Can Vatican II's Teaching on Religious Liberty Be Reconciled with Tradition?

[JaMc]

Are we talking moral right or civil right? They are different. I really don’t see the big deal. The distinction is pretty apparent to me.

Now you could try to claim that the changes concerning the obligations of the state in this regard are somehow irreconcilable. However, I’m of the opinion that the civil application of moral law, i.e., how should the civil government react, is a matter of prudence. In that light it’s not a difficult matter at all.

Look, Pius IX gave us the infamous Mortara case in his abysmal application of moral law to that poor child and family. He royally screwed up, IMHO, the civil application of moral law in that matter. Well, he was human. The Church has no particular authority in civil law. Sorry, it’s a fact. The Church’s authority is in the Deposit of the Faith and morality. Specific civil actions, or applications of civil law, do not fall within that ambit beyond the fact that the civil authority must do what it best believes supports the moral law within the facts and powers at issue.

So, DH is simply using “right” within the civil context, not the moral context. It’s an application of prudence, then.

Right. I think those who read DH to say that “religious liberty” = a moral right not to follow the Church, are already going into it with a bias, i.e., “I don’t like Vatican II, so what can I find in the VII Documents that seems to contradict traditional Church Teaching?” However, with regard to a civil right, it is certainly prudential - for example, the authority of a Catholic state’s, or the Vatican’s, criticism of an Islamic state’s treatment of Christians is significantly diminished if they are treating non-Catholics in the same manner.

Also, the earlier documents must be taken in their context - the Popes who made the strongest declarations against “religious liberty” were Europeans who were, by and large, writing for a European audience. When they wrote about the evils of “religious liberty,” they weren’t thinking about the First Amendment, they were looking at movements like the French Revolution, where “religious liberty” was more or less just code-speak for “anti-clericalism.”

Today, if the Pope said “religious liberty and freedom are wrong,” just think of the headlines: “Pope, former head of the Inquisition [as the CDF used to be called] condemns religious liberty.” It would make the previous controversies over the Regensburg address and Williamson look like child’s play.

I do think DH is perfectly compatible with tradition - hopefully the SSPX Bishops will come to realize that as well.

 

[johnnykins]

Right. I think those who read DH to say that “religious liberty” = a moral right not to follow the Church, are already going into it with a bias, i.e., “I don’t like Vatican II, so what can I find in the VII Documents that seems to contradict traditional Church Teaching?” However, with regard to a civil right, it is certainly prudential - for example, the authority of a Catholic state’s, or the Vatican’s, criticism of an Islamic state’s treatment of Christians is significantly diminished if they are treating non-Catholics in the same manner.

Also, the earlier documents must be taken in their context - the Popes who made the strongest declarations against “religious liberty” were Europeans who were, by and large, writing for a European audience. When they wrote about the evils of “religious liberty,” they weren’t thinking about the First Amendment, they were looking at movements like the French Revolution, where “religious liberty” was more or less just code-speak for “anti-clericalism.”

Today, if the Pope said “religious liberty and freedom are wrong,” just think of the headlines: “Pope, former head of the Inquisition [as the CDF used to be called] condemns religious liberty.” It would make the previous controversies over the Regensburg address and Williamson look like child’s play.

I do think DH is perfectly compatible with tradition - hopefully the SSPX Bishops will come to realize that as well.

Honestly, I believe many folks simply do their best to separate VII from the Church. If the “traditionalists” want to interpret DH as different, there is nothing to be said to convince them otherwise. They are wrong, but how do you convince them they have left the Church and not vice versa? It’s a shame. Reminds me of the Orthodox who refuse to believe that the Catholic Church interprets the filioque in an orthodox fashion despite repeated assertions and pronouncements by the Church over what it means.

Pity really that such traditionalists reject the Church.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Right. I think those who read DH to say that “religious liberty” = a moral right not to follow the Church, are already going into it with a bias, i.e., “I don’t like Vatican II, so what can I find in the VII Documents that seems to contradict traditional Church Teaching?” However, with regard to a civil right, it is certainly prudential - for example, the authority of a Catholic state’s, or the Vatican’s, criticism of an Islamic state’s treatment of Christians is significantly diminished if they are treating non-Catholics in the same manner.

