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

[Lief_Erikson]

John Paul II’s statement that there are demons who will endure the eternal torments of Hell is contradictory to the universalist claim that all will be saved. The Pope simply doesn’t know whether humans will be damned or not, so he hesitates to voice an opinion. While I think it’s plain that there are going to be a great many people in Hell, his hesitation to voice this truth, and his feeling of uncertainty on the issue, is not itself a heresy.

Pope John Paul II’s statements about universal salvation can be compared to those the universalists use to justify their take on universalism from the Bible. Jesus does will for everyone to be saved, but Jesus’ will is not the will of every human. Many will choose Hell in spite of Jesus’ desire that they choose Heaven. Some of the quotes you provided from John Paul II reflect Jesus’ desire that all men be saved, and the fact that He bought salvation for everyone. His suffering on the Cross was sufficient that everyone be saved through it . . . but not everyone will choose to be. That is the explanation for the quotes you provided from John Paul II on universal salvation.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

By the way, Ultima, those were some excellent posts!

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

John Paul II’s statement that there are demons who will endure the eternal torments of Hell is contradictory to the universalist claim that all will be saved. The Pope simply doesn’t know whether humans will be damned or not, so he hesitates to voice an opinion.

Yes, the Pope does say that the demons are damned, but, like you said, he questions whether or not humans will go to hell. Without re-reading my previous posts, I think I specified that the Pope questioned whether or not “human being” will be damned. But what you wrote above actually makes my point: John Paul II quetioned whether or not humans will be damned.

John Paul II: “Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it.” (General Audience — July 28, 1999)

The Pope publicly questioned whether or not humans would go to hell. That novelty is contrary to everything the Church has ever taught on that subject, and this doubt on the part of John Paul II cannot be reconciled with what Pius II condemned. Anyone who claims that all Christians will be saved is condemned by the Church. How can John Paul II believe that some Christians will be damned, and also wonder if any human will go to hell? The two can’t be reconciled. Maybe John Paul II wasn’t aware of the condemndation of Pius II, but he should have been. And, given his education, he would have known that the Church has never taught universal salvaiton. His teaching is a novelty that cause much confusion in the Church… but the confusion did not stop there.

Here’s part of what you quoted:* “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”.*

I remember when he made that statement. I remember because it became common to hear Catholics say “we don’t have to believe in hell anymore because John Paul II said it wasn’t a place”. Do you remember that? I remember it will.

If John Paul II did say “rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God”, it is false because hell is a place. It is a place that will contain the bodily persons who are damned after the resurrection. If he would have said “in addition to a place, hell is a state of being”, there would be no problem. But if he denies the “place” in favor of a “state”, he was certainly in error. It is not either or, but both.

While I think it’s plain that there are going to be a great many people in Hell, and the Tradition of the Church backs this, his hesitation to voice this truth is not itself a heresy.

I don’t know if it would qualify as a heresy, but it is without a doubt an error, and yosupman thinks a Pope can’t even teach error.

Pope John Paul II’s statements about universal salvation can be compared to those the universalists use to justify their take on universalism from the Bible. Jesus does will for everyone to be saved, but Jesus’ will is not the will of every human. Many will choose Hell in spite of Jesus’ desire that they choose Heaven. Some of the quotes you provided from John Paul II reflect Jesus’ desire that all men be saved, and the fact that He bought salvation for everyone. His suffering on the Cross was sufficient that everyone be saved through it . . . but not everyone will choose to be. That is the explanation for the quotes you provided from John Paul II on universal salvation.

Well, the redemption was universal, but salvation is not universal. I can twist most of Dignitatis Humanae so that it fits in with what the Church has always taught about religious liberty, but I cannot find a way to do so with John Paul II’s teaching on “universal salvation”. If he would have said universal redemption, I would be able to; but not universal salvation.

But once again (as is often the case with the post-Vatican II Papal ambiguities) you have to know what the Church teaches before you read them, or else you will be misled. If a person does not know what the Church teaches about salvation before reading John Paul II’s statements, they will almost certainly conclude that salvation is “universal” and thus that all will be saved. That is the obvious meaning of what he said. Maybe someone with a creative intellect can find a way to twist his words so that they mean something other than what they say, but to do that you have to approach the document already knowing what the Church teaches.

