The SSPX and relgious liberty

[TNT]

You do not have a God given right to NOT believe in God. You do not have a God given right to be an atheist. You have free will to choose to believe or not to believe but it is not a right.
Do I have a God given right to have an abortion?

.
I have free will to go kill my neighbor, I do not have the right to do so. I have free will to choose sin, I do not have a right to do so. If it was a God-given right to sin then there could be no such thing as hell. Men only have a God given right to propagate the TRUTH not falsehood.

*Libertas *Pope Leo XIII
23,. For right is a moral power which – as We have before said and must again and again repeat – it is absurd to suppose that nature has accorded indifferently to truth and falsehood, to justice and injustice. **Men have a right **freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things so ever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but Iying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State

1. Another liberty is widely advocated, namely, liberty **of conscience. **If by this is meant that everyone may, as he chooses, worship God or not, it is sufficiently refuted by the arguments already adduced. But it may also be taken to mean that every man in the State may follow the will of God and, from a consciousness of duty and free from every obstacle, obey His commands. This, indeed, is true liberty, a liberty worthy of the sons of God, which nobly maintains the dignity of man and is stronger than all violence or wrong – a liberty which the Church has always desired and held most dear. This is the kind of liberty the Apostles claimed for themselves with intrepid constancy, which the apologists of Christianity confirmed by their writings, and which the martyrs in vast numbers consecrated by their blood "

This is right thinking IMHO of course.
A method of Modernism is to confuse definitions aka Free Will & a God Given Right.
Rligious Liberty is NOT a right, VATII not withstanding. It is simply an act of Free Will.
You never have a Religious God Given Right to choose a false Religion. The whole idea is ludicrous.
He who believes & is baptized will be saved. He who does not believe will be condemned. Hello…God Speaking…Case Divinely Closed.
When you can only do ONE thing without Divine condemnation, it ain’t a right.
As for the Apostles/martyrs, they insisted on the Right to exercise Free Will to practice ONE religious belief, not helter skelter any belief. That statement is a serious insult to those Apostles/martyrs.
However Free Will is a Right to exercise, which is ACTUALLY what was prohibited to those Catholics, but it has nothing to do with a God Given Right to embrace false religions. But that’s just what VAT II embraced. Shame Shame.
That’s what all Trads hold to, not just the “SSPX”.
People of the VAT II church can dance all around this fact, but the ACTIONS of their hierarchy clearly proves the point made above.

 

[stmaria]

I have a God given right to reject God

 

[stmaria]

I’m curious as to why stmaria chose to start using the “God-given” phrase in the first place? It’s not used in DH. This is some of what DH actually says:

It is well understood, obviously not by you, that all “rights” come only from God. They are God-given.Our founding Fathers knew this also. The right to life, liberty and the prusuit of happiness.All of which come only from God.

 

[EddieArent]

We see the true face of religious liberty when it comes to the like of Cardinal Kasper. Kasper despises anyone wanting to convert to Catholicism. So, when the self described “Trad. Anglican Communion” wanted to convert, Kasper said “NO!” You can’t. You’re going to be saved in your own religion! There are countless more examples; be it with Orthodox priests or the Lutheran in Sweden that ended up going to the SSPX (which shows the double standard that the SSPX and Fr. Kovpak are considered “schismatic” and nearly the devil incarnate by the likes of Kasper yet non-Catholic religions worship the same true God, go to heaven, etc.)

 

[TMC]

TMC;3044936:

.
No you do not. You are confusing free will with a God-given right.
We have a moral obligation, which comes from God, to seek the truth. Do I have a right to an abortion. NO. Do I have free will to choose an abortion .Yes. We all have a right

to life. That right, comes from God not from man made law…
Rights, which come only from from God, are good pure and holy. That is why you do not have the right to sin.

You are trivializing the word “right.” You have the freedom to invest, the opportunity to invest not the “right” to invest.A right is something that all men are born with. It comes from God. You don’t have the right to drive a car. You have the privilege to drive a car.

