|
Post by Damaged Goods on Oct 5, 2016 13:47:29 GMT -5
This in no way differs from the "religious liberty" taught in the Vatican II documents.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 5, 2016 16:10:47 GMT -5
This in no way differs from the "religious liberty" taught in the Vatican II documents. I disagree, the two documents are not identical and are in opposition to each other. Did you read the above before commenting?
|
|
|
Post by Damaged Goods on Oct 5, 2016 16:56:01 GMT -5
I disagree, the two documents are not identical and are in opposition to each other. Did you read the above before commenting? Of course I did. Vatican II's "religious liberty" also admits restrictions.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 5, 2016 16:59:18 GMT -5
I disagree, the two documents are not identical and are in opposition to each other. Did you read the above before commenting? Of course I did. Vatican II's "religious liberty" also admits restrictions. What restrictions are you referring to in Pacem in Terris and in Dignitatus Humanae?
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Oct 5, 2016 19:39:40 GMT -5
The following is scanned from the book, Principles of Peace;: A commentary on John XXIII's Pacem in Terris, Newman, Jerimiah, 1964, pages 77-81. The bold sentences go against the idea that paragraph 14 of Pacem in Terris plainly expresses the traditional doctrine of religious liberty. In particular, the last sentence implies that non-Catholics should be assured by this passage that the Church is not intolerant – which, from their point of view, means that the Church does not seek to limit the public profession of non-Catholic religions. The only way to put an end once and for all to suspicions that the Church is intolerant is to support freedom of religion for all religions, as long as they are compatible with natural law and civil order. Fr. Newman mentions that ritual prostitution or human sacrifices would fail this test.
|
|
|
Post by Damaged Goods on Oct 6, 2016 4:47:45 GMT -5
I don't know what Pacem in terris actually says, but both Fr. Newman and Dignitatis humanae assert that there is a natural right to religious freedom, that civil authorities are to respect this right as much as possible and that the exercise of this right can be restricted in the name of the public good.
Just bite the bullet already and accept Vatican II "in the light of Tradition". Your principles leave you with nowhere else to turn.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 6, 2016 6:15:40 GMT -5
I don't know what Pacem in terris actually says, but both Fr. Newman and Dignitatis humanae assert that there is a natural right to religious freedom, that civil authorities are to respect this right as much as possible and that the exercise of this right can be restricted in the name of the public good. Just bite the bullet already and accept Vatican II "in the light of Tradition". Your principles leave you with nowhere else to turn. I am not talking about Dignitatus Humanae, which I believe was a clear break from Catholic doctrine, and contained the grave error of saying that one has a right to worship error, and that false religions and sects have a natural right to exist. I contend that Pacem in Terris did not teach this, that it can be interpreted in two ways, one orthodox and one heterodox, but that the orthodox interpretation is the correct one, in light of the fact that Pope Leo's teaching was placed into the text. The article above(see resources page post @ tradcath.proboards.com/thread/429/commentary-pacem-terris-paragraph-newman) brings to light what theologians were saying about Pacem in Terris after its promulgation. One important fact brought to light was the weakness of the translation, and the fact tha the Latin text allowed for both an orthodox and an erroneous interpretation. Btw, what principles of mine are you referring to?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 6, 2016 6:31:55 GMT -5
The following is scanned from the book, Principles of Peace;: A commentary on John XXIII's Pacem in Terris, Newman, Jerimiah, 1964, pages 77-81. The bold sentences go against the idea that paragraph 14 of Pacem in Terris plainly expresses the traditional doctrine of religious liberty. In particular, the last sentence implies that non-Catholics should be assured by this passage that the Church is not intolerant – which, from their point of view, means that the Church does not seek to limit the public profession of non-Catholic religions. The only way to put an end once and for all to suspicions that the Church is intolerant is to support freedom of religion for all religions, as long as they are compatible with natural law and civil order. Fr. Newman mentions that ritual prostitution or human sacrifices would fail this test. There is a difference between religious freedom and toleration. In my opinion, the encyclical is defending the latter, not the former, although it may appear otherwise. You must have read the section dealing with the original Latin, that was the portion that I find the most significant. The Latin text can be interpreted as "true," as in the true dictates of one's conscience. That meaning would mean that John XXIII was only defending the right to worship God in the true religion. Since that meaning can be construed from the text, the next step would be to understand if that is the intended meaning. In my opinion, the addition of Pope Leo XIII's teaching to section 14, leaves only the orthodox interpretation. By adding the text to encyclical, he made it his own, giving context to the former paragraph. You may say, "but he's a liberal" and that gives the context. I agree with you, but what we are doing is looking at is this text, in itself, to determine if it is heretical or erroneous. One possibility I have thought on this is that the Holy Office intervened and saved the text from error by adding "right" to dictates, and adding the quote from Pope Leo XIII to the body of the section.
