Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Raoul76 on July 06, 2010, 12:47:57 PM
-
I realize this has been discussed before, but I want to take another pass at it, since I see our present situation with less emotional investment now. I am not one of those who base their opposition to VII entirely on the question of religious liberty, so for me this is purely a formal question -- but is Dignitatis Humanae really heretical?
For religious liberty as taught by Vatican II in Dignitatis Humanae to be a heresy, it would have to contradict divine revelation which can be traced back to the Apostles. Does it do so? What I know is that it definitely contradicts recent papal pronouncements:
Quanta Cura, Pius IX:
"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 '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 '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," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society;..."
This is specifically contrary to DH, it is like DH simply reversed everything that Pius IX said. And Leo XIII is even more specific. In the following passage he compares the "modern form of government," meaning governments that separate Church and state, with tyrannical governments. Relatively to tyrannical governments, these modern governments are better, but they still must not be approved in principle.
Immortale Dei, Leo XIII:
42. Especially with reference to the so-called "liberties" which are so greatly coveted in these days, all must stand by the judgment of the apostolic see, and have the same mind. Let no man be deceived by the honest outward appearance of these liberties, but let each one reflect whence these have had their origin, and by what efforts they are everywhere upheld and promoted. Experience has made Us well acquainted with their results to the State, since everywhere they have borne fruits which the good and wise bitterly deplore. If there really exist anywhere, or if we in imagination conceive, a State, waging wanton and tyrannical war against Christianity, and if we compare with it the modern form of government just described, this latter may seem the more endurable of the two. Yet, undoubtedly, the principles on which such a government is grounded are, as We have said, of a nature which no one can approve.
There is no doubt that Dignitatis Humanae marches right in and wholeheartedly embraces precisely the errors pointed out by these Popes. It actually goes farther. It doesn't just say that religious liberty ought to be proclaimed, and that religion should have no power of coercion. It proclaims it itself, imposing itself on governments, even on Catholic ones.
I wonder, though, is what Pius IX and Leo XIII talked about part of the Deposit of Faith? Can it be traced back to the Apostles? And which concepts can be traced back to the Apostles? Is it that we must wish for all governments to be Catholic, even when they aren't? Is it that we must say that the government should punish those who offend against Catholicism? Obviously that can't be traced back to the Apostles, since they knew nothing of Catholic governments.
This leaves me to ask, is it possible that this matter of religious liberty is a discipline and not a dogma of faith? Keep in mind that at the First Lateran Council, marriages between people with a certain degree of consanguinity were strictly forbidden. Then at the Fourth Lateran Council, this was reversed and these marriages were allowed. This shows you how flexible disciplines can be. It is a flip-flop that is precisely like the flip-flop involving religious liberty.
If so, if religious liberty is a discipline, we would have to prove religious liberty is a harmful discipline to convict the "Popes" on the basis of it alone, but that is difficult. VII types could easily use as a defense that, since the governments of today are not Catholic, that Dignitatis Humanae was actually put in place to safeguard the Catholics from persecution, that the Church is enforcing religious liberty because she fears the advent of the tyrannical, atheistic governments that Leo XIII suggests.
Of course, this is ridiculous in itself. A tyrannical, atheistic government is not going to listen to what Vatican II has to say, it's not going to protect Catholics or be cowed by the edicts of Rome. Therefore, there is neither any theological nor any moral nor any disciplinary nor any strategic reason to do what Vatican II did. There is no reason why it shouldn't have followed in the footsteps of Leo XIII and said, in effect, "Yeah, modern governments are bad, and we don't and must not approve of them in principle, but they are a necessary evil that for the time we must endure."
We also know, because of so much other evidence, that the Church has been infiltrated and that many of these people are Modernists. We know there is an effort underway to destroy the Church. I am not saying, believe me, that Paul VI was secretly a good guy who was trying to shield Catholics from persecution. The evidence shows, in my opinion, that he was a communist who was trying to make the Church blend with the world, to fritter away its evangelical action, to weaken the faith, to work with the devil to create the Apostasy.
