pressure to drop Roman Catholicism as the official religion of the state was a direct consequence of Vatican II's new concept of religious liberty for all men. The concordat of 1940 between the Holy See and the Portuguese Republic didn't "disestablish" the Church in Portugal, I don't know where you got that wild idea from. Rather, it reaffirmed the Catholic Church as the religion of the Portuguese nation; only the Church had the right to teach in public schools and only she had the right to tax-exemptions, for instance.

Conversely, as the leftist regime on 1974 progressed into the modern secular democracy we have today, the Church certainly became cosy with it.
Reply
#63
Quote:Was this idea ever applied like this before?

Some form of immunity from coercion as a part of the natural law is envisioned by St. Thomas and others -- especially in ST II-II Q 10, especially parts 8 & 12: http://newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm#article12

Quote:Again, this whole line of reasoning has a gnostic flavour to it.

Gnosticism would signal a failure in knowledge, but I would argue the period following the council was a failure in will. As the Holy Writ says: "[1] Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, [2] Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. [3] All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not." (Mt. 23:1-2) In other words, the teaching action was maintained even if the end works were bad ... very bad.

Quote: Protestants and Jews had no fundamental right to worship freely and erect temples unhindered. The state had every right to suppress them or even expell them, as it happened several times throughout the centuries.

I would argue that if we could transport back to this time of any degree of unity of Faith and DH came out, it would change nothing in the Catholic ruler's actions in suppressing unlimited growth of false religions, since he would still be justified in doing so out of concern for "just public order." He would merely have to affirm that Protestants and Jews have a natural right to immunity from coercion, which was being superseded by the rights of others to preserve the basis of his state.
Reply
#64
(02-03-2012, 03:16 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote: I'll take these one by one:

1. Where does it say this, especially the "their" truth part? The document doesn't contain a single instance of "their truth" that I can find. That would be an acknowledgement of relativism which would be a very serious problem indeed. In fact, when it does say the right continues to exist in those who don't seek THE truth, it caveats with "provided that just public order be observed."

2. No, they are free up to the point of "just public order" which I would argue is not specifically defined because it is variable based on the prudential judgement of the ruler and the situation of the state. This is the constant teaching on this subject.

3. Again, "due limits" are variable based on the situation of the state.

4. Again, with the caveat of "just public order" -- public order emphasizing again that it varies based on the composition of that public order. Note here the phrase "Honor the Supreme Being" within their obligations -- this means that a "religion" which is contrary to natural reason can always be suppressed, since it could never perform this function.

5. Up to a point. If you have unity of Faith, though, these same groups will also likely be also anarchists, which the government would still have a right to suppress on that basis.

6. False religions were allowed to do this well before the Council even in Catholic states.

7. All matters of natural law should be enshrined in law. If indeed there is a natural law right to immunity from coercion, then like the other matters of natural law, it OUGHT to be made a legal obligation -- just like the legal definition of marriage as defined by the natural law.

Here is further clarification from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Quote:2104 "All men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and his Church, and to embrace it and hold on to it as they come to know it."26 This duty derives from "the very dignity of the human person."27 It does not contradict a "sincere respect" for different religions which frequently "reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men,"28 nor the requirement of charity, which urges Christians "to treat with love, prudence and patience those who are in error or ignorance with regard to the faith."29

2105 The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially. This is "the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ."30 By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them "to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live."31 The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church.32 Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies.33

2106 "Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits."34 This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it."35

2107 "If because of the circumstances of a particular people special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional organization of a state, the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom must be recognized and respected as well."36

2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,37 but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.38

2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40

You haven't actually addressed a single one of the objections raised:

1)'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, under the impulse of their own religious sense
'

The Caveat of just public order is meaningless without a defintion in the text itself, you can say you believe it to be a 'prudent judgement by the country' but that is just your opinion and has no support or basis in the text whatsoever. The fact is the text says nothing about what it means as regards ''just public order' and as such leaves itself open to any and all interpretations.  Further the caveat is mentioned only in the second paragraph with relation to those rights, it is entirely omitted in subsequent paragraphs, this is in itself very problematic.

I never said anything about their truth, but the document does constantly mention 'their religion, their doctrine' both of which smack of relativism. Why should false religions be given an opportunity to show the worth or truth of their religion? It is not true and is therefore of no worth. Further allowing false religions to ensnare others with their false teachings is a grave sin and for the church to be suggesting it is a scandal.


