Catechism Error?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aquinasg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Passer by, Vatican II can be reconciled with previous Popes, but not that paragraph from the CCC. Again, if “especially in religious matters” means “true religious matters”, than the second sentence in the paragraph makes no sense.

It doesn’t say “they have a right to be free from force” but a right to do wrong.
 
aquinasg said:
1747 The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in religious and moral matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of man. But the exercise of freedom does not entail the putative right to say or do anything.
That’s from the new Catechism. Does it not clearly say that people have a right to practice false religions. I know VII only said “a right to freedom from coercion”, which is a protective right, not a right to do something wrong. But the CCC is different. If “especially in religious matters” means “only correct religious beliefs” than the second sentence makes no sense.
Click to expand...
The “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” which was first published correctly in the USA in March 2000 is free of error.

One must take the entire section of the CCC into consideration to insure the exact/accurate interpretation. The CCC is very clear.
It might be helpful if you look up the specific word (in this case “freedom”) in the index in the back. It will list most paragraphs on the same topic for a complete explanation.

It does not say its OK to practice false religions.

**CCC - " 2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error, 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. " **

This CCC is truly a gift from the Magisterium - free of human error or bias.
 
We’re talking about univeral principles here Rencel about having a right to do wrong
 
So, what are you going to do about it? Go to every non-Catholic in the world, and force them to convert? If they say no, then what? Kill then? :rolleyes:
 
1747 goes beyond 2108 by saying “The right to the EXERCISE of freedom…” See my point???
 
No Scott. You have a right to be free from force, but not a right to do wrong.

Wow. John Paul II’s Catechism has an error. I am really surprised
 
aquinasg said:
We’re talking about univeral principles here Rencel about having a right to do wrong
Click to expand...
That’s right, universal principles. What we’re talking about is a basic human right Aquinasg. Do you not appreciate the right to choose Catholicism? I certainly do. Who am I to deny the next person the right to choose and practice their faith. It is not my right to deny the next person the right to chose their religion. With all due respect, it is very very selfish to deny the next person a right that you demand yourself just because they don’t agree with you. Jews are not wrong to be Jewish. Muslims are not wrong to be Muslim. Baptists are not wrong to be Baptists. Lutherans are not wrong to be Lutherans. They deserve the same respect and consideration that a Catholic gives a fellow Catholic. Let’s start with the basics: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Try it sometime.
 
ANNE_2 said:
The “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” which was first published correctly in the USA in March 2000 is free of error.

One must take the entire section of the CCC into consideration to insure the exact/accurate interpretation. The CCC is very clear.
It might be helpful if you look up the specific word (in this case “freedom”) in the index in the back. It will list most paragraphs on the same topic for a complete explanation.

It does not say its OK to practice false religions.

CCC - " 2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error, 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.
Click to expand...
Thank you for clearing everything up now and showing that it in no way contradicts the past Popes.
 
aquinasg said:
No Scott. You have a right to be free from force, but not a right to do wrong.

Wow. John Paul II’s Catechism has an error. I am really surprised
Click to expand...
Practicing one’s faith is not doing wrong. Trying to stifle another’s freedom by denying their right to choose their religion is a very big wrong.
 
Well Scott, I am starting to consider sedevacantism actually. Rence, we respect others, but Muslims are wrong, Jews are wrong, ect. Nobody seems to see the force of my arguments here. One section the Catechism contradicting another section
 
aquinasg said:
Well Scott, I am starting to consider sedevacantism actually. Rence, we respect others, but Muslims are wrong, Jews are wrong, ect. Nobody seems to see the force of my arguments here. One section the Catechism contradicting another section
Click to expand...
Oh I see the force of your arguements, I just don’t agree with you. Being able to choose one’s religion is a basic human right. I don’t get how someone would want the right to choose their religion but deny it to the next person. 🤷
 
But you have to understand that “Being ABLE to choose one’s religion” is DIFFERENT from “the right to choose their religion”. Do you believe all religions are true??
 
aquinasg said:
But you have to understand that “Being ABLE to choose one’s religion” is DIFFERENT from “the right to choose their religion”. Do you believe all religions are true??
Click to expand...
They contain some truth, just not all of it. For example, the Judaism does have truth to it, just not all of it. Lutheranism does have truth to it, just not all of it. And it’s just as important to those individuals as it is to us.
 
