Time to eliminate all confusion about Vatican II

[eelpis]

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.

The state has the obligation to acknowledge the Catholic religion and the confessional state has the authority to suppress false religions if called for by the common good. And everyone has a right to not have their conscience coerced. That’s what Vatican II states.

Please tell me where you can find a Catholic state today.
The US??? France??

We do live in reality and not in the Middle Ages. Even Franco’s Spain or Salazar’s Portugal didn’t live up to the Church’s teachings. I wonder if there ever will be a state like that. What states do you think have come closest to the Catholic ideal?

 

[PrayforMallory]

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.”

Oh gosh. Clement V.

What’s amazing is that these disputes occur between Vat II and Pius XII.

When you read the medieval Popes. they didn’t merely argue that there had to be a Catholic state, but actually taught that the Church had complete temporal jurisdiction over all states.

Reconciling that with the modern religious liberty teachings, has to be difficult.

Good thing I just ignore it most of the time.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Oh gosh. Clement V.

What’s amazing is that these disputes occur between Vat II and Pius XII.

When you read the medieval Popes. they didn’t merely argue that there had to be a Catholic state, but actually taught that the Church had complete temporal jurisdiction over all states.

Yes, that’s the “two swords” from Luke 22:38. The two swords represent the spiritual and temporal. The Pope has both.

 

[Dauphin]

The state has the obligation to acknowledge the Catholic religion and the confessional state has the authority to suppress false religions if called for by the common good. And everyone has a right to not have their conscience coerced.

Fantastic. I agree. So you would disagree with this statement, then?:

“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.”

 

[PrayforMallory]

Paul, quite interestingly, did NOT use the word ASSENT in the second part of his statement. “Assent” means to feel in accord with something…“Sentio, I feel.” You can’t lie about how you feel. If you feel Mary really wasn’t a virgin, you can’t plausibly confess the Catholic faith. If you feel Dignitatis Humanae was a blundering, ambiguous, poorly written, highly suspect document, you can still be Catholic. Dignitatis Humanae doesn’t require assent.

Reception? Means willingness to read it, basically. Latin RECIPIO: I take it back with me.

Application? Latin APPLICO: I apply it to something. Doesn’t mean “assent”. Quite different words. And words have meaning.

That’s why the protocols that were offered to various traditionalist groups do not mention anything except Lumen Gentium 25.

After all, every traditionalist group certainly ignores much in Sacrosanctum Concilium…oh wait, almost every Roman Rite church in the world ignores some or another prescription of it.

Oh, I forgot. Those are “just disciplines.”

Whatever.

And no, the Truth doesn’t make me angry (only dogs become “mad”).

I’m here to make sure curious onlookers don’t get a warped education in Catholic doctrine.

If what you are saying is true, if the traditionalist orders that returned only had to accept Lumen Gentium, then that’s all we have to accept also.

If the Vatican, knowing these groups rejected Vatican II, allowed them to return to full, perfect communion, and at the same time deny certain teachings of Vat II, then those teachings are necessarily non-infallible. Surely the Vatican would not have allowed these groups to have good standing and full communion if they have placed themselves spiritually “outside the Church.”

AlexV is in full communion with Rome, being of St. John Vianney.

People forget, there are people in full communion with Rome who deny certain aspects of Vat II.

 

[eelpis]

If what you are saying is true, if the traditionalist orders that returned only had to accept Lumen Gentium, then that’s all we have to accept also.

If the Vatican, knowing these groups rejected Vatican II, allowed them to return to full, perfect communion, and at the same time deny certain teachings of Vat II, then those teachings are necessarily non-infallible. Surely the Vatican would not have allowed these groups to have good standing and full communion if they have placed themselves spiritually “outside the Church.”

AlexV is in full communion with Rome, being of St. John Vianney.

People forget, there are people in full communion with Rome who deny certain aspects of Vat II.

Yes that’s why we debate.

 

[eelpis]

Fantastic. I agree. So you would disagree with this statement, then?:

“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.”

No, because that statement is qualified. Vatican II states that there is religious freedom within due limits. I quote Dignitatis Humanae: “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, specially 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 the state has the right to take action against such sects. It also says that the state has to take into consideration public morals and the common good.

 

[Dauphin]

No, because that statement is qualified. Vatican II states that there is religious freedom within due limits. I quote Dignitatis Humanae: “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, specially 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 the state has the right to take action against such sects. It also says that the state has to take into consideration public morals and the common good.

So the state can only suppress a false religion if it infringes on the rights of others to religious freedom? That’s not the Catholic teaching.

The Catholic teaching is that states should suppress false religions unless it is in the interest of the common good to tolerate them. False religions have absolutely no right to be unhindered in their public teaching. The state has the responsibility to hinder them since they put the population’s salvation at risk.

Again, 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?

In answering, you have to choose one of these two options and condemn the other one.

 

[jmcrae]

Why did Pope Paul VI say that the Christian Religion is the one and only true religion and not the “Catholic Religion”?

Probably because he equates Christianity with the Catholic Church. He lived most of his life in Italy - it’s unlikely that he was aware of Protestantism, or that it considers itself to be “Christian.”

