religious freedom

[NeelyAnn]

I don’t need to accept the syllabus in order to accept the Creeds and the contents of the CCC, which are also from the Church. And you are not in a position to tell me what I accept and how I have accepted it.

We have to believe everything the Church has proposed, either by virtue of the extraordinary magisterium, or the ordinary and universal magisterium. If we reject even one teaching, we will loose all supernatural faith. Just as one mortal sin removed all grace from the soul, so too just one heresy removed all supernatural faith.

Pope Leo XIII: "9. The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. …

For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith, as the Church teaches, is “that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what he has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived” (Conc. Vat., Sess. iii., cap. 3). If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral delinquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. “Whosoever shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all” (Ep. James ii., 10). Nay, it applies with greater force to an erroneous opinion. For it can be said with less truth that every law is violated by one who commits a single sin, since it may be that he only virtually despises the majesty of God the Legislator. But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. “In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them” (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. “You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel” (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3).

For this reason the Fathers of the Vatican Council laid down nothing new, but followed divine revelation and the acknowledged and invariable teaching of the Church as to the very nature of faith, when they decreed as follows: “All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written or unwritten word of God, and which are pro posed by the Church as divinely revealed, either by a solemn definition or in the exercise of its ordinary and universal Magisterium” (First Vatican Council, Sess. iii., cap. 3). Satis Cognitum ewtn.com/library/encyc/l13satis.htm

Rather than saying you reject the Syllabus, I would recommend you investigate why the Church condemned the propositions.

 

[mrld20]

We have to believe everything the Church has proposed, either by virtue of the extraordinary magisterium, or the ordinary and universal magisterium. If we reject even one teaching, we will loose all supernatural faith. Just as one mortal sin removed all grace from the soul, so too just one heresy removed all supernatural faith.

Pope Leo XIII: "9. The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. …

For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith, as the Church teaches, is “that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what he has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived” (Conc. Vat., Sess. iii., cap. 3). If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral delinquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. “Whosoever shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all” (Ep. James ii., 10). Nay, it applies with greater force to an erroneous opinion. For it can be said with less truth that every law is violated by one who commits a single sin, since it may be that he only virtually despises the majesty of God the Legislator. But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. “In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them” (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. “You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel” (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3).

For this reason the Fathers of the Vatican Council laid down nothing new, but followed divine revelation and the acknowledged and invariable teaching of the Church as to the very nature of faith, when they decreed as follows: “All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written or unwritten word of God, and which are pro posed by the Church as divinely revealed, either by a solemn definition or in the exercise of its ordinary and universal Magisterium” (First Vatican Council, Sess. iii., cap. 3). Satis Cognitum ewtn.com/library/encyc/l13satis.htm

Rather than saying you reject the Syllabus, I would recommend you investigate why the Church condemned the propositions.

Stop hiding behind pre-vatican II mumble jumble! Do you believe in freedom of religion or not?

 

[passer_by]

Stop hiding behind pre-vatican II mumble jumble! Do you believe in freedom of religion or not?

I don’t think the person is hiding behind pre-vatican II. It was a bit unfortunate that there were only pre-Vatican II quotes (which made my-self suspect the poster before) but I think the freedom of religion espoused by the quotes are spot on (if interpreted properly) and totality.

 

[Rence]

We have to believe everything the Church has proposed, either by virtue of the extraordinary magisterium, or the ordinary and universal magisterium. If we reject even one teaching, we will loose all supernatural faith. Just as one mortal sin removed all grace from the soul, so too just one heresy removed all supernatural faith.

So, correct me if I misunderstand you: You are telliing me I “have to” believe everything the Church has proposed. And if I don’t believe everything the Church has “proposed”, then I don’t have any faith?

Well, I don’t believe that it is an error that: 15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. – Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

And I don’t think I have to do any further research that would change my mind because I have done enough to know that people have the moral right to choose their religion and follow it.

 

[mrld20]

I don’t think the person is hiding behind pre-vatican II. It was a bit unfortunate that there were only pre-Vatican II quotes but I think the freedom of religion espoused by the quotes is spot on (if interpreted properly).

Those quotes essentially say only catholics should be allowed to practice their religion! After all we’ve been through! The persecution of the Church over thousands of years and now there are catholics in this day and age who dare say our faith is the only one that should be allowed!

I’m sorry but in the defense of the spirit of vatican two that is kind of silly.

