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

[Lief_Erikson]

One of my favorite encyclical is Libertas, by Pope Leo XIII. It is deep and may take a few readings to fully grasp, but if you can fully grasp it, I think it will enable you to see very clearly through many modern errors. The subject is Liberalism, and the “modern errors” associated with it. I’ll give you a few brief notes that might help you understand it easier.

The Pope distinguishes between, what he calls “natural liberty”, which is another word for free will, and “moral liberty”. Since man has free will (natural liberty) he is capable of doing whatever he wants to do. He can pray, help someone in need, or kill someone. Man is capable of doing anything he wants, since he has a free will.

Moral liberty (which is really the main topic of the encyclical) is what man is allowed to do. Moral liberty sets the boundaries for man’s free will. Although we can do whatever we want to do, since we have free will, we are only allowed to do what is morally good. Liberals always confuse natural liberty and moral liberty.

The Pope explains that free will is the foundation of liberty, but that a truly free act is one that is in accord with right reason. A truly free act is not simply an act that a person chooses to do, but one that is in accord with man’s nature. Since man is by nature rational, a truly free act is an act in accord with right reason. Quoting the Bible and St. Thomas, he shows how someone who willingly sins, is not performing a truly free action; instead, he is acting as a slave.

When the Pope speaks of the Church defending natural liberty against the heretics who deny it, he is referring to those groups who deny free will.

Next he deals with law and its purpose. Since man has a darkened intellect and weakened will, he often strays from the right path. This is why man needs law. The purpose of law is to direct man in his actions so that he will attain his proper end. God has given us the natural law, which is the Eternal Law of God stamped upon our in our reason. Human law should be in line with the natural law, in order to help man live more in conforming with God’s law.

Those notes might make it a little easier to understand.

A few other good encyclicals are:

1.) Immortane Dei, by Leo XIII

2.) Mirari Vos, by Pope Gregory XVI

3.) Quas Primas by Pope Pius XI

From reading your posts, I think you are already very solid. If you read the above encyclicals, and really learn them, you will be unstoppable

Thanks for the reading material! I’ll put those on my reading list.

Do you have any further official documents on the subject? I want everything you’ve got . Do you know if Pope Pius IX, for example, wrote on this subject outside of the Syllabus of Errors? Or Pius X?

I already read Immortale Dei, and I found it really, really good. I also read Dignitatis Humanae and the Decree of Ecumenicism. By the way, I didn’t find anything wrong with the Decree of Ecumenicism, but you said you had problem with parts of it. It’s about bringing churches together, spreading the unity of the Catholic faith throughout the world. What difficulty did you have wiht it?

 

[agent_grey]

But DH says man has the right not to be Catholic. And that is the big ol’ fly in the proverbial ointment.

Yes. Adam and Eve had the right to choose against God. But the Devil had no right to teach it.

 

[ncjohn]

While I will continue to stay out of the current debate, in re-reading things I had to bring this point back up since you alluded to it twice and it is one of the most common myths continually repeated by SSPX supporters.

Well, so far the SSPX has been proven right over and over again. Take the Mass, for example. The SSPX always maintained that the old Mass was never abrogated. The Popes (Paul VI and John Paul II) pretended that it was. In fact, John Paul II used his Pontifical office to confirm that very error when he issued 2 indults for the old Mass. Since an “indult” is special permission to do what the Church does not allow, John Paul II confirm all those people in their error who believed that the old Mass had been abrogated… and they all ridiculed the SSPX for their position. In the end, Pope Benedict XVI admitted that the old Mass never was abrogated. The SSPX was right, and virtually ever single Bishop in the Church, including several Popes, were proven wrong.

We do agree that the TLM was not abrogated; however the Church never said it was and could not say it was since it, from the beginning, gave indults to groups such as the FSSP to continue to use it. Had it been abrogated there would have been no indults.

