The Nature And Institution Of Baptism And The Vice Of Gluttony

 

To My Readers: This week, John Gregory writes about the importance of Baptism, and the deadly sin of gluttony. Feel free to comment as usual. If you have  a specific comment or question for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

The Nature And Institution Of Baptism And The Vice Of Gluttony

By John Gregory

Dogmatic Subject: Baptism: Its Nature and Institution.—And all in Moses were baptized, in the cloud and in the sea (1 Corinthians 10: 2).—Go you also into my vineyard, and I will give you what shall be just (Matthew 20: 4).

 

Definition of Baptism

 

With regard to the definition of Baptism although many can be given from sacred writers, nevertheless that which may be gathered from the words of our Lord recorded in John, and of the Apostle to the Ephesians, appears the most appropriate and suitable. Unless, says our Lord, a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God; (John 3: 5) and, speaking of the Church, the Apostle says, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. (Ephesians 5: 26) Thus it follows that Baptism may be rightly and accurately defined: The Sacrament of regeneration by water in the word.  By nature we are born from Adam children of wrath, but by Baptism we are regenerated in Christ, children of mercy. (Ephesians 2: 3) For He gave power to men to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name, who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1: 12, 13)

 

Constituent Elements of Baptism

 

But define Baptism as we may, the faithful are to be informed that this Sacrament consists of ablution, accompanied necessarily, according to the institution of our Lord, by certain solemn words.  This is the uniform doctrine of the holy Fathers, as is proved by the following most explicit testimony of Saint Augustine: The word is joined to the element, and it becomes a Sacrament.

 

It is all the more necessary to impress this on the minds of the faithful lest they fall into the common error of thinking that the baptismal water, preserved in the sacred font, constitutes the Sacrament.  The Sacrament of Baptism can be said to exist only when we actually apply the water to someone by way of ablution, while using the words appointed by our Lord.

 

Matter of Baptism

 

Now since we said above, when treating of the Sacraments in general, that every Sacrament consists of matter and form, it is therefore necessary that pastors point out what constitutes each of these in Baptism.  The matter, then, or element of this Sacrament, is any sort of natural water, which is simply and without qualification commonly called water, be it sea water, river water, water from a pond, well or fountain.

 

Form of Baptism

 

Pastors should teach, in clear, unambiguous language, intelligible to every capacity, that the true and essential form of Baptism is: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  For so it was delivered by our Lord and Saviour when, as we read in Saint Matthew He gave to His Apostles the command: Going, . . . teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 28: 19)

 

By the word baptizing, the Catholic Church, instructed from above, most justly understood that the form of the Sacrament should express the action of the minister; and this takes place when he pronounces the words, I baptize thee.

 

Besides the minister of the Sacrament, the person to be baptized and the principal efficient cause of Baptism should be mentioned.  The pronoun thee, and the distinctive names of the Divine Persons are therefore added.  Thus the complete form of the Sacrament is expressed in the words already mentioned: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

 

Baptism is the work not of the Son alone, of whom Saint John says, He it is that baptizeth (John 1: 33) but of the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity together.  By saying, however, in the name, not in the names, we distinctly declare that in the Trinity there is but one Nature and Godhead.  The word name is here referred not to the Persons, but to the Divine Essence, virtue and power, which are one and the same in Three Persons.

 

ESSENTIAL AND NON-ESSENTIAL WORDS OF THE FORM

 

It is, however, to be observed that of the words contained in this form, which we have shown to be the complete and perfect one, some are absolutely necessary, so that the omission of them renders the valid administration of the Sacrament impossible; while others on the contrary, are not so essential as to affect its validity.

 

Of the latter kind is the word ego (I), the force of which is included in the word baptizo (I baptize).  Nay more, the Greek Church, adopting a different manner of expressing the form, and being of opinion that it is unnecessary to make mention of the minister, omits the pronoun altogether.  The form universally used in the Greek Church is: Let this servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  It appears, however, from the decision and definition of the Council of Florence, that those who use this form administer the Sacraments validly, because the words sufficiently express what is essential to the validity of Baptism, that is, the ablution which then takes place.

 

BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF CHRIST

 

If at any time the Apostles baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ only, (Acts 2: 38; 8: 2) we can be sure they did so by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, in order, in the infancy of the Church, to render their preaching more illustrious by the name of Jesus Christ, and to proclaim more effectually His divine and infinite power.  If, however, we examine the matter more closely, we shall find that such a form omits nothing which the Saviour Himself commands to be observed; for he who mentions Jesus Christ implies the Person of the Father, by whom, and that of the Holy Ghost, in whom, He was anointed.

 

And yet, the use of this form by the Apostles seems rather doubtful if we accept the opinions of Ambrose and Basil, holy Fathers eminent for sanctity and authority, who interpret baptism in the name of Jesus Christ to mean the Baptism instituted by Christ our Lord, as distinguished from that of John, and who say that the Apostles did not depart from the ordinary and usual form which comprises the distinct names of the Three Persons. [Justin Martyr (Apol. I. 61) says that Christians were baptized in the name of the entire Trinity] Paul also, in his Epistle to the Galatians, seems to have expressed himself in a similar manner, when he says: As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ, meaning that they were baptized in the faith of Christ, but with no other form than that which the same Saviour our Lord had commanded to be observed.

 

Administration of Baptism

 

What has been said on the matter and form, which are required for the essence of the Sacrament, will be found sufficient for the instruction of the faithful; but as in the administration of the Sacrament the legitimate manner of ablution should also be observed, pastors should teach the doctrine of this point also.

 

They should briefly explain that, according to the common custom and practice of the Church, Baptism may be administered in three ways,—by immersion, infusion or aspersion.

 

Whichever of these rites be observed, we must believe that Baptism is rightly administered.  For in Baptism water is used to signify the spiritual ablution which it accomplishes, and on this account Baptism is called by the Apostle a laver. (Ephesians 5: 26)  Now this ablution is not more really accomplished by immersion, which was for a considerable time the practice in the early ages of the Church, than by infusion, which we now see in general use, or by aspersion, which there is reason to believe was the manner in which Peter baptized, when on one day he converted and gave Baptism to about three thousand souls. (Acts 2: 41)

 

It is a matter of indifference whether the ablution be performed once or thrice.  For it is evident from the Epistle of Saint Gregory the Great to Leander that Baptism was formerly and may still be validly administered in the Church in either way.  The faithful, however, should follow the practice of the particular Church to which they belong.

 

Pastors should be particularly careful to observe that the baptismal ablution is not to be applied indifferently to any part of the body, but principally to the head, which is the seat of all the internal and external senses; and also that he who baptizes is to pronounce the sacramental words which constitute the form, not before or after, but when performing the ablution.

 

Institution of Baptism

 

When these things have been explained, it will also be expedient to teach and remind the faithful that, in common with the other Sacraments, Baptism was instituted by Christ the Lord.  On this subject the pastor should frequently teach and point out that there are two different periods of time which relate to Baptism—one the period of its institution by the Redeemer; the other, the establishment of the law regarding its reception.

 

BAPTISM INSTITUTED AT CHRIST’S BAPTISM

 

With regard to the former, it is clear that this Sacrament was instituted by our Lord when, having been baptized by John, He gave to water the power of sanctifying.  Saint Gregory Nazianzen and Saint Augustine testify that to water was there imparted the power of regenerating to spiritual life.  In another place Saint Augustine says: From the moment that Christ is immersed in water, water washes away all sins.  And again: The Lord is baptized, not because He had need to be cleansed, but in order that, by the contact of His pure flesh, He might purify the waters and impart to them the power of cleansing.

 

A very strong argument to prove that Baptism was then instituted by our Lord might be afforded by the fact the most Holy Trinity, in whose name Baptism is conferred, manifested Its divine presence on that occasion.  The voice of the Father was heard, the Person of the Son was present, the Holy Ghost descended in the form of a dove; and the heavens, into which we are enabled to enter by Baptism, were thrown open.

 

Should anyone desire to know how our Lord has endowed water with a virtue so great, so divine, this indeed transcends the power of the human understanding.  Yet this we can know, that when our Lord was baptized, water, by contact with His most holy and pure body, was consecrated to the salutary use of Baptism, in such a way, however, that, although instituted before the Passion, we must believe that this Sacrament derives all its virtue and efficacy from the Passion, which is the consummation, as it were, of all the actions of Christ.

 

BAPTISM MADE OBLIGATORY AFTER CHRIST’S RESURRECTION

 

The second period to be distinguished, that is, the time when the law of Baptism was made, also admits of no doubt.  Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, (Matthew 28: 19) the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.

