Religious Freedom not part of the Catholic Faith until 1963

[BobCatholic]

Being next to, gesturing, and facing the same way.

The pope should have turned around, walked away, and blessed himself with the Sign of the Cross.

The fact that Benedict XVI just kind of stood there, and gestured like a Mohammedan was enough to put himself in a condition of heresy.

What heresy? Please show me the heresy that he committed.

IIRC, one doesn’t COMMIT a heresy, one commits a sin. One promulgates or believes a heresy.

About worship: Did the Pope offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the mosque? If not, what act of worship did he do?

 

[rr1213]

Still, it would be glorious to see the Inquisition in full power.

That’s just plain wrong. Next you’ll be advocating bringing back the Soviet Gulags, abrogating the First Amendment and restoring local cinema censor boards.

 

[Church_Militant]

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

Yeah Riiight…

 

[djrakowski]

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.

Whoa… fortunately, this does not seem to be the opinion of the majority of Catholics (hopefully, not even the majority of Catholics who post on these forums).

 

[Genesis315]

From Pope John XXIII Encyclical Pacem in Terris:

Until this point, the Catholic Church NEVER recognized man’s “right” “to worship God in accordance…of his own conscience”.

Yes it did. Pope Leo XIII explains the Catholic undestanding of this doctrine (you seem to be reading it through a Liberal lens–I suggest you adopt the Catholic one):
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html
%between%
30. Another liberty is widely advocated, namely, liberty of conscience. If by this is meant that everyone may, as he chooses, worship God or not, it is sufficiently refuted by the arguments already adduced. But it may also be taken to mean that every man in the State may follow the will of God and, from a consciousness of duty and free from every obstacle, obey His commands. This, indeed, is true liberty, a liberty worthy of the sons of God, which nobly maintains the dignity of man and is stronger than all violence or wrong - a liberty which the Church has always desired and held most dear.

And so does Pius XI:
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge_en.html

1. The believer has an absolute right to profess his faith and live according to its dictates. Laws which impede this profession and practice of faith are against natural law. Parents who are earnest and conscious of their educative duties, have a primary right to the education of the children God has given them in the spirit of their faith, and according to its prescriptions. Laws and measures which in school questions fail to respect this freedom of the parents go against natural law, and are immoral.

 

[KofC660]

Yes it did. Pope Leo XIII explains the Catholic undestanding of this doctrine (you seem to be reading it through a Liberal lens–I suggest you adopt the Catholic one):
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html
%between%
30. Another liberty is widely advocated, namely, liberty of conscience. If by this is meant that everyone may, as he chooses, worship God or not, it is sufficiently refuted by the arguments already adduced. But it may also be taken to mean that every man in the State may follow the will of God and, from a consciousness of duty and free from every obstacle, obey His commands. This, indeed, is true liberty, a liberty worthy of the sons of God, which nobly maintains the dignity of man and is stronger than all violence or wrong - a liberty which the Church has always desired and held most dear.

And so does Pius XI:
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge_en.html

1. The believer has an absolute right to profess his faith and live according to its dictates. Laws which impede this profession and practice of faith are against natural law. Parents who are earnest and conscious of their educative duties, have a primary right to the education of the children God has given them in the spirit of their faith, and according to its prescriptions. Laws and measures which in school questions fail to respect this freedom of the parents go against natural law, and are immoral.

Keep reading: vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html

1. From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man.

 

[Genesis315]

Keep reading: vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html

I did. You completely missed the point because for some unknown reason, you use the Catholic lens for Leo XIII but not for John XXIII–the Catholic understanding of freedom of conscience is what is being taught by Bl. John XXIII, not the Liberal one you keep trying to make him say. You have to read the idea of “Liberty of conscience” or “freedom of religion” in the Catholic sense–these are perfectly good concepts which were unfortunately given perverted meanings by non-Catholics–you have to accept them as the Church does, not as the world does.
Conscience, in Catholic understanding, is not reason or feeling or any other mushy things that let you do anything you want without any consequence. Conscience has rights only because it has duties and obligations–the right is not unconditional, as Leo XIII rightly said (or as the Catechism aslo states). I posted a bunch of links earlier in this thread that explain the Catholic understanding versus the Liberal understanding you are trying to give it–stop doing that and look at them through Catholic eyes, not Liberal ones.