 

[ncjohn]

Hello NC:

I’ll address a few of your points.

Thanks for all your points though it is pretty much the same stuff I’ve seen through the 4-5 years I’ve been involved in this discussion, most of which originated from Sede sites and got picked up by other traditionalist groups. As I said I’m going to sit the discussion out as I don’t need the rehashing and no minds will be changed by it. I will make only a couple brief observations.

First, as to separation of church and state, the Church has vacillated through its history depending on how much power it had at any given time and who its allies or foes were. I am convinced that the main thrust of those writing about church and state has to do with governments believing they can act totally in their own interests and disregarding God and religion. Coming from the views of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, and the fact that the Church was at the time dealing with primarily Catholic (at least in name) countries, it made perfect sense to make the statements it did, with the implications that every country should essentially be a Catholic country with the Church as its head. With countries no longer made up of homogeneous poplulations of either ethnicity or religion however, the reality is that while God and state cannot be separated without grave consequence, separation from an individual religion pretty much must be unless there was to emerge some clearly Catholic country. The fact that some encyclicals were written on the subject does not make it doctrine.

Similarly I am not nearly as convinced as you are that religious liberty is a doctrinal issue, however many proof texts you may be able to come up with that address it. And even if one accepts those teachings as “infallible” at some level–acknowledging that there is no pronouncement of papal infallibility in them–there is no guarantee that the understanding and interpretation of them is correct. When it comes to interpreting its documents the Church has made clear that they are the ones to interpret their documents and nobody else is authorized to do so. The Church, in every instance when the subject has been brought up, interprets them to not be in contradiction. I’m glad to hear that you at least hold out the possibility that it is just the interpretation of DH by some that is the problem rather than actually believing that the Church is in heresy.

In the end, I’m waiting with interest to see what comes of the current talks. My instincts tell me that the Church will again clarify this and that the SSPX will again walk away unsatisfied. I’m praying that I’m wrong but unless the Church can find a way of saying what they have been saying in a way that the SSPX can hear it I don’t see it changing a thing since they are so heavily invested in their position also. It makes it very hard when two sides are filled with people of good will trying to serve God faithfully but creating confusion and division in the process.

Peace,

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Ultima,

Wow, so much written, I don’t know where to start.

It would be best to start with the authoritative quotes I provided that contradict what you have been saying.

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.

Let’s not get side-tracked on this point. My point it bringing that up was to show that there are times when God allows strange things to happen. And my point wasn’t that an ant-Pope taught heresy, but only that there were multiple men claiming to be the Pope and it was far from clear who the actual Pope was. Like I said, the only reason I brought that up was to show that sometimes the good God allows things to happen that are out of the ordinary. We are in a similar situation today, and I think I know why God is allowing it.

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

Well, I’ve provided the evidence to show that John XXII taught error; I provided a quote from Pope Adrian saying that “many Popes were heretics”; and I provided a quote from a Papal Bull saying that it is possible that a Pope can deviate from the faith, and them provides instructions on how to deal with it.

When we first started these discussions, you said you were an accountant and you wanted to see the evidence - “don’t tell me, show me” were your words. Well, I have now shown you the evidence, yet you are still holding to your position. At work, do you form a judgment on the figures before you see the evidence, or do you allow the evidence to form your judgment? I have provided plenty of evidence for my position, including a Papal Bull, no less; yet you keep coming back with the same comment. Why?

 

[yosupman]

Alright, lets take John XXIII holding an erroneous position. Prove to me that John XXIII officially taught that erroneous position when he was intending to teach the entire church, whether in an encyclical, or other official pronouncement.

Just because John XXIII taught an error in a sermon hardly blows the doctrine of infallibility.

Also, I keep comming back to the foundational principle. You may quote all kinds of this and that, but you build your argument on sand. The “sand” is you don’t hold, or maybe don’t understand what the church teaches about the inerrancy of the magisterium. Lets argue the foundational principle.

In the end, your position doesn’t even make logical sense. If the pope can teach error in faith and morals, who decides whether or not to obey him. Who judges the pope? Vatican I clearly taught no-one judges the pope. The pope has supreme universal authority over the church.

