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

[Ultima_Ratio]

In no way is someone to contradict publicaly what the magisterium has taught on faith and morals, either infallibly, or non-infallibly.

Good, here’s some magisterial teachings you are bound to accept and agree with.

Pope Gregory XVI, 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.”

Pope Pius IX, 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;”

**Pope Leo XIII, Libertas: **“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.

“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.”

And let’s not forget the following condemned proposition from the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX:

[It is an error to believe that] “every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true” (Syllabus #15).

Do you accept all of the above magisterial teachings with complete submission of mind and will? I hope you do because “in no way is someone to contradict publicaly what the magisterium has taught on faith and morals…”.

 

[yosupman]

Lief,

Ok, first of all Lumen Gentium paragraph 25 mentions “religious assent of mind and will”. The latin term is “Obsequium religiosum”.

The actual paragraph is as follows:

"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. "

Assent of mind and will, obviously is not the assent of faith, but flows from it. It means we accept the doctrine as true (even though we don’t give the kind of assent due to de Fide propositions), and we put the teaching into practice.

Now, how you understand “assent of mind and will”, should be according to the mind of the church. It can’t be according to Bishop Felay, or other dissenters.

One source that can help is Ludwig Von Ott’s book on doctrine. It spells out the different levels of doctrine and assent due to the doctrine.

This isn’t rocket science. I think you’re making it way too hard.

 

[gospel_life]

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 find this a rather odd choice of quotes since it challenges one of the foundation premises of infallibility: that the Pope cannot teach error in matters of faith and morals, even if he deliberately wanted to.

If he can, regardless of whether he later recants the position or a future Pope overturns it,it throws open the possibility of every infallible statement, either by the Pope or by the magisterium, being subject to future “correction”. This is clearly in contradiction to Church teaching.

Your taking the position that a Pope taught heresy essentially negates your positon that any subsequent papal pronouncements can be truly infallible.

Oh, and by the way, your later statement implying that the Syllabus is in any way infallible is incorrect. The Church has at no time ever said such a thing and there are numerous parts of the Syllabus that are unquestionably specific to specific circumstances of the times rather than any infallible or universal truth. There are indeed some restatements of dogma and doctrine included in the Syllabus but there is no infallibility to the document itself or any particular statement that has not be stated as dogma or doctrine.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

I find this a rather odd choice of quotes since it challenges one of the foundation premises of infallibility: that the Pope cannot teach error in matters of faith and morals, even if he deliberately wanted to.

That is not what Papal Infallibility means. Papal Infallibility simply means that, when a Pope is defining a doctrine of faith or morals, and intends for this to be binding on the entire Church, the Holy Ghost will prevent him from erring.

If anyone claims that the Pope is also prevented from erring when he does not meet the above conditions (which are the conditions that the First Vatican Council set down defined the dogma of Papal Infallibility), they are teaching something other than what the Church teaches.

If he can, regardless of whether he later recants the position or a future Pope overturns it,it throws open the possibility of every infallible statement, either by the Pope or by the magisterium, being subject to future “correction”. This is clearly in contradiction to Church teaching.

Again, the Pope is only protected from error when he meets the conditions set down by the Church for infallibility. But it’s interesting that you mention the word “correction”. Why is it interesting? Because that is the exact term that Cardinal Ratzinger used to describe what Gaudium et Spes did to the Syllabus of errors of Pius IX. What I mean is, Cardinal Ratzinger said that the Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes “corrected” the teachings contained in the Syllabus of errors of Pius IX. He went so far as to claim that *Gaudium et Spes *was a “counter-syllabus”. But how can that be the case when the Syllabus was an official magisterial document, in which the Pope condemned modern errors that had emerged? Did the errors cease to be errors simply because the calendar read a later date?

Here’s what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote about Gaudium et Spes:

"If one is looking for a global diagnosis of the text [of Gaudium et spes], one could say that it (along with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) **is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter-Syllabus **…

… the unilateral dependence on the positions taken by the Church through the initiatives of Pius IX and Pius X against the new period of History opened by the French Revolution was to a large extent corrected via facti. But a fundamental new document regarding relations with the world as it had been since 1789 was still lacking.

In reality, the mentality [the Catholic mentality, that is] that preceded the revolution still reigned in the countries with strong Catholic majorities; today almost no one denies that the Spanish and Italian concordats [accords between Church and State] tried to conserve too many things from a conception of the world that for a long time had not corresponded to reality. Likewise, almost no one can deny that this dependence on an obsolete conception of relations between the Church and State was matched by similar anachronisms in the domain of education and the attitude taken toward the modern historical-critical method …

Let us content ourselves here with stating that the text [of Gaudium et spes] plays the role of a counter-Syllabus to the measure that it represents an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the world as it had become after 1789. On one hand, this visualization alone clarifies the ghetto complex that we mentioned before. On the other hand, it permits us to understand the meaning of this new relationship between the Church and the Modern World. “World” is understood here, at depth, as the spirit of modern times.

