How to reconcile Dignitatis Humanae and previous teachings on religious liberty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JDGaney
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JDGaney

Guest
Okay, so I’m reading Dignitatis Humanae, and it seems like it’s saying that we cannot coerce somebody into believing, and that the Catholic Church is the truth, and once we find the truth “it is by a personal assent that men are to adhere to it.”

“The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community.”

Basically it’s saying we cannot force somebody to believe X, Y, and Z. They must have the conscious choice, given to us by God, Himself.

But I heard previous popes condemned religious liberty. Is there a way to reconcile this?
 
Okay, so I’m reading Dignitatis Humanae, and it seems like it’s saying that we cannot coerce somebody into believing, and that the Catholic Church is the truth, and once we find the truth “it is by a personal assent that men are to adhere to it.”

“The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community.”

Basically it’s saying we cannot force somebody to believe X, Y, and Z. They must have the conscious choice, given to us by God, Himself.

But I heard previous popes condemned religious liberty. Is there a way to reconcile this?
Yes. It’s called evangelization.

When you evangelize someone you call them into relationship with God. They can choose to answer freely.

This is totally in line with the Church’s teaching that it is the one, true religion, and the Church teaching about the dignity of the person.
 
Okay, so I’m reading Dignitatis Humanae, and it seems like it’s saying that we cannot coerce somebody into believing, and that the Catholic Church is the truth, and once we find the truth “it is by a personal assent that men are to adhere to it.”

“The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community.”

Basically it’s saying we cannot force somebody to believe X, Y, and Z. They must have the conscious choice, given to us by God, Himself.

But I heard previous popes condemned religious liberty. Is there a way to reconcile this?
What contradiction with any previous teaching?. ‘Belief’ is, by definition, an internal assent to the truth of a proposition.

The Church never claimed any power to force a person to believe anything. If it did, Aquinas never would have come up with his proofs on the existence of God.
 
From my friend who objects to Vatican II:

“”""""""Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#'s 3-6) Dec. 8, 1864, Ex Cathedra “From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, NAMELY, THAT 'LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY… But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition… Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND EVIL OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER,AND WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE CHILDREN OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND
CONDEMNED.”

Antipope Paul VI, ROBBER COUNCIL Vatican II Declaration on Religious Liberty: “PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY…This Vatican synod declares that the human person has the right to religious freedom … THIS RIGHT OF THE HUMAN PERSON TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM SHOULD HAVE SUCH RECOGNITION IN THE REGULATION OF SOCIETY BY LAW AS TO BECOME A CIVIL RIGHT… Each and every one of the things set forth in this decree has won the consent of the Fathers. WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod be published to God’s glory… I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.”

Is it possible for Paul VI to possess the same “Apostolic authority” as Pope Pius IX? Does the
Apostolic authority of St. Peter contradict itself? No way! It is heresy to say so!

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“…Christ instituted a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed… As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man.”

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4, Ex Cathedra “So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair… that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of Hell.”

Archbishop Lefebvre, Aug. 4, 1976: “The Council [Vatican II] turned its back on Tradition and broke with the Church of the past. It is a schismatic council… If we are certain that the Faith taught by the Church for twenty centuries can contain no error, we are much less certain that the pope is truly pope. Heresy, schism, excommunication ipso facto, or invalid election are all causes that can possibly mean the pope was never pope, or is no longer pope… Because ultimately, since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate, the conscience and faith of all Catholics have been faced with a serious problem. How is it that the pope, the true successor of Peter, who is assured of the help of the Holy Ghost, can officiate at the destruction of the Church – the most radical, rapid, and widespread in her history – something that no heresiarch has ever managed to achieve?”

Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, Aug. 29, 1976: “The new rite of Mass is an illegitimate rite, the sacraments are illegitimate sacraments, the priests who come from the seminaries are illegitimate priests…”

Archbishop Lefebvre, Meeting with (anti-pope) Paul VI, Sept. 11, 1976: “[The document of Vatican II on religious liberty] contains passages that are word for word contrary to what was taught by Gregory XVI, and Pius IX.”

Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, Feb. 22, 1979: “Insofar as it is opposed to Tradition, we reject the Council [Vatican II].”

Archbishop Lefebvre, Sermon, Oct. 28, 1986: (anti-pope)“John Paul II has encouraged false religions to pray to their false gods: it is an unprecedented and intolerable humiliation to those who remain Catholic…”"""""""""""

So, what do people think?
 
OK I see where the argument is coming from.

That rights do not derive from the state (making liberal “human rights” invalid) rather they devolving from one’s created-ness by God (and so are natural rights which are God-given). As a corollary one does not have a God-given right to be in error.

Blessed John Paul II in his theology circumvents this by talking about dignity: we are given dignity by God, and part of this dignity is our inherent spiritual quest to be one with God.

It is against the dignity of a person, which is derived from God, to force them to abandon their quest.

Error remains error, but the best way to encourage people to leave error is by evangelizing - encouraging a deeper relationship with God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top