This authority is not to be compared with an ordinary bishop. This is because no ordinary bishop singuarily holds the charism of infallibility or papal primacy. You can refuse to obey the bishop when he commands as bishop a command which is in error. You cannot refuse to obey the pope when he commands the universal church as pope.

 

[yosupman]

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.

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.

No pope will ever in his magisterium deviate from the faith. This document is talking about the pope holding a personal opinion. Not when he is teaching the faith to the church. Also the pope hold an erroneous position privately. Such as when Benedict VI recently wrote a book as a private theologian. In no way obviously is this book protected from error. Also, it has yet to happen that a pope would obstinately be a public heretic. Even so, when it came to teach the faith officially to the chuch, the doctrine of infallibility prevents him from teaching a false doctrine to the church

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Thanks for all your points though it is pretty much the same stuff I’ve seen through the 4-5 years I’ve been involved in this discussion, most of which originated from Sede sites and got picked up by other traditionalist groups.

The arguments originated in Papal Encyclicals. I’m sure Sedevacantits also quote them, but they didn’t write the encyclicals. These are magisterial documents that Catholics are bound to accept. People today may not like these teachings of the Church, but that doesn’t mean they are permitted to reject them. We are not permitted to pick and choose what we will believe and what we refuse to believe. We have to accept all that the Church teaches, including the teaching on separation of Church and State.

First, as to separation of church and state, the Church has vacillated through its history depending on how much power it had at any given time and who its allies or foes were.

I know of no time the Church has taught that the State does not have a duty to profess the true religion. It may not have emphasized it during a particular time, but that is different than teaching the contrary.

For example, when Leo XIII wrote to the Church in America, he did not condemn the United States for not being a Catholic Country. He tried to encourage the U.S. to come into unity with the Catholic Church, but did not condemn it for not doing so. This approach did not deny that the State has a duty to profess the true religion. It was a different approach (one of encouragement, rather than condemnation) without denying the truth.

If you think the Church ever taught anything contrary to the quote I provided from Leo XIII, I would be very interested in seeing it; and you don’t even have to look it up: just give me the name of the document and I’ll look it up myself.

I am convinced that the main thrust of those writing about church and state has to do with governments believing they can act totally in their own interests and disregarding God and religion. Coming from the views of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, and the fact that the Church was at the time dealing with primarily Catholic (at least in name) countries, it made perfect sense to make the statements it did, with the implications that every country should essentially be a Catholic country with the Church as its head. With countries no longer made up of homogeneous poplulations of either ethnicity or religion however, the reality is that while God and state cannot be separated without grave consequence, separation from an individual religion pretty much must be unless there was to emerge some clearly Catholic country. The fact that some encyclicals were written on the subject does not make it doctrine.

I agree with all that you said until the last sentence. It is doctrine, but it is sometime practice will deviate from principal. The doctrine teaching that all men (including those forming a society) have a duty to profess the true religion and acknowledge Christ as the King, is an unchanging; however, when you are dealing with the Church in the midst of a non-Catholic country, the Church takes what it can get. Preferably it will be the sole religion of the State; but sometimes it will be one among many. But whatever the practical circumstances, the fact remains that, morally speaking, both the State and individuals have a duty to acknowledge Jesus Christ as King of the entire world, and to submit to Him.

In the end, I’m waiting with interest to see what comes of the current talks. My instincts tell me that the Church will again clarify this and that the SSPX will again walk away unsatisfied.

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. Thank God he gave the SSPX the light to see the truth and the courage to hold fast to it during such an unusual crisis. But that we can always expect from God: He will always raise up a faithful remnant to hold fast to the truth when the majority deviate from it. We saw this during the Arian crisis, when the “excommunicated schismatic” St. Athanasius stood virtually alone in defense of the truth. After suffering an unjust excommunication by the Pope, being condemned by a council of 300 Bishops and spending 17 years in exile, he was proven right; and the Pope who excommunicated him was the first Pope not to be canonized.

continue

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

continuation

Then we have the example of the “pro-multis”… During his entire Pontificate, John Paul II used the wrong words of consecration when he said Mass in the vernacular. The SSPX and other like-minded always maintained that the words of consecration had been mistranslated. They were attacked for simply pointing out the obvious. They were accused of being “more Catholic than the Popes” for standing up for the truth, since the truth was contrary to the practice of the Church at the time, and to the practice of the Pope himself. In the end, Pope Benedict XVI admitted that the SSPX had been right all along and COMMANDED the Bishop to correct this mistranslation. They drug their feet for years over this matter, before finally making the correction this month (which was the deadline Rome gave them).