In another post you refer to the Vatican “illegally” suppressing it. I’m not positive whether an actual official suppression ever occurred but at the least the Church made it “extraordinary”. Either way, it was most assuredly not “illegal” as the Church is allowed to change its disciplines at will, however imprudent that may prove to be. In fact, the Church did exactly what Vatican II had called for. SC had called for the rewriting of the liturgical books with the very intent that what would result would become THE liturgy of the Church. Any form or discipline that is outside the “norm” of the Church requires an indult, which is exactly what the Church gave to the initial groups and later, under JPII, to the wider Church. All of this talk about “pretending to be abrogated” is mere hogwash and does not hold up for a second.

While I have not seen it said in writing, though it may in fact exist, I am 99% sure that the original thought was that the indults would be granted to a few groups to accomodate those who were firm in their desire to continue with it until such time as they either adapted to the new form or died out. I don’t think they foresaw a scenario of continued attachment such as what occurred. While an imperfect analogy, I would liken it to what a company does when it comes out with a “new and improved” system for something. The company will plan to provide customer service by supporting the old system for some period of time until it either ceases to function or people have had adequate time to make the transition. It is essentially “planned obsolescence”. A company expedites the process by making the old version less available while making switching to the new one attractive. I’m pretty darn sure that is the mechanism that was in place as the Pauline Mass came into being.

As to Benedict “admitting” that it was never abrogated and proving the SSPX “right”, again that is baloney. He did nothing more than acknowledge renewed vigor in the TLM and make it more available on a mandatory basis, certainly at least in part to offer an olive branch to the SSPX for helping to keep it alive. It had nothing to do with the SSPX being right or wrong, simply with the Church recognizing that it had miscalculated in believing it would just die out and making a decision to make it more available.

Now, all of that being said, we do indeed need to thank the SSPX for keeping it alive and keeping the pressure on. As we have previously discussed in another thread, that has allowed us the blessing of having both available so that we each have the ability to praise God in the form that most calls to us.

I apologize for taking this slightly off-topic but couldn’t let this myth stand unchallenged. I had considered splitting it off but since this is another topic that has been beaten to death, I didn’t see a need for yet another thread on it.

I will now withdraw to my corner so the original discussion topic can continue.

 

[diggerdomer]

I have been very careful to stop short of saying Vatican II taught heresy. All I have said (and no one can deny it) is that “Vatican II is interpreted by just about everyone” as teaching contrary to what the Church always taught regarding religious liberty. But Vatican II is ambiguous enough that it usually allows someone to interpret it in accord with what the Church has always taught. That is what I try to interpre it…

I am glad you have stopped short of saying an Ecumenical Council (as understood by the Roman Catholic Church) taught heresy. What a relief.

I completely disagree with your assertion that “just about everyone” interprets the teaching of Vatican II contrary to what the Church has always taught. Personally, I don’t know any Catholic who holds that view.

Vatican II may be ambiguous to you or others, but that doesn’t mean its teaching are not authoritative Magisterial teachings.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I completely disagree with your assertion that “just about everyone” interprets the teaching of Vatican II contrary to what the Church has always taught. Personally, I don’t know any Catholic who holds that view.

Well, what the Church has always taught, or at least for the last 1600 years, is that religious freedom is “liberty of perdition,” is wrong and leads directly to violation of the First Commandment. Vatican II appeared to claim that religious freedom is good. Are you one that believes that the Church has always taught that religious freedom is good? Any historian can tell you this is an anti-historical approach, and it would be easy for Ultima or myself to prove that to you.

Just look at the Fourth Lateran Council, an Ecumenical Council that ordered the punishment of heretics through fines or expulsions. Or the writings of many of the popes. The Church has always held that religious freedom is wrong, and just about everyone says that Vatican II taught that religious freedom is right. Therefore Ultima’s statement is absolutely correct. “Just about everyone,” including you, interprets the teaching of Vatican II in a way that is contrary to what the Church has always taught.

Perhaps I should bring up the teaching of the Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council to illustrate my point. I’ll do that in my next post.

