Time to eliminate all confusion about Vatican II

[KingAlfred]

I love V2. Sorry, folks. Yeah…I’m a fan. I’m also into *Liberation Theology *(non-Marxist version).

 

[Dauphin]

That depends on what hermeneutics you apply, that of rupture or that of continuity. Vatican II is just one in a row of many councils and should be interpreted in line with tradition and you can do just that. It’s so sad when catholics jump to conclusions and say that Vatican II teaches in contradiction to tradition, it does not because it cannot. Don’t give the lefties the pleasure of “owning” Vatican II.

I’d love to interpret it in continuity, but I just don’t see continuity - I see direct contradition. My last post lays it out clearly.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I love V2. Sorry, folks. Yeah…I’m a fan. I’m also into *Liberation Theology *(non-Marxist version).

If you like Liberation Theology, I can understand why you love Vatican II. I think Liberation Theology and Vatican II are from the same spirit.

 

[eelpis]

I love V2. Sorry, folks. Yeah…I’m a fan. I’m also into *Liberation Theology *(non-Marxist version).

King Alfred, I just want to ask you one question.
How much did the SSPX pay you for that one?

 

[eelpis]

Would you agree that in order to interprete Vatican II with the “hermeneutic of continuity”, a person would need to interpret Vatican II in such a way that it is in line with what the Church has always taught?

I’m sure you will reply by saying yet.

Ok, then, is it wrong for a person to hold to what the Church has always taught and to refuse to depart from it based on Vatican II?

In other words, we should continue to believe what the Church has always taught, right?

What if someone interprets Vatican II in a way that is contrary to what the Church has always taught? Is that proof positive that they are misinterpreting Vatican II?

I’m curious, can you reconcile the quote from Vatican II given a few posts above by Dauphin, with the quotes at the bottom of Dauphin’s post?

Yes, if someone is interpreting Vatican II in contradiction to tradition they are not thinking with the Church.

Even the pope has said as much. (How could he do otherwise?)

 

[eelpis]

I’d love to interpret it in continuity, but I just don’t see continuity - I see direct contradition. My last post lays it out clearly.

There is no direct contradiction. The Catholic faith is the true religion and the Catholic state has the right to suppress other faiths but how this can be achieved is another thing. The teaching of Diginitatis Humanae is not in contradiction with previous teaching.

Please check out this analysis by Fr Most, ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/RELLIB.TXT

 

[japhy]

Yes, if someone is interpreting Vatican II in contradiction to tradition they are not thinking with the Church.

I think P et C is saying that, in order to interpret parts of Vatican II in continuity with the previous teachings of the Church, you have to contradict what was literally written.

I have nothing to add to this discussion, honestly, since I believe Vatican II can be reconciled (despite its ambiguity) with the traditional teaching of the Church; except to say that, perhaps, by a miracle of God, the “accidents” of the documents of Vatican II notwithstanding, their “substance” is truly and really the traditional teaching of the Church.

 

[Dauphin]

There is no direct contradiction. The Catholic faith is the true religion and the Catholic state has the right to suppress other faiths but how this can be achieved is another thing. The teaching of Diginitatis Humanae is not in contradiction with previous teaching.

Please check out this analysis by Fr Most, ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/RELLIB.TXT

No.

If you feel that you can reconcile the contradictions I pointed out, then do so by responding in detail to my post. You can use the views given in this article, if you wish.

 

[eelpis]

No.

If you feel that you can reconcile the contradictions I pointed out, then do so by responding in detail to my post. You can use the views given in this article, if you wish.

Dear Dauphin, I’m not a theologian and I find it rather hard to reconcile the texts that you quoted. I know it can be done and I know it has been done. Thank God, I’m not the pope.

The things that I know are, that Church has never condoned forced baptisms. No one can force, by the sword for example, another to embrace the faith of the Church, the declaration Dignitatis humanae reiterated that teaching in a powerfull way. It also left untouched the teachings of the Church regarding the state’s obligations toward the true faith and the only Church of Christ.

 

[Dauphin]

Dear Dauphin, I’m not a theologian and I find it rather hard to reconcile the texts that you quoted. I know it can be done and I know it has been done. Thank God, I’m not the pope.

The things that I know are, that Church has never condoned forced baptisms. No one can force, by the sword for example, another to embrace the faith of the Church, the declaration Dignitatis humanae reiterated that teaching in a powerfull way. It also left untouched the teachings of the Church regarding the state’s obligations toward the true faith and the only Church of Christ.

