L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
Okay, great 
. I was obviously reading too much into part of what you said. Sorry.
. I was obviously reading too much into part of what you said. Sorry.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Can Vatican II's Teaching on Religious Liberty Be Reconciled with Tradition?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
U
Ultima_Ratio
Guest
True ecumenism is about converting the non-Catholics and bringing them into the Catholic Church “outside of which there is no salvation”. Protestants, Orthodox, and other non-Catholic “Christians” are heretics. Even though the term Christian is used for them, in reality they are not real Christians, any more than the Arians, Nestorians, or any other heretical group was. These heretics must renounced all of their errors and enter into the One Holy Catholic Church if they desire to be saved (and let’s please not discuss the “exceptions”). These heretical groups are enemies of Christ, and there can be no Christian unity with them, unless they renouncing all of their errors and entering into the Church. In other words, they have to convert. If they don’t they will spend their eternity with the Arians, Nestorians, Pelagians and all of the other heretics.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.
A good encyclical to read on this subject is Mortalium Aminos. It was in 1928 in response to the new ecumenical movement that had begun. It is a must read for today.
Here’s how it begins:
Mortalium Animos: "Never perhaps in the past have we seen, as we see in these our own times, the minds of men so occupied by the desire both of strengthening and of extending to the common welfare of human society that fraternal relationship which binds and unites us together, and which is a consequence of our common origin and nature…
A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that **one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion. **
- But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians.
- Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be “one.”[1] And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another”?[2] All Christians, they add, should be as “one”: for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength.** These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify**; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed. …
G
Glenoy
Guest
Hello Ultima Ratio,
Could you consider me to backtrack a little about Religious Liberty?
In your post #197 you tried to understand Religious Liberty in light of Tradition. It was very good, and I gained new knowledge if the document has to be read that way.
However, I come across an article with the interview of Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais. Here is the quote:
Thanks.
Could you consider me to backtrack a little about Religious Liberty?
In your post #197 you tried to understand Religious Liberty in light of Tradition. It was very good, and I gained new knowledge if the document has to be read that way.
However, I come across an article with the interview of Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais. Here is the quote:
And now, Ultima, like in the previous posts you tried to understand Religious Liberty in light of tradition, can you share your knowledge how this document would be like if we are to “read and understand it as the modern theologians who drafted the documents understand it”?Rather than read Vatican II in light of Tradition, we really should read and interpret Vatican II in light of the new philosophy. We must read and understand the Council in its real meaning, that is to say, according to the new philosophy. Because all these theologians who produced the texts of Vatican II were imbued with the new philosophy. We must read it this way, not to accept it, but to understand it as the modern theologians who drafted the documents understand it. To read Vatican II in light of Tradition is not to read it correctly. It means to bend, to twist the texts. I do not want to twist the texts.
Thanks.
R
Rogerteder
Guest
Father Most wrote an article comparing Vatican II’s teaching with prior teaching. He does a pretty good job reconciling the two.
Here is Most:
ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE AND THE DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
by Fr. William Most
Lefebvre that the of Vatican II,
, contradicted teachings of Gregory
XVI, Pius IX, and Leo XIII, we will make a careful comparison of texts.
Magisterium level is infallible. Such seems to be the case with the
teaching of these three Popes. Hence, no matter on what level Vatican II,
was teaching in this Declaration, the charge amounts to a charge that a
general council taught heresy. Then the promises of Christ would be at
least largely void.
things, especially in this matter. God has made two promises, to protect
the teaching of the Church, and to give free will to humans. At times He
needs, as it were, to walk a tight line to carry out both. Therefore, in
some texts - such as some of those below - we may suspect that the Pope had
in his mind more strenuous things than what he set down on paper, we must
say that <only the things put down on paper are protected by Divine
Providence - not all what he may or may not have had in his mind.>
Gregory XVI, in of August 15, 1832. DS 2730: “We now continue
with a most fertile cause of evils by which we deplore that the Church at
present is being afflicted, that is, indifferentism, or that evil opinion.
. . . that by any profession of faith whatsoever, the eternal salvation of
the soul can be attained, if morals are kept to the norm of the right and
good. . . . And from this must putrid font of indifferentism flows that
absurd and erroneous view or rather insanity, that liberty of conscience
should be asserted and claimed for just anyone.”
difference what faith one professes. But it does not mean
that all Protestants are certainly damned - that would be the error of
Feeney. Rather, one may be saved not by just any profession of faith, but
a wrong one. Even Pius IX, famed for his strong words against
indifferentism, insisted that “God. . . in His supreme goodness and
clemency by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments
who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault.” (, Aug 10, 1863: DS 2966). The second sentence merely
rejects the idea that one has a to be in error. A right is a claim,
ultimately coming from God, to have, to do, or to call for something. God
surely gives no one a claim to be wrong. Vatican II, as we shall see,
merely asserts one has a right not to be put in prison etc. for being
wrong.
suspect Gregory XVI might have had in mind more drastic ideas than what he
put down on paper.
