Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ. —St. Jerome

Main Menu

Dignitatis Humanæ color-coded with Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors

Started by Geremia, May 05, 2021, 11:55:11 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Color coded or bolded where Vatican II matches up with condemned propositions of Bl. Pius IX and Pope Gregory XVI. Compare Dignitatis Humanæ:
Quote2. 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.
 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.
to Bl. Pius IX's Quanta Cura:
QuoteFor 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,"2 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;"3 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."4
and to his Syllabus of Errors, which condemned the following:
Quote15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.—Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.
  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.
  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.—Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.
  79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.—Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.
  80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.—Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.
Read also Abp. Lefebvre's Open Letter to Confused Catholics, ch. 11 "Religious Liberty".


The very fact that ambiguity is found in any document of Vatican II was done to allow for the liberal and modernist doctrine to seep in whether intentional or not. DH is harder to get away from arguing to be merely ambiguous, but I know that Dr. Thomas Pink argues that DH is in line with Leo XIII's teaching on liberty and the state and that the state can be interpreted to be the state qua state, i.e. outside the auspices of the Church and bestial. That does not matter though because of the allowance of liberalism and modernism to be possibly interpreted from the text.


This is not true:
Quote from: Dignitatis Humanæ2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men [baptized and unbaptized] 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 Church has the right to coerce the baptized. Trent sess. 7 can. 14:
QuoteIf anyone says, that those who have been thus baptized when children, are, when they have grown up, to be asked whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their names when they were baptized, and that, if they should answer that they will not, they are to be left to their own will, and are not to be compelled meanwhile to a Christian life by any other penalty (nec alia interim poena ad christianam vitam cogendos), save that they be excluded from the participation of the Eucharist, and of the other sacraments, until they repent; let him be anathema.
See Integralism ch. 11 The Two Swords.


Fr. Crean mentions here during this interview:
something about non-Catholics having a right to their monotheistic religion, but how can that be said if they are false religions? Unless he meant in regard to belief in one God simply. I should read his book about integralism.


Quote from: Kephapaulos on July 31, 2021, 02:48:55 PMright to their monotheistic religion, but how can that be said if they are false religions? Unless he meant in regard to belief in one God simply.
Though only the Catholic religion gives proper worship to God, this cannot be known with natural reason.

Integralism ch. 6 "Temporal Authority II: It's Scope":
QuoteWhat freedom in religious matters must that ruler grant to his subjects, who has not yet publicly subjected his power to the law of Christ? Since in this case the law may not forbid anything which is neither forbidden by natural law, nor is contrary to a determination of natural law which human rulers have the power to make, no monotheistic cult may be forbidden, unless it involves elements contrary to natural law.12 In theory, men in such circumstances could band themselves into different religions, each teaching or emphasising different divine attributes, or worshipping God according to different ceremonies. Some of these religions might also include false doctrine, but which could be known as false only by revelation, and hence they cannot in these circumstances be forbidden.13 While his society remains under natural and human law alone, no ruler can forbid this plurality of religions,14 even if one of these religions be dominant within society,15 or even if he already himself possesses divine faith and hence knows which is the true religion. A ruler who does not possess such faith ought to pray and bid his people pray for messengers who would teach them what form of worship is right, and he should be disposed to welcome missionaries claiming a revelation from God, unless and until he had ascertained that their claim were repugnant to natural reason.
fn. 14 & 15 cite Dignitatis Humanæ


QuoteFr. Crean mentions here during this interview
He mentions Dignitatis Humanæ in that interview (41:00ff.).

He seems to think Vatican II cannot be mistaken and must be in continuity with the pre-Vatican II Magisterium (51:50):
QuoteIf you try to say that Dignitatis Humanæ breaks with past tradition, then you're immediately making it incoherent because itself says this doesn't break with past tradition.

Integralism ch. 6 fn. 14 (ref:13.65):
QuoteWe take this Declaration on Religious Liberty to refer to the rights and duties of rulers and citizens under natural law, since it apparently intends to abstract from "the traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ", which doctrine it mentions not to expound but only to declare it left intact (Dignitatis humanæ 1).
No, Dignitatis Humanæ §2 itself says "that the human person has a right to religious freedom" "is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself."
The document is not restricting itself to what is naturally knowable or to the civil sphere alone. It says the supposed right to religious freedom is divinely revealed.

He mentions Pink (vs. Rhonheimer) at 42:00, saying DH is "about the rights of human beings in regard to the civil power, so that's written into the constitution [sic, 'declaration']; it's about religious liberty in civil matters."

@1:11:02: "people have had abortions [...] that's one of the one of the great hidden causes of of resistance to the gospel".


St. Ambrose, the great Latin doctor of virginity (as St. John Chrysostom was for the East) and powerful prince of the Church in politics, excommunicating overly-severe Theosodius for his massacre of thousands of Christians participating in idolatry, also stamped out idolatrous public worship:

Vizmanos, S.J., Las Virgenes Cristianas de la Iglesia Primitiva p. 97:
QuoteEven in his letters to the emperors, St. Ambrose took advantage of the occasion to extol virginity, as he did in the one written to Valentinian in 384, on the occasion of refuting the proposal made in the name of the Senate by the prefect of Rome, Simmacus, to respect the statue of the goddess Victory, to protect the ancient pagan rites, and to defend the institution of the vestals. With great joy the Bishop took advantage of this latter circumstance to place before the eyes of the emperor the glory of the consecrated virgins, whose dignity and supernatural beauty is unparalleled outside of Christianity.
ibid. p. 93:
QuoteIn fact, the diplomatic tact and political skill of the former governor of Milan, in contact with the oil of consecration, had magically changed into an exquisite sensitivity to perceive the sublimities of the Gospel. Neither the glassy relations that as bishop he had to maintain with the emperors Valentinian and Theodosius, nor the very serious business, which sometimes marked him as the most prominent personality of the Western Empire, managed to divert his attention from the virgins of Christ or make him forget the charge he had imposed on himself as the chief herald in the promulgation of continence.

Buona festa di Sant'Ambrogio! 🎉 🥳


De Laicis (On Laymen or Secular People) p. 81 (PDF p. 134, EPUB ref:46.1):
QuoteThe second error is made by those who go to the other extreme [from statesmen judging religion] and teach that kings must take care of their commonwealth and the public peace, but not religion. They teach that everybody should be allowed to believe and live as they wish, provided that they do not disturb the public peace. The pagans once found themselves in this error, for they approved every religion and admitted every philosophical sect, [...]