 

This is inferred from the authority of the Prince of the Apostles when he says: Who hath regenerated us into a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; (1 Peter 1: 3) and also from what Paul says of the Church: He delivered himself up for it: that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. (Ephesians 5: 25, 26) By both Apostles the obligation of Baptism seems to be referred to the time which followed the death of our Lord.  Hence we can have no doubt that the words of the Saviour: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, (John 3: 5) refer also to the same time which was to follow after His Passion.

 

The effects of the sacrament are remission of sin, remission of all punishment due to sin, grace of regeneration, infused virtues and incorporation with Christ, character of Christian, opening the gates of heaven. (Catechism of Trent – COT)

 

After Baptism we should like to keep our souls unspotted.  Sins of the flesh, the reason why most souls go to Hell, are the result, in no small part by:

 

THE VICE OF GLUTTONY

 

Everyone that striveth for the master, refraineth himself from all things: and they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible one (1 Corinthians 9: 25)

 

Intemperance is carefully to be avoided. I fed them to the full, says the Prophet, and they committed adultery. (Jeremias 5: 7) An overloaded stomach begets impurity.  This our Lord intimates in these words: Take heed to yourselves, lest perhaps your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness. (Luke 21: 34) Be not drunk with wine, says the Apostle, wherein is luxury. (Ephesians 5: 18) (COT p. 437)

 

MORTIFICATION

 

The body is to be mortified and the sensual appetites to be repressed not only by fasting, and particularly, by the fasts instituted by the Church, but also by watching, pious pilgrimages, and other works of austerity.  By these and similar observances is the virtue of temperance chiefly manifested.  In connection with this subject Saint Paul, writing to the Corinthians says: I chastise my body and bring it into subjection, lest, perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.  And in another place he says: Make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscence. (1 Corinthians 5: 27; Romans 13: 14) (COT p. 439)

 

FASTING AND ALMSDEEDS SHOULD BE JOINED TO PRAYER

 

To prayer let us unite fasting and almsdeeds.  Fasting is most intimately connected with prayer.  For the mind of one who is filled with food and drink is so borne down as not to be able to raise itself to the contemplation of God, or even to understand what prayer means.

 

Almsdeeds have also an intimate connection with prayer.  For what claim has he to the virtue of charity, who, possessing the means of affording relief to those who depend on the assistance of others, refuses help to his neighbor and brother?  How can he, whose heart is devoid of charity, demand assistance from God unless, while imploring the pardon of his sins, he at the same time humbly beg of God to grant him the virtue of charity?

 

This triple remedy was, therefore, appointed by God to aid man in the attainment of salvation.  For by sin we offend God, wrong our neighbor, or injure ourselves.  The wrath of God we appease by pious prayer; our offences against man we redeem by almsdeeds; the stains of our own lives we wash away by fasting.  Each of these remedies, it is true, is applicable to every sort of sin; they are, however, peculiarly adapted to those three which we have specially mentioned.  (COT p. 500)

 

The COT teaches us that the Our Father is also a remedy against gluttony:

 

WE ASK THAT WE MAY NOT YIELD TO OUR OWN INORDINATE DESIRES

 

When we say, Thy will be done, we express our detestation of the works of the flesh, of which the Apostle writes: The works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, lust, etc.; (Galatians 5: 19) if you live according to the flesh you shall die. (Romans 8: 13) We also beg of God not to suffer us to yield to the suggestions of sensual appetite, of our lusts, of our infirmities, but to govern our will by His will.

 

The sensualist, whose every thought and care is absorbed in the transient things of this world, is estranged from the will of God.  Borne along by the tide of passion, he indulges his licentious appetites.  In this gratification he places all his happiness, and considers that man happy who obtains whatever he desires.  We, on the contrary, beseech God in the language of the Apostle that we make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscence, (Romans 13: 14) but that His will be done.

 

We are not easily induced to entreat God not to satisfy our inordinate desires.  This disposition of soul is difficult of attainment, and by offering such a prayer we seem in some sort to hate ourselves.  To those who are slaves to the flesh such conduct appears folly; but be it ours cheerfully to incur the imputation of folly for the sake of Christ who has said: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself. (Matthew 16: 24; Luke 9: 23) This is especially so since we know that it is much better to desire what is right and just, than to obtain what is opposed to reason and religion and to the laws of God.  Unquestionably the condition of the man who attains the gratification of his rash and inordinate desires is less enviable than that of him who does not obtain the object of his pious prayers. (COT p. 534 - 535)

 

To reinforce and expand up this I should like to quote from A Companion to the Summa, Volume 3, by Walter Farrell, O.P., S.T.D., S.T.M.:

 

Roots of freedom: Proximate and remote source

We have missed the intimate interrelation between purity and humanity.  In some mysterious way we have overlooked the obvious fact that since human life is a reasonable life and human activity is a rational activity, of course human passion is passion under reason.  The name of the supreme passion under reason is its defense in the name of purely physical considerations is itself an attack on the humanity and freedom of man. 

Internal and external

The key to the whole situation is spirituality.  The proximate sources of man’s freedom are his soul, his intellect and his will behind them stands the sole possible author of spiritual substance, the infinitely powerful God.  Because a man is spiritual he has liberty; because he is spiritual that liberty has eternal significance.  That is, the use or the abuse of liberty is for eternity, for the spiritual, as incorruptible, exists for eternal ends.

A man’s will or intellect cannot be handcuffed.  As long as he remains a spiritual being with reason in control, he can never be enslaved.  He possesses an internal liberty much more important than any external, civic freedom: an emperor, after all, can be a slave to himself, while a slave can be completely master of himself, can be most free.  External liberty is as perilous a thing as a heart worn on one’s sleeve; it can be lost, whereas internal liberty can only be surrendered.  No force, intrigue, trickery can take it away from us.  And this is precisely the liberty over which purity maintains such a jealous guard.

It is unfortunate that men and women today are inclined to look upon the fight for purity as a little abstract and academic.   Like so many moral questions, it apparently has no immediate pertinence to individual life.  A man instantly and vigorously resists an attack on his property, his children, his wife; but an attack on virtue is different.  Here he considers himself off to one side, to a spectator not greatly interested in the winner of the argument. The thing is important, for these questions have a profound personal significance for every individual.  The drastic consequences of modern attacks on the spiritual soul, the intellect and the will of man, the bitter attacks on God, are much more serious than any physical attack on a man himself, his family or his property.  This attack on the realm of the spiritual is not so much a matter of beating a man to the ground as of disemboweling him.

Surely what threatens the spiritual and rational in a man threatens his freedom, for it is precisely upon that spiritual foundation that he builds his claim to freedom.  When the body, the sense appetite, and the world of the present take precedence over the soul, the will and the world of eternity, man is no longer free. He is a slave; that is, he is no longer a man.

In this material of temperance there are three serious threats to the sovereignty of man’s reason.  The threats are extremely serious because the material is so extremely necessary that nature attaches to it the greatest sense rewards, lest its primary ends be overlooked or neglected.  To take care of the possible sorties against his reason from this material, man is equipped with a garrison of virtues specially equipped for this kind of enemy and this type of warfare.  There are only three in that garrison—abstinence, sobriety and chastity—but their fighting qualities more than make up for their numbers.

Still these three are not enemies of man’s nature, not even of his sensitive nature.  They can be rightly understood only when they are seen as guardians and protectors of man and his nature.  Their presence in a man has exactly the effect of a well-disciplined garrison in a stronghold of restless subjects.  They prevent mob-rule within a man and turn the violently restless energies of his passions to the common good of the man himself.  Understand, this is not a question of using these subjects as a tyrannous master might use slaves merely for his own end.  Reason is not working against the passions; it allows, indeed, insists upon their attainment of their own proper ends.  Those proper ends of the passions, with their rich contributions to the welfare of the whole man, are defeated and trampled underfoot by the rioting of the mob of undisciplined passions.

The garrison protecting freedom:

From the abuse of food—abstinence; Its nature

If it were a virtue merely to abstain from food, then by implication, the taking of food would be sinful.  It is this sort of absurdity that is somehow wrapped up in the defense and attack of the modern negative “protectors” of liberty.  A man can and does refuse food; perhaps because he has no appetite or is starving himself to death.  Neither case involves a question of abstinence; the whole point of the virtue is the note of reason it insists upon in the use of food.  The man who gives up coffee as a penance, even though it makes life miserable for his family, is not an abstinent man; neither is the ascetical tyro who stays up night after night praying only to fall asleep over his work during the day.  These things are unreasonable so they cannot be virtuous.  The virtue of abstinence is in operation only when the bounds of reason are carefully observed; its precise work is to restrain man’s use of food to reasonable limits.

