Religious Liberty

  • Thread starter Thread starter arabic_catholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

arabic_catholic

Guest
Hi ,

I am a very Pro-Vatican II catholic , and I recently revised my views on many issues , and I changed my mind on many people in the church , like Michael Voris, for their continues effort to undermine how significant Vatican II was for the universal church. Having said that, I came across a traditionalist catholic , a schismatic , who wanted to convert me to his sect by one punch “evidence.” He said to me that there is no way Pius IX teachings on religious liberty could be reconcile with Vatican II pronouncement .

Now , as a catholic, how can I answer this objection ? because I saw Michael Voris and one of his guests make the same case too against vatican II on the same point.
 
In what way is anything the vatican doing or have ever done to stifle religious liberty ? That would seem to be contradictory to everything if it is the case. One could spend endless hours learning the ins and outs of the laws of the Church or one could choose to instead focus on how the Church is leading us towards Christ, which ever dogma, doctrine, councel, etc, in the end how does it bring us closer to Christ would be my question.

As to trying to pursuade someone to convert to a sect or any religion through a as you put it " one punch piece of evidence " , there is no need to try and win that debate, if it was that easy to convert people with just one piece of evidence, the Catholic Church would be full to the brim and over flowing. More likely someone is being hard headed and is sticking to the only piece of evidence that makes sense to him and thus is trying to force that way of thinking upon you. The Truth speaks and explains it self rather easily and it becomes hard to disprove when others are stuck on a one track way of thinking or just refuse to acknowledge the truth so thus they stick to the one piece of logic they think they have found.
 
I’m not even sure what this thread is about but it seems a bit on the fishy side.
 
I don’t think the rules permit making attacks on church leaders.
 
john78 said:
In what way is anything the vatican doing or have ever done to stifle religious liberty ? That would seem to be contradictory to everything if it is the case. One could spend endless hours learning the ins and outs of the laws of the Church or one could choose to instead focus on how the Church is leading us towards Christ, which ever dogma, doctrine, councel, etc, in the end how does it bring us closer to Christ would be my question.

As to trying to pursuade someone to convert to a sect or any religion through a as you put it " one punch piece of evidence " , there is no need to try and win that debate, if it was that easy to convert people with just one piece of evidence, the Catholic Church would be full to the brim and over flowing. More likely someone is being hard headed and is sticking to the only piece of evidence that makes sense to him and thus is trying to force that way of thinking upon you. The Truth speaks and explains it self rather easily and it becomes hard to disprove when others are stuck on a one track way of thinking or just refuse to acknowledge the truth so thus they stick to the one piece of logic they think they have found.
Click to expand...
thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut . The argument that is been made by traditionalist groups and their advocate is that Pope Pius XI statements in Quanta Cura were contradicted by vatican II DIGNITATIS HUMANAE… And that there is no way to reconcile this document with the Catholic tradition. Many Catholic admit this contradiction like Fr John W. O’Malley… however it is reconcilable by going back to a more ancient traditions of the church ,and listing it under the development of doctrine , according to him. I just learn that yesterday , but thanks for your help
 
Can you cite specific examples of contradictory parts?

My understanding of the issue is very rudimentary, so I’ll graciously concede any points to those more knowledgeable. But I’ve always been under the impression that Quanta Cura harmonizes soundly with Humanae Dignitatis, while the real trickiness lies with the Syllabus of Errors. The latter explicitly spells out the right for Catholic nations to exist at the exclusion of all other forms of worship, while both Quanta Cura and Humanae Dignitatis call for “religious freedom”. I think the big hurdle in reconciling the two positions is understanding that the two are actually taking nuanced views of two slightly different facets of “religious liberty” (what does that phrase even mean?)

As I understand it, the Catholic Church to this very day recognizes that error has no rights, never mind even the right to exist. If a “Catholic” state decided to outlaw all non-Catholic forms of public worship, the Church would say that the state is acting morally (however the Church would likely also point out how imprudent such an act in today’s world would be).

This is different than coercing individual persons, who have basic human dignity to be Catholic. Likewise the Church has consistently taught that spiritual matters must occur within the context of human will.

So how might these two look together in a hypothetical context? Imagine a Catholic state, that is officially Catholic. The Church is recognized by its constitution as the “established” Church, and let’s assume for imagination’s sake that all laws must be affirmed by the national Catholic episcopal conference. All non-Catholic acts of public worship could be banned. The state could insist that Catholic Holy Days constitute national holidays. The state could even require that all children be religiously instructed in the Catholic faith. What the state cannot do is persecute non-Catholics until they become Catholic. The state cannot force its citizens to swear by Catholic teachings if they don’t actually embrace them. In other words, Catholic states are in no way compelled to offer a platform for error, but they likewise cannot force individuals to renounce error.

I’ll admit it has been about 4 years since I’ve read either encyclical. I’ll try to read them over in the next day or two and amend my answer as needed.
 
arabic_catholic said:
Hi ,

I am a very Pro-Vatican II catholic , and I recently revised my views on many issues , and I changed my mind on many people in the church , like Michael Voris, for their continues effort to undermine how significant Vatican II was for the universal church. Having said that, I came across a traditionalist catholic , a schismatic , who wanted to convert me to his sect by one punch “evidence.” He said to me that there is no way Pius IX teachings on religious liberty could be reconcile with Vatican II pronouncement .