Pius IX, , Dec. 8, 1864. *** 3. 162: [We have added numbers
for convenience in commenting]".
that impious and absurd principle of what is called naturalism, dare to
teach, ‘that the best state of public society and civil progress absolutely
requires that human society should be so constituted and governed, that
there is no consideration of religion, as if it [religion] did not exist,
or at least with no distinction made between true and false religions.’"
as a quotation, but the gives no source for it. It
seems, then, that it was framed precisely to be a condemned and false
proposition. Such condemned propositions are normally declared false if
even one thing is wrong with them.
worship God, and in the way He has made known that He wills. Therefore to
ignore religion is wrong. (b)For the same reason, the state should make its
own the true religion, and not treat all religions indiscriminately. This
need not mean repression of false religions.
Catholic doctrine about the moral duty of men towards the
true religion and the one Church of Christ." This means, of course, an
established Church. As we said, it would not imply repression of other
churches. Even pagan Greece and Rome realized that the state as a state
needs God’s help: hence the state as a state must worship God. We add: If
God makes known which way He wills to be worshipped, of course we must
follow it.
we have legal positivism, which means that the state does not know what is
morally right or wrong: all it can do is make things right or wrong by
passing laws. So today it gives special favor to homosexuality! (b)We may
ask: has history shown that the state is really incapable of determining
what God wills, what is the true religion? Such ignorance could excuse the
state from this duty. We think of the horrors of Islamic states such as
Iran, who claim their laws are all ordered by God! And in ages when there
was union of Church and State, it usually meant domination of the Church by
the civil power. - Difficult choice!
Here is Most:
ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE AND THE DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
by Fr. William Most
Code:
Because of the claims, and subsequent schism, made by Archbishop, contradicted teachings of Gregory
XVI, Pius IX, and Leo XIII, we will make a careful comparison of texts.
Code:
We must add that something taught repeatedly on the Ordinaryteaching of these three Popes. Hence, no matter on what level Vatican II,
was teaching in this Declaration, the charge amounts to a charge that a
general council taught heresy. Then the promises of Christ would be at
least largely void.
Code:
It is of capital importance to use <sound theological method> in allthe teaching of the Church, and to give free will to humans. At times He
needs, as it were, to walk a tight line to carry out both. Therefore, in
some texts - such as some of those below - we may suspect that the Pope had
in his mind more strenuous things than what he set down on paper, we must
say that <only the things put down on paper are protected by Divine
Providence - not all what he may or may not have had in his mind.>
Code:
A) TEXTS OF THE THREE POPESwith a most fertile cause of evils by which we deplore that the Church at
present is being afflicted, that is, indifferentism, or that evil opinion.
. . . that by any profession of faith whatsoever, the eternal salvation of
the soul can be attained, if morals are kept to the norm of the right and
good. . . . And from this must putrid font of indifferentism flows that
absurd and erroneous view or rather insanity, that liberty of conscience
should be asserted and claimed for just anyone.”
Code:
COMMENTS: The first sentence merely means that it does make athat all Protestants are certainly damned - that would be the error of
Feeney. Rather, one may be saved not by just any profession of faith, but
a wrong one. Even Pius IX, famed for his strong words against
indifferentism, insisted that “God. . . in His supreme goodness and
clemency by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments
who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault.” (, Aug 10, 1863: DS 2966). The second sentence merely
rejects the idea that one has a to be in error. A right is a claim,
ultimately coming from God, to have, to do, or to call for something. God
surely gives no one a claim to be wrong. Vatican II, as we shall see,
merely asserts one has a right not to be put in prison etc. for being
wrong.
Code:
The vehemence, and almost emotional quality of the language, makes oneput down on paper.
Pius IX, , Dec. 8, 1864. *** 3. 162: [We have added numbers
for convenience in commenting]".
Code:
1."For you know well. . . that there are not a few, who. . . applyingteach, ‘that the best state of public society and civil progress absolutely
requires that human society should be so constituted and governed, that
there is no consideration of religion, as if it [religion] did not exist,
or at least with no distinction made between true and false religions.’"
Code:
COMMENTS: Pius IX here condemns a proposition, which is printedseems, then, that it was framed precisely to be a condemned and false
proposition. Such condemned propositions are normally declared false if
even one thing is wrong with them.
Code:
This proposition is false because (a) the state as a state shouldignore religion is wrong. (b)For the same reason, the state should make its
own the true religion, and not treat all religions indiscriminately. This
need not mean repression of false religions.
Code:
Vatican II, in DIGNITATIS HUMANAE #1 taught: "It leave untouched the traditionaltrue religion and the one Church of Christ." This means, of course, an
established Church. As we said, it would not imply repression of other
churches. Even pagan Greece and Rome realized that the state as a state
needs God’s help: hence the state as a state must worship God. We add: If
God makes known which way He wills to be worshipped, of course we must
follow it.
