How can I reconcile these Church teachings?

[Colorad007]

Vatican II ushered in a much less hostile approach to liberal democracy and strongly emphasized religious freedom. But that contradicts, it seems, the approach of the Syllabus, which basically decries Americanism and pluralism. Was that infallible teaching? How was continuity maintained?

 

[JM3]

Your question is too vague. Which parts of the documents do you feel contradict? Even then, it would only be speculation, as only the Church has the right to interpret its documents.

 

[Gerardello]

Vatican II ushered in a much less hostile approach to liberal democracy and strongly emphasized religious freedom. But that contradicts, it seems, the approach of the Syllabus, which basically decries Americanism and pluralism. Was that infallible teaching? How was continuity maintained?

Pope Benedict said Vatican II must be understood and interpreted within framefork of Sacred Tradition and all dogmatic decisions of previous Ecumenical Councils ( no doubt Syllabus is part of it). It is from the one hand. From the other, Vatican II was not a dogmatical Council. So if in its documents there are such one that is somewhat “vague” as to its true understanding we must interpret it in sense of all those dogmatic definitions that was pronounced until Vatican II. It is the most safe way to understand it for oneself.

 

[EphelDuath]

Vatican II ushered in a much less hostile approach to liberal democracy and strongly emphasized religious freedom. But that contradicts, it seems, the approach of the Syllabus, which basically decries Americanism and pluralism. Was that infallible teaching? How was continuity maintained?

It’s almost impossible to take Dignitatis humanae at face value and not see contradictions in the Church’s past teachings about the social kingship of Christ. It’s also difficult to argue that the VII document abrogates former teachings, considering they were taught under the pain of excommunication by dozens of Papacies.

That being said. I read a very interesting paper recently which argues that while the drafting bishop of* Dignitatis humanae* actually intended to re-write the Church’s teachings, the document itself actually does not – sec. 6 of the document says “Finally, government is to see to it that equality of citizens before the law, which is itself an element of the common good, is never violated”, which interpreted according to canon law, means the government has to promote Catholicism above all other religions or lack thereof (because the phrase “common good” had an established meaning in canon law pertaining to Catholicism being the one true religion, that the document’s drafters were apparently not aware of).

Read the paper here: academia.edu/877072/Catholic_teaching_on_religion_and_the_state

I found out about it from a Rorate Caeli article here: rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/09/traditionalism-and-academic-censorship.html

 

[Cojuanco]

Vatican II ushered in a much less hostile approach to liberal democracy and strongly emphasized religious freedom. But that contradicts, it seems, the approach of the Syllabus, which basically decries Americanism and pluralism. Was that infallible teaching? How was continuity maintained?

The syllabus of errors is just that - a syllabus. It references other documents, which form the context. Many of them refer to specific situations in particular churches. For example, the condemnation of pluralism is specific to Spain, who had signed a treaty with the Pope that the government would support the Catholic religion, and only the Catholic religion. But the government of the day unilaterally broke it and gave money to Protestant churches. Now aside from promoting false worship, the government broke their word, which are sins.

I’d read Bl. Henry Newman’s Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, which answers your question about the Syllabus in so much more detail. But papal documents cannot be proof-texted without sounding ridiculous.

As for Americanism, though, that is a heresy, especially in that it denigrates the contemplative life as being necessary to the Church, for example. This of course, is condemned, as it has been by every Pope since, at least aside from the one who only lasted a month.

 

[amsjj]

Of related interest would be a work written by Blessed John Henry Newman’s ordinary, Bishop William Bernard Ullathorne – “Mr. Gladstone’s Expostulation Unravelled,” particularly Chapter VI. Mr. Gladstone’s ‘Syllabus’ and the Pope’s Syllabus.

take care,
amsjj

+++
Jesus, God and man,
imprisoned by love in Thy most holy Sacrament,
have mercy upon us.

• Blessed John Henry Newman, December 22, 1851

Tú y yo sabemos por la fe que oculto en las especies sacramentales está Cristo,
ese Cristo con su Cuerpo, con su Sangre, con su Alma, y con su Divinidad,
prisonero de amor.