Its act—fasting; Purposes

Abstinence holds a man back from abusing food.  Fasting, an act of abstinence, goes a step further and holds a man back from what might very well be eaten without any abuse whatever.  Again we must insist that this is not a condemnation of food.  Eating enough certainly cannot be anything but a cause of joy, except perhaps to a grateful beggar to whom the experience is astonishing in its novelty.  To refuse to eat what is no more than enough, if it is to be virtuous must be reasonable; and it can be reasonable only because it is aimed at ends higher than its immediate purpose.

If I have a healthy appetite for a bit of steak, an entirely reasonable amount in entirely reasonable circumstances, yet I refuse to eat it, then I have some explaining to do.  If the refusal was for no reason whatever it would be an act of insanity; if it proceeded from a conviction that food itself is evil and to be avoided, then it would be vicious; but if it is for some higher end, like training the soul or satisfying for sins, it might well be virtuous.

We get a realistically concrete view of the higher ends of fasting by looking back to the first week of any Lent.  After a few days of highly successful mortification, we have a definite sense of satisfaction, of pride in ourselves, of highly human accomplishment.  You see, we have been fully in control.  That is the really solid basis of that sense of satisfaction and superiority over our old selves.  We are being super-eminently human and we know it.  We are experiencing something of the joy of being human.

To recognize those high ends in detail no more is necessary than to see them. By fasting we let our appetites know beyond any doubt that reason is the head of this household; and by that very fact, we give our appetites invaluable practice in subjection.  This practice is important, for it is always important for a man to be rational, to have his reason in control.  Going up a step higher, fasting is clearly a kind of restitution.  Every sin is a stolen pleasure, for every sin is at least an overindulgence of will; fasting surrenders a legitimate pleasure, thus both satisfying for the debt of sin and impressing us with the true nature of sin.  We cannot fast very long and not realize that no one ever gets anything out of sin, not even a pickpocket or a bank robber; everything that apparently comes out of it must be given back, even though that restitution take all of an eternity.

Looking at fasting on a still higher plane, it is not hard to see in it a disposition to contemplation.  In the old public school schedule, a singing class was held immediately after lunch.  The schedule was good, however bad the singing might be; for surely it would not be as bad as the thinking turned out on a full stomach.  Whatever the physical background may be, psychologically it is sure that full satisfaction of the appetite for food makes the mind dull; it is apt to act like a puppy, crawl off to some warm corner and go to sleep.  Thus monastic fasts are not idle gestures of melancholy or of distaste for the pleasures of sense.  The primary business of monastic life is always contemplation, and fasting is an excellent disposition for it.  The evening meal in a Dominican House of Studies is usually light; from September to Easter it is extraordinarily light.  It is not coincidence that the most fruitful periods of study are the morning (after a positively feather-weight breakfast) and the evening or, as far as that goes, the rest of the night.  There may be elements of discomfort; but, after all, a monastery does not exist for comfort but for contemplation.  The very discomfort becomes eminently reasonable as a means to the higher ends of truth.

Let us summarize the Angelic Doctor’s teaching on vice of gluttony with the help of our friend Monsignor Glenn in his “A Tour of the Summa”.

GLUTTONY

 

1. Gluttony is excess in eating and drinking.  It is an immoderate indulgence in the delights of the palate.  Gluttony is therefore inordinate, therefore unreasonable, therefore an evil.

 

2. Gluttony is usually not a serious sin, bit it could be such a sin.  It would be a mortal sin in a person so given to the delights of eating and drinking that he is ready to abandon, virtue, and God himself, to obtain this pleasure.

 

3. Gluttony is a sin of the flesh, a carnal sin.  Hence, in itself, it is not as great a sin as a spiritual sin or a sin of malice.

 

5. Gluttony denotes inordinate desire in eating and drinking. It shows itself in the avidity with which a person indulges his appetite; in his love of delicate and expensive foods; in the importance he attaches to the discerning of fine qualities in foods, vintages, cookery; in voraciousness or greediness; in eating or drinking too much. Saint Isidore says that a gluttonous person is excessive in what, when, how, and how much he eats and drinks.

A capital sin is a source-sin; a spring, large or small, from which flow many evil streams. Now gluttony leads readily to other sins, for it indulges pleasure of the flesh which is the most alluring of all pleasures.  Gluttony is, therefore, a capital sin.

 

6. Gluttony leads to inordinate fleshly delight, to dullness of mind injudiciousness of speech, to levity of conduct, and to uncleanness. (A Tour of the Summa by Monsignor Glenn)

 

Conclusion

Let us clear our minds, and dull our inclination to sin through prayer, fasting and almsdeeds.

Contending For The Faith---Part 42

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

Is Science The Enemy of Faith?

Atheists and Modernists will reject the supernatural based on the alleged "contradiction with science." (Atheists reject the supernatural in its entirety, whereas Modernists will reduce faith to "feelings" and deny Revelation and miracles). If you ever come up against such a person, they will say to you, "Faith is superstition. People needed it to explain natural phenomena they didn't understand. Now, science has done away with the need for God."

In this post, I will equip the reader on how to respond to this attack on the Faith. (Please note that this post is a compilation of all the resources, both online and print, which I used in my research. I take no credit for any of the information herein. Some material was from my post-graduate work in science for my Masters degree, when I was a science teacher. All I did was condense the information into a terse and readable post---Introibo).

What is Science?

Through the centuries, humanity has derived many benefits from the scientific enterprise and there is promise of even greater ones to come through its extension in medicine and technology. It is no wonder that science has been granted such a privileged place in many cultures. Modern science stands as one of the most impressive intellectual undertakings that humans have achieved.

However, while science has some roots in the ancient world, science in its present form is a relative latecomer on the scene of human intellectual history. Modern science emerged in full form in Christian Europe around the middle of the seventeenth century. In the ensuing 400 years, it has risen to such great heights that it now enjoys unprecedented societal esteem and generates great respect and expectations. For many of the world’s intelligentsia, modern science is the supreme mode of acquiring knowledge. Some even view science as humankind’s greatest achievement. It might rightly be said that science has been placed on an intellectual pedestal. So, what is science? 

According to the National Academy of Sciences, science is “the use of evidence to construct testable explanation and prediction of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process.”

(See nationalacademies.org).  

A more popular source (Wikipedia, which should not be used for serious research, but is commonly used by those seeking "quick answers") offers a very similar definition: "Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions about the universe." In other words, science as a basic practice is limited to obtaining knowledge about the natural world.

Why has such honor been bestowed upon the scientific venture? There appear to be two basic reasons. First, many people perceive science as intellectually neutral and independent from underlying belief systems. Second, science’s amazing achievements and beneficial results have imparted great credibility to the practice and practitioners. Let’s explore these two factors in some detail.

Is Science Intellectually Neutral?

Many people, scientists included, seem to think that the scientific method functions independently of any formal, underlying beliefs. I have even heard scientists say that as a scientist they have “no beliefs.” This alleged intellectual independence imbues scientific results with trustworthiness. 

People believe that the level of independence and objectivity that the scientific enterprise putatively enjoys leads to reliable knowledge. Meanwhile, knowledge rooted in religious and philosophical beliefs is more often regarded as supposed. However, science’s total independence from beliefs is clearly false. The scientific method depends deeply on critical underlying assumptions or beliefs that science itself alone cannot validate. If scientists are to go about their work with any confidence, they must, for instance, believe in such profound presuppositions as:

• The objective reality of the cosmos 
• The basic intelligibility of the cosmos 
• The order, regularity, and uniformity of nature 
• The reliable effectiveness of mathematics and logic to describe the cosmos 
• The basic reliability of human cognitive faculties and sensory organs 
• The congruence between the human mind and physical reality 
• That acceptable criteria for an adequate hypothesis exist 
• That what is observed in nature can provide clues and indicators of unobservable patterns and processes

(See John D. Barrow, The Universe That Discovered Itself  [2000], pgs. 26– 29).

These eight profound and amazing assumptions are just that— assumptions. That is, these preconditions for doing science are not first proven by science. Rather, scientists assume these ideas to be true before carrying out their work. The success of science somewhat serves to confirm the truth of these extraordinary preconditions of reality, but the scientific method itself did not establish or justify them. In a sense, scientists operate on faith in the necessary prerequisites of intelligibility.

Successful engagement in scientific research is deeply dependent upon belief and trust in foundational philosophical truths, yet these truths cannot wholly be derived from scientific experiments themselves. For science’s basic empirical (observational, experimental) venture to work and thrive, certain non-empirical assumptions about reality (including abstract ideas, the world, and humans) must be true. It takes a certain kind of world for science to even be possible. In fact, assumptions concomitant with the Catholic worldview are what initially allowed science to emerge and flourish in seventeenth-century Europe.

