religious freedom

[mrld20]

The bottom line is; freedom of religion is a human right affirmed by the Church most recently in Vatican II with a number of documents preceding the era.

But what Neely is proposing is just down right insane and is something that hasn’t been done since Colonial times…

Catholics have been some of the most persecuted religious groups in the world. There is no reason for us to turn around and start forcing people into the Church as Neely would have us do…

I’m just going to stop there and leave it be… Regarding whether other religions are valid; I don’t have the stomach for that fight LOL…

 

[mrld20]

Neely your what’s called a Radical traditional Catholic… I will pray for you

 

[passer_by]

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

I think you are again misunderstanding.

There is no right to be in error. He can practice his religion yes. He has the RIGHT to also freely CHOOSE his religion. But he has no RIGHT to be in error.

There is a difference.

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?

No I am confused. You keep adding rights and saying stuff like “as long as they don’t infringe another” etc.

But where do you think all these rights come from? What is your foundation? Your feelings?

 

[passer_by]

The bottom line is; freedom of religion is a human right affirmed by the Church most recently in Vatican II with a number of documents preceding the era.

But what Neely is proposing is just down right insane and is something that hasn’t been done since Colonial times…

Catholics have been some of the most persecuted religious groups in the world. There is no reason for us to turn around and start forcing people into the Church as Neely would have us do…

I’m just going to stop there and leave it be… Regarding whether other religions are valid; I don’t have the stomach for that fight LOL…

You are stating something that Neely hasn’t said.

Vatican II merely acknowledged that we have to tolerate religions. It does not mean we want to suppress them.

It does not state anywhere that anyone has a ‘RIGHT to be in error’. If it does, the council would be in heresy and the Catholic Church would have been a lie.

Either you take the whole faith, or leave all of it. You can’t just pick pre-Vatican II or Post Vatican II.

Perhaps this might help you better understand

ewtn.com/library/doctrine/rellib.txt

 

[mrld20]

Neeley is clearly saying only Catholics have the right to practice their faith… Clearly… Don’t make me quote him/her…

 

[Rence]

I think you are again misunderstanding.

There is no right to be in error. He can practice his religion yes. He has the RIGHT to also freely CHOOSE his religion. But he has no RIGHT to be in error.

There is a difference.

No I am confused. You keep adding rights and saying stuff like “as long as they don’t infringe another” etc.

But where do you think all these rights come from? What is your foundation? Your feelings?

I’m sorry, at this point I’m just going to be honest and admit that I have no idea where you’re coming from and in what part of the world you function normally with those kinds of views. I don’t mean to be rude or insultive, honestly. But I can’t really relate to someone who has to be explained that people have basic human rights, like the right to choose their religion, and the right not to be offered up as sacrificial lamb in the pit of fire. Sorry, it’s just too out there. I am Roman Catholic and my feelings are that just like I have the right to practice my religion, so does my neighbor. I don’t need an online forum to teach me the golden rule of treating people like I want to be treated. It’s manners 101. And it’s a bit of common sense too.

Enjoy your arguing back and forth. No offense, I have better things to do with my time

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

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.

We discussed them in the other thread, mostly concerning the error of the separation of Church and State.

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.

I know what thread you’re talking about. I’ve already brought it up.

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.

I am not pretending to not know. Shame on you for that accusation. I don’t even remember any other Pope except Pius IX, Pius X, Leo XIII, and Gregory XVI discussed.

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

But I think you should too. Saint Ignatius of Loyola said:

“We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides”

I think it is important for us to follow his words on that.

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[passer_by]

Neeley is clearly saying only Catholics have the right to practice their faith… Clearly… Don’t make me quote him/her…

I am not sure I read that anywhere? Even the Church pre-Vatican II did not believe what you are saying.

 

[passer_by]

I’m sorry, at this point I’m just going to be honest and admit that I have no idea where you’re coming from and in what part of the world you function normally with those kinds of views. I don’t mean to be rude or insultive, honestly. But I can’t really relate to someone who has to be explained that people have basic human rights, like the right to choose their religion, and the right not to be offered up as sacrificial lamb in the pit of fire. Sorry, it’s just too out there. I am Roman Catholic and my feelings are that just like I have the right to practice my religion, so does my neighbor. I don’t need an online forum to teach me the golden rule of treating people like I want to be treated. It’s manners 101. And it’s a bit of common sense too.

Enjoy your arguing back and forth. No offense, I have better things to do with my time

Sigh, I was trying to make you see an important point.

All RIGHTS are claims that come from God. You cannot simply say something is a right because you discovered it. Many people think that they can but that is just due to ignorance.

It is these RIGHTS that we speak of when we say NO one has a RIGHT to be in error.

