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

[diggerdomer]

There was a 10 year debate on religious liberty that took place in the American Ecclesiastical Review primarily between Fr. Fenton and Fr. Murray. Fr. Murray eventually came under suspicion from Rome for his position, and near the end of the debate was forbidden from teaching it. Fr. Murray actually submitted some of his writings to Rome on this topic and they were rejected by Pius XII. During the debate, Fr. Fenton defended the position of the Church. When you read the debates, Fr. Fenton repeatedly said what he was teaching was simply that which was being taught in all of the theological manuals being used int he seminaries. Fr. Murray never disputed that issue, but personally had his own ideas on the subject. Fr. Fenton was selected as the peritus of Cardinal Ottaviani at Vatican II.

Below are the links to scanned copies of the debates in American Ecclesiastical Review.

The first link is to a speech given by Cardinal Ottaviani on religious liberty. The debate he refers to in this speech is the debate that took place in the American Ecclesiastical Review.

CHURCH AND STATE, Cardinal Ottaviani

The Catholic Church & Freedom of Religion - Fenton

Reply to Fr. Murray (Religious Liberty, Church and State) (Connell)

Toleration and the Church-State Controversy (Fenton)

The Teachings of Ci Riesce (re. Religious Liberty) - Fenton

Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Catholic Polemic and Doctrinal Accuracy (re. Religious Liberty)

Ci Riesce and Cardinal Ottaviani’s Discourse (Di Meglio)

POST TAM DIUTURNAS, Against “religious liberty” (Pius VII)

If anyone wants more, let me know.

But of course, after all those instances you referred to, Vatican II happened. Fr. Murray was a peritus there, too, and considered very influential and significantly responsible for what Vatican II taught in Dignitatis Humanae. So it seems the Church continued to teach beyond the 1950s.

 

[Glenoy]

Question: In a recently appeared book, Econe, How To Resolve The Tragedy, Fr. de Margerie advises you to reconcile with Rome, in effect, by accepting what you have always rejected. What do you think?
**
Archbishop Lefebvre**: I do not personally know Fr. de Margerie. He is full of contradictions. It is clear he is highly embarrassed when it comes to defending religious liberty and stating that it is in conformity with Tradition, that there is no rupture. That is an untenable position. Because the leaders of the Conciliar Church, its most outstanding personalities, like for instance the Rector of the University of the Lateran, or, Msgr. Pavan, who is an important man in Rome (it is he who virtually wrote all of the popes’ social encyclicals), openly said in May last year at the Congress of Venice, concerning religious liberty: “Yes, something has changed.” Others like Cardinal Ratzinger and theologians who have written numerous works on the question strive to prove that the doctrine of Religious Liberty is in continuity with Tradition. In the old days, Liberty was always held in essential relation to Truth. Now, Liberty is related to the human conscience. This means leaving the choice of Truth up to one’s conscience. That is the death of the Church. It means introducing the poison of the Revolution, when the Rights of Man are approved by the Church. At least the rector of the University of the Lateran and Msgr. Pavan recognize the fact. The others will say what they like in an effort to keep us quiet. But there it is, written black on white: “The State, civil society, is radically incapable of knowing which is the True Religion.” The whole history of the Church, ever since Our Lord, rises up in protest against such a statement. What about Joan of Arc and the saints and all the princes and kings who were saints, who defended the Church —were they incapable of discerning the True Religion? One wonders how anyone can write such enormities!

Then Rome’s replies to our objections which we sent to Rome through intermediaries all tended to demonstrate that there was no change, but just continuity of Tradition. These statements are worse than those of the Council’s Declaration on Religious Liberty. It is truly officialdom telling lies.

So long as in Rome they stay attached to the ideas of the Council: religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality …they are going the wrong way. It is serious because it results in practical consequences. That is what justifies the Pope’s visiting Cuba. The Pope visits or receives in audience Communist leaders who are torturers or assassins, or who have Christians’ blood on their hands, just as if they were as honest as normal men.

This is from the interview one year after the consecrations.

 

[yosupman]

This is from the interview one year after the consecrations.

