thinkagain_728x90
Choose style:

Author Topic: Quanta Cura and Dignitatis Humanae certainly contradict each other  (Read 6352 times)

Telemaque

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,155
If you support one, you say the other is in error.  That is why Quanta Cura is not cited in Dignitatis Humanae, or the recent editions of Denzinger.  That is why Benedict XVI called it an "anti-Syllabus."  That is why, according to Archbishop Lefebvre, the response to the SSPX on the question of religious liberty was an admission that it was a novelty.

Quanta Cura

Quote

“Contrary to the teachings of the Holy Scriptures, of the Church, and of the holy Fathers, these persons do not hesitate to assert that ‘the best condition of human society is that wherein no duty is recognized by the government of correcting, by enacted penalties, the violators of the Catholic religion, except when the maintenance of the public peace requires it.’ From this totally false notion of social government, they fear not to uphold that erroneous opinion most pernicious to the Catholic Church, and to the salvation of souls, which was called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI (lately quoted) the insanity (deliramentum): namely, ‘that the liberty of conscience and of worship is the peculiar (or inalienable) right of every man, which should be proclaimed by law, and that citizens have the right to all kinds of liberty, to be restrained by no law, whether ecclesiastical or civil, by which they may be enabled to manifest openly and publicly their ideas, by word of mouth, through the press, or by any other means.’


Contradicts this:

Quote

2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom 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.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

. . .

 In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.


The claim of the Council, that it is a development of the teachings of past Popes can only make sense if by "development" they mean direct contradiction!

Pastor Aeternus:

Quote
6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.


If one were to say it violates Papal infallibility to say one or the other is in error, then one has nullified Papal infallibility by admitting that Catholic Doctrine can change to the opposite of what it was.

Paul VI said Vatican II did not touch on infallible formulations of Dogma.  Since Dignitatis Humanae is a completely new doctrine, it cannot be regarded as an infallible teaching.

How such a doctrine, so clearly at odds with Catholic teaching, could be promulgated at a Council, and adhered to stubbornly today, is beyond any rational comprehension.  Certainly there is a terrible crisis in the Papacy.

This much is certain.  There is absolutely no reason to believe, and many reasons to disbelieve (the First Commandment!) that Christ and the Apostles believed that by "human reason" there was a right to intrinsic to the human person to worship pagan gods.  And certainly, in the whole history of the Church prior to Dignitatis Humanae, there is no reason to believe such a position was held by the Church.  It is not part of the Deposit of Faith.  It cannot be.

Telemaque

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,155
John Courtney Murray, or Religious Liberty is Insanity, as Gregory XVI told us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Courtney_Murray

Quote
Murray eventually argued that Catholic teaching on church/state relations was inadequate to the moral functioning of contemporary peoples. The Anglo-American West, he claimed, had developed a fuller truth about human dignity, namely the responsibility of all citizens to assume moral control over their own religious beliefs, wresting control from paternalistic states. For Murray this truth was an "intention of nature" or
a new dictate of natural law philosophy. Murray’s claim that a new moral truth had emerged outside the church
led to conflict with Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, prefect of the Vatican Curia, and the eventual Vatican demand, in 1954, that Murray cease writing on religious freedom and stop publication of his two latest articles on the issue.

[edit]The Second Vatican Council
In spite of his silencing, Murray continued to write privately on religious liberties and submitted his works to Rome, all of which were rejected. He was finally invited to the second (though not the first) session of the Second Vatican Council in 1963, where he drafted the third and fourth versions[1] of what eventually became the council's endorsement of religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae Personae, in 1965.[2] After the council he continued writing on the issue, claiming that the arguments offered by the final decree were inadequate, though the affirmation of religious freedom was unequivocal.

Murray then turned to questions of how the Church might arrive at new theological doctrines. If Catholics were to arrive at new truths about God, he argued, they would have to do so in conversation "on a footing of equality" with non-Catholics and atheists. He suggested greater reforms, including a restructuring of the Church, which he saw as having overdeveloped its notion of authority and hierarchy at the expense of the bonds of love that more foundationally ought to define Christian living.