2) Again the caveat of 'just public order' is undefined and may or may not apply to some or all of the document, as such the clause is for all intents and purposes utterly worthless

3)They are variable, but they admit of basic principles which can and should be laid down, as have been by other pontiffs like Pope Leo XIII and Pope's Pius XI and XII, the failure to do so is at best negligent and at worst heterodox, again and for the same reasons as 'just public order' it renders the clause useless

4)You are reading too much into things here, the only way one can 'Honor the supreme being' is through the catholic faith, only that form of worship is pleasing to him, your response smacks of modernism, as if all forms of worship or 'honouring him' were pleasing when in fact only the Catholic one is.

5)This doesn't address the problem, namely that the state has to duty to suppress false religions, though the church may waive this duty in certain and exceptional circumstances and to a certain degree but never altogether

6)They were restricted, Franco's spain is a good example

7)The problem is there is no natural law right to immunity from coercion and in fact the popes have denounced such ideas as ludicrous

The Catechism quotes you provide do not help matters

'2106 "Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits."34 This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it."35

2107 "If because of the circumstances of a particular people special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional organization of a state, the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom must be recognized and respected as well."36

2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,37 but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.38

[u]2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order
'

2106, again a failure to define 'due limits' and a statement that the right is 'inherent in the human purpose', now that would mean that this right did not depend on the Church but was in fact inherent in man, it came directly from God, the church no longer waives the right in order to allow error but instead would waive the right to freely hold error both in public and private, the traditional order of things is therefore inverted, what was the exception becomes the rule and vice versa.

2107, therefore if catholicism was given state rights all other religions must be given rights as well? This contradicts what was previously stated a paragraph above and smacks of relativism.

2108, This sentence is oxymoronic, if it is a right to be immune from coercion from the state, it is for all intents and purposes a right to hold error. The 'just limits' clause is rendered useless by the lack of a definition and previous statements.

2109, 'political prudence', what about the Church? Does she not have a say? This again inverts the traditional order of things, instead of the Church allowing the state to not prohibit error, the state can decide for itself whether to do so or not.
Reply
#65
Someone, this quote you gave from Blessed John Henry Newman seems particularly relevant to some of the other threads you've started lately, which I wanted to tell you, I've benefitted from thinking through.

Quote:Here I am led to interpose a remark;-it is plain, then, that there are those near, or with access, to the Holy Father, who would, if they could, go much further in the way of assertion and command, than the divine Assistentia, which overshadows him, wills or permits; so {280} that his acts and his words on doctrinal subjects must be carefully scrutinized and weighed, before we can be sure what really he has said. Utterances which must be received as coming from an Infallible Voice are not made every day, indeed they are very rare; and those which are by some persons affirmed or assumed to be such, do not always turn out what they are said to be; nay, even such as are really dogmatic must be read by definite rules and by traditional principles of interpretation, which are as cogent and unchangeable as the Pope's own decisions themselves.

Newyorkcatholic, my first reaction to DH was to think that there was nothing in it that couldn't be interpreted according to tradition, so I was leaning toward option #2. 

(02-03-2012, 10:21 AM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: Options I see:
1. Vatican II actually does contradict tradition on religious liberty, and it must be rejected.
2. Vatican II said nothing new, is saying what tradition has said, in typically very confused words, so we can safely ignore it or clarify it.
3. Vatican II only expressed one view of the several legitimate views traditionally allowed on religious liberty, overly influenced by liberal democracies it downplayed or ignored other views, and this fact should be clarified -- we don't have to agree with the stance V2 took.

But I thought afterwards, why would they have specifically used the word "liberty", a word already charged with a particular meaning from past Church documents, a concept clearly condemned, when "tolerance" would have been more accurate or acceptable?  If DH came out of a vaccuum, a superficial reading of it seems pretty harmless.  But I'm inclined to think the SSPX understands the theoligical nuances of the word choices here set against a larger background than I'm familiar with.  Like the Newman quote above says, there are "traditional principles of interpretation, which are...cogent and unchangeable..."  So I'm trying to figure out what those are and what makes these VII statments not measure up in their eyes.  So, I'm floating between 1 and 3 now.

