Vatican II Happened for a reason

[Yours_Truly]

continuation

This perfectly and clearly explains the position of the Church with respect to the error of religious liberty, and the true principle of “toleration of false religion”. This teaching is in accord with the practice of the Church from the day in which she emerged from the catecombs. And what is interesting is that the days of the catecombs - when Christianity was illegal and the Catholics were being fed to the lions - are considered the “glory days” in which such heretics such as George Weigel desire to lead us back. And I believe they will get their wish. We will indeed return to the catecombs where we will be put to death for holding the true faith. As in the early years, some will apostatize during those days while some will hold to the faith. The difference is that in those days the faith was very strong, whereas today it is very weak. Those heretics who seek to lead us back to those “glory days” of the pre-Constantine era will probably be the first to apostatize.

 

[pnewton]

But if you accept as true a formally condemned error (with full knowledge of said error) it makes you a heretic; and a heretic cannot go to heaven since heresy destroys the supernatural virtue of faith; and without faith, we cannot have sanctifying grace in the soul. Faith - which heresy destroys - is the foundation of the supernatural life.

For the Catholic Church’s definition of heresy.

*Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

and

The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in** a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith**, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these

This means that we lay people do not get to define heresy. Yes, we can show that denying obstinately the Immaculate Conception or the divinity of Christ is heresy, but not failing to see any encyclical through the eyes of those who dissent from the Catholic Church, especially regarding the understanding of any and all encyclicals written.

If we did that, almost anything would be open to the accusation of heresy. This is one reason why this sort of accusation is contrary to the rules at CAF.

 

[Yours_Truly]

Correction: WAS a formally condemned error, in the 19th century. Please check the Catechism and the teachings of Vatican II.

Ditto. See above.

No, you should be reading Church teaching like the Catechism, documents of Vatican II, papal teaching of the 20th and 21st centuries, and so on.

Cheers

Diggerdomer,

Can you name any time in Church history, prior to today, when the Church taught, as true, formally condemned errors?

And if the Church teaches today, errors that she formally condemned yesterday, what makes you think she will not teach as true in the years to come errors that she condemns today, such as abortion, birth control, women Priests, divorce and remarriage, etc.?

What you may not realize is that the Catholic faith does not change. Errors do not become true, and truth does not become error. Every Catholic - included the Pope - is bound to accept the deposit of faith and has no power to change it. That is why no Pope will ever be able to make birth control or abortion OK; neither will he be able to declare that women can be ordained. I a Pope attempted such a thing, he should be ignored.

Cardinal Ratzinger, 1998: “The Roman Pontiff - like all the faithful - is subject to the Word of God, to the Catholic faith, and is the guarantor of the Church’s obedience; in this sense he is servus servorum Dei. He does not make arbitrary decisions, but is spokesman for the will of the Lord, who speaks to man in the Scriptures lived and interpreted by Tradition; in other words, the episkope of the primacy has limits set by divine law and by the Church’s divine, inviolable constitution found in Revelation”.

If we have a Pope who teaches formally condemned errors he should be ignored, since not even God can make error become truth and truth become error.

When confronted with ambiguities, as we are today, the solution is to hold fast to what the Church has always taught and do two things with the ambiguous statement: 1.) Interpret it in light of Tradition, and 2.) Condemn the interpretation that is contrary to Tradition.

 

[maurin]

Correction: WAS a formally condemned error, in the 19th century. Please check the Catechism and the teachings of Vatican II.

Ditto. See above.

No, you should be reading Church teaching like the Catechism, documents of Vatican II, papal teaching of the 20th and 21st centuries, and so on.

Cheers

So you’re admitting that there is no “hermeneutic of continuity?” That these things that were once formally condemned and now the rule are truly a rupture from what the Church always taught everywhere? That A used to be true and B used to be false, but now with Vatican II B is now true and A is now false? So Christ is not yesterday, today and forever? That the principle of non-contradiction has been shelved since 1963 or so?

 

[pnewton]

continue…

I read it, including.

1. Again, it is not of itself wrong to prefer a democratic form of government, if only the Catholic doctrine be maintained as to the origin and exercise of power. Of the various forms of government, the Church does not reject any that are fitted to procure the welfare of the subject; she wishes only – and this nature itself requires – that they should be constituted without involving wrong to any one, and especially without violating the rights of the Church.

Since this has never been declared a dogma, the Church is free to expand on *this *teaching of religious liberty, just like Pope Leo did in this encyclical.

in which such heretics such as George Weigel desire to lead us back

Again, it is not for us to slander people or make personal determination of who is a heretic.

For one who claims to oppose liberalism you have no problem with allowing yourself a great deal of latitude as individual interpreter of Church tradition.

