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

[diggerdomer]

Governments being based on Catholicism and upholding it as the state religion also is in accord with Reason, and I can explain this if you care to discuss it with me.

.

This would be a fascinating topic to discuss, I’d appreciate evidence you have from current Church teaching (and especially anything from Popes John Paul II or Benedict XVI) but I expect this would be better to open a new thread with if you’re interested as it seems a bit off topic or tangential to this thread.

 

[diggerdomer]

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

Great. Care to elaborate?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

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

We are not obliged to accept all the social justice teachings, and Dignitatis Humanae is one of these. Also, religious freedom is not part of the deposit of faith, therefore we are not required to believe in it. It is certainly not part of Sacred Tradition, which has a continuous presence in Catholic teaching throughout time. A quick review of Catholic history will prove this.

I fully intend to do and believe everything I am obliged to do and believe as a Catholic. And I think I am. If I thought otherwise, I would change my thinking instantly.

diggerdomer:

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

Yes . I will never reject any part of the Catholic faith. I do not see religious freedom as part of the Catholic faith, though. It was not part of the faith passed on by the apostles and the Church never officially taught it before the last half century. Sacred Tradition appears to teach against religious freedom too, if you look at the Church’s teaching and actions on this matter throughout history. Pope John Paul II said that Vatican II had presented “new doctrines” to the Church. He was probably referring to religious freedom, because it has always been condemned by official Church teaching before the last half of the last century.

diggerdomer:

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

"If there is found among you, in any one of the communities which the LORD, your God, gives you, a man or a woman who does evil in the sight of the LORD, your God, and transgresses his covenant, by serving other gods, or by worshiping the sun or the moon or any of the host of the sky, against my command; and if, on being informed of it, you find by careful investigation that it is true and an established fact that this abomination has been committed in Israel: you shall bring the man (or woman) who has done the evil deed out to your city gates and stone him to death.

The testimony of two or three witnesses is required for putting a person to death; no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. At the execution, the witnesses are to be the first to raise their hands against him; afterward all the people are to join in. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.

This is one Bible passage on the matter, one the Church used in the Medieval Ages to justify burning heretics. I could bring up so many Bible passages on this issue, some from the New Testament and others from the Old. But I know you’d just say, “the Church is the only valid interpreter of the Bible,” which I agree with, but then I’d point out that the Church has always and everywhere interpreted these passages as meaning we are justified in punishing heretics under law until the last half century, so this is probably a matter where Sacred Tradition is at work.

The big thing you and I need to get straight is that what we are obliged to believe as Catholics is the whole Despoit of Faith passed on by the apostles throughout history and preserved constantly in Sacred Tradition. No “new doctrine” introduced in Vatican II is binding on the faithful. What is binding on the faithful is the old doctrine, the teachings of the apostles, the teaching Jesus introduced. There is no new public revelation. What the Church has taught for 2,000 years is what we are required to believe, not what her current leaders have introduced in the last 50. Therefore we are not obligated as Catholics to believe in Dignitatis Humanae.

Indeed, the Church herself has placed Dignitatis Humanae in the category of her non-infallible social justice teachings which Catholics are at liberty to reject, though she certainly does not recommend doing this (obviously). We are not obliged to believe in religious freedom. If we were obliged to believe in it, I would. But the Church never will oblige us to because she is protected from the gates of Hell and cannot infallibly teach error.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

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

If I understand Lumen Gentium correctly, we are always obliged to obey the Church’s orders. However, we are not always obliged to believe in her teachings. She has not required Catholics to give the assent of faith to religious freedom, but she has required us to offer her religious submission. The orders she gave in the Fourth Lateran Council also appear to have been given with “religious submission” required but not the “assent of faith.”

I am not saying that Catholics have a greater obligation to heed the Fourth Lateran Council above Vatican II by anything intrinsic to the council. However, I do suspect that religious freedom being an error and governments having a duty to uphold the Catholic faith is part of Sacred Tradition, because it seems to have been “always and everywhere taught,” before the last 50 years, and it may be a doctrine of the faith. If this is the case and these matters are Sacred Tradition, we all have an obligation to adhere to them.

But I’m not saying that either council was speaking infallibly when they gave their decrees on these matters.

diggerdomer:

This would be a fascinating topic to discuss, I’d appreciate evidence you have from current Church teaching (and especially anything from Popes John Paul II or Benedict XVI) but I expect this would be better to open a new thread with if you’re interested as it seems a bit off topic or tangential to this thread.