Thus, we see that, instead of functioning independently or neutrally of religious or philosophical beliefs, science has relied on such beliefs to nurture it at its foundation. The scientific method is not, and never has been, competent to stand alone as the only legitimate basis for believing something to be true. Hence, one reason for our culture’s high regard for science is really a misunderstanding of how science functions as an intellectual enterprise. Science isn’t a mere neutral practice that “just works.” It is an operation that has deep presuppositions about the very nature of reality and truth— and these presuppositions cry out for an adequate metaphysical explanation.

Believing in Science

Virtually all people have benefited from recent (in the last century or so) advancements in science, technology, and medicine. But this reality prompts the provocative question we considered before: Why does science work? That is, why is the scientific enterprise so effective in delivering critical and reliable information about the natural world that can inform and benefit humanity? 

I like to ask science teachers and scientists that question and have asked it of many I have met through the years. The answer is usually something along this line: “It just does. Science is unique. It works.” I think the reason that most scientists don’t venture to tell me exactly why science works is because the why of science has more to do with the philosophy of science than with the formal practice of science itself. While the general practice of the scientific enterprise focuses on the what and how of science, the philosophy of science has a lot to say about the whys of science.

A Science-Conducive World

What kind of universe that is conducive to science? Science's preconditions can be reduced into three networked factors.

1. The Right Kind of World.  A world conducive to science is one that is real and has a mind-independent existence of its own. It is uniform, where the laws of nature reflect order, patterns, and regularity throughout. The world must also be intelligible and reflect an inherent rationality in the forms of logic and mathematics that can be studied.
2. The Right Kind of Human Being. The humans who carry out the scientific pursuit must have keen intellectual faculties. Human cognitive abilities (brain-mind) and sensory organs (eyes, ears, etc.) must be basically reliable and trustworthy. Humans must be able to use their faculties to track the world’s intelligible qualities and achieve a depth of understanding. 
3. The Right Kind of Congruence between the Two. The two previous requirements mean that there must be a basic congruence (compatibility, connectedness) between the world itself and the humans who study it. The world must carry an inherent intelligibility and humans must be able to track and apprehend, to some extent, that intelligibility.

For science to work, these three factors must be valid and operative in the universe and in humans. There must also be a consonance (harmony) between the universe and humans. In other words, for science to work, reality itself must be rational, predictable, and accessible to human reason. The intelligible world and the minds of humans must be networked together, so to speak. If they weren’t, then science wouldn’t be possible.

Is the Network the Result of Necessity, Chance, or Design?

So what is the best explanation that all three factors (the world, humans, and congruency) are just right to allow for science to be possible? 

First, our science-conducive universe (a fine-tuned cosmos) wasn’t necessitated by the laws of physics and could’ve been much different. Namely, the world could have been a disorderly chaos instead of an organized cosmos.

Second, mathematician Roger Penrose has said the statistical probability of arriving at a science-conducive universe (a fine-tuned cosmos) is wildly inconceivable if not impossible. (See Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics [1989], pgs. 339– 345).

Third, a Divine Mind (design) behind the universe with the attributes descriptive of Christian theism could plausibly be the actual cause of our science-human-congruence world that makes science possible and successful. If so, science works because the Creator networked Himself (the All-Wise and Infinite Giver of Laws and Logic) with the intelligible world He created and with the humans He made in his image and endowed with great intellectual abilities. Therefore a science-conducive world appears to point to the Christian God as the most plausible explanation.

Science points to God. How could it be otherwise when He is the Creator of the universe we seek to understand. The problem lies with not science but scientism. 

Enter Scientism

Most atheists and Modernists have adopted a science-oriented philosophy known as scientism. According to scientism, science alone gives genuine knowledge to humanity. Scientism has two forms: (1) strong scientism says science is the only path to knowledge and (2) weak scientism says science is the best path, and really the only reliable path, to knowledge.

Strong scientism tends to depreciate the belief that knowledge can come from moral, aesthetic, and religious experience, and other sources. It also generally accepts two foundational affirmations— one metaphysical (relating to reality) and the other epistemological (relating to knowledge). First, metaphysically speaking, strong scientism asserts that the material, physical universe is, to quote astronomer and secularist Carl Sagan, “all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” ( These were the opening words of the television series Cosmos (1980) hosted by Carl Sagan, originally broadcast on PBS (US)---Introibo).

Scientists who adopt a more complex view of reality by affirming a multiverse or many-worlds hypothesis extend reality beyond the observable universe, but all reality is still material and physical in nature. Second, epistemologically speaking, strong strong scientism believes science is the only way of verifying truth claims about reality. Therefore, a belief that is not scientific or doesn’t pass scientific scrutiny is considered false or meaningless. The foundational question becomes, can you prove it scientifically? Given strong scientism, religious, moral, and aesthetic claims to knowledge are neither true nor justified. They can be items of belief existentially important to individuals, but have no bearing on reality.

The claims of strong scientism are both breathtaking and logically incoherent. For example, the assertion that the material, physical world is all that exists cannot be justified by science. Likewise, the claim that all truth claims must be scientifically verified cannot itself be empirically verified by science either. Many times an atheist will say, "There is no evidence for God." This is an example of scientism. If they mean, "There is no scientific demonstration that God exists," then we agree. However, not all we accept as fact can be scientifically demonstrated. Ask, "do you think your mother loves (loved) you?" If he says "yes," ask him what scientific demonstration proves it. There is no such demonstration, yet it doesn't mean you "have no evidence" or are irrational for believing your mother loves you.

Weak scientism’s claim of being the best path to knowledge also backfires for similar reasons. It depends upon preconditions that are not derived scientifically. Moreover, knowledge of the natural world, while valuable, has limited application to other critical areas of life as will be shown next.

Science’s Limitations

The scientific method involves a general inductive approach to obtaining knowledge about the world (involving weighing probabilities and moving logically from the particular to the general). Scientific data generally comes directly through observation and experimentation. Thus, science does a very good job of explaining the physical mechanisms of the material world. It relates well to the what and how questions of life. This practical aspect is what has made science so successful and a deeply valued endeavor on behalf of humanity. However, science falters when it comes to questions of meaning, purpose, and significance. These are the ultimate why questions that people naturally and necessarily ask. For example, revealing that something happened in the physical world doesn’t explain why it happened or what it ultimately means.

There are five key areas that illustrate the realistic operating limits of sciences. These realities can’t be proven scientifically, yet all people affirm them to be real and true:

Logic and Mathematical Truths. Logic and math reflect laws and principles necessary for scientific theorizing. These truths are foundational assumptions upon which science depends but cannot itself prove. Logic and math are conceptual (abstract) in nature rather than empirical (sensory). Science tends to provide a type of secondary confirmation of the truth of logic and math, but it can’t justify these foundational conceptual realities directly.

Metaphysical Truths. Metaphysical truths relate to reality or true being. These include ideas like the existence of a real external world (not a mere illusion or simulation) and the existence of sentient minds other than our own that are capable of understanding the natural world. These minds are able to utilize and access reason (math and logic). In other words, science depends on metaphysical reality (the world, mind, and abstract objects being arranged in a science-conducive way). Although science cannot verify metaphysical truths, it is totally dependent upon metaphysics as a foundation for the scientific practice.

Ethical Truths. Objective moral truths and values exist (right, wrong, good, bad). They even guide and shape standards of practice in science. For example, scientific experiments and the results they provide are only valid if they are conducted with exacting honesty, accuracy, competency, and fair-mindedness. The existence of morality is undisputed (though how it is to be grounded is a subject of debate between theists and nontheists). Science cannot operate safely or prudently without it— yet again, science cannot detect or ground morals through its mere observational and empirical means of operation.

Aesthetic Considerations. Aesthetics is the branch of philosophy that refers to the nature and appreciation of beauty, taste, and art. Yet, without doubt, beauty abounds in the natural world itself. However, pure value judgments concerning the meaning and appreciation of beauty, taste, and art cannot be addressed by the scientific method. Again, value considerations about either morality (something is good) or beauty (something is pleasing) are outside the operating lane of science.

The Scientific Venture Itself.  The scientific enterprise is based upon critical assumptions that can’t be derived by the scientific method as I stated above. 

Conclusion

The foundation of science rests on truths that cannot be discovered scientifically. Science has real limits and the scientific enterprise cannot stand alone in providing comprehensive answers to life’s ultimate issues. This isn’t criticizing science, but rather recognizing its proper place in society. Science remains a critical tool to understanding the natural world, but scientism overstates its appropriate role. Hence, the edifice of scientism proves to be a structure without an adequate foundation.

Science, therefore, has not and cannot "do away with the need for God." Science depends on preconditions which show design and point to a Creator. True science and true theology can never be in conflict, as they both come from the One True God.