That quote is interesting for many reasons. One reason is that what he said is exactly what was condemned over and over again by the Popes. The Syllabus itself condemned the errors of 1789; that is, it condemned the Liberal Catholics who sought to “officially reconcile the Church with the world as it has become after 1789”. The encyclicals Libertas, Mirari Vos, Quanta Cura, Humanum Genus, and many others, condemned these “errors of 1789”. These encyclicals condemned them under the name of: Naturalism, Rationalism, and Freemasonry. The errors are one and the same, and they are all the errors associated with the Freemasonic French Revolution of 1789. The Church condemned these errors over and over again, right up to Vatican II, when, according to Ratzinger, it stopped fighting them and attempted to reconcile with them - the long-time goal of the Liberal Catholics, who Pope Pius IX called “the worst enemies of the Catholic Church”. We are now living through the results of this policy of “reconciling the Church with the world as it has become after 1789”… and it ain’t pretty.

Now, I realize that what I wrote above is a little off topic from your point, but it does deal with it indirectly. You have been under the impression that the Pope is infallible when he speaks on faith or morals. That is a misunderstanding of Papal Infallibility, which simply means that the Pope is protected from error when he 1.) defines a dogma 2.) of faith or morals 3.) to be held by the entire Church. Outside of those parameters, he is not protected by the charism of infallibility.

Your taking the position that a Pope taught heresy essentially negates your position that any subsequent papal pronouncements can be truly infallible. Oh, and by the way, your later statement implying that the Syllabus is in any way infallible is incorrect.

But I thought it was your position that the Pope is always infallible when he speaks on issues of faith and morals. Which one of the errors contained in the syllabus did not deal with faith or morals? And if it didn’t deal with faith or morals, why was it condemned as an error?

 

[gospel_life]

That is not what Papal Infallibility means. Papal Infallibility simply means that, when a Pope is defining a doctrine of faith or morals, and intends for this to be binding on the entire Church, the Holy Ghost will prevent him from erring.

Nowhere did I refer to papal infallibility. I am quite aware of the conditions required for a pronouncement under papal infallibility. What I am referring to is the Church’s position that the Pope cannot teach error in the matter of faith and morals. What he says may not be infallible but it cannot be in error and cannot be heresy.

But I thought it was your position that the Pope is always infallible when he speaks on issues of faith and morals. Which one of the errors contained in the syllabus did not deal with faith or morals? And if it didn’t deal with faith or morals, why was it condemned as an error?

No, my position is that the Pope cannot teach error in the matters of faith and morals and most certainly cannot teach heresy.

There are numerous items in the Syllabus that are strictly matters of governance and circumstances of the time period and have absolutely nothing to do with faith and morals. Not all “errors” of the time had to do with faith and morals and no document is infallible, only the teachings within it that have to do with dogma and doctrine. With your widespread experience I’m sure you won’t have any trouble finding them if you really want to. I don’t have my copy available or I could at least give you some of the numbers.

 

[diggerdomer]

Nowhere did I refer to papal infallibility. I am quite aware of the conditions required for a pronouncement under papal infallibility. What I am referring to is the Church’s position that the Pope cannot teach error in the matter of faith and morals. What he says may not be infallible but it cannot be in error and cannot be heresy.

I’m confused, I thought the two are inseparably related, i.e. the only time the Church teaches that the Pope, teaching by himself (so to speak) is protected from error on faith and morals is when he teaches infallibly.

This of course does not mean that other teachings are necessarily suspect or provisional, just that they are not invoking the Church’s charism of infallibility.

Can you clarify where the Church teaches that the Pope is protected from error, apart from teaching infallibly? Thanks.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Nowhere did I refer to papal infallibility. I am quite aware of the conditions required for a pronouncement under papal infallibility. What I am referring to is the Church’s position that the Pope cannot teach error in the matter of faith and morals. What he says may not be infallible but it cannot be in error and cannot be heresy.

That doesn’t make any sense. If a “Pope cannot teach error” it means he’s infallible. How can you say the Pope is only infallible when he meets the conditions set down by Vatican I, and then claim that he is also infallible - “cannot teach error” - when he does not meet those conditions?

You are creating a new category of infallibility that does not exist. In fact, the only difference between real infallibility and the one you invented is that yours extends to all of the Popes teachings, whereas the real charism of infallibilityis limited to the conditions given at Vatican I.

Please explain how the Pope is only infallible when he meets the conditions of Vatican I, and also how he is ALWAYS infallible when speaking on faith and morals. And also keep in mind that infallibility is a negative charism that merely prevents the Pope from erring. It is not positive inspiration, as was the case with the Bible.