Vatican II may be ambiguous to you or others, but that doesn’t mean its teaching are not authoritative Magisterial teachings.

You’re defining “authoritative” here as “infallible.” The Church never claimed V2’s teachings were infallible, except where it quoted old infallible statements. Pope Paul VI said the council’s teachings carried the weight of the Ordinary Magesterium, which means they are not infallible and no one is required to give them the assent of faith.

 

[diggerdomer]

You’re defining “authoritative” here as “infallible.”

No I am not defining authoritative as infallible.

Are you?

 

[diggerdomer]

Well, what the Church has always taught, or at least for the last 1600 .

The Church has existed for more than 1600 years.

 

[diggerdomer]

Are you one that believes that the Church has always taught that religious freedom is good?

I believe what the Church teaches. Including the teachings of Vatican II. How about you?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

To Diggerdomer, this is an illustration of the fact that religious freedom has NOT been the constant teaching of the Church.

The following quotes are the decrees of an ecumenical council of the Church and therefore should be, according to you, infallible. However, like Dignitatis Humanae, these orders were not presented as dogmas and therefore are not, to my knowledge, supposed to have been infallible. Nevertheless, like Dignitatis Humanae, they were decrees of an Ecumenical Council of the Church.
Fourth Lateran Council:

piar.hu/councils/ecum12.htm#Crusade%20to%20recover%20the%20holy%20Land
3. On Heretics

We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and catholic faith which we have expounded above. We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under. They have different faces indeed but their tails are tied together inasmuch as they are alike in their pride. Let those condemned be handed over to the secular authorities present, or to their bailiffs, for due punishment. Clerics are first to be degraded from their orders. The goods of the condemned are to be confiscated, if they are lay persons, and if clerics they are to be applied to the churches from which they received their stipends. Those who are only found suspect of heresy are to be struck with the sword of anathema, unless they prove their innocence by an appropriate purgation, having regard to the reasons for suspicion and the character of the person. Let such persons be avoided by all until they have made adequate satisfaction. If they persist in the excommunication for a year, they are to be condemned as heretics. Let secular authorities, whatever offices they may be discharging, be advised and urged and if necessary be compelled by ecclesiastical censure, if they wish to be reputed and held to be faithful, to take publicly an oath for the defence of the faith to the effect that they will seek, in so far as they can, to expel from the lands subject to their jurisdiction all heretics designated by the church in good faith. Thus whenever anyone is promoted to spiritual or temporal authority, he shall be obliged to confirm this article with an oath. If however a temporal lord, required and instructed by the church, neglects to cleanse his territory of this heretical filth, he shall be bound with the bond of excommunication by the metropolitan and other bishops of the province. If he refuses to give satisfaction within a year, this shall be reported to the supreme pontiff so that he may then declare his vassals absolved from their fealty to him and make the land available for occupation by Catholics so that these may, after they have expelled the heretics, possess it unopposed and preserve it in the purity of the faith – saving the right of the suzerain provided that he makes no difficulty in the matter and puts no impediment in the way. The same law is to be observed no less as regards those who do not have a suzerain.

Catholics who take the cross and gird themselves up for the expulsion of heretics shall enjoy the same indulgence, and be strengthened by the same holy privilege, as is granted to those who go to the aid of the holy Land. Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or support heretics. We strictly ordain that if any such person, after he has been designated as excommunicated, refuses to render satisfaction within a year, then by the law itself he shall be branded as infamous and not be admitted to public offices or councils or to elect others to the same or to give testimony. He shall be intestable, that is he shall not have the freedom to make a will nor shall succeed to an inheritance. Moreover nobody shall be compelled to answer to him on any business whatever, but he may be compelled to answer to them. If he is a judge sentences pronounced by him shall have no force and cases may not be brought before him; if an advocate, he may not be allowed to defend anyone; if a notary, documents drawn up by him shall be worthless and condemned along with their condemned author; and in similar matters we order the same to be observed. If however he is a cleric, let him be deposed from every office and benefice, so that the greater the fault the greater be the punishment. If any refuse to avoid such persons after they have been pointed out by the church, let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction. Clerics should not, of course, give the sacraments of the church to such pestilent people nor give them a christian burial nor accept alms or offerings from them; if they do, let them be deprived of their office and not restored to it without a special indult of the apostolic see. Similarly with regulars, let them be punished with losing their privileges in the diocese in which they presume to commit such excesses.