 

[NeelyAnn]

Ok, so if I’m understanding you correctly (correct me if I am wrong): you believe that ONLY Catholics have the “moral” right to practice their religion, and people of other religions do not have the same right simply because they are not Catholic?

Yes, that is the teaching of the Church, as expounded in the encyclical Libertas (and others).

The reason is, as I mentioned above, only the Catholic religion is true. All other religions are false, and therefore they are contrary to the first commandment. If this shocks you, it is because we live in VERY liberal days, in which violations of the first three commandments are not considered sin. We still care about lying, or murder, or stealing or one of the last seven commandments, but when it comes to breaking one of the first three commandments, it is consider an indifferent matter.

In a fully approved apparition from about 150 years ago, our Lord complained about this to Sister Marie de Sainte Pierre. He complained about violations of the first three Commandments! and said God was about to punish the world as a result. Today, we don’t even consider the violation of these commandments to be a sin. Instead, we consider it to be a “right”.

I can’t bring myself to fault you for this, since we live in very evil days, but I would encourage you to open your mind and consider what Pope Leo XII taught in Libertas. We are not free to reject the teaching contained in that enyclical.

 

[Cryptic1]

While everyone has a right to their own religious belief, those who know the truth (believers in Jesus Christ) are commanded to speak out and lovingly correct those who are ignorant of the truth. Jesus preached this message repeatedly, “Strive to enter through the narrow gate (Jesus), for many, I tell you, (non believers of Jesus), will attempt to enter but will not be strong enough”.

If Catholics or Christians or Protestants profess to be followers of Jesus, they are commanded to spread the Good News to the world (friends and family). All philosophical discussions aside, I’ve found it best to preach the Good News first by my example as a righteous person of God and second, by the love or compassion others can (hopefully) see in me.

As I discovered a deeper revelation of God’s love for mankind, I was able to see that being a Christian was not just about my salvation but about my brother’s salvation as well. When Jesus was asked who his brother was, he responded that it was not the blood ties that made one a"brother" to another but that every person in truth was his brother and my brother as well. So while we walk closely alongside our Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist friends, we are bound (in love) to tell them the truth of who Jesus is and that, when they come to believe in him, he will lead them on the “straight and narrow path to salvation”.

Jesus Rocks

 

[NeelyAnn]

So, correct me if I misunderstand you: You are telliing me I “have to” believe everything the Church has proposed. And if I don’t believe everything the Church has “proposed”, then I don’t have any faith?

I was summarizing what the encyclical that I posted taught. If you disagree, your disagreement is not with me, but with the Church.

Again, I would encourage you not to disagree with this teaching of the Church, but instead to investigate it. Everything the Church teaches makes perfect sense when you look into it.

 

[passer_by]

Those quotes essentially say only catholics should be allowed to practice their religion! After all we’ve been through! The persecution of the Church over thousands of years and now there are catholics in this day and age who dare say our faith is the only one that should be allowed!

I’m sorry but in the defense of the spirit of vatican two that is kind of silly.

I think you are interpreting this quotes incorrectly as many SSPX do.

They actually do not say that other religions should be suppressed. What it states is pretty much that NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT to practice any FAITH/RELIGION they want. No one has a RIGHT to be WRONG or do WRONG and that is what is condemned.

This has not been changed in Vatican II either.

What we may do is tolerate other faiths as explained in LIBERTAS and DIGNITATIS HUMANAE (Vatican II) both of which were referred to by the posters here.

 

[Rence]

Yes,

Ok Well you certainly have the right to believe whatever you wish.
NeelyAnn;8469791:

The reason is,

It’s okay, you don’t need to go any further, I know where you’re coming from and understand what you’re saying. You have the right to believe whatever you believe, and you don’t owe anyone any explanations.

I can’t bring myself to fault you for this,

Well thank you, I appreciate that

We are not free to reject the teaching contained in that enyclical.

Yeah we are. And yeah I do. There is no doubt in my mind that one has the right to choose and practice their religion. Thankfully, there’s not much you can do but disagree.

 

[mrld20]

Yes, that is the teaching of the Church, as expounded in the encyclical Libertas (and others).

The reason is, as I mentioned above, only the Catholic religion is true. All other religions are false, and therefore they are contrary to the first commandment. If this shocks you, it is because we live in VERY liberal days, in which violations of the first three commandments are not considered sin. We still care about lying, or murder, or stealing or one of the last seven commandments, but when it comes to breaking one of the first three commandments, it is consider an indifferent matter.