No, my position is that the Pope cannot teach error in the matters of faith and morals and most certainly cannot teach heresy.

What about John XXII who taught that the souls of the blessed will not enjoy the beatific vision until after the general judgment? He taught this publicly before renouncing it on his death bed.

Catholic Encyclopedia: "**In the last years of John’s pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, **and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. **Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. **In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope’s view. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter. In December, 1333, the theologians at Paris, after a consultation on the question, decided in favour of the doctrine that the souls of the blessed departed saw God immediately after death or after their complete purification; at the same time they pointed out that the pope had given no decision on this question but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the pope to confirm their decision. **John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision. **

You claimed that a Pope *“cannot teach error in the matter of faith and morals” *yet John XXII did just that. He taught an error contrary to faith and morals before renouncing it on his death bed.

 

[yosupman]

Ultima,

The pope cannot teach error on any teaching that touches faith and morals period. You claim that for the pope to teach something you will obey, he has to be intending to define a doctrine, and teaching the entire church. Ultima, if that was the only time you’d have to obey the pope, it would be Unam Sanctum, the papal bull on the immaculate conception, and the document on Mary’s assumumption.

In my opinion if the pope is liable to error in every other instance, then God did a pretty sorry job of protecting his church.

Why do you always act like every pre-Vatican II pope was always teaching with authority, and all of a sudden, Vatican II comes along and you’re nit-picking which teachins you’ll accept.

Ok, just like I told Lief. This isn’t rocket science. If the church teaching on any doctrine related to the deposit of faith, the Holy Spirit will not let the church ever teach anything different.

Dei Verbum 10, and Lumen Gentium both teach that the magisterium unfailingly adheres to the deposit of faith.

So does the Catechism paragraph 889 state:

"In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, “unfailingly adheres to this faith.”

What the charism of infallibility means, is we can be sure the pope is teaching infallibly when he defines a doctrine. We know from then on, that doctrine is true. Also we know the church never taught anything different neither will it teach anything different going forward. If the pope defines a doctrine, that doesn’t make if true. He defines it because it was always true.

 

[yosupman]

Nowhere did I refer to papal infallibility. I am quite aware of the conditions required for a pronouncement under papal infallibility. What I am referring to is the Church’s position that the Pope cannot teach error in the matter of faith and morals. What he says may not be infallible but it cannot be in error and cannot be heresy.
No, my position is that the Pope cannot teach error in the matters of faith and morals and most certainly cannot teach heresy.

There are numerous items in the Syllabus that are strictly matters of governance and circumstances of the time period and have absolutely nothing to do with faith and morals. Not all “errors” of the time had to do with faith and morals and no document is infallible, only the teachings within it that have to do with dogma and doctrine. With your widespread experience I’m sure you won’t have any trouble finding them if you really want to. I don’t have my copy available or I could at least give you some of the numbers.

RIGHT ON BRO!!!

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Lief,

Ok, first of all Lumen Gentium paragraph 25 mentions “religious assent of mind and will”. The latin term is “Obsequium religiosum”.

The actual paragraph is as follows:

"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. "

Assent of mind and will, obviously is not the assent of faith, but flows from it. It means we accept the doctrine as true (even though we don’t give the kind of assent due to de Fide propositions), and we put the teaching into practice.

You are not here permitting any distinction between assent of faith and submission of intellect and will. While you say there is a distinction, you never make plain what it is, and you say that everyone is obligated to accept the doctrine is true and put it into practice.

I don’t accept your interpretation of what this means. I must see this as your interpretation because it contradicts the right of the faithful to withhold assent of faith. It says in the document that the Pope’s authority is to be shown due “reverence” and his judgments sincerely “adhered to,” which means we are not to rebel against them and fight against him. It doesn’t say one must believe whatever he says and express one’s agreement. It means one must show what he says reverence because of his special authority and obey his orders. And right above the quoted passage, in a part I see you didn’t bring up, it says to show the same reverence and submission to all the bishops, though especially to the Pope.
"Lumen Gentium:

For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff . . .

This passage gives the same authority to every bishop that it gives to the pope, only it says it’s given in a “special way” to the Pope, without defining how this differs. Indeed, his word and authority does carry more weight to me, but in the case of all bishops this document says we are to accept their teaching and adhere to it “with religious assent.” Does this mean they cannot err in any matter of faith and morals? That is not what it means. Bishops have made mistakes in doctrine before. There have been whole schisms in the Church because of this.

I will not disobey my bishop and will show him full religious submission. However, my bishop, just like the Pope when he’s not speaking infallibly, can make doctrinal errors. The passage of Lumen Gentium you brought up does not negate this. It declares the Pope and the bishops all to be messengers of God’s truth to be heard and obeyed, and it affirms their apostolic authority and righteous standard. But it does not say they will always get everything right and we have to believe everything they say, even if it deviates from the deposit of faith.

