A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

Pretending Dignitatis Humanae can be interpreted according to Tradition is itself contrary to Tradition November 19, 2015

What can I say?  More thought-provoking material from Phoenix from the Ashes by HJA Sire.  I think the material largely speaks for itself, but I do add emphasis and comments.

Below, Sire discusses one of the most problematic documents of Vatican II, the Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae.

Traditionalists [He appears to use the term pretty broadly, many self-described traditionalists would probably take umbrage with what he says here] who want to uphold the authority of the Council have argued that the declaration Dignitatis Humanae is acceptable if interpreted, as it must be, in the context of Catholic Tradition, and indeed the saving statements made at the beginning of the document give a basis for such an approach. [Saving statements meaning an introductory text and statement by Paul VI that claim DH does not intend to change Church Doctrine, right before the main body of the text appears to do just that] Nevertheless, that is not the way the Church has traditionally taken with suspect doctrines.  Its affinity is with the special pleading by which Newman, in his Tractarian days, [i.e., when Blessed John Henry Newman was still an Anglican]  sought to argue that the Thirty Nine Articles can be interpreted as part of Catholic tradition, ignoring the fact that they are the founding document of a heretical protestant sect.  The Catholic Church has always dismissed such evasions, exemplified by the attempts made by Hussites and Jansenists to disown the heretical doctrines attributed to them.  Against such hair-splitting, the Church’s view has been that the doctrine of a text is what it appears to be and what it is in practice, in the sense of the use made of it by its followers.  By that criterion, the teaching of Dignitatis Humanae is the one conveyed by the main part of the document, not that of the introductory statement or Paul VI’s covering statement.  The bulk of Catholics worldwide understand its teaching as declaring an absolute right of religious liberty and would be shocked to hear that the document begins with a statement that no such right exists. [The bulk of “Catholics” worldwide have never even heard of it, though they are probably just peachy with the very liberal interpretation and implementation its received] That is the humanistic reading that the declaration has, in fact, propagated; the philosophy it conveys, putting man before God, has been the prime agent in the corrupted Catholicism brought in by Vatican II, devastating the spiritual life of the Church and destroying its intellectual coherence. 

…..In fact, when the Declaration on Religious Liberty was discussed in the Council, the American bishops were to be found arguing for it on undisguisedly humanistic grounds, ad they were backed in Europe by out and out modernists such as Kung and Bishop de Smedt of Bruges.  In its eagerness to make a generous gesture to the world, the Council felt obliged to embrace this philosophy, since no less than a whole-hearted declaration would do justice to the ideals of openness and ecumenism; and by that ill-conceived intention it was led to adopt a teaching that destroys the basis of coherent religion.  

————–End Quote—————

What follows the excerpt above is perhaps the best exegesis I’ve read on the difference between the illusory modern notion of human rights, and the Catholic concept of human dignity.  That runs about 1800 words and I really haven’t time today to type all that in. Plus, I’m afraid Sire is going to fly over and break my fingers so I stop ripping off his copyright. So, perhaps tomorrow. If I don’t find something even better to share in the interim.

I’m also holding off on excerpting more of the book, because I’d like to switch gears now and provide a practical application of how Dignitatis Humanae (or its application) has radically disfigured a right understanding and practice of the Faith, perhaps especially among the hierarchy.  In the Nov. 13 2015 edition of Texas Catholic, the newspaper of the Diocese of Dallas, there is an article on the a the recent “Eugene McDermott Lecture” sponsored by the University of Dallas.  This lecture glorified the 50th anniversary of another highly controversial Vatican II document, Nostra Aetate, which revolutionized the Church’s formal approach towards the Jewish religion.  Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell must have been in fine fettle, he had his older brother Brian flown in to also speak at the event.

Some excerpts from the article below:

Bishop Brian Farrell, head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Christian Unity……..spoke to the crowd and praised the results Nostra Aetate has produced:

[Watch how he denigrates the Truth, and 2000 years of Catholic belief and practice…..]“It introduced a fundamental change of attitude of attitude from negative stereotypes and prejudices to a positive respect for and close collaboration between Catholics and Jews for the good of the entire human family…” [“I am the way, and the truth, and the life.  No one can come to the Father except through me.”  “If you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood, you do not have life within you.”  “He that believeth in the Son, hath life everlasting; but he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”  You ecumaniacs are content to leave Jews in their obsolete, supernaturally useless religion, all so you can have warm feelings from a few worldly accolades. Disgraceful.  Where is your charity?  Probably the same place you sent your faith] 

Bishop Farrell and Rabbi Rosen  said that for the most of its history, Christianity had viewed the Jewish people as being rejected and condemned by God as a result of Christ’s crucifixion. [That’s a pretty neat trick?  Who rejected Whom?  And who crucified Whom?  Do the biblical statements above mean anything?  If they don’t why bother being Catholic?]  Rabbi Rosen said the normative thought was this: because the Jews did not recognize Jesus Christ [Umm, they did a bit more than that] they were punished and left wandering without a homeland as a “continual testimony of what happens to you when you reject the Christian dispensation and to be an eternal warning until the end of time.” [Once again, what does Scripture say?  Did our Blessed Lord not say that the Jews would be punished, their city and temple crushed, their sacrificial religion destroyed, in his prophecy recorded in the Synoptic Gospels? (Lk xix:44)]

As a result, Christians had come to see themselves as having replaced the Jews as God’s Chosen People. [“You are a chosen people, a royal priesthood” (I Pet ii:9). Also Gal ii:14-16 – “by the works of the {old} law no one will be justified”]

Nostra Aetate, he said, turned that completely around. [So much the worse for Nostra Aetate, then]

…..Today, Bishop Farrell said, the church [sic] insists on understanding and embracing the Jewish roots of the Christian faith.  Catholics cannot understand Jesus without his [sic] Jewish background. [That doesn’t mean the Jews have a valid covenant, or that conversion is not imperative for them]

“Jesus was a Jew,” he said.  “Mary was a Jew.  The first disciples were Jewish.  All were immersed in the Jewish traditions of their time.”  [That’s right……They were Jews.  Then they became Christians.  And were saved on that basis. Notice the constant use of sleight of hand by these guys]

……Rabbi Rosen said he advocates that Nostra Aetate be part of seminary formation around the world [Of course!  It’s the greatest boon to the Jewish faith since Theodore Herzl.  But that’s not the same as being best for their souls, but who cares about that anymore, since we pretend everyone goes to Heaven anyway, right?!?]  Bishop Brian Farrell reiterated the document’s firm rejection of any discrimination and anti-Semitism as part of any catechesis done in the Catholic Church. [Note that both these men consider even telling Jews their covenant is obsolete/invalid and that they must convert to be saved to be “anti-semitism.”] 

Different religion.  And I don’t particularly care for it.  Not because I’m attached to some Jew-hatred.  It’s because I like to think I care just a bit about the eternal destination of souls, and this “let’s all pretend nothing matters and we’re all saved and let’s just all have a great big huggy warm feeling good time” leaves souls in an incredibly precarious position by every indication from Scripture and Tradition.  Notwithstanding what Vatican II has to say on the subject, it is contradicted by literally hundreds if not thousands of declarations from Scripture and Tradition and I am inclined to give those much more credence than the late Council.

If that makes me a heretic, so be it.