The first part of the Vatican II document on Religious Liberty rightly professes the traditional teaching on religious liberty. All men have the moral obligation, which comes from God, to seek the truth. There is only one truth. The Catholic Church.Once they know the truth they are bound to it and must live their whole live according to the teachings of the truth, the Catholic truth, founded by Christ.

“It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also **bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth **”

OK, I can see that you will insist on defining the work “right” differently than I do and that you have chosen a definition that is guaranteed to make my statements seem wrong. I find that most people view rights as separate from responsibilities (although some rights do come with attendant responsibilities). I do not think that exercising a right is either good or bad, it is just something you have the power to do. Free Speech is an important right, but exercising it can be good or bad, for example. But rather than convince you to change your lexicon, I agree to change the semantic geography to try to discuss something besides word definitions. Let’s talk about free will and the power to make choices, since the word “right” carries so much extra baggage for you.

I would define free will as the inalienable power given to all men by God to act in the way that they choose. Can you agree with that? Or is there some other word to describe the inherent power that men have to live as they choose?

This free will is God given. God has given each man the power to reject God, or accept God. The power to make up one’s own mind, to choose how to act and to live, to love or hate, accept or reject, this is the power that I would call free will. This inherent an inalienable power to make moral choices is one of ways that man reflects God’s image. To attempt to reject or oppress this power to choose is to deny man’s inherent dignity. That man can choose poorly is part of what free will entails. You can not remove the power to make poor decisions without destroying free will and thereby reducing the dignity of man.

Can you agree with that? If not what does free will mean?

 

[stmaria]

QUOTE=TMC;3049713]
I would define free will as the inalienable power given to all men by God to act in the way that they choose. Can you agree with that? Or is there some other word to describe the inherent power that men have to live as they choose?

This free will is God given. God has given each man the power to reject God, or accept God. The power to make up one’s own mind, to choose how to act and to live, to love or hate, accept or reject, this is the power that I would call free will. This inherent an inalienable power to make moral choices is one of ways that man reflects God’s image. To attempt to reject or oppress this power to choose is to deny man’s inherent dignity. That man can choose poorly is part of what free will entails. You can not remove the power to make poor decisions without destroying free will and thereby reducing the dignity of man.

Can you agree with that? If not what does free will mean?

I can agree with you that free will comes from God and allows us to “make up one’s own mind, to choose how to act and to live, to love or hate, accept or reject”. But exercising your free will wrongly has consequences. Adam and Eve had free will. They chose wrongly and were banished. Judas had free will, used it wrongly and killed himself. Hitler had free will, used it to kill and is burning in hell.

 

[TMC]

I can agree with you that free will comes from God and allows us to “make up one’s own mind, to choose how to act and to live, to love or hate, accept or reject”. But exercising your free will wrongly has consequences. Adam and Eve had free will. They chose wrongly and were banished. Judas had free will, used it wrongly and killed himself. Hitler had free will, used it to kill and is burning in hell.

OK. That is what I have been saying all along, haven’t I? We have free will. Its exercise has consequences, but God has given man free will and man should not presume to try to revoke that gift. We can encourage, teach, evangelize, but we cannot extinquish free will, and it is wrong to try to do so.

Which brings us back to your post that started this conversation before it degenerated into semantics. You asked if the VII declarations on religous liberty referred to civil liberty or moral liberty. Clearly the answer is both, but the one that matters in the context of the council is the moral liberty.

 

[stmaria]

OK. That is what I have been saying all along, haven’t I? We have free will. Its exercise has consequences, but God has given man free will and man should not presume to try to revoke that gift. We can encourage, teach, evangelize, but we cannot extinquish free will, and it is wrong to try to do so.

Which brings us back to your post that started this conversation before it degenerated into semantics. You asked if the VII declarations on religous liberty referred to civil liberty or moral liberty. Clearly the answer is both, but the one that matters in the context of the council is the moral liberty.