But just because DH is ridiculous, doesn't mean it's heretical. I tend to think that the Catholic Church can't be ridiculous, call me crazy, but this thread is devoted to the question "Is Dignitatis Humanae HERETICAL"?
Keep in mind I'm judging DH as it is in itself, I'm talking about what's on the page. We all know about Assisi and the heresies of Ratzinger and that these "Popes" are not orthodox people, but don't let that color any objective insights into DH that you can give me.
Last time we discussed DH on this forum, we determined that the heresy was not religious liberty in itself, but that people have the "natural right" to religious liberty. They are taking their cue from Gregory XVI as quoted by Pius IX above, when he says it is "insanity" that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society." He calls it "insanity," just like I have called DH ridiculous, and that is what it is. But what is the "insanity" in question? What is the "right" in question? Is it that no one has the natural right to error, or is it that no one should have the evil consequences of their errors protected by the law? It's a fine distinction, but a necessary one.
I am no longer sure it's a heresy to say we have the right to error. Natural rights come from divine laws. And it is a divine law that we have free will -- no? This would imply we have divine sanction to err, just as we know there must be reprobate and elect. Yet on the other hand, no one has the "right" to error when it concerns a just government; error is only tolerated in certain cases.
It all depends what is meant by a right, or what the word for "right" is in Latin, but it seems to me that DH is much too ambiguous and shady to be convicted for clear, outright heresy, unless someone can give me some proof from the Church Fathers. It is a true brain-scrambler. I only scratched the surface of the questions and problems that it raises. What I do know, however, is that it is insane and absurd, that it is just wrong -- can the Church be insane and absurd and wrong? Don't think so. And we have other heresies and errors to let us know what we're dealing with.
-
I would say-yes it is heretical and counter-Catholic...V2 docuмents are very stealh though, very ambigous...not the same clearity modernists taught circa 1900...
the real V2 docuмents, per ABL and others, were thrown in trash.....as well as Marian Russia consecration,etc.....
-
Counter-Catholic is a good word for it, that is essentially what I'm saying when I call it "ridiculous."
-
Counter-Catholic is a good word for it, that is essentially what I'm saying when I call it "ridiculous."
or as some have said-counter Syllabus....
I ignore V2 by and large...someday, we may have it only as a bad memory.....
-
CORRECTION of my clumsy third-to-last paragraph, please read the emphasized portion especially.
Last time we discussed DH on this forum, we determined that the heresy was not religious liberty in itself, but that people have the "natural right" to religious liberty. Those who claim this is heresy are taking their cue from Gregory XVI as quoted by Pius IX above, when he says it is "insanity" that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society." He calls it "insanity," just like I have called DH ridiculous, and that is what it is. But what is the "insanity" in question? Is it that we have the natural right to error, or is it that we should have the evil consequences of our errors protected by the law? It's a fine distinction, but a necessary one.
-
Belloc said:
or as some have said-counter Syllabus....
I ignore V2 by and large...someday, we may have it only as a bad memory.....
It is counter-Syllabus, but if you read my post, you will see what I'm asking. Was that portion of the Syllabus about DOGMA or about DISCIPLINE? Because disciplines can change. There are all sorts of finely-graded distinctions here that I'd like to understand better.
-
Belloc said:
I ignore V2 by and large...someday, we may have it only as a bad memory.....
We can't ignore it, because we need to know if what sits in Rome is the Church or not. If it is, the VII docuмents have to be free from error, let alone heresy.
-
Belloc said:
I ignore V2 by and large...someday, we may have it only as a bad memory.....
We can't ignore it, because we need to know if what sits in Rome is the Church or not. If it is, the VII docuмents have to be free from error, let alone heresy.
understandable, but what sits in Rome is largely not Catholic, many liek B16 try to straddle both, so in a sense we ahve a rampaging heresy, with some wanting to be on both sides of the team....far more honest was Luther,really.....
