B
benedictus2
Guest
If you hold your breath they might rush you to the emergency room, so dont
- Status
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
There are dissident Catholics, (eg. Lefebvrists) who contend that post-Vatican II teaching contradicted pre-Vatican II teaching, based upon the Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae . Ironically, Lefebvrists make this claim even though Dignitatis Humanae was signed approvingly by Msgr Marcel Levebvre.
So it appears that Msgr Levebvre, a staunch traditionalists, understood when voting at the Vatican II council that Dignitatis Humanae was in accord with pre-Vatican II doctrine (as is affirmed by current Catholic teaching).
I think one needs to be more precise about is what is meant by religious liberty.
If you mean by “religious liberty” that one is “free to embrace” and promulgate error without refutation, ecclesiastical censure or punishment by legitamite ecclesial authority in accord with Catholic law, then nobody has such a freedom. Vatican II did not contradict this teaching.
If you mean by “religious liberty,” freedom from “the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ,” (*Dignitatis Humanae, *1) then nobody has this kind of religious liberty.
If you mean by “religous liberty,” that freedom which is “necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God,” (*DH, *1) then everybody has this kind of religious liberty, which requires “immunity from coercion in civil society” (DH, 1) so they may fulfull such obligations toward God. This kind of religious liberty is that freedom which “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.” (DH).
So, I cannot force my Lefebvrist friends, against their will, to go to a licit Mass. They can certainly be canonically censured for not abiding by canon law. But they cannot be forced to go to a licit Mass against their will.
Likewise, the government of the U.S. cannot force Sabbatarians to worship on Sunday and not on Saturday (despite E.G. White’s “prophecies” to the contrary). Sabbatarians have the same “immunity from coercion in civil society” in the sense that they cannot be “forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs” as Catholics. Of course, this immunity is “within due limits.” In accordance with the pre-Vatican II condemnations of certain false kinds of religious freedom, there are “limits” for those who seek the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. So, the U.S. government can force the Aryan Nations Church in Idaho from infringing upon the human rights of Jews and other minorities under the cover of “religious liberty.”
Yet, religious liberty is not to be understood as liberty from truth, as “all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth.” (DH, 2). Nonetheless, so long as “just public order be observed,” (*DH, *2) humans have the gift of free will given to them by God, and other humans cannot coerce them to act contary to such a gift by forcing them against their will in matters religious.
So, when Russia or China hinder public teaching and witness to the Catholic faith, they violate what the Church teaches regarding religious liberty. If the civil governments of predominately Catholic countries were to inact laws in order to coerce individuals to become Catholic by forcing them to act contrary to his own beliefs, then this too would be a violation of human dignity.
Consequently, the Catholic Church has always taught the following regarding religious freedom (although churchmen have not always behaved in accord with this doctrine):
***1) freedom to worship God as God intends (ie. Catholicism), and ***
2) Immunity from being forced against one’s will to worship in any religion, either true or false, so long as just public order be preserved .
The Catholic Church has never taught:
*1) “The State must forbid non-Catholic religions”
- “Only Catholics have the right to religious liberty.”*
Nonetheless, Catholic teaching continues to affirm that civil governments can legitimately forbid activities contrary to “just public order” which falsely claim to be “religious liberty,” such as the Aryan Nations Church in Idaho.
R
reteeks21
Guest
History as a whole is disturbing, period.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I recommend the following articles by Fr. Brian Harrison on the subject, where he cogently places this teaching into its proper context…
Pius IX, Vatican II and Religious Liberty
by Fr. Brian W. Harrison
rtforum.org/lt/lt9.html#II
Vatican II and Religious Liberty, Contradition or Continuity? by Fr. Brian W. Harrison
catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/00MarApr/continuity.html
Religious Liberty: “Rights” versus "Tolerance"
rtforum.org/lt/lt16.html#II
by Fr. Brian W. Harrison
H
Hisalone
Guest
My God the Lord God of Isreal is the same today as He was yesterday and will be tomorrow.Quote:
Is the debauchery at all levels for centuries by priests, bishops cardinals and popes of God or of Satan?
Hisalone has learnt a new word “debauchery” (correctly spelt mind you) but he is not sure how to construct a sentence with it!!! He is not sure of the meaning of the word!
He is a God of holiness who expects His people to be holy. He gave of Himself to us so that we can walk in His statuates and His commandments.
He judged and chastised the children of Isreal when they departed from HIm.
If He is the same today as He was then would He not judge and chastise us?
The Roman Catholic Church has been judged but in the hardness of your heart you have not seen it.
The debauchery that was prevailant prior to 1500 turned many souls away from God and toward darkness.
Do you have no compasssion for the lost souls wich were the result of the sins of Roman heirarchy?
Yes protestants have commited every sin known to mankind.
Protestants dont make the outlandish claims that Roman Catholics do. I have been grafted unto Isreal I have not replaced her. I am a member of Christ Church not some exclusive church that denies the very body of Christ.
R
ralphinal
Guest
No issue so far.
Show it to us. Who spoke with the Authority of a Prophet to correct us? Where is the condemnation from God for our acts?
Do you have none for those lost due to the fracturing of the faith? Or for those lost to Protestant based cults?
You say that you do not make outlandish claims and then claim that the RCC has been judged and found lacking. You also claim that we deny the Body of Christ. Please provide proof for both statements.
H
Hisalone
Guest
I am a memeber of the body of Christ yet you would deny me and accuse me.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Where do Protestants fit?
I think we can rule out Apostasy right away.
I think either Incredulity or Schism is the best fit, but I’m not 100% sure.