[edit]John Courtney Murray and abortion
One of the most controversial aspects of Murray's doctrines on political and religious liberty was their relationship to contraception and abortion in the encyclical Humanae Vitae. Dissident theologians such as Charles Curran, Robert Drinan and Hans Kung have long invoked Fr. Murray's work to justify their opposition and faithful dissent with regards to the teaching of Paul VI.
The former Jesuit priest Albert Jonsen writes that Drinan was influenced by the position of Murray, a position that "distinguished between the moral aspects of an issue and the feasibility of enacting legislation about that issue." It was the consensus at the Hyannisport conclave that Catholic politicians "might tolerate legislation that would permit abortion under certain circumstances if political efforts to repress this moral error led to greater perils to social peace and order." [3]


Insanity is insanity - follow Gregory XVI, follow Pius IX, follow the immemorial Tradition of the Church, or follow the insanity of John Courtney Murray, and abject, vile, and faithless apologist for abortion and contraception which he defends on the basis of religious liberty - which is insanity.


SaintSebastian

  • E chiamamulu paisanu!
  • Member
  • Posts: 2,396
  • Gender: Male
  • Primu a Diu e Sammastianu!

I am one who believes they do not. Here is how I approach it:

Quanta Cura is a document by Pope Bl. Pius IX solemnly condemning the errors of the Liberals (or Libertines) of his day who desired to have God completely purged from public life, and make the supreme law the will of the masses, subject to nothing else (not even God)--in other words, pure positivism--of course, he rightly and prophetically predicted that doing so cause a loss of true justice and morality in society and violence and the desire for material gain and pleasure would replace truth as the governing principle.

As you already noted, the relevant errors condemned are as follows (my numbering and emphasis):

Quote from: Quanta Cura
For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "[1]the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "[2]that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "[3]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."

---

Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.

The first thing to note is that these errors are quotations from particular works and therefore are being condemned in the sense in which they were originally given. #1 is that notion that society is better off without paying heed to the true religion. However, Dignitatis Humanae asserts the opposite of that error:

Quote from: Dignitatis Humanae
Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.

It also bears pointing out here that DH says nothing one way or the other about Catholicism being the established religion of the state other than if that is the case, then authentic rights of everyone must be respected.

#2 also refers to the positivist and materialist notion of public peace, one far removed from the Catholic understanding of the common good. It also refers to an absolute (see also Cardinal Newman's analysis of #3 below)--the BEST form of society. In fact, the BEST form of civil society is one where everyone is Catholic and faithfully so. In fact, in such situations, maintaining the common good may require the state to place more strict limits on false religious activity, such as foreign missionaries, who while not harming public peace conceived of in a materialist fashion, do harm the common good and the unity of society. The Liberals wanted Catholic countries to essentially repudiate Catholicism from their public life. Similarly, concordats by Paul VI after Vatican II with certain Latin Americans countries contain provisions for similar restrictions. Further more, The Catechism, citing Quanta Cura itself in the footnotes, explains the nature of the just limits on false religious activity briefly mentioned in Dignitatis Humanae:

Quote from: CCC
2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40

As we see here, the limits depend on the circumstances. The Catholic notions of the "common good" and the "objective moral order" are key here (for example, in 1985, John Paul II urged the Italian government to forbid the blasphemous movie "Hail Mary" from being shown, even though it was not harming "public peace.") The more diverse a society, lesser limits (ie mutual toleration) tend to aid toward the common good, where the more Catholic a society is, the greater the limits on false religious activity need to be imposed lest the common good be reduced, rather than advanced. Furthermore, the state has a duty to defend the authentic freedoms of the Church. If her mission is hampered unduly by false religious activity or anything else for that matter, even if that activity does not harm the peace in a materialist fashion, the state must intervene. DH teaches this as well:

Quote from: Dignitatis Humanae
13. Among the things that concern the good of the Church and indeed the welfare of society here on earth-things therefore that are always and everywhere to be kept secure and defended against all injury-this certainly is preeminent, namely, that the Church should enjoy that full measure of freedom which her care for the salvation of men requires.(31) This is a sacred freedom, because the only-begotten Son endowed with it the Church which He purchased with His blood. Indeed it is so much the property of the Church that to act against it is to act against the will of God. The freedom of the Church is the fundamental principle in what concerns the relations between the Church and governments and the whole civil order.

