On Religious Liberty

[coyote]

a_cermak:

I tend to reject this whole freedom vs. license argument, because it always seems to be promoted by those trying to restrict someone else’s freedom.

Woo hoo. You speak also for me on this.
Very well said.

 

[JSmitty2005]

coyote:

Woo hoo. You speak also for me on this.
Very well said.

And what’s wrong with restricting someone else’s “freedom”? You may feel that this was well said, but it certainly was not well thought out.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

JSmitty2005:

Thanks Dave, you always have good resources and I’ll try and read those when I get a chance. I must admit, though, that a lot of what I’ve read by individuals trying to reconcile pre-Vat 2 teachings with post seem to stretch this idea of “context” a little too much. They claim that such-and-such an encyclical was intended for a certain historical context and that context alone. Isn’t that saying that truth is relative, then? As Catholics, we believe that truth is absolute…not subject to opinion, place or TIME. Also, it seems as though in the context of today’s liberalism, these writings are almost prophetic and yet we largely ignore them.

The manner in which the living magisterium sifts through the teachings of the past and judges that teaching, and re-formulates that teaching so that it can be applied to modern conceptions is no weird innovation, but is discussed in the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia.

I recommend you read “Tradition and the Living Magisterium,” written under the papacy of St. Pius X. It describes the “living magisterium” and discusses how the magisterium is organized, and how is it to recognize a Divine tradition or revealed truth.

The magisterium, according to this text is “a Divinely authorized living magistracy for the solution of controversies arising among themselves.”

Of that living magistracy (an authority vested in living successor of the apostles, with the pope at the head), the article states:

Documents of all kinds (writings, monuments, etc.) are in the hands of masters, as of the faithful, a means of finding or recognizing the revealed truth confided to the Church under the direction of her pastors. There is between written documents and the living magisterium of the Church a relation similar, proportionately speaking, to that already outlined between Scripture and the living magisterium. In them is found the traditional thought expressed according to varieties of environments and circumstances, no longer in an inspired language, as is the case with Scripture, but in a purely human language, consequently subject to the imperfections and shortcomings of human thought. … the living magisterium searches in the past, now for authorities in favour of its present thought in order to defend it against attacks or dangers of mutilation, now for light to walk the right road without straying. The thought of the Church is essentially a traditional thought and the living magisterium by taking cognizance of ancient formulas of this thought thereby recruits its strength and ***prepares to give to immutable truth a new expression ***which shall be in harmony with the circumstances of the day and within reach of contemporary minds… The living magisterium, therefore, makes extensive use of documents of the past, but it does so while judging and interpreting, gladly finding in them its present thought, but likewise, when needful, distinguishing its present thought from what is traditional only in appearance. It is revealed truth always living in the mind of the Church, or, if it is preferred, the present thought of the Church in continuity with her traditional thought, which is for it the final criterion, according to which the living magisterium adopts as true or rejects as false the often obscure and confused formulas which occur in the monuments of the past. Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings–she judges them more than she is judged by them.

It seems that at times, traditionalist attribute to papal documents the equivalent of inspired status, which is incorrect. The error some traditionalists make is that they believe the magisterium does not have supreme independence toward these writings, but must simply parrot the writings of the past. This is an erroneous view of how speculative theology works and how it contributes to a greater understanding of the deposit of faith. The living magisterium, through the continuing guidance of the Holy Spirit judges the monuments of the past more than she is judged by them. This was the teaching of 1909 as it is today, and yet traditionalists tend to rail against this understanding of the living magisterium.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From JSmitty2005I’ve been questioning some things lately, but still attend a Novus Ordo parish. I’ve been leaning towards the “Vatican II was only a pastoral council” stance lately because I really have no desire to cut myself off from B16, but reading the writings of these popes has startled me. And since their stance seems to be the one that the Church has always taken, I will naturally question anything contrary.

You really need to question the logic of this. The Pope with whom you want to maintain fidelity to was a principal to VII and has repeatedly talked about that VII is licit. You can’t practice the logic of a Sola Scriptura Protestant who says that the Magisterium was inspired in picking the Canon and then reject the other Teachings/Dogma’s promulgated by the Magisterium. You can’t claim loyalty to Rome but reject its most recent significant act.