The next big issue is “religious liberty”. Since the SSPX is simply holding fast to exactly what the Church has always taught, there is little doubt that they will be proven right, once again.

My guess in how DH will be dealt with is that Rome will say something like this: * “DH was merely a pastoral document. We always maintained that Vatican II was not dogmatic. Therefore, DH was merely dealing with the best practice given the circumstances”,* which would bring its teaching in line with tradition. They would then “clarify” some of the ambiguous statement about people having a “right” to practice false religions thereby bringing these statements in line with what the Church has always taught as well.

 

[ncjohn]

But that we can always expect from God: He will always raise up a faithful remnant to hold fast to the truth when the majority deviate from it.

And this is exactly why I will sit this out. I have found that trying to “discuss” things with those who believe themselves to have all the Truth and be the “faithful Remnant” is very similar to trying to debate the Baptists at the door on Saturday morning. It involves being given reams of “proof texts”–the same ones over and over as if to wear down by sheer weight–and an unwillingness to discuss anything outside of that since that is set as the “foundational premise” though the foundation is faulty at its base. Anyone who declines to play by the “rules” as set is then labeled a liberal and a modernist and dismissed as the claim is then made that nobody has been able to refute the “proof”.

We’ve been through this dozens, if not hundreds of times here. Those who will be swayed will be swayed. Those who have seen it all before will shake their heads in amazement that it’s all going on again.

Now, in saying all that please don’t take it as me denigrating your devotion or in any way writing you off. I have the utmost respect for your zeal and your willingness to put yourself on the line in the battle to save souls. I do, however, have a problem with the idea of intentionally raising doubt about teachings of the Church, while simultaneously saying you think they’re “maybe” ok, in what amounts to nothing more than proselytizing. And I find it more than sad that the movement finds a need to write off fellow Catholics and divide the Body of Christ. But hopefully in the end as we each seek the Truth we will indeed find it and one day share our joy in heaven.

Peace,

 

[yosupman]

Really what is at stake here, is the foundation of the church. It makes no sense to say that the gates of hell can’t prevail against the church, but then to say…

the gates of hell have prevailed against the church.

Ultima, you’ve been indoctrinated by the SSPX side. It’s weird that we’ll look at Lumen Gentium 25, or the catechism, and you’ll completely read something different than the text actually says. It’s like we can’t communicate, because words always have a changing meaning.

Go back, read Vatican I. Lumen Gentium paragraph 25. Read the catechism paragraph 882-893.

If you really read the text straight, then you’ll have the light bulb go on.

The one on Peters chair does not understand the magisterium the way you, or the SSPXers do.

And thats as the successor of Peter.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

And this is exactly why I will sit this out. I have found that trying to “discuss” things with those who believe themselves to have all the Truth and be the “faithful Remnant” is very similar to trying to debate the Baptists at the door on Saturday morning.

But I said the SSPX. I didn’t say me personally. In fact, I don’t even attend an SSPX Church (usually) However, I should have clarified: It is not just the SSPX who are the faithful remnant, but all who still believe what the Church teaches. The FSSP also still holds fast to what the Church teaches, as well as many other Catholics. Some of my favorite sermons are those found at www.audiosancto.com, which is an FSSP Church.

It involves being given reams of “proof texts”

Well, if you call long quotes (entire sections in fact) from Papal encyclicals “proof texts” than I am guilty. I do indeed quote Papal encyclicals as the authority to back up my statements quite often, since these represent official teachings of the magisterium (and according to yosupman, every single word contained within them is infallibly true).

Now, in saying all that please don’t take it as me denigrating your devotion or in any way writing you off. I have the utmost respect for your zeal and your willingness to put yourself on the line in the battle to save souls.

Thanks. I will accept that as a compliment

I do, however, have a problem with the idea of intentionally raising doubt about teachings of the Church, while simultaneously saying you think they’re “maybe” ok, in what amounts to nothing more than proselytizing.