#3 is another absolute. I'll let Cardinal Newman, a contemporary of the condemnation explain it (in the context of defending it against a British fellow who objected to it):

Quote

The condemned proposition speaks as follows:—

"Liberty of conscience and worship, is the inherent right of all men. 2. It ought to be proclaimed in every rightly constituted society. 3. It is a right to all sorts of liberty (omnimodam libertatem) such, that it ought not to be restrained by any authority, ecclesiastical or civil, as far as public speaking, printing, or any other public manifestation of opinions is concerned."

Now, is there any government on earth that could stand the strain of such a doctrine as this? It starts by taking for granted that there are certain Rights of man; Mr. Gladstone so considers, I believe; but other deep thinkers of the day are quite of another opinion; {274} however, if the doctrine of the proposition is true, then the right of conscience, of which it speaks, being inherent in man, is of universal force—that is, all over the world—also, says the proposition, it is a right which must be recognised by all rightly constituted governments. Lastly, what is the right of conscience thus inherent in our nature, thus necessary for all states? The proposition tells us. It is the liberty of every one to give public utterance, in every possible shape, by every possible channel, without any let or hindrance from God or man, to all his notions whatsoever [Note 2].

Which of the two in this matter is peremptory and sweeping in his utterance, the author of this thesis himself, or the Pope who has condemned what the other has uttered? Which of the two is it who would force upon the world a universal? All that the Pope has done is to deny a universal, and what a universal! a universal liberty to all men to say out whatever doctrines they may hold by preaching, or by the press, uncurbed by church or civil power. Does not this bear out what I said in the foregoing section of the sense in which Pope Gregory denied a "liberty of conscience"? It is a liberty of self-will. What if a man's conscience embraces the duty of regicide? or infanticide? or free love? You may say that in England the good sense of the nation would stifle and extinguish such atrocities. True, but the proposition says that it is the very right of every one, by nature, in {275} every well constituted society. If so, why have we gagged the Press in Ireland on the ground of its being seditious? Why is not India brought within the British constitution? It seems a light epithet for the Pope to use, when he calls such a doctrine of conscience deliramentum: of all conceivable absurdities it is the wildest and most stupid. Has Mr. Gladstone really no better complaint to make against the Pope's condemnations than this?

Perhaps he will say, Why should the Pope take the trouble to condemn what is so wild [Note 3]? But he does: and to say that he condemns something which he does not condemn, and then to inveigh against him on the ground of that something else, is neither just nor logical.

I think that is something that we can all agree with quite easily, and as we have already seen, this is not what the DH is promoting at all.

Religious freedom in the context of Dignitatis Humanae refers to the traditional Catholic doctrine that the act of faith must be free, and not coerced. Here are some examples of this magisterial teaching pre-Vatican II: Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, para. 104; Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, para. 36; Bl. Gregory X, Protection of the Jews, para. 3.

The freedom declared by DH exists so that man's duty to place His faith in God by His own free choice can be fulfilled. This famous quote of Pope John Paul II says this well: "Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." Thus, the right to religious freedom is a right before the state, not a right before God.

Second, we have to define what acts of religion are in the context of DH. DH defines them as such:

Quote from: DH

....the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God.

This is what some scholastics called "natural religion" since God can at least be known by natural means (ie, without access to revelation). This excludes idolatry, polytheism, atheism, etc. It is also Catholic teaching that good law is rooted in reason, especially human law. For this reason, the Counter-Reformation Jesuit Francisco Suarez (considered the greatest scholastic theologian besides St. Thomas) taught this commenting on St. Thomas:

Quote
St. Thomas, however, rightly distinguishes two kinds of religious practices: there are those which go against reason and against God insofar as he can be recognized through nature and through the natural powers of the soul, e.g., the worship of idols, etc. Others are contrary to the Christian religion and to its commands not because they are evil in themselves or contrary to reason as, for example, the practices of Jews and even many of the customs of Mohammedans and such unbelievers who believe in one true God.

---

As regards the other religious practices of unbelievers which go contrary to Christian beliefs but not counter to natural reason, there is no doubt but that the unbelievers, even though they are subjects, may not be forced to abandon them. Rather the Church has to tolerate them.