Glenoy,

You know an awful lot of theolgians, and documents, and schools of thought on religious liberty. Do you think that God expects the average layman working to support this family to keep up on all you know? It’s virtually impossible for the average working man to know all of this. You talk about this “Conciliar” theologian, and that theologian, and this and dat and dis and dat and dat and dis.

Glenoy, what would we do, if this “Vatican II” council had happened in 1734? Then how in the world would the average layman, “dissent”. He wouldn’t even near have the tools you have at your disposal today. No, back in 1734 the average good Catholic obeyed the church. Period. And also there was no time for foolish disputing. The average Catholic worked hard, and supported his family.

You accept the past when it comes to religious liberty, why not accept the past when it pertains to obeying the Pope?

Just a thought.

 

[Glenoy]

Yosupman,

I have heard when I was a child that Vatican II was controversial.

And just this year, last March, I came across this site and some of those traditional catholic websites. From then on I frequently visit this Catholic Action Forum to read the exchanges of ideas regarding TLM and the New Mass.

I would like to say that I am no expert on religious matters. In fact, what I am studying in college now is BS Marine Transportation to become a seafarer, a ship captain, to see the world free. But I learned a lot from you here, especially your exchanges of ideas with Ultima and Ultima versus JReducation.

Glenoy,
Glenoy, what would we do, if this “Vatican II” council had happened in 1734? Then how in the world would the average layman, “dissent”. He wouldn’t even near have the tools you have at your disposal today. No, back in 1734 the average good Catholic obeyed the church. Period. And also there was no time for foolish disputing. The average Catholic worked hard, and supported his family.

You accept the past when it comes to religious liberty, why not accept the past when it pertains to obeying the Pope?

Just a thought.

Allow me to quote the words of Abp. Lefebvre from his suppressed interview because it relates somehow on your post above.

But as the bishops (of old) obeyed the popes of their days, shouldn’t you obey the pope of your day?

Archbishop Lefebvre The bishops do not have to obey the humanist orders that contradict Catholic faith and doctrine as established by Jesus Christ and all the various popes throughout the centuries

QuestionWhat about those bishops who are not liberals but still oppose and criticize you?

Archbishop Lefebvre Their opposition is based on an inaccurate understanding of obedience to the pope. It is, perhaps, a well-meant obedience, which could be traced to the ultramontane obedience of the last century, which in those days was good because the popes were good. However, today, it is a blind obedience, which has little to do with a practice and acceptance of true Catholic faith.

At this stage it is relevant to remind Catholics allover the world that obedience to the pope is not a primary virtue.

The hierarchy of virtues starts with the three theological virtues of faith, hope and charity followed by the four cardinal virtues of justice, temperance, prudence and fortitude. Obedience is a derivative of the cardinal virtue of justice. Therefore it is far from ranking first in the hierarchy of virtues.

Certain bishops do not wish to give the slightest impression that they are opposed to the holy father. I understand how they feel. It is evidently very unpleasant, if not very painful.

I certainly do not like to be in opposition to the holy father, but I have no choice considering what is coming to us from Rome at present, which is in opposition to the Catholic doctrine and is unacceptable to Catholics.

Question: How can you be loyal to the church and disobedient to the pope?

Archbishop Lefebvre: One must understand the meaning of obedience and must distinguish between blind obedience and the virtue of obedience. Indiscriminate obedience is actually a sin against the virtue of obedience.

So if we disobey in order to practice the virtue of obedience rather than submit to unlawful commands contrary to Catholic moral teachings, all one has to do is to consult any Catholic theology books to realize we are not sinning against the virtue of obedience.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

But I learned a lot from you here, especially your exchanges of ideas with Ultima and Ultima versus JReducation.

Where did Ultima and JReducation dispute, and was it about the level of submission we owe Vatican II? If it was about the infallibility of the council or the degree of authority it exerted, I would be very interested in reading that conversation, as I greatly respect both posters and their knowledge.

 

[yosupman]

Yosupman,

I have heard when I was a child that Vatican II was controversial.

 

[Glenoy]

Where did Ultima and JReducation dispute, and was it about the level of submission we owe Vatican II? If it was about the infallibility of the council or the degree of authority it exerted, I would be very interested in reading that conversation, as I greatly respect both posters and their knowledge.