This is only true because those we are addressing see no difference between the value of the Catholic religion and the Hindu religion. The authority of a Catholic state denouncing an Islamic one for persecuting Catholic evangelists, while the Catholic state is simultaneously persecuting Islamic evangelists, is actually perfectly sound and logical. The Catholic evangelists are leading people toward Heaven and the Islamic evangelists are leading people toward Hell, therefore the persecution of the latter and not the former makes sense. However, because there is so much unbelief and darkness in people’s minds spread everywhere today, because Christendom has fallen, there is no way to make our condemnations of the persecutions of Catholics seem valid without basing our arguments on a proposition that makes the darkness of evil equal to the fullness of truth. It’s sad. This is a reflection of our society, not of justice.

Also, the earlier documents must be taken in their context - the Popes who made the strongest declarations against “religious liberty” were Europeans who were, by and large, writing for a European audience. When they wrote about the evils of “religious liberty,” they weren’t thinking about the First Amendment,

That is an incorrect assumption.

Pope Leo XIII wrote Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae as a letter to America.
"Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae:

It is alleged that now the Vatican decree concerning the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff having been proclaimed that nothing further on that score can give any solicitude, and accordingly, since that has been safeguarded and put beyond question a wider and freer field both for thought and action lies open to each one. But such reasoning is evidently faulty, since, if we are to come to any conclusion from the infallible teaching authority of the Church, it should rather be that no one should wish to depart from it, and moreover that the minds of all being leavened and directed thereby, greater security from private error would be enjoyed by all. And further, those who avail themselves of such a way of reasoning seem to depart seriously from the over-ruling wisdom of the Most High-which wisdom, since it was pleased to set forth by most solemn decision the authority and supreme teaching rights of this Apostolic See-willed that decision precisely in order to safeguard the minds of the Church’s children from the dangers of these present times.

These dangers, viz., the confounding of license with liberty, the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject, the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases upon any subject and to set them forth in print to the world, have so wrapped minds in darkness that there is now a greater need of the Church’s teaching office than ever before, lest people become unmindful both of conscience and of duty.

The popes condemned the government’s placing truth and lies on an equal footing in society whether in America or Europe.

When they wrote about the evils of “religious liberty,” they weren’t thinking about the First Amendment, they were looking at movements like the French Revolution, where “religious liberty” was more or less just code-speak for “anti-clericalism.”

This is not the case if you look at their actual arguments rather than relying on a general claim that is specifically false. They believed that religious freedom was evil because it placed truth on an equal footing with lies. They wrote that it was “absurd” that liberty of conscience must be maintained by everyone. Look through the quotes Ultima Ratio brought up from the popes and you’ll see that their arguments speak about the evil of the fullness of truth that produces good being put on equal footing with lies that produce evil.

Today, if the Pope said “religious liberty and freedom are wrong,” just think of the headlines: “Pope, former head of the Inquisition [as the CDF used to be called] condemns religious liberty.” It would make the previous controversies over the Regensburg address and Williamson look like child’s play.

Oh, I know! That’s because of how darkened modern views of the Catholic Church are. If they saw her as she is, and the lies as they are, it would be different. You and I have absolutely no disagreement that this would look absolutely unacceptable, hyocritical and crazy to modernity’s darkened mind, and this perspective permeates the world because so many don’t understand the light and beauty of the Bride of Christ. However, if the Catholic Church did such a thing, she would morally be in the right.

I do think DH is perfectly compatible with tradition - hopefully the SSPX Bishops will come to realize that as well.

I’m praying that they might make a difference on the Vatican’s mind. At least enough of a difference that they be allowed reentry to the Church without changing their views on religious liberty.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Honestly, I believe many folks simply do their best to separate VII from the Church.

If the “traditionalists” want to interpret DH as different, there is nothing to be said to convince them otherwise. They are wrong, but how do you convince them they have left the Church and not vice versa? It’s a shame.

You could convince me I’ve left the Church because of my rejection of religious liberty by proving to me that belief in religious liberty is a binding, infallible teaching of the Church. Pope Paul VI said the council did not deliver any Extraordinary Dogmas, and while people here have argued that it may yet have presented dogmas through the Ordinary Universal Magesterium, this was not the sense of his words. In fact, he specifically said the authority used in the council was that of the Ordinary Magesterium, and the Ordinary Magesterium is fallible. Which doesn’t mean it is in error. I have a very high respect for it. But it means the possibility of it making a mistake exists.

The Ordinary Universal Magesterium is in action when an ancient belief is and has always been held by the pope and vast majority of bishops worldwide. Such is definitely not the case with Dignitatis Humanae, a document that rebutted the views of hundreds of historical popes and contradicted the view of the Church throughout the Medieval, Reformation and Enlightenment Ages. In V2, the document was a matter of extremely heated debate. The council was very divided on the issue, which is enough itself to show the Ordinary Universal Magesterium was not in operation.

