Much needed episode! This topic needs way more coverage. Any book recommendations to further explore this topic pertaining to continuity and validity of previous Magisterial Teachings prior to V2. One of the biggest points of contention and used to justify the grave acts of Schism; Apostasy or the Heresy of Sedevacantism.
@@CatholicCulturePod Do you know where I can find an index of Professor Pink's works? Online so far I've found various articles on different sites etc.
@@fiveadayproductions987 Not off the top of my head. This seems to have a lot of his academic work though. kcl.academia.edu/ThomasPink You could also ask him on Twitter.
21:16 I'm a tad wary of the words, stating that religion is not to be something beyond the state's scope. I'm thinking in tow with _Hosanna v. Tabor_ keeping the state out of the tainting of religious/ecclesial practice and law. If there is a scope, it has to be a One Way tube, where the state must promote faith and reason and searching for truth as something invaluable to growth of liberty health of people and the government they elect. The state cannot dictate the free exercise of how truth is searched, how conversation in the agora is commenced.
Hi Catholic Culture, I know that you address every comment kudos to that!, what is your take on the Catholic State like of the Principality of Andorra, where the Bishop of Urgel as a Co-Prince, is this type allowed ? as per what I know the Bishop in a place where there are a majority Catholics they can form a Nation-State rule by the local Bishop (on the issue of faith and moral), However the state (the principal institutions of state- executive, legislature and judiciary) run by ordinary Catholics, but still the state and to the Church must be united and harmony. My point is, at the end of the day there must union of the body and soul.
I've actually never heard of this before, so I don't have a take on it - but it sounds fascinating and I don't see anything contrary to Catholic teaching in what you describe.
I don't mean to be polemical. But Vatican II's religious liberty(?) reminds me of a seemingly heterodox idea from Vatican II. That council describes elements of sanctification in the Protestant sects or heretical assemblies and in the Eastern schismatic "sister Churches." The sects and those "sister Churches" have those elements because 16th-century revolutionaries and the Eastern Churches stole them spiritually. So why dos the Catholic Church act as though it's good for them to have "hot merchandise?" If I stole my new-door neighbor's CD player, she wouldn't say the opera house of Bill subsists in his home. She'd call the police to force me to return her CD player. Vatican I teaches that the Papacy unifies the Church. But Vatican II says Apostolic Succession does that. So it seems to have adopted the Protestant branch theory that included the Anglican denomination and the Catholic Church in Christ's Church. But now that Church(?) includes other Protestant sects, too. Does that mean Catholics must believe there's salvation in only that collection including thousands of sects? If you reflect on the inter religious prayer meetings Pope John Paul II held in Assisi in 1986 and 2002, you might think he believed everyone would go to heaven.
Re: hot merchandise, there is an important truth there, but also, we have to consider that it is impossible to steal grace. So insofar as God gives grace through a baptism done by a Protestant, by definition He does so willingly. Speaking correctly about all the implications of that requires a level of precision that I am not capable of, but we have at least to acknowledge that even under deeply compromised circumstances, Providence rules. I don't believe the emphasis on apostolic succession implies branch theory. (And anyway, Anglicans dint have apostolic succession.) Remember, V2 is in some respects a sequel and continuation of the interrupted Council, V1. V1 emphasized the Pope without filling out the nature of episcopal authority. V2 said that the authority of a bishop comes directly from Christ even though he must be in union with the Pope - bishops are vicars of Christ, not of the Roman Pontiff. Under present circumstances we can see how important this ecclesiological principle is even though all its implications have yet to be drawn out.