Code:
The application of that principle is difficult: (a) In the U. S. todaymorally right or wrong: all it can do is make things right or wrong by
passing laws. So today it gives special favor to homosexuality! (b)We may
ask: has history shown that the state is really incapable of determining
what God wills, what is the true religion? Such ignorance could excuse the
state from this duty. We think of the horrors of Islamic states such as
Iran, who claim their laws are all ordered by God! And in ages when there
was union of Church and State, it usually meant domination of the Church by
the civil power. - Difficult choice!
R
Rogerteder
Guest
Most(Continued)
2.“And they do not hesitate to assert, contrary to the doctrine of
Scripture, the Church, and the holy Fathers that ‘that is the best
condition of society in which the government does not acknowledge the duty
of coercing by set penalties, the of the Catholic religion,
except to the extent that public peace requires.’”
for it given in the AAS.
is often weak - a parking meter may say that for a few minutes
overtime. <Harpers’ Latin Dictionary> says that means “treat with
violence, injure, invade, profane, outrage.” So it must be some really
strong action positively against the Church.
they do not fear to promote that erroneous opinion. . . . called insanity
by our Predecessor Gregory XVI, namely, 'that liberty of conscience and of
worship is a of each man, which ought to be proclaimed by
law and asserted in every rightly constituted society, and [it should be
proclaimed] that the citizens have liberty , which should be
restrained by no authority, whether or civil, in virtue of
which they are able to privately and publicly manifest and declare , orally or in print. '"
extremely strong, so it can most obviously be seen as wrong: (1) One does
not have a to be wrong, as we said above. Vatican II merely
asserted a right to freedom from coercion. (2) Note that the right includes
“liberty of all sorts” - a sweeping thing, which would include even things
contrary to public order and would go beyond the “due limits” of Vatican II
DIGNITATIS HUMANAE §2. It would even let headhunters do as their god orders,
i.e. , cut off heads. (3)It allows propagation of all ideas ,
no matter how foul, .
Pius IX, Syllabus, Dec. 8, 1864. DS 2915, 2977 - 80:
led by the light of reason, he thinks true."
explained above.
DS 2977:'In this our time it is no longer expedient for the Catholic
religion to be considered as the sole religion of the state, excluding all
other cults whatsoever."
profess the Catholic faith, but would not need to prohibit other faiths.
Compare DIGNITATIS HUMANAE 1.
Catholic it has been provided by law that for persons immigrating there it
is permitted to hold public worship of each cult."
praise", even though out of respect for conscience no one should be
to act against even an erroneous conscience. But, as Pius XII
taught in (text to be given below) the common good of the
universal Church requires that error be permitted. In fact, in determined
circumstances, God does not even give the state a right to suppress
erroneous things, namely, when the common good of Church and state call for
tolerance.
likewise full power given to all to manifest opinions and thoughts
more easily leads to corrupting the morals and souls of
people, and to propagating indifferentism."
2.“And they do not hesitate to assert, contrary to the doctrine of
Scripture, the Church, and the holy Fathers that ‘that is the best
condition of society in which the government does not acknowledge the duty
of coercing by set penalties, the of the Catholic religion,
except to the extent that public peace requires.’”
Code:
COMMENT: Here again we have a condemned proposition, with no sources
Code:
We note that the Latin <violatores> is very strong, whereas in Englishovertime. <Harpers’ Latin Dictionary> says that means “treat with
violence, injure, invade, profane, outrage.” So it must be some really
strong action positively against the Church.
Code:
3."As a result of the altogether false idea of the regime of society,by our Predecessor Gregory XVI, namely, 'that liberty of conscience and of
worship is a of each man, which ought to be proclaimed by
law and asserted in every rightly constituted society, and [it should be
proclaimed] that the citizens have liberty , which should be
restrained by no authority, whether or civil, in virtue of
which they are able to privately and publicly manifest and declare , orally or in print. '"
Code:
COMMENTS: As usual with condemned propositions, this one is madenot have a to be wrong, as we said above. Vatican II merely
asserted a right to freedom from coercion. (2) Note that the right includes
“liberty of all sorts” - a sweeping thing, which would include even things
contrary to public order and would go beyond the “due limits” of Vatican II
DIGNITATIS HUMANAE §2. It would even let headhunters do as their god orders,
i.e. , cut off heads. (3)It allows propagation of all ideas ,
no matter how foul, .
Pius IX, Syllabus, Dec. 8, 1864. DS 2915, 2977 - 80:
Code:
DS 2915: "Each one is free to embrace and profess that religion which,
Code:
COMMENT: This is false because no one has a right to be wrong, asDS 2977:'In this our time it is no longer expedient for the Catholic
religion to be considered as the sole religion of the state, excluding all
other cults whatsoever."