If Pope Paul VI said that because of the pastoral nature of the council, no extraordinary dogmas were pronounced, it follows from the point of his statement that no other dogmas were pronounced either (though many previously defined dogmas were repeated).

Pity really that such traditionalists reject the Church.

It is a pity that you reject the traditionalists. The Church does not. People are fully at liberty to not believe in religious liberty and remain Catholic. The Church has not banned us. Who made you bishop?

 

[yosupman]

I thought I would post a few quotes from the Popes regarding religious liberty.
tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me."

(Pope Pius XI, Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814.)[/INDENT]

About 20 years later Pope Gregory XVI wrote the following in the encyclical Mirari Vos:

Mirari Vos: "This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit” is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws – in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

About 30 years later, Pope Pius IX wrote the following in the encyclical Quanta Cura:

Quanta Cura: “For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” **And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,” viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;” **

About 25 years later Pope Leo XIII wrote the following in the encyclical Libertas - an encyclical in which he condemned modern errors:

Libertas: “19. To make this more evident, the growth of liberty ascribed to our age must be considered apart in its various details. And, first,** let us examine that liberty in individuals which is so opposed to the virtue of religion, namely, the liberty of worship, as it is called. This is based on the principle that every man is free to profess as he may choose any religion or none**.

1. **But, assuredly, of all the duties which man has to fulfill, that, without doubt, is the chiefest and holiest which commands him to worship God with devotion and piety. **… And if it be asked which of the many conflicting religions it is necessary to adopt, reason and the natural law unhesitatingly tell us to practice that one which God enjoins, and which men can easily recognize by certain exterior notes, whereby Divine Providence has willed that it should be distinguished, because, in a matter of such moment, the most terrible loss would be the consequence of error. Wherefore, when a liberty such as We have described is offered to man, the power is given him to pervert or abandon with impunity the most sacred of duties, and to exchange the unchangeable good for evil; which, as We have said, is no liberty, but its degradation, and the abject submission of the soul to sin."

The main point that should be argured, is why is Ultima Ratio pitting popes against each other? Am I the only sane person in a room full of crazies?

The same spirit guides all popes.

What Ultima is really trying to say, is that he is his own pope and he (ultima) judges which pope is orthodox, and which is not. Don’t we call that Luthernism?

 

[Onegin]

Dude, the purpose of Ultima’s post is not to “pit Popes against one another” but to point out that there IS at least an apparent contradiction between what the Pre-DH documents said and the post-DH documents. That’s all.

The question really is as simple as: Did the Catholic Church recognize a *right *to religious freedom prior to DH?

That’s a yes or no question which alone is a good prima facie argument for at least saying that there appears to be a contradiction in teaching. Now, if you’d like to explain that away or provide reasons for it, fine. But saying that someone is insane for pointing out differing statements seems extremely short-sighted to me.

Recognizing the argument for an apparent contradiction and discussing it won’t make you any less Catholic or any less faithful to the Magisterium. I promise.

 

[yosupman]

Onegin,

When I talk to protestants, I won’t argue about purgatory, prayer to the saints, our Lady, until I’ve first talked with them about tradition, scripture, the magisterium.

That’s why really, theres no need to argue about jots and titels, when the real principal is the pope is the ultimate authority.

The world changed. The church’s infallible teaching, part of the depositem fide did not. The churches approach to the world changed, to help the world understand that unchanging truth.

Are you down, or sup wid dat?

Yosup

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Onegin,

When I talk to protestants, I won’t argue about purgatory, prayer to the saints, our Lady, until I’ve first talked with them about tradition, scripture, the magisterium.

That’s why really, theres no need to argue about jots and titels, when the real principal is the pope is the ultimate authority.

The world changed. The church’s infallible teaching, part of the depositem fide did not. The churches approach to the world changed, to help the world understand that unchanging truth.

Are you down, or sup wid dat?

Yosup

Is it your opinion that the Pope is always speaking ex-cathedra? You seem to think he, and the council of bishops, never stop speaking infallibly, even at times (like V2) where they’ve said themselves that they aren’t speaking infallibly.

I discussed this issue of when infallibility is being applied in more detail in post 24.

 

[diggerdomer]

Can Vatican II’s Teaching on Religious Liberty Be Reconciled with Tradition?

Yes, of course, because the teaching of Vatican II is every bit a part of Tradition as everything that came before it.