I ignore the docuмents maybe is what I should have said, other than to show V2 was crappola. :barf:
-
heresy can at times be tolerated, if suppression may harm the common good...it is pragmatic toleration...the Syllabus is statements of dogmatic fact, basd on various sources-in a sense, an abriged summary of dogmatic teaching, maybe akin to Cliff notes....
one would-and maybe someone has-go through each proposition and go into detail of the background teaching.....
religious liberty is mis-understand, most would read DH and say "yes, we cannot force belief or worship"-which is true, but a Catholic state can regulate it or not, again, common good and pragmtism at times may allow certain things....sometimes, as in Louis IX, not-as he forced the Jєωs out of France.....their destruction and threat of the Faith was greater than the harm of allowing them to stay.....
with DH, one really has to define terms, DH does not and leaves a lot of ambigouity that is open to twisting....
-
I get the feeling you didn't actually read my post and you are just talking about DH in general. But I bring up some questions I think are pertinent, and I want answers, dang it. I will wait and be patient.
-
This is my understanding of the docuмent which I recently read along with the copious footnotes. Without asking, I know that I will be corrected if I am wrong.
Dignitatis Humanae doesn't really say that errors has rights. What it says is that if you firmly believe you are right, you have the right not be coerced to go against your conscience. It's not so much that you have the right to be wrong as it is that you have the right not be brow-beaten into changing your mind.
The problem I have with the docuмent is that it is the brainchild of John Courtney Murray, S.J. who was teaching this to various religious orders of nuns already in the 1940s. What it did was extend the United States' version of religious freedom throughout the Church.
:rahrah:
-
I get the feeling you didn't actually read my post and you are just talking about DH in general. But I bring up some questions I think are pertinent, and I want answers, dang it. I will wait and be patient.
yikes, stay calm friend, will try to read more in depth in a bit-did read it, more skimmed, as business is picking up here...you are out 3 days and work piles up!!! let us be more :cheers: then :cussing: in the meantime...
-
I get the feeling you didn't actually read my post and you are just talking about DH in general. But I bring up some questions I think are pertinent, and I want answers, dang it. I will wait and be patient.
You will get as varied answers as there are people here. I know. When I speak to one side, I get their version of things; and when I speak to the other, I get the other side. The question really is: who is giving you the truth and who is giving you a slanted version of the truth? I've never been able to happen upon anyone that is objective. It's either that the docuмent is heretical or that the docuмent isn't.
I want answers too.
-
I want the various insights so that I can sift and determine on the one that has the most proof in its corner. But again, there is more against VII and post-VII Rome than just religious liberty, as I wrote you at length last night.
-
I want the various insights so that I can sift and determine on the one that has the most proof in its corner. But again, there is more against VII and post-VII Rome than just religious liberty, as I wrote you at length last night.
[/b]
Did you get my response, as I am having major computer troubles today on account of the fact that my husband "fixed" it this morning?
-
Also, people need to read my post and not just talk about DH in general. I ask certain specific questions because I want to keep the answers on point and not all over the place.
We are not defining our terms very well. We use "religious liberty" for shorthand but actually there are all kinds of concepts that are broached in DH. As Belloc said, "religious liberty" is not the problem; almost all states have exercised religious liberty in one form or another. We need to stop talking about DH in terms of "religious liberty." We should actually talk about DH in terms of the "right to religious error."
So where does the potential heresy come in? Is it when you say that we have the NATURAL RIGHT to religious error AKA liberty; or is it when you say that the state has the RIGHT TO PROTECT OUR NATURAL RIGHT TO ERROR? And in what way and how does this protection become heresy -- when it involves free speech, perhaps?
The other question was, is is possible that this is a change of discipline? If one of the propositions in the above paragraph is heresy, it must contradict a tenet of faith that we can trace back to the Apostles. But did the Apostles ever claim what Pius IX and Leo XIII did? It isn't like they spoke about Catholic governments because they didn't have any. However, they did say that governments receive their power from God, even non-Catholic governments, and because of that, they would not have said these governments have the right to protect error.
Thinking it over ( and that is what this thread is for, to think out loud ), I would say that, yeah, DH is counter-Catholic and it goes against something that was at least implied by the Church Fathers, by the Apostles, which can be roughly summed up thusly -- governments get their power from God, and governments thus do not have the RIGHT to go against God in protecting error, even though they may sometimes do so.
