This is great stuff… I wonder if there is anything that reinforces these ideas in the last 500 years or if the Reformation pushed the thinking in the opposite direction and eventually lead t the Syllabus and the Quanta Cura?Re: the Syllabus and Quanta Cura and how they were condemning a false idea of “freedom of conscience,” see my above post. It is also helpful to show that Catholics have always defended the “true” understanding of freedom of conscience, and that can be showed by the writings of the Church Fathers and other ecclesiastical writers.
Catholic History on Religious Freedom:
- 213 A.D. - Tertullian said: “It is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions: one man’s religion neither harms nor helps another man. It is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion—to which free-will and not force should lead us.” (Ad Scapulam, chapter 2)
- 308 A.D. - Lactantius said: “Religion, being a matter of the will, cannot be forced on anyone. In this matter it is better to employ words than blows. Of what use is cruelty? What has the rack to do with piety? Surely there is no connection between truth and violence, between justice and cruelty.” (De Divinis Institutionibus 5, 10)
- 450 A.D. Salvian said that heretics normally become heretics by believing falsely but in good faith, and therefore should be dealt with patiently. (On the Government of God, Book V)
- 598 A.D. - Pope Gregory the Great said: “[The Jews] should in no way suffer through a violation of their rights [by the Church].” “Rather let them enjoy their lawful liberty to observe and to celebrate their festivities, as they have enjoyed this up until now.” (Admonition of Paschasius) “During his pontificate, he put these words into practice, intervening to protect Jews from violence.” (catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4705)
- 827 A.D. - St. Abogard of Lyons said: “Because [the Jews] live among us…we should not be wicked to them nor act contrary to their life, health, or wealth. … We should be cautious or humane towards them, [and this] is not at all obscure but has been clearly expounded.” (The Insolence of the Jews)
- 1045 A.D. - Bishop Wazo of Liege said: “The church should let dissent grow with orthodoxy until the Lord comes to separate and judge.” (Letter to Bishop Roger of Chalons)
- 1233 A.D. - Pope Gregory IX said: “Christians must show towards Jews the same good will which we desire to be shown to Christians in pagan lands.” (Cf. Auvray, “Le régistre de Grégoire IX”, n. 1216)
- 1274 A.D. - St. Thomas Aquinas said that Christians “[do] not indeed [wage war] for the purpose of forcing [non-Christians] to believe.” “Even if [Christian forces] were to conquer [the pagans], and take them prisoners, they should still leave them free to believe, if they will.” (Summa Theologica, II-II, Question 10, Article 8.)
- 1482 A.D. - During the Spanish Inquisition, Pope Sixtus IV condemned the violence of the Inquisitors, and intervened on behalf of the accused, instituting several humanitarian reforms so that the victims of abuses could find safety from abusive Inquisitors. (Papal Bull Ad Perpetuam Rei Memoriam, reproduced in page 587 of Volume 1 of Henry Charles Lea’s “A History of the Inquisition of Spain.”)
- 1528 A.D. - St. Thomas More wrote that violence should not be used against heretics even by secular authorities, unless the heretics themselves are violent, and then only for that reason. (Dialogue Concerning Heresies, Part IV, Chapter 13)
I hope that helps to show that the Church has always taught religious freedom in its “true” interpretation. That, of course, has nothing to do with the “false” interpretation of religious freedom condemned by Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors. But regarding that, see my previous post. God bless!
Well once you understand that the Syllabus and Quanta Cura were condemning a “false interpretation” of freedom of conscience rather than the idea itself, it becomes a little clearer that the Church continued to teach the “true interpretation” of freedom of conscience during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and before and after. The doctrine has continuity with the past. The very next pope after Quanta Cura was asked if Quanta Cura was condemning the principle of religious toleration as it had been taught in the past, and he responded that it was not: "If the Church declares that the various kinds of worship should not have the same rights as the true religion, she does not thereby condemn those rulers who…permit each cult to exist.” – Pope Leo XIII, Denzinger, n. 1874. Quanta Cura was condemning a false interpretation of freedom of conscience because it didn’t want the true interpretation of freedom of conscience to be distorted.This is great stuff… I wonder if there is anything that reinforces these ideas in the last 500 years or if the Reformation pushed the thinking in the opposite direction and eventually lead t the Syllabus and the Quanta Cura?
Good stuff… I’ll bring back a point that I made earlier and ask what you think of it…I wonder why Ratzinger would make a statement like that if it truly were in continuity?Well once you understand that the Syllabus and Quanta Cura were condemning a “false interpretation” of freedom of conscience rather than the idea itself, it becomes a little clearer that the Church continued to teach the “true interpretation” of freedom of conscience during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and before and after. The doctrine has continuity with the past. The very next pope after Quanta Cura was asked if Quanta Cura was condemning the principle of religious toleration as it had been taught in the past, and he responded that it was not: "If the Church declares that the various kinds of worship should not have the same rights as the true religion, she does not thereby condemn those rulers who…permit each cult to exist.” – Pope Leo XIII, Denzinger, n. 1874. Quanta Cura was condemning a false interpretation of freedom of conscience because it didn’t want the true interpretation of freedom of conscience to be distorted.
