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

[Lief_Erikson]

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

They cannot pick and choose what dogmas they’ll believe. All dogmas are binding. When the Council speaks non-infallibly, though, there is in it the possibility of error. That is what it means to speak without the charism of infallibility. In fallible matters where there has been no definitive and binding teaching, yes, we are at liberty to think differently.

We still have a responsibility to submit to the orders of Vatican II, though. That is our duty. Pope Paul VI said we owe the council “religious submission.” But he did not say we owe it the assent of faith, which means we don’t have to agree with it but we have to obey with it.

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

It is not moot. It is the heart of the dispute between folks like Ultima Ratio and myself and you and yosupman. If the council gave no new infallible teachings, then Dignitatis Humanae was not infallible. If DH was not infallible, then it was fallible, which means there could be error within it. And Pope Paul VI did not say we are obliged to give these teachings our faith, only our submission.

This Ecumenical Council is unlike any of the others, therefore you should treat it differently. Not with different respect or obedience, but with a different certainty as to its truth, because it did not provide any new infallible definitions. Its teachings and decrees were fallible, therefore subject to error, and Pope Paul VI said you are only required to give it “religious submission,” not the assent of faith. This doesn’t mean you must disagree with it either! It simply means this council does not require the assent of our faith.

 

[diggerdomer]

The Church cannot declare new doctrine…

How do you understand then, or explain, the Popes declaring as dogma the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption? Prior to those declarations, they were not authoritatively and universally held, necessarily, by Catholics.

 

[diggerdomer]

If DH was not infallible, then it was fallible, which means there could be error within it. And Pope Paul VI did not say we are obliged to give these teachings our faith, only our submission.

This line of thinking seems to suggest that Catholics need only believe or adhere to those doctrines that have been infallibly taught. I hope this is not what you’re saying? Clearly, the Catholic Church does not teach such a thing.

 

[diggerdomer]

This Ecumenical Council is unlike any of the others, therefore you should treat it differently. Not with different respect or obedience, but with a different certainty as to its truth, because it did not provide any new infallible definitions. Its teachings and decrees were fallible, therefore subject to error, and Pope Paul VI said you are only required to give it “religious submission,” not the assent of faith. This doesn’t mean you must disagree with it either! It simply means this council does not require the assent of our faith.

It’s an ecumenical council. In that sense, it’s no different than any other council the Catholic Church considers ecumenical.

 

[truevaticanii]

How do you understand then, or explain, the Popes declaring as dogma the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption? Prior to those declarations, they were not authoritatively and universally held, necessarily, by Catholics.

The Apostles would have taught such things long ago, they were passed down by tradition, they fell into the hands of many theologians, Blessed John Duns Scotus fought for the Immaculate Conception to be accepted, controversy sprung up because it had been long since this revelations were even discussed, the council wanted to bring an end to the controversy to unite the members of the Church more, now we speak of these things more, there is not so much controversy among Catholics about this, so we know this to be truth.

…and, it’s just what the Church teaches, I’m not making this up just to drive you mad…

 

[diggerdomer]

The Apostles would have taught such things long ago, they were passed down by tradition, they fell into the hands of many theologians, Blessed John Duns Scotus fought for the Immaculate Conception to be accepted, controversy sprung up because it had been long since this revelations were even discussed, the council wanted to bring an end to the controversy to unite the members of the Church more, now we speak of these things more, there is not so much controversy among Catholics about this, so we know this to be truth.

…and, it’s just what the Church teaches, I’m not making this up just to drive you mad…

So you are claiming that the Apostles taught such things as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption? Just curious, as I don’t know of any teaching from the Catholic Church that asserts that. Thanks for the help.

 

[truevaticanii]

So you are claiming that the Apostles taught such things as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption? Just curious, as I don’t know of any teaching from the Catholic Church that asserts that. Thanks for the help.

Yes, I am saying that the Apostles would have had this revealed to them by Divine Revelation… and that Divine Revelation would have been passed down by Tradition, perhaps backed up by Scripture, and then enforced by the Magisterium more recently. And no problem, glad to help!

 

[Lief_Erikson]

This line of thinking seems to suggest that Catholics need only believe or adhere to those doctrines that have been infallibly taught. I hope this is not what you’re saying? Clearly, the Catholic Church does not teach such a thing.

Catholics are obliged to adhere to those doctrines infallibly defined in dogmas through either the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium or the Extraordinary Magesterium, and they also are obliged to adhere to all teachings that are part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church. We are obliged to be fully united with the whole deposit of faith .

