A response to Dignitatis Humanae and its relationship wit Quanta Cura
#1
Originally, I did not want to get into this topic but I think that this video provides some useful information about the entire issue.

This thread is not about sedevacantism; it was just the topic of a general response video. The actual question starts at 6:16

Reply
#2
The "answers" in the video were altogether poor, vague and even false.  Catholic truth regarding "religious liberty" was held right up to the eve of the Council and the worship owed by all men and nations to the Most Holy Trinity can never be pardoned or excused, regardless of whatever particular historical circumstances happen to come about.

Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, Quas Primas, et al.
Reply
#3
(07-25-2013, 10:36 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: The "answers" in the video were altogether poor, vague and even false.  Catholic truth regarding "religious liberty" was held right up to the eve of the Council and the worship owed by all men and nations to the Most Holy Trinity can never be pardoned or excused, regardless of whatever particular historical circumstances happen to come about.

Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, Quas Primas, et al.

Sooooo.......... Quanta Cura declared the errors in question infallibly false?
Reply
#4
I couldn't watch the video, but if it is claiming that the duty of faith does not apply to some people in some circumstances, then it is wrong, as this is affirmed in Dignitatis Humane and the CCC.  That's not what the declaration on religious liberty was about, but it something that was condemned in the 19th century many times, because the naturalists were claiming it.  All actual human beings have this duty. 

The duty as it applies to "moral persons," (such as the state conceived not of all the human beings who make up the society, or all the human beings who excercie governmental authority, but as an entity with its own virtual personality, as is the case in most democractic and bureucratic republics),  was one greatly debated before the Council, but all agreed it was much less than applied to actual human beings (since moral persons are not rational beings who can have faith, commit sin, etc.), but that there was some minimally necessary duty of "recognition" (and not necessarily a formal one) acknowledged by all.  I've mentioned this book a lot lately, by Jeremiah Newman's "Studies in Political Morality" delves into the debates  surrounding this question before the Council nicely.

The actual questions at the heart of most of the traditionalist debate concerning Dignitatis Humanae are when the state may or should exercise a coercive authority over acts strictly contrary to revealed faith and when it may not or should not.  This is a question highly dependant on the circumstances and makeup of a society and involves the weighing of many principles.  The state's whole reason for being is tied to the common good, and the common good is composed of many elements, which can each be achieved to greater or lesser degrees without inflicting greater harms depending on the circumstances. 

The encyclical Quanta Cura definitively condemned the idea that the state never could or never should exercise such coercive acts, against the naturalists who denied that true faith could be a component of the common good (or that it could even be known with certainty).  As I showed in the other recent thread in this subforum, this is not what Dignitatis Humanae declares at all.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)