If DH is heretical, it's because it contradicts that truth. On top of this, you have the peculiarity that Dignitatis Humanae demands religious liberty from ALL STATES, so that a Catholic state would be disobeying the Church! Absolutely absurd!
-
many prelates post V2 tore up and asked the nations to tear up concordants and told leaders to let everyone do what ever they wanted....hence disunity...Franco they say could never comprehend, nor get over that....
-
When I say "protecting error" I mean "giving error rights." Obviously certain errors can be tolerated at certain times and for certain reasons. But when you give error the right to free speech, for instance, or you give it power over truth, to persecute truth, can it really be said that the government has the RIGHT to do that?
Again, governments get their power from God, even if they don't know it, even if they deny God.
The thing is, DH does not say specifically that error should have the right over truth. It just leads to that in its effect, since it enforces, or tries to enforce, that governments should not impose their religion on the people, even the true religion.
-
Alexandria said:
Did you get my response, as I am having major computer troubles today on account of the fact that my husband "fixed" it this morning?
Yep, it's here. Lemme take a look-see.
-
Thus the two principles are clarified to which recourse must be had in concrete cases for the answer to the serious question concerning the attitude which the jurist, the statesman and the sovereign Catholic state is to adopt in consideration of the community of nations in regard to a formula of religious and moral toleration as described above.
First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated.
Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.
This was said after he laid down the truth that,
"Above all, it must be clearly stated that no human authority, no state, no community of states, whatever be their religious character, can give a positive command or positive authorisation to teach or to do that which would be contrary to religious truth or moral good. Such a command or such an authorization would have no obligatory power and would remain without effect. No authority may give such a command, because it is contrary to nature to oblige the spirit and the will of man to error and evil, or to consider one or the other as indifferent. Not even God could give such a positive command or positive authorisation, because it would be in contradiction to His absolute truth and sanctity."
-
Dignitatis Humanae is opposed to the First Commandment.
If the legitimate authority of laws comes from God it is not possible to make a principle of the "right" to violate the First Commandment.
-
Dignitatis Humanae is opposed to the First Commandment.
If the legitimate authority of laws comes from God it is not possible to make a principle of the "right" to violate the First Commandment.
This is what I was told by a sedevacantist priest, but they are the only ones who have said this. You will not hear this from a novus ordo priest. And, if you ask them about it, they deny it.
So, who is right?
-
I wonder, though, is what Pius IX and Leo XIII talked about part of the Deposit of Faith? Can it be traced back to the Apostles? And which concepts can be traced back to the Apostles? Is it that we must wish for all governments to be Catholic, even when they aren't? Is it that we must say that the government should punish those who offend against Catholicism? Obviously that can't be traced back to the Apostles, since they knew nothing of Catholic governments.
I say yes it can. Whast about the instance of old what's the husband and wife who were sold their property and did not turn over all the money. God struck them dead. So, yes the apostles would have seen right there exactly what God meant to happen with persons not following the law. And, that means Dogma not suggestion that can be changed.
And, yes if you are living in a Catholic Country and break the laws of the Church darn right you can be punished it has happened in the past and will again under the Great Monarch.
Am I understanding your or not.
-
If DH is heretical, it's because it contradicts that truth. On top of this, you have the peculiarity that Dignitatis Humanae demands religious liberty from ALL STATES, so that a Catholic state would be disobeying the Church! Absolutely absurd!
Yes, that's a red flag and it tends to discredit all those who try to reconcile Dignitatis Humanae with the teaching of the Church. The Church approved of civil laws contrary to Dignitatis Humanae right up to the time Dignitatis Humanae was enacted. Dignitatis Humanae does implicitly accuse the Church of teaching error until suddenly in the 60s liberal theologians supposedly expressed its true teachings.
-
Belloc said:
I ignore V2 by and large...someday, we may have it only as a bad memory.....
