Wednesday, May 25, 2016

VERY INTERESTING!

From Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Reporter, read all about it there! Here is an excerpt: 

Cardinal Gerhard Müller has said he expects the Society of St. Pius X, which has always opposed the Second Vatican Council's declarations on religious freedom and ecumenism, to “unreservedly recognize” freedom of religion as a human right, and an obligation to ecumenism. 

In an interview in the June edition of the German publication Herder Korrespondenz, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said that if one “wants to be fully Catholic, one must recognize the Pope and the Second Vatican Council.”

Cardinal Müller said he expects a recognition of all the Council declarations that deal with these issues, according to the interview, reported on the Austrian Catholic website, Kathpress, May 24.

His comments come after reports that the Society of St. Pius X, which continues to oppose key teachings of the Second Vatican Council regarding ecumenism, freedom of religion and aspects of liturgical reform, may be close to being recognized by the Holy See.

23 comments:

Marc said...

This reminds of the last time there was an impending reconciliation a few years back. Things seemed almost certain, but then the Vatican made more demands. In fact, that is the history of the Vatican's dealings with the SSPX from the very beginning -- that's why the 1988 consecrations went down the way they did.

And I do blame the Vatican on this. It can't come as a surprise to anyone there what the SSPX position is going to be on these questions: they've not softened or changed over time. It is the Vatican that appears to be presenting a moving target.

Vox Cantoris said...

I can think of not one good thing that has come from that Council.

Someone, please list them.

Some vernacular in the Mass? Discipline, Pope could have ordered it.

Friends with Jews? No Council needed for that?

Renewal of Religious life? ROFLMHO

Please, tell me.

Jan said...

It is indeed a very interesting interview. Cardinal Muller appears to be repeating almost word for word what was said by the head of Opus Dei in L'Osservatore Romano that to be Catholic you had to adhere to the Second Vatican Council:

"Msgr. Fernando Ocariz, the vicar general of Opus Dei and one of the Vatican experts involved in discussions with the Society of St. Pius X, has written a lengthy article for L’Osservatore Romano on the assent that Catholics owe to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).

“It is not pointless to recall that the pastoral motivation of the Council does not mean that it was not doctrinal--since all pastoral activity is necessarily based on doctrine,” writes Msgr. Ocariz, who has served as a consultor to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “Furthermore, within the documents of the Council it is obvious that there are many strictly doctrinal teachings: on Divine Revelation, on the Church, etc.”


Mons Brunero Gheradini, disputed this article:

Msgr. Gherardini: Vatican II is not a super-dogma
The importance and the limits of the authentic Magisterium:

"Now, in conclusion, our discussion returns to Vatican II, so as to make, if possible, a definitive statement about whether or not it is part of Tradition and about its magisterial quality. There is no question about the latter, and those laudatores [eulogizers] who for a good 50 years have tirelessly upheld the magisterial identity of Vatican II have been wasting their time and ours: no one denies it. Given their uncritically exuberant statements, however, a problem arises as to the quality: what sort of Magisterium are we talking about? The article in L’Osservatore Romano to which I referred at the outset speaks about doctrinal Magisterium: and who has ever denied it? Even a purely pastoral statement can be doctrinal, in the sense of pertaining to a given doctrine. If someone were to say doctrinal in the sense of dogmatic, however, he would be wrong: no dogma is proclaimed by Vatican II. If it has some dogmatic value also, it does so indirectly in passages where it refers back to previously defined dogmas. Its Magisterium, in short, as has been said over and over again to anyone who has ears to hear it, is a solemn and supreme Magisterium.

More problematic is its continuity with Tradition, not because it did not declare such a continuity, but because, especially in those key points where it was necessary for this continuity to be evident, the declaration has remained unproven."


http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/12/msgr-gherardini-vatican-ii-is-not-super.html

What was also interesting at the time was the involvement of Opus Dei in the discussions with SSPX. Why were they there, especially given the Opus Dei's well-known antagonism to the SSPX?