That’s just the point, there isn’t a contradiction and it does not say that they are right in practicing their faiths, it says they have the right to practice their faith. The paragraph you pointed out addresses more freedom of ideas and the freedom to believe what you want whether it is 2+2=100 or that scientology is correct. Later on the Catechism explains that this religious freedom/freedom of ideas does not give someone the right to be wrong. Just like how you have the option to say 2+2=100 does not mean you will be right if you do, but it does keep you from being murdered at the time for saying that.
 
aquinasg said:
Well Scott, I am starting to consider sedevacantism actually. Rence, we respect others, but Muslims are wrong, Jews are wrong, ect. Nobody seems to see the force of my arguments here. One section the Catechism contradicting another section
Click to expand...
There is no contradiction in the CCC.
 
aquinasg said:
1747 goes beyond 2108 by saying “The right to the EXERCISE of freedom…” See my point???
Click to expand...
You clearly still have not read all the pargraphs on “freedom” listed in the index. (pg 795)

You are misinterpreting #1747, poster Heuchler got it right.
Please re-read his 7:48 pm post.

When any of us think we know more than the Church Magisterium, we absolutely need to re-read the appropriate paragraphs. (I can guarantee we would be the one’s who are wrong.)

Prior to returning to the Catholic Church, my husband and I read and studied the CCC in its entirety. Again, there are no contradictions and no errors.
And one paragraph does not cancel out, nor is more important than the others.
 
aquinasg said:
We’re talking about univeral principles here Rencel about having a right to do wrong
Click to expand...
I think you have misunderstood. VII says the following:-
  1. 1.“This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a
    right to religious liberty    . Liberty of this kind consists in
    this, that all persons should be immune from coercion either on
    the part of individuals, or of social societies, and of any
    human power at all, and this in such a way that in a religious
    matter neither should anyone be forced to act against his
    conscience, or impeded from acting according to his conscience
    privately and publicly. either alone or in association with
    others, within due limits.”
Click to expand...
So how is that different from what the Catechism says? If its not that different, then you already know that it is consistent with early church teachings.
 
If, instead of reading this summary paragraph, we go into the actual section which it is a summary of, we get a bit of a clearer picture, thanks to context.

Paragraph 1738

“Freedom is exercised in relationships between human beings. Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority within the limits of the common good and public order.”

The right to religious freedom is not an absolute right granted by God. The right to religious freedom is a common-sense right recognized by human beings,

An earlier paragraph states that freedom is the condition for judgment of human actions: 1732 “…freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.” Thus, if one fails to use that freedom well, even in the realm of religion, they can be rightly judged for it.

In short, as has often been said, ‘Error has no rights. People do.’

What Pius IX is condemning is not a natural right to religious freedom, but religious indifferentism, the idea that it does not matter what religion one chooses. But the Catechism, while teaching that there is a right to religious freedom, does not say that the choices one makes in this regard are without consequences. This can be seen by looking at the rest of the condemnations which Bl. Pius makes in the same section. “Free” in the proposition as he condemned it, is more likely to mean, freedom in the sense of a free choice in which it does not matter what choice one makes.

Furthermore, merely citing the Syllabus of Errors is one of the most unhelpful things in the world. The reason the citations are there, for each condemned article, is so that people may go back to the original text, and understand the complete context of what the Pope was saying, because the context matters. A lot. Unfortunately, I could only find Maxima Quidem in Italian, which I don’t read. Multiplices inter is a confirmation of the condemnation of Freemasonry, where again, the Pope warns against indifferentism, and exhorts the bishops to struggle against something which is seen as a threat to the Church. Religious freedom doesn’t mean that all ‘religious’ activities are permitted, even as moral freedom does not invalidate the civil law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top