Religious freedom is not part of it. Tradition (several Early Church Fathers and all the popes before the 20th century), Scripture (Deuteronomy 17:2-7, Romans 1:18-23, 32, 1 Timothy 1:8-11 and other passages) and Magesterium (The Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council decreed that Christian rulers punish heretics through fines, banishments and such punishments, the reverse of religious freedom, though I don’t think this was infallibly defined any more than Dignitatis Humanae) have all opposed it.

diggerdomer:

It’s an ecumenical council. In that sense, it’s no different than any other council the Catholic Church considers ecumenical.

Yes, it’s ecumenical. But as I’ve already shown, that doesn’t mean everything it says is infallible, and neither does it mean we’re obliged to agree with everything it says.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

diggerdomer, truevaticanii or anyone else, here’s an article about how the Assumption of Mary came from the time of the apostles. Just for anyone who’s interested, as it came up. And I love the topic .

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/AOFMARY.HTM

Here’s my favorite part:

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that “Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven.”

 

[diggerdomer]

Catholics are obliged to adhere to those doctrines infallibly defined in dogmas through either the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium or the Extraordinary Magesterium, and they also are obliged to adhere to all teachings that are part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church. We are obliged to be fully united with the whole deposit of faith .

Religious freedom is not part of it. Tradition (several Early Church Fathers and all the popes before the 20th century), Scripture (Deuteronomy 17:2-7, Romans 1:18-23, 32, 1 Timothy 1:8-11 and other passages) and Magesterium (The Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council decreed that Christian rulers punish heretics through fines, banishments and such punishments, the reverse of religious freedom, though I don’t think this was infallibly defined any more than Dignitatis Humanae) have all opposed it.

Yes, it’s ecumenical. But as I’ve already shown, that doesn’t mean everything it says is infallible, and neither does it mean we’re obliged to agree with everything it says.

Are you saying that Catholics are only obligated to adhere to teachings that have been infallibly taught? I hope not, as that’s not what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes, I am saying that the Apostles would have had this revealed to them by Divine Revelation… and that Divine Revelation would have been passed down by Tradition, perhaps backed up by Scripture, and then enforced by the Magisterium more recently. And no problem, glad to help!

Thanks. The only potential problem I see with that is that I don’t know of any teaching of the Catholic Church that claims such doctrines were understood and handed on by the Apostles. Do you?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Are you saying that Catholics are only obligated to adhere to teachings that have been infallibly taught?

We are obligated to adhere to all those teachings infallibly preserved in the deposit of faith.

 

[truevaticanii]

Thanks. The only potential problem I see with that is that I don’t know of any teaching of the Catholic Church that claims such doctrines were understood and handed on by the Apostles. Do you?

They may or may not have understood what they were passing on (I’m not sure myself), but in any case, they did pass them on. It was just passed on by oral tradition until some theologians started making a big deal about it because they were unsure of whether the Apostles really passed that on or not, so the councils came together and declared it to be true by the work of the Holy Spirit… I suppose perhaps Divine Revelation allows infallibility, but there is no new Divine Revelation—all that we must accept for salvation was needed to be accepted by all Christians since the time of the apostles.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

The main point that should be argued, is why is Ultima Ratio pitting popes against each other?

But every single Pope I quoted was in agreement with the rest. Did you miss that?

What your post implicitly confirms is that you yourself see the apparent contradiction between EVERY Pope I quoted, and the recent Popes (who I didn’t quote).

So, how do you explain this apparent contradiction that you see regarding religious liberty? And by what you wrote above, you can no longer deny that you see it.

Am I the only sane person in a room full of crazies?

I think you may have it exactly backwards

The same spirit guides all popes.

Explain what you mean by the spirit guiding the Popes. Do you mean that a Pope loses his free will when he is elected? Are you claiming that a Pope cannot teach something contrary to the faith after being elected Pope? If so, how do you explain Pope John XXII, who taught that the souls of the blessed do not obtain the beatific vision until after the final judgment? He taught this error publicly on multiple occasions before finally retracting it in writing on his death bed. When someone is elected Pope he does not loose his free will; and he is only protected by the charism of infallibility when he meets the guidelines set down by the first Vatican Council.

POPE ADRIAN VI (1522-1523): “If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can error even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. **In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII **(1316-1334).” (Quaest. in IV Sententiam).

I asked you multiple times to tell me what you think Vatican II taught regarding religious liberty, since you denied that the teaching was ambiguous. But, knowing how Vatican II is interpreted by EVERYONE, I warned you (privately) that as soon as you gave me your interpretation of Dignitatis Humanae, I would fill your computer screen with magisterial statements saying the exact opposite. Taking that warning to heart, and not wanting to be embarrassed, you would not give me your interpretation of Vatican II.

Then, when I posted some of the magisterial teachings I was referring to on the subject of religious liberty, you claimed that I was pitting Pope against Pope. By this statement you acknowledged the contradiction between what you think is being taught today and what was clearly taught prior to the council.