It proposed that false religions have the right to be unimpeded in public teaching and worship. Doesn’t that contradict the Magisterium?

 

[Just_Lurking]

The following theological opinion seems relevant to this discussion. I came across it in Creative Fidelity while I was searching for the Congar quote in another thread.

Hermann Pottmeyer, another prominent German Catholic theologian, has written a very perceptive article about the special problems involved in the interpretation of the documents of Vatican II. Surveying the previous twenty years of interpretation of the council, he finds that two interpretive approaches are in conflict: one looks exclusively to the new beginnings promoted by the majority, the other looks exclusively to statements that reflect pre-conciliar theology. The two approaches share the same method of selective interpretation. They fail to recognize the transitional nature of the council, which strove to achieve renewal of the church while remaining faithful to its tradition.

As Pottmeyer sees it, what gives rise to the selective interpretation is the fact that the council did not achieve a synthesis of the two factors, but rather used the method of juxtaposition. Alongside a doctrine couched in preconciliar language is set a doctrine that formulates some aspect of the renewal sought by the majority. While such juxtaposition represents a compromise, Pottmeyer insists that this was necessary for the achieving of consensus, and in any case the council probably could not have succeeded in going beyond juxtaposition to a new synthesis.

Some have criticized the council’s method of juxtaposition for what they judge to be internal contradiction, but Pottmeyer replies that this reproach can be leveled not so much at the council itself as the post-conciliar use of selective interpretation that seizes upon one thesis without attending to the complementary thesis.

Pottmeyer calls for the abandonment of selective interpretation, and the application of a hermeneutic that reflects fidelity to the council, its intention, its procedure, and its transitional character. Such a hermeneutic pays careful attention to the history of the texts, in both the pre-conciliar and the conciliar phase.

An appropriate hermeneutic requires, therefore, that the texts be interpreted in the light of the evolution both of the council and its texts, and of the tendency manifested therein. When dealing with the juxtaposition of two theses, we must take into account the council’s will to continuity as well as its will to move in a new direction.

“Progressive” interpretations have occasionally forgotten that the council retracted nothing in the dogmas of Trent and Vatican I. It did indeed relativize these dogmas in the sense that it no longer regarded their formulations as the absolutely final state of development in the understanding of the faith, but instead located them within the whole tradition of faith. “Conservative” interpretations have occasionally forgotten that despite their will to continuity the council fathers attached differing values to the theses in question. The theses defended by the minority do not represent the will of the council to the same degree as the theses that passed by an overwhelming majority.

Pottmeyer then calls attention to a danger that in his view “progressive” interpretations of the council have not always avoided: of a hermeneutical misunderstanding that attempts to separate the “spirit” of the council from its letter, and then leaves the letter behind. He insists that this does not represent fidelity to the council. The “spirit” of the council makes itself known from the direction given in the texts; on the other hand, it is only from this “spirit” that the texts are properly understood.

 

[eelpis]

It proposed that false religions have the right to be unimpeded in public teaching and worship. Doesn’t that contradict the Magisterium?

It did not say that any false religion has any “rights” as error cannot have any rights. It does not mean however that you have to go to prison for professing error. What DH stated was that consciences cannot be coerced. For people to embrace the Catholic faith they have to be free from coercion. It does not give false religions the right to be unimpeded as it plainly states that there is freedom within DUE limits.

“This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a
right to religious liberty. Liberty of this kind consists in
this, that all persons should be immune from coercion either on
the part of individuals, or of social societies, and of any
human power at all, and this in such a way that in a religious
matter neither should anyone be forced to act against his
conscience, or impeded from acting according to his conscience
privately and publicly. either alone or in association with
others, within due limits.”

It also teaches that all men have a duty toward the true religion and the only Church of Christ.

“It also declares that the right to religious liberty is
really founded in the very dignity of the human person…
According to this dignity, all are impelled by their own nature,
and are bound by moral obligation to seek the truth… They
cannot satisfy this obligation…unless they have psychological
freedom and at the same time immunity from external coercion.”

Please read the analysis by the late Fr Most, he treats the text of DH and the statements by Leo XIII and Pius IX and shows that there is not contradiction but there is a evolution.

ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/RELLIB.TXT

 

[PrayforMallory]

I’ll be frank. I am having a darn hard problem understanding the Church’s teaching about religious freedom. I read Dignitatis Humanae and the CCC and I conclude that the Church is an advocate of freedom of religion and speech (although certainly not condoning beliefs and speech that it believes heretical). I then read papal documents cited by traditionalists in this forum and come to the exact opposite conclusion…to the extent that if Catholics assumed power in the United States I, as a Protestant, would be precluded from worshipping my faith in public or publicly advocating any religious belief opposed by the Catholic Church. All of which is very confusing in light of the witness of John Paul II who played an instrumental role (along with other people, including Reagan and Thatcher among others) in helping to bring down the Communist empires.

Just a suggestion.

Don’t go further and read the writings Medieval Popes, you will end up even more confused.

I’ve since given up trying to make sense of it. Maybe I’ll make a post about it.

 

[Dauphin]

It did not say that any false religion has any “rights” as error cannot have any rights. It does not mean however that you have to go to prison for professing error. What DH stated was that consciences cannot be coerced. For people to embrace the Catholic faith they have to be free from coercion. It does not give false religions the right to be unimpeded as it plainly states that there is freedom within DUE limits.

The thing is… you’re not actually addressing the issue I raised. Dignitatis Humanae did say that false religions have the right not to be impeded in public worship and teaching:

*“Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles…Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word.” *

This is what I want you to address - not the idea that people shouldn’t be forced to act against their conscience (we already agree on that). I just want you to tell me how it is compatible with the Magisterium to say that false religions have the right to public teaching and worship, given the following:

Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth, may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law” (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei).

Condemned Errors:

“Liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” (Pius IX, Quanta Cura).

“… the best condition of society is the one in which there is no acknowledgment by the government of the duty of restraining… offenders of the Catholic religion, except insofar as the public peace demands” (Pius IX, Quanta Cura).

*77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. – Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855. *(Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors).

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852. (Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors).

 

[eelpis]

About the words “within due limits”-- they are not precise. Someone
might claim they meant the same as “public peace” in the document of Pius
IX. Pius IX clearly requires the state to do more than just maintain
public peace in this matter. Howsoever Vatican II also requires more.
“Religious communities also have the right not to be impeded in orally
and publicly teaching and testifying to their faith. However, in spreading
religious faith and practices, **<all must abstain always from every kind of
action which seems to be coercion or improper or less right persuasion,
especially towards the uneducated and the poor. Such a way of acting must
be considered as an abuse of their own rights and infringement of the
rights of others.> ** And in #7: "Since <civil society has the right of
protecting itself against the abuses that could happen under the pretext of
religious liberty, it pertains especially to the civil authority to provide
protection of this kind> ;it should not be done in an arbitrary manner or
unfairly favoring one side, but according to juridical , which are required for the
effective protection of rights for all citizens, and for the peaceful
settlement of conflict of rights, and by a sufficient care for that
honorable public peace which is the well-ordered living together in true
justice, **<and [required] by due custody of public morality.>”
**
We conclude: Vatican II does require much more than keeping public
peace. It requires that the sects <refrain from unfair persuasion aimed at
the uneducated and the poor - that would be “an abuse of their rights”; it
requires care for public morality>.

 

[PrayforMallory]

If Pope Liberius had said “no emergency” existed during the Arian crisis, it wouldn’t make it so.

“Servant of God” or not, the pope is not always right. A fact that is often sorely lost on these fora by some.

Unfortunately for my mental health, I have to agree with you.

Fact is, Pope Benedict IX sold the Papacy. Read about John XII.

You won’t believe the type of accusations anti-renewal Churchmen threw at Pope St. Gregory VII when he reformed the Papacy, If it were the 11th century and we were discussing simony, I’d imagine the conservation would be equally chaotic and confusing…

The Cardinal President IN CHARGE of these matters, appointed by the pope, doesn’t say things lightly about the very area he is charged to handle. Charged by the Pope.

Well, his opinion gets routinely ignored.