But you stated that you have the “right” to sin. I stated that you have the free will but not the" right. "
By “right” I am refering to natural right which comes from God. This could also be called moral right.I am not talking about free will or man made civil right. Let me make this simple
Do I have a right to an abortion?
Do I have a right to believe in any religion or no religion at all?
Does a protestant have a right to preach that the Catholic Church is a false religion and the Eucharist is mere bread.

 

[bear06]

Sigh! Why don’t we move on to you guys showing us how this has to do with DH?

 

[stmaria]

Sigh! Why don’t we move on to you guys showing us how this has to do with DH?

I suspect that TMC as well as yourself believe that DH is saying that religious liberty means that an individual can believe in any religion or none at all. I suspect from your posts you guys believe that religious liberty means that you have the right to follow your conscience and no matter where that leads you that is ok because you have religious liberty.
TMC has stated that one has the "right " to sin. In other words one has the right to err. One has the right to follow his conscience.
This is why I believe the SSPX has problems with DH. It is because it is ambigious. It misleads people like TMC into believing that religious liberty means that everyone has the right to follow their conscience. Everyone has the right to belong to any religion and as long as they life a good life then everthing is fine.This simply isn’t true. The SSPX wants the Vatican to clarify DH. and to restate it so that it is more easily understood in the light of Tradition.
Pope John XXXIII said that Vatican II was going to explain the doctrines of the Church so that modern man could better understand. Vatican II did exactly the opposite. Ambiguity and Incoherence rule the day.

 

[bear06]

I suspect that TMC as well as yourself believe that DH is saying that religious liberty means that an individual can believe in any religion or none at all.

Well then, you’d suspect wrong. Religious liberty means that we cannot impede one’s free will.

I suspect from your posts you guys believe that religious liberty means that you have the right to follow your conscience and no matter where that leads you that is ok because you have religious liberty.

 

[stmaria]

Again, I can’t speak for TMC, but you’d be wrong.
He’s already clarified he is talking about free will. You just appear to want to harp on the use of “right”. Please bother to read TMC’s last post (and, of course, many before it).
.

 

[bear06]

I have to harp on the meaning of “right”. I believe that TMC and maybe you believe that “free will” given to us by God and “rights” given to us by God are one and the same. They are not.
I don’t see how TMC can say the following

No, I don’t think you’re understanding correctly. Let’s see if this is a little clearer. Free will, the ability to choose, is a right given to us by God. That said, the choice we make may not be a right. In fact, it could be wrong. You see us as saying that the making of a choice is a right while we’re (or at least I am) saying that the ability to make the choice is a right given to us by God. It’s a subtle difference but a biggie. That said, I think if you read the thread with good will, you’d see that.

Error has no rights.You don’t have the right to be wrong.You do not have the right to choose badly.The possibility of error is not a right.

Right but the *ability *to choose error, or in other words the choice to follow God or reject him is a right.

If he understands it how could he say this?

Well, I’m not TMC, but I’d think it’s said in the light of the above.

From that I think he means that one has the right, not just the free will but the right to follow their conscience even if it goes against Church teaching. It would follow then that he must believe that one has the right to follow their conscience and believe in any religion they choose.

Well, again I can’t answer for TMC but I think you’d be wrong. We simply have free will which is the ability to choose. This is a right. Nobody can try to force us to believe or disbelieve.

Again, do you think that society should be allowed force someone to practice the Catholic Faith? Do you believe that any society should be allowed to impede my belief in the Catholic Church? If not, I really don’t see why one would have a problem with DH.

 

[ncjohn]

I’m really having a hard time understanding what it is about DH that is so hard to understand. It really is a pretty straightforward document that says simply that no government has the right to either force someone to adhere to a certain religion or to prevent someone from professing the religion of their choice.