The point that is being overlooked is that traditional Catholics, whether they attend the Fraternity of St Peter Masses, the SSPX or others, are united in their views about some of the documents of Vatican II, which as Mons Gheradini points out have all but destroyed the mission of the Church

There are liberal factions in the Church that have not accepted many of the Church's teachings, the Popes or the Magisterium but nothing has been done to discipline them. They remain in good standing in the Church. Therefore, Traditionalists have a right to expect that the SSPX be treated in the same manner, despite their contrary views about Vatican II documents, which many other Catholics share.

Pope Benedict, then Cardinal Ratzinger is also on record as saying that Vatican II is not a Super Dogma, which is in line with what Mons Gheradini says.

I am in good company with Mons Gheradini and Benedict XVI.

Domingo said...

Marc is correct. I remember 1988 when the SSPX actually signed the agreement with Rome for the reconciliation but the Archbishop pulled out the next day because he just didn't trust Rome to follow through with the agreement. And yes the last time the reconciliation was announced under Pope Benedict, it fell through at the last second because of Rome making additional demands at the last second. BUT I must admit with this Pope reconciliation is possible. I don't see all the liberals in the church raising hell and threatening all the retaliation that was successful in the past to block the reconciliation, and as crazy as it seems, I side with Father Mc Donald when he said this Pope could be the one to bring the SSPX back. This Pope wont be attacked because he has liberal street cred. Do you all remember how Pope Benedict was attacked when he was the pontiff at the time of the last failed reconciliation? There were protests in the streets in Europe. They had a huge blow up in a protest parade of the Pope in a Nazi uniform. It was disgusting how the Pope was attacked over trying to bring the SSPX back into the church. With that said, the longer the SSX takes to return the worse things will be for them. At some point they will be content with being outside and will no longer desire a return. They MUST return and get to work saving the church from within. We need the cavalry to come over the hill with bugles blowing pennants flying and save us.

rcg said...

I mean no disrespect to Cardinal Mueller, but this sounds like he is testing the SSPX, trolling, or even trying derail the unification. I am not aware that SSPX is sedevaconist although some in the society have occassionally "lost it" and said such. So have members of other groups so it seems more like a troll. Is the second point even correct? Or to parse the words, one can recognise it as a Church document and pretty much ignore most of it to no harm. Again, it seems trollish.

Anonymous said...

Jan, a few days ago you and I had had a brief exchange on this blog . . . you had claimed Catholics weren't required to accept all of Vatican II, and I asked how that was possible when Pope Blessed Paul VI had said that the distinction between dogmatic and pastoral in Vatican II doesn't mean one can reject any given part of the council. You responded with 2 quotes. I've since responded to that, but since it was a few days ago you may not have seen the response. However, in light of the topic of this post, I feel it's appropriate to copy and paste my response to you (which also contains a plea to Fr. McDonald for info at the end):

Jan, you cited the following quotes:

Pope Paul VI: “There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L'Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)

Pope Benedict - then Cardinal Ratzinger to Chilean Bishops:

"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living
Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero.
The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately
chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat
it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the
importance of all the rest."

Neither of those quotes prove your claim that Catholics are free to refuse any given part of Vatican II. All those quotes essentially say is that Vatican II was pastoral rather than dogmatic. And as for your first quote, you conveniently fail to cite the rest of it. After the phrase ". . . dogmas containing the mark of infallibility . . . " Paul VI goes on to say, " . . . but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary Magisterium. This ordinary Magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual documents."

So in a nutshell, Vatican II taught via the ordinary universal Magisterium, which may or may not be infallible (I'm not well-versed in the nuances that dictate whether or not any given non-dogmatic teaching is infallible). But even if a given teaching weren't infallible and could perhaps be changed, we would still be required to accept it and give at the very least a religious submission of mind and will to it until or unless said teaching were changed, withdrawn, etc., would we not?

