do you believe in religious freedom?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

I know. he died well before Lefebvre was excommunicated. but that doesn't mean he loved the NO mass either.

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='996608' date='Jun 4 2006, 02:48 PM']
I assume you think that St. Athansius went "against the foundation of Catholic teaching since 33 AD"? He was "excommunicated" by the Pope too for not giving into heresy, yet now he is a saint
[/quote]

Could you cite that source? I've been reading a book with quite a few chapters dedicated to St. Athanasius but the most I've seen is that he was exiled quite a few times... I skimmed through NewAdvent and I didn't see anything about excommunication either.

If you could eloborate a little more as well... I know St. Athanasius was a main speaker against Arianism, which of course wasn't a teaching of the Catholic Church, though parts of the Eastern Church were taking it as a belief before the 'trend' ended to say... Though that's if you are talking about that heresy

Edited June 5, 2006 by CatholicCid

[cappie]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='996716' date='Jun 5 2006, 12:32 PM']
I know. he died well before Lefebvre was excommunicated. but that doesn't mean he loved the NO mass either.
[/quote]

Didn't say he did

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='996716' date='Jun 4 2006, 09:32 PM']
I know. he died well before Lefebvre was excommunicated. but that doesn't mean he loved the NO mass either.
[/quote]


The Mass has changed quite a bit over the last 2000 years, that fact and the fact that the N.O. Mass is accepted by the Pope gives us reason to love it. We can love other things more, but to not love any valid Mass is unCatholic.



[quote]"[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. [b]The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end![/b]" (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).
-St. Augustine
[/quote]


Please ask yourself... how is the group you cling to (whatever it may be called - anti-New Mass) the city on the mountain for all to see, the light of the world, the salt of the earth?

Only a group of religious that is loyal to the current Pope can fit the words of Christ. The entire world knows of the Vatican, the Vatican is the light... it is the light that shines brightest in times of world trouble and immorality... one of the few if not the lone voice at the United Nations which speaks out for what is just to all in the world, especially the unborn.

[b]Matt 5:13 [/b]
"[color="red"]You are the salt of the earth. But if salt loses its taste, with what can it be seasoned? It is no longer good for anything but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. [/color]
[b]14 [/b] [color="red"]You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. [/color]
[b]15[/b][color="red"] Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house. [/color]


[b]Acts 20:29 [/b]
I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock.
[b]30 [/b] And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them.


[b]All [/b] who leave the group pervert the truth.


[b]2 Peter 3:15 [/b]
And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,
[b]16 [/b] speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.
[b]17 [/b] Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability.


Sometimes the Popes have written things that can be hard to understand... just as the Apostle Paul did. There are some who are ignorance and unstable that will distort them, to their own destruction, just as they do other writings... Those who split from the Pope are unprincipled and lead others astray.

These are facts... The Church will not be overcome... Why do some here claim that they are traditional when it is Catholic Tradition to follow the Pope?

Why is it so hard for some to grasp that because of Christ's very words and those by the Apostles that we are gauranteed that if we think the Pope (Who is the leader of the Group) is wrong, then we have a misunderstanding and we need to change our view to match the leader given to us by Christ.

Some may think that they are "saving" the Church by being anti-Pope/anti-V2/anti-NO... but they are not, they are being weeds among wheat. Do you not realize how pompus it is to think that God, creator of everything, would need a hand full of splinter groups to correct what God said would be guided in all truth (St. John 14)? Like it or not, V2 was God's will. Realize something... God doesn't need you or me... we need God, so we need to obey Him. We obey Him by obeying the ones He sent, not by thinking we are smarter than those ordained who can be traced by to Christ. We will never be wiser than the Magisterium of the Church.

We need God, and the way God wants us to come to Him is through Christ, we can only fully know Christ and come as close to Christlike as we can if we are totally Catholic and loyal to the Magisterium.

If you want to use St. Pio, then follow his example... He was totally obedient and did not deny V2 or the NO. Cherry picking St. Pio's life and pictures of him with people who went into error is not wise, nor honest.

Please, if you reply, explain to us how Christ was wrong or lied in reference to the things I wrote above (St. Matt & St. John). That is what anyone who is anti-V2 and anti-NO is saying.

Also, please explain to us how those who do so do not fall into Acts 20:29-30 and 2 Peter 3:15-17.

A logical and reasonable way to see how V2 jives with Church teachings is to read the actual V2 docs and read previous docs (councils, encyclicals, etc...)...

It is illogical to study V2 from people who are anti-V2... that's exactly like learning the Catholic Church from Ian Paisley... same principle.