We can't ignore it, because we need to know if what sits in Rome is the Church or not. If it is, the VII docuмents have to be free from error, let alone heresy.
understandable, but what sits in Rome is largely not Catholic, many liek B16 try to straddle both, so in a sense we ahve a rampaging heresy, with some wanting to be on both sides of the team....far more honest was Luther,really.....
I ignore the docuмents maybe is what I should have said, other than to show V2 was crappola. :barf:
You are right. The spoke plainly nothing was couched. They meant what they said. Not like these VII vipers. They purposely wove rings around everything so that you can look at it this way and maybe event hat way.
And I agree when you say atleast Luther was an honest heretic. He had the dare I say decency to take his slimy trails to his own Church.
-
If DH is heretical, it's because it contradicts that truth. On top of this, you have the peculiarity that Dignitatis Humanae demands religious liberty from ALL STATES, so that a Catholic state would be disobeying the Church! Absolutely absurd!
Yes, that's a red flag and it tends to discredit all those who try to reconcile Dignitatis Humanae with the teaching of the Church. The Church approved of civil laws contrary to Dignitatis Humanae right up to the time Dignitatis Humanae was enacted. Dignitatis Humanae does implicitly accuse the Church of teaching error until suddenly in the 60s liberal theologians supposedly expressed its true teachings.
Isn't it exciting to be living in such an enlightenend age when the Church finally got it right?
-
Dignitatis Humanae is opposed to the First Commandment.
If the legitimate authority of laws comes from God it is not possible to make a principle of the "right" to violate the First Commandment.
This is what I was told by a sedevacantist priest, but they are the only ones who have said this. You will not hear this from a novus ordo priest. And, if you ask them about it, they deny it.
So, who is right?
Dignitatis Humanae contradicts the basic principles Pius XII taught in Ci Riesce.
It contradicts Quanta Cura, which is clearly infallible.
I believe it is a mistake to try to merely say that it contradicts the first commandment (I agree that it does), it is better to show that it directly contradicts previous pope's teachings. Then the novus ordo priest will need to explain how this type of contradiction of past papal teaching can possibly exist.
-
Dignitatis Humanae is opposed to the First Commandment.
If the legitimate authority of laws comes from God it is not possible to make a principle of the "right" to violate the First Commandment.
This is what I was told by a sedevacantist priest, but they are the only ones who have said this. You will not hear this from a novus ordo priest. And, if you ask them about it, they deny it.
So, who is right?
The sede priest. Nothing in God's law is complicated. It is what it is. It is clear and never tangled. If what they have written since VII is making you dizzy then they have accomplished what they wished. For it is only through their hazy smoky ways that they have allowed this confusion that causes so many to doubt. Some so much that they leave the Faith.
-
Dignitatis Humanae is opposed to the First Commandment.
If the legitimate authority of laws comes from God it is not possible to make a principle of the "right" to violate the First Commandment.
This is what I was told by a sedevacantist priest, but they are the only ones who have said this. You will not hear this from a novus ordo priest. And, if you ask them about it, they deny it.
So, who is right?
Dignitatis Humanae contradicts the basic principles Pius XII taught in Ci Riesce.
It contradicts Quanta Cura, which is clearly infallible.
I believe it is a mistake to try to merely say that it contradicts the first commandment (I agree that it does), it is better to show that it directly contradicts previous pope's teachings. Then the novus ordo priest will need to explain how this type of contradiction of past papal teaching can possibly exist.
They say that only parts of Quanta Cura are infallible.
-
Here's a quote on "Error has no rights" from a Novus Ordo reference book; after correctly explaining the phrase, viz. the rights of a sincere but erroneous conscience are in no wise equal to the rights of sincere and correct conscience, it succinctly says:
"The Second Vatican Council rejected this thinking in its Declaration on Religious Freedom (n.3)."
Of course, other related articles are long hymns of praise to the heretic John Courtney Murray.
-
Dignitatis Humanae is opposed to the First Commandment.
If the legitimate authority of laws comes from God it is not possible to make a principle of the "right" to violate the First Commandment.