Father McDonald, could you shed some light on that?

Ana Milan said...

Strange that Cardinal Müller is insisting that the SSPX must fully accept Vatican II before normalisation even though Pope Francis recently said otherwise. Vatican II was said to be a Pastoral Council and not dogmatic, similar to the recent Synods on the Family. It beggars believe that such a stance is taken against a Traditional Order who the PF describes as Catholic and not schismatic, yet Cardinal Müller has nothing to say about the statement from Archbishop Gänswein that we have, in fact, a dual Papacy (one active & one contemplative) as Pope Emeritus Benedict didn't relinquish the Papal Office, only the physically active side of it. Does the Head of the CDF not regard this situation as heretical?

On top of this we are now informed that the active part of the Papacy has a still more active ghost writer who, for all intents & purposes, is the man behind that action, so that being the case surely he would be entitled to be accepted as being a third part of the Papacy that has ruined the CC and wants to similarly ruin the SSPX?

Mark Thomas said...

Gerhard Cardinal Müller's comments in question shouldn't surprise anybody as Bishop Fellay noted the following during his recent interview with Edward Pentin:

"...we have to distinguish the position of the Pope which is one thing, and then the position of the CDF. They don’t have the same approach but have the same conclusion which is: Let’s finish the problem by giving recognition to the Society."

His Holiness Pope Francis and Gerhard Cardinal Müller share the desire to regularize the SSPX. However, as Bishop Fellay has made clear, Pope Francis and "the CDF" (Cardinal Müller) differ as how to make that happen.

Bishop Fellay also noted the following last month following his 40-minute meeting with Pope Francis: Pope Francis said that he and Bishop Fellay must proceed patiently as he (Pope Francis) has to deal with Churchmen who don't share his (Pope Francis) attitude toward the SSPX. Pope Francis has to work with as well as persuade Churchmen to adopt his approach in regard to dealing with the SSPX.

That is the way of the Church. Different visions and approaches exist among us.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Marc said...

Ana, the SSPX is dealing with people who think that someone can be "fully Catholic" while simultaneously being "on the path to full communion." The law of non-contradiction means nothing to the people in the Vatican.

I hope that Cdl. Muller's comments stop the train of "reconciliation." For all we know, maybe Cdl. Muller (despite his past heterodox writings) has some benevolent reason for doing so, i.e. he secretly agrees with the SSPX and wants them to retain their freedom during these tumultuous times. Who knows...

John Nolan said...

I recognize the Second Vatican Council (one could hardly miss it!) but have reservations about certain of its documents (as did Benedict XVI). I believe, however, that it should not have been called, and that it has caused more damage to the Church than did the Protestant Reformation.

It was an event in the Church's history, and needs to be understood in historical terms. Many, if not most of the present ills can be traced back to the Council, its ethos, its agenda and its documents. Those who argue otherwise need to explain why they accept cause and effect in most historical analysis but not in this case. 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' is indeed a fallacy but it cannot be used to deny causation - it merely reminds us not to take a lazy approach.

Cardinal Mueller, for reasons of his own, does not want the SSPX to be fully reconciled, and is demanding conditions which he knows cannot be accepted.

Dialogue said...

Vox Cantoris,

That's certainly a reasonable request. I suppose familiarity with other ecumenical councils, and the historical circumstances around them, provides us a perspective on this council that limits the magical qualities so strangely, but so often, attributed to it by its groovier devotees.

In the Sixties, the West found itself at once prosperous and near annihilation. The democratization of industrial wealth and the real threat of nuclear war understandably created the circumstances for a council hoping to bring everyone together--Catholic, Protestant, Jew and Mohammedan--before it was too late. As today's talkative women would say, I get that.

But in the long run, has it accomplished it's four stated goals (a question you do not ask, but one of obvious importance for the purpose of evaluation)? I hope it will do so, but till now, it certainly has not done so. All we do is keep bouncing back and forth between one papal (and episcopal, and parochial...) interpretation of it and another. Perhaps VCII will soon become so dated that some sensible synod will direct us just to move on without further pastoral or theological reference to it.