God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited June 5, 2006 by ironmonk

[goldenchild17]

[quote]Goldenchild,
Maybe you need to actually read the Vatican II documents for yourself... don't listen to what others say about it....
Find them here...
[url="http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/vatican2.asp"]http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/vatican2.asp[/url]

Read them completely, take notes, and read them again.[/quote]

I could read them again it wouldn't hurt. But I have already read them. I wouldn't make such a large decision as I have without doing something as crucial as you suggest. Don't assume someone is like all the rest who will simply listen to someone's opinion and leave it at that. I fought for almost a year to make it work, read everything I could to defend it. But couldn't.

ON A DIFFERENT NOTE HOWEVER. I never said anything here against Vatican II. So I don't even know why we are discussing this. If you think Vatican II does not contradict the past teachings then great, then you should have no problem with the things I am bringing up. If Vatican II jives with the past teachings then what I post here should present no problem whatsoever. I think it is those who are trying to defend V2 that feel a bit threatened that anything posted from before Vatican II is a slam against it. While I believe in this case it is, I never made that the purpose of this thread. That was born out of you're admirable zeal to defend Vatican II. The thread simply asked if I believe in Religious Freedom and I said no and was giving some reasons why I don't. I never took that to the next step, ie showing how it contradicts Vatican II. Because I understand that criticizing Vatican II is against the rules here so I am respecting that. I don't see that this thread has to have anything to do with Vatican II.

[quote]The Pope is the Pope. All who disobey him are wrong to do so.[/quote]
Yes the Pope is the Pope. No one would disagree.

[quote]We must trust Christ even when our own reasoning says otherwise. Can Christ lie? No. Can Christ be wrong? No.[/quote]
Amen. This is true.

[quote]Christ promised the Church would never be overcome... that the Church would be guided in All Truth - that the Holy Spirit would remind the Church and teach the Church more (St. John 14)... Christ set the Church as a city on a mountain which cannot be hidden (St. Matt 5). [/quote]

So very true. We agree on these things 100%.

[quote]Everything from Christ's mouth is fact.[/quote]
Yup.

[quote]Therefore the Pope must be the Pope or there is no God...[/quote]

Yes a true pope is always the pope and nothing else.

[quote]Some may try to say that "the true church was left by the Pope", but then that's what Mormon's basically say... so we know that doesn't jive.[/quote]

I don't know anyone that I align myself with currently that would posit such an odd theory. The Papacy will be with us until the end of the world. It will never break it's continuous line, ever.

[quote]The problems in the Church over the last fifty years was not with Vatican II, it was with the liberal theology that has been a cancer which warped V2's statements and taken them out of context without reference to previous writings.[/quote]
I would suggest that there is MUCH more to the story than this. But as it enters the realm of the non-debatable subjects I won't do so.


[quote]And when I wrote paisley's tatics, I mean it in reference to taking a small part and ignoring the whole, or not looking at the rest.
It would take much more than one year to read all of the writings.[/quote]

It took me a few months to go through Vatican II. Yeah it was a lot of work . But to actually keep in tune with the purpose of this thread: Please show me how my quotes were "out of context". I don't see how they were.


[quote]There is a harmony in all of the Council's writings... if we do not see a harmony, then we have the wrong point of view.[/quote]
In any true council this is very true I agree 100%.

[quote]Our point of view should be humble and change as the Magisterium dictates. The Church has the power to bind... AND loose. [/quote]
Amen. P.S. this power to loose does not refer to doctrine, which is unchangable truth, as I would hope all Catholics realize.

[quote]The Church continues to grow in Wisdom. The Church knows that you cannot force religion on someone, and that it is reason that will win those chosen by God. [/quote]

Amen. I sometimes wonder if people ever read what I post here... In that post I specifically noted that Religious Tolerance is something that the Church accepts and understands. As I already said, no person can be forced to believe something. But their error does not have rights. Error is not free to spread itself or be spread among the faithful in order to possibly harm them. Anyone can personally believe whatever they want, as long as it does not enter the public.

[quote]Do you really believe in God? (think about what this means to believe... what God is... ) God has allowed so many divisions of Christianity... because of those divisions, more people have found the Church to hold the truth. As St. Augustine said "That the Catholic Faith may be confirmed even by the dissensions of the heretics" (City of God, Book 18).[/quote]
Yup I do. I don't need to think about this one at all. It's a no-brainer.

[quote]To try to put it into perspective in another way... if you were correct in principle, then you would be wrong on the basis of obediance.[/quote]

Not sure what this means, but as it refers to something this thread is not about I suggest we move on.

[quote]Don't you understand that even if the Vatican was wrong, by office of Peter is still the head teacher?[/quote]
The office of the Papacy is ALWAYS the head teacher. No true Catholic would disagree with you here and neither do I.