From Jsmitty: Sorry, but I don’t trust the USCCB. Peter is the Rock. I’ll listen to Rome.

Pope Benedict would tell you to listen to your local Ordinary.

From Jsmitty: I must admit, though, that a lot of what I’ve read by individuals trying to reconcile pre-Vat 2 teachings with post seem to stretch this idea of “context” a little too much. They claim that such-and-such an encyclical was intended for a certain historical context and that context alone. Isn’t that saying that truth is relative, then? As Catholics, we believe that truth is absolute…not subject to opinion, place or TIME. Also, it seems as though in the context of today’s liberalism, these writings are almost prophetic and yet we largely ignore them.

Context is not the same as relativism. Relativism is the thesis that all points of view are equally valid. Context is having a full understanding of the setting of the phrase so one can accurately determine its meaning. The post that I referenced to about the “Bible Christian” who interpreted on passage to reach the conclusion that nobody but God and the angels are in Heaven until Christ comes for the Final Judgment is an example of taking the verse out of context. In fact, so much of what the Sola Scriptura adherent misunderstands about theology is a house built on the bricks of multiple instances of taking things out of context.

The Truth is absolute and unchanging. However, only when we are in Heaven might we understand the full Truth. To understand it fully requires absolute and complete knowledge which is something only had by God. But every day, God continues to be intimately involved in this world He created out of nothing and this involvement grants us greater revelation, knowledge and understanding. To deny this means one thinks God is a distant God rather than one who loves us intimately.

Additionally, encyclicals written in the 1800’s while still infallible might not be as relevant to the issues today just as the encyclicals written in the 1500’s weren’t as relevant as the 1800’s. For instance, the encyclicals that dealt w/ the heresies of the Reformation were written during a time of overt “protesting” and rejection of the Magisterium. While applicable today to some of our separated brethren, the vast majority are not protesting or rejecting overtly the Magisterium but instead victims to misunderstandings of the Truth that blinds their capacity to see the Truth. It is not appropriate to use the same language such as anathema for these misguided people doing their best to find, love and follow God as was appropriate for Martin Luther. The context is obviously different.

from Jsmitty: And what’s wrong with restricting someone else’s “freedom”? You may feel that this was well said, but it certainly was not well thought out.

Rhetorically, who has been authorized to restrict what is thought or believed? While I might consider you a Holy Prophet, I can’t consider you the Magisterium. Secondly, the Church has never said that one shouldn’t pursue knowledge and insight freely. In fact, it has always been a paragon of intellectual freedom as it shows its respect for the dignity of mankind given to it by God. This being said, failure to “restrict” doesn’t imply they endorse relativism (the concept that all thoughts or ideas are equal). In fact, a primary purpose of the Magisterium is to provide guidance and Teachings to the faithful so they can personally gain knowledge and insight into the Heart and Mind of God and prevent people from adhering to untruths. Guiding and teaching is the oppposite of “restricting” and “coercing” an oath to the Church or God.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Orionthehunter:

Context is not the same as relativism. Relativism is the thesis that all points of view are equally valid.

Although I agree with some of your post and appreciate it as well as Dave’s, the above statement is false. Religious indifference is the thesis that all points of view are equally valid and is a fruit of relativism. Relativism says that truth is subject to people’s opinions (denies that truth is objective), time in history (denies that truth is unchanging), and location or culture (denies that truth is universal). Absolutism says that truth is objective, unchanging, and universal. As Catholics, we are absolutists. As such, we can not believe that truth is relative to period in time. Which is what appears to be what some of these modern thinkers imply. Trust me, I know what relativism is, I just read Peter Kreeft’s book on it.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Orionthehunter:

only when we are in Heaven might we understand the full Truth.

The full truth (at least everything we need to know to attain salvation) or “Deposit of Faith” was given by Jesus to the Apostles and can be found in the Catholic Church right now (or so I’ve been told ).

 

[JSmitty2005]

I just feel that because the Church has folded on it’s opposition to freedom of religion/speech (a doctrinal matter) under the pressure of modernism, that this is probably a reason why there are so many Catholics that no longer oppose abortion and other moral issues that they Church opposes in the name of “freedom.” If change can occur in the doctrinal realm, then why not in the moral realm? How long will it be until the Church rescinds these moral teachings?