In a fully approved apparition from about 150 years ago, our Lord complained about this to Sister Marie de Sainte Pierre. He complained about violations of the first three Commandments! and said God was about to punish the world as a result. Today, we don’t even consider the violation of these commandments to be a sin. Instead, we consider it to be a “right”.

I can’t bring myself to fault you for this, since we live in very evil days, but I would encourage you to open your mind and consider what Pope Leo XII taught in Libertas. We are not free to reject the teaching contained in that enyclical.

Neely you need to take a very good look at your interpretation of Roman Catholicism… Vatican II affirms freedom of religion. The past five holy fathers have embraced freedom of religion.

Your rejecting human rights! Something the Church takes very seriously. I will pray for you! I will pray that you will stop turning your back on an ***all loving God ***, who loves everyone regardless of religion, sex, race, disability, social status, homosexual, heterosexual, mentally ill etc… God loves everyone! Buddhist, Muslim, Protestant, Catholic you name it he loves them!

I will take Vatican II over some 150 year old document that violates international as well as God given rights. If your from America; I suggest you take a hard look at our Constitution and the role it plays in your life!

I will pray for you!

 

[Rence]

I was summarizing what the encyclical that I posted taught. If you disagree, your disagreement is not with me, but with the Church.

I disagree with a quote out of an encyclical…that’s hardly repreentative of the Church.

Again, I would encourage you not to disagree with this teaching of the Church, but instead to investigate it. Everything the Church teaches makes perfect sense when you look into it.

It’s okay, really, it makes sense to me already.

 

[passer_by]

Yeah we are. And yeah I do. There is no doubt in my mind that one has the right to choose and practice their religion. Thankfully, there’s not much you can do but disagree.

How do you know someone has a “RIGHT” to practice their religion? Was it written down somewhere?

What if the practice of that religion required your to be offered up as a human sacrifice?

 

[passer_by]

Neely you need to take a very good look at your interpretation of Roman Catholicism… Vatican II affirms freedom of religion. The past five holy fathers have embraced freedom of religion.

Your rejecting human rights! Something the Church takes very seriously. I will pray for you! I will pray that you will stop turning your back on an ***all loving God ***, who loves everyone regardless of religion, sex, race, disability, social status, homosexual, heterosexual, mentally ill etc… God loves everyone! Buddhist, Muslim, Protestant, Catholic you name it he loves them!

I will take Vatican II over some 150 year old document that violates international as well as God given rights. If your from America; I suggest you take a hard look at our Constitution and the role it plays in your life!

I will pray for you!

But you are interpreting Vatican II all wrong.

There is no RIGHT to be in error. If any one today in the church told you this, that person is in error too.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

I don’t need to accept the syllabus in order to accept the Creeds and the contents of the CCC, which are also from the Church. And you are not in a position to tell me what I accept and how I have accepted it. You don’t know me in order to do so. Faith is not based on one thing, and faith is not based on one thing for all people. There’s a big world out there, and people come to understanding differently.

I will now quote a response from the Syllabus:

The faith teaches us and human reason demonstrates that a double order of things exists, and that we must therefore distinguish between the two earthly powers, the one of natural origin which provides for secular affairs and the tranquillity of human society, the other of supernatural origin, which presides over the City of God, that is to say the Church of Christ, which has been divinely instituted for the sake of souls and of eternal salvation

I don’t know why you don’t accept the Syllabus. Even if I did agree with any of the condemned errors, out of humility and submission to the Church in everything she does.

And you are correct about my mistake. The encouragement of burning Lutherans at the stake was another Pope…but as you said: flow from the same authority Which is why I just stick to the CCC.

Which Pope was this and where did he encourage this. I’m not doubting you, I simply want to know

Consider the “false” statements in the syllabus, which contradicts the freedom to choose one’s own religion:

We ran into the same problem last time We had to interpret that same error and ultimately had to declare a stalemate.

Obviously, there is a reason why I stick to the CCC and not the syllabus of “errors”. It would go against my conscience to accept #15.

But even if one went against my conscience, I would accept it anyway

Yep, I remember, it was another Pope that encouraged burning Lutherans, and not the syllabus.

Again, which Pope?