Also, I had always been under the impression that “religious communities” is a reference to Catholic convents and monasteries that are in full union with the Church - the term “separated ecclesial communities” is used to refer to Protestant congregations. “Separated Churches” refers to Eastern Orthodox churches. I have not yet encountered a general term that refers to non-Christian communities - there must be one; I just don’t know what it is.

 

[eelpis]

So the state can only suppress a false religion if it infringes on the rights of others to religious freedom? That’s not the Catholic teaching.

The Catholic teaching is that states should suppress false religions unless it is in the interest of the common good to tolerate them. False religions have absolutely no right to be unhindered in their public teaching. The state has the responsibility to hinder them since they put the population’s salvation at risk.

Again, 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?

In answering, you have to choose one of these two options and condemn the other one.

Yes, the state can suppress false religions and that is what Vatican II teaches as well. Dignitatis Humanae leaves untouched the traditional Catholic doctrine about the moral duty of men and societies to the true religion and the only Church of Christ.

Yet the common good of the state and the Church may dictate the need of tolerance of error. Pius XII added, in “Ci riesce” that God does not even give a right to suppress error in circumstances in which the common good requires tolerance.

Your premise that the state must suppress false religions is faulty.
In order to be able to embrace the Catholic faith people need to be free from coercion of conscience

For example, in a state in.accord with Catholic doctrine a Protestant would be allowed to worship privately and publicly, he would not however be allowed to publicly attack the Catholic faith.

 

[Dauphin]

Yes, the state can supress false religions and that is what Vatican II teaches as well. Dignitatis Humanae leaves untouched the traditional Catholic doctrine about the moral duty of men and societies to the true religion and the only Church of Christ.

Yet the common good of the state and the Church may dictate the need of tolerance of error. Pius XII added, in “Ci riesce” that God does not even give a right to suppress error in circumstances in which the common good requires tolerance.

You’re telling me exactly what I’m telling you. The difficulty is that you don’t seem to recognize that the excerpt from Dignitatis Humanae directly contradicts what you’re saying. Dignitatis Humanae says that religious communities have a right not to be hindered in the public exercise of false religion, while you’re saying that they don’t have such a right, and that false religions can be supressed by the state.

Why don’t you just admit that you disagree with Dignitatis Humanae?

Your premise that the state must supress false religions is faulty.
In order to be able to embrace the Catholic faith people need to be free from coercion.

No. I’m perfectly correct. The state has a responsibility to suppress the public exercise of false religions, except insofar as it endangers the public good.

This is the opposite of what Dignitatis Humanae proposes.

 

[eelpis]

You’re telling me exactly what I’m telling you. The difficulty is that you don’t seem to recognize that the excerpt from Dignitatis Humanae directly contradicts what you’re saying. Dignitatis Humanae says that religious communities have a right not to be hindered in the public exercise of false religion, while you’re saying that they don’t have such a right, and that false religions can be supressed by the state.

Why don’t you just admit that you disagree with Dignitatis Humanae?

I don’t, DH states that it leaves untouched the previous teachings.
And it does not grant total freedom to false religions, there is to be freedom within due limits, that’s LIMITED by the common good and public morals and all propaganda of false religions is to be banned.

No. I’m perfectly correct. The state has a responsibility to suppress the public exercise of false religions, except insofar as it endangers the public good.

I don’t follow what you mean.

This is the opposite of what Dignitatis Humanae proposes.

The teaching fof DH is in line with the previous teachings. The state has the authority to suppress false religions but for the time being the common good requires that it’s not done. There are no Catholic confessional states to begin with, so who could start exercising this authority? Iran? Really, what state would do it today even hypothetically? Needless to say this could change in the future. You have to remember also that DH was written during the cold war, with millions of Catholics behind the Iron Curtain. We still have the persecuted Church in China. It can be dangerous to talk to much about the powers of the state.

 

[Dauphin]

I don’t, DH states that it leaves untouched the previous teachings.

Yes, but then it touches it.

And it does not grant total freedom to false religions, there is to be freedom within due limits, that’s LIMITED by the common good and public morals and all propaganda of false religions is to be banned.

No, it only limits their freedom if they violate the rights of others. It says that they have a right to be unhindered by the state in the public exercise of their false religion, which obviously means that the state cannot suppress them.

I don’t follow what you mean.

Since false religions endanger people’s salvation, they should be supressed. Only if the common good demands otherwise can they be tolerated. False religions have absolutely no rights, in any sense, especially the right to public worship and teaching.

The teaching fof DH is in line with the previous teachings.

Except that it clearly isn’t. We may as well be arguing whether two plus two equals five (it doesn’t, by the way).

The state has the authority to suppress false religions but for the time being the common good requires that it’s not done.

But Dignitatis Humanae contradicts this when it says:

“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.”

They don’t have such a right. The state has the authority to suppress them, and no right is violated when it does this.

 

[eelpis]

Dauphin, if the fathers at Vatican II in Dignitatis Humanae said that they didn’t mean to contradict previous teachings, would you say that they lied?

I for one trust the Church.