 

[Yours_Truly]

This means that we lay people do not get to define heresy. Yes, we can show that denying obstinately the Immaculate Conception or the divinity of Christ is heresy, but not failing to see any encyclical through the eyes of those who dissent from the Catholic Church, especially regarding the understanding of any and all encyclicals written.

Yes, I completely agree that the laity do not define heresy. But if the Church declares something to be an error (heresy), we can then refer to said teaching as a heresy. Separation of Church and State and religious liberty are errors that the Church has condemned.

When someone such as myself points to these errors, we are not declaring it to be error based on our own judgment or authority. We are merely pointing out the error that the Church has already condemned. And pointing out to someone that they are adhering to an error is an act of charity.

Having talked with you in the past, I wasn’t quite sure where you stood with respect to the errors of religious liberty and separation of Church and State. My hope was that you had not embraced these errors, and instead were at most “halting between two sides” while you considered them. Unfortunately, when I saw your comment about Weigel, it appeard that you were in agreement with him. I sure hope that is not the case.

Weigel and those like him are not better than Judas. Whereas Judas betrayed our Lord thereby resulting in Him being put to death, so too those such as Weigel are betraying the Church- the mystical body of Our Lord - which will result in it being put to death and burried, once again, in the catecombs.

 

[Yours_Truly]

I read it, including.

Since this has never been declared a dogma, the Church is free to expand on *this *teaching of religious liberty, just like Pope Leo did in this encyclical.

Libertas: Again, it is not of itself wrong to prefer a democratic form of government, if only the Catholic doctrine be maintained as to the origin and exercise of power. Of the various forms of government, the Church does not reject any that are fitted to procure the welfare of the subject; she wishes only – and this nature itself requires – that they should be constituted without involving wrong to any one, and especially without violating the rights of the Church.

That does not teach the error of religious liberty that the Pope had just condemned in the same encyclical. That is merely saying that the Church does not condemned a democratic form of government, which is true, “as long as Catholic doctrine be maintained”. It doesn’t matter if the people elect their own leaders, as long as the State professed the true religion, and they do not attempt to enact laws that violate the laws of God, such as laws declaring that a mother has the “right” to choose to have an abortion (which is a violation of the 5th commandment), or that men have a “right” to practice a false religion (which is a violation of the 1st commandment). The State might tolerate abortions or false religions for some reason, but it can never be said the people have a “right” to do such things, since our rights come from God, and “such things” are a violation of God’s law.

 

[maurin]

I read it, including.

Since this has never been declared a dogma, the Church is free to expand on *this *teaching of religious liberty, just like Pope Leo did in this encyclical.

and of course the American democracy absolutely defends the rights of the Church. Catholic Hospitals are in no way being pressured to provide birth-control services or abortions on demand to patients or employees. Catholic adoption agencies are under no pressure to allow same-sex couples to adopt the children on these agencies care. Pope Leo would be pleased, and would praise the American way, as Pope Benedict did on his last visit.

Again, it is not for us to slander people or make personal determination of who is a heretic.

conceded.

For one who claims to oppose liberalism you have no problem with allowing yourself a great deal of latitude as individual interpreter of Church tradition.

if there ever were an example of a pot calling a kettle black…

 

[pnewton]

No one has addressed how they would feel about President Obama being able to influence the Catholic Church or why corruption and greed ran rampant in the Middle Ages when the influence of secularization gave rise to scandal in the Church. Those who picture a Utopia of a Catholic State, similar to Islamic states have missed the lesson of history. The Church in her wisdom does not agree that this is a prudent thing.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

 

[Yours_Truly]

No one has addressed how they would feel about President Obama being able to influence the Catholic Church

The first thing to realize is that in a Catholic State a heretic would not be the King (or President). Therefore, Obama would not be the President.

With respect to the question of a temporal ruler being able to influence the Church, such a ruler would not be able to influence the Church on doctrinal matters since that is outside of his authority.

… or why corruption and greed ran rampant in the Middle Ages when the influence of secularization gave rise to scandal in the Church.

I notice how, like the Protestants, you are quick to condemn the middle ages as being a time of corruption and greed, as though in our own day everything is perfect. How do you explain the corruption in greed in our own day? How do you explain that child molesting Priests were protected and covered for by their Bishop, and that the Pope himself took no effective actions to correct the situation. How do you explain the liturgical chaos and that so many Priests are heretics?

The answer to your question is that the Church is made up of people who are, due to original sin, prone to error and vice. Therefore, it makes sense that there would be found some curruption from time to time.

But before today when has the corruption been so bad that the hierarchy have embraced, and taught as true, doctrinal errors that have been formally condemned by the Church?

Also, you need to read some writings about the middle ages from a true Catholic points of view, rather than an anti-Catholic point of view such as you will get from Protestants or “Catholics” like Weigel.