Now, how you understand “assent of mind and will”, should be according to the mind of the church.

Agreed.

It can’t be according to Bishop Felay, or other dissenters.

One source that can help is Ludwig Von Ott’s book on doctrine. It spells out the different levels of doctrine and assent due to the doctrine.

This isn’t rocket science. I think you’re making it way too hard.

I think you’re oversimplifying it. Your view seems to be basically, “they will never get anything wrong whether speaking fallibly or infallibly, so it doesn’t matter if there is an obvious contradiction between past teaching and present teaching on religious freedom.” Besides, you believe in religious freedom anyway, and this makes holding your present view of Vatican II easier. But you appear to be somehow passing over the fact that we aren’t required to give the assent of faith to teachings (even teachings given by an ecumenical council) that aren’t part of Sacred Tradition and haven’t been infallibly defined. For you, we are required to agree with religious freedom. Your view, as I am presently understanding it, is not consistent with what the Church has taught, however.

Am I misunderstanding you?

By the way, I am indeed interested in getting Ludwig Von Ott’s book on doctrine. I’ve heard it recommended before and it looks very good.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Ultima,

The pope cannot teach error on any teaching that touches faith and morals period. You claim that for the pope to teach something you will obey, he has to be intending to define a doctrine, and teaching the entire church. Ultima, if that was the only time you’d have to obey the pope, it would be Unam Sanctum, the papal bull on the immaculate conception, and the document on Mary’s assumumption.

These are times we are required to give the assent of faith. There are plenty of other times the Pope has spoken in which we are required to give the assent of faith . . . those times when he is delivering the Sacred Tradition of the Church, which is a lot of the time! This isn’t because he’s just said something infallible. It’s because he’s teaching the deposit of faith all Catholics are required to give assent of faith.

In my opinion if the pope is liable to error in every other instance, then God did a pretty sorry job of protecting his church.

There is Sacred Tradition and Ordinary Universal Magesterium providing infallible teachings, in addition to the dogmas of Ecumenical Councils and the two Papal Dogmas. Sacred Tradition covers everything, including those infallibly true teachings which have not yet been officially defined.

Why do you always act like every pre-Vatican II pope was always teaching with authority, and all of a sudden, Vatican II comes along and you’re nit-picking which teachins you’ll accept.

This has to do with Tradition. Many Traditionalist Catholics will say that religious freedom being a heresy is a part of Sacred Tradition because of the massive opposition to it from all bishops, including popes, for over one and a half thousand years. It had basically no supporters in the Catholic hierarchy over that period. Some of the Early Church Fathers were explicitly against it too, and there are Biblical passages against it. So there is definitely a case to be made that this is Sacred Tradition we’re dealing with, and therefore agreeing with religious freedom is heresy. It’s not like he’s saying everything a pre-V2 Pope says is infallible. However, there is a case to be made that pre-V2 Popes expressed this as part of Sacred Tradition.

I think you’re turning a blind eye to Catholic history.

Ok, just like I told Lief. This isn’t rocket science. If the church teaching on any doctrine related to the deposit of faith, the Holy Spirit will not let the church ever teach anything different.

Dei Verbum 10, and Lumen Gentium both teach that the magisterium unfailingly adheres to the deposit of faith.

So does the Catechism paragraph 889 state:

"In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, “unfailingly adheres to this faith.”

When speaking infallibly, yes. It’s talking here about when the Magesterium is speaking infallibly. As it prefaced this, “Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility . . .” The Magesterium is infallible when defining a dogma, not whenever it says anything.

And you’re misinterpreting Lumen Gentium. It says about the authentic magesterium of the Pope the same thing it says about the authority of the bishops, that they are the true teachers of Christ to be obeyed. Yet the possibility of error exists in the case of the bishops. Lumen Gentium never mentions that possibility of error, as it isn’t trying to talk about everything but about the roles of Church leaders in the Body of Christ. You are being inconsistent when you say its words on the Pope are to be taken to mean he never makes an error on faith and morals, but then you don’t give the same document’s words about all bishops the same interpretation, even though it says the same thing about the bishops that it does about the Pope. The only difference is that it says what it said of the bishops is “especially” true of the Pope, but it doesn’t differentiate between their authority or our duty to believe their doctrines. The passage you brought up simply isn’t talking about errors they might make. It’s talking about the meaning of their roles, not trying to discuss possibility of their failing to match up to their functions in everything.

Both the Pope and the bishops are true lights of God’s truth, and they don’t have to be speaking infallibly to present this truth. However, just as it is possible for a bishop to err in faith and morals (and Lumen Gentium doesn’t mention this possibility any more than it does the possibility that the Pope err), it is possible for the Pope to err.

What the charism of infallibility means, is we can be sure the pope is teaching infallibly when he defines a doctrine.