Concluding in the next post . . .

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Concluding from the Fourth Lateran Council on punishing heresy . . .
Fourth Lateran Council:

"There are some who holding to the form of religion but denying its power (as the Apostle says) , claim for themselves the authority to preach, whereas the same Apostle says, How shall they preach unless they are sent? Let therefore all those who have been forbidden or not sent to preach, and yet dare publicly or privately to usurp the office of preaching without having received the authority of the apostolic see or the catholic bishop of the place", be bound with the bond of excommunication and, unless they repent very quickly, be punished by another suitable penalty. We add further that each archbishop or bishop, either in person or through his archdeacon or through suitable honest persons, should visit twice or at least once in the year any parish of his in which heretics are said to live. There he should compel three or more men of good repute, or even if it seems expedient the whole neighbourhood, to swear that if anyone knows of heretics there or of any persons who hold secret conventicles or who differ in their life and habits from the normal way of living of the faithful, then he will take care to point them out to the bishop. The bishop himself should summon the accused to his presence, and they should be punished canonically if they are unable to clear themselves of the charge or if after compurgation they relapse into their former errors of faith. If however any of them with damnable obstinacy refuse to honour an oath and so will not take it, let them by this very fact be regarded as heretics. We therefore will and command and, in virtue of obedience, strictly command that bishops see carefully to the effective execution of these things throughout their dioceses, if they wish to avoid canonical penalties. If any bishop is negligent or remiss in cleansing his diocese of the ferment of heresy, then when this shows itself by unmistakeable signs he shall be deposed from his office as bishop and there shall be put in his place a suitable person who both wishes and is able to overthrow the evil of heresy.

The Ecumenical Council said that no one should be permitted to preach in Catholic lands unless they are authorized by the Catholic Church. No heretic had the right to preach and all heretics, because of their heresy, were to be punished by secular authorities. Secular authorities themselves would receive penalties from the Church if they refused to punish heretics in their lands with banishment or confiscation of property. This is the Fourth Lateran Council, an Ecumenical Council, and it commanded the reverse of what Vatican II ordered.

Vatican II’s differences from the Fourth Lateran Council can be explained from the perspective that right now if religious freedom were abolished, Catholics would suffer immediate and harsh persecution. We have much to lose and nothing to gain, at this point, because the immorality of the world is so bad.

However, this is to say that religious freedom, while bad and imperfect in itself, is much better than the only alternatives modern society has to offer. This is not what Vatican II appears to say in Dignitatis Humanae. But the popes and the Church as a whole has taught all the way up to modern times that heresy is an evil that should be punished under law, and governments have a responsibility to uphold the true religion.

 

[diggerdomer]

Concluding from the Fourth Lateran Council on punishing heresy . . .

The Ecumenical Council said that no one should be permitted to preach in Catholic lands unless they are authorized by the Catholic Church. No heretic had the right to preach and all heretics, because of their heresy, were to be punished by secular authorities. Secular authorities themselves would receive penalties from the Church if they refused to punish heretics in their lands with banishment or confiscation of property. This is the Fourth Lateran Council, an Ecumenical Council, and it commanded the reverse of what Vatican II ordered.

Vatican II’s differences from the Fourth Lateran Council can be explained from the perspective that right now if religious freedom were abolished, Catholics would suffer immediate and harsh persecution. We have much to lose and nothing to gain, at this point, because the immorality of the world is so bad.

However, this is to say that religious freedom, while bad and imperfect in itself, is much better than the only alternatives modern society has to offer. This is not what Vatican II appears to say in Dignitatis Humanae. But the popes and the Church as a whole has taught all the way up to modern times that heresy is an evil that should be punished under law, and governments have a responsibility to uphold the true religion.

