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.
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.
That is understandable. I can see why you would get angry. I agree with you on that point and I would never call pope John Paul II or John XXIII heretics even though I might think the philosophical view that supports humanistic rights is misguided.
 
Catholic teaching is often developed in response to errors. Catholic teaching on human rights *had *to be emphasized and developed because the Fascists, Nazis, and Communists were trampling all over human dignity and true rights and the Liberals and secular humanists were offering the world a totally warped version of them. It was the duty of the Church to present the truth on this matter.
 
i was not angry as in anger anger, i was in a type of different anger. do you know what i mean? not hate filled. i was indignant that anyone would EVER accuse the Holy Father of heresy or putting himself in a situation of heresy!
 
Catholic teaching is often developed in response to errors. Catholic teaching on human rights *had *to be emphasized and developed because the Fascists, Nazis, and Communists were trampling all over human dignity and true rights and the Liberals and secular humanists were offering the world a totally warped version of them. It was the duty of the Church to present the truth on this matter.
I don’t find that to be a satisfactory answer to the problem. They have perpetuated a philosophy that may be misleading. I see what you are saying. The secular humanists could have possibly led to a mass rejection of the Christian faith. But isn’t that what has happened anyway? Our Christian society has been completely rejected. I think that the Church’s support of humanistic rights has supported the secularization of the US and Europe. Now everyone is fighting for their own rights. There is no sense of self-sacrifice because I have the right to whatever I have and whatever I want. They have no sense of the Spirit acting in the world. I think that rather than having ‘rights’ as our guides we should have truth and charity, the mind and the heart, as our guides. They never contradict.

But I could see my view - a rejection of ‘rights’ as a theological matter - being very unfavorable to the average layman. And I could also see it having negative affect on any influence the Catholic Church has on politics.
 
Here are some CAF rules in apologetics that K of C might want to consider under banned topics:

Here are some violations of CAF’s rules:

19: Identifying individual parishes, clergy, or hierarchs as “unfaithful to the Magisterium”, guilty of “liturgical abuse”, or otherwise engaged in unacceptable or unpopular practices, based on personal “knowledge” or opinion​

25 False statements maliciously made to defame another’s reputation​

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2363920&postcount=9

Is it not malicious to accuse the Holy Father of heresy or putting himself in a situation of heresy? does that not defame him? not just that, but identifying a person in his position ( heirarchy ) as engaged in an act of heresy based on K of C’s opinion? is that not a violation of CAF’s rules?
 
Here are some CAF rules in apologetics that K of C might want to consider under banned topics:

Here are some violations of CAF’s rules:

19: Identifying individual parishes, clergy, or hierarchs as “unfaithful to the Magisterium”, guilty of “liturgical abuse”, or otherwise engaged in unacceptable or unpopular practices, based on personal “knowledge” or opinion​

25 False statements maliciously made to defame another’s reputation​

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2363920&postcount=9

Is it not malicious to accuse the Holy Father of heresy or putting himself in a situation of heresy? does that not defame him? not just that, but identifying a person in his position ( heirarchy ) as engaged in an act of heresy based on K of C’s opinion? is that not a violation of CAF’s rules?
It isn’t against the rules. It isn’t simply a difference of opinion, it is a difference of world view. He is trying to use facts and logic, not just his opinion, to support his view.
 
It isn’t against the rules. It isn’t simply a difference of opinion, it is a difference of world view. He is trying to use facts and logic, not just his opinion, to support his view.
he has no “facts” when he accuses the Holy Father of heresy and putting himself in a situation of heresy.he has no facts to back that up. period.
 
It isn’t against the rules. It isn’t simply a difference of opinion, it is a difference of world view. He is trying to use facts and logic, not just his opinion, to support his view.
I dunno, calling the pope a heretic seems to qualify – I doubt Benedict would consider his actions heretical, and he’s supposed to be infallible about this sort of thing :juggle:
 
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.
Oh now we have ‘heresies’. What others do we have now?
 
I don’t find that to be a satisfactory answer to the problem. They have perpetuated a philosophy that may be misleading. I see what you are saying. The secular humanists could have possibly led to a mass rejection of the Christian faith. But isn’t that what has happened anyway? Our Christian society has been completely rejected. I think that the Church’s support of humanistic rights has supported the secularization of the US and Europe. Now everyone is fighting for their own rights. There is no sense of self-sacrifice because I have the right to whatever I have and whatever I want. They have no sense of the Spirit acting in the world. I think that rather than having ‘rights’ as our guides we should have truth and charity, the mind and the heart, as our guides. They never contradict.

But I could see my view - a rejection of ‘rights’ as a theological matter - being very unfavorable to the average layman. And I could also see it having negative affect on any influence the Catholic Church has on politics.
It has been a difficult balance, because of the two extreme errors–and especially since one side uses classical Catholic terminology, but with a different meaning. We’ve done well in some places to help turn the tide against Communism, but that’s allowed Liberalism in the west to rise again–and because their doctrines resemble Catholic doctrine, they are all the more deceptively attractive. But, at the same time, in the Middle East and Far East the more totalitarian philosophies are doing damage to authentic human rights–likewise, even the societies built on Liberalism are beginnign to trample true rights, while exalting false ones (whereas in the 19th century they were mostly just exalting false ones, and attacking the hiearchical Church’s rights, rather than individual’s).

If we read the Popes from the 19th century to the present, we see a slow shift in emphasis from teaching against Liberalism to teaching against totalitarianism. Gregory XVI and Bl. Pius IX are both one sided, Leo XIII and St. Pius X are mostly concerned with Liberalism, but with a little emphasis on totalitarianism. Bendict XV and especially in Pius XI we see more and more emphasis on totalitarianism and less emphasis on Liberalism. Pius XII (especially in his latter years) and Bl. John XXIII each deal only a little with Liberalism and mostly with totalitarianism. Paul VI and John Paul I are pretty much one-sided. However, the shift is bit by bit beginning to turn back to more focus on secularism/Liberalism, a little in the writings of John Paul II but much moreso in those of Benedict XVI–I think the problems you have mentioned have caused this shift back to begin.
 
I dunno, calling the pope a heretic seems to qualify – I doubt Benedict would consider his actions heretical, and he’s supposed to be infallible about this sort of thing :juggle:
I don’t know if simply calling the pope a heretic would break the rules. All the protestants on here would call the pope a heretic and so would the Eastern Orthodox. You have to be respectful though.
 
I don’t know if simply calling the pope a heretic would break the rules. All the protestants on here would call the pope a heretic and so would the Eastern Orthodox. You have to be respectful though.
he was not respectful of the Holy Father. not by a long shot.:mad:
 
jimmy,

I think this issue (of the OP) can also be compared with the teachings of St. Paul and St. James on Justification. Often times, it appears they are teaching contradictory things. One seems to be teaching justification by faith and one by works, when in reality they are both writing the truth against opposite errors. And just as people may have distorted and misapplied recent Catholic teaching on rights to the detriment of society (because they have not balanced it with past teaching), so have the Protestants misapplied St. Paul’s teaching on justification to disasterous results, because they too have not embraced the totality of teaching on this subject.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top