An Occult Therapy

 

Earlier this year, the following was written on a flyer which had been placed in my mailbox:

Are you seeking a gentle yet powerful approach to pain relief, stress reduction, and overall well-being? Look no further than Bowenwork therapy, offered by [name and address/phone/website/email of practitioner redacted]. Bowenwork is helpful to all; it was developed by Thomas Bowen, a devout Christian. Come and feel the power of Bowenwork today! (Emphasis mine). 

I had never heard of Bowenwork before (aka "Bowen Therapy" and "Bowen Technique"--hereinafter BT). In my experience, when someone emphasizes how "Christian" something is, it usually is not the case. I began to research and, sure enough, far from being "Christian," it is actually occult. As many practitioners of BT claim to be "Christian" (mostly Protestant and Vatican II sect), I will expose BT for what it really is in this post so no one will be fooled. (Please note that this post is a compilation of all the resources, both online and print, which I used in my research. I take no credit for any of the information herein. All I did was condense the information into a terse and readable post---Introibo).  

What BT Claims to Be

According to The American Bowen Academy: Bowenwork is a gentle form of bodywork where very subtle moves performed over muscles and connective tissue send messages deep into the body through multiple layers of fascia, impacting nerves, lymphatics, organ function, muscles, joints, as well as the autonomic nervous system - an innovative approach to chronic and acute pain management. 

(See americanbowen.academy). 

There are many definitions I found besides the one above. No matter how defined, it is an alternative medicine technique that combines massage with what some describe as "vibrational energy healing."  It was developed by an Australian engineer with no medical training named Thomas Bowen (1916-1982) and was introduced into the U.S. in 1990. Thomas Bowen professed himself to be a devout Protestant.

However, BT is not consistent with a Christian view of the body or of health. According to one BT source: Tom Bowen believed in the universal energy called Chi. This energy circulates within the body along 14 channels, called meridians and it was identified by Chinese medicine.

The meridians contain acupuncture points which influence internal organs and their function. According to Chinese medicine the free circulation of Chi throughout the human body is essential for good health.

Most moves of the Bowen technique are practiced on particular meridians and some on specific acupuncture points. It is not known whether Tom Bowen had sufficient knowledge of Chinese medicine on which he based his procedures.  Nonetheless, acupuncturists practicing the Bowen technique claim that the Chi is modified during and after each Bowen treatment. 

(See bowtech.si/en/the-mechanism-of-bowen-technique; Emphasis mine). 

When there's talk of "vital energy" and "chi" (sometimes spelled "ki") you're dealing with pagan and occult teachings. 

BT and Science

There are many medical claims made by BT therapists, but what does the medical research have to say?

According to therapists who practice Bowenwork, this type of therapy acts on the autonomic nervous system. They believe it inhibits the sympathetic nervous system (your fight-or-flight stress response) and activates the parasympathetic nervous system (your rest-and-digest response).

However, no research has yet confirmed this or other mechanisms of action. (Emphasis mine),

Furthermore, Some people refer to Bowen therapy as a type of therapeutic massage. It isn’t a medical treatment, though. There’s minimal scientific research on its effectiveness, and its purported benefits are mainly anecdotal. (Emphasis mine).

Despite all this, BT is considered by some to be a veritable panacea. 

Conditions commonly addressed by Bowen therapy include:

• frozen shoulder
• headaches
• migraine
• back pain
• neck pain
• knee injuries

Some people may use Bowen therapy to manage pain due to:

• respiratory conditions, like asthma
• gastrointestinal disorders, like irritable bowel syndrome
• cancer treatment side effects

Additionally, some people may also seek Bowen therapy for managing:

• stress
• fatigue
• depression
• anxiety
• high blood pressure
• stiffness and reduced range of motion

That's quite a list for a therapy whose exact mechanism for working is unknown, and benefits are mostly anecdotal. Limited research exists on the benefits, long-term effects, and risks of Bowen therapy. Some research suggests that it may help with pain and mobility, but more studies are needed to generalize results to all age groups and populations.

If you decide to have a session of Bowen therapy, it’s important to seek a licensed therapist and ask about potential side effects of the treatment. 

(All Information from this section, See healthline.com/health/bowen-therapy#bottom-line; all emphasis mine). 

Pagan and Occult Roots of BT

During a typical BT treatment, which lasts about 30-45 minutes, the practitioner uses his/her fingers to make a gentle rolling type of motion on different muscles in the body. The practitioner then pauses, sometimes even leaving the room for a few minutes, to allow the body to “make its own adjustments” or, in a sense, to heal itself. How is this possible?

According to one practitioner:

His (Thomas Bowen's) main principle and belief was that the body is able to heal itself, he believed that good medicine was to assist the body's natural ability to repair and regulate itself and that bodily dysfunction were the result of disturbances in the tissues. His underlying assumption was that structure governs function, and that disturbances of structure in whatever tissue within the body will lead to disturbances of functioning in that structure and, in turn, of the function of the body as a whole. His goal was to restore the structural integrity in the body in order to restore its optimum function.

He also believed in the universal life energy called Chi. In traditional Chinese medicine, this energy must flow freely throughout the body in order to assure a state of maximum health. Bowen's gift was to discover a system of mobilization to rebalance the natural flow of energy. 

(See bowentherapytechnique.com/page3/page3.html; All Emphasis in original). 

The idea of chi or ki is purely pagan/occult. A key to understanding pagan approaches to health and views of the body is in the knowledge of what is taught about the "subtle body." It is integrated from Hinduism, and Taoism, then appropriated by occultists. Here is one description of an occult book on the subtle body by an “intuitive healer” or "psychic healer:"

All healers are “energetic” healers, whether they know it or not. Because every health issue has a physical and an energetic component, even a simple physical treatment like bandaging a cut also impacts the body’s spiritual, mental, and emotional welfare.

The Subtle Body is a comprehensive encyclopedia devoted to the critical world of our invisible anatomy, where so much of healing actually occurs. Compiled by intuitive healer and scholar Cyndi Dale, this 500-page full color illustrated reference book covers: * What is the “subtle body”? New scientific understanding of our quantum-state existence and the unseen fields that determine our physical condition * True integrative care: how combining Eastern energetic modalities with Western scientific rigor yields optimum results * The meridians, fields, and chakras: detailed information and diagrams about the role of these energetic structures in our overall health * Energy-based therapy principles from the world’s healing traditions–including Ayurveda, Qigong, Reiki, Quabalah, and many more. (See cyndidale.com/product/the-subtle-body). 

The chi/ki belief makes BT a form of energy healing like Reiki  just mentioned in the book description. Here is the pagan mumbo-jumbo regarding chi/ki: "The source or cause of health comes from the Ki that flows through and around the individual rather than from the functional condition of the physical organs and tissues. It is Ki that animates the physical organs and tissues as it flows through them and therefore is responsible for creating a healthy condition. If the flow of Ki is disrupted, the physical organs and tissues will be adversely affected. Therefore, it is a disruption in the flow of Ki that is the main cause of illness.

An important attribute of Ki is that it responds to ones thoughts and feelings. Ki will flow more strongly or be weakened in its action depending on the quality of ones thoughts and feelings. It is our negative thoughts and feelings that are the main cause of restriction in the flow of Ki. All negative or dis-harmonious thoughts or feelings will cause a disruption in the flow of Ki. Even Western medicine recognizes the role played by the mind in creating illness and some Western doctors state that as much as 98% of illness is caused directly or indirectly by the mind.

It must be understood that the mind exists not only in the brain, but also through-out the body. The nervous system extends to every organ and tissue in the body and so the mind exists here also. It is also known that the mind even extends outside the body in a subtle energy field 2 to 3 feet thick called the aura. Because of this, it is more appropriate to call our mind a mind/body as the mind and body are so closely linked."  (See Reiki.org; Emphasis mine).

Here's what's wrong with this doctrine:
1. There is no soul as the animating principle of the body, but some impersonal "Ki energy."

2. Ki nevertheless can respond and be manipulated by thoughts and feelings, yet there is no explanation as to how or why this is known/proven.

3. The claim that "some Western doctors" (not even naming one) state "98% of illness is caused directly or indirectly by the mind" is not only completely unsubstantiated, but terms are not even defined. What does it mean that an illness is caused "indirectly by the mind"?

4. It states the existence of some "aura" which is "known" to exist without any citations to a single relevant medical or scientific source.

What if it Really Works?

The objection may be raised: What if there's some truth to Bowen Therapy? Maybe science just hasn't discovered everything we know about the workings of the body; a  bodily energy might be at work. Many people claim health benefits. Besides, I don't believe in the pagan/occult stuff. As long as I see it as an "energetic massage" that may help me, what's wrong with using BT? 