@@CatholicCulturePod I know that no one can steal grace. But Protestant revolutionaries and the Eastern Orthodox sects stole sources of it long, long ago. If a Protestant validly baptized someone at a Protestant service, that Sacrament would put the baptized person into the Catholic Church as a nonmember of it. But he would also belong to a Protestant sect outside the Catholic Church. In that Protestant sect, he misses out on graces only the Catholic Church can give him licitly, the Sacrament of Penance, for example. Many baptists believe in Calvin's eternal security doctrine that tells them that after they "get saved," there's no wa for them to lose their heavenly homes, that they're unable to sin mortally. Sadly, many Catholic prelates, including Pope Francis, act as though Protestants are perfectly safe in their religions because "elements of sanctification" are in Protestant sects. If a Protestant sins mortally and stays disconnected from the Catholic Church, he must be perfectly contrite to get to heaven. But perfect contrition is rare, even for Catholics. So although I'm not judging anyone's intentions, it seems to me that any Catholic who would tell a non-Catholic religious person that his religion will get to heaven needs much more charity. Sometimes I even wonder whether avid Catholic ecumenists risk committing the excessive human respect by refusing to tell non-Catholics that they must be connected to the Catholic Church before they die and still be attached ro it when they die. Non-Catholics can die in a state of grace. But Fr. Ripperger says not many do. No offense to anyone. But I think religiously indifferent wcumenism is immoral., though even some Popes have promoted and taken part in it. No one tried force the Amazonian pagans to become Catholic in 2019. But Pope Francis could have invited them to learn more about Catholicism. Instead, he watched them "worship" "Mother Earth." After AlexanderChoogawell (phonetic spelling) threw the Pachamama statues into the Tiber River, the Holy Father apologized to the Amazonians and another Pachamama statue stood on a Catholic altar in Rome. No one apologized to Our Lord for what happened, let lone tried to repair for the idolatry and the sacrilege. The only ones I know of who have made reparation for such things are priests from the Society of St. Pius X. Although those priests now have authority to hear confessions and witness marriages, some people still insist mistakenly that the SSPX is schismatic. I'm a tertiary in the SSPX's Third Order who always attends SSPX Masses.At the chapel where I attend Holy Mass, there's a portrait of Pope Francis hanging on the vestibule wall and act priest prays for the Holy Father at every Mass. Too many falsely accuse the SSPX of schism while they insist that today's scandalous ecumenism is okay because the Pope approves of it. Oops. I almost forgot to mention the apple document saying that jurisdiction always comes from the Pope. But noe Vatican II tells us that a bishop gets it when he's consecrated. That's strange, isn't? How does a bishop get jurisdiction when there's no diocese for. him to rule. We call Archbishop Vigano a titular bishop because he has no deicese to govern. That's why I wonder how it makes since to say a bishop has jurisdiction with nowhere to use it.
Dignitatis humanae says nothing invalidates what the Catholic Church has always taught. It also tells us that no one should be be forced to act contrary to his beliefs privately, publicly, or both. But the doctrine about doctrine about Christ's social reign assures us that the Church has the right, though not the duty, to suppress non-Catholic worship. Should a Catholic country let non-Catholic preach on street corners or allow public satanic events? Read Henry Sire's book "Phoenix from the Ashes." Then you'll know Pope John Paul II used Vatican II to justify the inter religious prayer meetings he chaired in Assisi in 1986 and 2002. Sire writes: We need, however, to turn to a graver question. The appeal to the Second Vatican Council was freely made in justifying the prayer meeting at Assisi, and one would like to refute it by saying that nothing in the Council’s documents proposed such an act or authorised Catholics to associate with idolatry. One would say so if the appeal had not been made by Pope John Paul himself. He, who had attended all the sessions of the Council, emphatically asserted that the meeting of Assisi was a fulfilment of the Council’s spirit. There we have it, then, from no less an interpretative source than a pope. The meaning of the Second Vatican Council is that Catholics should encourage idolatrous worship and associate themselves with it in their prayers. If that is true, it is a far more serious indictment of the Council than any I have made hitherto. The religious subjectivism implied in the Declaration on Religious Liberty bears fruit in the syncretism of the Assisi meeting. The foundation of religion becomes not the God who reveals himself to man but the religious instinct of man, groping for faith, whatever its object may be. It will be a matter for future popes and councils to decide whether that was truly what the Council meant or whether the aberration belongs entirely to Pope John Paul II. Sire, H.J.A.; Sire, Henry. Phoenix from the Ashes: The Making, Unmaking, and Restoration of Catholic Tradition (pp. 385-386). Angelico Press. Kindle Edition. Naturally, I agree that it's immoral to force anyone to become Carholic. But the Assisi meetings implied religious indifferentism. Religious indifferentism is the heresy that each person has a God-given right to practice any religion human reason recommends. See error 15 when you click the link below. Here's that error. 15. 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. www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9syll.htm
My understanding is that JPII at Assisi wanted to encourage everyone to pray to the one God, who exists in the background behind many polytheistic religions - not to encourage them to worship their own pagan gods together. I tend to think this was imprudent because they came and sort of just did their own thing. Thomas Pink makes a strong argument that DH is about what the state has the right to do on its own, not about what the Church has the right to enforce. In any case, the practice of the Assisi meeting does not constitute any kind of binding magisterial interpretation of Vatican II.