The fact is, what Vatican II teaches about religious liberty is, on the surface, exactly contrary to what the Church taught previously. I’m not saying a person who knows the finer details of theology cannot find a creative way to interpret it in accord with what the Church has always taught, but the fact is no one does (or just about no one). The result of this ambiguous teaching is division. Division between those who still believe what the Church has always taught, and those who reject what the Church has always taught, based on their interpretation of Vatican II.

And I find it more than sad that the movement finds a need to write off fellow Catholics and divide the Body of Christ. But hopefully in the end as we each seek the Truth we will indeed find it and one day share our joy in heaven.

I’m not sure what you mean by writing off fellow Catholics. I don’t think I do that. And regarding the divisions: They do indeed exist, but this is due to a division in belief, which itself is due to an apparent contradiction between what the Church taught right up to Vatican II, and what just about everyone thinks Vatican II taught.

Unity is founded on the same beliefs, because for there to be unity in the will there must first be unity in the intellect. Lack of unity in belief (unity in the intellect) results in division in the will. The doctrinal chaos in the Church today has resulted in a lack of unity among its members. This is to be expected and will only be overcome by a clarification on these matters coming from the Pope. Short of that, I don’t see any hope. That is why we should all be thankful for the SSPX forcing Rome to hold these doctrinal discussions. Rome has ignored these ambiguities for over 40 years, which has resulted in major doctrinal chaos and division within the Church. At last, thanks to the persistence of the SSPX, Rome has finally agreed to clarify what Vatican II taught. Once again we see God using the SSPX to restore the Church. First God used them to save the old Mass during the time when the hierarchy sought to illegaly supress it (by pretending that it has been abrogated), and now God is using the SSPX to bring clarity to the doctrinal ambiguities.

But the true restoration will have to come from the Pope. All the SSPX and other like-minded Catholics could do during the past 40+ years of chaos was to preserve the faith and not compromise; but this was merely a holding pattern until the Pope - whose job it is to defend he faith - deals with these ambiguities and clarifies them. Finally, it appears this is going to happen thanks to the persistence of the SSPX. Other groups may have preserved the true faith, but it was the SSPX who forced Rome to address the ambiguities; and in this way it is the SSPX has a special place in the restoration of the Church, and will no doubt go down in history for the unspeakable good they are doing. They may have to suffer calmunies today, but that is their glory - “blessed are you when you are persecuted for justice sake” said our Lord “for yours in the Kingdom of God”.

 

[yosupman]

Ultima, you said in this last post that I said that everything the pope teaches is infallible.

That is not correct.

I guess we need to do a primer on infallibility.

Ok, Ultima,

If the pope is teaching in an encyclical, if he is going to teach what was always taught before in reference to faith in morals, infallibility does not have to kick in, because he’s teaching what’s always been taught before. But if he intended to actually define a doctrine for all the faithful to believe (instead of always teach what was taught before), the Holy Spirit prevents the pope from teaching error.

So what I’m saying is that the pope cannot teach error in teachings connected with the deposit of faith. But it certainly does not mean that every teaching that comes from the magisterium is infallible. It doesn’t mean it’s in error either.

The Pope cannot write an encyclical, and turn the infallibility charism, or ordinary universal magisterium button off, and then write such absurdities as “Christ never was resurrected”, the devil does not exist, “yosupman is predestined to heaven”.

You show me where a pope in an encylical has ever denied or taught differently than a defined docrine.

I don’t think you can show me.

If you could, then maybe you should be a lutheran? Or maybe a conservative Anglican?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Really what is at stake here, is the foundation of the church. It makes no sense to say that the gates of hell can’t prevail against the church, but then to say…

the gates of hell have prevailed against the church.

Ultima, you’ve been indoctrinated by the SSPX side.

Well, I’ve provided a lot of quotes during this discussion and none of them came from anything related in any way to the SSPX.

It’s weird that we’ll look at Lumen Gentium 25, or the catechism, and you’ll completely read something different than the text actually says.

Well, we had a discussion through pm on the quote from the New Catechism and it was you who misunderstood it. Remember that? You misinterpreted it to mean that the Pope is always infallible when that is not what it says. The Catechism says the same thing as Vatican I; namley, that the Pope is infallible when he defines a doctrine - “by a definitive act”.

Regarding Lumen Gentium 25. I just read it. Here’s a few quotes from that section:

Lumen Gentium: "And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.