 

[KofC660]

I did. You completely missed the point because for some unknown reason, you use the Catholic lens for Leo XIII but not for John XXIII–the Catholic understanding of freedom of conscience is what is being taught by Bl. John XXIII, not the Liberal one you keep trying to make him say. You have to read the idea of “Liberty of conscience” or “freedom of religion” in the Catholic sense–these are perfectly good concepts which were unfortunately given perverted meanings by non-Catholics–you have to accept them as the Church does, not as the world does.
Conscience, in Catholic understanding, is not reason or feeling or any other mushy things that let you do anything you want without any consequence. Conscience has rights only because it has duties and obligations–the right is not unconditional, as Leo XIII rightly said (or as the Catechism aslo states). I posted a bunch of links earlier in this thread that explain the Catholic understanding versus the Liberal understanding you are trying to give it–stop doing that and look at them through Catholic eyes, not Liberal ones.

My apologies, with all the discussion on the heresies of Pope Benedict XVI, I missed that post. I found it, and I will read through the documents to which you linked.

 

[Genesis315]

Additionally, man must be free to fulfill his duties and exercise his authentic rights (as understood by Catholic doctrine) and to come to the truth–and he cannot be coerced into doing these things.

Pius XII:
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html

1. Though We desire this unceasing prayer to rise to God from the whole Mystical Body in common, that all the straying sheep may hasten to enter the one fold of Jesus Christ, yet We recognize that this must be done of their own free will; for no one believes unless he wills to believe.[198] Hence they are most certainly not genuine Christians[199] who against their belief are forced to go into a church, to approach the altar and to receive the Sacraments; for the “faith without which it is impossible to please God”[200] is an entirely free “submission of intellect and will.”[201] Therefore, whenever it happens, despite the constant teaching of this Apostolic See,[202] that anyone is compelled to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, Our sense of duty demands that We condemn the act. For men must be effectively drawn to the truth by the Father of light through the spirit of His beloved Son, because, endowed as they are with free will, they can misuse their freedom under the impulse of mental agitation and base desires.

Leo XIII
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_01111885_immortale-dei_en.html

And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, “Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will.”

Paul III:
papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm
…the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect…that the said Indians and other peoples should be converted to the faith of Jesus Christ by preaching the word of God and by the example of good and holy living.

Bl. Gregory X:
papalencyclicals.net/Greg10/g10jprot.htm
Even as it is not allowed to the Jews in their assemblies presumptuously to undertake for themselves more than that which is permitted them by law, even so they ought not to suffer any disadvantage in those [privileges] which have been granted them. Although they prefer to persist in their stubbornness rather than to recognize the words of their prophets and the mysteries of the Scriptures [which, according to the Church, foretold the coming of Jesus], and thus to arrive at a knowledge of Christian faith and salvation; nevertheless, inasmuch as they have made an appeal for our protection and help, we therefore admit their petition and offer them the shield of our protection through the clemency of Christian piety. In so doing we follow in the footsteps of our predecessors of blessed memory, the popes of Rome – Calixtus, Eugene, Alexander, Clement, Innocent, and Honorius.
We decree moreover that no Christian shall compel them or any one of their group to come to baptism unwillingly. But if any one of them shall take refuge of his own accord with Christians, because of conviction, then, after his intention will have been manifest, he shall be made a Christian without any intrigue. For, indeed, that person who is known to have come to Christian baptism not freely, but unwillingly, is not believed to posses the Christian faith.

In addition, no one shall disturb them in any way during the celebration of their festivals, whether by day or by night, with clubs or stones or anything else. Also no one shall exact any compulsory service of them unless it be that which they have been accustomed to render in previous times.

 

[Genesis315]

My apologies, with all the discussion on the heresies of Pope Benedict XVI, I missed that post. I found it, and I will read through the documents to which you linked.

No problem–it’s funny, if you read the letter by Cardinal Newman in that list, you can see that when Pope Bl. Pius IX was condemning “liberty of conscience” they thought *he *was teaching some erroneous novelty, because before then conscience was such a Catholic idea–but, as Newman explains, he of course was condemning the Liberal version, not the Catholic one

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

From Pope John XXIII Encyclical Pacem in Terris:

Until this point, the Catholic Church NEVER recognized man’s “right” “to worship God in accordance…of his own conscience”.

Until people realize that the Faith doesn’t teach humanistic rights, and start teaching their children that the Faith is not a humanistic organization, the Catholic Church will continue to teeter and sink into the abyss of the world.

Whether you are a “humanist” worshiping at a Novus Ordo Mass or a humanist worshiping at a Vetus Ordo Mass, you still aren’t a “Catholic”.