 

[Glenoy]

I read a lot from your responses. But for those in favor of Vatican II’s teaching on Religious Liberty, how would you refute John Salza’s arguments on that article? Is he wrong?

 

[Joe_5859]

Is it your opinion that the Pope is always speaking ex-cathedra? You seem to think he, and the council of bishops, never stop speaking infallibly, even at times (like V2) where they’ve said themselves that they aren’t speaking infallibly.

I discussed this issue of when infallibility is being applied in more detail in post 24.

When did they say VCII wasn’t infallible? I believe they said there was no new dogma at the Council, but ecumenical councils don’t teach error.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

When did they say VCII wasn’t infallible? I believe they said there was no new dogma at the Council, but ecumenical councils don’t teach error.

Pope Paul VI: “In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.” (Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 98)

So the ecumenical council was only infallibly binding on the Church when it openly said it was.

When Pope Paul VI said the Council made no new “extraordinary dogmas,” that is referring to infallible definitions. The infallible elements of ecumenical councils are their infallible definitions.
Can. 749.:

In virtue of his office the Supreme Pontiff is infallible in his teaching when, as chief Shepherd and Teacher of all Christ’s faithful, with the duty of strengthening his brethren in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals. The College of Bishops also possesses infallibility in its teaching when the Bishops, gathered together in an Ecumenical Council and exercising their magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals, definitively declare for the universal Church a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals.

This canon says that when the Ecumenical Council makes a definitive declaration for the Church regarding faith and morals, this decree is infallible. These definitive decrees are the extraordinary dogmas, the infallible definitions Pope Paul VI said were not made.

John Cardinal Heenan of England said,

“It deliberately limited its own objectives. There were to be no specific definitions. Its purpose from the first was pastoral renewal within the Church and a fresh approach to the outside.” (Council and Clergy, 1966)

The canon law I cited above says that it is when a council gives a binding definition for the whole Church that it is making an infallible decree. Cardinal Heenan said there were no such definitions.

In 1975, Pope Paul VI said, "Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral.” (General Audience, August 6, 1975)

Here’s Bishop Butler of England, a council participant:

“Not all teachings emanating from a pope or Ecumenical Council are infallible. There is no single proposition of Vatican II – except where it is citing previous infallible definitions – which is in itself infallible.” (The Tablet 26,11,1967)

“Vatican II gave us no new dogmatic definitions.” (The Tablet 2,3,1968)

Bishop Rudolph Graber, also a council participant:

“Since the Council was aiming primarily at a pastoral orientation and hence refrained from making dogmatically binding statements or disassociating itself, as previous Church assemblies have done, from errors and false doctrines by means of clear anathemas, many questions took on an opalescent ambivalence which provided a certain amount of justification for those who speak of the spirit of the Council.” (Athanasius and the Church of Our Times, 1974)

Cardinal Ratzinger:

“Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolates Vatican II and which provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it, which give the impression that from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II. …] The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council.” (Address to the Chilean Episcopal Conference, Il Sabato 1988)

I think all these quotes should be sufficient. For more, you can look here:

romancatholicism.org/vatican-ii.htm

 

[truevaticanii]

The Catholic Church believes in the right to choose your own religion–you cannot force conversion, however there is no salvation outside the Church… definitions have changed over the years on many terms, and cetain parts of disagreements DO get complex because of this…

religous liberty is like freedom of religion, but some people see religous liberty as the right to decide how to get to heaven–on your own terms with or without the Catholic Church and her Truth–very new agey, modernistic, cafeteria-Catholicism.

 

[yosupman]

Lief,

I’ve seen so many tradtional catholics are confused about infallibility. You keep on quoting church officials such as Paul VI that stated Vatican II was a pastoral council. Ok, fine. No new dogmatic definitions. But your quoting stops there. If you’re gonna quote Pope Paul VI on the fact that Vatican II was a pastoral council, then why not listen to him, and all other popes since Vatican II? Every single pope including Benedict VI hold to the teaching of Lumen Gentium paragraph 25, which states that you have to accept the teaching of the church according to her intention. The intentions you give the church in reference to the document on religious liberty, are not in accord with what every single pope has taught since Vatican II.