I never claimed they were infallibly taught. Where do you get that idea?

 

[diggerdomer]

Concluding from the Fourth Lateran Council on punishing heresy . . .

The Ecumenical Council said that no one should be permitted to preach in Catholic lands unless they are authorized by the Catholic Church. No heretic had the right to preach and all heretics, because of their heresy, were to be punished by secular authorities. Secular authorities themselves would receive penalties from the Church if they refused to punish heretics in their lands with banishment or confiscation of property. This is the Fourth Lateran Council, an Ecumenical Council, and it commanded the reverse of what Vatican II ordered.

Vatican II’s differences from the Fourth Lateran Council can be explained from the perspective that right now if religious freedom were abolished, Catholics would suffer immediate and harsh persecution. We have much to lose and nothing to gain, at this point, because the immorality of the world is so bad.

However, this is to say that religious freedom, while bad and imperfect in itself, is much better than the only alternatives modern society has to offer. This is not what Vatican II appears to say in Dignitatis Humanae. But the popes and the Church as a whole has taught all the way up to modern times that heresy is an evil that should be punished under law, and governments have a responsibility to uphold the true religion.

So, help me understand, you’re saying we should be clear on accepting the teachings of one ecumenical council (as you say) over another? Is that an individual decision? Thanks.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

No I am not defining authoritative as infallible.

Are you?

No. I have no idea why you ask.

Good to hear you don’t think Dignitatis Humanae was an infallible teaching.

diggerdomer:

I believe what the Church teaches. Including the teachings of Vatican II. How about you?

I do not believe in all the teachings of Vatican II. I’ve embraced just about all of it except Dignitatis Humanae, which I have struggled and prayed to believe in but cannot. The document appears to contain serious errors that are contradictory to past Church teaching, and the Church has not obliged us to believe in it. It presents a social justice teaching that Catholics are not bound by their faith to accept. It is not part of the deposit of faith, it is not an infallible teaching, and it has not been continuously taught through Church history or Tradition. In fact, it is contradicted by official Church teaching in Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, in the Fourth Lateran Council (which is ecumenical), in numerous papal encyclicals, in at least one and a half thousand years of Church Tradition, among many of the Early Church Fathers and in numerous passages of Scripture.

Religious freedom is a view formed initially by non-Catholics and upheld by non-Catholics. The Catholic Church was the last religious body to accept religious freedom- all the Protestants and non-Catholics accepted it long before we did. Religious Freedom and Separation of Church and State are not Catholic teachings. They are dangerous innovations that deny the total supremacy of Christ as King.

So no, I don’t believe in everything the Church hierarchy is teaching right now. I do believe in everything they used to teach, and almost everything they teach now .

If you claim to believe in everything the Church teaches, then why do you reject parts of the Syllabus of Errors, the Fourth Lateran Council, the Bible, and at least one and a half thousand years of Catholic belief and many papal encyclicals? These are Church teaching too, and they reject religious freedom.

I do believe everything that is part of the deposit of faith passed on from the apostles . Religious Freedom is definitely not part of that, as a quick view of Catholic history will prove, and the Church has not obliged Catholics to believe in its non-infallible social justice teaching.

diggerdomer:

The Church has existed for more than 1600 years.

I know, and this belief that religious freedom is wrong is visible among the Early Church Fathers and in the New Testament. St. Augustine described freedom of religion as “liberty of perdition,” St. Polycarp said, “away with the atheists,” Tertullian generally believed in religious freedom but thought the gnostics should be forced to convert, and St. John Chrystosom said he thought non-Catholics should be prevented from gathering in public places to conduct their festivals and worship. The Church did not protest Constantine’s anti-pagan repressions, and St. Augustine approved the banishment of the Arians. Most scholars will agree that while not all the Early Church Fathers explicitly taught that heretics should be punished, punishing heretics followed very logically from their teachings. Also there are New Testament passages, especially in St. Paul’s writings, saying that idolaters should be put to death and the law should be wielded against the godless.