 

[JSmitty2005]

Until I see a magisterial document supporting religious liberty prior to Vatican 2 (to show that this council didn’t change anything), I will stand by my position.

 

[JSmitty2005]

BillP:
Father Corapi, seems to speak against “letting” dissidents dissent. I assume you believe that they shouldn’t be allowed to do so?

How would you and the good father prevent dissidents from dissenting?
I believe that this is the purpose of the Inquisition.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Orionthehunter:

JSmitty2005:

coyote:

a_cermak:

Angainor:

Yes, everyone is free to choose their religion, but do not confuse freedom with license.

Nobody has the license to choose any religion they want.

I tend to reject this whole freedom vs. license argument, because it always seems to be promoted by those trying to restrict someone else’s freedom. Woo hoo. You speak also for me on this.

Very well said. And what’s wrong with restricting someone else’s “freedom”? You may feel that this was well said, but it certainly was not well thought out. Rhetorically, who has been authorized to restrict what is thought or believed? While I might consider you a Holy Prophet, I can’t consider you the Magisterium. Secondly, the Church has never said that one shouldn’t pursue knowledge and insight freely. In fact, it has always been a paragon of intellectual freedom as it shows its respect for the dignity of mankind given to it by God. This being said, failure to “restrict” doesn’t imply they endorse relativism (the concept that all thoughts or ideas are equal). In fact, a primary purpose of the Magisterium is to provide guidance and Teachings to the faithful so they can personally gain knowledge and insight into the Heart and Mind of God and prevent people from adhering to untruths. Guiding and teaching is the oppposite of “restricting” and “coercing” an oath to the Church or God.

Of course our freedom is restricted! What do you think rules and laws are for? If freedom wasn’t restricted, we’d live in anarchy. That was the point I was trying to make. See what the popes have said about what freedom really is:

“**Freedom consists ** not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.”
-Pope John Paul II

“…freedom is not simply about enjoying life in total autonomy, but rather about living by the measure of truth and goodness, so that we ourselves can become true and good.”
-Pope Benedict XVI

a_cermak seems to be saying that they reject the freedom vs. license argument because they don’t like it and not for any philosophical reasons.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Orionthehunter:

My dear Jsmitty, while on its face, this Error appears to be clear and incontrovertible, a proper understanding of the Error probably requires great intellectual vigor and study of the referenced Encyclical(s) (Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.) And, one who always is on the look-out for quotes being used out of context, I require it.

For the context of the Syllabus, read Quanta Cura, the companion encyclical to it. I believe they were released together. Also, Quanta Cura was basically a reiteration of Mirari Vos (which is cited in it), so reading that might help too.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Okay, with regard to the “freedom of religion” part, I ask you, how do you reconcile that with the Church’s former teaching taking into consideration that the Church (supposedly) never changes doctrines.

I don’t think this is a doctrinal matter.

And the Church may not change doctrines, but the Church does change. If you want me to make a study of when different popes have made statements contradicting each other, I will. Certainly it happens.

The Church need not avoid all contradictions, however. We are headed by Christ, and Christ will bear with our missteps. (The Church itself, of course, does not misstep. The people of the Church – including, at times, popes – do.)

 

[JSmitty2005]

Prodigal_Son:

I don’t think this is a doctrinal matter.

Well, I think it is. So does another poster on this thread:

Orionthehunter:

Additionally, encyclicals written in the 1800’s while still infallible…

Infallibility can only be conferred upon things of a doctrinal nature. By their very nature, pastoral opinions cannot be infallible.

 

[JSmitty2005]

(The Church itself, of course, does not misstep. The people of the Church – including, at times, popes – do.)

The pope’s opinions can err, but not his teachings. Encyclicals are obviously the latter.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

JSmitty2005:

The pope’s opinions can err, but not his teachings. Encyclicals are obviously the latter.

His teachings can err. Just his de fide teachings are infallible.

Nonetheless, can you describe more specifically what precisely changed with Vatican II’s teaching as compared to pre-Vatican II?

 

[JSmitty2005]

itsjustdave1988:

His teachings can err. Just his de fide teachings are infallible.