In the last 50 years, the Church’s leaders have, as I have said, apparently strayed from the Church’s traditional teaching on religious freedom and separation of Church and State. So I don’t have anything from Popes John Paul II or Benedict XVI with which to back my position, though Ultima or I can (and have) pointed to many popes prior to the last 50 years. Indeed, when you look at the Church’s policies as well as her teachings, the position we’ve been presenting was quite clearly the Church’s official teaching for over one and a half thousand years. And when you look at all the Early Church Fathers (though I grant there was some variation among these) and the Bible, you can see this view has been around a lot longer.

diggerdomer:

Great. Care to elaborate?

I already brought up many sources indicating the Fourth Lateran Council’s position may well be part of Sacred Tradition. I brought up Early Church Fathers, Bible passages (or one, though I have several more), popes, the Syllabus of Errors, and of course there is the Fourth Lateran Council itself. I’ve shown several sources showing how this was the Church’s position throughout history before the last 50 years, which indicates that this may well be Sacred Tradition we’re dealing with. So I brought up a lot of reasons already, and I could get into it more by discussing doctrinal issues, the logic and reason, Bible passages, and perhaps more old Church documents and teachings. But I think I may do best here just to stick with the authorities and what they’ve said, as what I think and how I reason or theologically analyze is probably not important.

 

[diggerdomer]

If I understand Lumen Gentium correctly, we are always obliged to obey the Church’s orders. However, we are not always obliged to believe in her teachings. She has not required Catholics to give the assent of faith to religious freedom, but she has required us to offer her religious submission. The orders she gave in the Fourth Lateran Council also appear to have been given with “religious submission” required but not the “assent of faith.”

I am not saying that Catholics have a greater obligation to heed the Fourth Lateran Council above Vatican II by anything intrinsic to the council. However, I do suspect that religious freedom being an error and governments having a duty to uphold the Catholic faith is part of Sacred Tradition, because it seems to have been “always and everywhere taught,” before the last 50 years, and it may be a doctrine of the faith. If this is the case and these matters are Sacred Tradition, we all have an obligation to adhere to them.

But I’m not saying that either council was speaking infallibly when they gave their decrees on these matters.

In the last 50 years, the Church’s leaders have, as I have said, apparently strayed from the Church’s traditional teaching on religious freedom and separation of Church and State. So I don’t have anything from Popes John Paul II or Benedict XVI with which to back my position, though Ultima or I can (and have) pointed to many popes prior to the last 50 years. Indeed, when you look at the Church’s policies as well as her teachings, the position we’ve been presenting was quite clearly the Church’s official teaching for over one and a half thousand years. And when you look at all the Early Church Fathers (though I grant there was some variation among these) and the Bible, you can see this view has been around a lot longer.

I already brought up many sources indicating the Fourth Lateran Council’s position may well be part of Sacred Tradition. I brought up Early Church Fathers, Bible passages (or one, though I have several more), popes, the Syllabus of Errors, and of course there is the Fourth Lateran Council itself. I’ve shown several sources showing how this was the Church’s position throughout history before the last 50 years, which indicates that this may well be Sacred Tradition we’re dealing with. So I brought up a lot of reasons already, and I could get into it more by discussing doctrinal issues, the logic and reason, Bible passages, and perhaps more old Church documents and teachings. But I think I may do best here just to stick with the authorities and what they’ve said, as what I think and how I reason or theologically analyze is probably not important.

I don’t understand where you get the idea that Catholics are not bound by teachings of Ecumenical Councils. Can you clarify? Thanks.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I don’t understand where you get the idea that Catholics are not bound by teachings of Ecumenical Councils. Can you clarify? Thanks.

We are bound to obey the Councils and believe any dogma they define. Everything we are obligated to believe as Catholics is in the deposit of faith, which has been perfectly preserved by Sacred Tradition from the beginning of the Church up to now. If religious freedom was part of the deposit of faith, we would find it supported in Church teachings throughout Catholic history rather than introduced as a “new doctrine” (Pope John Paul II’s description of some of Vatican II’s teaching, almost certainly referring to religious freedom) in the last 50 years, in contradiction of a vast number of official Church documents opposing religious freedom, including those of an ecumenical council.

Pope Paul VI said that Catholics are required to give Vatican II “religious submission,” but not the assent of faith. Therefore we are not required to believe all its teachings.

Also, the Church classifies Dignitatis Humanae as one of its Social Justice teachings. These are non-infallible (unlike Sacred Tradition) and Catholics are at liberty to dissent from them.