This perspective was definitely present in the Early Church too, it was just less obvious and there were Early Church Fathers who felt differently, or who had mixed feelings about it. By the beginning of the Medieval Ages, it was clear that the official Church position was that heretics should be punished and the government had a responsibility to uphold Catholicism.

diggerdomer:

I never claimed they were infallibly taught. Where do you get that idea?

Sorry, I think maybe I’ve incorrectly lumped you together with yosupman’s thinking. He thinks that all Church documents are infallible.

 

[diggerdomer]

No. I have no idea why you ask.

I asked because you said you thought I thought it was infallibly taught. See your post yesterday 11:57 p.m.

 

[diggerdomer]

I do not believe in all the teachings of Vatican II.

Thank you. That helps. Catholics, of course, are obliged to accept teachings of the Magisterium, so it’s good to know, for purposes of conversation and dialogue, where people are coming from.

 

[diggerdomer]

If you claim to believe in everything the Church teaches, then why do you reject parts of the Syllabus of Errors, the Fourth Lateran Council, the Bible, and at least one and a half thousand years of Catholic belief and many papal encyclicals? These are Church teaching too, and they reject religious freedom.

I don’t reject anything you mentioned, I simply understand and believe (or at least try my best to) in them the way the Catholic Church teaches. The Bible does not reject religious freedom. You might, but the Catholic Church does not.

 

[diggerdomer]

So no, I don’t believe in everything the Church hierarchy is teaching right now. I do believe in everything they used to teach, and almost everything they teach now .

Again, thank you, sincerely, for your honesty. I also have a lot of questions and concerns with some Catholic teaching, but I don’t reject it. This is a good place to discuss and question such thoughts, I hope.

 

[diggerdomer]

Sorry, I think maybe I’ve incorrectly lumped you together with yosupman’s thinking. He thinks that all Church documents are infallible.

Personally, I think there are very few Catholic Church teachings that have been taught infallibly. Keep in mind, that’s a separate issue from whether or not Catholics are obliged to adhere and assent to Church teachings.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

So, help me understand, you’re saying we should be clear on accepting the teachings of one ecumenical council (as you say) over another? Is that an individual decision? Thanks.

Neither council, when giving its position on religious freedom, appears to have been defining a dogma or speaking under the protection of the charism of infallibility. Both gave authoritative commands to the faithful, but neither appears to have spoken infallibly.

I trust the Fourth Lateran Council’s teachings more than I do Vatican II’s for a number of reasons. I suspect that religious freedom being an error is part of Sacred Tradition, because as I look at Church history, its reverse does indeed appear to have been “always and everywhere taught,” from the Bible, the Early Church Fathers, the Medieval Church and all the modern popes until the last half of the last century. Governments being based on Catholicism and upholding it as the state religion also is in accord with Reason, and I can explain this if you care to discuss it with me.

I have a lot of reasons for trusting the Fourth Lateran Council’s Decree on Heretics more than Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae.

 

[diggerdomer]

Neither council, when giving its position on religious freedom, appears to have been defining a dogma or speaking under the protection of the charism of infallibility. Both gave authoritative commands to the faithful, but neither appears to have spoken infallibly.

I trust the Fourth Lateran Council’s teachings more than I do Vatican II’s for a number of reasons. I suspect that religious freedom being an error is part of Sacred Tradition, because as I look at Church history, its reverse does indeed appear to have been “always and everywhere taught,” from the Bible, the Early Church Fathers, the Medieval Church and all the modern popes until the last half of the last century. Governments being based on Catholicism and upholding it as the state religion also is in accord with Reason, and I can explain this if you care to discuss it with me.

I have a lot of reasons for trusting the Fourth Lateran Council’s Decree on Heretics more than Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae.

In your opinion, what differentiates the Councils you refer to, regarding Catholics’ obligation to adhere to them? I don’t see a difference.