This is what I was told by a sedevacantist priest, but they are the only ones who have said this. You will not hear this from a novus ordo priest. And, if you ask them about it, they deny it.
So, who is right?
The sede priest. Nothing in God's law is complicated. It is what it is. It is clear and never tangled. If what they have written since VII is making you dizzy then they have accomplished what they wished. For it is only through their hazy smoky ways that they have allowed this confusion that causes so many to doubt. Some so much that they leave the Faith.
But how I am supposed to know who is and who isn't bending the explanation to suit their side?
I can completely understand how this would make someone just walk away from the Church all together.
-
Dignitatis Humanae is opposed to the First Commandment.
If the legitimate authority of laws comes from God it is not possible to make a principle of the "right" to violate the First Commandment.
This is what I was told by a sedevacantist priest, but they are the only ones who have said this. You will not hear this from a novus ordo priest. And, if you ask them about it, they deny it.
So, who is right?
Dignitatis Humanae contradicts the basic principles Pius XII taught in Ci Riesce.
It contradicts Quanta Cura, which is clearly infallible.
I believe it is a mistake to try to merely say that it contradicts the first commandment (I agree that it does), it is better to show that it directly contradicts previous pope's teachings. Then the novus ordo priest will need to explain how this type of contradiction of past papal teaching can possibly exist.
They say that only parts of Quanta Cura are infallible.
Yes, and that part is infallible. Here is Scheeben specifically mentioning Quanta Cura:
III. Ex cathedra decisions admit of great variety of form. At the same time, in the docuмents containing such decisions only those passages are infallible which the judge manifestly intended to be so. Recommendations, proofs, and explanations accompanying the decision are not necessarily infallible, except where the explanation is itself the dogmatic interpretation of a text of Scripture, or of a rule of Faith, or in as far as it fixes the meaning and extent of the definition. It is not always easy to draw the line between the definition and the other portions of the docuмent. The ordinary rules for interpreting ecclesiastical docuмents must be applied. The commonest forms of ex cathedra decisions used at the present time are the following:—
1. The most solemn form is the Dogmatic Constitution, or Bull, in which the decrees are proposed expressly as ecclesiastical laws, and are sanctioned by heavy penalties; e.g. the Constitutions Unigenitus and Auctorem Fidei against the Jansenists, and the Bull Ineffabilis Deus on the Immaculate Conception.
2. Next in solemnity are Encyclical Letters, so far as they are of a dogmatic character. They resemble Constitutions and Bulls, but, as a rule, they impose no penalties. Some of them are couched in strictly juridical terms, such as the Encyclical Quanta cura, while others are more rhetorical in style. In the latter case it is not absolutely certain that the Pope speaks infallibly.
3. Apostolic Letters and Briefs, even when not directly addressed to the whole Church, must be considered as ex cathedra when they attach censures to the denial of certain doctrines, or when, like Encyclicals, they define or condemn in strict judicial language, or in equivalent terms. But it is often extremely difficult to determine whether these letters are dogmatic or only monitory and administrative. Doubts on the subject are sometimes removed by subsequent declarations.
4. Lastly, the Pope can speak ex cathedra by confirming and approving of the decisions of other tribunals, such as general or particular councils, or Roman Congregations. In ordinary cases, however, the approbation of a particular council is merely an act of supervision, and the decision of a Roman Congregation is not ex cathedra unless the Pope makes it his own.
-
I would say-yes it is heretical and counter-Catholic...V2 docuмents are very stealh though, very ambigous...not the same clearity modernists taught circa 1900...
the real V2 docuмents, per ABL and others, were thrown in trash.....as well as Marian Russia consecration,etc.....
You pretty much nailed it with that statement. The Vatican II docuмents seen today don't say a word about what really happened.
-
SJB
Have you ever spoken to a novus ordo priest about this? If so, what did he tell you when you brought up Quanta Cura?
-
I believe it is a mistake to try to merely say that it contradicts the first commandment (I agree that it does), it is better to show that it directly contradicts previous pope's teachings. Then the novus ordo priest will need to explain how this type of contradiction of past papal teaching can possibly exist.