St. Gregory addressed himself clearly to this problem regarding Jews, and he forbade anyone to deprive them of their synagogues or to prevent them from observing their religious practices therein. (Lib. I Epistol. 34) Elsewhere he reaffirmed that no one should prevent Jews from participating in their religious observances. (Lib. II. Ep. 15) The reason is that such observances do not in themselves violate the natural law, and therefore, the temporal power of even a Christian ruler does not confer a right to forbid them. Such action would be based on the fact that what is being done goes contrary to the Christian Faith, but that is not enough to compel those who are not subject to the spiritual authority of the Church. This opinion is also supported by the fact that such a ban would involve, to some extent, forcing people to accept the Faith; and that is never permitted.

Tract. de Fide Disp. 18 Sect. III

I believe that generally the Council Fathers adopted similar reasoning when promulgating Dignitatis Humanae (obviously the reasons for voting for it may not be the same for all).

Man must be free to fulfill his duties to God (in other words, forced atheism of Communism is an evil) and man must make the act of faith freely. While the fact that banning outright all false religious activity can lead to forcing others to accept the faith is a practical judgment, DH is intended to be just that kind of judgment. From the official relatio (an official interpretive document used at a Council):

Quote from: Bishop De Smedt's relatio

Our decree, since it is pastoral, tries to treat the present matter especially from the practical point of view and, after the manner of John XXIII, will carefully strive to remove the whole question from that world of abstractions which was so dear to the nineteenth century. The question is put therefore regarding real man in his real dealings with other men, in contemporary human and civil societies.

---

But I beseech you, Venerable Fathers, not to force the text to speak outside of its historical and doctrinal context, not, in other words, to make the fish swim out of water.

Let our document be studied as it stands. It is not a dogmatic treatise, but a pastoral decree directed to men of our time.

In fact, Pope Benedict XVI said the same thing in 2005:

Quote from: Benedict XVI
Basic decisions, therefore, continue to be well-grounded, whereas the way they are applied to new contexts can change. Thus, for example, if religious freedom were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth and thus become a canonization of relativism, then this social and historical necessity is raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning. Consequently, it cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge.

It is quite different, on the other hand, to perceive religious freedom as a need that derives from human coexistence, or indeed, as an intrinsic consequence of the truth that cannot be externally imposed but that the person must adopt only through the process of conviction.



Of course, this is a traditional concept as Leo XIII explained in Au Milieu Des Sollicitudes:

Quote from: Leo XIII

In descending from the domain of abstractions to that of facts, we must beware of denying the principles: they remain fixed. However, becoming incarnated in facts, they are clothed with a contingent character, determined by the center in which their application is produced.



It also bears pointing out that religious freedom is not the right to err, nor can be said to contradict the saying "error has no rights." The Catechism says the same:

Quote
2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,37 but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities.

However, while no error has the right to exist or be advanced, that does not mean every manner of eradicating it is acceptable. The primary means to be used are preaching, persuasion, and the example of good and holy living (cf. Pope Paul III, Sublimus Dei). However, the state can and should impede religious error when the common good requires; likewise, all men and societies have the duty to God to embrace and advance the true religion. Dignitatis Humanae works from the same principles, even if its decisions applying those principles to perceived facts were misjudged (I will refrain from making that judgment here). 


cunctas_haereses

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,092

Just wondering how long it will take new schoolman to swoop in here and tell you that, no, there is no contradiction/rupture/etc etc.

Heaven is a REWARD, not a RIGHT.

Every truly pagan society has, at it's core, some form of human sacrifice. In today's world, it's abortion.

ONeill

  • Member
  • Posts: 890

Did any dogma change?

Many Church leaders throughout history have made statements which are false or were later shown to be false, but none have been declare dogma.

This account is left over from the forum database transfer. It was once deleted, but the backup database used to create this new forum had it active.


QuisUtDeus

  • Guest
Quanta Cura and Dignitatis Humanae certainly contradict each other
« Reply #5 on: March 11, 2009, 03:06:PM »
Quote from: ONeill

Did any dogma change?

Many Church leaders throughout history have made statements which are false or were later shown to be false, but none have been declare dogma.

