Rights and Religious Liberty
#11
The other side of this is how far does the Church authority reaches with regard to rights? Assuming the state [or monarchy] was an agent of the Church. Could she incarcerate for smoking a cigar? What about eating meat on Fridays? Could she punish the non-catholic for not believing in the Trinity?

Where does "error has no rights" fit into all this? 
Reply
#12
I don't know enough to answer your specific questions and examples but I will offer a few more thoughts on Vatican II in general, from whence the confusion over religious liberty seems to originate.  With everything Vatican II taught in its decrees, we can take one of two positions: it either stands in continuity with what was taught before or it does not stand in continuity.  If Vatican II really is reconcilable with the traditional Catholic Faith, then I (and no one, really) has any need to pay it any real attention.  We can simply turn to traditional catechisms like the Baltimore Catechism and the Roman Catechism, among any number of traditional sources of teaching.  Vatican II, with its ambiguous and confusing documents, need not be used.  If Vatican II, or parts of it, cannot be reconciled with the traditional Catholic Faith, then it must be be rejected and then ignored by the faithful.  The result, in practice, is the same: we use traditional sources to learn and teach the Catholic Faith.  Vatican II, with its lack of dogmatic teaching and lack of declaring anything anathema, is probably the only ecumenical council that can be set aside in its entirety and forgotten.
"For the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists."
- Pope St. Pius X

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables."
- 2 Timothy 4:3-4

"Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity."
- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
[-] The following 1 user Likes SeekerofChrist's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#13
Seeker Of Christ - Well said. I'm reminded of a cartoon I once saw. Bishop Fellay is on the phone with Rome and he says, 'I've got an idea! We'll accept Vatican II if you'll accept the other 27.' The other end hangs up.

And that's the problem. The Catholic takes your position. To the modernist, VII is an Übercouncil that trumps all the Councils before it.

***ETA**

Here is an example. Father Hardon defines the Syllabus of Errors in his 'Modern Catholic Dictionary' (with a post-Conciliar nihil obstat and imprimatur) as,


Quote:SYLLABUS OF PIUS IX. A series of eighty condemned propositions listing the prevalent errors that aimed at the undermining of society, morality, and religion. Every Catholic is expected to give exterior and interior assent to the condemnation of errors expressed in this syllabus.
(my emphasis)

And yet, a certain well known Cardinal and later Pope could say,

Quote:Cardinal Ratzinger expressed the same point of view when he stated that “The text [Gaudium et spes] serves as a counter-Syllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789.”

From 1789 until the Council, the Magisterium of the Church condemned the Revolution in all of its aspects. Suddenly, we were all supposed to be Liberté, égalité, fraternité Révolutionnaires.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 2 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • Fionnchu, SeekerofChrist
Reply
#14
(03-20-2020, 02:16 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: I don't know enough to answer your specific questions and examples but I will offer a few more thoughts on Vatican II in general, from whence the confusion over religious liberty seems to originate.  With everything Vatican II taught in its decrees, we can take one of two positions: it either stands in continuity with what was taught before or it does not stand in continuity.  If Vatican II really is reconcilable with the traditional Catholic Faith, then I (and no one, really) has any need to pay it any real attention.  We can simply turn to traditional catechisms like the Baltimore Catechism and the Roman Catechism, among any number of traditional sources of teaching.  Vatican II, with its ambiguous and confusing documents, need not be used.  If Vatican II, or parts of it, cannot be reconciled with the traditional Catholic Faith, then it must be be rejected and then ignored by the faithful.  The result, in practice, is the same: we use traditional sources to learn and teach the Catholic Faith.  Vatican II, with its lack of dogmatic teaching and lack of declaring anything anathema, is probably the only ecumenical council that can be set aside in its entirety and forgotten.
The issue is bigger than this. It’s a rare Traditionalist that stops at V2. It almost always turns into hermeneutics of suspicion with all things modern without angst or pang. And that assumes they understand past documents to begin with. That they understand exactly how rights is implemented, even amongst Catholics in a proper structure and system. Do you know? Because I don’t…and I’m trying to sort through the various encyclicals by the great Pope Leo XIII………Immortale Dei, Libertas Praestantissimum, etc……………and this is from documents that aren’t ambiguous. It’s very possible that I’m just not equipped…nor have the noggin to comprehend some of this legalistic talk………not a stretch in the slightest. On that note, I’ve had enough conversations with many of my Trad friends to know they don’t have the answers either. So……what that hell are they objecting to if they don’t completely understand themselves? I do think you and many Trads have a point, but I don’t find “it’s ambiguous” or “let’s stick to older documents” as having much weight. Every schismatic and heretical movement within the Church has claimed some variation of that claim. It also fosters a spirit of disobedience in some (just go into an SSPX Church…..dare I say even and FSSP one) and in situations where things are hard to understand, I can’t imagine “stick to the older documents” being the proper answer. Obedience is what Christ would render as proper I suspect. But what do I know.
 