That says that the Pope is infallible when he defines a doctrine - “by a definitive act” - which is what I’ve been saying the entire time.

Lumen Gentium 25: "The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter.To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.

This is referring to the Bishops when they defind a doctrine at a council, that is then ratified by the Pope. The term supreme magisterium is another word for the extraordinary magisterium, as opposed to the ordinary magisterium. The extraordinary magisterium, or the “supreme magisterium” is engaged when the Church defines a doctrine. That is what this section is referring to You can tell it is referring to a doctrinal definition because it specifically says “these definitions”. Such definitions no less infallible than an ex-cathedra statement of a Pope alone. That is what it is saying.

I actually have no idea what you think Lumen Gentium 25 says.

But you haven’t answered a question that I have asked you over and over again. Remember all those quotes from the Popes I provided, wherein they condemn religious liberty? Do you or do you not accept them? Why haven’t you answered that question? After all, you are the one arguing that every word uttered by a Pope in an encyclical is infallible, yet when I asked you repeatedly if you accept the encyclical quotes I provided, you ignored them. In fact, at one time you seemed annoyed at these Papal teachings and accused me of “pitting Pope agains Pope”. Does that mean you reject those INFALLIBLE (according to you) teachings? If so, how?

You are accusing me of not accepting a teaching of a Pope, yet you have provided no Papal teaching that I reject. On the contrary, it is you who will not say if you accept the Papal teachings I have quoted. So do you or not?

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Ultima, you said in this last post that I said that everything the pope teaches is infallible.

That is not correct.

This is what you wrote in post #68:

Yosupman: *“The pope cannot teach error on any teaching that touches faith and morals period”. *

Now, if a Pope “cannot teach error” it means he is infallible. But if you say that is not what you meant, I’ll take your word for it.

If the pope is teaching in an encyclical, if he is going to teach what was always taught before in reference to faith in morals, infallibility does not have to kick in, because he’s teaching **what’s always been taught **before.

That is what I told you in our pm discussion. You need to go back and read what I wrote to you there. This is the “universal ordinary magisterium” I spoke of. It is the “always and everywhere” teachings that I mentioned. Remember when I mentioned that in the pm and you had no clue what I was talking about? You thought I was talking about what the laity believed (and you ridiculed it), and I had to clarify that I was talking about what the Church teaches? Remember that? It seems like through you recent studies you are finally seeing what I said to you days ago.

If the Pope is teaching what has been believed always and everywhere, even if he is only teaching by virtue of the ordinary magisterium, such teachings are to be considered infallible. But as I’m sure you know, any teaching claming that those in error have a right to religious liberty is not a teaching that has been believed always and everywhere, but instead it is a teaching that has been condemned by the Church.

But if he intended to actually define a doctrine for all the faithful to believe (instead of always teach what was taught before), the Holy Spirit prevents the pope from teaching error.

That’s right. That is when Papal Infallibility kicks in.

So what I’m saying is that the pope cannot teach error in teachings connected with the deposit of faith.

True, but it is not always clear what has been believed “always and everywhere”. Sometimes it is clear, but sometimes it is not.

But it certainly does not mean that every teaching that comes from the magisterium is infallible. It doesn’t mean it’s in error either.

The Pope cannot write an encyclical, and turn the infallibility charism, or ordinary universal magisterium button off, and then write such absurdities as “Christ never was resurrected”, the devil does not exist, “yosupman is predestined to heaven”.

OK. The* universal ordinary magisterium* is the ordinary magisterium teaching what has been believed “always and everywhere”. Let me give you an example of when this did not happen. Vatican II was an exercise of the ordinary magisterium. The teaching of Vatican II regarding religious liberty have not been taught always and everywhere. In fact, what it teaches regarding religious liberty is interpreted by just about everyone as being exactly contrary to the teaching of the Church prior to Vatican II, and also the practice of the Church for about 1600 years. Therefore, this teaching, which came from the ordinary magisterium, was not part of the *universal ordinary magisterium *because it had not been taught “always and everywhere”.

 

[yosupman]

This is what you wrote in post #68:

Yosupman: *“The pope cannot teach error on any teaching *that touches faith and morals period”.

Now, if a Pope “cannot teach error” it means he is infallible. But if you say that is not what you meant, I’ll take your word for it.