@@CatholicCulturePod Mr. Mirus, how do you encourage. Hindus to pray to the one true God by sending them to a private rom where they'll pray to their gods? Why did some pro-Assisi prelates distinguish between praying together and coming together to pray? Since when is it alright for a Pope to invite pagans to commit objective idolatry when he could have evangelized them? If God wants everyone to practice Catholicism, non-Catholic religious people sin objectively by practicing their religions. Before Vatican II, the Catholic Church distinguished between religious liberty and religious tolerance, since she taught and still teaches that Catholicism is the only religion anyone has a God-given right to practice. If the Assisi meetings didn't imply religious indifferentism, please explain this quotation: " We need to remind ourselves that Kasper, Pope John Paul II’s choice to head the PCCU, openly declared within days of his elevation to the rank of cardinal in 2001 that “The decision of Vatican II to which the Pope [John Paul II] adheres is absolutely clear: Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II. . ." www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2007-1225-kasper.htm You might want to reflect on Psalm 95:5 in the Douay Rheims Bible because it says the gods of the gentiles are devils. The Hebrew word for "devils" can also mean idols. The question is which, if either, translation is more accurate. If that Hebrew signifies demons in Psalm 95:5, we shouldn't invite anyone to pray to Hindu gods when we know a demon could possess anyone who prays to him knowingly or unknowingly. www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+95%3A5&version=DRA Since I'm a Catholic integralist, I emailed Fr. Thomas Crean to ask for his thoughts about what Dr. Sire wrote: ":Dear Bill, I don't think that the legitimacy of the Assisi meeting follows from statements in the conciliar documents. At most you might say that the naively favourable tone of some of the documents helped create a climate in which this meeting became thinkable. In Christ, Fr Thomas Crean" I didn't even hint that Vatican II requited the Assisi meetings. But Pope John Paul II cited it to justify them. So I can't approve of that justification either. I think those meetings may presuppose the Modernism Pope St. Pius X condemns in Pascendi Dominici Gregis. www.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html I think Vatican II's theology is the New Theology you'd learn from Fr. Henri de Luba, Fr. Hans urs von Balthasar. Sadly, I agree with Fr. Reginald Garriou-Lagrange when he argues that it returns us to Modernism. In fact, Pope Pius XII condemned the New Theology. ia902804.us.archive.org/26/items/Garrigou-LagrangeEnglish/_Where%20is%20the%20New%20Theology%20Leading%20Us__%2 0-%20Garrigou-Lagrange,%20Reginald,%20O.P_.pdf archive.org/details/ThomismAndTheNewTheologyGreenstock I'm sorry, Mr. Mirus, because I can't defend Vatican II's religious liberty with a clear Catholic conscience if I'm right about what I've told you in my two posts here. I know you and Dr. Pink mean well. But I can't agree that Dignitatis Humanae is logically consistent with what the Church has always taught about the non-Catholic's need to become Catholic or to want at least implicitly to do that.
