Does "Error" in This Case Mean "Heresy?"

[SanctusPeccator]

If the Universal Magisterium contradicts a previous Universal Magisterium then the contradiction is to be rejected. This is what I have been taught.

You were taught inaccurately as the Extraordinary Universal Magisterium and/or Ordinary Universal Magisterium can never contradict itself from the onset. It would be the geographical equivalent of declaring “Washington, D.C. is the capital of the U.S.A.” categorically contradicts “Philadelphia is the capital of the U.S.A. ” Further research would show both statements are actually correct since Washington, D.C. was not the established capital until 1800. One must ultimately situate the individual magisterial pronouncements within their historical Sitze im Leben Ecclesiae (“Settings in Life in the Church”) to effect a proper reconciliation and true understanding of the perceived controversy.

 

[catharina]

Nicht jedes Konzil der Kirchengeschichte war fruchtbar; letzten endes sind viele von ihnen reine Zeitverschwendung gewesen.
– J. Kard. Ratzinger

books.google.com/books?id=f2H9_uqW8p8C&pg=378#v=onepage&q&f=false

Sorry. No comprende,
Would like to see the quote - IN ENGLISH,

 

[SanctusPeccator]

Nicht jedes Konzil der Kirchengeschichte war fruchtbar; letzten endes sind viele von ihnen reine Zeitverschwendung gewesen.
– J. Kard. Ratzinger

books.google.com/books?id=f2H9_uqW8p8C&pg=378#v=onepage&q&f=false

Yes, but His Eminence has the historical benefit of centuries of hindsight to make that objective evaluation. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Saint Pius V’s Apostolic Constitution [of 14 July 1570] Quo primum would not be officially implemented in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland until the advent of the Emancipation Act of 13 April 1839. Does that therefore make the Council of Trent ein Zeitverschwendung?

 

[SanctusPeccator]

wasserfall;9410174:

Nicht jedes Konzil der Kirchengeschichte war fruchtbar; letzten endes sind viele von ihnen reine Zeitverschwendung gewesen.
– J. Kard. Ratzinger

books.google.com/books?id=f2H9_uqW8p8C&pg=378#v=onepage&q&f=false

Sorry. No comprende,
Would like to see the quote - IN ENGLISH,

“Not every valid council in the history of the Church has been a fruitful one; in the last analysis, many of them have been a waste of time” (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger’s Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology, p. 378)

 

[OraLabora]

I wonder if we don’t try to reduce the actions of our Church to mechanical processes, quantifying her teaching into degrees of infallibility or classifying her actions into categories of relative degrees of orthodoxy or heresy, all with an eye to measure the need to accept or reject those teachings or actions.

It’s not wrong to want to know the truth, but I really want to ask when our religion became a series of mechanical processes. I wonder about the value of theology without being touched by the holy spirit in some real, visceral way.

Diadochus of Photike had this to say.

***It is always better to await the illumination of faith, energized by love, which equips us to speak, since nothing is more miserable than a Godless mind philosophizing about God. ***

It seems harsh, and out side of it’s context it probably is. Before anyone shoots off a nasty PM, it’s a sixth century bishop’s observation, and the context is attempts at a completely rational approach (philosophizing) to the action of God through his Holy Church in the absence of an intuitive sense of spiritual things - call it the “Mind’s eye” if you will.

Maybe the eastern Churches have retained more of this approach. I’m not saying that anyone here at CAF lacks a spiritual sense or has not been touched by the Holy Spirit in a very real way, but am instead wondering if the introduction of Aristotlean philosophy into theology hasn’t been taken to an extreme that was never meant to be.

Maybe I’m completely wrong and have been reading too much of the desert fathers, should just shut up and register for another meditation retreat at the monastery. I’m sure it is an important question to those who are interested in such things, but the difference between Extraordinary Magisterium and Universal Ordinary Magisterium seems to me, like the difference between the composition of brake pads - they all stop the car to me.

Sorry if I am incoherent. I don’t mean to ramble and my comments are not directed at anyone personally.

-Tim-

Tim, great post.

Ultimately, how many of these “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” threads actually serve to make us grow in Christian charity? Based on the argumentativeness I see here, probably not too many.

These sorts of discussions probably are meant to be held deep in the recesses of the Vatican. We as laity are called to grow closer to Christ through charity to all men and women.

It’s why I like hanging out with Benedictines. Doctrine is hardly ever discussed, how to transform our hearts is a far more important subject.

 

[PJM]

=ready;9409460]You have misunderstood me, my question is about Vatican-II and the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, not the solemn Extraordinary Magisterium. If I mentioned the solemn Extraordinary Magisterium and pronouncing dogmas it was for no other purpose but to clarify my question.