|
|
|
Post by Damaged Goods on Oct 6, 2016 9:28:59 GMT -5
In my opinion, the addition of Pope Leo XIII's teaching to section 14, leaves only the orthodox interpretation. By adding the text to encyclical, he made it his own, giving context to the former paragraph. Dignitatis Humanae cites the same portion of Leo XIII's Libertas.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 6, 2016 11:53:53 GMT -5
In my opinion, the addition of Pope Leo XIII's teaching to section 14, leaves only the orthodox interpretation. By adding the text to encyclical, he made it his own, giving context to the former paragraph. Dignitatis Humanae cites the same portion of Leo XIII's Libertas. Pacem in Terris did not only cite Pope Leo's teaching, the teaching was put right into the body of the document. By placing the text into the body of the document, it became part of the teaching. Dignitatus Humanae cited several Popes in it's paragarpah #2, but it was done gratuitously as none of those Popes, including John XXIII, taught what DH was teaching. DH introduced clearly and unambiguously a new doctrine opposed to both the natural law and the teaching of the magisterium. Dignititus Humanae, and other teachings of Vatican II, in my opinion, was the place of the break between the Catholic Church and the new sect. This was the precise point in time, December 7th 1965, that the sect made itself public and known by breaking with Apostolic doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by EricH on Oct 7, 2016 10:17:39 GMT -5
The bold sentences go against the idea that paragraph 14 of Pacem in Terris plainly expresses the traditional doctrine of religious liberty. In particular, the last sentence implies that non-Catholics should be assured by this passage that the Church is not intolerant – which, from their point of view, means that the Church does not seek to limit the public profession of non-Catholic religions. The only way to put an end once and for all to suspicions that the Church is intolerant is to support freedom of religion for all religions, as long as they are compatible with natural law and civil order. Fr. Newman mentions that ritual prostitution or human sacrifices would fail this test. There is a difference between religious freedom and toleration. In my opinion, the encyclical is defending the latter, not the former, although it may appear otherwise. You must have read the section dealing with the original Latin, that was the portion that I find the most significant. The Latin text can be interpreted as "true," as in the true dictates of one's conscience. That meaning would mean that John XXIII was only defending the right to worship God in the true religion. Since that meaning can be construed from the text, the next step would be to understand if that is the intended meaning. In my opinion, the addition of Pope Leo XIII's teaching to section 14, leaves only the orthodox interpretation. By adding the text to encyclical, he made it his own, giving context to the former paragraph. You may say, "but he's a liberal" and that gives the context. I agree with you, but what we are doing is kooking at is this text, in itself, to determine if it is heretical or erroneous. One possibility I have thought on this is that the Holy Office intervened and saved the text from error by adding "right" to dictates, and adding the quote from Pope Leo XIII to the body of the section. You make a reasonable argument. I would reply that it doesn't matter if the wording is technically orthodox, if its purpose and effect was to convey an unorthodox meaning. Whatever may be the literal meaning of this or that text, the modernists certainly managed to put their program into action, and that's the main thing we need to know. My reading of Fr. Newman's analysis is that he leaves aside the debatable question of the precise meaning of the text, so as not to miss the forest for the trees, and says in a roundabout way that it supports religious liberty in the broad sense, i.e. for men of various religions.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Oct 7, 2016 12:41:40 GMT -5
There is a difference between religious freedom and toleration. In my opinion, the encyclical is defending the latter, not the former, although it may appear otherwise. You must have read the section dealing with the original Latin, that was the portion that I find the most significant. The Latin text can be interpreted as "true," as in the true dictates of one's conscience. That meaning would mean that John XXIII was only defending the right to worship God in the true religion. Since that meaning can be construed from the text, the next step would be to understand if that is the intended meaning. In my opinion, the addition of Pope Leo XIII's teaching to section 14, leaves only the orthodox interpretation. By adding the text to encyclical, he made it his