@@williammcenaney1331 Setting aside whether these things were the *result* of DH in a cause-and-effect way - and without any intention to defend Assisi - it is worth saying that what is required of you with regard to assent to an ecumenical council is not to think that a document had good effects. What counts is what is said in the document itself. I think it is fair to say that religious indifferentism is not actually contained or taught by DH, and so you can accept DH as magisterium even if you believe it opened bad doors through ambiguity, etc - even if you believe that was intentional on the part of some of the drafters. But as DH itself says, it can't be taken in a vacuum apart from earlier teachings. I won't try to convince you on every point but I want to encourage you to trust, as submissive Catholic, that DH does not actually teach contrary to previous Magisterium - even if you believe its effect was disastrous.
@@williammcenaney1331 Unfortunately my knowledge of these technical questions can't take me much further about the nature of councils etc. I believe other people such as Richard DeClue have answered some of them about the status and intent of Vatican II as an ecumenical council. He would be a good person to dialogue with.
@@CatholicCulturePod Many Catholics resist Vatican II's novelties because they interpret them outside a vacuum. But you probably know why Archbishop Vigano says Vatican II is self-referential. He means that each time prelates want to justify something Vatican II tells us they do that with that council's documents. That seems a little circular. It's like saying that you know the Bible is divinely inspired by quoting 2 Timothy 3:16 because it teaches that, "16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice." (DRB). I'm not interpreting the Council in a vacuum. So why do many prelates seem to ignore what preceded Vatican II? In fact, I believe that if you check the Council documents, you'll know that none of them cite Mortalium animus, where Pope Pius XI teaches that the only way to promote Christian unity is to help non-Catholics return to the Catholic Church. That makes it hard to see the logical consistency between that teaching ecumenical events suggesting that non-Catholics don't need to become Catholics since their sects contain "elements sanctification." Since the seven Sacraments belong to the Catholic Church, sects use them illicitly if the have any of them. That seems analogous to saying that my next-door neighbor secretly took my stereo and told me about the elements of entertainment that unite me to her and her son. Please forgive me if I'm too frank. But I'm what Fr. Chad Ripperger calls "spiritual theft." Contemporary non-Catholic Christians didn't steal anything. But the 16th-century Protestant revolutionaries did. But some 21st-century Protestants still use "hot merchandise." Please see parts 7-10 in Mortalium animos and Fr. Ripperger's video. Even after you read those paragraphs, you might reply that validly baptized lifelong Protestants don't need to return to the Catholic Church, since they've never been Catholics. But their baptisms attached them to the Catholic Church by giving them sanctifying grace Please read Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton's book "The Catholic Church and Salvation" because he distinguishes being a member of the Catholic Church and being in it as a nonmember of it. That's because Mystici corporis Christi teaches that Catholics are the Catholic Church's only members. Perhaps it also explains why "subsists in" is ambiguous. It suggests suggests that the Church of Christ is distinct from and bigger than the Catholic Church. Dr. Pink suggests that. they're distinct when he tells you that the church of Christ is under the Catholic Church. Does that mean that it gives the Catholic Church something? Is it like water bowl I put under carnivorous plants when I grow them? www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos.html ua-cam.com/video/aovDj89-D4A/v-deo.html
Great episode!
Thanks James!
Much needed episode! This topic needs way more coverage. Any book recommendations to further explore this topic pertaining to continuity and validity of previous Magisterial Teachings prior to V2. One of the biggest points of contention and used to justify the grave acts of Schism; Apostasy or the Heresy of Sedevacantism.
Thomas Pink: "I don’t really have any recommendations beyond what I’ve already written and the citations in that work"
@@CatholicCulturePod Do you know where I can find an index of Professor Pink's works? Online so far I've found various articles on different sites etc.