Personally I could agree with DH if "coercion" referred to things like forced conversion, forced attendence at Mass, etc (I'm thinking of everything wrong the Anglican church did during its takeover). And at a bare minimum the rights of conscience for non-Catholics must not take precedence over the Natural Law...absolutely no polygamy, human sacrifice, etc.  Though ideally in a Catholic country there should be no problem with crucifixes in classrooms, days of for Holy Days of obligation, big public processions...there would be no way a whiny secularist could petition for these to stop because they feel offended somewhow.  :)  I don't know that the government should support the Church financially, but this could be because I'm an American and I see how corrupt government money makes everything.  The Church should be free to call government officials to moral accountability without fear of financial strings being pulled.

TrentCath, I see that you've highlighted many parts of DH, but I'm only concerned right now with section 2 because that is the part that Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize and the SSPX single out as being problematic. My plan tonight is to read through Quanta Cura so I can discuss it tomorrow.

JayneK, in order to argue that it is a legitimate development of doctrine, we'd have to be able to see that it was a clearer expression of what the Church has always taught.  If you can build a case using scripture, church Fathers, early Church Councils, etc, and also demonstrate that some of the encyclicals quoted were appropriate for their specific circumstances during the 1800's, that would be an interesting exercise.

Vetus, I'm glad for a European perspective on how the implementation of DH played out. Even if the council documents are just sloppy and ambiguous rather than contradictory, if they are able to be cited and used to justify actions to the contrary of the traditional teaching, there is an inherent problem there.  My husband the scientist, after revising his latest research paper dozens of times, concluded that it doesn't matter what he thinks he's saying, what matters is what he actually manages to communicate to others (which depends largely on having very clearly defined and consistent terms).

Okay, the toddler is awake. Talk to you all later.
Reply
#66
(02-03-2012, 06:36 PM)iona_scribe Wrote: TrentCath, I see that you've highlighted many parts of DH, but I'm only concerned right now with section 2 because that is the part that Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize and the SSPX single out as being problematic. My plan tonight is to read through Quanta Cura so I can discuss it tomorrow.

Fair enough.
Reply
#67
(02-03-2012, 06:36 PM)iona_scribe Wrote: JayneK, in order to argue that it is a legitimate development of doctrine, we'd have to be able to see that it was a clearer expression of what the Church has always taught.  If you can build a case using scripture, church Fathers, early Church Councils, etc, and also demonstrate that some of the encyclicals quoted were appropriate for their specific circumstances during the 1800's, that would be an interesting exercise.

I am not competent to build such a case, but it does seem to be the claim that DH makes for itself:
Quote:This demand for freedom in human society chiefly regards the quest for the values proper to the human spirit. It regards, in the first place, the free exercise of religion in society. This Vatican Council takes careful note of these desires in the minds of men. It proposes to declare them to be greatly in accord with truth and justice. To this end, it searches into the sacred tradition and doctrine of the Church-the treasury out of which the Church continually brings forth new things that are in harmony with the things that are old.
Reply
#68
The following is THE BEST treatment on this topic that I have read, by professor Thomas Pink. His ultimate conclusion is that DH is consonant with the traditional doctrine on this matter.

http://kcl.academia.edu/ThomasPink/Paper...us_liberty

In a nutshell, this is how his argument goes (and he has plenty of citations, mostly to the medieval and Tridentine periods):

1) There are two spheres governed by two powers: the temporal governed by the State and the spiritual governed by the Church.

2) The State may only coerce those within its jurisdiction in temporal matters (such as the natural law--this is what the criminal penal code is all about, for example).

3) The Church may coerce those subject to its jurisdiction in spiritual matters.(this is still the case: Can. 1311 — Nativum et proprium Ecclesiae ius est christifideles delinquentes poenalibus sanctionibus coercere. (1983 Code of Canon Law)). Those subject to its jurisdiction are the Baptized (cf. Canon 204). Some theologians argued that this did not apply to those born and baptized into old separated groups (Cardinal Manning argued this, for example), but as far as I can tell canon law past and present has not made this distinction.

4)The State may generally only coerce the Baptized in religious matters when those in power are themselves members of the Church and are acting on behalf the Church and according to the will of the Church (ie when the state acts as the "arm of the Church")--since then it is the Church's power of coercion being exercised not the state's (this practice can be found primarily in the medieval age of Christendom, when the Church and State were essentially the same society).

5) Neither the Church nor the State may coerce the unbaptized in spiritual matters since the state has no coercive power over spiritual matters and the unbaptized are not within the Church's jurisdiction. There seems to be a split of opinions as to whether the state can coerce idolaters since the knowledge of one God can be known with natural reason. From what I've read, I would conclude it can, but in practice it seems to vary historically.