But according to you, we know this whenever he says anything about a doctrine anyway.

yosupman:

We know from then on, that doctrine is true.

But according to you, we’d know this for certain anyway, so I still fail to see the point.

yosupman:

If the pope defines a doctrine, that doesn’t make if true. He defines it because it was always true.

We agree about this.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

In addition to Ultima Ratio’s quote about Pope John XXII, here’s another regarding the possibility of heresy in the papacy:
The Catholic Encyclopedia:

A similar exceptional situation might arise were a pope to become a public heretic, i.e., were he publicly and officially to teach some doctrine clearly opposed to what has been defined as de fide catholicâ. But in this case many theologians hold that no formal sentence of deposition would be required, as, by becoming a public heretic, the pope would ipso facto cease to be pope. This, however, is a hypothetical case which has never actually occurred; even the case of Honorius, were it proved that he taught the Monothelite heresy, would not be a case in point.

The Catholic Encyclopedia here assumes that it is possible for a pope to err in faith and morals by discussing the possibility of what would happen if this were to occur and a pope became a public heretic. It also says “many theologians” have such and such perspective on what would happen if the Pope erred, which means that this perspective, that it is possible for a pope to err, is a normal Church perspective.
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Ultima,

The pope cannot teach error on any teaching that touches faith and morals period.

Well, I provided a quote showing that John XXII taught a heresy publicly in sermons (which you explicitly said was impossible in one of your earlier posts). I’ll post it one more time in case you missed it.

Catholic Encyclopedia: "In the last years of John’s pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. … John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question.** In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision**.

What you claim is impossible, happened. As the saying goes “contra factum non est argumentum” – against a fact there is no argument.

You claim that for the pope to teach something you will obey, he has to be intending to define a doctrine, and teaching the entire church.

I never said that. We are required to believe all that the Church teaches. It is an error to limit faith to what has been defined de fide. But if a Pope teaches an error, obviously we are not required to believe it. If John Paul II, for example, taught universal salvation (which he did teach) no Catholic is required to believe that since it is an error. Yet today many Catholics do believe that very error thanks, in part, to John Paul II who taught it publicly on numerous occasions.

The Church has told us what to do if a Pope deviates from the faith and teaches error. The following quote is from the Papal Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio. The following was written several decades after the Protestant revolt, and during the chaos that followed.

Cum ex Apostolatus Officio: *"In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind * is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfil our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling".

Here we have a Papal Bull acknowledging that it is possible for a Pope to deviate from the faith, and telling us what to do if such a thing ever happened.**

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

continuation…

In my opinion if the pope is liable to error in every other instance, then God did a pretty sorry job of protecting his church.

It is extremely rare for a Pope to teach error, but it can and has happened. God sometimes allows things to happen that are outside of the norm. During the Great Western schism, for example, there were three people claiming to be Pope. It was so confusing that there were saints (who are now canonized) who were following the wrong person. At one point, a majority of the Cardinals were supporting the wrong “Pope”. During the Arian crisis, Pope Liberius the Priests of Rome considered Pope Liberius to be a heretic since he appeared to be siding with the Arians. How did the Priests respond? They elected Pope Felix II while Liberius was still alive (the Priests of Rome were responsible for electing the Pope at the time). St. Robert Bellarmine defended the election of Felix II. St. Bellarmine did not believe that Pope Liberius actually fell into heresy, but he said it appeared that he did. Therefore, he defended the actins of the Priests of Rome in electing a new Pope, while Liberius was still living.

These are a few examples to show that God sometimes allows things to happen that are out of the norm. And without any doubt, we are in a similar situation today.

Why do you always act like every pre-Vatican II pope was always teaching with authority, and all of a sudden, Vatican II comes along and you’re nit-picking which teachins you’ll accept.

Good question. The reason is because if you read the pre-Vatican II Popes they all teach the exact same thing. After Vatican II, something happened. Things that had been condemned as an error over and over again, began to be taught and put into practice. For example, the false ecumenism practiced by John Paul II during his entire Pontificate was condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos. John PauL II went so far in his false ecumensim that he actually encouraged members of assorted false religions to commit a mortal sin against the first commandment…

At Assisi, John Paul II invited Protestants (heretics), Mulsims, Buddhist, Witch Doctors, African Animists (devil worshippers) and just about every other false religion. The various false religions were provided a special room where they were to commit an act of false worship - which is mortal sin. This mortal sin against the “first *and greatest *commandment” was a scheduled event at John Paul II’s Assisi “prayer meeting”. This event was the pride and joy of John Paul II the Great. Similar events were repeated over and over again, with another big one held at Assisi on 2002. John Paul II was so proud of this public mortal sin against the first commandment, that he actually said that “Vatican II should be read in light of Assisi”. For John Paul II, Assisi was the lens through which Vatican II should be read.