Code:
COMMENT: It is false because it would still be good for the state toCompare DIGNITATIS HUMANAE 1.
Code:
DS 2978: "Hence, it is worthy of praise that in certain regions calledis permitted to hold public worship of each cult."
Code:
COMMENT: For men to be able to hold false beliefs is not "worthy ofto act against even an erroneous conscience. But, as Pius XII
taught in (text to be given below) the common good of the
universal Church requires that error be permitted. In fact, in determined
circumstances, God does not even give the state a right to suppress
erroneous things, namely, when the common good of Church and state call for
tolerance.
Code:
DS 2979:"It is not true to say that civil liberty for each cult, andmore easily leads to corrupting the morals and souls of
people, and to propagating indifferentism."
R
Rogerteder
Guest
continued
COMMENT: We notice the word “any. . . whatsoever”. That makes the
statement outrageously broad: one could then say there is no harm in
advocating cutting off other people’s heads as ordered by the gods of the
heaDignitatis humanaeunters, or homosexuality, or polygamy.
progress, with liberalism, and with recent attitudes of civil society."
error has rights, or that the state should be indifferent to religion.
Leo XIII, Nov. 1, 1885 *** 18: 1.“So too, that liberty of
thinking and of publishing , with , is not a good by its own nature over which human society should
rightly , but is the font and origin of many evils. . . for this
reason, a state errs from the rule and prescription of nature if it allows
a license of opinion and actions to such an extent that without penalty it
is permitted to lead minds away from the truth and souls from virtue.”
a liberty that can , and at all.
Surely that is not something society should over.
kinds of divine worship have with the true religion, yet it
does no for this reason condemn the rulers of states who, to attain some
great good or prevent evil, patiently allow each [kind of cult] to have
place in the state."
permitted as long as they are not given the same rights as the true
religion. He means that the state should worship by the true religion and
not by the others. This is the same as the thought of DIGNITATIS HUMANAE #1.
Leo XIII, , June 20, 1888. *** 20. 1.“It is
scarcely necessary to say that there can be no right for a freedom that is
<not moderately tempered, but which goes beyond measure and bounds>. . . .
For if a of speaking and writing be conceded , nothing is going to remain holy and inviolate, not even those
greatest, most true judgments of nature, which are to be considered as the
common and most noble patrimony of the human race.”
COMMENT: Again, the Pope speaks against most extreme things.
to things that are not true and honorable, it [the Church] does
not refuse to let public authority endure these, that is, to avoid some
greater evil, or to attain or keep some greater good. The most provident
God, though He is infinite in power and can do all things, yet permits
evils in the world, in part, s o as not to impede greater good, in part so
greater evils will not follow. In ruling states, it is right to imitate the
Ruler of the World."
them a claim: no one has a right to be wrong.
Pius XII, , Dec. 6, 1953. AAS 45: The Pope asked: “Can it be
that in determined circumstances, He [God] does not give to man any
mandate, or impose a duty, finally, that He gives no right to impede and to
repress that which is erroneous or false?. . . Christ in the parable of the
cockle gave the following admonition: Let it be that the cockle grow in the
field of the world along with the good seed, for the sake of the
harvest.”[Cf. Mt. 13:24-30].
not even give a right to repress. What are these circumstances? A bit
farther on he added: He [the Catholic statesman] in his decision will let
himself be guided by the harmful consequences which arise with tolerance,
compared with those that will be found in the international community by
way of the acceptance of tolerance. . . . in such individual cases, the
attitude of the Church is determined by the preservation and in
consideration of the common good, the common good of the Church, and of the
State in individual states on the one hand, and on the other hand, the
common good of the universal Church. . . ."
COMMENT: We notice the word “any. . . whatsoever”. That makes the
statement outrageously broad: one could then say there is no harm in
advocating cutting off other people’s heads as ordered by the gods of the
heaDignitatis humanaeunters, or homosexuality, or polygamy.
Code:
DS 2980:"The Pope can and should reconcile and adjust himself with
Code:
COMMENT: He cannot reconcile himself to such ideas as the notion thatLeo XIII, Nov. 1, 1885 *** 18: 1.“So too, that liberty of
thinking and of publishing , with , is not a good by its own nature over which human society should
rightly , but is the font and origin of many evils. . . for this
reason, a state errs from the rule and prescription of nature if it allows
a license of opinion and actions to such an extent that without penalty it
is permitted to lead minds away from the truth and souls from virtue.”
Code:
COMMENT: Again, we note the deliberately sweeping language condemningSurely that is not something society should over.
Code:
2."Really, if the Church judges that it is not permitted that variousdoes no for this reason condemn the rulers of states who, to attain some
great good or prevent evil, patiently allow each [kind of cult] to have
place in the state."
Code:
COMMENTS: Here the Pope concedes that all kinds of religions can bereligion. He means that the state should worship by the true religion and
not by the others. This is the same as the thought of DIGNITATIS HUMANAE #1.