Ironically, you are here saying that you believe in freedom of religion so that must be wrong. First, belief in the above does not mean suppression of other religions. So you are attacking a straw man. Second, your claim is baseless because you have no foundation.

 

[NeelyAnn]

Neely your what’s called a Radical traditional Catholic… I will pray for you

Interesting that today, a person who simply believes what the Church teaches is considered a radical traditionalists. And it should be noted that I provided quotes, as well as links to the encyclicals, for all that I affirmed. So, in reality, it is not me that you disagree with, but the documents I quoted.

I really think you need to deepen your Catholic education. Begin with Libertas, the encyclical that discusses the true nature of human liberty - certainly one of the most important encyclical for today. If you only read the ambiguous post-Vatican II documents, without first having a solid foundation in what the Church taught prior to Vatican II, you will almost certainly end in error.

 

[NeelyAnn]

Neeley is clearly saying only Catholics have the right to practice their faith… Clearly… Don’t make me quote him/her…

That’s correct. See the Syllabus #15 quoted ealier.

Only Catholics have the right to practice their faith, since Catholicism alone is ture. When a Catholic Country *permits *members of false religions to pratice their faith, the permission is merely a toleration of error (see the above quote from Libertas). Such toleration is justified when it is necessary to avoid a greater evil, or preserve a greater good.

The following is the teaching of Pope Pius XII, from 1953:

Pope Pius XII: “Thus the two principles are clarified to which recourse must be had in concrete cases for the answer to the serious question concerning the attitude which the jurist, the statesman and the sovereign Catholic state is to adopt in consideration of the community of nations in regard to a formula of religious and moral toleration as described above. First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated. Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.” CI RIESCE

Now, that teaching is in perfect accord with what Pope Leo XIII wrote in Libertas (quoted earlier), and it was written in the 1950’s. Therefore, you can’t rejected it by claiming it was written 150 years ago (as if that matters).

 

[Timothysis]

I think that everyone is forgetting that the Syllabus of Errors is meant to be applied to a Catholic state. In a Catholic state, the separation of Church and State is condemned, but not in a non-religious constitutional republic.

In effect, the Syllabus of Errors is something that has lost its meaning, since the only Catholic state in the world today is Vatican City and that isn’t likely to change any time soon. To say that the separation of Church and state is condemned in America would mean that the American government would have to be a religious state (which would go against the founding precepts of the Constitution). How would that go since the majority of Americans are non Catholics?

The Syllabus of Errors has gone the same way as the Index of Forbidden Books.

 

[passer_by]

Ok perhaps the distinction has to be made here between RIGHT in the sense of the encyclical and in terms of LEGAL RIGHT which seems to be what some posters here refer too.

One has no RIGHT to believe any religion. One has a LEGAL RIGHT (meaning the governments should tolerate) anyone who picks a different a religion, and permit its practice.

Vatican II speaks more about the LEGAL RIGHT while the Syllabus for an example speaks of the RIGHT.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

I think that everyone is forgetting that the Syllabus of Errors is meant to be applied to a Catholic state. In a Catholic state, the separation of Church and State is condemned, but not in a non-religious constitutional republic.

In effect, the Syllabus of Errors is something that has lost its meaning, since the only Catholic state in the world today is Vatican City and that isn’t likely to change any time soon. To say that the separation of Church and state is condemned in America would mean that the American government would have to be a religious state (which would go against the founding precepts of the Constitution). How would that go since the majority of Americans are non Catholics?

The Syllabus of Errors has gone the same way as the Index of Forbidden Books.

Now we must look at the Syllabus on why it was written and promulgated.

It was sent to the Bishops of PRUSSIA a non-Catholic (anti-Catholic, as well) state. And in America there is no separation of Church and State. Just because there is no state religion does not mean there is a separation of Church and state. This is a general (and theological) error (See Hugo Black on Everson v. Board of Education - 1947)

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[NeelyAnn]

I think that everyone is forgetting that the Syllabus of Errors is meant to be applied to a Catholic state.

Only a few propositions apply to a Catholic State; nevertheless, all of the propositions are binding principles.

In a Catholic state, the separation of Church and State is condemned, but not in a non-religious constitutional republic.

That statement is not correct. The idea of separation of Church and State is condemned, period. The reason is because the State has a moral duty to profess the true religion. This is clear from many encyclicals, such as Quas Primas of Pius XI, Libertas of Leo XIII, VEHEMENTER NOS of Pius X, and many many more. Here’s just one:

Immortale Dei: "For, men living together in society are under the power of God no less than individuals are, and society, no less than individuals, owes gratitude to God who gave it being and maintains it and whose ever-bounteous goodness enriches it with countless blessings. Since, then, no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God, and since the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its reaching and practice-not such religion as they may have a preference for, but the religion which God enjoins, and which certain and most clear marks show to be the only one true religion -it is a public crime to act as though there were no God. So, too, is it a sin for the State not to have care for religion as a something beyond its scope [this is what you always hear from Liberals today], or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy;** for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will**.

