Religious Liberty

[Reactionary]

The issue you are raising whether an apostate King is still King. That depends on the Country (for example, in France the King must be Catholic). In this case their is no indication that the pope has ever removed the right to rule Ireland from the English Monarchs. The fact that this was ruled to be the case severl times in the ninteenth-century is further evidence.

This is not an issue of foreign rule it is an issue of legitimacy. The English have no right to rule Ireland but an individual, who also happens to be their sovereign has the right to be sovereigns of Ireland. Thus you can have home rule for Ireland but maintain the Monarch. This is the case with both Canada and Australia.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Where, outside, say Poland and South America would this ever be a viable possibility? It would be hardly possible in ‘culturally catholic’ but largely secular countries like Italy, France and Spain.

**The OP is quite right - that was the doctrine: & it was articulated & defended before Vatican 2 by Cardinal Ottaviani & Mgr. Joseph Fenton (S.J.), among others; It still has defenders. Once, it was entirely “in possession”, before John Courtney Murray (S.J.) came & upset the apple-cart. He got in some in very hot water to begin with, but Dignitatis Humanae (V2’s “Declaration on Religious Liberty”) adopted his positions. So it’s no wonder that Catholics born since then can be found who imagine that the doctrine of the CC was always that in Dignitatis Humanae. **​

**The position the OP is defending is essentially Machiavellian: it amounts to saying, “Where we Catholics are strong enough, we are going to kick the stuffing out of you because we will be able to, & nuts to all this talk of religious liberty; where we can’t do that because of your being too numerous, we are going to plead in favour of religious liberty.” This is a completely unChristian position, which any member of the Politburo would have been proud to invent: it reduces Catholicism to a thoroughly this-worldly totalitarian ideology for manipulating public opinion & deceiving the equivalent of those whom Stalin labelled “useful idiots”. This is a perversion & betrayal of the character of the Church as a Christian body, & is sufficient of itself (not that there are no other reasons) to condemn this doctrine. The CC is well rid of it. **

**It is uncanny, & disturbing, that the official ideological “line” of the CC should come so close to that of an enemy to which it was so bitterly opposed **

 

[Kaninchen]

**The position the OP is defending is essentially Machiavellian: it amounts to saying, “Where we Catholics are strong enough, we are going to kick the stuffing out of you because we will be able to, & nuts to all this talk of religious liberty; where we can’t do that because of your being too numerous, we are going to plead in favour of religious liberty.”( **

Hey, my ancestors lived in the middle of all that stuff too (‘Catholic’ Europe). So while, mostly, there’s an element of “those Catholics are off daydreaming again” when I read threads like this, there’s a touch of ‘shudder’ involved in it.

I was just interested as to whether the OP had any prospective European candidates - I could only think of Poland but everybody seems to have left or be leaving the place.

 

[Reactionary]

Gottle of Geer,

That is precisely what I was saying - Fr Murry did NOT manage to get the teaching to change! That is why I attached that article. That article is proof. As I have said before if the doctrine had been changed THE WHOLE CHURCH WOULD BE HERETICAL and the sedevecantists would be correct.

It is not at all an unChristian belief. We are trying to preserve the weak from error and maintain peace and order. What is wrong with that? Sometimes one cannot do both to a full degree but one should try to make the best of every situation. That is not a wicked plot it is just common sense.

 

[Reactionary]

Kaninchen,

You needn’t shudder. In the past some have been very cruel to none Catholics and interfered in their right to their private beliefs. This I would not excuse. All I am saying is that error (ie unCatholic ideas) should not be spread in a Catholic State.

Sadly there are no European candidates who support this. Some small parties in Spain do…

 

[Kaninchen]

Kaninchen,

You needn’t shudder. In the past some have been very cruel to none Catholics and interfered in their right to their private beliefs. This I would not excuse. All I am saying is that error (ie unCatholic ideas) should not be spread in a Catholic State.

Sadly there are no European candidates who support this. Some small parties in Spain do…

It would only work in winter, in the Summer most of the population of Northern Europe take over the country.

 

[Reactionary]

ROFL

 

[Polaris]

Gottle of Geer,

That is precisely what I was saying - Fr Murry did NOT manage to get the teaching to change! That is why I attached that article. That article is proof. As I have said before if the doctrine had been changed THE WHOLE CHURCH WOULD BE HERETICAL and the sedevecantists would be correct.

It is not at all an unChristian belief. We are trying to preserve the weak from error and maintain peace and order. What is wrong with that? Sometimes one cannot do both to a full degree but one should try to make the best of every situation. That is not a wicked plot it is just common sense.

I would not say that the article is proof. It is an interpretation of the Vaticant II document. The one who interpreted that document is not infallible, he is not a council he is not even a bishop. Also to see it as a development of the idea of the dignity of the human person does not deny the churches earlier stance. Its like the churches stance on non catholics in the past. It was a doctrine that the unbaptised went to hell. No ifs, ands or buts. Now, however, if that noncatholic person searched for God, with all his heart, it is believed that God will allow him into heaven and we can even have hope for unbaptized babies now, in the past these were heretical ideas.

Now if that interpretation you presented is right or wrong. I do not know. I probably will continue to disagree with it on a personal level and will support the fight for freedom of religion everywhere, (nonviolently of course:thumbsup: ). If this is the true religion we need not fear anything not even another religion.

 

[Reactionary]

I am afraid so say that that is modernism. Doctrine can be developed in the sense that it can be unpacked but it cannot be changed. Take “no salvation outside the Church”. That is dogma but it is a dogma that can be interpreted in a whole number of different ways. As long as one does not deny the truth of the statement. An example of this is Limbo. All unbaptised babes go to hell (in St Augustine’s view at least) but are they punished like all the other sinners? Some would say no and that the hell of the unbaptised is essentially nothing more than denial of the beatific vision but otherwise is not that unpleasant. Hence Limbo.

I must disagree with you on the ‘nothing to fear’ from non-Catholics thing. I wish it were true but man is fallen and the wicked across the globe never stop trying to destroy the Chucho. The situation in Europe, for example, is a result of Catholics not confronting the wicked. In Spain the Church used to have control over education and none of the laws contradicted the natural law. We allowed the anti-Catholics to do as they pleased and now the Church is positively persecuted, abortion and Gay ‘marriage’ are both legal. All this could have been avoided.

 

[allischalmers]

In short, yes. They are wrong. The Church teaches (and always has taught) that unlimited religious liberty was irresponisble and ment that the state failed in its duty to uphold the Catholic faith.

And that is why there is now a free America, Amen!