Leo XIII, , June 20, 1888. *** 20. 1.“It is
scarcely necessary to say that there can be no right for a freedom that is
<not moderately tempered, but which goes beyond measure and bounds>. . . .
For if a of speaking and writing be conceded , nothing is going to remain holy and inviolate, not even those
greatest, most true judgments of nature, which are to be considered as the
common and most noble patrimony of the human race.”
COMMENT: Again, the Pope speaks against most extreme things.
Code:
2. (a bit earlier in the same document):". . . while not concedingnot refuse to let public authority endure these, that is, to avoid some
greater evil, or to attain or keep some greater good. The most provident
God, though He is infinite in power and can do all things, yet permits
evils in the world, in part, s o as not to impede greater good, in part so
greater evils will not follow. In ruling states, it is right to imitate the
Ruler of the World."
Code:
COMMENT: Such things have no right to exist, since God does not givePius XII, , Dec. 6, 1953. AAS 45: The Pope asked: “Can it be
that in determined circumstances, He [God] does not give to man any
mandate, or impose a duty, finally, that He gives no right to impede and to
repress that which is erroneous or false?. . . Christ in the parable of the
cockle gave the following admonition: Let it be that the cockle grow in the
field of the world along with the good seed, for the sake of the
harvest.”[Cf. Mt. 13:24-30].
Code:
COMMENT: We notice he said that "in determined circumstances" God doesfarther on he added: He [the Catholic statesman] in his decision will let
himself be guided by the harmful consequences which arise with tolerance,
compared with those that will be found in the international community by
way of the acceptance of tolerance. . . . in such individual cases, the
attitude of the Church is determined by the preservation and in
consideration of the common good, the common good of the Church, and of the
State in individual states on the one hand, and on the other hand, the
common good of the universal Church. . . ."
R
Rogerteder
Guest
continued
Conclusions from the above Papal texts:
intends to develop the doctrine of recent Popes on the inviolable rights of
the human person and about the constitutional order of society.”
contradict. The Church has long evolved various teachings without
contradicting. It is significant that John Courtney Murray denied the
teaching of 1a above. Therefore the Council did not entirely follow him.
recent Popes. Actually, Leo XIII, in , did warn against
coercing consciences (DS 3177): "The Church is accustomed to take care that
no one be forced to embrace the Catholic faith when unwilling, as Augustine
wisely reminded:“A person cannot believe if he does not do it willingly.”
Cf. DS 3246, 3251. And Pius XII in , as we saw above, taught
that in determined circumstances, God does not even give the state any
right to repress error. This applies when the public good calls for it.
Pius XII seems to imply these circumstances are always present:AAS 45, pp.
799, 801.
Conclusions from the above Papal texts:
- Error has no rights, since rights are a claim given ultimately by God.
He gives no claim to error. This does not condemn the idea that people may
have a right not to be imprisoned etc. for error. DIGNITATIS HUMANAE will affirm that. - Yet the common good of the state and the Church may dictate the need of
tolerance of error. Pius XII added, in that God does not even
give a right to suppress error in circumstances in which the common good
requires tolerance. - It is false to say that one can be saved just any faith. This is
the sense of the strong condemnations of indifferentism. But one may say
that one could be saved an erroneous faith (cf. Pius IX,
LG 16 will say it more clearly as will
10 of John Paul II. ). 4. The state as a state
should worship God, in the way in which He has made known He wishes it.
This need not call for suppression of other faiths - cf. #2 above. DIGNITATIS HUMANAE # 1
also states this. - The strongest statement above is in the of Pius IX when he
says that the state in suppressing error must do more than just suppress
what is demanded by public order. We have not yet seen what DIGNITATIS HUMANAE does on this
score. We will see that it too demands more than what public order calls
for, in ## 4 & 7. - There is no right of publication of just anything. There are some
limits.
APPENDIX II) TEXTS OF VATICAN II, DIGNITATIS HUMANAE (Sectional
numbers given in margin) - a)". . . it leaves untouched the traditional Catholic doctrine about the
moral duty of men and societies to the true religion and the only Church of
Christ."
COMMENT: The Council reaffirms completely the traditional teaching on
the obligation of the state to profess Catholicism. Mere reason shows that:
just as an individual must worship God for his own needs, so the state as
state must worship for its needs. Pagan Greece and Rome thought this way.
We add: If God has shown the way He wills to be worshipped, of course,
there is an obligation to follow it. This need not mean repressing other
faiths of course. One could still ask: Has the state historically shown
itself incapable of determining what is the true religion? Cases like Islam
make one wonder. On the other hand, without a union we are apt to get legal
positivism, such as the U. S. in practice has today: the state does not
know what is right or wrong in itself - all it can do is make something
right or wrong by passing a law. So today it even favors homosexuality.
intends to develop the doctrine of recent Popes on the inviolable rights of
the human person and about the constitutional order of society.”