Just to give you a further glimpse of how this is more complex than some Trads lead on, see exhibit A:
 
Libertas Praestantissimum
43. Whenever there exists, or there is reason to fear, an unjust oppression of the people on the one hand, or a deprivation of the liberty of the Church on the other, it is lawful to seek for such a change of government as will bring about due liberty of action. In such case, an excessive and vicious liberty is not sought, but only some relief, for the common welfare, in order that, while license for evil is allowed by the State, the power of doing good may not be hindered.

Is license the same thing as right? Far better worded in my opinion than V2 wouldn’t you agree? Yet one is able to see V2 a bit clearer when you read this first. Not that easy.
Reply
#15
(03-20-2020, 04:47 PM)Adventus Wrote: Is license the same thing as right?

No. License is the ability to do evil. Hence the word 'licentious' defined as 


  1. Lacking restraint, or ignoring societal standards, particularly in sexual conduct.

  2. Disregarding accepted rules.

No one has a 'right' to do evil, even tho' they may have the ability.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 2 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • Adventus, SeekerofChrist
Reply
#16
(03-20-2020, 05:08 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(03-20-2020, 04:47 PM)Adventus Wrote: Is license the same thing as right?

No. License is the ability to do evil. Hence the word 'licentious' defined as 


  1. Lacking restraint, or ignoring societal standards, particularly in sexual conduct.

  2. Disregarding accepted rules.

No one has a 'right' to do evil, even tho' they may have the ability.

That much is clear. So than, was V2 saying something similar in that the State (which is no longer an agent of the Church) shouldn't hinder or coerce in the way LP means it? It uses the word right in a liberal sense.
Reply
#17
(03-20-2020, 04:47 PM)Adventus Wrote: The issue is bigger than this. It’s a rare Traditionalist that stops at V2. It almost always turns into hermeneutics of suspicion with all things modern without angst or pang.

That's probably because Vatican II didn't stop at Vatican II.  By that, I mean the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II" continues right up to this very day.  From clown Masses to Pachamama, the madness and confusion seems never-ending.

Quote:And that assumes they understand past documents to begin with. That they understand exactly how rights is implemented, even amongst Catholics in a proper structure and system. Do you know? Because I don’t…and I’m trying to sort through the various encyclicals by the great Pope Leo XIII………Immortale Dei, [i]Libertas Praestantissimum[/i], etc……………and this is from documents that aren’t ambiguous. It’s very possible that I’m just not equipped…nor have the noggin to comprehend some of this legalistic talk………not a stretch in the slightest. On that note, I’ve had enough conversations with many of my Trad friends to know they don’t have the answers either. 