There's much wrong with it. It is a form of Reiki, and it was correctly condemned by (wait for it)...The Vatican II Sect! (Hey, even a broken clock is right twice every 24 hours, right?). Since the sect actually got something right (even if not well known and never enforced), I cite it here; just substitute "Bowen Therapy" for Reiki as both have the same worldview based on "energy healing." 

The Vatican II sect document entitled Guidelines for Evaluating Reiki as an Alternative Therapy, has this to say in paragraph #9:

The difference between what Christians recognize as healing by divine grace and Reiki therapy is also evident in the basic terms used by Reiki proponents to describe what happens in Reiki therapy, particularly that of "universal life energy." Neither the Scriptures nor the Christian tradition as a whole speak of the natural world as based on "universal life energy" that is subject to manipulation by the natural human power of thought and will. In fact, this worldview has its origins in eastern religions and has a certain monist and pantheistic character, in that distinctions among self, world, and God tend to fall away. (Emphasis mine)

Their conclusion:
Reiki therapy finds no support either in the findings of natural science or in Christian belief. For a Catholic to believe in Reiki therapy presents insoluble problems...In terms of caring for one's spiritual health, there are important dangers. To use Reiki one would have to accept at least in an implicit way central elements of the worldview that undergirds Reiki theory, elements that belong neither to Christian faith nor to natural science.
Without justification either from Christian faith or natural science, however, a Catholic who puts his or her trust in Reiki would be operating in the realm of superstition, the no-man's-land that is neither faith nor science. Superstition corrupts one's worship of God by turning one's religious feeling and practice in a false direction.(See paragraphs 10 and 11; Emphasis mine. The term "Catholic" is meant to denote a member of the Vatican II sect).

Therefore, to submit oneself to any pagan "energy healing" like BT or Reiki becomes an implicit denial of dogma, as the basis of these practices rests upon the heresy of pantheism.

From the Vatican Council (1870), Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Dei Filius, it states:

The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one true and living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, Almighty, Eternal, Immense, Incomprehensible, Infinite in intelligence, in will, and in all perfection, who, as being one, sole, absolutely simple and immutable spiritual substance, is to be declared as really and essentially distinct from the world, of supreme beatitude in and from Himself, and ineffably exalted above all things which exist, or are conceivable, except Himself. 

3. If anyone shall say that the substance and essence of God and of all things is one and the same; let him be anathema. 

4. If anyone shall say that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual, have emanated from the Divine substance; or that the Divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself, becomes all things; or, lastly, that God is a universal or indefinite being, which by determining itself constitutes the universality of things, distinct according to genera, species and individuals; let him be anathema. 

5. If anyone does not confess that the world, and all things that are contained in it, both spiritual and material, have been, in their whole substance, produced by God out of nothing; or shall say that God created, not by His will, free from all necessity, but by a necessity equal to the necessity whereby He loves Himself; or shall deny that the world was made for the glory of God; let him be anathema. 

You also open yourself up to possible demonic obsession/possession whenever you involve yourself in anything occult or pagan. 

Conclusion

Bowen Therapy is based on the occult/pagan worldview of pantheism and replaces the One True Personal God with an impersonal "life force" called chi or ki. It may have some benefit from the placebo effect, among other explanations, but do you really want physical improvement at any cost? 

"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?" (St. Matthew 16:26). 

The Heresy Of The "Lay State"

 

It never ceases to amaze me how Vatican II apologists, even ones who are intelligent and well-educated, have to struggle to make the "square peg" of Vatican II teaching fit into the "round hole" of what the Church has always taught. They don't (refuse to?) see the glaring contradiction and must write long screeds to try and make black mean white and vice-versa. One such article I came across recently had me shaking my head.

Dr. William Marshner wrote in defense of the Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae (DH). He is a "conservative" member of the sect who, in his own words, will try to show in a careful way that there is no doctrinal conflict between the immutable teaching of the 19th Century Popes and that of Vatican II. Then, secondly, I shall try to show that the doctrine of DH is a harmless addition, even a slight improvement, to the older teaching, since it disturbs no just power of a Catholic State to protect its citizens from the "corruption of morals and spread of the plague of indifferentism," which Gregory XVI and Pius IX feared would result from too much religious liberty.

Marshner asserts:

Let us begin by reviewing the most important of the alleged points of conflict.

In Mirari vos (August 13, 1832), Gregory XVI denounced as "delirium" the idea that liberty of conscience, especially liberty of worship, is the proper (or inalienable) right of every man, which should be proclaimed by law, and that citizens have such a right to the free dissemination of their ideas, however false, that they are to be restrained from doing so by no law, whether ecclesiastical or civil. In terms of the Second Vatican Council's basic holding, this denunciation merely excludes the following view:

Such freedom of action as an objectively false religion ought to have [however broad or narrow that may be; we shall come to that point in due time], it in fact does have by a natural right of conscience, whereby the person's freedom of religious speech and action transcends the scope of what positive law, civil or ecclesiastical, may rightly restrict.

Vatican II also excludes such a view. It does so in no less than three ways. First, the Council leaves untouched the restrictive powers of ecclesiastical authority (DH 14, with footnote 58 provided by the commentator, John Courtney Murray, S.J., in the Abbott edition); secondly, the Council recognizes the right of civil authority to restrict religious liberty according to the "just requirements of public order" (DH 2 and 4); lastly the Council refuses to grant any immunity to proselytizing activities of the "hard sell" variety (DH 4). It follows that the transcendentally grounded, unrestrictable religious liberty that was championed by revolutionary liberals and denounced as madness by Gregory XVI is not the same kind of liberty as that endorsed by Vatican, II. (See catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=8778; the whole article can be read there). 

On the contrary, I will set forth the Church's teaching on Church-State relations, expose the heretic who wrote nearly all of DH (Fr. John Courtney Murray) who wanted a non-confessional "lay state," and demonstrate that in no way can the teaching of DH be reconciled with all that was taught prior. 

The Teaching of the Church

The Church teaches that people are only free to choose that which is good and to believe what is objectively true. Many people, nevertheless, do make evil/wrong choices and embrace false religions. Society can never praise, encourage, or support such decisions. It can, however, tolerate these individual abuses of liberty in order to maintain temporal peace while encouraging the adherents of false religions to understand the errors of their ways and convert to the One True Church. 

The pronouncements of the popes are clear:

Pope Gregory XVI: "...We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained...This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. (See Mirari Vos, para. #13 & 14; Emphasis mine).

Pope Pius IX: CONDEMNED PROPOSITION # 15: Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true (See The Syllabus of Errors).

CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #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 (Ibid).

CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #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 (Ibid)

CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #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 (Ibid)

Pope Leo XIII: The authority of God is passed over in silence, just as if there were no God; or as if He cared nothing for human society; or as if men, whether in their individual capacity or bound together in social relations, owed nothing to God; or as if there could be a government of which the whole origin and power and authority did not reside in God Himself. Thus, as is evident, a State becomes nothing but a multitude which is its own master and ruler. And since the people is declared to contain within itself the spring-head of all rights and of all power, it follows that the State does not consider itself bound by any kind of duty toward God. Moreover, it believes that it is not obliged to make public profession of any religion; or to inquire which of the very many religions is the only one true; or to prefer one religion to all the rest; or to show to any form of religion special favor; but, on the contrary, is bound to grant equal rights to every creed, so that public order may not be disturbed by any particular form of religious belief. (See Immortale Dei, para. #25; Emphasis mine).

Pope St. Pius X: That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious form of worship, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. (See Vehementer Nos, para. #3; Emphasis mine).

All of the above is well summarized by theologian Cahill: "The Church and State recognize each others prerogatives. The State while allowing freedom of conscience and thus tolerating such non-Catholic religions as may exist within its territory, itself publicly professes the Catholic Faith. It recognizes also the higher importance of the Church's functions and engages to fulfill its own part in the union [between itself and the Church] according to Christian principles...This system existed over all Europe before the 16th century. It is...the system which exists at present in Italy, Spain...Belgium, Poland, as well as the Argentine Republic, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Paraguay, Peru, Ecuador, and practically in Columbia. [Union of Church and State is] the system most in accord with Divine Law; and the nearer the actual arrangements approach it the better for the spiritual interests of the people and for their peace and well-being even in temporal matters." (See The Framework of a Christian State, [1932], pgs. 610-611; Emphasis mine). 

Thus:

1. There is but One True Church of Christ which is for the eternal salvation of humanity.

2. Every State should be a Catholic State because error has no rights. Only that which is true and good has a right to exist. Only within the Catholic Church can salvation be found, so the public good demands that only She be recognized and promoted.