With reluctance, I would admit that I cannot name any particular good that has certainly come from that council. If there are any such benefits, they are made difficult to discern amidst the near total collapse of Catholic faith, morals, liturgy and culture in the West.

Mark Thomas said...

We know that it is imperative that the SSPX fall in line with Vatican II. But far more important than the Council's statements on religious liberty and ecumenism is the following from the PASTORAL CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH IN THE MODERN WORLD GAUDIUM ET SPES PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS, POPE PAUL VI ON DECEMBER 7, 1965 A.D.:

30. "Others think little of certain norms of social life, for example...laws establishing speed limits..."

Forget about the SSPX's stances on religious liberty and ecumenism. Forget about the SSPX's stance on non-Catholic religions. The most important question that the SSPX must answer in regard to their stance on Vatican II is...

DOES THE SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X ACCEPT VATICAN II's TEACHING ON SPEED LIMITS? THE SOCIETY MUST ANSWER THAT QUESTION IMMEDIATELY. WHAT IS THE SSPX'S STANCE ON SPEED LIMITS?

THAT IS THEY KEY QUESTION IN REGARD TO WHETHER THE SSPX WILL ACHIEVE FULL COMMUNION WITH THE CHURCH!

But I'll tell you what...the SSPX is fortunate that I'm not Pope as I would also demand that they demonstrate their submission of mind and will to the following:

-- "Caution: Men at work" signs.

-- "Slow ahead" signs.

-- "Yield" signs.

-- "Road work ahead, next 11.2 miles" signs.

-- "Resume speed" signs.

Finally, last, but not least, does the Society accept the legitimate development of doctrine that has emerged since the 1960s in regard to...

-- "Gas, food, lodging, next exit" signs?

Vatican II has clearly renewed Church life in regard to laws and signs related to roadways. Prior to Vatican II, Catholics were mere "silent spectators" in regard to Church teachings related to traffic laws and signs. Vatican II has ushered in the New Springtime in that regard. We cannot possibly permit the Catholic Society of Saint Pius X to ignore or even question that fact.

Vatican II. Vatican II. Vatican II. Sure, the Church is in dire straits. Sure, as Pope Benedict XVI noted, in vast areas of the world, Catholicism faces virtual death.

But the most important issue in regard to the SSPX is that they must acknowledge and embrace the New Springtime associate with Vatican II. In particular, that is true in regard to the SSPX's submission to issues that deal with speed limits...and related highway issues.

The otherwise vibrant SSPX must not be permitted to obtain regularization, and, in turn, benefit the Church, which is in a state of collapse, until the Society jumps through hoops in regard to the above.

Cardinal Müller must see to that.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Henry said...

John Nolan: "it has caused more damage to the Church than did the Protestant Reformation."

It might be argued that the Reformation resulted--via the Council of Trent--in a strengthening of the Church, at least in those places where it survived intact. Whereas the result of the aftermath of Vatican II has been a disintegration of faith and liturgy everywhere on earth. Vatican II surely opened the floodgates to this devastation, if indeed the Council did not cause it directly.

Marc said...

Mark, that is your best post ever. You win the Catholic blogosphere today. Bravo, sir!

Mark Thomas said...

Marc, thank you. I had to vent my frustration (I decided to go with a poor attempt at humor) after reading about Cardinal Müller's stance on the SSPX and the need for the Society to "recognize" Vatican II. We are more than 50 years removed from the end of the Council. To borrow Vox's comments, "I can think of not one good thing that has come from that Council. Someone, please list them."

Why on earth, at least in regard to the SSPX's regularization, do Churchmen continue to refer to Vatican II? The Church is in shambles. Pope Francis has declared that the Society is Catholic. In regard to the SSPX, Pope Francis last September noted that "several Brother Bishops have told me of their good faith and sacramental practice..." Therefore, let's knock off the nonsense about the SSPX and the Society's "recognition" of Vatican II.