 

[diggerdomer]

Pope Paul VI said that Catholics are required to give Vatican II “religious submission,” but not the assent of faith. Therefore we are not required to believe all its teachings.

Are you claiming, then, that Pope Paul VI said Catholics are not obliged to adhere to Vatican II teachings? This strikes me as quite novel. Care to provide any substantive (dare I say “authoritative” or “Magisterial”?) references to support that claim?

I’m not aware of any Catholic Church teaching that says Ecumenical (or General) Councils’ teachings are optional according to individual preferences.

thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

Also, the Church classifies Dignitatis Humanae as one of its Social Justice teachings. These are non-infallible (unlike Sacred Tradition) and Catholics are at liberty to dissent from them.

Where does the Catholic Church classify it as such?

And, what difference does that make?

Whether a teaching is infallibly taught or not is irrelevant, imho, Catholics are still bound by the teachings of Magisterial teaching (especially that of an Ecumenical or General Council).

Care to clarify?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Diggerdomer, canon 752 speaks of the situation where the College of Bishops may wish to speak on an issue of faith and morals without exercising infallibility. It says that in such cases, religious submission is required but not the assent of faith. The following is quoted from the romancatholicism.org site:

Paul VI had already stated in his address concluding the Council the day before that the Council had not “wish[ed] to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements” and therefore was not infallible; Felici went on to explain that Paul VI was making the Council a matter of religious submission, which is the assent given to non-infallible material, as we shall see.

“And last of all it was the most opportune, because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all it sought to meet the pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family. …] We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. …] Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.” (In Spiritu Sancto, Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 738-9)

Paul VI established at the Council’s end that “all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed”. The 1983 Code of Canon Law distinguishes the matter of religious submission from infallible, definitive teaching.

“Can. 752. While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.”

So, “religious submission” is given when the Pope, either alone or with his bishops in a council, does not intend to “proclaim doctrine by a definitive act”: therefore the matter of religious submission is not infallible, which is why it does not require “the assent of faith”.

---

Me again. We are not required to believe non-infallible teachings of an ecumenical council because they are non-infallible. Being non-infallible, they are fallible, and seeing as they can be in error, it would be wrong for the Church to bind Catholics to believe teachings that can be in error. This would be binding us to the mind of men, not to the mind of Christ. For this reason, we are required to give religious submission to non-infallible teachings, submission of mind and intellect so that we do not seek to rebel against the Church and don’t reject the authority of the council, but we are not required to yield these teachings the “assent of faith,” believing whatever the council says. This could risk binding the faithful to believing error, something the Church does not do.

We are required to give the assent of faith to all defined dogmas and to the whole of the Church’s deposit of faith preserved in her Sacred Tradition.

 

[yosupman]

Lief,

Your definitions of “submission of intellect and will” is very novel. Religious submission of intellect and will means that we intelectually accept the teachings as true and put them into practice. It does not mean we give assent of faith as if the teachings are irreformable.

The presumption on a non-infallible teaching is always in favor of the magisterium. The only person who would even think about withholding interior acceptance would be a theologian with the smarts to understand the complexity. But never would a faithful catholic make public his or her “withholding of acceptance”, as the SSPX do, and other “traditional” catholics like John Salza.

Rejecting Vatican II has become a cottage industry over the last 40 years for people like the SSPX, independent priests, all the way to freako sede’s.

In no way should Catholics be rejecting DH in any sense of the word publicaly.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Lief,

Your definitions of “submission of intellect and will” is very novel. Religious submission of intellect and will means that we intelectually accept the teachings as true and put them into practice. It does not mean we give assent of faith as if the teachings are irreformable.

It is impossible to intellectually accept the teachings as true while withholding an interior assent of faith. It’s impossible to accept a teaching as true without believing it’s true, except when lying. “Submission” is not the same word as “acceptance,” which is the word you’re using. Submission is obedience. Acceptance is agreement. One can obey (submit) without agreeing (accept) or believing (assent of faith). Would you please show me where the Church says your interpretation of “submission of intellect and will” is correct? I strongly believe you are accidentally misinterpreting her teaching.

The presumption on a non-infallible teaching is always in favor of the magisterium.

Agreed.

The only person who would even think about withholding interior acceptance would be a theologian with the smarts to understand the complexity.

Where does the Church teach this? I think you’re wrong. Pope Leo XIII said that all the faithful should reject religious freedom, along with the other modern liberal false teachings.

But never would a faithful catholic make public his or her “withholding of acceptance”, as the SSPX do, and other “traditional” catholics like John Salza.

That is not true. St. Irenaeus disagreed with Pope Victor when Pope Victor decided to excommunicate all the churches of Asia. Irenaeus argued with the pope and convinced him he was wrong. Paul also argued with Peter over a matter of Church practice.

During and prior to the Reformation, many bishops and popes committed abuses faithful Catholics worked hard to end in the Church through reform. In every one of these cases, the faithful showed religious submission while withholding the assent of faith in non-infallible matters.

Faithful Catholics are allowed to voice their disagreement with non-infallible Church teaching or practice. Indeed, it can be good for them to do so, for sometimes their speaking out can create positive reform.

Rejecting Vatican II has become a cottage industry over the last 40 years for people like the SSPX, independent priests, all the way to freako sede’s.

You can insult all these people for holding to the teaching the popes have passed on to the Church for over one and a half thousand years, but I certainly won’t agree with you.

I certainly don’t approve of traditionalist groups breaking from the Church though, of course. They would be more helpful to Catholicism using their influence from within the Church to affect reform, rather than abandoning the Church because they think it’s ruled by anti-popes.

In no way should Catholics be rejecting DH in any sense of the word publicaly.

Seeking to affect change in non-infallible teachings that are in error is a good thing, and to do that, one has to speak out. The Church does not restrain Catholics from doing this or say we have no right to. You are interpreting “submission of intellect and will” falsely.

 

[yosupman]

Lief,

I think you’re getting cornfused on terms again.

The term submission of intellect and will implies 2 things:

1. Submission of the intellect

2.) Submission of the will

You are right that a non-infallible teaching is to be obeyed. That is submission of will.

But where you go wrong is on submission of intellect. I again highly suggest you look at Ludwig Ott “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” to understand the classic levels of doctrine, and degrees of acceptance.

Submission of intellect does not mean a teaching is to be obeyed. That is submission of will. Submission of intellect means we interiorly adhere to the teaching, and avoid what-every is contrary to that teaching. As I said, obviously a non-infallible teaching is not “infallible”, and one with the right knowledge an experience could with-hold interior adherence. What I just told you is straight out of Ludwig Otts book.

Now, in the realm of non-infallible teachings there are grades of seriousness. This is made known by the magisterium. This is not made known by theologians, Liberal, or Conservative. Traditional Catholic theologians are not a parallel magisterium, positing judgement on official teachings of the magisterium.

Reformation:

You wrote:

"During and prior to the Reformation, many bishops and popes committed abuses faithful Catholics worked hard to end in the Church through reform. In every one of these cases, the faithful showed religious submission while withholding the assent of faith in non-infallible matters. "

You’re confused on terms again. The church would never ask for assent of faith on a non-infallible teaching. Also you’re confusing abuses with offical exercises of the magisterium. At no time is one permitted to oppose the official magisterium of the church. Also we know the pope or bishop is not impeccable, so that speaks for itself.

Lief Wrote:

"Seeking to affect change in non-infallible teachings that are in error is a good thing, and to do that, one has to speak out. The Church does not restrain Catholics from doing this or say we have no right to. You are interpreting “submission of intellect and will” falsely. "

Who is correcting the pope? A traditional catholic that is using what another pope wrote to refute? On what basis can anyone “judge” the authentic magisterium of the Pope, and on that matter, an ecumenical council? I would dare say only the Pope, and the bishops in union with him posses the charims of infallibility. It is only through them the church has been guaranteed to be indefectible.

I’m sorry, but Lief, it all comes down to two words:

PRIVATE JUDGEMENT

That is just the same as a protestant deciding for himself what is orthodox and what is not. Its for me to decide, not an external infallible authority.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

You know, yosupman, something that bothers me a lot about discussing this topic with you is that you don’t provide sources or quotes for any of what you say. It’s like you’re just telling me to trust you and your opinion as to what the Church means. I’m sure you mean well, but quote Ludwig Ott please, rather than only paraphrasing.

I agree with you that there are levels of authority. I still don’t think you’ve clarified at all the distinction between “submission of the intellect” and “assent of faith.” That is the key point. You have backpeddled a little in that you’re no longer insisting on only a theologian being able to come to a private opinion against the Church’s judgment (I see this as a good thing), and you haven’t shown that “submission of the will” means we can’t express that disagreement when we feel it.

I agree that presumption should be that the Church is teaching correctly, but that does not address people who know enough to move beyond presumption, nor does it explain when people move gain enough knowledge to dispute the Church’s judgment on non-infallible teachings.