The reason I brought up the First Commandment is because Raoul was asking if the Papal teachings that Dignitatis Humanae contradicts pertained to Divine Revelation and were part of the Deposit of Faith.
-
Religious liberty was condemned in an ex cathedra definition by Pope Pius IX, as can be read in Quanta Cura, wherein a clear formula of definition is contained (We by Our Apostolic Authority, etc.)
77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.
SECT. 34.—Dogmatic Censures.
I. The Vatican Council has spoken of the right of censure belonging to the Church in the following terms: “Moreover, the Church having received, together with the apostolic office of teaching, the command to keep the Deposit of the Faith, hath also the right and the duty of proscribing knowledge falsely so-called, lest any one should be deceived by philosophy or vain deceit. Wherefore all the Faithful are forbidden, not only to defend as legitimate conclusions of science opinions of this kind which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of the Faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, but are also bound to hold them rather as errors having the deceitful semblance of truth “ (sess. iii., chap. 4). See also Pius IX's brief Gravissimas inter.
II. Dogmatic censures impose most strictly the duty of unreserved assent. In matters of Faith and Morals they afford absolute certainty that the doctrines or propositions censured are to be rejected in the manner required by the particular censure affixed to them. Sometimes the obligation of submitting to the Church's judgment is expressly mentioned ; e.g. in the Bull Unigenitus. “We order all the Faithful not to presume to form opinions about these propositions or to teach or preach them, otherwise than is determined in this our constitution.” In cases of this kind the infallibility of the censures is contained in the infallibility concerning Faith and Morals which belongs to the Teaching Apostolate, because submission to the censure is made a moral duty. No difference is here made between the binding power of lesser censures and that of the highest (heresy). Moreover, these censures bind not only by reason of the obedience due to the Church, but also on account of the certain knowledge which they give us of the falsity or untrustworthiness of the censured doctrines To adhere to these doctrines is a grievous sin because of the strictness of the ecclesiastical prohibition sanctioned by the heaviest penalties, and also because all or nearly all the censures represent the censured act as grievously sinful. The duty to reject a censured doctrine involves the right to assert and duty to admit the contradictory doctrine as sound, nay as the only sound and legitimate doctrine. The censures do not expressly state this right and duty, nevertheless the consideration of the meaning and drift of each particular censure clearly establishes both. In the case of censures which express categorically the Church's certain judgment, such as “Heresy,” “Error,” “False,” “Blasphemous,” “Impious,” and also in cases where moral certainty is expressed, such as “Akin to Heresy,” “Akin to Error,” “Rash,” there can be no question as to this.
Doubt might perhaps arise whether the other censures, such as “Wicked,” “Unsound,” “Unsafe, and mere condemnations without any particular qualification, impose the duty of admitting the falsity of the condemned doctrines as at least morally certain, or whether it is enough to abstain from maintaining them. As a rule, however, we must not be content with the latter.
-
Raoul I just realized in my first post that I failed to highlight the first paragraph as being your words. Sorry.
-
SJB
Have you ever spoken to a novus ordo priest about this? If so, what did he tell you when you brought up Quanta Cura?
The last time I spoke with a Novus Ordo priest was concerning Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos. He was very rude and asked me to leave his classroom. I did and never returned.
-
SJB
Have you ever spoken to a novus ordo priest about this? If so, what did he tell you when you brought up Quanta Cura?
I have heard various Novus Ordo priests speak of this on radio. And, you are correct they usually chuckle at how the church was once in the dark ages but we are ever so much more enlightened.
-
Someone had posted this on my facebook, and I thought perhaps this dealt with the question of how early the Church was stating punishment for not obeying Catholic laws
"St. Basil the Great (374): “A woman who has deliberately destroyed a fetus must pay the penalty for murder… Those also who give drugs causing abortions are murderers themselves, as well as those who receive the poison which kills the fetus.”