It is very difficult, at least for me, to continue to read and hear about our need to embrace a 1962-1965 A.D. Council that has failed dramatically to renew the Church.

Conversely, at their chapels and via the TLM, the Society has renewed the life of the Church. Why, then, are we talking about Vatican II?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Jan said...

Anonymous at 1.06 pm Catholics are required to accept dogma. I quoted those passages to show that Vatican II was a pastoral council and there was nothing declared dogmatic.

There are a number of documents that seem to depart from Church teaching. One of those is Dignitatis Humanae on religious freedom, part of which states:

“Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious” (No.3).
...

“right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature” (No.2).

Ironically, under Dignitatis Humanae it appears that the SSPX and other Catholics are in conscious free to dissent from Vatican II.

It seems that some want to have their cake and eat it too. Catholics are being told that they must accept Vatican II and all its documents but by that are denying the fact that Dignitatis Humanae clearly gives the SSPX and others the religious freedom in conscience to dissent from it ...

Marc said...

To put Jan's argument in another way, we are constantly told that Vatican II must be interpreted in light of Tradition and that doing so will result in complete continuity. If that is the case, then whether one factors in the document of Vatican II or not, one is left with the Tradition. To "not accept" Vatican II is to simply eliminate the confusion that arises from trying to square the documents with the Tradition to render from them a traditional reading, opting instead to simply look to clearer expositions of the tradition in earlier documents. In other words, if Vatican II is a restatement of the traditional teaching, then whether one accepts Vatican II or not, one believes the same tradition.

The fact that certain people in the Vatican are trying to force some "acceptance" of Vatican II from the SSPX is evidence that they are being disingenuous when they claim the documents are consistent with the tradition.

Anonymous said...

Jan, you haven't answered my question. Second, as to the religious liberty issue, allow me to quote from a previous comment from a few years ago on this same blog regarding that very issue:

And then as long as the subject of religious liberty has been brought up, I discovered that that same topic has been brought up previously on here and commented on. I noticed a previous comment from about 3 years ago by someone who has apparently done a lot of research into the matter. I hope he won't mind me copying and pasting what they said:

Some claim Dignitatis Humanae conflicts with Quas Primas or Quanta Cura. Actually, there's no conflict. Quas Primas and Quanta Cura were against the Freemasonry idea of religious freedom. That's what the Church teaches against, always has, and always will. Dignitatis Humanae was against COMMUNIST dictatorships that FORCED their people to be godless.

Do you remember the time of Dignitatis Humanae? Does the Soviet Empire tell you something? How about Catholic Poland, Catholic Lithuania under Communist slavery? Or millions of Christians in Ukraine, Vietnam, Cuba, Slovenia, etc. under Communism and official atheism?

It is extremely easy: Quas Primas and Quanta Cura were against Freemasonry states; Dignitatis Humanae was against Communist slavery that forced their people to live without God.

Actually, the Catechism of the Catholic Church harmonizes the teachings of Quas Primas, Quanta Cura, and Dignitatis Humanae very well:

2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,(37 Cf. Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum 18; Pius XII AAS 1953,799) but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right (Pius XII, 6 December 1953).

2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner (Cf. Pius VI, Quod aliquantum (1791) 10; Pius IX, Quanta cura 3). The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order" (cf Pius IX, enc. Quanta cura).

So you see? There's no moral freedom to choose a religion. All is about a political freedom so Communist states do not impose anti-God teaching.

"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. (35) 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(36) and apostolic courage, even to the shedding of their blood" (Dignitatis Humanae).

Joe Potillor said...

The only good thing from Vatican 2, was better relations with Eastern churches...restoring traditional eastern praxis and theology has been a good thing...

Dialogue said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dialogue said...

Joe,

As usual, you make a good point.

Jan said...

