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

[japhy]

There is a difference between moral duties and governmental law.

Is it right for a government to pass a law making fulfillment of a moral duty impossible? And, to a lesser degree, is it proper for a government to pass a law making fulfillment of a moral duty more difficult that it intrinsically is?

The problem comes when the government doesn’t recognize the moral duty of humanity toward the true religion and the true Church of God.

 

[Fitswimmer]

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

I’m supporting the American Constitution, which as far as I know has not been condemmed by the Vatican yet. The Pope seemed to like it when he visited recently.

In his address, Pope Benedict lauded what he called the United States’ “long history of cooperation” between religious faiths. As examples of such cooperation, he cited interreligious prayer services at Thanksgiving, joint charitable action, and speaking with a “shared voice” on public issues. These activities, the Pope said, brought members of different religions together to “enhance mutual understanding and promote the common good.”

“I encourage all religious groups in America to persevere in their collaboration and thus enrich public life with the spiritual values that motivate your action in the world,” Pope Benedict said.

The Holy Father cited the mission statement of the meeting’s venue, the Pope John Paul II Center, which offers a Christian voice in the “human search for meaning and purpose in life.” He said the center’s mission recalls the American conviction that “all people should be free to pursue happiness in a way consonant with their nature as creatures endowed with reason and free will.”

Pope Benedict referenced the observations of Alexis de Tocqueville, whose nineteenth century writings argued that, in American life, religion and freedom are “intimately linked” in upholding democracy. The Pope expressed hope that other countries could learn from the United States that “a united society can indeed arise from a plurality of peoples provided that all recognize religious liberty as a basic civil right.”

He also quoted approvingly one of the country’s Latin mottoes, “E pluribus unum,” which means “out of many, one.”

 

[japhy]

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

I’m not sure She does. The following arguments are from Fr. William Most.
Pius XII taught in Ci riesce the common good of the universal Church requires that error be permitted. In fact, in determined circumstances, God does not even give the state a right to suppress erroneous things, namely, when the common good of Church and state call for tolerance.

Pius XII, Ci riesce, Dec. 6, 1953. AAS 45:

Can it be that in determined circumstances, He [God] does not give to man any mandate, or impose a duty, finally, that He gives no right to impede and to repress that which is erroneous or false? … Christ in the parable of the cockle gave the following admonition: Let it be that the cockle grow in the field of the world along with the good seed, for the sake of the harvest. {Cf. Mt. 13:24-30}

1. Error has no rights, since rights are a claim given ultimately by God.
   He gives no claim to error. This does not condemn the idea that people may
   have a right not to be imprisoned etc. for error. DIGNITATIS HUMANAE will affirm that.
2. Yet the common good of the state and the Church may dictate the need of tolerance of error. Pius XII added, in Ci riesce that God does not even give a right to suppress error in circumstances in which the common good requires tolerance.
3. The state as a state should worship God, in the way in which He has made known He wishes it. This need not call for suppression of other faiths - cf. #2 above. DIGNITATIS HUMANAE # 1 also states this.

 

[friendofGODs]

Anybody who believes the Councils and what the Catholic Church taught up until Vatican II, which is 1,930 years of history and tradition. You would be considered part of the NEW ORDER since Vatican II that jettisoned the history and tradition. Tradtional Catholics do not need anything but documents before Vatican II to prove post concilliar church is apostate. No books or speeches needed, just belief that the Church was right for 1,930years before Vatican II is all that is required. I hope this helps.

Now there are sites that report apostate news like:

www.novusordowatch.com
www.traditio.com
www.traditioninaction.com

They appear to many as jack Chick equivalent, but they generally provide news link backups and Catholic teachings before Vatican II. After all it is STILL a work of charity to cry wolf when it enters in among the flock…

 

[Dauphin]

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

Certainly. The following propositions were condemned as error by Pope Pius IX:

*77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. – Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855. *

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

Pope Pius IX also said:

“They do not hesitate to put forward the view which is not only opposed to the Catholic Church, but very pernicious for the salvation of souls — an opinion which Gregory XVI, Our Predecessor, called absurd. This is the view that liberty of conscience and worship is the strict right of every man, a right which should be proclaimed and affirmed by law in every properly constituted state… When they rashly make these statements, they do not realize or recall to mind that they are advocating what St. Augustine calls a liberty of perdition” - Quanta Cura

 

[Dauphin]

Anybody who believes the Councils and what the Catholic Church taught up until Vatican II, which is 1,930 years of history and tradition. You would be considered part of the NEW ORDER since Vatican II that jettisoned the history and tradition. Tradtional Catholics do not need anything but documents before Vatican II to prove post concilliar church is apostate. No books or speeches needed, just belief that the Church was right for 1,930years before Vatican II is all that is required. I hope this helps.

Now there are sites that report apostate news like:

www.novusordowatch.com
www.traditio.com
www.traditioninaction.com

They appear to many as jack Chick equivalent, but they generally provide news link backups and Catholic teachings before Vatican II. After all it is STILL a work of charity to cry wolf when it enters in among the flock…

Would you stop with the nuttiness, please? The Catholic Church can’t apostatize, and it hasn’t. Vatican II defined no doctrine, so it can be properly dismissed in those areas where it contradicts or muddles previous teaching.

 

[ethelzguy]

Certainly. The following propositions were condemned as error by Pope Pius IX:

*77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. – Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855. *

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

Pope Pius IX also said:

“They do not hesitate to put forward the view which is not only opposed to the Catholic Church, but very pernicious for the salvation of souls — an opinion which Gregory XVI, Our Predecessor, called absurd. This is the view that liberty of conscience and worship is the strict right of every man, a right which should be proclaimed and affirmed by law in every properly constituted state… When they rashly make these statements, they do not realize or recall to mind that they are advocating what St. Augustine calls a liberty of perdition” - Quanta Cura

How do you reconcile your comments from Pius IX in post 85, with the comments of Pius XII in post 83?

 

[Dauphin]

How do you reconcile your comments from Pius IX in post 85, with the comments of Pius XII in post 83?

Easily. In fact, I’m pretty sure that Pius IX makes the same argument Pius XII does.

It can sometimes be acceptable for the state to permit public error if the suppression of this error would lead to an even greater harm (e.g. violence, rebellion). It could be the lesser of two evils.

That doesn’t mean, however, that it isn’t an objective evil for the state to permit the public practice of false religions.

 

[friendofGODs]

the only nuttiness is the fruits of the Vatican II council and its 40 years of aftermath. Nuns no longer wear garments idnetifying themselves, Priests are in blue jeans hanging with teens as buds.

Maybe in Canada the schools are all open and Cathedrals outnumber jails since V2.

Unless you can link something positive in the last 40 years psot V2, then save the keystrokes and do not reply. 1,930 years of Catholic tradition jettisoned. If nuttiness is how canucks say the new truth then okay poster is nutty.

 

[Freshman88]

How do you reconcile your comments from Pius IX in post 85, with the comments of Pius XII in post 83?

Pope Pius XII is explaining that given certain circumstances it may not be wise to implement the Catholic ideal concerning religious liberty. Pope Pius IX is condemning the idea that religious liberty is something to be sought after, it is however something that can be tolerated if it advances the common good, as Pope Pius XII points out.

Ideally we are to strive to create a state where the one true faith can be championed. That means first creating a Catholic majority, but not necessarily so as it depends on the circumstances.

I have not studied the American constitution, but I truly wonder if it actually advances the Catholic ideal.

 

[JMMK]

I have not studied the American constitution, but I truly wonder if it actually advances the Catholic ideal.

[Amendment I]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That’s pretty much it in terms of the Constitution and Religion. It comes under attack from time to time. The battle cry of seperation of church and state (which is not a phrase in the consitituion) is used to mute or cloak the Christian presence from time to time, but they only get so far when they try.

 

[Fitswimmer]

[Amendment I]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That’s pretty much it in terms of the Constitution and Religion. It comes under attack from time to time. The battle cry of seperation of church and state (which is not a phrase in the consitituion) is used to mute or cloak the Christian presence from time to time, but they only get so far when they try.

In a nutshell, it means that we cannot enshrine the Catholic faith into law any more than any other religion or atheism can be enshrined into law. While we can’t make a law to force people to attend Mass, nobody can pass a law to stop us from going either.

The Pope seemed pretty happy with our system when he visited. But I guess since he’s a post V2 Pope he’s no good for some folks anyway.

 

[Sepharad]

I’m supporting the American Constitution, which as far as I know has not been condemmed by the Vatican yet. The Pope seemed to like it when he visited recently.

Catholics who think otherwise run the risk that Catholics at the turn of the last century ran: being thought of as disloyal Americans.

(Many Jews are also thought of this way, when they seem to put the needs and wants of the zionist state above those of the USA. One reason why I am glad I am not a zionist!)

 

[Dauphin]

Catholics who think otherwise run the risk that Catholics at the turn of the last century ran: being thought of as disloyal Americans.

Catholics were thought of as disloyal Romans, but that didn’t seem to bother them. Catholics in the early Church had to choose between worshipping God and worshipping to Roman Emperor, just as some have to decide today between adherence to Magisterial teaching and support for the American constitution.

 

[Sepharad]

Catholics were thought of as disloyal Romans, but that didn’t seem to bother them. Catholics in the early Church had to choose between worshipping God and worshipping to Roman Emperor, just as some have to decide today between adherence to Magisterial teaching and support for the American constitution.

The only way I could be disloyal to this great country is if they outlawed my religious faith. But since religious freedom is enshrined in the US Constitution, I doubt I need to fear that happening.

But for those who feel they must always and in every way put their religious beliefs above the Constitution of this great land, allow me to invite you, as a patriotic American myself, to move elsewhere. We put that mentality behind us when we left Europe, at least most Americans did.

 

[pnewton]

Catholics were thought of as disloyal Romans, but that didn’t seem to bother them. Catholics in the early Church had to choose between worshipping God and worshipping to Roman Emperor, just as some have to decide today between adherence to Magisterial teaching and support for the American constitution.

There is a night and day difference between worshipping a false God and the second situation. Current Magisterial teaching is not in conflict with the US Constitution.

 

[Dauphin]

The only way I could be disloyal to this great country is if they outlawed my religious faith. But since religious freedom is enshrined in the US Constitution, I doubt I need to fear that happening.

But for those who feel they must always and in every way put their religious beliefs above the Constitution of this great land, allow me to invite you, as a patriotic American myself, to move elsewhere. We put that mentality behind us when we left Europe, at least most Americans did.

Of course I put my religious beliefs above the American Constitution. I’m not an American.

Why on earth would I give primacy to a document written hundreds of years ago by a bunch of foreigners to govern a foreign land??

 

[JMMK]

I’m confused about what the goal is here. We cannot pass laws in this country to ban other religious group from openly practicing. This is not a catholic country. There aren’t any catholic countries left, save the Vatican City. If there was one, then you might have an argument, but I can’t think of any. In fact, the social order of most countries would disintegrate if you tried to establish it as the state religion and inhibit the free practice of the false ones. If you had a strong enough Catholic presence it would be possible, but the world is so divided that it is not practical at the moment.

In the United States you would have to amend the constitution. This would require a popular referrendum with a yes from a 2/3rds majority from each of the 50 states. Impossible at the moment and in the forseeable future. So we turn to the Second Vatican Council’s document on the Laity. This is where we are told to live our Catholic Faith proudly and use our daily lives to evangelize. This also calls for us to exert our morality on the world around us. In the case of the United States, we are a democray. A government of the people, for the people, by the people; as such it will reflect the morality of the people. Also in a free market economy, currency votes as well. If few enough people bought immoral items (porn, contraceptives, etc) they would no longer be manufactured.

This is all we can do in the world we live in now. This is also the world that the council was addressing. We are not called to suppress our neighbors, we are called to love them and witness to them that they might welcome the Holy Spirit into their lives and be converted.

 

[ethelzguy]

Catholics in the early Church had to choose between worshipping God and worshipping to Roman Emperor, just as some have to decide today between adherence to Magisterial teaching and support for the American constitution.

Easy for you to say…sitting up there in Canada.

And we don’t “worship” our President.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The only way I could be disloyal to this great country is if they outlawed my religious faith. But since religious freedom is enshrined in the US Constitution, I doubt I need to fear that happening.

But for those who feel they must always and in every way put their religious beliefs above the Constitution of this great land, allow me to invite you, as a patriotic American myself, to move elsewhere. We put that mentality behind us when we left Europe, at least most Americans did.

I’m not exactly certain of the ins and outs of this argument vis a vis the Church’s exact and precise teaching on the seperation of Church and State, the confessional state, what would happen to those who would not adhere to Catholicism if the confessional state was Catholic, etc., but I’m certain of this: The Constitution of the United States, a noble document in many ways, is NOT Divine Revelation. For a Catholic, patriotism would have to run a distant second to obedience to Holy Mother Church, the Foundation and Pillar of Truth. The Constitution isn’t concerned with Truth, it’s concerned with other things.