I remember hearing Rossaline Moss tell of a book she read about the middle ages. She was blown away by the holiness of the times, and how all was directed to God. I get the same impression when I read the sermons of Saints from the middle ages. So much holiness and goodness was just assumed at the time. Most Catholics today wouldn’t even be able to understand these sermons. You need to read some books like that to counter whatever anti-Catholicism you have absorbed, and which has led to your above comment about the horrible middle ages, as opposed, as assume, to the glory days we are living through today.

Those who picture a Utopia of a Catholic State, similar to Islamic states have missed the lesson of history. The Church in her wisdom does not agree that this is a prudent thing.

No one claims that in a Catholic State (which is the ideal) all is perfect. What is better about a Catholics State than an Agnostic (or Atheistic) State such as we have today is that the laws of the State are in accord with the laws of God as made known through the Church. Does this mean that everything will be perfect, and all will obey the laws perfectly? No, but at least the laws (the purpose of which is to direct man to his proper end) are in accord with the objective will of God, rather than the subjective “will of the people”.

Am I to assume that you prefer the State to be Agnostic, or Atheistic, rather than Catholic? If so, I feel sorry for you and will pray for you.

 

[pnewton]

Weigel and those like him are not better than Judas. Whereas Judas betrayed our Lord thereby resulting in Him being put to death, so too those such as Weigel are betraying the Church- the mystical body of Our Lord -

I will take this in the best possible light that you were exaggerating for effect. Judas is the only person of whom the Lord said that it would have been better for him that he never be born. I can not imagine equating any soul alive today or since to him.

That does not teach the error of religious liberty that the Pope had just condemned in the same encyclical…The State might tolerate abortions or false religions for some reason, but it can never be said the people have a “right” to do such things, since our rights come from God, and “such things” are a violation of God’s law.

Which is probably why I agree with it, and you. Perhaps you misunderstood. I will listen again to the clip when I can. I may have missed something. I do not believe the separation should or even can be absolute, even in a Jeffersonian sense. Your example of abortion can be repeated in many ways.

 

[pnewton]

The first thing to realize is that in a Catholic State a heretic would not be the King (or President). Therefore, Obama would not be the President.

Am I to assume that you prefer the State to be Agnostic, or Atheistic, rather than Catholic? If so, I feel sorry for you and will pray for you.

You assume wrong. I wish for no such thing, so there is no cause for concern there. Likewise the idea that I am for a return to persecution of Christians is a strawman. No one has ever suggested that. The idea of a separation of the Church from the State is not a new one. Did not St. Thomas assert this right in the twelth century?
newadvent.org/cathen/14676a.htm

Soon after this the great matter of dispute was reached in the resistance made by Thomas to the king’s officials when they attempted to assert jurisdiction over criminous clerks. The question has been dealt with in some detail in the article ENGLAND. That the saint himself had no wish to be lenient with criminous clerks has been well shown by Norgate (Angevin Kings, ii, 22). It was with him simply a question of principle. St. Thomas seems all along to have suspected Henry of a design to strike at the independence of what the king regarded as a too powerful Church.

 

[diggerdomer]

When confronted with ambiguities, as we are today, the solution is to hold fast to what the Church has always taught

Exactly. Which includes the Magisterial teaching of and since Vatican II. Even if you don’t like it, it’s the Church teaching.

 

[diggerdomer]

So you’re admitting that there is no “hermeneutic of continuity?”

No. You’re saying that not me.

So Christ is not yesterday, today and forever?

No. You’re saying that not me. Of course Christ is yesterday, today, and forever. But the Church is not the same yesterday, today, and forever. The Church grows in understanding and is in a changing world.

That the principle of non-contradiction has been shelved since 1963 or so?

Nope, never said that either. But I will say that the Church didn’t stop teaching around 1963 or so.

 

[maurin]

So, then, digger, enlighten us:

Correction: WAS a formally condemned error, in the 19th century. Please check the Catechism and the teachings of Vatican II.

Ditto. See above.

No, you should be reading Church teaching like the Catechism, documents of Vatican II, papal teaching of the 20th and 21st centuries, and so on.

Cheers

if these issues WERE formally condemned errors, but, according to you, are no longer so, and you cite the Catechism and the teachings of Vatican II as proof of your asssertions, exactly WHAT are you saying? Do you know what you are saying?

 

[maurin]

Nope, never said that either. But I will say that the Church didn’t stop teaching around 1963 or so.

but you are clearly saying the Church now condones formerly condemned teachings in your quote cited in the post above this one. Aren’t you?

 

[eyeofliberty]

With respect to the question of a temporal ruler being able to influence the Church, such a ruler would not be able to influence the Church on doctrinal matters since that is outside of his authority.

