L
Lormar
Guest
Otjm - It’s diabolical, isn’t it? How they will listen to anyone and everyone other than the Vicar of Christ.
Can Vatican II's Teaching on Religious Liberty Be Reconciled with Tradition?
- Status
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
What has the Vicar of Christ been saying about this topic they aren’t listening too?
O
Onegin
Guest
Ultima Ratio, thank you for posting the excerpt from Auctorem Fidei. Like many Papal documents, the words apply just as much in our modern context as they did back then. I hope that we will not be quick to dismiss them.
O
otjm
Guest
For starters, he has said repeatedly that the documents must be interpreted in light of the 2000 year Tradition of the Church - and that they can be; and that they have not been fully implemented and the Church has much to do, to do so.
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
Ultima Ratio has never said anything contradictory to that. He too believes Vatican II documents can be interpreted in light of Tradition and he has strong hope that they will be.
He has also said he thinks they are commonly interpreted in ways contrary to Tradition today. Which doesn’t contradict any of what you just said.
O
otjm
Guest
Some times I am not so sure what people are saying; I see too many opinions based on theology that doesn’t seem to be in line with the Magisterium.
I didn’t get to watch Vtican 2, but I certianly got to pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit for the work the bishops were doing.
All too many people have no clue whatsoever what the Church perceived to be the problems that needed to be addressed, and which were the foundation of the Council.
Further, they seem unable to separate out the documents from those people in the Church (including priests and theologians, and some bishops, all trained well before Vatican 2 started) who created the chaos post Vatican 2; the part of theclergy which the present day naysayers misperceive as a staid, holy, obedient clergy. Whatever blew up after Vatican 2 had its roots well spread long before Vatican 2.
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
I completely agree with that. Many modernists have claimed Vatican II support for ideologies that are utterly contradictory to the council. The great achievement the council made, to me, was to restructure the organization of the Church so that it is more evangelistically focused. The language also has become more merciful, which doesn’t change the doctrine but does make the Church’s teaching easier for non-Catholics to open up to. I think the clarification on extra ecclesium nallu sallus was also very well done, and fully consistent with the Church’s historic teaching on Baptism by Desire and Baptism by Blood. I read the Decree on Ecumenism and loved it too.
I would love to see the apparent differences between Dignitatis Humanae and historic Church teaching on religious liberty clarified. As far as I can see, there are real changes. But I certainly could be wrong. I would LOVE to find out I am.
T
tpw
Guest
It seems many of the posts here are confused about what tradition is…It has NEVER been a dead end. As the scriptures were gradually written and codified new questions arose on virtually all aspects of church life. Councils and synods were convened, positions were debated and decisions were made. Doctrine consequently evolved in an organic manner.
The question of religious liberty is no different. How the church dealt with the issue of a person’s conscience and his or her choice of religious belief is a question the church has grappled with for centuries. How this issue was 'answered" changed over time.
The tradition has to do with the QUESTION of how to deal with other forms of religious belief. The answer has changed. The tradition involves a dialogue between “the question”, “Catholic belief” and “the world”. What made sense in the 17th or 18th century doesn’t necessarily make sense in the 20th or 21st century.
If one accepts a healthy understanding of the inspired and organic development of tradition, fears over change are less likely to occur.
On the other hand - such fears have existed from the beginning…The Council of Jerusalem pitted traditionalists (over questions of circumcision and eating impure food)s over progressives - St. Peter, St. Paul, et al)
As it has been and will be for ever and ever…Amen
The question of religious liberty is no different. How the church dealt with the issue of a person’s conscience and his or her choice of religious belief is a question the church has grappled with for centuries. How this issue was 'answered" changed over time.
The tradition has to do with the QUESTION of how to deal with other forms of religious belief. The answer has changed. The tradition involves a dialogue between “the question”, “Catholic belief” and “the world”. What made sense in the 17th or 18th century doesn’t necessarily make sense in the 20th or 21st century.
If one accepts a healthy understanding of the inspired and organic development of tradition, fears over change are less likely to occur.
On the other hand - such fears have existed from the beginning…The Council of Jerusalem pitted traditionalists (over questions of circumcision and eating impure food)s over progressives - St. Peter, St. Paul, et al)
As it has been and will be for ever and ever…Amen
- Status