Then the CC fell over the edge of the abyss aeons ago.​

You do know that the Church allows other Christians to receive ecclesiastical sepulture ? Here’s the proof:

• 120. In the prudent judgment of the local Ordinary, the funeral rites of the Catholic Church may be granted to members of a non-Catholic Church or ecclesial Community, unless it is evidently contrary to their will and provided that their own minister is unavailable, and that the general provisions of Canon Law do not forbid it.
  The source is here: DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF
  PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM

JP2 had no difficulty worshipping at ecumenical services - presumably he was not a Catholic. Which is even further removed from being Catholic than than accepting, & offering, the Mass according to the revised Missal. From which the conclusion follows that we haven’t had a Pope for at least 25 years - longer, in fact. That sort of reasoning:

• unchurches the vast majority of Roman Rite Catholics
• makes the Papacy vacant
• make the Cardinals not cardinals
• empties a lot of bishoprics
• abolishes the validity of millions upon millions of sacramental actions
• voids a lot of annulments of marriage
• undoes the authority of two Codes of Canon Law
• undermines hundreds of canonisations
• invalidates the erection, division, & union of many dioceses

• it reduces the Church to rubble So where do we go ?

Maybe I should inform my bishop that:

• he is not a bishop
• or a cardinal
• or an archbishop
• he has no jurisdiction
• has offered over 20 years of mostly invalid sacraments

Why am I not convinced ? Your premise is invalid - so the conclusion is too.

 

[jimmy]

Until people realize that the Faith doesn’t teach humanistic rights, and start teaching their children that the Faith is not a humanistic organization, the Catholic Church will continue to teeter and sink into the abyss of the world.

Recently I have been thinking about this alot. The discussion of rights’ is irrelevant to Christianity but it seems that modern Catholicism is dogmatizing these ‘rights’. It is not because a person has a ‘right’ that we let people worship according to their conscience, it is because Christian charity says we should let them worship according to their conscience.

I have heard that the USCCB has recently said that voting against the immigration bill is a violation of ‘human rights’. I find this to be based on a false philosophy that has lead to the current problems within the Church and outside the Church. Rather than focus on a persons potential communion with God, they focus on their rights independant of God.

I basically view life as a choice between two ways; the way of light and the way of darkness. The way to communion with God and the earthly, godless and hedonistic way to destruction. Rights are irrelevant. Christ says if someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him your left.

So to sum up, rights are irrelevant and the discussion of them misses the point. We have a certain dignity because we are created in the image and likeness of God, but God did not create us with rights apart from Himself. He created us for union with Himself.

But I wouldn’t go as far as you would as say that someone is not Catholic if they believe that someone has certain rights.

 

[TraditionalCath]

My apologies, with all the discussion on the heresies of Pope Benedict XVI, I missed that post. I found it, and I will read through the documents to which you linked.

there are no heresies with pope benedict xvi. none

 

[porthos11]

This is not about the concept of “free will”.

This is about the concept of “natural rights”, as the humanists call them.

The Church teaches that the religious “natural right” of mankind is to worship God as prescribed by the Catholic Faith, and no other.

Modern humanism, and this encyclical by Pope John XXIII states that man’s religious “natural right” is to worship God as his conscience deems fit.

Catholicism isn’t a modern humanistic philosophy, it’s quite the opposite.

I think all the Pope meant was that people are not to be persecuted for their religious beliefs, even if they are the wrong ones. In that sense, they have the “right” to practice their false religions.

 

[jimmy]

To be fair, even popes before John XXIII wrote about some humanistic rights. Like for example, Pope Leo XIII in one of his encyclicals(can’t recall which one it was) wrote about a persons ‘right’ to own property. Maybe I will check out the source and return with the encyclical.

And to clarify, I am no traditionalist.

 

[TraditionalCath]

To be fair, even popes before John XXIII wrote about some humanistic rights. Like for example, Pope Leo XIII in one of his encyclicals(can’t recall which one it was) wrote about a persons ‘right’ to own property. Maybe I will check out the source and return with the encyclical.

And to clarify, I am no traditionalist.

iam, and i totally disagree with k of c!

 

[jimmy]

iam, and i totally disagree with k of c!

OK, I was assuming that K of C is a traditionalist by his statements about those who hold to these views of humanistic rights. I didn’t say all traditionalists would agree with him. But it is generally traditionalists who oppose the right to freedom of belief.

 

[TraditionalCath]

OK, I was assuming that K of C is a traditionalist by his statements about those who hold to these views of humanistic rights. I didn’t say all traditionalists would agree with him. But it is generally traditionalists who oppose the right to freedom of belief.

guess i must be the oddball then?

 

[jimmy]

guess i must be the oddball then?

Did you not read my post or are you just misunderstanding what I said? To repeat what I said above, I never said all traditionalists would agree with K of C.

 

[TraditionalCath]

Did you not read my post or are you just misunderstanding what I said?

i read it. i guess i was so mad about all this heresy accusations in this post that i didn’t get what you said.