Syllabus Of Errors Vs Nostra Aetate/dignitatus Humanae

[Basilisa Marie]

What is one major point you find contradictory?

 

 

Okay, let's go with religious freedom.  These two statements in the Syllabus are said to be anathem-izing. 

 

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. 

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.

 

And yet... Dignitatis Humanae says

 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.

 

 

So yeah.  

[Evangetholic]

But the 19th century Catholic Church did not object to the existence of Protestants in Catholic lands. Mightn't "religion of the state" have meant State Religion.

(and in common understandings after the late 17th century "State Religion" did not mean that others might not be tolerated.)

[KnightofChrist]

But the 19th century Catholic Church did not object to the existence of Protestants in Catholic lands. Mightn't "religion of the state" have meant State Religion.

(and in common understandings after the late 17th century "State Religion" did not mean that others might not be tolerated.)

 

There is a difference between Religious Tolerance and Religious Liberty. Rights come from God, there is no right to worship false gods. But false religions can be tolerated for the greater good of society.

[Basilisa Marie]

There is a difference between Religious Tolerance and Religious Liberty. Rights come from God, there is no right to worship false gods. But false religions can be tolerated for the greater good of society.

 

There's no point to Dignitatis Humanae if it just applies to Catholic freedom. 

[4588686]

It's almost like the Catholic Church does change Dogma.  Like the statements from the Council of Florence on salvation outside the Church as compared with Vatican II's.  

[Basilisa Marie]

It's almost like the Catholic Church does change Dogma.  Like the statements from the Council of Florence on salvation outside the Church as compared with Vatican II's.  

 

I think the problem is that many people are quick to call something a dogma.  

 

 

Dogmas are those doctrines which are mysteries that are directly connected with the Deposit of Divine Revelation (e.g. Scripture and Apostolic Tradition). These demand an assent of faith. Dogmas are defined with great precision solemnly by an infallible exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium. They demand the assent of faith and are irreformable in the sense that they cannot be further developed but only clarified so as to be comprehensible as much as possible.  (From Catholic Answer Forums)

 

For example, it would seem that something like "It is through Christ that we are saved" and "The full deposit of divine revelation is found in the Catholic Church" are dogmas.  But the question "Who can be saved?" can be answered in different ways, as long as the answers don't contradict those first two statements.  

It seems to me that as per the question of religious freedom, the important points behind the question are the truth of the Catholic Church and respecting the dignity of all persons.  Strict denial of religious freedom seems to violate human dignity, while promoting broad religious freedom seems to deny the authenticity of the Catholic Church.  

So again, it seems like some people have adopted too broad of a position on what counts as dogma.  

[Apotheoun]

"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; 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.' But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching 'liberty of perdition'; and that 'if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.'"

 

Quotation taken from Quanta Cura (no. 3) of Pope Pius IX.

[Basilisa Marie]

So it sounds like context is extremely important for the Syllabus, and that any "plain" interpretation of it is obviously problematic.  Am I right in understanding that the quote is saying that the problem isn't religious freedom itself, but when it's taken to the absolute - for example, especially when it demands that ecclesiastical authorities can't say that choosing a not-Catholic faith is bad?  

[mortify]

Okay, let's go with religious freedom.  These two statements in the Syllabus are said to be anathem-izing. 

 

 

And yet... Dignitatis Humanae says

 

 

So yeah.  

 

Basilisa Marie,

 

Religious liberty is a delicate issue because it hindges between the State's obligation towards the Truth and and its obligation towards a person's conscience and sincere beliefs. Pope Pius IX was defending the former, since in his time certain false philosophies held that a State had no such obligation, and that relativism and indifferentism were to be condoned. On this point Dignitatis Humanae (DH) agrees, since "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." As civilization in Europe developed Popes and Councils repeatedly faced the challenge of defending the Spiritual Authority's autonomy from the Temporal Power, and the latter's defference to the former. In other words, it's a point that was well developed, DH however focuses on the other side to the equation, namely the person, since in the time of its composition Communist nations regularly coerced people contrary to their faith and conscience. So we sit between two poles of truth, and a key to bridging the the two is this phrase in DH, "all men are to be immune from coercion... within due limits." The important point to understand is that DH is not arguing for limitless freedom, it is naturally concievable that there may be instances where the State will have to intervene. To use a basic example, it would be wrong for a Catholic State to forbid an Islamic community within her domain to worship, however it may be justified in prohibiting the proliferation of material judged to be dangerous to the common good, e.g. Wahabist propaganda.

 

Overall though there have already existed Catholic states that embodied both mentioned truths to a high degree. The Polish-Lithuanian Republic recognized Roman Catholicism as the state religion, and yet Catholics never made up more than 50% of the population. About 40% were Eastern Othodox, and the remaining were Jews, Protestans, and Muslims. The Jews were an interesting case since about one-third of Europe's Jews resided within the Republic, and she came be bear the Jewish proverb of a "haven for Jews." When Spain ousted the Moors and set up it's notorious inquisition many of these Jews fled to Poland-Lithuania. It naturally became a source for Jewish learning and eventually Jews were permitted to set up their own courts and be tried according to their own laws (a state within a state). After the St Bartholemew Day Massacre delegates from various religions met to form the Warsaw Confederation which upheld mutual respect and tolerance between Catholics, Protestants, and others. Every elected Monarch had to swear to protect the religious liberty of Poland's inhabitants. It's notable that even groups otherwise described as heretical were also permitted to reside and practice, e.g. the Polish Brethren and other Arian sects, needless to say there were no "inquisitions" in this Catholic domain. Among all this diversity and liberty Catholicism still held primacy, and the goal was always that people naturally and freely drift towards the truth of Christ and His Church. So we need not envision some future reality where DH and the Syllabus were implinted, these were held and praticed long before either were written.