Now, it is true that a non-Catholic County is not going to submit to the Catholic Church, but that doesn’t mean that a non-Catholic Country is freed from the duty to do so by God.

In effect, the Syllabus of Errors is something that has lost its meaning, since the only Catholic state in the world today is Vatican City and that isn’t likely to change any time soon. To say that the separation of Church and state is condemned in America would mean that the American government would have to be a religious state (which would go against the founding precepts of the Constitution). How would that go since the majority of Americans are non Catholics?

It’s not likely to happen anytime soon in America, but that doesn’t mean it is good. In the same way, it is not likely that Americans would tolerate the forbidding of divorce and remarriage, but that does not make it right either. Unfortunately, America is a Masonic State, but we can always hold out hope that in the future it will be a truly Catholic State and recognize Jesus Christ as the King.

The Syllabus of Errors has gone the same way as the Index of Forbidden Books.

The Syllabus contains formally condemned errors, and it is just as binding today as it was when it was written. **If you disagree, please provide the magisterial document that rendered it null. **

Just because many people have embraced the errors today, does not mean the errors became true.

 

[mrld20]

Only a few propositions apply to a Catholic State; nevertheless, all of the propositions are binding principles.

That statement is not correct. The idea of separation of Church and State is condemned, period, simply because the State has a moral duty to profess the true religion. This is clear from many encyclicals, for example Quas Primas of Pius XI, Libertas, of Leo XIII, VEHEMENTER NOS of Pius X, and many many more. Here’s just one:

Immortale Dei: "For, men living together in society are under the power of God no less than individuals are, and society, no less than individuals, owes gratitude to God who gave it being and maintains it and whose ever-bounteous goodness enriches it with countless blessings. Since, then, no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God, and since the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its reaching and practice-not such religion as they may have a preference for, but the religion which God enjoins, and which certain and most clear marks show to be the only one true religion -it is a public crime to act as though there were no God. So, too, is it a sin for the State not to have care for religion as a something beyond its scope [this is what you always hear by Liberals today], or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will.

Now, it is true that a non-Catholic County is not going to submit to the Catholic Church, but that doesn’t mean that a non-Catholic Country is freed from the duty to do so by God.

It’s not likely to happen anytime soon in America, but that doesn’t mean it is good. In the same way, it is not likely that Americans would tolerate the forbidding of divorce and remarriage, but that does not make it right either. Unfortunately, America is a Masonic State, but we can always hold out hope that in the future it will be a truly Catholic State and recognize Jesus Christ as the King.

The Syllabus contains formally condemned errors, and it is just as binding today as it was 150 years ago. **If you disagree, please provide the magisterial document that rendered it null. **

Just because many people have embraced the errors today, does not mean the errors became true.

ommmmggggggg… Ya know what these freedom bashers are in the minority… I’m going to drop this and put certain people on ignore… Most Catholics are upstanding citizens who love America and what it stands for…

 

[The_Scott]

I think it’s important to note that tolerance towards a religion does not equate acceptance of its doctrines. I think this is a huge error that many people, on both sides, make frequently.

My two cents.

Peace.

 

[NeelyAnn]

ommmmggggggg… Ya know what these freedom bashers are in the minority…

It is not freedom that is being opposed, but license. True freedom is doing what we ought, not what we want. License is doing what we want, even when it is contrary to what we ought.

Forgive me for posting the same quote twice in this thread, but it applies here.

Pope Leo XIII: "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.(Libertas)

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

ommmmggggggg… Ya know what these freedom bashers are in the minority… I’m going to drop this and put certain people on ignore… Most Catholics are upstanding citizens who love America and what it stands for…

I don’t understand this move. I agree with everything NeelyAnn has been saying. And remember, the minority was victorious on Calvary

~ Pius :knight1:

 

[Timothysis]

And in America there is no separation of Church and State. Just because there is no state religion does not mean there is a separation of Church and state.

The Constitution prohibits " *no law respecting an establishment of religion," * meaning a government sponsored National Church. There is, in effect, a natural separation of Church and State since the State cannot support or endorse any church as a National Church. The United States has never and cannot ever constitutionally have an established national church. Is this contrary to the Syllabus? The republic of France formally divorced itself from the Church “*in the 1905 law providing for the separation of church and state, that is, the separation of religion from political power.” * How is there a difference?