3. No one should ever be forced to accept the True Faith. Christ wants us to come to Him freely.

4. In private, people may profess error, but not publicly. The State should profess the Catholic Faith, and only Her True worship of God (and Her moral teaching) should be permitted in public. To do otherwise is to put falsehood on par with the Truth and lead souls to Hell when people are exposed to false religions. Just as those who are highly contagious with a deadly disease are quarantined to protect the people from exposure, so too with false doctrine and morals, which can infect and destroy the soul which is infinitely more valuable than the body.

5. In countries where there is no Catholic majority, the members of the Church have a duty to try and convert as many to the Faith, so as to one day effectuate a Catholic State. 

Enter Fr. John Courtney Murray

Fr. John Courtney Murray was born in 1904 in New York City. He entered the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) in 1920, and was ordained to the priesthood in 1933. He earned a Doctorate in Sacred Theology at the Gregorian University in Rome in 1937. He returned to the United States where he taught theology, and in 1941, was named editor of the Jesuit journal Theological Studies. At first, Murray was orthodox, but he soon became a dedicated Modernist.

Eventually, Murray began to advocate religious freedom as defined and protected by the Masonic First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and he eventually argued that Catholic teaching on Church/State relations no longer served contemporary society. Murray began promoting his ideas in theological journals, where he met with heavy criticism from some bishops and many fellow theologians, most notably the eminent Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, who was strongly anti-Modernist. Theologian Fenton was Professor of Dogmatic Theology at the Catholic University of America and was the editor of the influential American Ecclesiastical Review. Fenton attacked Murray's teachings as being irreconcilable with Church teaching (most notably Pope Leo XIII) on Church-State relations.

Murray taught that the West had developed the "fullness of truth" (sound familiar?) on "human dignity." This alleged "truth" demanded that people be given "moral control" over their own beliefs in religious liberty. In 1954, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office censured his teachings, demanding that he stop all writing and teaching on the topic of religious liberty. Even when censured, Murray continued to write privately on religious liberty and submitted his works to Rome, all of which were condemned.

In 1963, he was rehabilitated under Roncalli, and was brought to Vatican II as a peritus (theological expert) so that his condemned doctrines could be accepted. While at the Council, he became a friend of Archbishop Karol Wojtyla--the future "Pope" John Paul II. Murray drafted the heretical Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae which officially adopted heretical religious liberty as the doctrine of the newly founded Vatican II sect. After the Council, he taught that Catholics who "arrived at new truths(!)" about God would have to do so in conversation "on a footing of equality" with non-Catholics and atheists. He suggested greater reforms, including a restructuring of the Church, to become "less authoritarian" and more "democratic." (See https://www.library.georgetown.edu/woodstock/Murray/bio).

It has been reported that during the 1960s, Murray would "drop acid" (i.e., take LSD):

Murray’s experimentation with LSD at the dawn of the ‘Woodstock decade’ was but one sign of contradiction to that legacy of militant separatism much more intimately linked to the sex abuse and cover-up disaster than the putative tainting of priestly vocations by free love and flower power (and I cannot overstate how this brief episode in Murray’s life pales before the grandeur and prescience of his writings on church-state relations). (See irishwaterfront.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/goodstock/).

Murray died of a heart attack in 1967, less than two years after Vatican II ended.

Cardinal Ottaviani and John Courtney Murray

Information has come out recently regarding the clash between the orthodox theologian and Pro-prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, and the heterodox, censured theologian John Courtney Murray. 

Card. Ottaviani gave a speech at the Lateran University on March 2, 1953, in which he masterfully reiterated the teaching of the Church and denounced those like Murray, who sought to end Catholic countries. The ecclesiastical giant stated:

I have said, first of all, that the State has the duty of professing its religion socially. Men united socially are no less subject to God than when they are taken as individuals, and the civil society, no less than individual men, is in God’s debt, “under Whom, as Author, it is gathered together, by whose power it is preserved, by whose goodness it has received the great treasure of good things which it enjoys.”

Thus, as it is not licit for any individual to fail in his duty to God and to the religion by which God wills to be honored, in the same way, “states cannot, without serious moral offense (citra scelus) conduct themselves as if God were non-existent or cast off the care of religion as something foreign to themselves or of little moment.”

Pius XII reinforces this teaching condemning “the error contained in conceptions such as do not hesitate to absolve civil authority from all dependence upon the Supreme Being, the First Cause, and the Absolute Master both of men and of society, and from every bond of transcendent law which proceeds from God as from its primary Source, and that concede to civil authority an unlimited power of action, a power left to the ever changing wave or whims or to the sole restraints of contingent historical exigencies and of relative interests.” (Emphasis in original). 

He discussed the perennial validity of the traditional principles regarding Church and State:

These principles are firm and immovable. They were valid in the times of Innocent III and Boniface VIII. They are valid in the days of Leo XIII and Pius XII, who has reaffirmed them in more than one of his documents. Thus, with strict firmness, he has also recalled rulers to their duties, by appealing to the warning of the Holy Ghost, a warning which knows no limits of time. Pius XII speaks thus in the encyclical Mystici Corporis:

We must plead with God to grant that the rulers of peoples may love wisdom, so that this severe judgment of the Holy Ghost may never all on them: “The Most High will examine your works and search out your thoughts; because, being ministers of his kingdom, you have not judged rightly nor kept the law of justice, nor walked according to the Will of God; horribly and speedily will he appear to you: for a most severe judgment shall be for them that bear rule. For to him that is little, mercy is granted: but the mighty shall be mightily tormented. For God will not exceed any man’s person, neither will he stand in awe of any man’s greatness: for he made the little and the great, and he that equally care of all.”

Nearing the end of his speech, he gave the following summation:

In conclusion, the synthesis of the doctrines of the Church on this subject have been expounded most clearly in our day in the letter of the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and Universities sent to the Bishops of Brazil on March 7, 1950. This letter, which refers continually to the teachings of Pius XII, among other things warns against the errors of a renascent Catholic liberalism, which “admits and encourages the separation of the two powers. It denies to the Church any sort of direct power over mixed affairs. It affirms that the State must show itself indifferent on the subject of religion…and recognize the same freedom for truth and for error. To the Church belong no privileges, favors, and rights superior to those recognized as belonging to other religious confessions in Catholic countries,” etc.

(For full text of Card. Ottaviani's speech, See American Ecclesiastical Review, May 1953, pages 321-334). 

What transpired next is most interesting:

On December 6, 1953, Pius XII delivered a speech in which he stated that the question of religious freedom and tolerance now had to be placed in the context of an emergent international community and that there it was of his exclusive and final authority. Murray and his friends and advisers took these remarks to be a tactful repudiation of Ottaviani's intransigent position.

On March 25, 1954, thinking Pope Pius XII was on his side, Murray gave a speech at the Catholic University of America. He informed his audience that the cardinal's speech had evoked diplomatic protests and that he had himself been assured by a close papal adviser that it represented the merely private views of Ottaviani. The pope reacted diplomatically, of course, to preserve the cardinal's buonafigura...Two conclusions followed, Murray argued: "(1) appeal to Ottavani henceforth [must be] cautious and discriminating; (2) anyone whose theory is that of [Ottaviani] is under obligation of revising his views." The remainder of Murray's speech was a detailed exposition of the papal address, stressing the doctrinal advance it represented beyond the classic theory of tolerance. 

Cardinal Ottaviani wasted no time leaping into action having learned of Murray's speech. He went to the Holy Father with four propositions to be condemned as voted upon by the Holy Office. Pope Pius XII signed them and they were sent to Murray. On October 28, 1954, these four propositions were solemnly condemned:

a) The Catholic confessional State, professing itself as such, is not an ideal to which organized political society is universally obliged.

b) Full religious liberty can be considered as a valid political ideal in a truly democratic State.

c) The State organized on a genuinely democratic basis must be considered to have done its duty when it has guaranteed the freedom of the Church by a general guarantee of liberty of religion.

d) It is true that Leo XIII has said: ii....civitates...debent eum in colendo numine morem usurpare modumque quo coli se Deus ipse demonstravit velle" (Enc. Immortale Dei). 

Words such as these can be understood as referring to the State considered as organized

on a basis other than that of the perfectly democratic State but to this latter strictly speaking are not applicable. [ i.e., the teaching of Pope Leo XIII on the obligations of States to God is not applicable to the democratic state---Introibo]

(See jstor.org/stable/25154656?origin=JSTOR-pdf; by V2 sect priest Fr. Joseph Komonchack [ordained in 1963]). 

Komonchak's article ends with this stunning admission:

Just ten years after Murray was silenced, the Second Vatican Council was to vindicate the views for which he was censured. The Council's Decree on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae) effected the adaptation of Catholic teaching on Church and State and religious freedom for which Murray had called in his 1950 memorandum and made it clear that American Catholics could be faithful at once to Catholic principle and to the American political experiment. (Emphasis mine). 