THNAKS,
God Bless,
Pat

 

[Joe_5859]

My newest question is: Who has the authority to address the Church and accuse a pope or council of teaching errors?

Jesus.

If the Universal Magisterium contradicts a previous Universal Magisterium then the contradiction is to be rejected. This is what I have been taught.

But this isn’t going to happen. And to anyone who asserts that it has happened, I would place the burden of proof on them to prove it. It is far, far more likely that said random individual is misinterpreting the doctrines than that the Universal Magisterium is contradicting itself.

 

[PJM]

=ready;9409963]I agree with your post.

My newest question is: Who has the authority to address the Church and accuse a pope or council of teaching errors? Only Bishops in union with the Pope? Saints? Anyone else? St. Athanasius was against many Bishops in his understanding of things, thanks be to God the Pope saw he was right in seeing heresy for what it truly is - heresy.

Dear friend,

IF we are speaking of any Pope making any proclaimnation on ANY “Must be held” and believed Official teaching on 1. Faith Matters 2. Moral Matters; [ONLY]

Then there is in an ABSOLUTE SENSE an impossibility of ERROR is such proclaimations.

Mt. 16:18-19; Mt. 28:16-20; Mk. 16:15-20; John 17:15-19; and John 20:19-22 are just some of the evidence

THAT is what the DOCTRINE of Infallibility means:clapping:

God Bless,
pat /PJM

 

[ready]

Dear friend,

IF we are speaking of any Pope making any proclaimnation on ANY “Must be held” and believed Official teaching on 1. Faith Matters 2. Moral Matters; [ONLY]

Then there is in an ABSOLUTE SENSE an impossibility of ERROR is such proclaimations.

Mt. 16:18-19; Mt. 28:16-20; Mk. 16:15-20; John 17:15-19; and John 20:19-22 are just some of the evidence

THAT is what the DOCTRINE of Infallibility means:clapping:

God Bless,
pat /PJM

At least one Pope has stated that hersesy in a Pope is possible, though unlikely. So if hersey is possible in a Pope, I thought that it could happen in council as well, though I figure it would also be unlikely. Peace, PJM!

 

[ready]

Jesus.

But this isn’t going to happen. And to anyone who asserts that it has happened, I would place the burden of proof on them to prove it. It is far, far more likely that said random individual is misinterpreting the doctrines than that the Universal Magisterium is contradicting itself.

Yes, the burden of proof would be on the person who asserts heresy. I agree that it is far more likely “that [the] said random individual is misinterpreting…” Peace, Joe!

 

[ready]

You were taught inaccurately as the Extraordinary Universal Magisterium and/or Ordinary Universal Magisterium can never contradict itself from the onset. It would be the geographical equivalent of declaring “Washington, D.C. is the capital of the U.S.A.” categorically contradicts “Philadelphia is the capital of the U.S.A. ” Further research would show both statements are actually correct since Washington, D.C. was not the established capital until 1800. One must ultimately situate the individual magisterial pronouncements within their historical Sitze im Leben Ecclesiae (“Settings in Life in the Church”) to effect a proper reconciliation and true understanding of the perceived controversy.

Take what the V-II Council says on religious liberty. I can not accept that anyone has a “right” to be in religious error, given what a prior Universal Magisterium has said on the matter. To me we have a contradiction here and it is impossible for me to believe we have this God-given “right.” In the U.S. we may have this legal right, but isn’t Vatican II saying this “right” goes beyond the secular? Peace!

EDIT:

“that it is left to the freedom of each individual to embrace and profess that religion which by the guidance of the light of reason he deems to be the true one.” - CONDEMNED PROPOSITION by Pope Pius IX in Syllabus of Error, 1864

"They do not hesitate to put forward the view which is not only opposed to the Catholic Church, but very pernicious for the salvation of souls, an opinion which Gregory XVI, Our Predecessor, called absurd. This is the view that liberty of conscience and worship is the strict right of every man, a right which should be proclaimed and affirmed by law in every properly constituted state… When they rashly make these statements, they do not realize or recall to mind that they are advocating what St. Augustine calls a ’ liberty of perdition’ " - Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, 1864

What about this?