• San Josemaría Escrivá, 1 junio 1974

God loves to be resisted in His displeasure, and to be restrained by the humble from inflicting punishment…
One saint will often save a nation; so true is it that humble souls are the hinges on which God moves the world.

• Abp. W. B. Ullathorne, The Groundwork of the Christian Virtues, 1882.

 

[JReducation]

Vatican II ushered in a much less hostile approach to liberal democracy and strongly emphasized religious freedom. But that contradicts, it seems, the approach of the Syllabus, which basically decries Americanism and pluralism. Was that infallible teaching? How was continuity maintained?

The Syllabus was never believed to be infallible teaching, not by any pope that I know. That’s why popes feel so comfortable referring to it, referring to parts of it or not referring to it at all. Pope Pius X never said that the Syllabus was part of the deposit of faith.

We have an obsession with the Syllabus. The Syllabus is certainly important. I’m not minimizing this at all. What I’m trying to help people do is to keep the Syllabus in perspective.

It was a gift that Pius X gave to the Church, but it was never intended to be a binding law on the Church in perpetuity. Pope Pius X never said that. This was part of the argument between Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Lefebvre. Pope Paul stuck to his guns that he would subscribe only to those parts of the syllabus as he felt were still necessary and he would ignore those parts that he felt were no longer useful because they did not work, not because they were falsehood. No one ever said that the Syllabus contains falsehood. What modern popes have said is that parts of the syllabus do not work today as they did once upon a time. Those parts that no longer work, are not referenced in current Church teaching and discipline.

As I’ve been saying a lot lately. We have to focus more on our daily journey of faith and less on things that have nothing to do with us, because they were written for a specific audience. And unless one is part of that audience, one does not need to spend so much time pouring over these things. One has to focus on getting his rear end and that of his family into heaven. Most of the times, the issues that interfere with our attainment of union with the Divine have little or nothing to do with such writings as the Syllabus. The proof is in all of the 20th century saints who went to heaven without ever having read the syllabus and without caring to much about it, because it was not written for them.

Just a few examples: Teresa of Calcutta, Maximilian Kolbe, Edith Stein, Katherine Drexel, Giana Mola, Pierre Giorgio Frasatti, Rose Duquesne and Padre Pio.

Yes even Padre Pio. The Syllabus has never been part of our (Franciscan) formation program. Our formation program was set in quasi stone by Bonaventure. It does not include Aquinas or the Syllabus. They are mentioned in passing so that we know that they exist. If one wants to go back and read them, that’s up to the individual.

My point is that despite this, many people who are so obsessed with the syllabus have a much harder time achieving great holiness compared to people who never stopped to think about it, such as those folks whom I mentioned above. Those folks focused on the Divine Nuptials between their soul and God.

My recommendation is to put down the Syllabus and pick up the lives of these 20th century heroes of our faith. They’ll do you more good.

 

[Gerardello]