That is what I told you in our pm discussion. You need to go back and read what I wrote to you there. This is the “universal ordinary magisterium” I spoke of. It is the “always and everywhere” teachings that I mentioned. Remember when I mentioned that in the pm and you had no clue what I was talking about? You thought I was talking about what the laity believed (and you ridiculed it), and I had to clarify that I was talking about what the Church teaches? Remember that? It seems like through you recent studies you are finally seeing what I said to you days ago.

If the Pope is teaching what has been believed always and everywhere, even if he is only teaching by virtue of the ordinary magisterium, such teachings are to be considered infallible. But as I’m sure you know, any teaching claming that those in error have a right to religious liberty is not a teaching that has been believed always and everywhere, but instead it is a teaching that has been condemned by the Church.

That’s right. That is when Papal Infallibility kicks in.

True, but it is not always clear what has been believed “always and everywhere”. Sometimes it is clear, but sometimes it is not.

OK. The* universal* ordinary magisterium is the ordinary magisterium teaching what has been believed “always and everywhere”. Let me give you an example of when this did not happen. Vatican II was an exercise of the ordinary magisterium. The teaching of Vatican II regarding religious liberty have not been taught always and everywhere. In fact, what it teaches regarding religious liberty is interpreted by just about everyone as being exactly contrary to the teaching of the Church prior to Vatican II, and also the practice of the Church for about 1600 years. Therefore, this teaching, which came from the ordinary magisterium, was not part of the *universal *ordinary magisterium because it had not been taught “always and everywhere”.

Ultima,

I’m afraid you’re defeating yourself. If a doctrine is taught always and everywhere, then no teaching of the magisterium would ever contradict that. That would violate the “always and everywhere” part.

I’m tellin’ ya, if you claim Vatican II taught doctrines opposed to the depositum fide, then the church ain’t no mo’.

Dats Dat. (good fellas, after tommy gets wacked)

 

[yosupman]

Ultima,

I’m done wid dis thread. Nice talking to youse.

later,

yosupman

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Hey Ultima Ratio, could you provide me a reading list of encyclicals or other official Church documents discussing religious freedom and/or separation of Church and State? I know about the Syllabus of Errors. It’s clear to me that you have a lot more information than I do on this topic, and I would like to have more.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Hey Ultima Ratio, could you provide me a reading list of encyclicals or other official Church documents discussing religious freedom and/or separation of Church and State? I know about the Syllabus of Errors. It’s clear to me that you have a lot more information than I do on this topic, and I would like to have more.

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

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Ultima,

I’m afraid you’re defeating yourself. If a doctrine is taught always and everywhere, then no teaching of the magisterium would ever contradict that. That would violate the “always and everywhere” part.

I’m tellin’ ya, if you claim Vatican II taught doctrines opposed to the depositum fide, then the church ain’t no mo’.

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.

One last point: You need to get a better understanding of the levels of authority, and infallibility, of the magisterium. I say that, because if you have a wrong understanding of the magisterium, you could really be shaken when you see something happen that you considered impossible (due to your incorrect understanding of infallibility). This has already happened once in this thread. You said it was impossible for a Pope to teach error in a sermon, yet, as I showed you, John XXII did just that.

I can tell that your understanding of the magisterium is improving, but you are still a little off base on infallibility, and the distinction between the ordinary and universal ordinary magisterium.

Personally, if a Pope came out and declared that Vatican II was heretical, it would not shake my faith on iota, since the novelties of Vatican II are not protected by the charism of infallibility.

I’ll end with a quote to prove, beyond a shaddow of a doubt, that Vatican II taught “new doctrines” (doctrines that have **not **been believed alwas and everywhere).

John Paul II: Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circumstances. **Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church **(Ecclesia Dei).

If some of the doctrines of Vatican II are “new”, as John Paul II said, then obviously they have not been believed “always and everywhere”. Therefore, they are not part of the universal ordinary magisterium. This shows that not all that is taught by the ordinary magisterium is part of the universal ordinary magisterium; yet only those doctrines that are part of the universal ordinary magisterium (the deposit of faith) are to be considered infallible.

yosupman:

Ultima,

I’m done wid dis thread. Nice talking to youse.

OK, thanks for the good conversation.