If a protestant has been validly baptized, (and the Church teaches some of them have.) then, (depending on a number of other factors,) this definition could apply to some of the modern post-reformation step children.Applicable.
Not generally applicable, though there may be some cults or denominations that might fall into this as well.
This might be the position of a great many n-Cs/a-Cs we encounter here and have shared our most holy faith with.
In that we are all accountable for that which is revealed to us this may well mean that some of the folks that have asked honest questions and received accurate answers and still rejected or opposed the faith may find themselves accountable at judgement. The outcome of that judgement is not for us to speculate upon, but simple discernment tells us that one would want to appear before Our Lord with as little to account for as possible.
We should always follow 1st Peter 3 to insure that it is the actual facts and scriptures we offer that the person rejects and not our poor faith sharing or bad attitude.
Consider how many times we all have encountered those n-Cs/a-Cs who may have offered some accurate information, but did so in a way that displayed something less than a Christ-like demeanor?
I’m reminded of a story one of my Catholic prison guys shared with me while he was in a Faith Based Dorm program in Florida.
As the guys headed for the rec field or chow he overheard some guys from his dorm laughing about the fact that they had known that a guy in their pod was a JW and was hungry and without money in his account to buy from the canteen, and they had offered him a Ramen Noodle soup (costs about 15 - 25 cents) if he would deny his faith and “get saved”. Naturally he was offended and refused and they laughed at him and that’s when my guy heard this.
He stopped them and rebuked them, pointing out that that was not what Christ would have done based on the scriptures in Matthew 25 or Matthew 5, and they shut up.
He then went back to the dorm, went into his locker and took the guy two soups and told him that if he got hungry or needed anything else, to let him know.
I was pretty proud of the boy for that, and I think it’s a good example for us all.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Wycleff, Luther, et al., never claimed to have authority from God in the same why that the OT Prophets did. In fact, they derived their authority not from God directly but from situations.
My question was to point out that souls have been lost by the Reformation, something that you seem to ignore.
I have never, nor will I ever, deny that a validly baptised Christian is not a member of the Body of Christ. I will say that you do not participate fully, but that does not mean that you are not a member. I am sorry if I have offended you. I was pointing out that making statements that cannot or are not supported by fact is, by definition, making outlandish statements.
Now, if you wish, please show us where the Catholic Church is not the Church founded by Christ. PLease show us as well how these Reformers gained the authority.
H
Hisalone
Guest
Are you denying that Simony was a historical fact?
Simony did serious harm to the moral standing of the Roman Catholic Church. Dante Alighieri condemns simonists to the eighth circle of hell in his Inferno, where he encounters Pope Nicholas III buried upside down, the soles of his feet burning with oil, in a mock baptism. Nicholas goes on to predict the damnation of both Pope Boniface VIII, the Pope in office at the time the Divine Comedy is set, and Pope Clement V, his successor, for that sin. Writers in the early Renaissance, such as Niccolò Machiavelli and Erasmus, condemned the practice, while Blaise Pascal attacked the casuistic defenses offered by those accused of simony in his Lettres provinciales.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simony
H
Hisalone
Guest
Hus that Jesus Christ, and not the Pope, was the supreme judge.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hus
My opinion is less souls were lost because of the Reformation thtn if there had not been one. Of course there is no way of knowing
C
Church_Militant
Guest
No one has accused you of anything that I am aware of.
There is however, accountability before Our Lord for that which we have learned. You already know this, I’m sure.
We don’t know that you are really part of the Body of Christ, nor can we, (based upon so many of your posts here at CAF so far) accept you with open arms because you espouse doctrines that are unscriptural and unhistorical, so then whatever definitions from the above list may apply to you.
There are really only about 3 actual reasons that n-Cs come in here at CAF.
- They have sincere questions and seek accurate information about the Catholic Church and its teachings.
- They already know a good bit about the Catholic faith and are comfortable with both their own faith and ours and come here to make friends and have good fellowship with us. (For which we are more grateful than we can often express!)
- They are here to oppose the Catholic faith and feel it is appropriate to try to use CAF as a platform for “evangelism” and “proselytism” and do not care whether they offend Catholics with their debates (or more oftem rhetoric and polemics), nor have they even really searched this site to see if they have been fed accurate information about our most holy faith.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Like most of the Reformers, Huss had some things right. God is the final Judge. No question. He also had some things wrong, but that is not important right now.
Pope John Paul II called his burning regretable and wrong.
You are correct. There is no way to know which lead to the most lost souls.
R
Rex_Tremendae
Guest
our history is not disturbing. It is Glorious. Be proud of the Inquisitions and Crusades.
C
CWBetts
Guest
We should be thankful that the Crusades and Inquisitions were authorized. We should be ashamed at some of the excesses.
R
reteeks21
Guest
Absolutely! Nothing like the slaughter of innocent Jews in Muslims after entering Jerusalem in 1099. I’d be excited too!
B
benedictus2
Guest
You did not answer Ralphinals request for proof that the Church was been judged and found lacking.
So please provide proof when you make these terrible claims.I think a few of us are waiting for your answer.
Or is this another lie you’ve heard from somewhere that you cannot support but which you post nonetheless?
R
ron77nyc
Guest
I believe the Catholic Church is the true and original Christian Church but it was always lacking in the preaching of the true gospel. Before 1980 the Catholic Gospel did not include salvation by faith. Very few Catholics knew God’s plan of salvation. Today we have a pope who preaches the Gospel.
R
ron77nyc
Guest
This is a good explanation. A New York Times article from 1901.
query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9F00E2D71E39E733A25756C2A9679D946097D6CF
query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9F00E2D71E39E733A25756C2A9679D946097D6CF
- Status