We’ve had some bad Popes in the past, but no Pope has ever committed such a public crime against the first commandment as this. Maybe the false religions did not know any better, but the Pope is bound to know that false worship is a mortal sin against the first commandment. Yet John Paul II not only had no problem with these sins against the first commandment. These are not normal times.

What the charism of infallibility means, is we can be sure the pope is teaching infallibly when he defines a doctrine. We know from then on, that doctrine is true.

Correct.

continue

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

continuation

Also we know the church never taught anything different neither will it teach anything different going forward.

Correct. But what if a Pope, who is not engaging the charism of infallibility, teaches something different? Such a teaching would not come from the Church per se, but from the person of the Pope. What would you do them? Let’s find out…

In 1459, Pope Pius II condemned the proposition “that all Christians are to be saved” (Denz. No. 717). It is an error to claim that all Christians are saved. This should be obvious since it is in accord with what the Church has always taught. Jesus Himself taught the same thing in Mt 7, 21-24. So clearly, the Pope was simply condemning what has always been considered an error.

Now, what would you say if John Paul II taught that we don’t know whether any human beings will go to hell - nNot just Christians, but any human beings? And what if he went even further and actually taught “universal salvation”, by name? And what if he did it over and over again publicly? What would you do them? Would you accept what John Paul II taught, and therefore fall into the error Pius II condemned, or would you reject what John Paul II taught? Or, what if you found some creative way to interpret what John Paul II said so that it was not contrary to what Pius II said? Would you then say it only “appears” that John Paul II taught contrary to Pius II? Or, better yet, rather than guessing, why don’t we find out how you will deal with it?…

John Paul II: “Christ, Redeemer of man, now for ever “clad in a robe dipped in blood” (Apoc, 19,13), the everlasting, invincible guarantee of universal salvation.”

John Paul II: “In proclaiming the Risen Lord, Christians present the One who inaugurates a new era of history and announce to the world** the good news of a complete and universal salvation… At the beginning of a new millennium marked by a clearer awareness of the universality of salvation and " ** link

John Paul II: "This is proclaimed after the consecration by the Eucharistic assembly gathered around the altar. Time after time with renewed faith the Church repeats her desire for the final encounter with the One who comes to bring** his plan of universal salvation to completion.**”

John Paul II: "“St. Paul underscored this salvific value in regard to Christ’s obedience. If sin came into the world through an act of disobedience,** universal salvation was obtained by the Redeemer’s obedience**: “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Rom 5:19).”

John Paul II: "Not by him but for him: “From the death of Christ new life flowers, memory and message of an undying hope: universal salvation.” link

Above we see just a few examples of John Paul II teaching universal salvation. These are just a few of the many quotes I could provide. Now, a person can’t believe in universal salvation without simultatnously believing in the formally condemned error that all Christians will be saved. And since the condemnation from Pius II is perfectly in line with what the Church has always taught, we know which Pope to believe, and which Popes to “contradict” (cum ex apostalatus).

But I’m curious how you deal with this contradiction?

 

[ncjohn]

I’m really trying to get my arms around what exactly is being said here. Let’s take a different but related example: separation of church and state.

There were Popes who espoused the separation, usually with the caveat however that the Church was ultimately superior and not subject to the state. Pius IX however condemned it as an error as did some others along the way. Most traditionalists I have enountered who want to argue the point–not all traditionalists by any stretch–trot out their proof texts quoting those Popes and encylicals condemning it as an error, including the Syllabus I think, and treat them as infallible, just as we see with the religious liberty subject.

For me it comes down to this: the Church since Vatican II, through its Popes and in the documents themselves, have said consistently that their is no change in doctrine regarding religious liberty. That means one of two things: either religious liberty is not doctrine to begin with, OR there has been no essential change though understanding of how to implement handling of the topic may have changed or grown.

Then comes the question: were those who wrote and passed the document, as well as all the Popes since Vatican II heretics since the defense of the Church’s position has been ongoing and consistent? The claims of some here notwithstanding, the document was passed overwhelmingly, 2308-70. By comparison, the percentage of the vote opposed to infallibility was much higher and only passed the way it did because the 200 or so opposed to it left rather than be involved in its final passage. Would we be legitimate in saying that because there was some opposition that infallibility itself is not really reconcilable?

So are all of the current Popes heretics or are those questioning whether DH can be reconciled actually open to hearing that it can? So far they mostly sound like the Baptists and Jehovah Witnesses who show up at the door on Saturday morning with their proof texts in hand, seeking only to “prove” their understanding and how everyone else is going to hell rather than actually seeking understanding or discussion.

The idea that all the current Popes have been heretics is pretty extreme, even from an SSPX perspective though I realize there is wide divergence even within their adherents. Mostly though it seems that one has to get out to the sedevanctist position to take a hardline position that the Popes are heretics and religious liberty cannot be reconciled. Is that what we’re dealing with here? If so, at least it would make the arguments understandable and would make the decision of whether to even bother with discussion eaiser.

