Religious Freedom not part of the Catholic Faith until 1963

  • Thread starter Thread starter KofC660
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
garbage. he did not put himself in a position to commit heresy. utter garbage. nice to know you can put yourself in the position to judge the pope as making a “mistake”. nice to know you are sitting in judgement of the Holy Father. yup, REAL nice to know. remember Christ’s words, judge NOT lest YE be JUDGED.
 
KofC660 said:
Like I said, it was Benedict XVI that put himself in the situation to commit heresy, he wasn’t necessarily an “active participant”, but he never should have put himself in that position to begin with. He should have insisted to go there with ONLY the Patriarch of Constantinople! If the pope insisted to go, and if the Turkish government insisted that he be accompanied by Mohammedans, the pope should have walked away from them when they started to pray to Mohamet and Allah.
Click to expand...
So where’s the heresy?
 
 
Concerning praying next to Muslims:

Acts 17:23 For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you:

St. Gregory VII to a Muslim:

‘Almighty God, who wishes that all should be saved and none lost, approves nothing in so much as that after loving Him one should love his fellow man, and that one should not do to others, what one does not want done to oneself. You and we owe this charity to ourselves especially because we believe in and confess one God, admittedly, in a different way, and daily praise and venerate him, the creator of the world and ruler of this world.’
 
KofC660 said:
No, he would be accused of apostasy by fellow Mohammedans.
Click to expand...
i see. i knew you would answer this. so its ok for a muslim to make the sign of the cross in a church or the vatican, but not for the pope to be in a mosque?
 
TraditionalCath said:
i see. i knew you would answer this. so its ok for a muslim to make the sign of the cross in a church or the vatican, but not for the pope to be in a mosque?
Click to expand...
Uh, yeah, except the problem wasn’t that Pope Benedict was in a mosque, the problem is that he stopped to pray next to Mohammedans.

Like I said, he should have walked away and prayed by himself.

You know, you’ve really hijacked this thread!
 
Concerning this thread in general:

As Pius XII said, “it belongs to them [theologians] to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition.”

How about we adopt this traditional approach instead of the complete novelty of trying to point out that the doctrine of living Teaching Authority is not found in Tradition?
 
KofC660 said:
Uh, yeah, except the problem wasn’t that Pope Benedict was in a mosque, the problem is that he stopped to pray next to Mohammedans.

Like I said, he should have walked away and prayed by himself.
Click to expand...
oh good grief! nice to know you can judge the pope. nice to know.
whatever. its such a scandal that he prayed next to a muslim eh?
i see. whatever.
 
Bringing this thread a little bit back on track (though I will say I am awed at the chutzpah it takes to say that worshiping your deity alongside someone who worships the same deity differently is heresy), heretics, apostates, schismatics, and non-Christians have no natural rights? There was someone else a while back who claimed that to be the case in a now-deleted thread, and added that it was morally commendable to steal from or kill these people due to their/our not having accepted Catholicism. Do you agree with that?
 
Mirdath said:
There was someone else a while back who claimed that to be the case in a now-deleted thread, and added that it was morally commendable to steal from or kill these people due to their/our not having accepted Catholicism. Do you agree with that?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not.
 
KofC660 said:
Absolutely not.
Click to expand...
Yet you claim nobody has any ‘right’ to believe other than you do, correct? If we are to have free will and the ability to choose to believe or not to believe – as mentioned in the bible – how can we not have this right?

Did pre-Christian pagans have this right? If so, what about Jesus’ coming abrogated it? His speech before sending out the seventy-two seems to indicate that while it is good to believe in him, people have a right not to – and that that right should specifically not be denied, instead that the missionaries should shake the dust from their sandals as they left.
 
SyCarl said:
Well hopefully the Roman Catholic Church will never be in a position to force its opinion on people again. I bet you would like to see the Inquisition restarted.
Click to expand...
I certainly would. Yet that is not the principle point that is being made here. Still, it would be glorious to see the Inquisition in full power. It still goes on by the way. It has eternal power but it has no government with which to cooperate.

CDL
 
Mirdath said:
Yet you claim nobody has any ‘right’ to believe other than you do, correct? If we are to have free will and the ability to choose to believe or not to believe – as mentioned in the bible – how can we not have this right?

Did pre-Christian pagans have this right? If so, what about Jesus’ coming abrogated it? His speech before sending out the seventy-two seems to indicate that while it is good to believe in him, people have a right not to – and that that right should specifically not be denied, instead that the missionaries should shake the dust from their sandals as they left.
Click to expand...
Who gives rights? Who has the absoulte right to determine what is just? Answer that correctly and you will see K of C point.

CDL
 
There’s two concepts at issue here–freedom from coercion by the state when coming to the faith, which should be free (within due limits) and proclaiming a right to profess a false religion.

The Catechism explains:

**2108 **The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,37 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.38
**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.39 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."40

37 Cf. Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum 18; Pius XII AAS 1953, 799.
38 Cf. DH 2.
39 Cf. Pius VI, Quod aliquantum (1791) 10; Pius IX, Quanta cura 3.
40 DH 7 # 3.

Again, I highly recommend reading the various links I provided above–they really help to understand this issue.
 
GregoryPalamas said:
Who gives rights?
Click to expand...
According to you, God; according to me, we have them naturally by virtue of being human.
Who has the absoulte right to determine what is just? Answer that correctly and you will see K of C point.
Click to expand...
‘Correctly’ according to Catholicism: certainly not a human being! Which is, I think, part of the issue at hand: how have these human beings seen fit to proclaim that people may not have a certain right or that the abrogation of this right already claimed by many is absolutely just?
 
I have heard of invincible ignorance as an excusing factor for those who are not Catholic, but this is the first time I have seen it displayed by someone who I presume is Catholic. I mean talk about by-product from bulls who eat hay. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top