When the Church was essentially confined to Europe and all to be seen were Catholic, with the Church mostly having the ability to coerce ahderence, it might have been fine and dandy to proclaim that government had that right. But as the Church expanded out into the greater world, where other governments held the same view but with a different “state religion”, it became clear that that could not work.

Christians in Islamic or Hindu cultures should be free to proclaim and practice their religion. Hindus or Muslims in “Christian” cultures must then have that same right.

It is not about a right to proclaim error, or to practice error. It is about the rights of individuals to determine the way they will worship God without the state interfering. God gives the freedom of will to determine how/if we will follow Him. DH simply stated that governments should be allowing people the right to exercise their free will without passing judgment on that free choice.

 

[stmaria]

No, I don’t think you’re understanding correctly. Let’s see if this is a little clearer. Free will, the ability to choose, is a right given to us by God. That said, the choice we make may not be a right. In fact, it could be wrong. You see us as saying that the making of a choice is a right while we’re (or at least I am) saying that the ability to make the choice is a right given to us by God. It’s a subtle difference but a biggie. That said, I think if you read the thread with good will, you’d see that.

Right but the *ability *to choose error, or in other words the choice to follow God or reject him is a right.

Again, do you think that society should be allowed force someone to practice the Catholic Faith? Do you believe that any society should be allowed to impede my belief in the Catholic Church? If not, I really don’t see why one would have a problem with DH.

It is Traditional teaching that no one can be forced to join the Catholic Church. It is also Church teaching that only the Divinely revealed religion, the Catholic Church, has a right to exist. Therefore all men have a moral obligation given to us by God, to belong to the one true religion. Men DO NOT have the right to believe or to join false religions. Man does not have the right to become a Protestant. They have free will to choose but not a right. You do not have the right to choose evil. You do not have the right to kill. You do not have the right to belong to any religion you choose.

 

[bear06]

It is Traditional teaching that no one can be forced to join the Catholic Church. It is also Church teaching that only the Divinely revealed religion, the Catholic Church, has a right to exist. Therefore all men have a moral obligation given to us by God, to belong to the one true religion. Men DO NOT have the right to believe or to join false religions. Man does not have the right to become a Protestant. They have free will to choose but not a right. You do not have the right to choose evil. You do not have the right to kill. You do not have the right to belong to any religion you choose.

:doh2:

OK, if you’re going to address me and say the same things repeatedly, so am I.

Free will, the ability to choose, is a right given to us by God. That said, the choice we make may not be a right. In fact, it could be wrong. You see us as saying that the making of a choice is a right while we’re (or at least I am) saying that the ability to make the choice is a right given to us by God. It’s a subtle difference but a biggie. That said, I think if you read the thread with good will, you’d see that.

 

[TMC]

bear06;3056897:

I have to harp on the meaning of “right”. I believe that TMC and maybe you believe that “free will” given to us by God and “rights” given to us by God are one and the same. They are not.
I don’t see how TMC can say the following

Error has no rights.You don’t have the right to be wrong.You do not have the right to choose badly.The possibility of error is not a right.

If he understands it how could he say this?

From that I think he means that one has the right

, not just the free will but the right to follow their conscience even if it goes against Church teaching. It would follow then that he must believe that one has the right to follow their conscience and believe in any religion they choose.

I have explained repeatedly and in some detail what I mean by the word “right” and have suggested we not use the word if it is going to lead to unending definitional arguments. I am not sure what your are trying to accomplish or if you just want to engage on semantics and not actually discuss issues. Do you want to discuss our opinions on what level of freedom God granted to mankind and the propriety of trying to restrict that freedom? Because this back and forth on whether a “right” in inherently a good thing or whatever we have been discussing is not productive. So I will try to make a very basic statement of what I believe about free will and see if that can serve as a starting point for discussion.