Nonetheless, can you describe more specifically what precisely changed with Vatican II’s teaching as compared to pre-Vatican II?

So what makes something de fide? I’d have to go through the V2 documents and see (I haven’t read them all in their entirety), but basing myself off of papal statements like the one here, I’ve come to the conclusion that it has changed. Now, you’ve said that the pope’s teachings can err, so I’ll have to rethink myself.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

JSmitty205,

Let’s presume your thesis that the pope cannot error in their teachings it true.

Isn’t Dignatus Humanae the teaching of the pope? In fact, it has been the teaching of Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. That’s a lot of popes upholding the same Vatican II document. It was an Acta Apostolicae Sedis that was even signed by Msgr Marcel Levebvre. Did they err?

 

[JSmitty2005]

itsjustdave1988:

JSmitty205,

Let’s presume your thesis that the pope cannot error in their teachings it true.

Isn’t Dignatus Humanae the teaching of the pope? In fact, it has been the teaching of Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. That’s a lot of popes upholding the same Vatican II document. It was an Acta Apostolicae Sedis that was even signed by Msgr Marcel Levebvre. Did they err?

But what I’m saying is that the past popes weren’t in error because they simply re-iterated the Church’s perennial teaching while these post-conciliar ones seem to have reversed this teaching which has caused me to call their authority into question. Please don’t attack me (none of you have so far), but I’m honestly having a hard time with this. I really do want to be intellectually at ease with the current Magisterium, but it just doesn’t seem to add up. Also, are encyclicals always considered infallible? I was under the impression that they were. Finally, what is an Acta Apostolicae Sedis?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I think what you need to be more precise about is what you mean by religious liberty. If you mean by “religious liberty” that one is “free to embrace” and promulgate error without refutation, ecclesiastical censure or punishment by legitamite ecclesial authority in accord with Catholic law, then nobody has such a freedom. Vatican II did not contradict this teaching.

If you mean by “religious liberty,” freedom from “the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ,” (*Dignitatis Humanae, *1) then nobody has this kind of religious liberty.

If you mean by “religous liberty,” that freedom which is “necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God,” (*DH, *1) then everybody has this kind of religious liberty, which requires “immunity from coercion in civil society” (DH, 1) so they may fulfull such obligations toward God. This kind of religious liberty is that freedom which “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.”

So, I cannot force my Lefebvrist friends, against their will, to go to a licit Mass. They can certainly be canonically censured for not abiding by canon law. But they cannot be forced to go to a licit Mass against their will.

Likewise, the government of the U.S. cannot force Sabbatarians to worship on Sunday and not on Saturday (despite E.G. White’s “prophecies” to the contrary). Sabbatarians have the same “immunity from coercion in civil society” in the sense that they cannot be “forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs” as Catholics. Of course, this immunity is “within due limits.” So, the U.S. government can force the Aryan Nations Church in Idaho from infringing upon the human rights of Jews and other minorities under the cover of “religious liberty.”

Yet, religious liberty is not to be understood as liberty from truth, as “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.” (DH, 2). Nonetheless, so long as “just public order be observed,” (*DH, *2) humans have the gift of free will given to them by God, and other humans cannot coerce them to act contary to such a gift by forcing them against their will in matters religious.

So, when Russia or China hinder public teaching and witness to the Catholic faith, they violate what the Church teaches regarding religious liberty.

 

[JSmitty2005]

itsjustdave1988:

I think what you need to be more precise about is what you mean by religious liberty. If you mean by “religious liberty” that one is “free to embrace” and promulgate error without refutation, ecclesiastical censure or punishment by legitamite ecclesial authority in accord with Catholic law, then nobody has such a freedom. Vatican II did not contradict this teaching.

If you mean by “religious liberty,” freedom from “the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ,” (*Dignitatis Humanae, *1) then nobody has this kind of religious liberty.

So, when Russia or China hinder public teaching and witness to the Catholic faith, they violate what the Church teaches regarding religious liberty.

That’s all I needed to hear, although I would guess that some of the posters on here would support the kind of “religious liberty” you’ve stated above as being contrary to the Faith, but I think that goes along with living in America. Thanks, Dave. Also, you mentioned Russia and China. If they hindered public teaching and witness to say…Islam, would that violate what the Church teaches regarding religious liberty?