@@fiveadayproductions987 Not off the top of my head. This seems to have a lot of his academic work though. kcl.academia.edu/ThomasPink
You could also ask him on Twitter.
Docility Trousers™
A @Catholic Culture IP
Guaranteed I'll be coming back to this, way too much a portion to digest in 3 full meals for 7 days.
21:16
I'm a tad wary of the words, stating that religion is not to be something beyond the state's scope.
I'm thinking in tow with _Hosanna v. Tabor_ keeping the state out of the tainting of religious/ecclesial practice and law.
If there is a scope, it has to be a One Way tube, where the state must promote faith and reason and searching for truth as something invaluable to growth of liberty health of people and the government they elect.
The state cannot dictate the free exercise of how truth is searched, how conversation in the agora is commenced.
@@AJKPenguin Yes. Religion is within the purview of the State but not under its authority. More in the way of submission to and service to the Church.
Hi Catholic Culture, I know that you address every comment kudos to that!, what is your take on the Catholic State like of the Principality of Andorra, where the Bishop of Urgel as a Co-Prince, is this type allowed ? as per what I know the Bishop in a place where there are a majority Catholics they can form a Nation-State rule by the local Bishop (on the issue of faith and moral), However the state (the principal institutions of state- executive, legislature and judiciary) run by ordinary Catholics, but still the state and to the Church must be united and harmony. My point is, at the end of the day there must union of the body and soul.
I've actually never heard of this before, so I don't have a take on it - but it sounds fascinating and I don't see anything contrary to Catholic teaching in what you describe.
Pope Leo XIII in my opinion is one of the greatest Popes since Pius V. (I know high bar) only Pope St. Pius X may take preeminence in my mind.
He is certainly one of my favorites as a writer of encyclicals! And he was an admirer of my man St. John Henry Newman too.
¡Viva Cristo Rey y la Virgen de los ángeles!
Btw liberalism is a sin as Félix Sardá y Salvany said.
I don't mean to be polemical. But Vatican II's religious liberty(?) reminds me of a seemingly heterodox idea from Vatican II. That council describes elements of sanctification in the Protestant sects or heretical assemblies and in the Eastern schismatic "sister Churches." The sects and those "sister Churches" have those elements because 16th-century revolutionaries and the Eastern Churches stole them spiritually. So why dos the Catholic Church act as though it's good for them to have "hot merchandise?" If I stole my new-door neighbor's CD player, she wouldn't say the opera house of Bill subsists in his home. She'd call the police to force me to return her CD player.
Vatican I teaches that the Papacy unifies the Church. But Vatican II says Apostolic Succession does that. So it seems to have adopted the Protestant branch theory that included the Anglican denomination and the Catholic Church in Christ's Church. But now that Church(?) includes other Protestant sects, too. Does that mean Catholics must believe there's salvation in only that collection including thousands of sects? If you reflect on the inter religious prayer meetings Pope John Paul II held in Assisi in 1986 and 2002, you might think he believed everyone would go to heaven.
Re: hot merchandise, there is an important truth there, but also, we have to consider that it is impossible to steal grace. So insofar as God gives grace through a baptism done by a Protestant, by definition He does so willingly. Speaking correctly about all the implications of that requires a level of precision that I am not capable of, but we have at least to acknowledge that even under deeply compromised circumstances, Providence rules.
I don't believe the emphasis on apostolic succession implies branch theory. (And anyway, Anglicans dint have apostolic succession.) Remember, V2 is in some respects a sequel and continuation of the interrupted Council, V1. V1 emphasized the Pope without filling out the nature of episcopal authority. V2 said that the authority of a bishop comes directly from Christ even though he must be in union with the Pope - bishops are vicars of Christ, not of the Roman Pontiff. Under present circumstances we can see how important this ecclesiological principle is even though all its implications have yet to be drawn out.