Code:
COMMENT: Since the council intends to evolve, it did not mean tocontradicting. It is significant that John Courtney Murray denied the
teaching of 1a above. Therefore the Council did not entirely follow him.
Code:
Some have noted that the Council did not give references to the morecoercing consciences (DS 3177): "The Church is accustomed to take care that
no one be forced to embrace the Catholic faith when unwilling, as Augustine
wisely reminded:“A person cannot believe if he does not do it willingly.”
Cf. DS 3246, 3251. And Pius XII in , as we saw above, taught
that in determined circumstances, God does not even give the state any
right to repress error. This applies when the public good calls for it.
Pius XII seems to imply these circumstances are always present:AAS 45, pp.
799, 801.
- 1.“This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a right to
religious liberty. Liberty of this kind consists in this, that all persons
should be immune from coercion either on the part of individuals, or of
social societies, and of any human power at all, and this in such a way
that in a religious matter neither should anyone be forced to act against
his conscience, or impeded from acting according to his conscience
privately and publicly. either alone or in association with others, within
due limits.”
COMMENT: Since this section was hammered out with much labor, it must
be interpreted with equal care. We note in addition that John Courtney
Murray, in his introduction to this declaration in the Abbott edition of
Vatican II said (p. 674): “The conciliar affirmation of the principle of
freedom was narrowly limited - in the text.” He thinks it will in practice
be given wider scope or have wider effects.
R
Rogerteder
Guest
continued
It is important to note that the focus is on : a man must not be forced to act against his conscience, or
impeded from acting according to his conscience in private and in public.
This seems to mean that one must not violate his conscience when the
conscience something. What if his conscience merely permits
something? It is not clear that a person has that added right, for the
purpose of not forcing action against conscience seems to be that no one
should force a man to sin. There would be sin in going against a positive
order of conscience to either do or to omit something. But if a conscience
merely <permitted something but did not command it, the person would not be
sinning> if he merely omitted something that he was free to do but not
required to do. In that event, if a Protestant’s conscience him
to write to attack the Catholic Church, but did not command that, this
declaration probably would not say he was to be free of coercion, since the
omission would not be sinful for him. It is not likely that his conscience
would be apt to him to attack.
Though conscience is not likely to publishing an on
Catholic doctrine, it could easily order a man to publish , and to join in social worship.
might claim they meant the same as “public peace” in the document of Pius
IX. Pius IX clearly requires the state to do more than just maintain
public peace in this matter. Howsoever Vatican II also requires more. In #
4: "Religious communities also have the right not to be impeded in orally
and publicly teaching and testifying to their faith. However, in spreading
religious faith and practices, <all must abstain always from every kind of
action which seems to be coercion or improper or less right persuasion,
especially towards the uneducated and the poor. Such a way of acting must
be considered as an abuse of their own rights and infringement of the
rights of others.> And in #7: “Since <civil society has the right of
protecting itself against the abuses that could happen under the pretext of
religious liberty, it pertains especially to the civil authority to provide
protection of this kind> ;it should not be done in an arbitrary manner or
unfairly favoring one side, but according to juridical , which are required for the
effective protection of rights for all citizens, and for the peaceful
settlement of conflict of rights, and by a sufficient care for that
honorable public peace which is the well-ordered living together in true
justice, <and [required] by due custody of public morality.>”
peace. It requires that the sects <refrain from unfair persuasion aimed at
the uneducated and the poor - that would be “an abuse of their rights”; it
requires care for public morality>.
#2. 2: “It also declares that the right to religious liberty is really
founded in the very dignity of the human person. . . . According to this
dignity, all are impelled by their own nature, and are bound by moral
obligation to seek the truth. . . . They cannot satisfy this obligation. .
. unless they have psychological freedom and at the same time immunity from
external coercion.”
come from the civil state. It does not rule out the use of the divinely
given authority of Christ to proclaim His truth and to say all are
obligated by His divine authority to accept it.
his claims.
It is important to note that the focus is on : a man must not be forced to act against his conscience, or
impeded from acting according to his conscience in private and in public.
This seems to mean that one must not violate his conscience when the
conscience something. What if his conscience merely permits
something? It is not clear that a person has that added right, for the
purpose of not forcing action against conscience seems to be that no one
should force a man to sin. There would be sin in going against a positive
order of conscience to either do or to omit something. But if a conscience
merely <permitted something but did not command it, the person would not be
sinning> if he merely omitted something that he was free to do but not
required to do. In that event, if a Protestant’s conscience him
to write to attack the Catholic Church, but did not command that, this
declaration probably would not say he was to be free of coercion, since the
omission would not be sinful for him. It is not likely that his conscience
would be apt to him to attack.
Though conscience is not likely to publishing an on
Catholic doctrine, it could easily order a man to publish , and to join in social worship.
