J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Where do you get your ideas of freedom from? The Church or this country’s Constitution?
- Status
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Okay, with regard to the “freedom of religion” part, I ask you, how do you reconcile that with the Church’s former teaching taking into consideration that the Church (supposedly) never changes doctrines. I made an attempt in post #27. I’d like to see yours.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
- 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. Then truly "the bottomless pit"22] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws–in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.
- Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?
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.”
-Pius IX’s Quanta Cura
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quanta_cura (read the very first sentence)
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Also, here’s a site that makes good points despite its overt anti-Catholicism:
aloha.net/~mikesch/freedom.htm
aloha.net/~mikesch/freedom.htm
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
The only stance that we can legitimately take is that freedom of religion/speech only applies to Catholics.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Maybe I’m just being philosophically nit-picky, but freedom of speech is not an inalienable, God-given right. It is a man-made extrinsic right. The following is from “Healing the Culture,” published by Ignatius press. The subject matter is euthanasia, but it applies nonetheless.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Depends upon what you mean by free? Free to choose error without consequence? No. Free to choose objectively true religion? Yes. Free to choose error without being forced to conver contrary to one’s conscience? Yes.
The Church teaches that every human person, Catholic and non-Catholic, has a right to worship in the one true Catholic religion, and a right to immunity from forced conversions. The latter is an immunity from coercion in civil society such that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs,*** within due limits***. This is not a right to sin, but a right of immunity, so long as “just public order is observed,” from forced conversions against one’s will.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
I think there are two operative words in this question that need to be explored: Free and reason.
Free: if the word is meant to imply “liberty”, then the answer is yes. God wants us to love Him by our free choice. If we were forced or coerced to love Him, it wouldn’t be love but something else. God is Love and His love is perfect, as He is perfect. It shouldn’t be must of a question to see the distinction.
“The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists, it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator.” Vatican Council II, GS 19 § 1.
Free: If the word is meant to imply “not burdened by obligations”, then the answer is no. All we have and all we are are in stewardship for God. If we reject or not rightly manage these gifts given in stewardship, there are consequences and these consequences are grave.
Reason: Reason is often confused with thought or personal interpretation. Just as God gave us freedom to love or reject Him, He gave us the gift to reason. This is one of the characteristics that separate us from the animals and the rest of creation (ie plants). However, just because I “reason” something to be so doesn’t mean it to be. I am fallible and thus can “reason” wrong conclusions or untruths.
"Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.” " CC Paragraph 157.
If one fully understands “reason” in the context of the greater truths that come from faith (See CC paragraphs 153-156), if one is FULLY informed and formed by reason, we’d be perfect/God. Since we all know we are neither Perfect nor All-knowing, we know we aren’t God. In this context, it is impossible to answer yes as only in Heaven may we be fully formed and informed.
For these reasons, based on the OP’s subsequent posts, I percieve it as a trick question. Nothing wrong w/ asking trick questions in an effort to get people to probe the issue and come to a greater understanding (this does honor to God as we try to fully use the gifts He gave us in Love and allows us to better know God which allows us to better love Him).
This being said, Jsmitty, I don’t think it “fair” to your fellow Catholics by laying in wait and then pouncing on the posters w/ your reference to Syllabus of Errors. First of all, I’d like to read this teaching by Pope Pius IX to make sure that it is being quoted in context. Just like I have learned to not take Sola Scriptural Protestants use of the Bible as a sword to “prove” a point, I’ve found misunderstandings can also be made when one doesn’t read the Teaching of the Church in context.
Secondly, the “gotcha” isn’t conducive to gaining knowledge, which would be an illegitimate use of a trick question. Catholics aspiring to live in conformance to the Teachings of the Church will pull back from the discussion thinking they might be advocating a heresy by believing we are free to choose our religion in the context of free meaning “liberty w/o coercion” and confusing the vernacular use of “reason” rather than the context/usage of “reason” by the Church in the Catechism.
While not totally appropriate, I refer you to Post #17 in a thread about “noone in Heaven until judgment day” about the dangers of taking things out of context to “prove” a point. Furthermore, using Euthanasia (always intrinsically evil) as an analogy about freedom of speech is apples to oranges in the extreme. Finally, while the most common discussion of “freedom of speech” revolves around the political right, within certain limits, freedom of speech is also a God-given right to the extent it is related to the “Dignity of Man” quote at the beginning of this post.
Free: if the word is meant to imply “liberty”, then the answer is yes. God wants us to love Him by our free choice. If we were forced or coerced to love Him, it wouldn’t be love but something else. God is Love and His love is perfect, as He is perfect. It shouldn’t be must of a question to see the distinction.
“The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists, it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator.” Vatican Council II, GS 19 § 1.
Free: If the word is meant to imply “not burdened by obligations”, then the answer is no. All we have and all we are are in stewardship for God. If we reject or not rightly manage these gifts given in stewardship, there are consequences and these consequences are grave.
Reason: Reason is often confused with thought or personal interpretation. Just as God gave us freedom to love or reject Him, He gave us the gift to reason. This is one of the characteristics that separate us from the animals and the rest of creation (ie plants). However, just because I “reason” something to be so doesn’t mean it to be. I am fallible and thus can “reason” wrong conclusions or untruths.
"Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.” “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.” " CC Paragraph 157.
If one fully understands “reason” in the context of the greater truths that come from faith (See CC paragraphs 153-156), if one is FULLY informed and formed by reason, we’d be perfect/God. Since we all know we are neither Perfect nor All-knowing, we know we aren’t God. In this context, it is impossible to answer yes as only in Heaven may we be fully formed and informed.
