Author Topic: Quanta Cura/Dignitatis Humanae (Read 4434 times)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #10 on:** July 06, 2010, 06:27:03 PM »

Moral principles are unchanging. If a Catholic state is already permitted to tolerate false worship. If DH were a matter of discipline it wouldl be unnecessary.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #11 on:** July 06, 2010, 06:32:47 PM »

Yeah, but do you see what I'm trying to do? We know that the Novus Ordo is meant to be harmful to faith, we know that they never intended it to be celebrated in an orthodox way, if that were possible, because the higher-ups take no action against all the abuses. The sins of omission are staggering in number. But is it harmful or invalid IN ITSELF, in its officially promoted form?

Same question for DH: We know almost beyond a shadow of a doubt that DH was meant to lead to heretical conclusions. But is it heretical IN ITSELF?

I'm trying to separate the anti-Catholic actions of the Churchmen from the actual Magisterial docuмents, wondering "Is it possible that the Magisterium really was protected by the Holy Ghost?" The consequences of this question are huge, because it's the difference between saying that what sits in Rome is the Church and saying that it is not.

I think there are many other reasons besides DH to say it is not. I don't want to start an SSPX/sede war, but it always struck me as suspicious that Abp. Lefebvre made it ALL about DH. DH is so slippery and hard to pin down as actual heresy.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #12 on:** July 06, 2010, 06:35:45 PM »

P.S. That was in response to your next-to-last post, not the one about whether DH is about discipline.

So you think that DH is not about discipline... That's what I thought, too, but I want to make sure I look at this from every angle. If it is a matter of faith, though, we have to be able to trace it back to the Apostles... Yet the Apostles knew nothing of Catholic governments. I explained in the other thread how it was probably implied by the Apostles in that all governments get their power from God, and since God is perfect, no government has the right to permit error free reign, though they may rebel against God knowingly or unknowingly and do so.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #13 on:** July 06, 2010, 06:39:53 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

P.S. That was in response to your next-to-last post, not the one about whether DH is about discipline.

So you think that DH is not about discipline... That's what I thought, too, but I want to make sure I look at this from every angle. If it is a matter of faith, though, we have to be able to trace it back to the Apostles... Yet the Apostles knew nothing of Catholic governments. I explained in the other thread how it was probably implied by the Apostles in that all governments get their power from God, and since God is perfect, no government has the right to permit error free reign, though they may rebel against God knowingly or unknowingly and do so.

The Apostles knew about the Old Testament governments.

St. Paul said rulers get their authority from God.

It's absolutely clear that there is no basis in Scripture for asserting that the worship of false religions must be permitted.

Since Dignitatis Humanae asserts that it religious liberty is a right intrinsic to the human person, it's not a matter of discipline.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #14 on:** July 06, 2010, 06:42:34 PM »

Here is what John Daly has to say in his list of heresies and errors of Vatican II:

http://sedevacantist.com/heresies.html

Quote

(a) The civil right to religious liberty.

"The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person... This right to religious freedom is to be recognised in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right." (Declaration on Religious Liberty Dignitatis Humanae, paragraph 2)

What is more, the Vatican II "popes" took steps to ensure that, in countries where such freedom was not already a "civil right", it became one. Thus the Catholic constitutions of Spain and Colombia were suppressed at the express direction of the Vatican, and the laws of those countries changed to permit the public practice of non-Catholic religions. And as though to refute as clearly as possible the attempts of certain misguided "conservative" members of the Conciliar Sect to explain away the text cited above, interpreting it in some quite incredible fashion, Karol Wojtyla never misses an opportunity to inculcate his own - surely accurate - interpretation of the Council's intention. For instance in February 1993 he declared, in the predominantly pagan African Republic of Benin, that "the Church considers religious liberty as an inalienable right..."

The correct doctrine, which popes have often reiterated, is most authoritatively stated in the following passage from Pope Pius IX's Quanta Cura (1864):

"And from this wholly false idea of social organisation they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by our predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity, namely that the liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man, and should be proclaimed by law in every correctly established society... Each and every doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe and condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected by all the sons of the Church."

Almost the only label that Pope Pius IX does not attach to this doctrine is in fact that of "heresy", but he clearly thought the "insanity" he spoke of to be heretical for he says that it contradicts Divine Revelation. Moreover, this notion of religious liberty had already been expressly qualified as heretical by Pope Pius VII in his brief Post Tam Diuturnas, so there is no doubt about the matter.

Theological Censure: HERETICAL.

Is it just me, or is the careful Daly unusually sloppy here?

FIRST: He brings in the actions of the "Popes" as proof against DH, but that has nothing to do with what is on the page. The demonstration here should only be about whether DH is heretical in itself, on the printed page, or whether the Holy Ghost protected the Council from falling into heresy. It doesn't matter if the Pope or "Pope" is Nero when it comes to this demonstration.

SECOND: Daly says Pius IX says that the right to religious error AKA religious liberty contradicts Divine Revelation, but he doesn't provide the quote where Pius IX says it contradicts Divine Revelation.

I personally have not seen such a quote, though I have seen one where Pius IX says this theory goes against the HOLY FATHERS. Is that the same thing? I thought Divine Revelation had to go back to the Apostles, farther back than the Holy Fathers. And I want to know how the idea of the right to religious error contradicts Divine Revelation, I want to hear from the Apostles and Holy Fathers.

THIRD: Pius IX, in the quote Daly provides, clearly calls this theory of the right to religious error, well, "erroneous." But Daly somehow extrapolates from Gregory XVI's tag of "insanity" to draw the conclusion that it is really not erroneous, but heretical... Is anyone else confused yet?

CONCLUSION: It is very, very hard to accuse DH of heresy. It makes more sense to accuse it of error, and why not? Since Councils cannot even err, the consequences are the same -- this was not a valid Council.