The Syllabus was never believed to be infallible teaching, not by any pope that I know.
Laudentur Jesus Christus et Maria Virgo! I do not want to start theological discussion as to whether Syllabus pertain to inffalible teaching of the Church or not. I just want to share my points of view on this subject.
1). It is interesting that when someone wants to decrease the authority of some of the Pope’s document he almost always says “in is not an inffallible doctrine”. As for me when I read some official document issued by Pope, i do not think whether it pertain to infall. doct. or not i just reflect on the fact that A) it was issued by Person, who is a Vicar of Christ Himself a who as all catholics believe is guided by Holy Spirit in matters of faith and moral, especially if that person is declared blessed or saint. (Syllabus does pertain to matters of faith and morals) B) secondly I consider the fact that this doc was not a private message or some oral expression, it was very well considered and very serious doc which Vicar of Christ intended for all catholics (from a nature of document it is obvious that Pope speaks as a Teacher of all Christians, so we may say ‘ex cathedra’). C) thirdly, all statements in Syllabus are in full accordance with Catholic Doctrine.
I fully agree with Franciscan Brother who said that
“parts of the syllabus do not work today as they did once upon a time. Those parts that no longer work, are not referenced in current Church teaching and discipline.”
world changed a lot since XIX cen. but unfortunately not in a good direction, certainly XX cen Popes had to consider it and they did it. It is was due to “discretion” that they rarely mention some parts of Syllabus but it is not as if they disagree with it. They just realized that perversed secularized world would absolutely not except it.
But I don’t think that someone is “obsessed” with Syllabus. Rather we are obssed with seeking Truth. As for me I just want to understand as well as Colorad007. and if between Syllabus and some declarion of V2 there are some differences, my conscience advice me to believe that Syllabus is closer to the Truth. (It my own pinion).
I also fully disagree with naming not a small part of Catholic doctrine which contains in Syllabus
“things that have nothing to do with us, because they were written for a specific audience”
especially when before the author says its “gift that Pius X gave to the Church” and “certainly important”, but oddly enough in the end he give recommendation “to put it down”.
As to the sainthood I again totally agree wih Br. FV but I would like to mention that Syllabus is not a kind of letter which has a direct connection to ascetism. So it not clear to me why we should treat Syllabus as some impediment to our striving for sainthood. Ascetic books and documents on morals and faith certainly have connection, but it is information is from different fields of Church doctrine and has different goals.
Those saints which Br. FV numbered of couse could be unaware of Syllabus but they certainly had a great reverence to all teachings of Christ’s Vicars, especialy Padre Pio had it. It is interesting that he has much in common with Popes Pius IX and Pius X as regards to uncompromising fight against ralaxations in the field of morality and condemning of liberalism in faith.

P.S. With great respect to all Order of st.Francis.

 

[CrossofChrist]

How was continuity maintained?

Do you mind referencing where you think there may have been “discontinuity”? I see none.

 

[Cojuanco]

Brother, I’d have to respectfully distinguish, in that the Syllabus was in large part a document that summarized the enforcement of doctrine, some of which are infallible. When read in context, it was meant to apply to certain situations, some of which are extant, some of which are not. It’s an executive summary of certain actions, but can be misinterpreted when not provided the context.

 

[EphelDuath]

Why all this talk about the Syllabus of Errors? The social kingship of Christ has been the Church’s teaching against liberalism, almost since its inception in the West. Just because ONE document of Pius X enforced this, does not mean that the truthfulness of this doctrine is entirely dependent upon the infallibility of the Syllabus.

It’s very difficult to take the surface reading of Dignitatis humanae and reconcile it with the social kingship. So either Dignitatis should be discarded entirely, or interpreted against its face value, or the Church has to admit that a doctrine that it excommunicated people over was never true to begin with. I opt for the middle option.

 

[sw85]

DH and the Syllabus are talking about two different things. The relevant sections of Syllabus condemn, essentially, indifferentism and disestablishmentarianism. DH doesn’t encourage either, it encourages religious toleration.

“Toleration of X” doesn’t mean that X is a good thing. You don’t tolerate good things, you tolerate bad things you don’t have any good way to deal with. Protestantism is objectively a bad thing (in that it is false and it seduces souls away from the true faith and the Church and the Sacraments, etc.) but the state has no means to deal with it that are proportionate to the threat it poses to social order, which is a lot less than the threat it posed to the social order of, say, 16th century France.

DH certainly *does not *imply a moral right to embrace non-Catholic religion and DH itself denies that it means as much when it says that it “in no way touches” traditional teachings regarding the duty “of men and societies” to order themselves to Christ through the Church. I read this as an endorsement not just of the duties of men to become Catholic but also of states to formally recognize and protect the Catholic Church. Yes, this means at least the first clause of the First Amendment needs to go, deal with it.

In other words, Lutherans are wrong and it is bad for them to be Lutheran, but their merely being Lutheran is not sufficient reason to suppress them.

On the other hand DH also recognizes that the right to religious freedom is subordinate to the maintenance of good public order and public morals, so while we can’t punish Lutherans as Lutherans, there’s an argument to be made that a Catholic state can punish them as, say, agitators for divorce, contraception, or homosexual “marriage.”

 

[Cojuanco]

Precisely. Furthermore, Catholic teaching has also allowed for toleration where the population was mixed, or not morally near-homogenously Catholic. That would describe most countries today, for better or worse.