-
Someone had posted this on my facebook, and I thought perhaps this dealt with the question of how early the Church was stating punishment for not obeying Catholic laws
"St. Basil the Great (374): “A woman who has deliberately destroyed a fetus must pay the penalty for murder… Those also who give drugs causing abortions are murderers themselves, as well as those who receive the poison which kills the fetus.”
well said, St. Basil-Ora Pro Nobis :incense:
-
Dignitatis Humanae is opposed to the First Commandment.
If the legitimate authority of laws comes from God it is not possible to make a principle of the "right" to violate the First Commandment.
This is what I was told by a sedevacantist priest, but they are the only ones who have said this. You will not hear this from a novus ordo priest. And, if you ask them about it, they deny it.
So, who is right?
my priest is diocesan and though he does not like to, has to say the NO-and he has said this, so yes, there is a NO priest that would say that-lets not paint all with one brush stroke...
that said, my priest has said publicly, at NO and TLM, that he prefers to say only the TLM...not made friends with that in some groups....
also, just recalled, that Fr. Wolfe and McLucas have made statements to that effect and they are FSSP, which from SV view usually puts them in the NO camp.....
-
I wonder, though, is what Pius IX and Leo XIII talked about part of the Deposit of Faith? Can it be traced back to the Apostles? And which concepts can be traced back to the Apostles? Is it that we must wish for all governments to be Catholic, even when they aren't? Is it that we must say that the government should punish those who offend against Catholicism? Obviously that can't be traced back to the Apostles, since they knew nothing of Catholic governments.
I say yes it can. Whast about the instance of old what's the husband and wife who were sold their property and did not turn over all the money. God struck them dead. So, yes the apostles would have seen right there exactly what God meant to happen with persons not following the law. And, that means Dogma not suggestion that can be changed.
And, yes if you are living in a Catholic Country and break the laws of the Church darn right you can be punished it has happened in the past and will again under the Great Monarch.
Am I understanding your or not.
Fr. Fahey's 2 points of Divine Order-Direct and indirect power of the Church
-
<<<Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Satis Cognitum (5) warned of the necessity to guard the integrity of the faith against those who would differ in any point from the true doctrine of the Church. Even if they admit the whole cycle of doctrine, "by one word, as with a drop of poison" they are able to infect the Apostolic Faith. DH is a perfect example of what Pope Leo warned about.>>>
-
well said-entire pie or no pie at all....
-
Dignitatis Humanae is opposed to the First Commandment.
If the legitimate authority of laws comes from God it is not possible to make a principle of the "right" to violate the First Commandment.
This is what I was told by a sedevacantist priest, but they are the only ones who have said this. You will not hear this from a novus ordo priest. And, if you ask them about it, they deny it.
So, who is right?
my priest is diocesan and though he does not like to, has to say the NO-and he has said this, so yes, there is a NO priest that would say that-lets not paint all with one brush stroke...
that said, my priest has said publicly, at NO and TLM, that he prefers to say only the TLM...not made friends with that in some groups....
also, just recalled, that Fr. Wolfe and McLucas have made statements to that effect and they are FSSP, which from SV view usually puts them in the NO camp.....
I would assume that the FSSP priests would play it straight. Also, I am sure that a few novus ordo priests would as well, but a lot of them didn't get a solid seminary training. Pre-VII docuмents were glossed over in favor of the all great VII. I know a young priest that doesn't even know what Mortalium Animos is.
-
yikews! programming runs deep...
I have a talk somewhere where the FSSP priest states he was told in seminary that Luther was right, the Eucharist is a cookie nad that thye-presumbly the rebesl-will not fail again and they admitted V2 was an open pandoras box....that docuмents purposely vague and twisted.....
-
yikews! programming runs deep...
I have a talk somewhere where the FSSP priest states he was told in seminary that Luther was right, the Eucharist is a cookie nad that thye-presumbly the rebesl-will not fail again and they admitted V2 was an open pandoras box....that docuмents purposely vague and twisted.....
Is this true? The FSSP you mentioned, he didn't hear this in an FSSP seminary, did he? I can't imagine teaching heresy.
-
not sure where he was, somewhere in middle states-Michigan? Minn?-if I find the talk, will see if seminary is named...