This is the same apparent contradiction that the SSPX and other like-minded Catholics see on this point. And since the SSPX and other likeminded Catholics believe in the INFALLIBILITY of the* universal ordinary magisterium,* they refuse to accept as true, errors that have been formally condemned by the Church. **Therefore, they are asking Rome to explain how this apparent contradiction can be reconciled with the practice of the Church for about 1600 years prior to Vatican II, and the explicit teachings of the Popes prior to Vatican II. **

Rome was well aware of the chaos caused by the apparent contradiction between what Vatican II taught, and what was taught prior to the council, but they would not address the matter. All they would say is “you have to accept Vatican II”, without showing how Vatican II could be reconciled with what the Church teaches. If you are honest, you yourself will admit that you cannot reconcile the two. For you, to quote the pre-Vatican II Popes on this subject is to “pit Pope against Pope”.

Fortunately the persistence of the SSPX has paid off and Rome is finally dealing with the elephant in the room. Not only the elephant of religious liberty, but several other ambiguities and contradictions as well.

Let us thank God that He gave the SSPX the strength to hold out, thereby forcing Rome to deal with these apparent contradictions - contradictions that have resulted in major divisions within the Church.

I want to end with one final comment: The Church does not condemn the idea that false religions can, and sometimes should, be tolerated by the State. This is a matter of prudence, and sometimes becomes the best policy (depending on the percentage of non-Catholics in the State). But what the Church condemns is the idea that man has an inherent right to publicly profess a false religion, and/or promote errors contrary to the Catholic faith. This is where the problem of Vatican II comes in. It is interpreted by just about everyone as saying that man, due to his “dignity”, has a natural right to profess a false religion; and therefore, due to this pretended “dignity” the State should make such practice a “civil right”. If Vatican II teaches this - which is how it is interpreted by just about everyone - the teaching is totally false and will have to be corrected by the Church.

This is the apparent contradiction that they are now dealing with, thank to the SSPX.

 

[yosupman]

Ultima,

The only one that has the right to say I’m crazy is my wife.

Back to theology - No pope in his official magisterium can teach error in faith or morals. A pope in a private sermon is protected from error in faith and morals.

Lumen Gentium paragrah 12 discuses that the sacred magisterium unfailingly adheres to the deposit of faith. See below:

1. The holy people of God shares also in Christ’s prophetic office; it spreads abroad a living witness to Him, especially by means of a life of faith and charity and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the tribute of lips which give praise to His name.(110) The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One,(111) cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when “from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” (8*) they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God.(112) Through it, the people of God adheres unwaveringly to the faith given once and for all to the saints,(113) penetrates it more deeply with right thinking, and applies it more fully in its life.

OMG!! Can you believe it?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

That is referring to the Ordinary Universal Magesterium, yosupman. The Ordinary Universal Magesterium was not in operation at Vatican II, though. The council was sharply divided over religious freedom. It was far from the unanimous witness your quote necessitates for the Ordinary Universal to be in affect. Besides, the bishops involved in Vatican II said no infallible teachings had been decreed, only old infallible teachings had been referenced.

 

[diggerdomer]

We are obligated to adhere to all those teachings infallibly preserved in the deposit of faith.

We’re obligated to adhere to a lot more than what’s been explicitly taught infallibly.

 

[yosupman]

Lets also get the definition of religious assent. The catechism speaks of a religious assent of intellect and will to non-infalliable teachings. This means we accept the doctrine interiorly and put it into practice. In rare instances, a person with a higher intellect, such as a theologian possibly might be able to withhold assent, but this must be done in a private way, and dialoge must definitely happen between the theologian and the magisterium to clear up any confusion. In no way is someone to contradict publicaly what the magisterium has taught on faith and morals, either infallibly, or non-infallibly.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

We’re obligated to adhere to a lot more than what’s been explicitly taught infallibly.

I know, Sacred Tradition is infallible and we’re obligated to adhere to its teachings completely, even when it’s not made explicit by a Church dogma. That’s why I said the whole deposit of faith passed on to us from the apostles.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Lets also get the definition of religious assent. The catechism speaks of a religious assent of intellect and will to non-infalliable teachings. This means we accept the doctrine interiorly and put it into practice. In rare instances, a person with a higher intellect, such as a theologian possibly might be able to withhold assent, but this must be done in a private way, and dialoge must definitely happen between the theologian and the magisterium to clear up any confusion. In no way is someone to contradict publicaly what the magisterium has taught on faith and morals, either infallibly, or non-infallibly.

You just defined “religious submission” as assent of intellect and will. The Church has taught we are not called on to give the “assent of faith,” but only “religious submission” to non-infallible teachings. The “assent of faith” implies belief. You are not required to actually believe in these teachings. I have yet to see an official definition of “religious submission,” and I doubt that the one you just gave – intellect and will – is what the Vatican would say. You’ll have to back it up with an official document or canon.