Church documents usually do not arise from a vacuum. When taken in its context, there is continuity.

 

[EphelDuath]

DH and the Syllabus are talking about two different things. The relevant sections of Syllabus condemn, essentially, indifferentism and disestablishmentarianism. DH doesn’t encourage either, it encourages religious toleration.

“Toleration of X” doesn’t mean that X is a good thing. You don’t tolerate good things, you tolerate bad things you don’t have any good way to deal with. Protestantism is objectively a bad thing (in that it is false and it seduces souls away from the true faith and the Church and the Sacraments, etc.) but the state has no means to deal with it that are proportionate to the threat it poses to social order, which is a lot less than the threat it posed to the social order of, say, 16th century France.

DH certainly *does not *imply a moral right to embrace non-Catholic religion and DH itself denies that it means as much when it says that it “in no way touches” traditional teachings regarding the duty “of men and societies” to order themselves to Christ through the Church. I read this as an endorsement not just of the duties of men to become Catholic but also of states to formally recognize and protect the Catholic Church. Yes, this means at least the first clause of the First Amendment needs to go, deal with it.

In other words, Lutherans are wrong and it is bad for them to be Lutheran, but their merely being Lutheran is not sufficient reason to suppress them.

On the other hand DH also recognizes that the right to religious freedom is subordinate to the maintenance of good public order and public morals, so while we can’t punish Lutherans as Lutherans, there’s an argument to be made that a Catholic state can punish them as, say, agitators for divorce, contraception, or homosexual “marriage.”

Unfortunately it’s very difficult to fit all of that interpretation, orthodox as it is, into this:

1. 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.(2) 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.

The only way to do that is if we read the words “religious freedom” and “civil right” to mean almost the opposite of what they’re commonly accepted to mean.

It’s particularly perplexing, in addition to that, that nothing is mentioned of the social kingship of Christ in DH. Evidently if we believe the Catholic Church is infallible, then this still has to be an infallible doctrine – so why the Council Fathers saw fit to promulgate a document which couldn’t just have said

1. There is no right for false religions to exist, for Christ is the sole king of the universe and the human race
2. The Catholic Church should take principle place in a society, and protected and enforced as such by law
3. But it is immoral to persecute or oppress a people for no other reason than not being Catholic

is beyond me. That would’ve been fairly unambiguous and totally in line with all of the past teachings of the Church. As it stands the ambiguous wording of DH has allowed lukewarm and liberal Catholics to think indifferentism is not a serious spiritual and moral error.

 

[sw85]

Unfortunately it’s very difficult to fit all of that interpretation, orthodox as it is, into this …

It’s not so difficult, and the difficulty you are having is precisely in this:

The only way to do that is if we read the words “religious freedom” and “civil right” to mean almost the opposite of what they’re commonly accepted to mean.

Because, yes, we are supposed to read “religious freedom” in a sense contrary to what they’re commonly accepted to mean, because the common usage of “religious freedom” arises from its use by liberals to mean indifferentism. The Church, having previously condemned that position, obviously doesn’t mean “liberal indifferentism” here, which DH acknowledges at the end of ch. 1:

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 they specifically clarify that the “right to religious freedom” means “immunity from coercion in civil society,” not a change to the traditionally understood and accepted “moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one true Church of Christ.” Lutherans still have no moral right to be Lutherans. All DH is saying is that we (Catholics) don’t have the right to suppress Lutheranism simply because they have no right to practice it. To suppress it we would have to use means disproportionate to the threat which Lutheranism poses to Western social order. Since the Western social order is no longer explicitly Catholic, that threat is negligible. It’d be a different story (and was a different story) in 17th century France.

I’ve said before that a lot of the confusion could’ve been cleared up if DH had just used “religious toleration” instead of “right to religious freedom” but the point of the whole game was appeal to “modern man” (i.e., liberals), so I understand why they didn’t.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

WARNING

I have placed this warning on other threads as well. TC Forum is to discuss Catholic tradition and Catholic customs. Please DO NOT use TC Forum for any other purpose.

In addition, it is contrary to Catholic tradition for the faithful to dictate to the Magisterium what it should and should not say or how to say it.