How to reconcile this?

  • Thread starter Thread starter salival
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

salival

Guest
Someone posted this on a board I am posting on. I would apreciate some (name removed by moderator)ut.

Thanks.
In order to expose the inconsistency of the church and the intellectual dishonesty of its cult members I have decided to do provide the relevant links. Maybe I was rash to assume that everyone can use search engines or have access to a library.
From Pius 1X [section"]http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0255e.htm]section]( [url="http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0255e.htm) 3 second paragraph
Click to expand...
" From which **totally false idea ** of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,“2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.”

Compare to

“This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all people are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his/her own beliefs.”
Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae (1965 AD) § 2

He is trying to point out the contradiction.
 
Your link to Pope Pius IX’s Quanta Cura (Condemning Current Errors), 8 December 1864, didn’t work; try this one, here.

I don’t know about reconciling the two papal remarks but Pope Pius IX’s prophetic words about removing all reference to God in civic society, in the name of so-called religious liberty, seem to be fulfilled in our midst in America today:
  1. And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that “the people’s will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right.” But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?
 
Idea 1 (Quanta Cura):
Just because you make it up, doesn’t mean its right. In fact, it is probably wrong. People don’t have any kind of sovern right to “make up” what is true or false, or decide how God wants us to worship him - God decided, and that is that.

Idea 2 (Dignitatis Humanae):
You should be allowed to try to figure it out on your own, and not be *forced *into believing or practicing a certain way. God created us with free will, and that free will should be protected. Even if the answer is wrong, you should still be allowed to work out the problem.

They’re not contradictory, they are complimentary.
Make sense?

God Bless,
RyanL
 
"liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way."
Click to expand...
Perhaps Pius IX’s objection concerns the difference absolute rights and rights subject to the laws of true justice:
  1. the idea that liberty of conscience and worship are each man’s absolute personal right, even when it involves acts against of true justice, such as when the religion involves human sacrifices or polygamy. In the United States, we recognize, too, that freedom of religion is not an absolute right but a right subject to laws against murder and polygamy.
  2. the idea of “absolute liberty…whereby they [citizens] may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” In the United States we recognize this too; we recognize that freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not absolute rights but are rights subject to laws against slander and libel.
 
Todd Easton’s logic seems to effectively address the issue, assuming that the assumption built into his post is valid: Did Quanta Cura address not only freedom of conscience and belief, which is good, but also freedom run amuck, to the point of wiping-out social references to God, which is bad?

In liberal Canada, “freedom of conscience” is so far running amuck that it is killing freedom of expression: Public readings of Bible Verses condemning homosexual behavior are now being punished by the law. Pennsylvania has essentially coped Canada’s legislation, and last year arrested a group of Christians for “ethnic intimidation” when they preached to homosexuals at a homosexual rally in Philadelphia.

Dignitatis Humanae would have been recommending that freedom without that freedom running amuck.
 
Ok, but how do you reconcile the fact that The Church claimed these two things to simplify.

**"liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal **right,
-Seen as an error.

human person has a right to religious freedom
-Not seen as an error.

That VII documents also goes to great lenghts to explain how humans have the right to liberty of conscience and that even when in error they should be left ot it without cohersion.

So how can this be reconciled? :confused:
 
salival said:
**"liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal **right,
-Seen as an error.

human person has a right to religious freedom
-Not seen as an error.
Click to expand...

See here.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top