[Evangetholic]

I've made this point on another thread and nothing happened other than an unprofitable meltdown on the 21st century's main Christian bogeyman (homosexuality), but the notion that the State has a duty to uphold and defend either Christian doctrine or morality to me seems strange. This is not a New Testament concept.  I am not attempting to take this thread from discussion of the Syllabus to discussion of church/state issues, but apart from feudal developments in Western Europe, whence comes this idea? No need to explain it to me, but point me to where in the Fathers, or the Bible this notion lies.

Edited February 17, 2013 by Evangetholic

[KnightofChrist]

There's no point to Dignitatis Humanae if it just applies to Catholic freedom.

There would be a point to D.H., Religious Tolerance of false religions. There maybe a freewill to do what is false but there is no right to do what is false.

[Basilisa Marie]

 

There would be a point to D.H., Religious Tolerance of false religions. There maybe a freewill to do what is false but there is no right to do what is false.

 

 I wasn't clear -  what I mean is that there's a right to make up your own mind about whether you want to do what is false.  That is, I guess I agree with you. :)

 

 

I am not attempting to take this thread from discussion of the Syllabus to discussion of church/state issues, but apart from feudal developments in Western Europe, whence comes this idea?

 

No, as far as I can tell it does arise with the development of European feudal society, since the time of the legalization of Christianity in 313/314, and the fact that for a long time it seemed that the Catholic Church thrived best under a Catholic monarch.  When Christians get involved in politics, people talk about the duties of Christians in office, and then things snowball.  And then America happened and everyone freaked out, named the "Americanist" heresy and people like John Cardinal Newman wrote a rebuttal to the Syllabus saying "Dude, guys, we're doing just fine under a secular democracy, call down."   :)  At least that's how I like to imagine it went down.  

 

 

To use a basic example, it would be wrong for a Catholic State to forbid an Islamic community within her domain to worship, however it may be justified in prohibiting the proliferation of material judged to be dangerous to the common good, e.g. Wahabist propaganda.

 

This was the argument I was trying to get the undergrad to understand - he was saying that the Church was well within her rights to forbid non-Catholic public worship, but that the Church wouldn't because non-Catholic communities would rise up and violently attack the Catholic state.  (lol wut?)  I was trying to get him to understand what you're saying in the rest of your post.  He's also trying to say that all sorts of things are ex cathedra and infallible - like the statement that a Catholic form of government is best, and we have to agree with it.  Thanks for your post - I'll draw from it while talking with him again.  

 

Now I get to go point CCC 839 at him, because he's arguing that the Jews no longer have a covenant with God...and that Benedict removing the "let's pray for the nasty Jews" line from the Good Friday prayers was just an empty attempt at pretending to be nice so the Jews don't freak out...(more lol wut?)  I don't know where these kids are learning there catechism nowadays... :hehe2:

Edited February 17, 2013 by Basilisa Marie

[Evangetholic]

Pius IX's predecessor in 1830 condemned the Polish Catholic peasantry's revolt against the Eastern Orthodox Russian Empire (Do not know the outline of what he said, but the condemnation is fact). During the late 19th Century and early 20th century the Irish Bishops (with no protest from Rome) near uniformly condemned the idea that it was acceptable to revolt against Victoria and Edward VII (who in any case were both prayed for at during the Mass!).

[Evangetholic]

On the November uprising in Poland (in the encyclical Cum Primum) the Pope said this:

 

When the first report of the calamities, which so seriously
devastated your flourishing kingdom reached our ears, We learned
simultaneously that they had been caused by some fabricators of deceit
and lies. Under the pretext of religion, and revolting against the
legitimate authority of the princes, they filled their fatherland, which
they loosed from due obedience to authority, with mourning. We shed
abundant tears at the feet of God, grieving over the harsh evil with
which some of our flock was afflicted. Afterward We humbly prayed that
God would enable your provinces, agitated by so many and so serious
dissensions, to be restored to peace and to the rule of legitimate
authority.

[mortify]

Pius IX's predecessor in 1830 condemned the Polish Catholic peasantry's revolt against the Eastern Orthodox Russian Empire (Do not know the outline of what he said, but the condemnation is fact). During the late 19th Century and early 20th century the Irish Bishops (with no protest from Rome) near uniformly condemned the idea that it was acceptable to revolt against Victoria and Edward VII (who in any case were both prayed for at during the Mass!).

 

Evangetholic,

 

You would have to be more specific with the reference. The idea of absolute rule was foriegn to the Polish-Lithuanian Republic which honored rokosz (a right to rebel against the monarch in the event of liberties being breached). No earthly power is sovereign because no ruler is over and above the body politic, rather the ruler is accountable to the people because he derives his authority from the power the people invest in him.