I’m not here to join the “discussion”, such as it is, as I’ve “been there, done that” more than my share of times with people who really weren’t there to discuss anything but simple to preach their own gospel. I’m simply a lurker wondering what the foundational premises are and from what perspective the question is being asked this time.

Peace,

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Hello NC:

I’ll address a few of your points.

Let’s take a different but related example: separation of church and state.

There were Popes who espoused the separation, usually with the caveat however that the Church was ultimately superior and not subject to the state. Pius IX however condemned it as an error as did some others along the way.

Separation of Church and State was condemned over and over again, including in the Syllabus of errors (#55). In the Syllabus it was condemned using the following verbage:

[It is an error to say that] "The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. – Syllabus #55, Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

The reason it is an error to say that the Church “ought” to be separated from the State is because the State, no less than individuals, has a duty to acknowledge Christ the King and to profess the true religion. Therefore the State ought to be united to the Church, just as individuals ought to be.

I’m trying to keep this post as short as possible, so rather than m giving my explanations, I’ll just quote the Popes. The following encyclical is a MUST READ for all Catholics today.

Pope Leo XIII, Libertas: #18 "There are others, somewhat more moderate [in their Liberalism] though not more consistent [in their thinking], who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest. Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the State providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly, that is to say, according to the laws of God. For, since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enactments. Besides, those who are in authority owe it to the commonwealth not only to provide for its external well-being and the conveniences of life, but still more to consult the welfare of men’s souls in the wisdom of their legislation. But, for the increase of such benefits, nothing more suitable can be conceived than the laws which have God for their author; and, therefore, they who in their government of the State take no account of these laws abuse political power by causing it to deviate from its proper end and from what nature itself prescribes. … This harmony [between Church and State] has been not inaptly compared to that which exists between the body and the soul for the well-being of both one and the other, the separation of which brings irremediable harm to the body, since it extinguishes its very life. …

1. …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. …
2. This kind of liberty [religious liberty], if considered in relation to the State, clearly implies that there is no reason why the State should offer any homage to God, or should desire any public recognition of Him; that no one form of worship is to be preferred to another, but that all stand on an equal footing, no account being taken of the religion of the people, even if they profess the Catholic faith.** But, to justify this, it must needs be taken as true that the State has no duties toward God,** or that such duties, if they exist, can be abandoned with impunity, both of which assertions are manifestly false. For it cannot be doubted but that, by the will of God, men are united in civil society; whether its component parts be considered; or its form, which implies authority; or the object of its existence; or the abundance of the vast services which it renders to man. God it is who has made man for society, and has placed him in the company of others like himself, so that what was wanting to his nature, and beyond his attainment if left to his own resources, he might obtain by association with others.** Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. **justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness – namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they would provide – as they should do – with prudence and usefulness for the good of the community. For public authority exists for the welfare of those whom it governs…

The above teaching has been repeated over and over again in multiple Papal encyclicals. The encyclical *Quas Primas *of Pius XI (1925) deals with this subject in detail. It explains that Christ is the King of both men and society, and that both have a moral duty to acknowledge him. The Church can never teach the contrary doctrine; namely, that the Church SHOULD be separated from the State.

continue

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

continuation

For me it comes down to this: the Church since Vatican II, through its Popes and in the documents themselves, have said consistently that their is no change in doctrine regarding religious liberty. That means one of two things: either religious liberty is not doctrine to begin with, OR there has been no essential change though understanding of how to implement handling of the topic may have changed or grown.

The first can’t be true. The Church has condemned religious liberty in great detail and given the reasons for it; and the reasons are doctrinal reasons. Regarding the second part: I would agree, except that there has been no change there either. What I mean is, just because religious liberty is an error, does not mean that it is not sometimes the best policy for the State to allow false religions (especially when there is a high percent of non-Catholics in the State). That was the teaching of the Church prior to Vatican II. If Vatican II simply said that, based on the current circumstances today, it is the best policy for States to tolerate false forms of worship I don’t think anyone would object.

What is objected to is that Vatican II is interpreted by just about everyone as saying that, due to his “dignity”, man has an inherent right to practice a false religion in public and to promote his errors, even when they are contrary to the Catholic faith; and further, that due to these alleged rights that flow from his “dignity” the State has an obligation to allow false worship in public, and should also allow the person to spread his errors.

That is totally false. “Dignity” does not give anyone an inherent right to violate God’s law. On the contrary, our human dignity brings with it a DUTY to obey God. Animals don’t have to obey God’s moral law because they do not have a reason and free will (reason and free will, BTW, is the natural dignity of man). Since man does possess such dignity, it carries with it certain duties - such as the duty to acknowledge Christ and to obey His laws. Man should not be forced to convert, but he does have a moral obligation to do so. Although it is wrong for a person to be forced to convert, the State certainly has the authority to forbid what God forbids. As such, the State can forbid the practice of false religions in public, which is what the Catholics States did for well over 1000 years.