own, giving context to the former paragraph. You may say, "but he's a liberal" and that gives the context. I agree with you, but what we are doing is kooking at is this text, in itself, to determine if it is heretical or erroneous. One possibility I have thought on this is that the Holy Office intervened and saved the text fromp error by adding "right" to dictates, and adding the quote from Pope Leo XIII to the body of the section. You make a reasonable argument. I would reply that it doesn't matter if the wording is technically orthodox, if its purpose and effect was to convey an unorthodox meaning. Whatever may be the literal meaning of this or that text, the modernists certainly managed to put their program into action, and that's the main thing we need to know. My reading of Fr. Newman's analysis is that he leaves aside the debatable question of the precise meaning of the text, so as not to miss the forest for the trees, and says in a roundabout way that it supports religious liberty in the broad sense, i.e. for men of various religions. You may be right, but the trouble is that making a judgment about intent is much harder than making a judgment about a public fact. If that was his intent, then it was a sinful intent, but as his intent cannot easily be proven, it really remains something in the internal forum of his soul, that was part of his judgment. I realize the modernists ran with Pacem in Terris, but what we do not know is what John XXIII knew about this, and how he reacted if he did know. Keep in mind that he was very old and close to his death at the time of the promulgation of Pacem in Terris, which did in fact occur about three months later. The only reason I have in studying John XXIII is to determine whether or not he was truly a Pope. There are only two ways to determine this: (1). did John XXIII become a public heretic, schismatic, or apostate? (2). Did John XXIII use his office in a way that it would have been impossible for a pope to do. My provisional conclusions about him are this: 1. He was a liberal Catholic, but not a heretic. A liberal Catholic, unlike a (public) heretic, may say or do things that may be censurable, but does not leave the Church on his own. 2. I do not have any evidence that he intended to depart from the doctrine of the Church on any point, so I give him him the benefit of the doubt, as we must, that he was not guilty of this. 3. John XXIII never used the office of the papacy in a way or manner that was impossible for a Pope to do. 4. The strongest argument against him on that point was his teaching in Pacem in Terris, paragraph 14. If John XXIII taught heresy or a grave error in doctrine to the universal Church, then he would have used his office in a way that the office could not be used. In my opinion, the text itself was orthodox, when interpreted with the context of Pope Leo''s teaching which was included in the section. 5. It seems to me that an argument against John XXIII on this teaching is lacking, as Pacem in Terris soon became "forgotten history" as it was overshadowed by Vatican II, so we never received an official answer as to what paragraph 14 meant from the Holy See. All we have is the speculation of the theologians, and it seem to me that even Fr. Newman and other orthodox theologians could not resolve the apparent contradiction. Fr. Newman ends his commentary with this statement: "the fact that Pope John, having declared the right to religious freedom, goes on right away to quote Pope Leo's encyclical, Libertas, should be sufficient indication that he did not regard the teaching of his predecessor on Church-State relations as being in essential conflict with his own principles just expounded. ". Fr. Newman never explained how there could be no conflict if the wording of paragraph 14 was truly meant in an unorthodox sense, as there would have been a conflict in doctrine between Pope Leo and John XXIII's teaching if that were the case. It seems to me that the good theologians themselves were perplexed at what they were witnessing and could not definitively make heads or tails of it. With Pacem in Terris it was possible to interpret the document in an orthodox sense, and in my opinion, the text itself supports that interpretation, even though the modernist theologians ignored this interpretation, but that was no longer possible with Dignitatus Humanae, which lacked any qualification of the terms or context to indicate that the right to freedom of worship only belongs to those worshiping in the true Faith.
|
|
John Lewis
Full Member
Reviewing the Knowledge
Posts: 353
|
Post by John Lewis on Jul 23, 2023 3:48:26 GMT -5
Thanks for linking me to this conversation Pacelli. It is good to read a different perspective on this matter. Could John XXIII’s actions at Vatican II be those of a valid Pope? Has this been discussed anywhere on the forums?
|
|