 

[ready]

How can the new teaching on religious liberty be reconciled with the old? Someone may argue that we are living in different times so the truths of yesterday no longer are “true” and no longer apply. But the truths as given by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium which condemn religious liberty are just as infallible as solemn dogma and and the truth never changes, it remains the same for all ages. The State can give Satanist the “right” to practice their religion, but I do not see how this “right” can be considerd a God-given “right” as well. The false woship of Satanism is merely permittred by God, he permits the sin of idolatry - but he does not approve any idolatry (worshipping the devil is idolatry) and God would never give anyone a right to worship this way or to do anything he disapproves of, he merely gives his permission in order to respect each persons free will. But a person who is involved in idolatry (Satanism, Wicca) is on a dangerous path and the old teaching on religious liberty is reasonable in taking this into account

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;9410234:

You were taught inaccurately as the Extraordinary Universal Magisterium and/or Ordinary Universal Magisterium can never

contradict itself from the onset. It would be the geographical equivalent of declaring “Washington, D.C. is the capital of the U.S.A.” categorically contradicts “Philadelphia is the capital of the U.S.A. ” Further research would show both statements are actually correct since Washington, D.C. was not the presently established capital until 1800. One must ultimately situate the individual magisterial pronouncements within their historical Sitze im Leben Ecclesiae (“Settings in Life in the Church”) to effect a proper reconciliation and true understanding of the perceived controversy.
Take what the V-II Council says on religious liberty. I can not accept that anyone has a “right” to be in religious error, given what a prior Universal Magisterium has said on the matter. To me we have a contradiction here and it is impossible for me to believe we have this God-given “right.” In the U.S. we may have this legal right, but isn’t Vatican II saying this “right” goes beyond the secular? Peace!

EDIT:

“that it is left to the freedom of each individual to embrace and profess that religion which by the guidance of the light of reason he deems to be the true one.” - CONDEMNED PROPOSITION by Pope Pius IX in Syllabus of Error, 1864

"They do not hesitate to put forward the view which is not only opposed to the Catholic Church, but very pernicious for the salvation of souls, an opinion which Gregory XVI, Our Predecessor, called absurd. This is the view that liberty of conscience and worship is the strict right of every man, a right which should be proclaimed and affirmed by law in every properly constituted state… When they rashly make these statements, they do not realize or recall to mind that they are advocating what St. Augustine calls a ’ liberty of perdition’ " - Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, 1864

What about this?

Appropriate timing for expanding upon this earlier post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9410574&postcount=16 ]. First, the statement excerpted from Blessed Pope Pius IX’s Encyclical Letter [of 8 December 1864] on Condemning Current Errors Quanta Cura and the fifteenth proposition from the appendixed Syllabus of Errors must both be interpreted within the magisterial context of the papal document following each respective thesis.

The proper meaning of this proposition is referenced from the Apostolic Letter [of 10 June 1851] Multiplices inter against Francisco de Paula González Vigil’s Defensa de la autoridad de dos gobiernos contra las pretensiones de la Curia Romana. Vigil’s work asserted we were to rely exclusively on our own powers of human reasoning without any recourse to the supernatural authority of God in the acceptance of religious truths. Clearly, the post-conciliar Church still concurs with the earlier judgment of Pius IX:
“Men and women can accomplish no more important act in their lives than the act of faith; it is here that freedom reaches the certainty of truth and chooses to live in that truth” (Blessed Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical Letter [of 14 September 1998] on the Relationship Between Faith and Reason Fides et Ratio, n. 13, §2).

 

[SanctusPeccator]

How can the new teaching on religious liberty be reconciled with the old? Someone may argue that we are living in different times so the truths of yesterday no longer are “true” and no longer apply. But the truths as given by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium which condemn religious liberty are just as infallible as solemn dogma and and the truth never changes, it remains the same for all ages. The State can give Satanist the “right” to practice their religion, but I do not see how this “right” can be considerd a God-given “right” as well. The false woship of Satanism is merely permittred by God, he permits the sin of idolatry - but he does not approve any idolatry (worshipping the devil is idolatry) and God would never give anyone a right to worship this way or to do anything he disapproves of, he merely gives his permission in order to respect each persons free will. But a person who is involved in idolatry (Satanism, Wicca) is on a dangerous path and the old teaching on religious liberty is reasonable in taking this into account

The Church makes a fine distinction between the moral right of erroneous people not to have their consciences violated by coercion from the actual application of that religious liberty in civil society. As Vatican II clearly recognizes the moral right of religious liberty is subordinate to the common good of the public order (cf. Dignitatis Humanae, n. 7, §1), the extent of the religious liberty allowed to non-Catholics would be contingent upon the social situation of the respective nation (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, nn. 1738; 2109). If the public exercise of non-Catholics would disrupt the social order (via belligerent proselytization), it would necessarily be subjected to varying degrees of legal prohibition although the private exercise of their religion would still be permitted.

 

[ready]

The Church makes a fine distinction between the moral right of erroneous people not to have their consciences violated by coercion from the actual application of that religious liberty in civil society. As Vatican II clearly recognizes the moral right of religious liberty is subordinate to the common good of the public order (cf. Dignitatis Humanae, n. 7, §1), the extent of the religious liberty allowed to non-Catholics would be contingent upon the social situation of the respective nation (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, nn. 1738; 2109). If the public exercise of non-Catholics would disrupt the social order (via belligerent proselytization), it would necessarily be subjected to varying degrees of legal prohibition although the private exercise of their religion would still be permitted.