Code:
About the words "within due limits"-- they are not precise. SomeoneIX. Pius IX clearly requires the state to do more than just maintain
public peace in this matter. Howsoever Vatican II also requires more. In #
4: "Religious communities also have the right not to be impeded in orally
and publicly teaching and testifying to their faith. However, in spreading
religious faith and practices, <all must abstain always from every kind of
action which seems to be coercion or improper or less right persuasion,
especially towards the uneducated and the poor. Such a way of acting must
be considered as an abuse of their own rights and infringement of the
rights of others.> And in #7: “Since <civil society has the right of
protecting itself against the abuses that could happen under the pretext of
religious liberty, it pertains especially to the civil authority to provide
protection of this kind> ;it should not be done in an arbitrary manner or
unfairly favoring one side, but according to juridical , which are required for the
effective protection of rights for all citizens, and for the peaceful
settlement of conflict of rights, and by a sufficient care for that
honorable public peace which is the well-ordered living together in true
justice, <and [required] by due custody of public morality.>”
Code:
We conclude: Vatican II does require much more than keeping publicthe uneducated and the poor - that would be “an abuse of their rights”; it
requires care for public morality>.
#2. 2: “It also declares that the right to religious liberty is really
founded in the very dignity of the human person. . . . According to this
dignity, all are impelled by their own nature, and are bound by moral
obligation to seek the truth. . . . They cannot satisfy this obligation. .
. unless they have psychological freedom and at the same time immunity from
external coercion.”
Code:
COMMENT: The coercion in mind is that of physical force, which wouldgiven authority of Christ to proclaim His truth and to say all are
obligated by His divine authority to accept it.
Code:
Therefore Archbishop Lefebvre was completely without justification in
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Not according to the teaching (and Canon Law) of the Catholic Church.Protestants, Orthodox, and other non-Catholic “Christians” are heretics.
G
Glenoy
Guest
In my opinion, post # 197 to 198 of this thread is better than that.Father Most wrote an article comparing Vatican II’s teaching with prior teaching. He does a pretty good job reconciling the two.
G
Glenoy
Guest
Are you saying that the Roman Catholic Church as a juridical person did not ever said that Protestantism teaches heresy?Not according to the teaching (and Canon Law) of the Catholic Church.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
No I am saying exactly what I said.Are you saying that the Roman Catholic Church as a juridical person did not ever said that Protestantism teaches heresy?
G
Glenoy
Guest
You negate the statement of Ultima when he said that "Protestants, Orthodox, and other non-Catholic “Christians” are heretics by sayingNo I am saying exactly what I said.
Am i wrong in my understanding of your statement that the Catholic Church according to its teaching and Canon Laws does not sees them as heretics?Not according to the teaching (and Canon Law) of the Catholic Church.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Yes you are wrong in your understanding of Catholic teaching.You negate the statement of Ultima when he said that "Protestants, Orthodox, and other non-Catholic “Christians” are heretics by saying
Am i wrong in my understanding of your statement that the Catholic Church according to its teaching and Canon Laws does not sees them as heretics?
G
Glenoy
Guest
hahhaha. I am following your statement to see how strong is your logic since you negate the statement of Ultima. You are not responsive to my question. I am not asking of a Catholic teaching but of my understanding of your statement when you say *“Not according to the teaching (and Canon Law) of the Catholic Church”.Yes you are wrong in your understanding of Catholic teaching.
*
Again I ask you this,
You negate the statement of Ultima when he said that "Protestants, Orthodox, and other non-Catholic “Christians” are heretics by saying
Quote:
“Not according to the teaching (and Canon Law) of the Catholic Church”.
Am i wrong in my understanding of your statement that the Catholic Church according to its teaching and Canon Laws does not sees them as heretics?
It is a categorical question. YEs or no?
Remember, I am following the logic of your statements of how strong it is. I am not yet asking for evidence of what is your proof that statement of yours- Not according to the teaching (and Canon Law) of the Catholic Church.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Sorry if I misunderstand you.hahhaha. I am following your statement to see how strong is your logic since you negate the statement of Ultima. You are not responsive to my question. I am not asking of a Catholic teaching but of my understanding of your statement when you say *“Not according to the teaching (and Canon Law) of the Catholic Church”.
*
Again I ask you this,
You negate the statement of Ultima when he said that "Protestants, Orthodox, and other non-Catholic “Christians” are heretics by saying
Quote:
“Not according to the teaching (and Canon Law) of the Catholic Church”.
Am i wrong in my understanding of your statement that the Catholic Church according to its teaching and Canon Laws does not sees them as heretics?
It is a categorical question. YEs or no?
Remember, I am following the logic of your statements of how strong it is. I am not yet asking for evidence of what is your proof that statement of yours- Not according to the teaching (and Canon Law) of the Catholic Church.
Let me try this:
The Catholic Church does not teach that non-Catholics (Protestants, Orthodox, non-Catholic Christians, etc.) are heretics.