A Papal condemnation is pretty hard to overcome.  Yes, it can and has been done, however the historical teaching of the Church is in line with the Syllabus, so you'd have to overcome a lot more than one Pope's words if these things do contradict each other.

Out of all the V2 documents, DH will be the most difficult to "reconcile with tradition", IMO.  And, the fruits of DH, especially in the light of the Bp. Williamson bruhaha, seem to actually diminish the rights of the Church, even in its own governance.

SaintSebastian

  • E chiamamulu paisanu!
  • Member
  • Posts: 2,396
  • Gender: Male
  • Primu a Diu e Sammastianu!

Quote from: Telemaque
All defenses rely on interpreting the propositions condemned broadly without admitting that a principle is being condemned. Religious Liberty was condemned in principle, not just in excess of "due limits."

The condemnations did not say: "we approve religious liberty of religious liberty as a right of man, provided it is limited."

On the contrary, they said, unambiguously - that religious liberty as a right of man is condemned.

In your example above Newman was very careful to say he did not believe religious liberty was a right of man.

But what does religious liberty mean as it is condemned in Quanta Cura? What exactly is condemned in principle? Does QC condemn the principle that the state may not coerce man to fail to fulfill his duty to God (as communists tried to do)? Of course not. Does it condemn the principle that true faith and worship of God must be assented to freely by each man? Again, of course not. Those two points are the basis for a Catholic understanding of true religious liberty. Likewise, does QC condemn the idea the the primary means of spreading the faith and eliminating error are to be preaching, intellectual persuasion, and the example of holiness, rather than force? I don't think so either.

Again, in principle the state can impede false religious activity provided that authentic freedom I just described is not infringed upon (Lamennais and others said it never could--in fact, they said the state could not make any decision that took revealed truth into account). However, in practice, at what point is that liberty infringed upon? While error has no rights, what means in practice can the state use to eradicate it? I think there's room here for disagreement, because here we have the application of various principles to particular facts. For example, I think most would agree that the state having police officers point their guns at the heads of those who believe some error forcing them to longer entertain that error in their minds would violate that authentic freedom. Suarez, as I quoted before, went even further and taught that forcefully suppressing religious worship would also violate that authentic freedom ("the fact that such a ban would involve, to some extent, forcing people to accept the Faith; and that is never permitted.") I think a good Catholic might disagree with Suarez on this very specific point (St. Robert Bellarmine comes to mind), but I also don't think one could call Suarez a bad Catholic for it either. It's a judgment based on perceived facts (in that sense it is similar to Catholics disagreeing as to whether a particular war is just or not).

Similarly, in DH we have practical judgments on the same specific issue. DH, however, takes an even broader view than Suarez. I believe it contains a perception of the practical situation that relies heavily on certain misguided opinions of the age (and possibly for irenical reasons also, I don't know the mind of every bishop there who voted for it), but nonetheless, as the relatio and current Pope explained, it's not intended to be a metaphysical judgment.

Quote
Now Dignitatis Humanae has absolutely no excuse to use the expression "religious liberty" in an ostensibly redefined and limited sense as though that would evade previous assertions to the controversy.

If I gather correctly what you are saying here, I think I can agree. I think the excuse was to speak the language of "modern man" which I think, in hindsight, was a poor decision.

Quote
When the assertion is made that it left previous teaching untouched, that is just an assertion without any weight at all, unless it is to disqualify what comes after.

Again, I disagree. The doctrine taught in DH and "incarnated" in the facts they chose to accept (which I personally think are mistaken), do not touch on the obligation of all men to seek out and embrace the true faith (which DH asserts again anyway) or the obligation of society as a whole to govern itself according to that same truth.

Quote
It is worth noting the author Fr. Murray did not agree with the clause that Dignitatis Humanae left previous teachings untouched.

Murray was also upset with the final result and also tried to change other teachings. I don't really trust his assessment on its own. In the same way, I also do not trust those participants at Vatican I who, after voting to approve Pastor Aeternus, turned around and sought to explain it in such a way that the doctrine of papal infallibility became practically insignificant (to this day many Catholics believe there have been only a few such definitions--even as few as two--but that's another thread topic).