But does Vatican II teach that all people have a moral right to practice whatever religion is in accordance with their concience? I do not know if it does, as I have not read the documents on religious liberty. Peace and God bless you!

 

[sw85]

But does Vatican II teach that all people have a moral right to practice whatever religion is in accordance with their concience? I do not know if it does, as I have not read the documents on religious liberty. Peace and God bless you!

I once shared this concern, and e-mailed a very knowledgeable and intelligent friend about it. Here was his (very useful) reply. Interests of disclosure, he regards Vatican II as a gross *prudential *error but not as heretical; call him a moderate traddie:

“Dignitatis Humanae” (DH) looks like the sort of thing one gets when one tries to “translate” Christianity into the vocabulary of an incompatible philosophy (i.e. the whole purpose of VII)–what you get is something that’s not even coherent enough to be wrong.

When confronted with this sort of thing, we all try to supply a foundation that will make sense of it. The most natural one (as the more devious of the Council Fathers realized) in this case would be liberalism and would involve the heretical consequences you describe. The document itself denies that this is what it means:

“Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.”

So, we each have a duty to worship God as Catholics, and society itself has such a duty (which to me naturally implies a religious establishment), but the State isn’t authorized to force us to. Of course, the Church has always believed this in some sense: forced baptisms being invalid and wrong, and all that. But DH takes things farther, saying that the social nature of man means that false religions have the right to organize in public. Previously, the Church had only recognized such a right for the Jews (and Herself, of course), although She recognized that it may be prudent to allow other religions a somewhat free hand. And even the Jews weren’t thought to have a right to propagate their views in the larger society. One might turn the document’s reasoning against it and say that the social nature of man means that the common good requires the State to maintain a religious consensus.

In fact, it appears that DH thinks it necessary to the common good and the social kingship of Christ that a moral consensus if not a religious one be maintained, since it says that religious freedom doesn’t allow one to jeopardize public morality:

“Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order. These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality.”

Since every other religion countenances at least some sinful behavior (contraception, divorce, polygamy, abortion, infanticide, suicide, etc.), DH would seem to authorize more “partisanship” by the State than its supporters recognize. It can presumably suppress Protestant agitation for acceptance of divorce, for example. (By the way, the reference to “partisanship” above shouldn’t be taken to mean a duty for the State to practice religious neutrality in general. The next sentence clarifies it means adherence to the rule of law in its recognized religious rights. The alternative would be like in Europe today, where there’s a general rule against denigrating religions, but it’s only applied if the offendee is Islam.)

DH is an unfortunate document, no doubt. When read as I prefer, the exceptions largely devour the rule. What makes it most unhelpful is that it never presents a vision of what the spiritual common good means. This is what it gets for expressing itself in individualistic categories rather than using its own tradition. There’s also the issue, which cries out for treatment but doesn’t get it, of what the relationship between society and the State is, or ought to be. This is actually something I would like to have a clearer sense of myself.

 

[sw85]

The important thing to keep in mind when reading anything that came out of Vatican II is that your first, superficial impression of it is almost always going to be wrong. This is a problem both for the modernist heretics and the radical traddies/sedevacantist schismatics.

 

[ready]

The important thing to keep in mind when reading anything that came out of Vatican II is that your first, superficial impression of it is almost always going to be wrong. This is a problem both for the modernist heretics and the radical traddies/sedevacantist schismatics.

Thanks so much for your help!

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;9417025:

The Church makes a fine distinction between the moral right

of erroneous people not to have their consciences violated by coercion from the actual application of that religious liberty in civil society. As Vatican II clearly recognizes the moral right of religious liberty is subordinate to the common good of the public order (cf. Dignitatis Humanae, n. 7, §1), the extent of the religious liberty allowed to non-Catholics would be contingent upon the social situation of the respective nation (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, nn. 1738; 2109). If the public exercise of non-Catholics would disrupt the public order (via belligerent proselytization), it would necessarily be subjected to varying degrees of legal prohibition although the private exercise of their religion would still be permitted

But does Vatican II teach that all people have a moral right to practice whatever religion is in accordance with their concience? I do not know if it does, as I have not read the documents on religious liberty. Peace and God bless you!

Yes, but it must be emphatically repeated the Church teaches the exercise of religious liberty is conditioned upon the common good of the public order:

“This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

“The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

“It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth. However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed” (Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Session IV, Declaration [of 7 December 1965] on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae, n. 2, §1 - §3).

 

[ready]

Thanks, SanctusPeccator! Maybe one day I should read the whole document. Peace!