That is my claim. That is Catholic teaching as I understand it.
Does that help?
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
Through their Trinitarian Baptism, all Christians are Catholic. When they don’t hold to the full teachings of the Catholic faith, they are “material heretics,” heretics in belief. “Material heresy” is simply division from spiritual truth. Culpability is not part of the question. Someone can live and die a “material heretic,” sinning through their false beliefs, but without culpability for their errors because they are protected by “invincible ignorance.” Such a person could die without ever having willfully rejected the truth. Such a person is a heretic by birth or ignorance, not by intent. This is the case of many, many Protestants and Orthodox.Sorry if I misunderstand you.
Let me try this:
The Catholic Church does not teach that non-Catholics (Protestants, Orthodox, non-Catholic Christians, etc.) are heretics.
That is my claim. That is Catholic teaching as I understand it.
Does that help?
Someone who willfully suppresses the truth once the Spirit has made it known to their heart, however, is what is called a formal heretic. It is often not in people’s power to help being “material heretics,” because they were simply brought up in the wrong country and time period and the Spirit never revealed the full truth to them. God doesn’t condemn people for material heresy. It’s formal heresy that people are condemned for.
Formal heresy is a different, and far worse animal. It is committed when the Spirit reveals the truth to a soul and the soul rejects it and chooses the lie.
These distinctions are the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas.
newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm
The Orthodox are heretics because they reject the authority of the Pope, an infallible truth taught by Vatican I. Any Christian who rejects an article of the deposit of faith is a heretic. The Orthodox are a real church, a very dear sister church to the Catholic Church. They have a valid apostolic succession and valid sacraments. Almost every teaching they have is true. They are almost 100% right. Only that 1% that’s wrong makes them heretics. Technically, all of them are material heretics, but in some cases they fall into formal heresy, willfully rejecting the truths of the Catholic Church that the Spirit has shown them.
Protestantism has a LOT less correct than Orthodoxy. The heresies there are a lot more numerous. For some Protestants, these heresies are formal and for others they are only material.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
No, through Trinitarian baptism all Christians are Christian.Through their Trinitarian Baptism, all Christians are Catholic. When they don’t hold to the full teachings of the Catholic faith, they are “material heretics,” heretics in belief. “Material heresy” is simply division from spiritual truth. Culpability is not part of the question. Someone can live and die a “material heretic,” sinning through their false beliefs, but without culpability for their errors because they are protected by “invincible ignorance.” Such a person could die without ever having willfully rejected the truth. Such a person is a heretic by birth or ignorance, not by intent. This is the case of many, many Protestants and Orthodox.
Someone who willfully suppresses the truth once the Spirit has made it known to their heart, however, is what is called a formal heretic. It is often not in people’s power to help being “material heretics,” because they were simply brought up in the wrong country and time period and the Spirit never revealed the full truth to them. God doesn’t condemn people for material heresy. It’s formal heresy that people are condemned for.
Formal heresy is a different, and far worse animal. It is committed when the Spirit reveals the truth to a soul and the soul rejects it and chooses the lie.
These distinctions are the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas.
newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm
The Orthodox are heretics because they reject the authority of the Pope, an infallible truth taught by Vatican I. Any Christian who rejects an article of the deposit of faith is a heretic. The Orthodox are a real church, a very dear sister church to the Catholic Church. They have a valid apostolic succession and valid sacraments. Almost every teaching they have is true. They are almost 100% right. Only that 1% that’s wrong makes them heretics. Technically, all of them are material heretics, but in some cases they fall into formal heresy, willfully rejecting the truths of the Catholic Church that the Spirit has shown them.
Protestantism has a LOT less correct than Orthodoxy. The heresies there are a lot more numerous. For some Protestants, these heresies are formal and for others they are only material.
The Orthodox are not considered heretics (as defined in the Code of Canon Law) by the Catholic Church
L
Lief_Erikson
Guest
Only Christians can be heretics. Everyone who receives a Trinitarian baptism is a Christian. Every Christian who rejects one or more of the Catholic doctrines is a heretic.No, through Trinitarian baptism all Christians are Christian.
They are only committing one heresy that I know of, denying the infallibility and universal jurisdiction of the Pope. But if you think the Code of Canon Law says they aren’t heretics, you’ll need to make your proof.The Orthodox are not considered heretics (as defined in the Code of Canon Law) by the Catholic Church
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I’m saying heresy as defined in the Code is not used/interpreted by the Church to mean that Orthodox and Protestants today are necessarily (a priori) heretics. Read canon 751. It sets a pretty high bar for what can be judged actual heresy.Only Christians can be heretics. Everyone who receives a Trinitarian baptism is a Christian. Every Christian who rejects one or more of the Catholic doctrines is a heretic.
They are only committing one heresy that I know of, denying the infallibility and universal jurisdiction of the Pope. But if you think the Code of Canon Law says they aren’t heretics, you’ll need to make your proof.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.