Regarding your last part: I’m not a Sedevacantist, and I stop short of saying the Vatican II teaching on religious liberty cannot be reconciled with what the Church has always taught. I just say that it is interpreted in a way contrary to what the Church has always taught by virtually everyone.

 

[yosupman]

Ultima,

Wow, so much written, I don’t know where to start. In our talking about religious liberty, lets try to keep our points short. Its hard to follow when there are a million paragraphs to read.

Ok, I saw you mentioned a point I was interested in. I think you were talking about a time when there were “several” popes, and one of the anti-popes taught heresy. Let’s take this one.

At any point and time there can only be one true pope. The true pope will never teach error in faith or morals.

A lot of protestants love to bring this one up, as if it disproves the papacy.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Hey Ultima Ratio, Pope John Paul II fully accepted the possibility that people would end up in Hell.

EWTN:

Hell is the State of Those who Reject God

At the General Audience of Wednesday, 28 July 1999, the Holy Father reflected on hell as the definitive rejection of God. In his catechesis, the Pope said that care should be taken to interpret correctly the images of hell in Sacred Scripture, and explained that “hell is the ultimate consequence of sin itself… Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy”.

1. God is the infinitely good and merciful Father. But man, called to respond to him freely, can unfortunately choose to reject his love and forgiveness once and for all, thus separating himself for ever from joyful communion with him. It is precisely this tragic situation that Christian doctrine explains when it speaks of eternal damnation or hell. It is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of premises already set by people in this life. The very dimension of unhappiness which this obscure condition brings can in a certain way be sensed in the light of some of the terrible experiences we have suffered which, as is commonly said, make life “hell”.

In a theological sense however, hell is something else: it is the ultimate consequence of sin itself, which turns against the person who committed it. It is the state of those who definitively reject the Father’s mercy, even at the last moment of their life.

Hell is a state of eternal damnation

1. To describe this reality Sacred Scripture uses a symbolical language which will gradually be explained. In the Old Testament the condition of the dead had not yet been fully disclosed by Revelation. Moreover it was thought that the dead were amassed in Sheol, a land of darkness (cf. Ez. 28:8; 31:14; Jb. 10:21f.; 38:17; Ps 30:10; 88:7, 13), a pit from which one cannot reascend (cf. Jb. 7:9), a place in which it is impossible to praise God (cf. Is 38:18; Ps 6:6).

The New Testament sheds new light on the condition of the dead, proclaiming above all that Christ by his Resurrection conquered death and extended his liberating power to the kingdom of the dead.

Redemption nevertheless remains an offer of salvation which it is up to people to accept freely. This is why they will all be judged “by what they [have done]” (Rv 20:13). By using images, the New Testament presents the place destined for evildoers as a fiery furnace, where people will “weep and gnash their teeth” (Mt 13:42; cf. 25:30, 41), or like Gehenna with its “unquenchable fire” (Mk 9:43). All this is narrated in the parable of the rich man, which explains that hell is a place of eternal suffering, with no possibility of return, nor of the alleviation of pain (cf. Lk. 16:19-3 1).

The Book of Revelation also figuratively portrays in a “pool of fire” those who exclude themselves from the book of life, thus meeting with a “second death” (Rv. 20:13f.). Whoever continues to be closed to the Gospel is therefore preparing for 'eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might" (2 Thes 1:9).

1. The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather* than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the truths of faith on this subject: “To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called ‘hell’” (n. 1033).

“Eternal damnation”, therefore, is not attributed to God’s initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever. God’s judgement ratifies this state.

We are saved from going to hell by Jesus who conquered Satan

1. Christian faith teaches that in taking the risk of saying “yes” or “no”, which marks the human creature’s freedom, some have already said no. They are the spiritual creatures that rebelled against God’s love and are called demons (cf. Fourth Lateran Council, DS 800-801). What happened to them is a warning to us: it is a continuous call to avoid the tragedy which leads to sin and to conform our life to that of Jesus who lived his life with a “yes” to God.

Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it. The thought of hell — and even less the improper use of biblical images — must not create anxiety or despair, but is a necessary and healthy reminder of freedom within the proclamation that the risen Jesus has conquered Satan, giving us the, Spirit of God who makes us cry “Abba, Father!” (Rm. 8:15; Gal. 4:6).

This prospect, rich in hope, prevails in Christian proclamation. It is effectively reflected in the liturgical tradition of the Church, as the words of the Roman Canon attest: “Father, accept this offering from your whole family … save us from final damnation, and count us among those you have chosen”.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM