What's the Jack Chick Equivalent for "Traditional Catholics?"

[pnewton]

I hope you understand that you’re comparing the pre-Vatican II Magisterium to the Taliban. If it makes me extreme to hold to this Magisterium, then I’m extreme. The label doesn’t matter to me in the slightest.

No I did not. That was a conclusion you came to, not what I posted. Anachranisms can lead to strange conclusions. The CCC disagrees with what Our Refuge POV on religious liberty. No one in the Vatican is ignorant of Church history, yet most do not agree with this type of religious liberty restriction. Much of what has been posted in the past is dated. The principles remain, but the application changes. A fraction of persentage of Catholics believe that some things written for a time that was different should apply every where. The vast majority, The Magisterium of today, understands that only the principles carry over.

There is no difference the way a few Traditionalist interpret Church Tradition and hardcore Fundamentalist interpret Scripture. Without considering historical context, both situation result in poor conclusions.

 

[Dauphin]

Speaking personally as a religious Jew, I would rather be killed than belong to another religion that I felt was not true…I’d have to choose death just as many of my ancestors in Spain had to do.

If there are Catholics who think as you do, then I suppose Catholics have no right to complain about fundamentalist Muslims who also want to impose their religion onto others.

What are you talking about? Nobody here is proposing that anyone should be coerced into joining the Catholic religion, much less put to death for refusing. This is sadly the sort of over-reaction which makes rational discussion on this topic almost impossible.

The position of the Magisterium is simply that false religions should not be publicly practiced.

 

[Sepharad]

No.

The proposal of the Magisterium is to suppress the public practice of these false religions so that things harmful to the soul may be removed from public view. To argue otherwise is a liberal error which the Church has condemned.

Which is exactly what they do in Muslim countries, when they suppress non-Islamic religions…and require that non-Muslims pay the jizya tax to support mosques, and pass laws that no non-Muslim house of worship can stand higher than a mosque.

So, any Catholic who holds to the views you stated yet who ALSO complains when Muslims do the same in their countries, will from henceforth be totally ignored by me in their complaint.

Fair enough?

Sepharad (who is starting to wonder why she spoke up in defense of Charles Martel’s actions!)

 

[Dauphin]

No I did not. That was a conclusion you came to, not what I posted. Anachranisms can lead to strange conclusions. The CCC disagrees with what Our Refuge POV on religious liberty. No one in the Vatican is ignorant of Church history, yet most do not agree with this type of religious liberty restriction. Much of what has been posted in the past is dated. The principles remain, but the application changes. A fraction of persentage of Catholics believe that some things written for a time that was different should apply every where. The vast majority, The Magisterium of today, understands that only the principles carry over.

There is no difference the way a few Traditionalist interpret Church Tradition and hardcore Fundamentalist interpret Scripture. Without considering historical context, both situation result in poor conclusions.

The historical context can never permit me to embrace propositions which the Church has previously condemned as errors.

Where is the principle in allowing false religions to worship publicly? The principle of the Church has always been that the state is bound to Divine law, and to further the salvation of its people. Clearly, Dignitatis Humanae departed from this principle.

 

[Sepharad]

What are you talking about? Nobody here is proposing that anyone should be coerced into joining the Catholic religion, much less put to death for refusing. This is sadly the sort of over-reaction which makes rational discussion on this topic almost impossible.

The position of the Magisterium is simply that false religions should not be publicly practiced.

Some here are saying that the government should have the right to impose the Catholic religion. How would you recommend they “impose” it?

And what if people did not want it? What would be done with them? An edict of expulsion, perhaps?

 

[Dauphin]

Which is exactly what they do in Muslim countries, when they suppress non-Islamic religions…and require that non-Muslims pay the jizya tax to support mosques, and pass laws that no non-Muslim house of worship can stand higher than a mosque.

So, any Catholic who holds to the views you stated yet who ALSO complains when Muslims do the same in their countries, will from henceforth be totally ignored by me in their complaint.

Fair enough?

No. Those laws defend the wrong religion, so they’re perfectly open to criticism.

 

[Dauphin]

Some here are saying that the government should have the right to impose the Catholic religion. How would you recommend they “impose” it?

Exactly as the magisterium has proposed; principally, the state should confess the Catholic religion and suppress the public practice of false religions.

And what if people did not want it?

They’ll be free to believe and practice as they want in private, in order to respect their freedom of conscience. A person cannot be forced to accept the truth.

What would be done with them? An edict of expulsion, perhaps?

No. They could be left alone as long as they don’t engage in missionary activity. Jews would have nothing to worry about.

I realize that this scenario seems farfetched. It’s certainly a long way off before society recovers from liberalism.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Yet the state could have laws which put an end to the free reign of these false religions, and assist these lost souls in finding the one true faith. Think of how many souls could be saved if one did not have the temptation to join any other faith other than the Catholic faith. Certainly free will would have to be respected in as far as one cannot be forced to believe, but the state can certainly help. Our focus should always be the salvation of souls and worship of God, nothing else.

What you describe is a situation where people would be tacitly forced to be Catholic by the removal of all other faiths. Of course, the law wouldn’t SAY that they had to be Catholic, but by removing any and all other options, the effect of the law is the same. Anyone who wished to worship God with others publically would have to be Catholic.

I want people to come to the Catholic church because they know in their hearts and minds that it is the one true Church-not by any form of coercion.

 

[ethelzguy]

“On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it.”

“Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.”

“[A]ll 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. However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom.”

“For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth.”

Thank you for underscoring my point.

 

[ethelzguy]

I often get accused of “fearing” traditional Catholicism.

After reading some of these posts, said fear may be well founded.

 

[Dauphin]

What you describe is a situation where people would be tacitly forced to be Catholic by the removal of all other faiths. Of course, the law wouldn’t SAY that they had to be Catholic, but by removing any and all other options, the effect of the law is the same. Anyone who wished to worship God with others publically would have to be Catholic.

I want people to come to the Catholic church because they know in their hearts and minds that it is the one true Church-not by any form of coercion.

I think you’re misinterpreting the teaching. An assembly of followers of a false religion would not necessarily be in public. The restriction of public practice would principally be a restriction on missionary activity, public rallies, etc, so that innocent people may not be drawn into falsehood.

 

[Dauphin]

I often get accused of “fearing” traditional Catholicism.

After reading some of these posts, said fear may be well founded.

It’s unfortunate that you find the Magisterium so spooky…

 

[Fitswimmer]

I often get accused of “fearing” traditional Catholicism.

After reading some of these posts, said fear may be well founded.

It’s not traditional Catholicism that is to be feared, it’s the fundamentalist mentality that some have adopted.

 

[Dauphin]

It’s not traditional Catholicism that is to be feared, it’s the fundamentalist mentality that some have adopted.

Fundamentalist? As in, “take the Popes at their word, and don’t embrace errors they condemned”?

I pray that we can stop the silly name-calling - “extremist”, “fundamentalist”, “Taliban”. It’s wrong to call people these names simply for trying to adhere to the Magisterium.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I think you’re misinterpreting the teaching. An assembly of followers of a false religion would not necessarily be in public. The restriction of public practice would principally be a restriction on missionary activity, public rallies, etc, so that innocent people may not be drawn into falsehood.

I was pretty concerned with the rise of evangelical Christianity in the US for a long time. They were popular and they have had the ear of more than a few Presidents. This is the kind of thing I was concerned about with them, that they would use their influence to slowly eat away at religious freedom until their belief system was completely enshrined into civil law. Thankfully, their influence seems to be fading, but I don’t want to replace it with laws doing the same thing with Catholicism.

 

[japhy]

“It [this document] leaves untouched the tradition Catholic doctrine about the moral duty of men and societies towards the true religion and the one Church of Christ” - Dignitatis Humane.

That’s seems to be pretty straight forward.

You cheated! You named the document!

 

[ethelzguy]

You cheated! You named the document!

There is a difference between moral duties and governmental law. Especially in a country that has constitutionally protected seperation of Church and State.

 

[Dauphin]

I was pretty concerned with the rise of evangelical Christianity in the US for a long time. They were popular and they have had the ear of more than a few Presidents. This is the kind of thing I was concerned about with them, that they would use their influence to slowly eat away at religious freedom until their belief system was completely enshrined into civil law. Thankfully, their influence seems to be fading, but I don’t want to replace it with laws doing the same thing with Catholicism.

I simply hope you realize that you’re opposing what the Magisterium has proposed, and embracing a liberal position which the Magisterium has condemned.

 

[Spiller]

I often get accused of “fearing” traditional Catholicism.

After reading some of these posts, said fear may be well founded.

Except I think more of the weirder comments belong to the “Traditional Catholic” and not the traditionally-minded Catholic genre…

 

[ethelzguy]

I simply hope you realize that you’re opposing what the Magisterium has proposed, and embracing a liberal position which the Magisterium has condemned.

Show me where the Church teaches that all other religions should be suppressed by government. Specifically.