Please, if Ludwig Ott’s book discusses these important distinctions, would you provide full quotes from the book?

At no time is one permitted to oppose the official magisterium of the church.

You don’t define “oppose” here. If you mean “disobey,” I won’t argue against that, but if you mean “disagree or express disagreement,” I ask you for your quote and page number.

 

[yosupman]

Here is the code of canon law #752:

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

The “religious submission of intellect and will” means a real internal assent, not a mere external adherence. The original Latin word in Canon 752 is obsequium, which is properly translated, “submission.”

My point Lief - is that by its very nature, the magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit even in teachings that are non-infallible. A teaching that is non-infallible is not opposed to the deposit of faith, because that would be changing the deposit of faith, and making a new definition, and if the magisterium intends to make a new definition and not just teach what was taught before, the charism of infallibility kicks in and the magisterium would be protected from error.

So if you accept a non-infallible teaching, you will never be commiting sin. Because again the church by protection from the Holy Spirit (infallibility) cannot proscribe a pernicious act, such as ordering the faithful to hold doctrines harmful to their salvation in reference to religious liberty.

This is so simple. If a doctrine is not of the deposit of faith, but of a changable nature, by it’s very nature it cannot contradict the deposit of faith. This is thomistic logic. A non-infallible doctrine is non-infallible because its not based directly on the deposit of faith, but would be more of a prudential judgement, or a application of the divine law to a particular period of time.

So do you get it?

I sense that you are not a complete John Bircher. That’s why I’m trying to communicate with you on a normal Catholic level.

My main point with you is, don’t waste your time on getting so excited about DH. It’s not worth it. It’s a truly a temptation of the devil to take you away from prayer, and the word of God, and the sacraments. The devil doesn’t care how he gets you to sin. He’ll use a good thing, like trying to understand your faith (to the point of almost doubting, or getting to focused on tradtional catholicism (to the point of obsession).

Ya know, Fredrick Von Hayek wrote a book called the Road to Serfdom. It was about those on the left (commies) are really no different than those on the ultra right (facists). That’s the same thing with the Catholic faith. If we go too far to the right, and are more Catholic than the pope, then we can just as easily fall to sin.

Again, maybe this doesn’t apply to you, but there are a lot of guys (especially) that get so worked up about the Latin mass, vatican II, religious liberty, bla bla bla, when its almost an obssession. They start by reading Detrich Von Hildebrand - the Devastated Vinyard, the Michael Davies, then Michael Matt, then John Birch, then the Militia from Kansas (or idaho if you prefer).

I know you hate it when I don’t have a reference, then 5 paragraphs of text for every assertion. I bet you search the internet for sites, and documents to support your ultra-trad position in oposing vatican II, staying up till wee hours in the morning.

It’s ok to be a tradtional Catholic (obviously), but its not ok to oppose the magisterium to the point of spending a significant amount of time on the subject.

 

[diggerdomer]

Diggerdomer, canon 752 speaks of the situation where the College of Bishops may wish to speak on an issue of faith and morals without exercising infallibility. It says that in such cases, religious submission is required but not the assent of faith. The following is quoted from the romancatholicism.org site:

Paul VI had already stated in his address concluding the Council the day before that the Council had not “wish[ed] to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements” and therefore was not infallible; Felici went on to explain that Paul VI was making the Council a matter of religious submission, which is the assent given to non-infallible material, as we shall see.

“And last of all it was the most opportune, because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all it sought to meet the pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family. …] We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. …] Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.” (In Spiritu Sancto, Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 738-9)

Paul VI established at the Council’s end that “all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed”. The 1983 Code of Canon Law distinguishes the matter of religious submission from infallible, definitive teaching.

“Can. 752. While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.”

So, “religious submission” is given when the Pope, either alone or with his bishops in a council, does not intend to “proclaim doctrine by a definitive act”: therefore the matter of religious submission is not infallible, which is why it does not require “the assent of faith”.

---

Me again. We are not required to believe non-infallible teachings of an ecumenical council because they are non-infallible. Being non-infallible, they are fallible, and seeing as they can be in error, it would be wrong for the Church to bind Catholics to believe teachings that can be in error. This would be binding us to the mind of men, not to the mind of Christ. For this reason, we are required to give religious submission to non-infallible teachings, submission of mind and intellect so that we do not seek to rebel against the Church and don’t reject the authority of the council, but we are not required to yield these teachings the “assent of faith,” believing whatever the council says. This could risk binding the faithful to believing error, something the Church does not do.