The idea of a change of doctrine by Pope Pius XII was totally false, and traditional teaching was upheld until Roncalli and Vatican II.

Is The Teaching of DH in Continuity with Prior Teachings?

It should be clear enough that the answer is "No." However,  Marshner asserts it is, and even constitutes a "slight improvement"(!) on traditional teaching. Marshner cites to DH para. #14, that allegedly leaves untouched the restrictive powers of ecclesiastical authority.

DH #14:

In order to be faithful to the divine command, "teach all nations" (Matt. 28:19-20), the Catholic Church must work with all urgency and concern "that the word of God be spread abroad and glorified" (2 Thess. 3:1). Hence the Church earnestly begs of its children that, "first of all, supplications, prayers, petitions, acts of thanksgiving be made for all men.... For this is good and agreeable in the sight of God our Savior, who wills that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1-4). In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church. For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself. Furthermore, let Christians walk in wisdom in the face of those outside, "in the Holy Spirit, in unaffected love, in the word of truth" (2 Cor. 6:6-7), and let them be about their task of spreading the light of life with all confidence and apostolic courage, even to the shedding of their blood.

The disciple is bound by a grave obligation toward Christ, his Master, ever more fully to understand the truth received from Him, faithfully to proclaim it, and vigorously to defend it, never-be it understood-having recourse to means that are incompatible with the spirit of the Gospel. At the same time, the charity of Christ urges him to love and have prudence and patience in his dealings with those who are in error or in ignorance with regard to the faith. All is to be taken into account-the Christian duty to Christ, the life-giving word which must be proclaimed, the rights of the human person, and the measure of grace granted by God through Christ to men who are invited freely to accept and profess the faith.

What, exactly, is the Church still restricting? This is, at best, a sappy, watered down version of the Great Commission where the rights of the human person is mixed in. At the heart of the problem lies a dangerous, false, and heretical notion of "human dignity" from which these fabricated "rights" (religious liberty) allegedly spring forth. Murray and his fellow Modernists believe "truths" can be discovered "more fully." This implies that if religious toleration was evil or not sufficient because of "human dignity," it was always wrong and could not "become wrong." People have not "developed more human dignity." Human beings were, from the very beginning, made in the image and likeness of God. It doesn't become "more true" or "less true" with the passage of time. It is an implicit denial of the Indefectibility of the Church; the Church was somehow "deficient" in not teaching the "full truth" or gave something evil. However, this is impossible. 

Next, Marshner contends the Council recognizes the right of civil authority to restrict religious liberty according to the "just requirements of public order" and cites (DH 2 and 4). 

DH states in paragraph #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. 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. (Emphasis mine). 

This plainly flies in the face of all that was taught prior to the Council, and only one devoid of reason could say otherwise. DH teaches that the right to religious liberty, founded on the "dignity of the human person," persists even if the person misuses his right to religious liberty and denies the One True Church. Human dignity replaces God as the measure of what is good. Humans become "god." There are no "due limits" on public false worship. It should be banned altogether.

Finally, Marshner declares lastly the Council refuses to grant any immunity to proselytizing activities of the "hard sell" variety (DH 4).

DH #4 states that:

Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles...

Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word. However, in spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices everyone ought at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that would be dishonorable or unworthy, especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people. Such a manner of action would have to be considered an abuse of one's right and a violation of the right of others.

Therefore, Mormons can practice polytheism publicly and proselytize as long as they don't put a gun to someone's head to convert because it's "a violation of the rights of others." Error has no rights and what of the rights of God to have only His truth propagated? 

Here's some more of DH:

DH para. #6: The protection and promotion of the inviolable rights of man ranks among the essential duties of government. Therefore government is to assume the safeguard of the religious freedom of all its citizens, in an effective manner, by just laws and by other appropriate means.

Vatican II teaches here that all religions must enjoy the right to religious liberty. Implicitly, the prime value to be defended in human society is no longer the Truth, but liberty.

DH para. #7: ...that is, the freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary.

This is an implicit denial of Original Sin. Give people religious liberty, and their minds and morals will be corrupted, as Pope Pius IX taught. Vatican II assumes the opposite--all will be well with religious liberty. The propagation of error is no longer considered a sin against the common good. This is the subversion of the common good and the subversion of true morality.

DH para. #11: God has regard for the dignity of the human person whom He Himself created and man is to be guided by his own judgment and he is to enjoy freedom.

Really? Immorality and heresy are to be "enjoyed" as "freedom"? When people are damned as a result of the misuse of freedom, enjoyment will be gone forever in Hell.

Marshner's case collapses. However, let's look at what the original schema, prepared by orthodox approved theologians had to say on Church and State.

The Original Draft Reflects the Traditional Teaching of the Church

This schema (draft) below, called the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, was the product of the very best and most Anti-Modernist approved theologians under Pope Pius XII. It was never voted upon as the Modernists, led by "good Pope John," had all the original and orthodox schemata prepared for the Council scrapped, including this one. In it was the teaching on Church-State relations.

From the schema on the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (CC)

Para. #42: The good of the State itself requires that the civil power not consider itself indifferent towards religion. It was established by God to help men acquire a truly human perfection; it must, therefore, not only provide its members the opportunity to procure temporal goods, both material and cultural, but must also assist them so that the spiritual goods for leading a religious life can more easily abound. Among those goods none is to be more highly regarded than to know and acknowledge God and to fulfil the duties owed to God, for these are the foundations of all private virtue, and indeed of all public virtue as well.

These duties toward God are not to be fulfilled only by individual citizens, but also by the civil power, which in its public acts represents the civil society. For God is the author of civil society and the source of all the goods which through it flow down to every member. Although, in the order willed by Christ, liturgical worship belongs only to God's Church, still the civil society must also worship God in some social way.

In the light of its nature, it will especially do this if by procuring the common good it faithfully observes the laws of God established by the divine Majesty for this economy of salvation. This demands above all that full freedom be granted to the Church and that whatever the Church judges to hinder the attainment of the eternal goal is excluded from legislation, governing, and public activity. The goal indeed should be to make it easier to live a life on Christian principles, one conducive to eternal life.  

The teachings of heretic Murray and other censured theologians were clearly condemned. Unfortunately, false pope Roncalli had it scrapped and had Murray draft DH.

Finally, how do the Conciliar "popes" understand religious liberty? 

Vatican II Sect "Popes" and Religious Liberty

Roncalli (John XXIII):

Also among man's rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public.

(See Pacem in Terris, para. #14; Emphasis mine).

Bergoglio (Francis):

 The state must be lay. Confessional states end badly. That goes against history.

(See interview with La Croix magazine; referenced here tif.ssrc.org/2022/01/28/j-c-murray-the-vatican-and-the-lay-state-challenge)

Francis and Sheik Ahmad el-Tayeb, Grand Imam of al-Azhar, a leading authority for many Sunni Muslims, signed a document on "human fraternity," and improving Christian-Moslem relations. (See https://www.ncronline.org/news/theology/does-god-want-religious-diversity-abu-dhabi-text-raises-questions). "The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in his wisdom, through which he created human beings," the document said. Some have tried to defend this, including the Modernist Vatican, by claiming God wills false religions permissively (like other evils) and not positively. 

Don't be fooled. Read the context. Diversity of religion is listed with color, sex, language, and race. God positively wills male and female, as well as different colors, races, and languages. Yet we are to believe that religion was meant to be understood differently than the others in the same sentence? That God would positively will false sects with their false morals is the logical conclusion of religious liberty. The Vatican II sect has given power to the false sects of the world, especially Islam. 

Conclusion

The end of each Vatican II document ends thus:

"Each and every matter declared in this Dogmatic Constitution the Fathers of this Sacred Council have approved. And We by the Apostolic Authority handed down to Us from Christ, together with all the Venerable Fathers, in the Holy Ghost approve, decree and establish these things; and all things thus synodally established, We order to be promulgated unto the glory of God...I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church. There follow the signatures of the rest of the Fathers." (AAS 57 [1965], 71).

For members of the Vatican II sect, the Council is part of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, to which all Catholics must submit. However, Dr. Marshner thinks there is "wiggle room" that the past teachings can be reconciled with Vatican II.  Yet, clearly that has been shown to be false. 

Therefore, which Magisterium will he obey? On religious liberty will he obey the teaching of Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos of August 15, 1832 (para. #14):

"This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin."

Or will he obey Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae of December 7, 1965:

"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. 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."

All of us face the same choice between two opposing teachings. Both cannot be true. Nevertheless, Vatican II sect apologists  want to "prove" that blatant contradictions are actually harmonious. No wonder Pope Gregory XVI called religious liberty "insanity."