Try not to drink so much honey meade. It clogs the thinkin…

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Lief,

I’ve seen so many tradtional catholics are confused about infallibility. You keep on quoting church officials such as Paul VI that stated Vatican II was a pastoral council. Ok, fine. No new dogmatic definitions. But your quoting stops there. If you’re gonna quote Pope Paul VI on the fact that Vatican II was a pastoral council, then why not listen to him, and all other popes since Vatican II? Every single pope including Benedict VI hold to the teaching of Lumen Gentium paragraph 25, which states that you have to accept the teaching of the church according to her intention. The intentions you give the church in reference to the document on religious liberty, are not in accord with what every single pope has taught since Vatican II.

Try not to drink so much honey meade. It clogs the thinkin…

I think you’re typecasting me without actually knowing what I think. I DO believe the bishops of Vatican II gave open support to religious freedom. I’ve read Dignitatis Humanae and that was the clear meaning of what I read. I don’t try to obscure their teaching.

However, I disagree with Dignitatis Humanae, and I think it is an attempt to “fuzz the past” when Catholics try to say popes like Leo XIII or Pius IX supported religious freedom. Vatican II was not infallible. Where it gave orders to the faithful, we have a duty to obey them with “religious submission,” just as Pope Paul VI said, though not the “assent of faith.” Vatican II does not require Catholics to believe in religious freedom, though it encourages such belief.

 

[truevaticanii]

Lief,

I’ve seen so many tradtional catholics are confused about infallibility. You keep on quoting church officials such as Paul VI that stated Vatican II was a pastoral council. Ok, fine. No new dogmatic definitions. But your quoting stops there. If you’re gonna quote Pope Paul VI on the fact that Vatican II was a pastoral council, then why not listen to him, and all other popes since Vatican II? Every single pope including Benedict VI hold to the teaching of Lumen Gentium paragraph 25, which states that you have to accept the teaching of the church according to her intention. The intentions you give the church in reference to the document on religious liberty, are not in accord with what every single pope has taught since Vatican II.

Try not to drink so much honey meade. It clogs the thinkin…

Just for specifications, no council can declare a new doctrine… they just restate the old… AND councils are called to bring clarification when there is confusion on a subject that the Church teaches (confusion usually widespread among the laity and usually some clergy).

 

[diggerdomer]

I read a lot from your responses. But for those in favor of Vatican II’s teaching on Religious Liberty, how would you refute John Salza’s arguments on that article? Is he wrong?

I disagree with a lot of his assumptions and interpretations, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong.

 

[diggerdomer]

I think you’re typecasting me without actually knowing what I think. I DO believe the bishops of Vatican II gave open support to religious freedom. I’ve read Dignitatis Humanae and that was the clear meaning of what I read. I don’t try to obscure their teaching.

However, I disagree with Dignitatis Humanae, and I think it is an attempt to “fuzz the past” when Catholics try to say popes like Leo XIII or Pius IX supported religious freedom. Vatican II was not infallible. Where it gave orders to the faithful, we have a duty to obey them with “religious submission,” just as Pope Paul VI said, though not the “assent of faith.” Vatican II does not require Catholics to believe in religious freedom, though it encourages such belief.

Are you saying Catholics are free to pick and choose what to believe regarding teachings from an Ecumenical (as Catholics understand it) Council?

Whether or not a given teaching is taught infallibly is moot, imho. An Ecumenical Council is the highest teaching authority the Church has.

 

[diggerdomer]

Just for specifications, no council can declare a new doctrine… they just restate the old… AND councils are called to bring clarification when there is confusion on a subject that the Church teaches (confusion usually widespread among the laity and usually some clergy).

Councils can certainly declare new doctrines. The Creed we pray at Mass was formulated by Ecumenical Councils, and in that sense, for the universal Church, was “new.”

 

[truevaticanii]

Councils can certainly declare new doctrines. The Creed we pray at Mass was formulated by Ecumenical Councils, and in that sense, for the universal Church, was “new.”

The Church cannot declare new doctrine… Divine Revelation is closed… that is one reason why the Army of Mary was told off by Rome because they believe that Mary told them that Mary is God, which apparently we simply did not know before, and they say Mary wants the Pope to declare this as truth… there is private revelation still, but no Catholic is held by it…

“After the death of the last of the twelve it could receive no increment. It was, as the Church calls it, a deposit — “the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude, 2) — for which the Church was to “contend” but to which she could add nothing. Thus, whenever there has been question of defining a doctrine, whether at Nicæa, at Trent, or at the Vatican, the sole point of debate has been as to whether the doctrine is found in Scripture or in Apostolic tradition.” -http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm

The Creed states no new dogma… it only states what was already known… any document from any council would be new, but the doctrine in that document would not be new…