Church's declaration on religious freedom? A change in doctrine?

[TheAdvocate]

The Church document Dignitatis Humanae was and remains to this day a controversial document of Vatican II. My question is, Does this reflect a change in Catholic teaching? I mean before, people who believed freely were often punished, even killed. There were inquisitions, and certain countries were considered officially Catholic. And previous popes such as Pius IX and Leo XIII had spoken against religious freedom (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignitatis_humanae sorry, Wiki is the best I can do for now for a source)

And if you believe that it is NOT a change in Catholic teaching, then how is it consistent with previous Catholic teaching?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The Church document Dignitatis Humanae was and remains to this day a controversial document of Vatican II. My question is, Does this reflect a change in Catholic teaching? I mean before, people who believed freely were often punished, even killed. There were inquisitions, and certain countries were considered officially Catholic. And previous popes such as Pius IX and Leo XIII had spoken against religious freedom (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignitatis_humanae sorry, Wiki is the best I can do for now for a source)

And if you believe that it is NOT a change in Catholic teaching, then how is it consistent with previous Catholic teaching?

I’ll ask you to prove that it IS a change. And try something other than Wiki. Try something like “Triumph, the Power and Glory of the Catholic Church” by H.W. Crocker III.

 

[TheAdvocate]

I’ll ask you to prove that it IS a change. And try something other than Wiki. Try something like “Triumph, the Power and Glory of the Catholic Church” by H.W. Crocker III.

It seems to me that if previously the Church supported–and even called for–execution for those who spread heresies, then it shows that they were not support of religious liberty. Therefore, this does reflect a change.

By the way, I’m not here to bash the Church or prove Her wrong. Just trying to understand.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It seems to me that if previously the Church supported–and even called for–execution for those who spread heresies, then it shows that they were not support of religious liberty. Therefore, this does reflect a change.

By the way, I’m not here to bash the Church or prove Her wrong. Just trying to understand.

But was the understanding of the term ‘religious liberty’ the same then as now?
And did the Church actually call for the ‘execution’ under DOCTRINAL teaching, or was the execution the SECULAR PUNISHMENT established by the STATE/GOVERNMENT?

Change in itself does not mean ‘180 degree turn from X to not X’. Change can reflect a development of "X was thought to mean this, but with further evidence/understanding/guidance we understand it can mean something slightly, but not completely, different, which means our reactions will be slightly, but not completely, different regarding DOCTRINE. However, because there are components of secular/government issues, there can be a complete change in THOSE activities.

Because the Church never came right out and said, "Chattel slavery is good and all who are slaves must obey their masters and this shall never be changed’, not only did doctrine reflect that slaves must be first well treated, later understood never to be seen as ‘chattel’ as slave and free are the same in Christ, and finally SECULAR SOCIETY was the one doing the 180 change from "you may own slaves’ to you may NOT own slaves.’ It wasn’t the CHURCH which changed from a doctrinal teaching but society which changed from allowing slavery to abolishing it.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I believe this subject has been done before. Please search Catholic Answers.

OP has started 38 threads. 2 were locked. Three of them he posted to a second time. The rest were started and discussed w/o his (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[mcteague]

I’ll ask you to prove that it IS a change. And try something other than Wiki. Try something like “Triumph, the Power and Glory of the Catholic Church” by H.W. Crocker III.

I really dislike replys like this because they appear intelligent, but are not. The poster did not make an assertion. He asked a question. Asking a question implies that the answer is not clear or known to the poster. Therefore, asking the poster to defend a proposition he has not made only proves a deficiency in your grasp of language, reason, or both.

Sorry to be a bit harsh. I see this alot, and it kind of annoys me.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

But was the understanding of the term ‘religious liberty’ the same then as now?
And did the Church actually call for the ‘execution’ under DOCTRINAL teaching, or was the execution the SECULAR PUNISHMENT established by the STATE/GOVERNMENT?

Change in itself does not mean ‘180 degree turn from X to not X’. Change can reflect a development of "X was thought to mean this, but with further evidence/understanding/guidance we understand it can mean something slightly, but not completely, different, which means our reactions will be slightly, but not completely, different regarding DOCTRINE. However, because there are components of secular/government issues, there can be a complete change in THOSE activities.

Because the Church never came right out and said, "Chattel slavery is good and all who are slaves must obey their masters and this shall never be changed’, not only did doctrine reflect that slaves must be first well treated, later understood never to be seen as ‘chattel’ as slave and free are the same in Christ, and finally SECULAR SOCIETY was the one doing the 180 change from "you may own slaves’ to you may NOT own slaves.’ It wasn’t the CHURCH which changed from a doctrinal teaching but society which changed from allowing slavery to abolishing it.

Based on that standard, it sounds like the state/society was the one bringing about positive cultural and social change, not the Church.

Of course this was already my view (more or less). But its unusual to hear a Catholic promoting the idea.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Based on that standard, it sounds like the state/society was the one bringing about positive cultural and social change, not the Church.

Of course this was already my view (more or less). But its unusual to hear a Catholic promoting the idea.

Actually, the Church did not have to change because the CHURCH (unlike the State) never promoted slavery in the first place. Since government/states had actually promoted slavery at some point, they DID have to change.