We are required to give the assent of faith to all defined dogmas and to the whole of the Church’s deposit of faith preserved in her Sacred Tradition.

I think you’re conflating a number of complex issues and terms in a way that might be confusing.

Btw, I was asking where the Church declared (as you claimed) that Dignitatis Humanae is one of the Church’s “social teachings” and therefore non-infallible. I don’t think you clarified that?

I strongly disagree with your claim that Catholics are not required to “believe” so-called “non-infallible” teachings of an ecumenical council. You seem to confuse (1) teachings that are taught infallibly and (2) teachings that are binding on Catholics.

I am concerned that one could get the impression from what you wrote that there are some minimum beliefs that all Catholics have to hold/believe, but the majority of teachings that don’t fit those (what?) criteria are open to the individual to decide if they want to adhere to/believe in them or not.

In some ways, this may be semantics, depending on how one understands the nuances of the terms used in the canons you noted. The point of these distinctions is to distinguish the teachings with regard to how central they are to the “deposit of faith” and not to suggest that there are optional teachings of the Magisterium that individual Catholics are free to accept or not.

I guess in the end I’m confused on:

For this reason, we are required to give religious submission to non-infallible teachings, submission of mind and intellect so that we do not seek to rebel against the Church and don’t reject the authority of the council, but we are not required to yield these teachings the “assent of faith,” believing whatever the council says.

If Catholic don’t believe what an ecumenical Council teaches, how is that not a rejection?

Just because something has not been taught infallibly does not mean it’s not true, or that it’s not completely binding in faith on Catholics.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Yosupman, I’m afraid there seems little point to our discussing this further. In my last two posts, especially the last one, I asked you to show me direct quotes from official Church sources or Ludwig Ott’s book backing what you’ve been saying. I don’t believe that everything you’ve been saying is in fact Church teaching. The canon law yes, and I brought up exactly the same canon law earlier and talked about it. You have refused to prove that what you’ve been saying is Church teaching and instead have merely responded with what sounds to me like your own opinions.

I’m planning to buy Ludwig Ott’s book myself and read it. I’m frustrated that you haven’t given me quotes from sources other than yourself to resolve the important distinctions and issues I raised in my last post. I want to be completely united with the Church’s teaching, without any division, and your giving me more and more of your own opinions and saying they’re the Church’s, just telling me essentially to trust you is unacceptable to me. I need actual documentation, quotes from Ludwig Ott’s book or from official Church documents explaining crucial points like the distinction between submission of the intellect and assent of faith, and what limits exist, if any, on verbally expressing disagreement with non-infallible Church teaching. And also how much knowledge a person is required by the Church to have before they are allowed to disagree (you seem to have argued that there is a set amount of knowledge people must have before they’re allowed to withhold assent of faith, such as that a person must be a theologian). I personally doubt the Church has set any litmus test of knowledge a Catholic must have before they are allowed to validly withhold assent of faith from a non-infallible teaching.

And you seem to have again repeated that every doctrine the Church gives, whether fallible or infallible, is in fact infallible- that the Holy Spirit guides every non-infallible document so that they will not err. I say that based on this:

yosupman:

If a doctrine is not of the deposit of faith, but of a changable nature, by it’s very nature it cannot contradict the deposit of faith.

You don’t allow any distinction between infallibility and its absence. As I understand it, that is contrary to the mind of the Church.

Because you just keep giving me your opinions, opinions I think are wrong, and you refuse to back them with Church documents, I don’t know if there’s any point in our proceeding further with the conversation. But you can be assured that I plan to read Ludwig Ott’s book and get to the root of these issues to the best of my ability.

By the way, your last post was somewhat presumptuous when you suggested that my studying this issue is interfering with my relationship with God. Your post before it was also presumptuous, when you said I am relying on private judgment and behaving like a Protestant. I have felt similarly about your posts, feeling that you rely too heavily on private judgment, misunderstanding how Church authority functions and refusing to try supporting your (in my opinion) wrong opinions with Church documents. That irritates me a lot. But I know you are sincerely trying to present what you believe the Church’s teaching is, and you are seeking to be united with the mind of the Church. Therefore I don’t have a right to accuse you. Those that seek the truth are blessed . Besides which, Jesus has called on me not to judge you (Matt 7:1).

We both are trying to be fully united with the teaching of the Church. If we are to continue the conversation, we should do so by pooling direct quotes from Church documents, or Ludwig Ott (whose work I have very great respect for), discussing the key issues. Bringing personal attacks and accusations into the conversation is not going to do either of us any good.