Vatican II's Decree on Religious Liberty is only addressing the fact that the political authority has no right in and of itself to coerce in spiritual matters and then gives practical recommendations (these amount to the Church choosing not to delegate much if any coercive power to the state--a choice within the Church's rights). DH does not address the Church's coercive power. It speaks only of a right before the State, not a right before the Church or before God. It also defines religion in terms of setting one’s life to God, so it does not address idolatry either.

Again, the article itself does a much better job of explaining it.

He doesn't go too much into the 19th century controversies. Those often deal with the idea that the state may also place limits on religious freedom when the common good requires (this is affirmed explicitly by the CCC and less clearly by Vatican II's Decree). In addition, the famous 19th century Magisterial interventions on these matters deal with the matter of the supernatural obligation of faith as opposed to the absolute freedom of reason alone. They condemn certain absolutist claims to an unlimited freedom, but do not mean to assert the opposite absolute.

I wrote up an essay and saved it on another forum's "blog" section--it's a bit of a work in progress, but you might find it helpful (a lot of folks I know have). It deals specifically with the definitive condemnations in the encyclical Quanta Cura (which Cardinal Newman affirms are definitive and infallible in contrast to those of the "Syllabus" which vary in authority relative to the respective documents cited in the Syllabus) as compared with DH and the CCC.

Part I
http://www.christianforums.com/blogs/u121383-e12614/

Part II
http://www.christianforums.com/blogs/u121383-e12615/

Links to citations and further reading.
http://www.christianforums.com/blogs/u121383-e14245/

Reply
#69
(02-03-2012, 09:37 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: The following is THE BEST treatment on this topic that I have read, by professor Thomas Pink. His ultimate conclusion is that DH is consonant with the traditional doctrine on this matter.

http://kcl.academia.edu/ThomasPink/Paper...us_liberty

In a nutshell, this is how his argument goes (and he has plenty of citations, mostly to the medieval and Tridentine periods):

1) There are two spheres governed by two powers: the temporal governed by the State and the spiritual governed by the Church.

2) The State may only coerce those within its jurisdiction in temporal matters (such as the natural law--this is what the criminal penal code is all about, for example).

3) The Church may coerce those subject to its jurisdiction in spiritual matters.(this is still the case: Can. 1311 — Nativum et proprium Ecclesiae ius est christifideles delinquentes poenalibus sanctionibus coercere. (1983 Code of Canon Law)). Those subject to its jurisdiction are the Baptized (cf. Canon 204). Some theologians argued that this did not apply to those born and baptized into old separated groups (Cardinal Manning argued this, for example), but as far as I can tell canon law past and present has not made this distinction.

4)The State may generally only coerce the Baptized in religious matters when those in power are themselves members of the Church and are acting on behalf the Church and according to the will of the Church (ie when the state acts as the "arm of the Church")--since then it is the Church's power of coercion being exercised not the state's (this practice can be found primarily in the medieval age of Christendom, when the Church and State were essentially the same society).

5) Neither the Church nor the State may coerce the unbaptized in spiritual matters since the state has no coercive power over spiritual matters and the unbaptized are not within the Church's jurisdiction. There seems to be a split of opinions as to whether the state can coerce idolaters since the knowledge of one God can be known with natural reason. From what I've read, I would conclude it can, but in practice it seems to vary historically.

Vatican II's Decree on Religious Liberty is only addressing the fact that the political authority has no right in and of itself to coerce in spiritual matters and then gives practical recommendations (these amount to the Church choosing not to delegate much if any coercive power to the state--a choice within the Church's rights). DH does not address the Church's coercive power. It speaks only of a right before the State, not a right before the Church or before God. It also defines religion in terms of setting one’s life to God, so it does not address idolatry either.

Again, the article itself does a much better job of explaining it.

He doesn't go too much into the 19th century controversies. Those often deal with the idea that the state may also place limits on religious freedom when the common good requires (this is affirmed explicitly by the CCC and less clearly by Vatican II's Decree). In addition, the famous 19th century Magisterial interventions on these matters deal with the matter of the supernatural obligation of faith as opposed to the absolute freedom of reason alone. They condemn certain absolutist claims to an unlimited freedom, but do not mean to assert the opposite absolute.