Now , as a catholic, how can I answer this objection ? because I saw Michael Voris and one of his guests make the same case too against vatican II on the same point.
Click to expand...
First off, what does “Pro-Vatican II catholic” mean?

I have argued the same point, though I am not a schismatic by any means, however the document Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Modern Errors of Pius IX do seem to contradict Dignitatis Humanae when held to face value. However, like all Encyclicals, they must be taken within the context of the times and locations. For instance the Syllabus of Modern Errors was given to the Bishops of Prussia in protest of the “Kulturkampf”, a vicious attempt on the part of the government to stamp out Catholicism.

Now, I do believe the Syllabus is certainly relevant within our own times, and many of the points made therein should be held universally by all Catholics. But to argue that they contradict Dignitatis Humanae seems like a stretch.

I would like to direct you to several other threads I have had the privilege of participating in:

Religious Freedom from October of 2011. It was a fine topic that discussed the relation of Quanta Cura and the Syllabus and Dignitatis Humanae. It is a wee bit dense, but I really urge it just to get both sides of an argument.

Catechism of Modernism by Pope Pius X From July of 2011. It is shorter and more precise. This shows a similar argument.

If you have any questions or require further clarification, feel free to PM me!
 
xixxvmcm85 said:
Imagine a Catholic state, that is officially Catholic. The Church is recognized by its constitution as the “established” Church, and let’s assume for imagination’s sake that all laws must be affirmed by the national Catholic episcopal conference. All non-Catholic acts of public worship could be banned. The state could insist that Catholic Holy Days constitute national holidays. The state could even require that all children be religiously instructed in the Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
This perfectly describes the society where I want to live. Btw, excellent post! 👍
 
OraLabora said:
“All forms of non-Catholic worship could be banned”.

Sounds more like a tyranny to me. Not for me.
Click to expand...
I’d take a Catholic tyranny over an atheistic democracy (which is what this country is devolving into) any day.
 
OraLabora said:
“All forms of non-Catholic worship could be banned”.

Sounds more like a tyranny to me. Not for me.
Click to expand...
What if the non-Catholic worship required child sacrifice, killing of Catholics to go to heaven, gay sex or orgies as part of worship, and proselytizing of Catholic children to join their faith?

Would you still consider it tyranny? 🙂
 
Eufrosnia said:
What if the non-Catholic worship required child sacrifice, killing of Catholics to go to heaven, gay sex or orgies as part of worship, and proselytizing of Catholic children to join their faith?

Would you still consider it tyranny? 🙂
Click to expand...
Your point is totally irrelevant. Non-Catholic worship also means Protestant, Jewish, Islamic, Bhuddist and many other forms of mainstream worship. Banning those would indeed be a tyranny.

God gave us freedom of will in order that we choose to worship him freely out of love. Coercion will not make someone love God, it will only make one fear the state. Far better to have a church’s pews filled with 10 true believers than 1000 there just for appearances sake.
 
OraLabora said:
Your point is totally irrelevant. Non-Catholic worship also means Protestant, Jewish, Islamic, Bhuddist and many other forms of mainstream worship. Banning those would indeed be a tyranny.

God gave us freedom of will in order that we choose to worship him freely out of love. Coercion will not make someone love God, it will only make one fear the state. Far better to have a church’s pews filled with 10 true believers than 1000 there just for appearances sake.
Click to expand...
Not sure if Eufrosnia is irrelevant in the comment, or is asking how we feel about current western world secularist governments…
 
OraLabora said:
Your point is totally irrelevant. Non-Catholic worship also means Protestant, Jewish, Islamic, Bhuddist and many other forms of mainstream worship. Banning those would indeed be a tyranny.
Click to expand...
Actually, I am not sure why you feel that my comment is irrelevant. A simple question I would like to ask you is where do you draw the line? Is it tyrannical to suppress forms of Islam that require killing of infidels or suppression of women? Also, who decides which religions to allow and more importantly, what is the measure? The adherents of the religions and the practices I suggested will argue that it is a belief they have held for centuries and has been passed down from their ancestors.

I only brought up the things I did to highlight to you that there is no inherent freedom to believe whatever religion one wants. There is indeed a need and requirement by a state to suppress false religions and it cannot be just blatantly labelled as Tyranny.
OraLabora said:
God gave us freedom of will in order that we choose to worship him freely out of love. Coercion will not make someone love God, it will only make one fear the state. Far better to have a church’s pews filled with 10 true believers than 1000 there just for appearances sake.
Click to expand...
As much as I see your point, I think there is an important item you are missing. There is no allowance for a person to believe in anything they want and not be coerced to shed their views. Would you consider it coercion to force an Islamic believer that is carrying out Jihad to abandon his/her beliefs when other means fail?

It just seems to me like in saying “that is Tyranny”, you are forgetting that there is no right for such freedom to believe anything one wants and there is certainly no need for a state to respect all beliefs and their promotion. This has been part of Church teaching as well.
 
MODERATOR NOTICE

For answers to the question on the Magisterium’s stand on religious freedom, please read Pope Francis’ recent statement on the matter.

CLOSED
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top