@@CatholicCulturePod I know that no one can steal grace. But Protestant revolutionaries and the Eastern Orthodox sects stole sources of it long, long ago. If a Protestant validly baptized someone at a Protestant service, that Sacrament would put the baptized person into the Catholic Church as a nonmember of it. But he would also belong to a Protestant sect outside the Catholic Church.
In that Protestant sect, he misses out on graces only the Catholic Church can give him licitly, the Sacrament of Penance, for example. Many baptists believe in Calvin's eternal security doctrine that tells them that after they "get saved," there's no wa for them to lose their heavenly homes, that they're unable to sin mortally.
Sadly, many Catholic prelates, including Pope Francis, act as though Protestants are perfectly safe in their religions because "elements of sanctification" are in Protestant sects. If a Protestant sins mortally and stays disconnected from the Catholic Church, he must be perfectly contrite to get to heaven. But perfect contrition is rare, even for Catholics.
So although I'm not judging anyone's intentions, it seems to me that any Catholic who would tell a non-Catholic religious person that his religion will get to heaven needs much more charity. Sometimes I even wonder whether avid Catholic ecumenists risk committing the excessive human respect by refusing to tell non-Catholics that they must be connected to the Catholic Church before they die and still be attached ro it when they die.
Non-Catholics can die in a state of grace. But Fr. Ripperger says not many do. No offense to anyone. But I think religiously indifferent wcumenism is immoral., though even some Popes have promoted and taken part in it.
No one tried force the Amazonian pagans to become Catholic in 2019. But Pope Francis could have invited them to learn more about Catholicism. Instead, he watched them "worship" "Mother Earth." After AlexanderChoogawell (phonetic spelling) threw the Pachamama statues into the Tiber River, the Holy Father apologized to the Amazonians and another Pachamama statue stood on a Catholic altar in Rome.
No one apologized to Our Lord for what happened, let lone tried to repair for the idolatry and the sacrilege.
The only ones I know of who have made reparation for such things are priests from the Society of St. Pius X. Although those priests now have authority to hear confessions and witness marriages, some people still insist mistakenly that the SSPX is schismatic.
I'm a tertiary in the SSPX's Third Order who always attends SSPX Masses.At the chapel where I attend Holy Mass, there's a portrait of Pope Francis hanging on the vestibule wall and act priest prays for the Holy Father at every Mass. Too many falsely accuse the SSPX of schism while they insist that today's scandalous ecumenism is okay because the Pope approves of it.
Oops. I almost forgot to mention the apple document saying that jurisdiction always comes from the Pope. But noe Vatican II tells us that a bishop gets it when he's consecrated. That's strange, isn't? How does a bishop get jurisdiction when there's no diocese for. him to rule. We call Archbishop Vigano a titular bishop because he has no deicese to govern. That's why I wonder how it makes since to say a bishop has jurisdiction with nowhere to use it.
Dignitatis humanae says nothing invalidates what the Catholic Church has always taught. It also tells us that no one should be be forced to act contrary to his beliefs privately, publicly, or both. But the doctrine about doctrine about Christ's social reign assures us that the Church has the right, though not the duty, to suppress non-Catholic worship. Should a Catholic country let non-Catholic preach on street corners or allow public satanic events? Read Henry Sire's book "Phoenix from the Ashes." Then you'll know Pope John Paul II used Vatican II to justify the inter religious prayer meetings he chaired in Assisi in 1986 and 2002. Sire writes:
We need, however, to turn to a graver question. The appeal to the Second Vatican Council was freely made in justifying the prayer meeting at Assisi, and one would like to refute it by saying that nothing in the Council’s documents proposed such an act or authorised Catholics to associate with idolatry. One would say so if the appeal had not been made by Pope John Paul himself. He, who had attended all the sessions of the Council, emphatically asserted that the meeting of Assisi was a fulfilment of the Council’s spirit. There we have it, then, from no less an interpretative source than a pope. The meaning of the Second Vatican Council is that Catholics should encourage idolatrous worship and associate themselves with it in their prayers. If that is true, it is a far more serious indictment of the Council than any I have made hitherto. The religious subjectivism implied in the Declaration on Religious Liberty bears fruit in the syncretism of the Assisi meeting. The foundation of religion becomes not the God who reveals himself to man but the religious instinct of man, groping for faith, whatever its object may be. It will be a matter for future popes and councils to decide whether that was truly what the Council meant or whether the aberration belongs entirely to Pope John Paul II.