I am only asking/responding in a manner of Christian charity and to enhance my knowledge of the Faith.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Rence]

How do you know someone has a “RIGHT” to practice their religion? Was it written down somewhere?

You’re kidding, right? It’ in the CCC, right there in black and white for the whole world to read:

1747 The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in religious and moral matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of man.

What if the practice of that religion required your to be offered up as a human sacrifice?

Ok, let’s not go off the deep end here. One person’s rights end where another person’s begin. Everyone has the right to practice their religion as long as they don’t infringe on the rights of another person, so really, human sacrifice is a silly thing to offer as an argument. Is that the best argument?

 

[mrld20]

DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
DIGNITATIS HUMANAE
ON THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON AND OF COMMUNITIES
TO SOCIAL AND CIVIL FREEDOM IN MATTERS RELIGIOUS
PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
DIGNITATIS HUMANAE
ON THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON AND OF COMMUNITIES
TO SOCIAL AND CIVIL FREEDOM IN MATTERS RELIGIOUS
PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

I already quoted Dignitatis Humanae, but I HIGHLY doubt H.H. Paul VI intended for it to contradict previous teachings. I would consider that imprudent.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Rence]

I will now quote a response from the Syllabus:

I don’t know why you don’t accept the Syllabus. Even if I did agree with any of the condemned errors, out of humility and submission to the Church in everything she does.

It’s not that I reject the syllabus, I reject #15 specifically. I haven’t even discussed the other ones…I don’t think I have anyway.

Which Pope was this and where did he encourage this. I’m not doubting you, I simply want to know

I’ll look it up later if I have the chance. He’s not may favorite…obviously. To be frank though, I have to say, it’s a bit frustrating having to go dig something up when you and I were involved in the same thread a few months ago in which we discussed this very thing. You know very well what I’m talking about, it was a 15 page thread that you were very active in.

We ran into the same problem last time We had to interpret that same error and ultimately had to declare a stalemate.

Which pope? I am only asking/responding in a manner of Christian charity and to enhance my knowledge of the Faith.

Yeah, I know, we did run into the “same problem last time”…which is why I don’t get why you’re pretending to not know which Pope we discussed.

But even if one went against my conscience, I would accept it anyway

And you can do that, no one’s stopping you! That’s what I’m talking about!

 

[NeelyAnn]

Neely you need to take a very good look at your interpretation of Roman Catholicism… Vatican II affirms freedom of religion. The past five holy fathers have embraced freedom of religion.

I have a question for you. Considering that so many people misinterpret Vatican II, are you saying that your interpretation of Vatican II differs from the quotes I provided? If so, it means one of two things: Either Vatican II taught what the Church prior to Vatican II condemned, or else you are misinterpreting Vatican II. Which do you think it is?

The quotes I provided speak for themselves and are easily understood.

Your rejecting human rights! Something the Church takes very seriously. (

I don’t reject true human rights, but I do reject false human rights. For example, I reject the idea that a women has the right to kill her child through abortion, since that is against God’s law. I also reject the idea that a person has the “right” to marry another person of the same sex, since that is also against God’s law.

Our rights proceed from our duties, while our duties correspond to the Rights of God. The order of rights and duties is as follows.

God’s Rights: God has the right to establish laws and commandments.

Man**'s duty: ** Man has the duty to obey God’s laws and commandments.

Man’s rights: Man has the right to obey God (such as worshipping him in the religion he established) as well as the means necessary to fulfill his other duties to God.

But no man has the right to violate the Rights of God. We live in a time when the Rights of God are being undermined by the so-called “rights of Man”, which are often not true rights at all, but rather license. The error which has brought this about is Liberalism, which promotes license under the name of “rights”

Pope Leo XIII, Libertas: "14. If when men discuss the question of liberty they were careful to grasp its true and legitimate meaning, such as reason and reasoning have just explained, they would never venture to affix such a calumny on the Church as to assert that she is the foe of individual and public liberty. But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, “I will not serve”; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread and powerful organization, who, usurping the name of liberty, style themselves liberals.

And what is one of the tools used to promote this license under the name of liberty? As mentioned above, it is the promotion of false human rights. That is what caused the same Pope to write the following, which is found in two separate encyclicals

Pope Leo XIII: “The world has heard enough of the so — called “rights of man.” Let it hear something of the rights of God”. catholictradition.org/Encyclicals/tametsi.htm