Quote
The proof that Church doctrine was changed was in the change in practice. "Religious Liberty" is not just an idea, it is a system.


Consider the following in Ireland:

Quote
The special position of The Roman Catholic Church was recognised in the Constitution of Ireland from 1937 until 1973, until removed by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland after a referendum supported by the Roman Catholic Church itself.


This was an offense against the Catholic religion that would have been condemned by all pre-Vatican II Popes.

I think this kind of thing in general is what has caused so much confusion and scandal. Things were done without express mandate from the actual decrees of the Council. I personally tend to think the "Spirit of Vatical II" as it is called motivated much of the actual decisions of the Council, but that does not necessarily mean the doctrine taught within them is necessarily in error. There have been other magisterial texts before Vatican II which may have been motivated by a less than honorable spirit (and even error), but which nontheless are not irreconcialable with the faith.

The whole positivist system you allude to may have been intended by the spirit of the declaration (I can't say completely for sure), but I don't find the whole system in the text. In fact, there is no particular text in DH which says the Church should advocate for Catholicism no longer being the established religion of a particular state. In fact to this day, it still is in a small and dwindling number of countries.

In this particular case, however, this kind of move was based more on an idea expressed in Gaudium et Spes--and generally unrelated to the doctrine of religious liberty--that the Church would consider giving up privleges if it would help the world be less suXXXXious of her motives. I think St. Pius X had a much, much better handle on human nature when he said such a move, rather than softening hearts to the truth, would rather encourage the Church's enemies--but such was the misplaced optimism of the age in which the Council took place.


columba

  • Member
  • Posts: 833
Quote from: QuisUtDeus
DH, especially in the light of the Bp. Williamson bruhaha, seem to actually diminish the rights of the Church, even in its own governance.
Yes, we gave up Catholic rule of the state and lost control of our own Church structures.

SaintSebastian

  • E chiamamulu paisanu!
  • Member
  • Posts: 2,396
  • Gender: Male
  • Primu a Diu e Sammastianu!
Quote from: QuisUtDeus
A Papal condemnation is pretty hard to overcome.  Yes, it can and has been done, however the historical teaching of the Church is in line with the Syllabus, so you'd have to overcome a lot more than one Pope's words if these things do contradict each other.

I agree with Cardinal Newman who ascribes a dogmatic character to the solemn condemnation in QC. It can't really be "overcome." If DH did fall under its condemnation (I don't think it does, but my understanding could be wrong) then it is DH which has a reformable character which would have to be reformed, rather than the solemn condemnation in QC. The Syllabus itself is a bit of a different animal altogether. Its authority lies in the respective degrees of authority in the actual allocutions, etc. cited. Newman explains this well here.

Quote
Out of all the V2 documents, DH will be the most difficult to "reconcile with tradition", IMO.  And, the fruits of DH, especially in the light of the Bp. Williamson bruhaha, seem to actually diminish the rights of the Church, even in its own governance.

I agree that it appears the most difficult on its face, although Bishop Fellay made some comments not to long ago that gave me some guarded optimism.

In regards to the rights of the Church being diminished and whatnot, I think it is the spirit of irenicism (including a mistaken perception of practically everyone in the world being a person of good will and solicitous of the truth) in general rather than the doctrine expressed by DH in particular that has caused this problem. As I mentioned in my previous post, St. Pius X was of course prophetic about the problems that would ensue if the Church took that course of action.

LongJohnSilver

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
From the official relatio (an official interpretive document used at a Council)
Quote from: Bishop De Smedt's relatio
Our decree, since it is pastoral, tries to treat the present matter especially from the practical point of view and, after the manner of John XXIII, will carefully strive to remove the whole question from that world of abstractions which was so dear to the nineteenth century. The question is put therefore regarding real man in his real dealings with other men, in contemporary human and civil societies. But I beseech you, Venerable Fathers, not to force the text to speak outside of its historical and doctrinal context, not, in other words, to make the fish swim out of water. Let our document be studied as it stands. It is not a dogmatic treatise, but a pastoral decree directed to men of our time.
Hi Sebastian,

I know this is an old topic, but can you give me a source for this quote? I came across it while googling for the relatio. I really need a source for it, book or website.

Thanks a lot!

LJS