HHhmm I would like to begin first by saying that I did not use the word “dispute”. I just described it as exchange of ideas because I do not want to sound that there is someone who is trying win as the word “dispute” connotes.

You can find in the thread entitled “Why do some traditionalist deny the Holocaust?” where Ultima Ratio and JReducation shared to us their ideas. Like many of the threads here, the main topic was dragged to “Outside of the Church there is no salvation” and “invincible ignorance”. Sorry I can not recall if they touched about Vatican Council II. I guess they did not.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

HHhmm I would like to begin first by saying that I did not use the word “dispute”. I just described it as exchange of ideas because I do not want to sound that there is someone who is trying win as the word “dispute” connotes.

You can find in the thread entitled “Why do some traditionalist deny the Holocaust?” where Ultima Ratio and JReducation shared to us their ideas. Like many of the threads here, the main topic was dragged to “Outside of the Church there is no salvation” and “invincible ignorance”. Sorry I can not recall if they touched about Vatican Council II. I guess they did not.

We had a back and forth in this thread also.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Okay, thanks.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Okay, thanks.

BTW, I saw the post where you asked why I have a problem with ecumenism, but I haven’t had time to answer. I’ll give you a very short answer.

I have no problem with true ecumenism, which is the process of trying to convert non-Catholics by bringing them into the Church. What I reject is the ecumenism that does not seek to convert the non-Catholics, but instead seeks to build a “big tent” Church that includes Catholics and various forms of unbelievers.

Here’s a good encyclical on true vs. false ecumenism: Mortalium Animos.

Here’s a quote from Cardinal Kasper that defines false ecumenism:

Kasper: “The decision of Vatican II to which the Pope [John Paul II] adheres is absolutely clear: Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.”

 

[yosupman]

BTW, I saw the post where you asked why I have a problem with ecumenism, but I haven’t had time to answer. I’ll give you a very short answer.

I have no problem with true ecumenism, which is the process of trying to convert non-Catholics by bringing them into the Church. What I reject is the ecumenism that does not seek to convert the non-Catholics, but instead seeks to build a “big tent” Church that includes Catholics and various forms of unbelievers.

Here’s a good encyclical on true vs. false ecumenism: Mortalium Animos.

Here’s a quote from Cardinal Kasper that defines false ecumenism:

Kasper: “The decision of Vatican II to which the Pope [John Paul II] adheres is absolutely clear: Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.”

OMG!

This is truly and absolutely scandalous. That statement is pure garbage. It contradicts what the church has always taught, and in truth, contradicts Benedicts VI own views. Pope John Paul II would call that statement an example of irenecism. (excuse the bad spelling). When I personally talk with people of the protestant faith, I always stress, even though we agree, here is were we disagree. I charitably try to speak the truth.

All I can say is, only God knows why the cardinal said that. I don’t even see a reason to debate his stupid statement. Its de facto retarded. Anyone with a mind can see he is on drugs

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

OMG!

This is truly and absolutely scandalous. That statement is pure garbage. It contradicts what the church has always taught, and in truth, contradicts Benedicts VI own views. Pope John Paul II would call that statement an example of irenecism. (excuse the bad spelling). When I personally talk with people of the protestant faith, I always stress, even though we agree, here is were we disagree. I charitably try to speak the truth.

All I can say is, only God knows why the cardinal said that. I don’t even see a reason to debate his stupid statement. Its de facto retarded. Anyone with a mind can see he is on drugs

This Cardinal was appointed by John Paul II as the point-man for ecumenism. He is the President of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity.

 

[yosupman]

This Cardinal was appointed by John Paul II as the point-man for ecumenism. He is the President of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity.

I don’t know what to day. As Paul in “Goodfellas” says to Henry (Ray Liota) this is what it is. Henry was cheating on his wife, and had moved in with his girlfriend. The mobsters could not have this, because it created a bad image. The head boss went to talk to Henry, and told him, ok,…this is what it is, …but you gotta go back…you gotta go back.

What can I say?