I assume that you're still talking about the difference between the Church's position on religious liberty, before Vatican II and at the Council (and afterwards).  I'm not sure if you're also referencing other apparent contradictions or changes at that happend at VII and in its aftermath but my answer would the same for all of them.  An important question for me, and for anyone, in considering the question of how pre- and post-Vatican II teachings on religious liberty relate or how rights are implemented, is why should I need to know the answer?  What relevance does this question have for my salvation, or your salvation, or the salvation of anyone?  As much as we might want to know the answer to many different questions, we seldom need to know them.

Quote:So……what that hell are they objecting to if they don’t completely understand themselves? [i][i]I do[/i][/i] think you and many Trads have a point, but I don’t find “it’s ambiguous” or “let’s stick to older documents” as having much weight. Every schismatic and heretical movement within the Church has claimed some variation of that claim. It also fosters a spirit of disobedience in some (just go into an SSPX Church…..dare I say even and FSSP one) and in situations where things are hard to understand, I can’t imagine “stick to the older documents” being the proper answer.

I didn't say my approach is a "proper answer" but how I have found away to deal with the lack of a clear answer about VII and what has happened since then.  I'm not a theologian.  I don't possess any special competence or skills in the arena of theology.  I don't think anyone here is, though some members are very knowledgeable (I am not one of them).  I do know that searching after answers to tough questions can be demoralizing and depressing.  That won't be the case for everyone, I suppose, but that doesn't change the fact that the "proper answer" to these questions isn't of pressing importance to most Catholics.

Quote:Obedience is what Christ would render as proper I suspect. But what do I know. 

Obedience is important.  If Pope Francis were to command me to fast and abtain every Wednesday and Friday from this day forth, I'd obey.  If he commanded me to attend at least one daily Mass each week, in addition to Sunday Mass, I'd obey.  If he commanded me to pray the Rosary everyday of my life from now on, I'd obey.  If he commanded me to pray to Pachamama for the healing of the Amazon or to believe that all men will be saved from damnation, I'd refuse.  There are limits to legitimate authority.  It is not always easy to know when, of course, but that's why we form our conscience as best we can and go from there.  I understand that's probably what you're trying to do here.  I'm sorry I can't offer you better answers.
"For the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists."
- Pope St. Pius X

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables."
- 2 Timothy 4:3-4

"Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity."
- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
[-] The following 2 users Like SeekerofChrist's post:
  • Adventus, jovan66102
Reply
#18
(03-19-2020, 10:12 AM)Adventus Wrote: "But this interpretation of Dignitatis Humanae as a revision not just of policy but of doctrine is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. The declaration is not a statement about religious liberty in general but about a specifically civil liberty: religious liberty in relation to the state and other civil institutions. It does not oppose religious coercion in general, but coercion by the state. The state is forbidden to coerce in matters of religion, not because such coercion is illicit for any authority whatsoever, but because such coercion lies beyond the state’s particular competence."

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/08/conscience-and-coercion

Worthwhile read when time permits.

Very well put. A moral limit to what the state can do is not the same as establishing a personal right to do whatever you want.
[-] The following 1 user Likes 19405's post:
  • Adventus
Reply
#19
Smile 
I wanted to circle back to this.

This is a difficult one indeed. 

As I understand it, the common conception of rights is that they derive from right (as that word is commonly understood), so it is directly tied to justice and therefore points to a hierarchy in that rights come first and justice flows from it. No point in talking about justice if there is no such thing as something that is right. The confusing part is that for those that see this as obvious (as we should), it would be a bizarre thing indeed if justice came first and rights flowed from justice.

But then I read this:

He is in duty bound to strive to fulfil the designs of his Creator, he must exercise his faculties and conduct his life according to the intentions of his Lord and Master. Because he is under these obligations he is consequently invested with rights, God-given and primordial, antecedent to the State and independent of it. Such are man's natural rights, granted to him by nature herself, sacred, as is their origin, and inviolable. Beside these he may have other rights given him by Church or State, or acquired by his own industry and exertion. All these rights, whatever be their source, are the object of the virtue of justice. Justice requires that all persons should be left in the free enjoyment of all their rights.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08571c.htm

So it's obvious to me that there is more than one type of right. That much is clear. And from what I can gather the common usage has been objective rights and not subjective rights (personally claimed rights, giving a claim to act morally, desposition of goods, etc.). It's what most would identify as the infiltration of liberalism into V2. I think the answer really does lie in the attempt to communicate to modern man and using his vocabulary (subjective rights), and the problem is that meaning can be seen as different without much effort and leads to unnecessary confusion.