I am beginning to she is correct. She makes alot of sense. Beware of the new Pharisees who say “the Church taught so and so before Vatican II” and people who talk about tradition. What matters is what is being said now, not necessarily what was said in first 1900 years of the Church. These new Pharisees place false burdens on the faithful like saying that Catholics ought to pray for the conversion of Jews and that they should not tolerate error. Vatican II added great new ideas like ecumenism and religious liberty (defending others’ freedom and right to error) to Church’s beliefs. George Weigel is correct in saying we are returning to the great times of early Christianity before Constantine, before Babylon took the Church captive, before the Church aligned herself with state power in trying to shape the world in which we live. I think the Church used to believe Catholic states ought to endorse and promote solid Catholic education. Now since the Church is no longer aligned with state power (Babylon does not hold the Church captive), secular states like France are free to provide good secular public education. The pre-Vatican II Church was intolerant of other ideas. It thought it possessed a monopoly on the Truth. What it forgot is that other faiths and ideologies have some truth in them and thus have a right to spread both their truths and errors. For instance it is ok if the government has both an education policy on condoms and abstinence. You grant people the right choose wrong paths in life. It was in the theocratic states where the Catholic Church had great influence where they banned pornography, sodomy, usury, contraceptives, and other things Catholics believe is bad. You cannot ban those things in a pluralistic nation based on the new principles of Vatican II and religious freedom. What if a certain religion’s beliefs involves what Catholics believe is bad? That would be like alcohol (wine) being banned in Puritan states, it prevents the Mass from being offered.

Before Constantine, Catholics were pilgrims living in the Roman Empire. After Constantine we tried to create a Catholic society but it did not work out or something. Like Weigel said, after Vatican II, Catholics can focus on important issues like promoting freedom and religious liberty around the world to all people, not just Catholics. It makes more sense now and the world we now live in is much better and freer.

 

[maurin]

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

I am beginning to she is correct. She makes alot of sense. Beware of the new Pharisees who say “the Church taught so and so before Vatican II” and people who talk about tradition. What matters is what is being said now, not necessarily what was said in first 1900 years of the Church. These new Pharisees place false burdens on the faithful like saying that Catholics ought to pray for the conversion of Jews and that they should not tolerate error. Vatican II added great new ideas like ecumenism and religious liberty (defending others’ freedom and right to error) to Church’s beliefs. George Weigel is correct in saying we are returning to the great times of early Christianity before Constantine, before Babylon took the Church captive, before the Church aligned herself with state power in trying to shape the world in which we live. I think the Church used to believe Catholic states ought to endorse and promote solid Catholic education. Now since the Church is no longer aligned with state power (Babylon does not hold the Church captive), secular states like France are free to provide good secular public education. The pre-Vatican II Church was intolerant of other ideas. It thought it possessed a monopoly on the Truth. What it forgot is that other faiths and ideologies have some truth in them and thus have a right to spread both their truths and errors. For instance it is ok if the government has both an education policy on condoms and abstinence. You grant people the right choose wrong paths in life. It was in the theocratic states where the Catholic Church had great influence where they banned pornography, sodomy, usury, contraceptives, and other things Catholics believe is bad. You cannot ban those things in a pluralistic nation based on the new principles of Vatican II and religious freedom. What if a certain religion’s beliefs involves what Catholics believe is bad? That would be like alcohol (wine) being banned in Puritan states, it prevents the Mass from being offered.

Before Constantine, Catholics were pilgrims living in the Roman Empire. After Constantine we tried to create a Catholic society but it did not work out or something. Like Weigel said, after Vatican II, Catholics can focus on important issues like promoting freedom and religious liberty around the world to all people, not just Catholics. It makes more sense now and the world we now live in is much better and freer.

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[eyeofliberty]

Sorry a couple typos. I should have proof read it.

I am beginning to think she is correct. She makes alot of sense. Beware of the new Pharisees who say “the Church taught this and that before Vatican II”

 

[Extempore]

Exactly. Which includes the Magisterial teaching of and since Vatican II. Even if you don’t like it, it’s the Church teaching.

So if the new contradicts the old, we should automatically rule in favor of the new?

Let me put it more congenially - the topic of religious liberty was addressed earlier in this thread. One accepted post-Vatican II teaching is that religious liberty is a God-given right. Teachings prior to Vatican II condemned the idea of God-given religious liberty.

Given this (apparent) contradiction/change/growth/whatever you want to call it, would you interpret in favor of the “old” teaching or the “new”? And why?

No. You’re saying that not me. Of course Christ is yesterday, today, and forever. But the Church is not the same yesterday, today, and forever. The Church grows in understanding and is in a changing world.

The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ and cannot change. The deposit of faith can never change. Doctrine can be clarified and developed but in these days that is often being presented as an excuse to change that same doctrine.

The changing world should never influence the Church to alter or change her teaching.

But I will say that the Church didn’t stop teaching around 1963 or so.

No, but what is suspect is that the new teachings in many cases contradicted the old (see above).