Rights and Religious Liberty
#21
(03-20-2020, 03:23 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: To the modernist, VII is an Übercouncil that trumps all the Councils before it.

I forget to mention this when you first posted this but there is a story on the Coming Home Network's website, from a former Sedevacantist who left traditionalism altogether to become a very gungho Novus Ordo-type.  She makes this comment: "I have come to believe that the Second Vatican Council is almost as important as the First Coming of Christ."  Bizarre, to say in the least.  The whole story, with that quote in it, can be found here: https://chnetwork.org/story/graces-will-...ents-stop/.  I wanted to post this, lest anyone think Jovan's comment is an exaggeration.
"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
#22
Is there a way of replying a small section of what someone types? I don't particularly care to reply to someone and it turns into me having to scroll over and over again. Quite annoying.

I don't understand how you came to this conclusion:

 "....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. "

don't understand how human dignity means God gave us the right to fall into sin?

Especially if the document isn't talking about rights as is traditionally understood.
Reply
#23
(04-10-2020, 03:56 PM)Adventus Wrote: Is there a way of replying a small section of what someone types? I don't particularly care to reply to someone and it turns into me having to scroll over and over again. Quite annoying.

Yeah.  Just delete the text inside the quote box, leaving only what you're intending to offer a reply to.

Quote:I don't understand how you came to this conclusion:

 "....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. "

don't understand how human dignity means God gave us the right to fall into sin?

Especially if the document isn't talking about rights as is traditionally understood.

I do not know that the document isn't talking about rights as traditionally understood.  That's not my position, but yours.  Anyway, here is the relevant section of Dignitatis Humanae, with my adding emphasis to the parts that help me reach this conclusion:

Quote: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.
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.
It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth. However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.

My reasoning is simple: Dignitatis Humanae teaches that our right to religious freedom is inherent to our human dignity.  This dignity, and the rights that come with it, are "known through the revealed word of God."  Since practicing a religion other than Catholicism is a grave matter, if we have a God-given right to freedom of religion, that means we have the right to fall into sin by choosing a religion other than the one founded by Jesus Christ.  This is a nonsensical position, of course, but as I read Dignitatis Humanae, this is the conclusion that I draw from it.
"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
#24
(04-10-2020, 02:21 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: The idea that Vatican II was trying to communicate the Catholic Faith in modern language is one that I've heard before.

It is quite telling that when the liberals at the opening proposed to scrap the schemas that had been prepared over the preceding years and had gone through a thorough theological review, for this reason of "speaking to the world in its own language" rather than be heavily theological, one of the proposals from Archbishop Lefebvre (who was on that preparatory theological council), suggested two sets of documents. One of these would be the "Canons and Decrees" like other councils, which taught in theological language and condemned errors. The second of these would be "Pastoral Documents" which would practically explain the theology in more simple terms for the world. The first set would be the official teaching, and the second would be like a Catechism.

This of course has precedent. Trent produced dogmatic statements, but the Roman Catechism prepared afterward was an effort to explain this (admittedly to priests for their preaching, but no reason a simpler lay version could not be made.

So the argument that Vatican II was "communicating the Catholic Faith in modern language" just does not hold water. The schemas were replaced to make them ambiguous, not to better teach. And, of course, those new schemas which the liberals had pre-prepared, had no theological review, and so trying to correct them became nearly impossible.

(04-10-2020, 02:21 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: 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.

That is exactly what it is meant to teach, and John Paul II drew out precisely those conclusions in explaining Vatican II. This is why as is said both in the Council and John Paul II's encyclicals that Christ's Incarnation made all men united to Christ "in a certain way." This was the anonymous Christian/universal salvation idea of Karl Rahner.

Thus man's dignity is not as St Leo the Great says, due to the degree to which we reflect Christ, but rather because we are human beings, and Christ's Incarnation as a human being, saved men, and thus gave men a dignity in his human actions, like his thought and free will.

The logical conclusion is exactly what you say.

Vatican II teaches in line with Libertas and all previous teachings that men cannot be coerced into the practice of religion, and that private practice of a false religion is to be tolerated. But it then goes further and contradicts previous teachings, saying that men have the right not to be prevented from the public profess of a false religion. The State cannot, therefore, prevent a man from publicly practicing or promoting his false religion.

And the basis for this, is as you deduce, man's "dignity" which is because "Christ has united himself in a certain way to all men" by His Incarnation.

It should be pointed out, though, that the Church has always taught that while a State can and ought to, in the ideal case, penalize the public profession of false religion, it may be necessary in certain circumstances to tolerate the public profession of false religion. For instance, if the U.S. all of a sudden became a Catholic nation through some movement, outlawing Protestantism would be a really bad idea.

The problem with Vatican II is that while there may be (because of prudence) the duty of the State to tolerate the public practice of a false religion, instead of basing this on a prudential tolerance of evil, which is sometimes necessary, instead the duty of the State and its right to tolerate evil is converted into the right of the evildoer (infidel/schismatic/heretic) to be tolerated.

This does not follow that the State's right to tolerate (and duty in Prudence in certain cases) converts to a right on the part of the one doing evil to be tolerated, and certainly not because of his "dignity". He loses his dignity in sinning.

