I do not know of any Dogmatic definitions that begin by saying "This is a Dogma." A Dogmatic definition gives evidence of itself by meeting specific criteria. You must learn what those criteria are.
You said:” Firstly, the docuмent is not even a decree claiming to be "dogmatic" within the context of the council.”
This implies that a decree has to claim itself to be dogmatic for it to be so. It doesn't matter anyway because it meets Vatican I's definition for Ex Cathedra.
Hardly the point. Vatican II published two "dogmatic constitutions" which contained no Dogma. The point was that DH, a pastoral "declaration" never ever made this pretense.
Vatican II never defined any doctrine and proposed it as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. Dogma requires a formal definition on faith and/or morals with the intent to bind all the faithful for all time.
If the council declares that something is of divine revelation and has not been defined up to that point, then yes, it intends to define. V II taught that Religious Liberty is part of Divine Revelation. You’re ignoring this. You merely give your canned answers that you learned from the “society”.
My complaint is that you took a quotation from DH out of context to imply that the teaching for Religious Liberty was from "divine Revelation." This is lie and now reply by repeating the lie. You are an ass if think anyone has to listed to your distortions.
You better be careful. After this statement people might begin to see who you really are.
The language is extremely clear in DH. Rel. Lib., according to the “council” is of Divine Revelation.
Rather than reply again to you, which is clearly wasted effort. I invite anyone else to compare your claim with the actual text of paragraph nine. The declaration describes what is means by "roots in divine Revelation" and that description says explicitly that this novel doctrine is not taught in divine Revelation but extrapolated from what is calls, "dignity of the human person in its full dimensions."
I invite anyone to do so also. I also hope that they will not ignore paragraph 12 like you have done. This is where is gives the meaning of what is said.
” In faithfulness therefore to the truth of the Gospel, the Church is following the way of Christ and the apostles when she recognizes and gives support to the principle of religious freedom as befitting the dignity of man and as being in accord with divine revelation.”
Faithful to the TRUTH of the Gospel? In accord with DIVINE REVELATION? Uh Oh…looks like V II is teaching to the entire “church” that Rel. Lib. can be found in the Revelation of God and the Holy Ghost is the Author of it.
Those who say, as you have, that DH claims that Religious Liberty is of divine Revelation are liars that intentionally distort the text out of context to deceive others.
Those who say, as you have, that DH does not claim that Religious Liberty is of Divine Revelation either haven’t read the text, are incapable of comprehension, or have as their motive the destruction of souls.
Do you believe it’s the infallible teaching of the Church that Religious Liberty is condemned?
9. The declaration of this Vatican Council on the right of man to religious freedom has its foundation in the dignity of the person, whose exigencies have come to be are fully known to human reason through centuries of experience. What is more, this doctrine of freedom has roots in divine revelation, and for this reason Christians are bound to respect it all the more conscientiously. Revelation does not indeed affirm in so many words the right of man to immunity from external coercion in matters religious. It does, however, disclose the dignity of the human person in its full dimensions. It gives evidence of the respect which Christ showed toward the freedom with which man is to fulfill his duty of belief in the word of God and it gives us lessons in the spirit which disciples of such a Master ought to adopt and continually follow. Thus further light is cast upon the general principles upon which the doctrine of this declaration on religious freedom is based. In particular, religious freedom in society is entirely consonant with the freedom of the act of Christian faith.
12. In faithfulness therefore to the truth of the Gospel, the Church is following the way of Christ and the apostles when she recognizes and gives support to the principle of religious freedom as befitting the dignity of man and as being in accord with divine revelation. Throughout the ages the Church has kept safe and handed on the doctrine received from the Master and from the apostles. In the life of the People of God, as it has made its pilgrim way through the vicissitudes of human history, there has at times appeared a way of acting that was hardly in accord with the spirit of the Gospel or even opposed to it. Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Church that no one is to be coerced into faith has always stood firm.
Thus the leaven of the Gospel has long been about its quiet work in the minds of men, and to it is due in great measure the fact that in the course of time men have come more widely to recognize their dignity as persons, and the conviction has grown stronger that the person in society is to be kept free from all manner of coercion in matters religious.
No one is claiming that Vatican II did not teach heresy. What is denied is that heresy was ever formally imposed as an object of divine and Catholic faith and that any novelty was claimed to be part of the ordinary and universal teaching of the Church. It is a repeated fact of history that any
intent to
define or
impose as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith doctrine was denied by every single councilar principle before, during and after the Council. All three of these are necessary to formulate DOGMA.
You have claimed that DH is equivalent to the dogmatic declaration of Pope Pius XII on the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. To defend this absurdity you took a quotation out of context from paragraph 9 on three occasions. Now you add to your folly by taking a quotation from paragraph 12.
In paragraph 9, what is claimed to
"have its roots in divine revelation" is the
"dignity of the human person." This is true and confirmed in scripture and tradition and the divine liturgies in both East and West such as, "O God who hast wonderfully formed man's exalted nature, and still more wonderfully restored it." From the psalms, "Who hast made him (man) a little less than the Angels..." The paragraph specifically says that
"Revelation does not indeed affirm in so many words the right of man to immunity from external coercion in matters religious." It affirms from the
"dignity of the human person" that "religious freedom in society is entirely consonant with the freedom of the act of Christian faith." No novelty is claimed to be grounded in divine revelation.
In paragraph 12, says,
"In faithfulness therefore to the truth of the Gospel, the Church is following the way of Christ and the apostles when she recognizes and gives support to the principle of religious freedom as befitting the dignity of man and as being in accord with divine revelation" and concludes that,
"nevertheless, the doctrine of the Church that no one is to be coerced into faith has always stood firm." What is affirmed from apostolic tradition is that
"no one is to be coerced into the faith." This is the constant teaching of the Church that no one can be forced to accept the Catholic faith. It is affirmed in the docuмent regarding the Jews which the Church applied all throughout the middle ages,
Sicut Judaeis non, published by St. Gregory the Great. No one was to harm them, but they were not to be forced to convert, they were to be given no positions of cultural influence, they were not permitted public worship in Catholic lands.
The novelty of Religious Freedom is the doctrine that the dignity of the human person is so great that he is entitled by God his creator to ignore His revelation and disobey His commandments. That novelty is nowhere affirmed in these citations and no claim to this novelty is made from divine revelation. Nowhere in this citation it is affirmed that any person possesses a right to practice a false religion.
You take citations clearly out of context to support you ideology. You corrupt the Dogma of infallibility by denying the Dogmatic necessity for definition of doctrine and Dogmatic intention to bind, and lastly you corrupt the meaning of "magisterium" by conflating the Ex-Cathedra declaration of Catholic Dogma of the Assumption with a "pastoral declaration" which again evidences that you have no idea what the word "magisterium" means.This bizarre corruption can only be due to stupidity or malice. It follows from making the pope the rule of faith. You belong to a church that has no pope and will never get one, so you have lost your rule of faith which is reduced to sedevacantist slogans which you repeat like a magical mantra.
Drew
Topic: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium (Read 36810 times)