For these reasons, based on the OP’s subsequent posts, I percieve it as a trick question. Nothing wrong w/ asking trick questions in an effort to get people to probe the issue and come to a greater understanding (this does honor to God as we try to fully use the gifts He gave us in Love and allows us to better know God which allows us to better love Him).
This being said, Jsmitty, I don’t think it “fair” to your fellow Catholics by laying in wait and then pouncing on the posters w/ your reference to Syllabus of Errors. First of all, I’d like to read this teaching by Pope Pius IX to make sure that it is being quoted in context. Just like I have learned to not take Sola Scriptural Protestants use of the Bible as a sword to “prove” a point, I’ve found misunderstandings can also be made when one doesn’t read the Teaching of the Church in context.
Secondly, the “gotcha” isn’t conducive to gaining knowledge, which would be an illegitimate use of a trick question. Catholics aspiring to live in conformance to the Teachings of the Church will pull back from the discussion thinking they might be advocating a heresy by believing we are free to choose our religion in the context of free meaning “liberty w/o coercion” and confusing the vernacular use of “reason” rather than the context/usage of “reason” by the Church in the Catechism.
While not totally appropriate, I refer you to Post #17 in a thread about “noone in Heaven until judgment day” about the dangers of taking things out of context to “prove” a point. Furthermore, using Euthanasia (always intrinsically evil) as an analogy about freedom of speech is apples to oranges in the extreme. Finally, while the most common discussion of “freedom of speech” revolves around the political right, within certain limits, freedom of speech is also a God-given right to the extent it is related to the “Dignity of Man” quote at the beginning of this post.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Orionthehunter said:
Vatican II does not carry any weight with me until it can be demonstrated that it did not change the Church’s teaching on this issue.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Go for it. There really isn’t much context, though, considering it’s a Syllabus. He was very careful to be quite clear (the Church used to always do this) so as to not need any other context.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Why? It’s demonstrating how much Catholics don’t know about their faith. It shows how the values of this country of ours have been forcefed to us since day one to the extent that we believe things like “freedom of religion” or “freedom of speech” to be dogma, when such things are not in line with what the Church teaches. Before you jump on that last statement, remember that if the “Church” teaches something different now from what it once did, then it’s not really the Church.
Got to go to class. Later guys.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
I don’t know how you did the link to the other thread but I meant to say Post #15.
This is the actual Error listed in the Syllabus:
#15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.
My dear Jsmitty, while on its face, this Error appears to be clear and incontrovertible, a proper understanding of the Error probably requires great intellectual vigor and study of the referenced Encyclical(s) (Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.) And, one who always is on the look-out for quotes being used out of context, I require it.
In fairness to your fellow Catholics, it would be helpful for a truly honest discussion to have access to the encyclicals in English. I tried to Google them and all I got were non-English versions.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Wow. I didn’t know you held VII as invalid or weren’t assenting in Faith to the Church. This is a signifcantly more vital issue than your use of a gotcha.
Secondly, not all Catholics are called to be theologians as implied in this statement of yours “It’s demonstrating how much Catholics don’t know about their faith.”
Personally, my spiritual mission is to do my best to know God, be open to His plan for my life, to allow His love to encompass me, and to love Him as best as this sinful person can. I don’t consider it a weakness to not know every Error in context. I trust my Bishop in his Apostolic role as Teaching Shepherd to highlight issues as they become relevant today.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
This is a rather dangerous attitude to take with regard to the exercise of the authentic ordinary universal magisterium. The problem is that it places oneself into the judgment seat, when you have no such authority. The authentic judge of the Church’s past, present, and future teaching is the magisterium, the Teaching Church, not the Taught Church.
The role of the Taught Church is not to reject the authority of the Teaching Church until they can satisfy some subjective and arbitrary criteria of individual persons, but instead each and every member of the Taught Church is to continue to grapple with what the Teaching Church is authentically teaching and to give their religious assent of intellect and will.
My understanding is that Catholic doctrine of Vatican II and pre-Vatican II includes two kinds of “religious freedom”: 1) freedom to worship God as God intends, and 2) immunity from being forced against one’s will to worship in any religion, either true or false–these two kinds of religious liberty have never been condemned but are in fact professed as Catholic doctrine.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I disagree. Attributing a doctrine to this teaching without the underlying context is a common error among traditionalists.
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
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Just right-click the post number and choose “Copy Shortcut.”
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
I’ve been questioning some things lately, but still attend a Novus Ordo parish. I’ve been leaning towards the “Vatican II was only a pastoral council” stance lately because I really have no desire to cut myself off from B16, but reading the writings of these popes has startled me. And since their stance seems to be the one that the Church has always taken, I will naturally question anything contrary.
Sorry, but I don’t trust the USCCB. Peter is the Rock. I’ll listen to Rome.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Thanks Dave, you always have good resources and I’ll try and read those when I get a chance. I must admit, though, that a lot of what I’ve read by individuals trying to reconcile pre-Vat 2 teachings with post-Vat 2 ones seem to stretch this idea of “context” a little too much. They claim that such-and-such an encyclical was intended for a certain historical context and that context alone. Isn’t that saying that truth is relative, then? As Catholics, we believe that truth is absolute…not subject to opinion, place or TIME. Also, it seems as though in the context of today’s liberalism, these writings are almost prophetic and yet we largely ignore them.
- Status