(04-10-2020, 02:21 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: 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).

Spot on.

The only caveat here is that a Modernist would say that God did not give us the right to fall into sin, but effectively Christ's giving dignity to the human race by His Incarnation did.

No one says that so explicitly, since it's blasphemy. It's the only logical conclusion that I see, however.

(04-10-2020, 02:21 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: 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.

I'd agree. Short answer is no because this teaching of Vatican II is not dogmatic, nor was it intended to be. If the Pope or a Council tried to define this as the Catholic Faith to be professed de fide, then we'd have a problem. Councils and Popes can err when they are not protected by infallibility, and one of those conditions include the intention to bind the faithful, which was lacking at Vatican II (and only existed after the fact in the liberals who used Vatican II as a club).
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Adventus, jovan66102, SeekerofChrist
Reply
#25
Say they did the Council as Lefebvre had proposed (two sets) what would be different? It's like knowing you have a faulty product but plan on lightening the blow by putting a pretty bow on it. Unless that version of the pastoral document would have been entirely different.
Reply
#26
(04-10-2020, 05:58 PM)Adventus Wrote: Say they did the Council as Lefebvre had proposed (two sets) what would be different? It's like knowing you have a faulty product but plan on lightening the blow by putting a pretty bow on it. Unless that version of the pastoral document would have been entirely different.

It's a hypothetical, but then you would always have the vetted and theological-strict doctrinal documents to fall back upon, if the language of the pastoral ones were ambiguous.

Like I said, it would something like what we do with the Catechisms. They are all simpler than the theology behind them, explaining only part of the deeper theological truth, yet they still teach the Faith.

That the liberals did not want this shows that it was not a matter of speaking to the people, but introducing Neo-Modernism through the "New Theology" into the Church, and then using the Council as a means of forcing its acceptance.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102, SeekerofChrist
Reply
#27
(04-10-2020, 05:03 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: But it then goes further and contradicts previous teachings, saying that men have the right not to be prevented from the public profess of a false religion. The State cannot, therefore, prevent a man from publicly practicing or promoting his false religion.

Does it?

"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."

Of course, it leaves the impression that there are no limits, while the traditionalist would say that the limits are those the Church has always placed on the public practice of false religions.

But if the Church, or the state, cannot force baptism on people, and cannot force them to attend Mass and to profess the faith, could it not be called a right to not be Catholic? If it has to be something you come to without coercion, that kind of sounds like a right. It's definitely one of the more problematic documents of the council.
Reply
#28
(04-10-2020, 10:00 PM)Paul Wrote:
(04-10-2020, 05:03 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: But it then goes further and contradicts previous teachings, saying that men have the right not to be prevented from the public profess of a false religion. The State cannot, therefore, prevent a man from publicly practicing or promoting his false religion.

Does it?

"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."

Of course, it leaves the impression that there are no limits, while the traditionalist would say that the limits are those the Church has always placed on the public practice of false religions.

But if the Church, or the state, cannot force baptism on people, and cannot force them to attend Mass and to profess the faith, could it not be called a right to not be Catholic? If it has to be something you come to without coercion, that kind of sounds like a right. It's definitely one of the more problematic documents of the council.

Yes it does.

We can throw out the private side of things. That is not in question. It is the public coercion that is the issue.

The the traditional teaching is that the State has the duty and right to force a man to act contrary to his own beliefs (if those are erroneous) in public. The State may have a duty and right to tolerate that error in public for the common good, but that is a right and duty of the State. There is no corresponding right of the erring person to be tolerated. Error has no rights, but the State might tolerate error if crushing it would cause worse problems. That does not mean that error gets rights, and certainly not natural rights.

One could argue that a State could express such a toleration as a civil right granted by the society, but never as a natural right. Dignitatis Humanæ implies it is a natural right.

Thus the "due limits" can only be reconciled with the traditional teaching is if it contradicts the statement : if it does say that the State can forcibly forbid a false religion's proselytism and public acts.

Under the traditional notion while the State could not force Baptism, it could grant the Baptized certain privileges, and deny those to the unbaptized. It could force people to attend Mass, but it could not force people to profess the Faith.

In short, it could not force the private acceptance in one's conscience of anything, but it certainly could command external actions, like attending a sermon, even for those who were not Catholic. It might not be advisable, but it belonged to the State to do so in the traditional understanding.

Not so with Dignitatis Humanæ.

In fact, if we exit religion for a second, it seems quite clear that the State has such powers. If someone believes that murder is okay, certainly the State can force them not to murder anyone, but cannot coerce one to drop that belief. Think up any other crime and the same rubric given by DH will fail, yet somehow it is supposed to work for religious belief?

In short, "due limits" does not save the document from contradicting previous teaching.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102, MWRapp, SeekerofChrist
Reply
#29
Vatican II documents are good for two things: toilet paper and tinder.
[-] The following 1 user Likes austenbosten's post:
  • Teresa Agrorum
Reply
#30
(04-11-2020, 09:13 AM)austenbosten Wrote: Vatican II documents are good for two things: toilet paper and tinder.

And it's questionable how good they are for toilet paper, at least outside of coronavirus times, so...
[-] The following 1 user Likes piscis's post:
  • Teresa Agrorum
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)