Sire, H.J.A.; Sire, Henry. Phoenix from the Ashes: The Making, Unmaking, and Restoration of Catholic Tradition (pp. 385-386). Angelico Press. Kindle Edition.
Naturally, I agree that it's immoral to force anyone to become Carholic. But the Assisi meetings implied religious indifferentism. Religious indifferentism is the heresy that each person has a God-given right to practice any religion human reason recommends. See error 15 when you click the link below. Here's that error.
15. 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.
www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9syll.htm
My understanding is that JPII at Assisi wanted to encourage everyone to pray to the one God, who exists in the background behind many polytheistic religions - not to encourage them to worship their own pagan gods together. I tend to think this was imprudent because they came and sort of just did their own thing.
Thomas Pink makes a strong argument that DH is about what the state has the right to do on its own, not about what the Church has the right to enforce.
In any case, the practice of the Assisi meeting does not constitute any kind of binding magisterial interpretation of Vatican II.
@@CatholicCulturePod Mr. Mirus, how do you encourage. Hindus to pray to the one true God by sending them to a private rom where they'll pray to their gods? Why did some pro-Assisi prelates distinguish between praying together and coming together to pray?
Since when is it alright for a Pope to invite pagans to commit objective idolatry when he could have evangelized them? If God wants everyone to practice Catholicism, non-Catholic religious people sin objectively by practicing their religions. Before Vatican II, the Catholic Church distinguished between religious liberty and religious tolerance, since she taught and still teaches that Catholicism is the only religion anyone has a God-given right to practice.
If the Assisi meetings didn't imply religious indifferentism, please explain this quotation: " We need to remind ourselves that Kasper, Pope John Paul II’s choice to head the PCCU, openly declared within days of his elevation to the rank of cardinal in 2001 that “The decision of Vatican II to which the Pope [John Paul II] adheres is absolutely clear: Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II. . ."
www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2007-1225-kasper.htm
You might want to reflect on Psalm 95:5 in the Douay Rheims Bible because it says the gods of the gentiles are devils. The Hebrew word for "devils" can also mean idols. The question is which, if either, translation is more accurate. If that Hebrew signifies demons in Psalm 95:5, we shouldn't invite anyone to pray to Hindu gods when we know a demon could possess anyone who prays to him knowingly or unknowingly.
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+95%3A5&version=DRA
Since I'm a Catholic integralist, I emailed Fr. Thomas Crean to ask for his thoughts about what Dr. Sire wrote:
":Dear Bill,
I don't think that the legitimacy of the Assisi meeting follows from statements in the conciliar documents. At most you might say that the naively favourable tone of some of the documents helped create a climate in which this meeting became thinkable.
In Christ,
Fr Thomas Crean"
I didn't even hint that Vatican II requited the Assisi meetings. But Pope John Paul II cited it to justify them. So I can't approve of that justification either. I think those meetings may presuppose the Modernism Pope St. Pius X condemns in Pascendi Dominici Gregis.
www.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html
I think Vatican II's theology is the New Theology you'd learn from Fr. Henri de Luba, Fr. Hans urs von Balthasar. Sadly, I agree with Fr. Reginald Garriou-Lagrange when he argues that it returns us to Modernism. In fact, Pope Pius XII condemned the New Theology.