 

[yosupman]

BTW, I saw the post where you asked why I have a problem with ecumenism, but I haven’t had time to answer. I’ll give you a very short answer.

I have no problem with true ecumenism, which is the process of trying to convert non-Catholics by bringing them into the Church. What I reject is the ecumenism that does not seek to convert the non-Catholics, but instead seeks to build a “big tent” Church that includes Catholics and various forms of unbelievers.

Here’s a good encyclical on true vs. false ecumenism: Mortalium Animos.

Here’s a quote from Cardinal Kasper that defines false ecumenism:

Kasper: “The decision of Vatican II to which the Pope [John Paul II] adheres is absolutely clear: Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.”

Ultima,

what adress was this? I google the comment, and the only thing that really comes up is the mostholyfamily monastery, which is a bunch of nuts. Give me the talk and the date. I want to see the context. I’ve been looking around the Vatican website, on Walter Kaspers talks, and I can’t find the comment. Nor does it look like he holds those views.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Ultima,

what adress was this? I google the comment, and the only thing that really comes up is the mostholyfamily monastery, which is a bunch of nuts. Give me the talk and the date. I want to see the context. I’ve been looking around the Vatican website, on Walter Kaspers talks, and I can’t find the comment. Nor does it look like he holds those views.

The source is Adisti, from February 26, 2001. After he made the comment, the quote was in many articles. Unfortunately, the link to the document - *adista.it/numeri/adista01/adista16.htm *- no longer works, but you might be able to find it by doing a search. Here’s more of the quote.

Cardinal Kasper: “The decision of Vatican II to which the Pope [John Paul II] adheres is absolutely clear: Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of the ecumenism of return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics’. This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II. Today ecumenism is considered as the common road: all should be converted to the following of Christ, and it is in Christ that we will find ourselves in the end… Even the Pope, among other things, describes ecumenism in Ut unum sint as an exchange of gifts. I think this is very well said: each church has its own riches and gifts of the Spirit, and it is this exchange that unity is trying to be achieved and not the fact that we should become “protestants” or that the others should become “catholics” in the sense of accepting the confessional form of Catholicism”.

Here’s an article with the quote in it, and the former link to the quote.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Here’s a link to the article I meant to include in the last post. The article has the quote and the original link to the source. seattlecatholic.com/article_20040406.html

 

[diggerdomer]

Here’s a link to the article I meant to include in the last post. The article has the quote and the original link to the source. seattlecatholic.com/article_20040406.html

Fundamentally, ecumenism is about Christian unity, not about “converting” other Christians to Catholicism.

If anyone can correct me and show where the Catholic Church teaches that ecumenism is about “converting” other Christians to Catholicism I’d appreciate it. Thanks.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Fundamentally, ecumenism is about Christian unity, not about “converting” other Christians to Catholicism.

Unity that accepts doctrinal differences is not real unity. It is simply pretending the divisions don’t exist. Imagine an earthquake hits a house and cracks split the walls. A painter might come along and put a fresh coat of paint over it all so that it looks united and seamless. But underneath the divisions still exist, only covered up.

However, I believe genuine ecumenism is going to create real unity, because it will show others the truth and clear away misunderstandings we have about their religions and they have about our religion. This will help others to find the truth, provided our theologians don’t fail us and slip from full orthodoxy.

 

[yosupman]

Ok, I’m going to throw in my 6 pennies…

Let’s take the example of the anglicans converting. In order for them to come in the church, they have to accept all the teaching of the church. So ecumenism is a movement of the Holy Spirit to bring a change in people’s hearts to come back to the church. Dats da way I seize it.

 

[diggerdomer]

Unity that accepts doctrinal differences is not real unity. It is simply pretending the divisions don’t exist. Imagine an earthquake hits a house and cracks split the walls. A painter might come along and put a fresh coat of paint over it all so that it looks united and seamless. But underneath the divisions still exist, only covered up.

However, I believe genuine ecumenism is going to create real unity, because it will show others the truth and clear away misunderstandings we have about their religions and they have about our religion. This will help others to find the truth, provided our theologians don’t fail us and slip from full orthodoxy.

I didn’t say anything about unity meaning doctrinal differences are accepted.