I wrote up an essay and saved it on another forum's "blog" section--it's a bit of a work in progress, but you might find it helpful (a lot of folks I know have). It deals specifically with the definitive condemnations in the encyclical Quanta Cura (which Cardinal Newman affirms are definitive and infallible in contrast to those of the "Syllabus" which vary in authority relative to the respective documents cited in the Syllabus) as compared with DH and the CCC.

Part I
http://www.christianforums.com/blogs/u121383-e12614/

Part II
http://www.christianforums.com/blogs/u121383-e12615/

Links to citations and further reading.
http://www.christianforums.com/blogs/u121383-e14245/

This is all very well and good but its very much a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Dignatis Humanae is an unorthodox document, it departs wildly from the previous teaching of the Church, this was accepted by council fathers, theologians and popes, in fact by almost everyone whether they liked it or not. Then of course when people realised there was a problem with saying Vatican II contradicted all previous teaching, a few years or rather decades into the pontificate of Pope John Paul II people tried to deny this but they couldn't take back what had been said and what was obvious to all.

The problem I have with the professors document is that it spends far too much time establishing the teaching of the Church and far too little time looking at DH itself or how the council fathers proposed and interpreted it. Ultimately we are being asked to say that he knows more than those who voted on the document, those who implemented it and those who interpreted it, this is extremely unlikely. In the face of the fact of the teaching of Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, as well as the Vatican proposed and supported disintegration of Catholic states, the new concordat negotiated with Italy and other such scandals, it is pretty clear how those in power interpreted the document, further even those who opposed it such as Archbishop Lefebvre and his supporters were pretty clear with what it meant.
Reply
#70
(02-02-2012, 10:00 PM)Someone1776 Wrote: More from Pius XII:

Quote:Increasingly frequent contacts between different religious professions, mingled indiscriminately within the same nation, have caused civil authorities to follow the principles of tolerance and liberty of conscience.  In fact, there is a political tolerance, a civil tolerance, a social tolerance, in regard to adherents of other religious beliefs which, in circumstances such as these, is a moral duty for Catholics.

The Catholic Church, as we have already said, is a perfect society and has as its foundation the truth of Faith infallibly revealed by God. For this reason, that which is opposed to this truth is, necessarily, an error, and the same rights which are objectively recognized for truth cannot be afforded to error. In this manner, liberty of thought and liberty of conscience have their essential limits in the truthfulness of God in Revelation.

-Allocution to the Roman Rota, October 6, 1946
Pope Gregory XVI

Now we arrive at another cause of the evils with which we suffer at seeing the Church afflicted at this moment, to wit, this “indifferentism,” or this perverse opinion spread everywhere by the devious action of bad men. According to it, one could achieve eternal salvation by any profession of faith, as long as the customs are upright and honest.

It will not be difficult for you, in such a clear and evident matter, to drive so fatal an error from the midst of the peoples under your care. Indeed, since the Apostle had warned us that “there is but one God, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:5), those who believe that all religions offer the means to reach eternal salvation must fear and comprehend that, according to the testimony of the Savior Himself, “those who are not with Christ are against Him” (Luke 11:23); and that they scatter in sadness, since they do not gather with Him. Consequently, there is no doubt that “they who do not profess the Catholic Faith and maintain it whole and inviolate will be eternally lost” …

From this infected source of “indifferentism” flows that absurd and erroneous maxim, or rather this delirium, that it is necessary to grant everyone “freedom of conscience.” This most pernicious error has its way prepared by a full and immoderate freedom of opinion that is widely spread for the ruin of religious and civil society. Some repeat with extreme impudence that it brings an advantage for religion. However, St. Augustine asked: “What could be a worse evil for the soul than the liberty of error?”

Once one removes the restraints that keep men within the path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, opens to “the bottomless pit,” from which John saw smoke ascending that obscured the sun, and grasshoppers coming forth that devastated the earth. From this comes transformation of souls, profound corruption of youth, contempt for sacred things and the most respectable laws, which is spread among the people. In a word, it is a most deathful scourge for society, since experience shows that the States which shone for their riches, power, and glory perished as a result of this evil, namely, immoderate liberty of opinions, the relaxation of customs, and the love of novelties.


(Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos in
Receuil des Allocution consistoriales,
Encycliques et autres Lettres Apostoliques Citées
in the Encyclical and Syllabus of December 8, 1864
Paris: Adrien Le Clere, 1865, n. 13, p. 163)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)