ia902804.us.archive.org/26/items/Garrigou-LagrangeEnglish/_Where%20is%20the%20New%20Theology%20Leading%20Us__%2
0-%20Garrigou-Lagrange,%20Reginald,%20O.P_.pdf
archive.org/details/ThomismAndTheNewTheologyGreenstock
I'm sorry, Mr. Mirus, because I can't defend Vatican II's religious liberty with a clear Catholic conscience if I'm right about what I've told you in my two posts here. I know you and Dr. Pink mean well. But I can't agree that Dignitatis Humanae is logically consistent with what the Church has always taught about the non-Catholic's need to become Catholic or to want at least implicitly to do that.
@@williammcenaney1331 Setting aside whether these things were the *result* of DH in a cause-and-effect way - and without any intention to defend Assisi - it is worth saying that what is required of you with regard to assent to an ecumenical council is not to think that a document had good effects. What counts is what is said in the document itself. I think it is fair to say that religious indifferentism is not actually contained or taught by DH, and so you can accept DH as magisterium even if you believe it opened bad doors through ambiguity, etc - even if you believe that was intentional on the part of some of the drafters. But as DH itself says, it can't be taken in a vacuum apart from earlier teachings. I won't try to convince you on every point but I want to encourage you to trust, as submissive Catholic, that DH does not actually teach contrary to previous Magisterium - even if you believe its effect was disastrous.
@@williammcenaney1331 Unfortunately my knowledge of these technical questions can't take me much further about the nature of councils etc. I believe other people such as Richard DeClue have answered some of them about the status and intent of Vatican II as an ecumenical council. He would be a good person to dialogue with.
@@CatholicCulturePod Many Catholics resist Vatican II's novelties because they interpret them outside a vacuum. But you probably know why Archbishop Vigano says Vatican II is self-referential. He means that each time prelates want to justify something Vatican II tells us they do that with that council's documents. That seems a little circular. It's like saying that you know the Bible is divinely inspired by quoting 2 Timothy 3:16 because it teaches that, "16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice." (DRB).
I'm not interpreting the Council in a vacuum. So why do many prelates seem to ignore what preceded Vatican II? In fact, I believe that if you check the Council documents, you'll know that none of them cite Mortalium animus, where Pope Pius XI teaches that the only way to promote Christian unity is to help non-Catholics return to the Catholic Church.
That makes it hard to see the logical consistency between that teaching ecumenical events suggesting that non-Catholics don't need to become Catholics since their sects contain "elements sanctification." Since the seven Sacraments belong to the Catholic Church, sects use them illicitly if the have any of them.
That seems analogous to saying that my next-door neighbor secretly took my stereo and told me about the elements of entertainment that unite me to her and her son.
Please forgive me if I'm too frank. But I'm what Fr. Chad Ripperger calls "spiritual theft." Contemporary non-Catholic Christians didn't steal anything. But the 16th-century Protestant revolutionaries did. But some 21st-century Protestants still use "hot merchandise."
Please see parts 7-10 in Mortalium animos and Fr. Ripperger's video. Even after you read those paragraphs, you might reply that validly baptized lifelong Protestants don't need to return to the Catholic Church, since they've never been Catholics. But their baptisms attached them to the Catholic Church by giving them sanctifying grace
Please read Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton's book "The Catholic Church and Salvation" because he distinguishes being a member of the Catholic Church and being in it as a nonmember of it. That's because Mystici corporis Christi teaches that Catholics are the Catholic Church's only members.
Perhaps it also explains why "subsists in" is ambiguous. It suggests suggests that the Church of Christ is distinct from and bigger than the Catholic Church. Dr. Pink suggests that. they're distinct when he tells you that the church of Christ is under the Catholic Church. Does that mean that it gives the Catholic Church something? Is it like water bowl I put under carnivorous plants when I grow them?
www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos.html
ua-cam.com/video/aovDj89-D4A/v-deo.html