You have to realize how much false cultural influence there is telling us that the Church has always been the enemy of liberty and that it still is. Our culture tells us these things but the history of it doesn’t add up: the Church defended the principle of religious toleration before Quanta Cura, during Quanta Cura, and after Quanta Cura. It’s our culture that doesn’t get this. “How can they be for religious toleration?” they ask, “They were all about Inquisitions and Crusades.” There’s tons of anti-Catholic myth about the past that’s built up around these ideas, and while there were abuses, of course, and always will be, the members of the Church recognized abuse as abuse and it was addressed as such during and after them. We know of saints criticizing popes to their face because of abuses and we know of popes condemning kings to their face because of abuses. And if the culture recognized that, perhaps they’d see that they really got all these ideas about “liberty” and “human rights” from us. Did you know that the original Code of Canon Law by Gratian started out with a declaration of universal human rights based on natural law? Here’s the text: Decretum Gratiani Page 1:
"Natural law is common to all nations. It has its origins in nature, not in any constitution. Examples of natural law are the union of men and women, the procreation and raising of children, the common possessions of all persons, the equal liberty of all persons, the acquisition of things that are taken from the heavens, earth, or sea, the return of property or money that has been deposited or entrusted. This also includes the right to repel violence with force. These things and similar are never unjust but are natural and equitable.”“Equal liberty of all persons” – there’s your right to liberty – “the right to repel violence with force” – there’s your right to life – “the acquisition of things…[and] the return of property” – there’s your right to property. So you want to know where “the right to life liberty and property” comes from that we’re so used to hearing about? It comes from ancient Canon Law. The Church came up with this stuff. Moderns just think they’re so smart.
I found this helpful: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or CDF) referred to the Vatican II Constitution Gaudium et Spes (GS) as a “counter-syllabus”. This reference is unfortunate, not for the truth of the statement properly understood but for the images it conjures. In the minds of those who assert the positions of the post-modernists, it confirms their presumptions, which would (if true) put the entire status of the deposit of Catholic doctrine in peril. Likewise, many well-meaning people who are at a loss to explain the problems of the Church today in a logical manner assert that the teachings of the Council or the Popes since the Council is somehow responsible for the problems we see on all levels. To them these comments by Cardinal Ratzinger about a “counter-syllabus” are often taken to mean that the Syllabus has been controverted in its teachings. Rather, the intended meaning of the Cardinal Prefect was that the condemnation of errors in the Syllabus could logically be seen as being countered by positive teaching in GS that encapsulates the elements of truth contained in the aforementioned errors. Understanding the statement in this light, the negative element of the summary condemnations complimented by the later positive and elaborated teaching encapsulating what elements of truth the previously condemned errors contained results in the climate moving from negative and reactive to positive and pro-active. GS outlined a positive agenda while the Syllabus of Errors (andQuanta Cura which accompanied it) merely condemned errors and outlined no actual agenda. source What I take away from that is that Gaudium et Spes is a “counter-syllabus” in the sense that it presents what the Church’s true interpretation is while the Syllabus merely presents what the false interpretation is. After a bit of research, I see that this shows up in the context of Pope Benedict’s remark, because on the next page after he says the “counter-syllabus” remark, he continues: “The unilateral dependence on the positions taken by the Church through the initiatives of Pius IX and Pius X against the new period of History opened by the French Revolution was to a large extent corrected via facti. But a fundamental new document regarding relations with the world as it had been since 1789 was still lacking.” – In this passage he isn’t saying that the Syllabus was wrong but that it shouldn’t have been thought of as the only aspect of the Church’s response to modernism because it lacked a positive presentation which Gaudium et Spes provides.Good stuff… I’ll bring back a point that I made earlier and ask what you think of it…I wonder why Ratzinger would make a statement like that if it truly were in continuity?
It’s interesting that J Ratzinger saw fit to call Lumen Gentium a “counter syllabus” which seems to imply something more than a specific historical and geographic context. Maybe Lumen Gentium provides closure to the “Syllabus” era?
, Response of Nicholas I to the Bulgarians, 866 AD, Chap. 41 (DS 647)]Thanks for the excellent list. Let me add a few others.
Concerning those who refuse to receive the good of Christianity and sacrifice and bend their knees to idols, we can write nothing else to you than that you move them towards the right faith by warnings, exhortations, and reason rather than by force, proving that what they know in vain, is wrong. . . . Furthermore, violence is never in any way to be inflicted upon them to make them believe. For whatever is not from an inner desire ex voto], cannot be good.
[Nicholas I, *Ad consulta vestra
Glad you like them! They’re all in Denzinger. There is a .new edition with a very thorough index; although they’re in the older XXXVI edition of the Latin one as well.Wow! Where did you find those? I googled one, and it only showed up on this page.