 

[Dauphin]

Dauphin, if the fathers at Vatican II in Dignitatis Humanae said that they didn’t mean to contradict previous teachings, would you say that they lied?

I can’t guess. I can only point out the contradiction that’s obviously there. I wish it weren’t so, but they clearly departed from the traditional teaching.

 

[CradleCath]

That is the world’s definition of ecumenism. The Vatican’s definition of ecumenism is to make the Catholic Church better understood in the world, and more attractive for people to convert.

More “ATTRACTIVE”???

 

[japhy]

More “ATTRACTIVE”???

What is your problem with that word? The Church wants people to desire to belong to Her. We want people to be “attracted” to the Church. The Church means “attractive” in a purely objective sense, not some sexual subjective sense. This isn’t about the Church wearing a spaghetti-top and short-shorts!

 

[CradleCath]

What is your problem with that word? The Church wants people to desire to belong to Her. We want people to be “attracted” to the Church. The Church means “attractive” in a purely objective sense, not some sexual subjective sense. This isn’t about the Church wearing a spaghetti-top and short-shorts!

Easy there, I’m on your side. The word “attractive” recalled to my mind the time when Karl Rahner used the phrase “make the Catholic Church palatable for modern man” & ended up casting doubt upon the Virgin Birth because of his eagerness for ecumenicism.

“Palatable & attractive”…can’t it be enough that the Catholic Church is Christ’s own creation, that it is one, holy & apostolic, that it is the true Church of God, guided by the Holy Spirit & possessing the fullness of the faith taught by Christ??

So much has been done, in the name of making the Church “attractive”, that we are so far from what the Church really is. Again I remember reading about Rahner’s reaction to the Marian Schema during the council. He felt that the Doctrine of the Virgin birth of Christ would make the Church “unpalatable” to our “seperated brethren”. I looked to see if I could find anything on the internet about the conflict about this during Vat. II. I found the following:

"The first Marian schema contained the words 'who [the Son] willed the bodily integrity of his Mother to remain, in the moment of birth (in ipsomet partu), incorrupt and untouched…

                              <snipped for brevity>

"According to Father Rahner, whose written comments were distributed to all participants in the conference, the schema as then drafted was ‘a source of the greatest concern’…Were the text to be accepted as it stood, he contended,** 'unimaginable harm would result from an ecumenical point of view, in relation to both Orientals and Protestants.'It could not be too strongly stressed, he said, 'that all the success achieved in the field of ecumenism through the Council and in connection with the Council will be rendered worthless by the retention of the schema as it stands.**
marycoredemptrix.com/perpetual_virginity.html

You’ll have to scroll down to the “Virginitas in partu” heading to find the quote.

Please don’t worry. I’m as eager to bring non-Catholics into the fold as anyone else. Both my Mother & my Mother-in-Law were converts & wonderful Catholics. I just don’t want to lose anymore of the faith in order to make it “attractive” or “palatable” to modern mankind.

 

[jmcrae]

More “ATTRACTIVE”???

For example, the RCIA program brings in thousands of new converts to our Diocese every year. This is in contrast to the one or two converts each year who came in through private instruction, prior to the implementation of RCIA.

RCIA is set up so that it’s easy (relatively speaking - there is still work to be done, of course) to find the classes and join in with the process.

With the previous system, the potential convert had to already know his way around the parish, and how to negotiate with the parish secretary for time with the priest, before he ever got to Lesson 1.

With RCIA, he just watches for the signs in the Church parking lot, follows them to the classroom, and joins in as he feels comfortable to do so.

So, yeah - “more attractive” - meaning, easier to locate, relatively idiot-proof, not as intimidating, etc.

 

[Just_Lurking]

The issue of religious liberty was hotly debated at Vatican II. Here are some interesting interventions at the council, as reported by Henri Fesquet on Sept. 29, 1964:

Archbishop Heenan of Westminster spoke in the name of the bishops of England and Wales, Scotland, Ireland, New Zealand, Belgium, and other countries. In realistic English fashion, the Archbishop recalled the religious wars in Great Britain and the innumerable persecutions which victimized both Catholics and Protestants. He noted that in England Anglicanism was the state religion but that this in no way diminished religious liberty for all.

We approve this schema unreservedly. Let us proclaim a religious liberty that is valid for all countries without exception. People will say that error is a danger. To be sure! Error is an evil, but lack of freedom is an even greater evil. Moreover, who would set limits to religious liberty? The state? Experience proves that whatever this in done, the results are bad . . .

All religions should be juridically equal. Let us no longer speak of tolerating an evil; let us speak of religious liberty as a good. . . . Let the declaration be based on doctrine; otherwise we will be accused of opportunism. The world must know absolutely that we want religious liberty for all men without exception.

Archbishop Heenan’s intervention was loudly applauded. (Let us recall that applause is forbidden, but the moderators seem to have given up enforcing the regulation.)

---

Bishop Wright of Pittsburgh spoke of the dynamic and evolutionary character of the common good. He added this important remark, and was thus the first to formulate it so categorically: "We do not conquer errors by force but by the light of Christ and the Gospel. Whatever may have been the case in the past, today religious liberty should be based on doctrine."