I suspect we’re at an impasse and I would do best to just read Ludwig Ott’s book myself, as you’ve been recommending .

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Btw, I was asking where the Church declared (as you claimed) that Dignitatis Humanae is one of the Church’s “social teachings” and therefore non-infallible. I don’t think you clarified that?

That’s what I was taught in RCIA. But I know this from much more than that.

Pope Paul VI said the council didn’t define any new dogmas, so we know the Extraordinary Magesterium was not active. We know the Ordinary Universal Magesterium was not active either, for religious freedom certainly has not been taught always and everywhere in the Church. Which means it is not preserved in Sacred Tradition and is not part of the deposit of faith all Catholics are required to adhere to. The council members said that there were no new dogmas defined in the Church.

We are not required to only believe in the dogmas but in the whole deposit of faith. However, it is plain that this is not part of the deposit of faith as religious freedom has certainly not been taught always and everywhere. Rather, its reverse has, until the last 50 years.

I strongly disagree with your claim that Catholics are not required to “believe” so-called “non-infallible” teachings of an ecumenical council. You seem to confuse (1) teachings that are taught infallibly and (2) teachings that are binding on Catholics.

This is not a confusion. Pope Paul VI said we are required to give the teachings of the council “religious submission of intellect and will.” Canon Law says that sometimes the College of Bishops will proclaim, through the Ordinary Magesterium, teachings that we are required to obey with religious submission of intellect and will. The same canon law says we are not required to yield to such teachings the assent of faith. In other words, we are not required to believe in them.

Dignitatis Humanae was not part of Sacred Tradition. You look back at our history and it certainly is not present throughout most of it. Some of the Early Church Fathers believed in it, while others didn’t. That’s about as much of a historical backing for religious freedom one can find when looking backward beyond the last 50 years.

I am concerned that one could get the impression from what you wrote that there are some minimum beliefs that all Catholics have to hold/believe, but the majority of teachings that don’t fit those (what?) criteria are open to the individual to decide if they want to adhere to/believe in them or not.

That would not be true. We are required to believe all that is in the deposit of faith, carried on by Sacred Tradition. Only if you look at our Church history, it is plain that religious freedom is not part of this.

In some ways, this may be semantics, depending on how one understands the nuances of the terms used in the canons you noted. The point of these distinctions is to distinguish the teachings with regard to how central they are to the “deposit of faith” and not to suggest that there are optional teachings of the Magisterium that individual Catholics are free to accept or not.

We are not required to give these teachings the “assent of faith.” That is what the canon law says and you can’t change that. We are not, therefore, required to believe in these non-infallible teachings.

I guess in the end I’m confused on:

Lief: For this reason, we are required to give religious submission to non-infallible teachings, submission of mind and intellect so that we do not seek to rebel against the Church and don’t reject the authority of the council, but we are not required to yield these teachings the “assent of faith,” believing whatever the council says.

If Catholic don’t believe what an ecumenical Council teaches, how is that not a rejection?

The Church has the right to decide what level of authority it is speaking with, when it assembles in an ecumenical council, and this council said repeatedly that it is only a pastoral council speaking through the authority of the Ordinary Magesterium. This shows us what level of authority it is speaking with. That is the authority to which we are obliged to show “religious submission of mind and will,” as Pope Paul VI said when discussing the council’s authority, but according to canon law we are not bound to give the pastoral council the assent of faith. Though the Church has encouraged us to do so.

Just because something has not been taught infallibly does not mean it’s not true, or that it’s not completely binding in faith on Catholics.

If it’s part of Sacred Tradition and the Deposit of Faith, it is completely binding, whether it’s been defined as a dogma or not. These teachings are infallible, even though they aren’t infallibly defined. Uniting ourselves with the infallible is uniting ourselves with the mind of Christ. But the Church would not bind us to give assent of faith to the fallible, because this is forcing us into unity with the mind of man, a mind that can make mistakes. Christ would not force his people to surrender themselves to error.

Religious Freedom definitely doesn’t qualify as Sacred Tradition, as you can see wherever and whenever you look back at Church history before the last 50 years.

Just because something has not been taught infallibly does not mean it’s not true

I definitely agree with this. The Ordinary Magesterium can offer non-infallible teachings that are completely true. Indeed, we should, as yosupman said, give the Magesterium a presumption of truth when it’s speaking in its non-infallible capacity. I only withhold my assent of faith with the greatest sadness, and because what I believe is true leads me to feel I have no choice.

 

[otjm]

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

Please cite the paragraph where this is said.