Anonymous at 10:35. I believe I have answered your question. I am saying that Catholics have to believe the infallible dogmatic teaching of the Church. As Vatican II was not being a dogmatic council and only pastoral, Catholics are only bound to believe those parts of the council that reaffirmed traditional Catholic teaching.

Cardinal Brandmuller made the point during the discussions with the SSPX reported by Catholic Culture:

"The Second Vatican Council’s declarations on non-Christian religions and religious freedom do not contain “binding doctrinal content,” Cardinal Walter Brandmuller said at a press conference on May 21.

The retired president of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, along with Archbishop Agostino Marchetto and Father Nicola Bux, is the coauthor of a newly published book, Le ‘Chiavi’ di Benedetto XVI per interpretare il Vaticano II [Benedict XVI’s ‘Keys’ for Interpreting Vatican II].

Stating that the conciliar documents have differing degrees of authority, Cardinal Brandmuller said that “there is a huge difference between a great constitution and simple declarations.”

“Strangely enough, the two most controversial documents [on religious liberty and relations with non-Christian religions] do not have a binding doctrinal content, so one can dialogue about them,"

The head of Opus Dei stated:

"A number of innovations of a doctrinal nature are to be found in the documents of the Second Vatican Council: on the sacramental nature of the episcopate, on episcopal collegiality, on religious freedom, etc. These innovations in matters concerning faith or morals, not proposed with a definitive act, still require religious submission of intellect and will, even though some of them were and still are the object of controversy with regard to their continuity with earlier magisterial teaching, or their compatibility with the tradition."


So, admitted there are a "number of innovations" and some documents "still are the object of controversy". The view of Conservatives in the Church is that, despite this, Catholics have to submit to them. On the other hand, the Traditionalists in the Church hold the view that where these documents depart from the traditional teaching of the Church that Catholics do not have to so submit.

In any event, the teaching of the Church, as far as conscience is concerned, trumps the views of the Conservatives.

Jan said...

Anonymous at 10:35. I believe I have answered your question. I am saying that Catholics have to believe the infallible dogmatic teaching of the Church. As Vatican II was not being a dogmatic council and only pastoral, Catholics are only bound to believe those parts of the council that reaffirmed traditional Catholic teaching.

Cardinal Brandmuller made the point during the discussions with the SSPX reported by Catholic Culture:

"The Second Vatican Council’s declarations on non-Christian religions and religious freedom do not contain “binding doctrinal content,” Cardinal Walter Brandmuller said at a press conference on May 21.

The retired president of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, along with Archbishop Agostino Marchetto and Father Nicola Bux, is the coauthor of a newly published book, Le ‘Chiavi’ di Benedetto XVI per interpretare il Vaticano II [Benedict XVI’s ‘Keys’ for Interpreting Vatican II].

Stating that the conciliar documents have differing degrees of authority, Cardinal Brandmuller said that “there is a huge difference between a great constitution and simple declarations.”

“Strangely enough, the two most controversial documents [on religious liberty and relations with non-Christian religions] do not have a binding doctrinal content, so one can dialogue about them,"

The head of Opus Dei stated:

"A number of innovations of a doctrinal nature are to be found in the documents of the Second Vatican Council: on the sacramental nature of the episcopate, on episcopal collegiality, on religious freedom, etc. These innovations in matters concerning faith or morals, not proposed with a definitive act, still require religious submission of intellect and will, even though some of them were and still are the object of controversy with regard to their continuity with earlier magisterial teaching, or their compatibility with the tradition."


So, admitted there are a "number of innovations" and some documents "still are the object of controversy". The view of Conservatives in the Church is that, despite this, Catholics have to submit to them. On the other hand, the Traditionalists in the Church hold the view that where these documents depart from the traditional teaching of the Church that Catholics do not have to so submit.

In any event, the teaching of the Church, as far as conscience is concerned, trumps the views of the Conservatives.

I am sorry but I don't know enough about freedom of religion to be able to add to comments already made by others on the subject.