 

[Dauphin]

About the words “within due limits”-- they are not precise. Someone
might claim they meant the same as “public peace” in the document of Pius
IX. Pius IX clearly requires the state to do more than just maintain
public peace in this matter. Howsoever Vatican II also requires more.
"Religious communities also have the right not to be impeded in orally
and publicly teaching and testifying to their faith. However, in spreading
religious faith and practices, **<all must abstain always from every kind of **
**action which seems to be coercion or improper or less right persuasion, **
**especially towards the uneducated and the poor. Such a way of acting must **
**be considered as an abuse of their own rights and infringement of the **
**rights of others.> **And in #7: **"Since <civil society has the right of **
**protecting itself against the abuses that could happen under the pretext of **
**religious liberty, it pertains especially to the civil authority to provide **
protection of this kind> ;it should not be done in an arbitrary manner or
unfairly favoring one side, but according to juridical **<norms that are in **
accord with the objective moral order>, which are required for the
effective protection of rights for all citizens, and for the peaceful
settlement of conflict of rights, and by a sufficient care for that
honorable public peace which is the well-ordered living together in true
justice, <and [required] by due custody of public morality.>"

We conclude: Vatican II does require much more than keeping public
peace. It requires that the sects <refrain from unfair persuasion aimed at
the uneducated and the poor - that would be “an abuse of their rights”; it
requires care for public morality>.

Do religious communities have the right to be unhindered in the public exercise of their false religion, or can the state suppress the public exercise of a false religion in the interest of the common good?

Both can’t be true. Please choose.

 

[Our_Refuge]

Here’s what Pope Paul VI said in his first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam, promulgated before Lumen Gentium:

**Obviously we cannot agree with these various forms of religion, nor can we adopt an indifferent or uncritical attitude toward them on the assumption that they are all to be regarded as on an equal footing, and that there is no need for those who profess them to enquire whether or not God has Himself revealed definitively and infallibly how He wishes to be known, loved, and served. Indeed, honesty compels us to declare openly our conviction that

the Christian religion is the one and only true religion**,

and it is our hope that it will be acknowledged as such by all who look for God and worship Him.[/INDENT]

Why did Pope Paul VI say that the Christian Religion is the one and only true religion and not the “Catholic Religion”?
Isn’t this saying that all christian religions are equal. all are the one and only true religion?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Do religious communities have the right to be unhindered in the public exercise of their false religion, or can the state suppress the public exercise of a false religion in the interest of the common good?

Both can’t be true. Please choose.

But before choosing, please consider the following, which is taken from the Council of Vienne:

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens (i.e., The followers of Islam, also called Muslims) live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place… This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful. These practices cannot be tolerated without displeasing the divine majesty. We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands. We enjoin on Catholic princes, one and all… They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet… Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.”

 

[japhy]

Why did Pope Paul VI say that the Christian Religion is the one and only true religion and not the “Catholic Religion”?
Isn’t this saying that all christian religions are equal. all are the one and only true religion?

No, because you’re taking him out of context. At that point in the encyclical, he is addressing specifically NON-Christians. Paragraphs 109-112 are addressed to non-Catholic Christians. Here are some excerpts:
And so we come to the circle which is nearest to us, and which comprises all those who take their name from Christ. …

We would even go further and declare our readiness to examine how we can meet the legitimate desires of our separated Christian brothers on many points of difference concerning tradition, spirituality, canon law, and worship, for it is Our dearest wish to embrace them in a perfect union of faith and charity.

We must stress however that it is not in Our power to make any concessions regarding the integrity of the faith and the obligations of charity. We realize that this may cause misgiving and opposition in certain quarters, but now that the Catholic Church has on its own initiative taken steps to restore the unity of Christ’s fold, it will not cease to exercise the greatest prudence and deliberation. It will continue to insist that the claims it makes for itself - claims which still have the effect of alienating the separated brethren - derive from the will of Christ, not from any spirit of self-aggrandizement based on the record of its past achievements, nor from any unsound theological speculation. …

Are there not those who say that unity between the separated Churches and the Catholic Church would be more easily achieved if the primacy of the Roman pontiff were done away with? We beg our separated brothers to consider the groundlessness of this opinion. Take away the sovereign Pontiff and the Catholic Church would no longer be catholic. Moreover, without the supreme, effective, and authoritative pastoral office of Peter the unity of Christ’s Church would collapse. It would be vain to look for other principles of unity in place of the true one established by Christ Himself. As St. Jerome rightly observed: “There would be as many schisms in the Church as there are priests.” …

It is a source of joy and hope to Us, Venerable Brethren, to note the spiritual fervor that is being aroused in this varied and wide circle of Christians. For this would seem to augur well for the future unification of all Christians in the one Church of Christ. …
Perhaps what’s missed often is that when the Pope (or someone else) says that we desire the “unity of all Christians in the one Church of Christ”, it means that there are Christians OUTSIDE the one Church of Christ, and elsewhere the Catholic Church has said that the “one Church of Christ” is synonymous to, subsists in, and is the Catholic Church.