 

[diggerdomer]

That’s what I was taught in RCIA. But I know this from much more than that.

Pope Paul VI said the council didn’t define any new dogmas, so we know the Extraordinary Magesterium was not active. We know the Ordinary Universal Magesterium was not active either, for religious freedom certainly has not been taught always and everywhere in the Church. Which means it is not preserved in Sacred Tradition and is not part of the deposit of faith all Catholics are required to adhere to. The council members said that there were no new dogmas defined in the Church.

We are not required to only believe in the dogmas but in the whole deposit of faith. However, it is plain that this is not part of the deposit of faith as religious freedom has certainly not been taught always and everywhere. Rather, its reverse has, until the last 50 years.

This is not a confusion. Pope Paul VI said we are required to give the teachings of the council “religious submission of intellect and will.” Canon Law says that sometimes the College of Bishops will proclaim, through the Ordinary Magesterium, teachings that we are required to obey with religious submission of intellect and will. The same canon law says we are not required to yield to such teachings the assent of faith. In other words, we are not required to believe in them.

Dignitatis Humanae was not part of Sacred Tradition. You look back at our history and it certainly is not present throughout most of it. Some of the Early Church Fathers believed in it, while others didn’t. That’s about as much of a historical backing for religious freedom one can find when looking backward beyond the last 50 years.

That would not be true. We are required to believe all that is in the deposit of faith, carried on by Sacred Tradition. Only if you look at our Church history, it is plain that religious freedom is not part of this.

We are not required to give these teachings the “assent of faith.” That is what the canon law says and you can’t change that. We are not, therefore, required to believe in these non-infallible teachings.

The Church has the right to decide what level of authority it is speaking with, when it assembles in an ecumenical council, and this council said repeatedly that it is only a pastoral council speaking through the authority of the Ordinary Magesterium. This shows us what level of authority it is speaking with. That is the authority to which we are obliged to show “religious submission of mind and will,” as Pope Paul VI said when discussing the council’s authority, but according to canon law we are not bound to give the pastoral council the assent of faith. Though the Church has encouraged us to do so.

If it’s part of Sacred Tradition and the Deposit of Faith, it is completely binding, whether it’s been defined as a dogma or not. These teachings are infallible, even though they aren’t infallibly defined. Uniting ourselves with the infallible is uniting ourselves with the mind of Christ. But the Church would not bind us to give assent of faith to the fallible, because this is forcing us into unity with the mind of man, a mind that can make mistakes. Christ would not force his people to surrender themselves to error.

Religious Freedom definitely doesn’t qualify as Sacred Tradition, as you can see wherever and whenever you look back at Church history before the last 50 years.

I definitely agree with this. The Ordinary Magesterium can offer non-infallible teachings that are completely true. Indeed, we should, as yosupman said, give the Magesterium a presumption of truth when it’s speaking in its non-infallible capacity. I only withhold my assent of faith with the greatest sadness, and because what I believe is true leads me to feel I have no choice.

This really sounds to me as though you’re justifying an individual’s option to pick and choose what to believe/adhere to (choose your verb…let’s not get lost in canonical semantics). I hope that’s not the case. There’s no higher teaching authority in the Catholic Church than an ecumenical council.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

This really sounds to me as though you’re justifying an individual’s option to pick and choose what to believe/adhere to (choose your verb…let’s not get lost in canonical semantics). I hope that’s not the case.

We cannot pick and choose what parts of our faith we will adhere to. However, Religious Freedom is not part of the deposit of faith. Sacred Tradition preserves the Deposit of Faith. Religious Freedom is contradictory to more than one and a half thousand years of official Church teaching and has no place in Tradition for most of our history. Therefore it cannot justly be described as part of our Sacred Tradition. In fact, until the last 50 years, its reverse has been taught “always and everywhere.” If Religious Freedom was part of the Deposit of Faith, we would see it taught in our history, not condemned by our highest authorities and officially rejected again and again for well over a thousand years.

There’s no higher teaching authority in the Catholic Church than an ecumenical council.

The Church can choose what level of authority it wants to teach with when it’s gathering in an ecumenical council. Ecumenical Councils don’t always act with the same level of authority. Vatican II chose to act in the authority of the Ordinary Magesterium, according to Pope Paul VI, not the Extraordinary. Therefore this council did not choose to use the power of the “highest teaching authority of the Catholic Church.” One of our recent popes said the council chose not to use an extraordinary dogmas because it wanted to speak with ordinary man on his own level, rather than talking down to him through infallibility.