Freedom Of Religion Both Wrong And Right

[Aloysius]

here's where there will be some real meat and potatoes to this infallibility discussion, and it could get ugly. my assertion is that Pius IX's condemnation of 'freedom of religion' is a condemnation of an idea which Vatican II does not intend to teach, but rather Vatican II's teaching of Religious Liberty is in line with the teaching of the Church.
[quote]In 1864, Pope Pius IX "infallibly" declared that the idea that people have a right to freedom of conscience and freedom of worship is "insanity," "evil," "depraved," and "reprobate". He also declared that non-Catholics who live in Catholic countries should not be allowed to publicly practice their religion. In 1888, Pope Leo XIII "infallibly" declared that freedom of thought and freedom of worship are wrong. These encyclicals are available on-line. [Note 4 gives addresses for them.][/quote]
people do not have a moral right to freedom of consceince (if it is seperated from the Divine Catholic Faith which is consceince's true teacher) nor do they have the right to create their own worship contrary to the Holy Mass which was instituted for them by the Divine Savior. This is true, no one has that moral right because to do something contrary to Catholic Morality is morally WRONG. However, Vatican II clarified that a person has the ability (masked by the confusion of the word "right" which understood in a more traditional sense would mean moral right but in today's society the term "right" is understood to be an ability or allowance, as opposed to back then when a "right" was something that was morally permissable) and that that ability should not be infringed upon by outward coercion but rather an attempt should be made to change the mind of that person so they do not follow that ability but follow the ability they have to believe in Divine Catholic Faith. VII says that a person should always be given the ability to choose between either following Catholic Morality (which would be the only thing they have a moral right to do) or following some other religion. a great confusion is caused because the word "right" has undergone a change in context.
[quote]The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) produced a document entitled "Declaration on Religious Liberty" which states that all people have a right to freedom of religion. [Note 5][/quote]
when properly understood this simply means that people should not be converted by exterior coercion but rather interior conversion, see my comments on the shift in meaning of the word "right" above
[quote]Now I certainly agree with the idea of freedom of religion. However, it totally contradicts the "infallible" declarations of Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII. It also contradicts the anathemas of the Council of Trent, the killing of "heretics," the Inquisition, the burning of people who translated the Bible into the language of the common people, and the persecution of Protestants.[/quote]
freedom of religion when properly understood only means that a person should never be made Catholic soley by exterior coercian but in order to become Catholic they must have an interior conversion. this does not contradict the teaching of Pius IX or Leo XIII, who said that it was absurd to say that everyone should be left to have their own beliefs without being challenged about them. Pointing out their errors is the job of every faithful Catholic, so that they can recognize their errors and by the grace of the Holy Spirit come to truly and fully convert their minds and hearts to the Divine Catholic Faith. They are not just proclaiming a faith because if they don't they'll be killed, that is not truly Catholic Faith and thus no one should ever be put in such a situation that would produce false faith like that.
[quote]Freedom of religion also contradicts modern Canon Law (1988). Canon 1366 says that parents are to be punished with "a just penalty" if they allow their children to "be baptized or educated in a non-Catholic religion". The reference to baptism shows that this refers to Christian religions which are not Roman Catholic. [Note 6] (During the Inquisition, "a just penalty" included things like torture and being burned at the stake. The Inquisition was based on Canon Law.) (See the article "Hunting 'Heretics'".)[/quote]
It would be wrong for Catholic parents not to bring their kids up Catholic. Parents have absolute authority over their children and have not only the right, but the responsibility, to lead their children into only the TRUTH about faith and morals by teaching them the Divine Catholic Faith and presenting them the Sacraments for the sake of their salvation. I challenge anyone to show that this model contradicts Vatican II's declaration on Religious Liberty keeping in mind that the goal of a parent is to shape their minds and hearts as they develope to fully believe the Catholic Church not out of exterior coercion but out of interior conversion
[quote]Here the Catholic Church is on the horns of a dilemma. If it says that people have a right to freedom of religion, then it admits that it is not infallible. If it says that it is infallible, then it admits that it really does not believe that people have a right to freedom of religion.  The Catholic Church can claim infallibility, or it can claim that it has seen the error of its ways and it now supports freedom of religion. But it can't have it both ways.[/quote]
no, as my title claims: freedom of religion is BAD, EVIL, NUTS, CRAZY, and freedom of religions is GOOD. In one sense: it is good that a man should have no coersion and thus the oppurtunity to freely come by Divind Grace to the Divine Catholic Faith. However: freedom of religion is evil as it supports religious relativism. The Church should be the teacher of all that is true about God, Faith, and Morals, and everyone should adhere to her on this. What Vatican II is merely saying is that the Church should not unfairly coerce people into following the Catholic Religion: but she should rather actually convert them, convince their minds and hearts to become Catholic of their own God-given free will (helped by the grace of God). By this understanding we can reconcile the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the decrees of Vatican II on religious liberty.
[quote]Two Roman Catholic organizations have found contradictions between "infallible" doctrinal declarations of the Second Vatican Council and "infallible" doctrinal pronouncements of Pope Pius IX. [Note 7 gives addresses of on-line articles dealing with these contradictions.]
The conservative group (True Catholic) concludes that, therefore, the Second Vatican Council must not be legitimate. The liberal group (Women Priests) concludes that, therefore, Pope Pius IX taught "errors". Either way, there are contradictions between official doctrinal declarations of an "infallible" pope and an "infallible" church council.[/quote]
Nope: they are wrong: netiher of these groups are Roman Catholic organizations, but rather they are dissident groups and thus should be categorized with the Pelagians and Arians and Doscitists and all other groups of heretics as not belonging to the True Catholic Faith.
[quote]True Catholic also claims that Pope John Paul II has taught 101 things which are contrary to "infallible" Catholic doctrines which were declared by "infallible" popes and church councils. They conclude that John Paul is therefore a heretic, which, according to Canon Law, means that he is not a valid pope. So they call him an anti-pope. [Note 8 gives the address of an on-line article.]
If John Paul II is not a valid pope, then the papal chair has been vacant. In order to rectify this situation, True Catholic has elected a pope. On May 20, 1998, Pope Pius XIII was elected. [Note 9 gives the address of an on-line article
So we now have two men who claim to be Pope: John Paul II and Pius XIII. It seems that having two popes at the same time is not confined to the Middle Ages.[/quote]
yep! there have been jealous men claiming to be anti-popes forever, they elect themselves and play pretend. Pius XIII was not elected by valid cardinals, Pius XIII was not elected for the entire Church, Pius XIII was elected by his buddies.

Edited August 9, 2004 by Aloysius

[Aloysius]

BUMP, dairygirl, you put an artical up which made the claim that two infallible things contradicted each other. Here I claim that they do not. are you prepared to defend your artical?

[Aloysius]

[color=blue][b]Bump. A claim was made that attempted to pit to Infallible statements together. Will anyone defend that they are contradictory? or will someone concede that they in fact can in fact be reconciled without sacrificing the intention of their teaching?[/b][/color]

[dairygirl4u2c]

I'll admit it.

[phatcatholic]

good work aloysius!

and i repeat the general sentiment: thank you for your humility dairygirl!