Thoughts?

On a side note, if this is in fact in error as some say (SSPX and other Trads), how does is this not a game-changer? In otherwords, that gates of hell did in fact prevail? I've heard some way that parts of a Council can be wrong or that it was simply a pastoral Council, etc.

Might be another topic but wanted to put it out there. 
Reply
#20
(04-10-2020, 01:32 PM)Adventus Wrote: I wanted to circle back to this.

This is a difficult one indeed. 

As I understand it, the common conception of rights is that they derive from right (as that word is commonly understood), so it is directly tied to justice and therefore points to a hierarchy in that rights come first and justice flows from it. No point in talking about justice if there is no such thing as something that is right. The confusing part is that for those that see this as obvious (as we should), it would be a bizarre thing indeed if justice came first and rights flowed from justice.

But then I read this:

  • He is in duty bound to strive to fulfil the designs of his Creator, he must exercise his faculties and conduct his life according to the intentions of his Lord and Master. Because he is under these obligations he is consequently invested with rights, God-given and primordial, antecedent to the State and independent of it. Such are man's natural rights, granted to him by nature herself, sacred, as is their origin, and inviolable. Beside these he may have other rights given him by Church or State, or acquired by his own industry and exertion. All these rights, whatever be their source, are the object of the virtue of justice. Justice requires that all persons should be left in the free enjoyment of all their rights.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08571c.htm

So it's obvious to me that there is more than one type of right. That much is clear. And from what I can gather the common usage has been objective rights and not subjective rights (personally claimed rights, giving a claim to act morally, desposition of goods, etc.). It's what most would identify as the infiltration of liberalism into V2. I think the answer really does lie in the attempt to communicate to modern man and using his vocabulary (subjective rights), and the problem is that meaning can be seen as different without much effort and leads to unnecessary confusion.

Thoughts?

On a side note, if this is in fact in error as some say (SSPX and other Trads), how does is this not a game-changer? In otherwords, that gates of hell did in fact prevail? I've heard some way that parts of a Council can be wrong or that it was simply a pastoral Council, etc.

Might be another topic but wanted to put it out there. 

The idea that Vatican II was trying to communicate the Catholic Faith in modern language is one that I've heard before.  But when I read Dignitatis Humanae, I can't help but get the impression that the Council is teaching that man's right to religious liberty is rooted in his dignity as a human person. I think the logical conclusion to that is that the right to religious freedom must come from God Himself.  After all, it is God who created mankind and bestowed upon us the dignity we enjoy.  Yet, this would mean that God has given human beings the right to fall into sin, which is an absurd notion.  Therefore, Dignitatis Humanae is problematic at best (if, as you think, it is a very poorly worded attempt to communicate the Catholic Faith in modern language) and at worst it is simply in error (which I think is more likely).  

That, of course, raises the important question of whether the gates of hell have prevailed against God's Church.  Short answer: no, for that would make God a liar, which is impossible.  The Church is still here, She still possesses the Truth that has been taught for 2,000 years, even if our shepherds have failed to clearly teach it to modern men, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is still offered, the Sacraments are still here, and the successor of St. Peter is sitting on the chair.  Speaking for myself, I really don't need to know much beyond that.  I'll work on growing in faith and charity, keeping myself in a state of grace, teaching the Faith to my godchildren, and caring for those nearest and dearest to me.
"For the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists."
- Pope St. Pius X

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables."
- 2 Timothy 4:3-4

"Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity."
- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)