My basic point is that God gave man free will. This free will includes the free will to accept or reject God. Sin entered the world when the first people used this free will to reject God. That free will still exists in people today. Many people use it to continue to reject God. God doesn’t want them to, but they do. But God did give them free will. Is there anything in this paragraph that you disagree with? If so, what and why?

 

[stmaria]

stmaria;3058922:

I have explained repeatedly and in some detail what I mean by the word “right” and have suggested we not use the word if it is going to lead to unending definitional arguments. I am not sure what your are trying to accomplish or if you just want to engage on semantics and not actually discuss issues. Do you want to discuss our opinions on what level of freedom God granted to mankind and the propriety of trying to restrict that freedom? Because this back and forth on whether a “right” in inherently a good thing or whatever we have been discussing is not productive. So I will try to make a very basic statement of what I believe about free will and see if that can serve as a starting point for discussion.

My basic point is that God gave man free will. This free will includes the free will to accept or reject God. Sin entered the world when the first people used this free will to reject God. That free will still exists in people today. Many people use it to continue to reject God. God doesn’t want them to, but they do. But God did give them free will. Is there anything in this paragraph that you disagree with? If so, what and why?

You and bear06 are still confusing free will and rights.
Let me put it this way. We have the RIGHT to USE our free will, given to us by God, and then when we USE it we have the MORAL OBLIGATION , given to us by God, to use it ONLY to adhere to what is true.
Do you agree?
Let me ask again the question you an bear06 refuse to anwser. According to the principle of Religious Liberty do all men have the Right to embace and profess any religion or no religion at all?
I agree that man has the RIGHT to USE his free will to embrace and profess any religion or none at all but does he have the RIGHT?
Does the State have the Right to reject God in her laws that govern her citizens?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

No, I don’t think you’re understanding correctly. Let’s see if this is a little clearer. Free will, the ability to choose, is a right given to us by God. That said, the choice we make may not be a right. In fact, it could be wrong. You see us as saying that the making of a choice is a right while we’re (or at least I am) saying that the ability to make the choice is a right given to us by God. It’s a subtle difference but a biggie. That said, I think if you read the thread with good will, you’d see that.

Let’s test your theory. Does a women have a right to have an abortion? According to your understanding of our rights, she must. After all, her “ability to make the choic is a right given to [her] by God”. Isn’t that what you said?

Therefore, shouldn’t the churchmen reverse their position by proclaiming the rights of women to have an abortion, as they reversed themselves in proclaiming the right to false worship? If not, why?

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

:doh2:

OK, if you’re going to address me and say the same things repeatedly, so am I.

Free will, the ability to choose, is a right given to us by God. That said, the choice we make may not be a right. In fact, it could be wrong. You see us as saying that the making of a choice is a right while we’re (or at least I am) saying that the ability to make the choice is a right given to us by God. It’s a subtle difference but a biggie. That said, I think if you read the thread with good will, you’d see that.

Let me see if I understand you. You are saying that the “ability” to choose is a right; but you are not saying that we have the right to choose what we want. You are saying that we only have the right to choose good, but the ability itself is a right?

I’m sorry, but that makes no sense. The “ability” is not a right, it is a gift; and the name of this gift is free will. Free will is the name of the ability to choose.

Now, our rights (what we are allowed to do) pertain to the use of that “ability” (free will). Rights are what we are morally permitted to do, not what we are able to do, and not the ability to do it.

So, for example, a women as the “ability” (free will) which enables her to have an abortion. The “ability” that enables her to have an abortion is not a right, but a gift. If she has an abortion she abuses that “ability” and commits a sin, which she has no “right” to do.

Again, rights pertain the the use of the free will. Claiming that free will (which you called an ability) is itself a right makes no sense. Free will is no more of a “right” than our eyes which allow us to see, or our ears which allow us to hear, or our tongue which allows us to speak. Those are all gifts which give us the ability to perform certain actions, just as the free will is a general gift than enables us to perform all actions. The rights deal with the morality of the actions that proceed from these gifts.