[quote]We have absolutly nothing to worry about if we follow the Pope... if we are obedient, then even if we are told wrong, we are protected from sinning because the Church is the Authority. [/quote]

If we faithfully follow a true Pope then we will not be led astray. I agree. Though I would say that all Catholics, whether they accept the current pope or not, has the ability and even the responsibility to oppose error when they see it. If a true pope gives us error, then we know that it cannot be a matter of faith and morals binding on all the faithful and thus we can be protected knowing that we are not opposing doctrine, but only the bad ideas of the Pope. Popes aren't protected from making bad decision remember, a good number of popes have made bad decisions, but never in the area of faith and morals.

[quote]Even if the Church was not infallible, by order of Christ we must follow it. All who leave her do so to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:15, Acts 20:29-30)... destruction is a very serious word.[/quote]
Amen. Which is why I did what I did. I am doing my best to follow Christ's directive to follow the Church, just as I'm sure you all are trying to do yourselves.

[quote]We can never be wrong to obey the Church.[/quote]

Amen.

[quote]We will always be wrong when we go against her.[/quote]

Amen.

[quote]The Church is the Hierarchy... and also the mystical body... the mystical body does not take presidence over the Hierarchy as some may believe... Harmony between the two is what is.[/quote]
Not sure what this means exactly but if you are simply repeating what you have been saying thusfar then I agree completely.

[quote]Christ's very words = (2+2=4) = Fact.[/quote]
Amen.

[quote]The Pope is the Pope.[/quote]
A true Pope is ALWAYS a Pope.

[quote]Don't get caught up in the motions like the pharisees of Christ's time... it will lead you into the apostasy that is spoken of in Revelation.[/quote]
Amen.

[quote]If we cannot see the harmony, then we have a plank in our eye... if we have a plank in our eye, then we should pray that we come to understand. Maybe it will take years, but we can all rest asured that Christ's words are Truth. Christ has spoken on matters of authority and the Church, there is nothing to debate. We obey Christ and be Catholic and listen to the ones that Christ sent us (The Pope), or reject the ones Christ sent which means we will reject Christ and God (St. Luke 10:16) and put our souls in grave danger.[/quote]

If I have a plank in my eye I beg God to take it out. If I am wrong hopefully it won't be long before I am put back on the right path. However I cannot believe I am wrong otherwise I would never have considered going in this direction.


Now that the formalities are out of the way, how about we get back to this discussion eh?

How is it that I was taking those statements out of context?

[quote name='cappie' post='996661' date='Jun 4 2006, 05:36 PM']
I find it objectionable that people constantly use Padre Pio. Padre Pio was a son of the Church and respectful of Bishops. He was loyal to Pope Paul VI and accepted the documents of the Second Vatican Council.
[/quote]

Yes he did. He was perfectly obedient as were many good and holy people of the times. I would never fault someone living during those times to understand all that was going on. I am convinced that he was uncomfortable with many things that was happening as he never said the Novus Ordo, save for once I believe after being required to.

Even today, I do not fault the majority of people in the Novus Ordo. We are still seeing things play out and until things get settled and back to calmness no one will be able to understand fully what has happened. I believe it will take a future pope to sort through all this and let us know what exactly has happened.

This is why I do not fault the SSPX or Indult crowd nor any other Catholic for not completely agreeing with my theories either because we simply don't know for sure yet. Much less would I expect people right there at the beginning to see the fullness of it if we today still can't understand it completely.

Hmm, wonder why my quote function only worked for the second part of my post... Interesting




I will make a prediction. I predict this thread will be closed if we continue in the discussion that is being pushed here. I did not suggest any such discussion, or any criticism of the current Pope. I never here said the current teachings could not somehow jive with the past teachings. In fact I don't believe they can, but I refrained from saying so as such discussion is not allowed here and I really am trying to do my best to stay within the confines of the rules. I simply gave reasons why I did not believe in Religious Liberty. This discussion about the current Papacy was not brought upon by me. Just wanted to say that in case I was accused of doing so . I would be more than happy to return to the original discussion, or just let the whole discussion slide entirely whichever ya'll choose.

[ironmonk]

Ok, your post looks butchered due to the quote code not working... but I wrote what I wrote because I though you wrote somewhere basically stating that "The Pope wasn't the pope" - or at least that's the way I took it.

You wrote:
[quote]Jun 3 2006, 08:27 PM - Religious Liberty is one of the things that made me leave my alliance with the current popes so I feel pretty strongly about this one [/quote]

[quote]I don't know anyone that I align myself with currently that would posit such an odd theory. The Papacy will be with us until the end of the world. It will never break it's continuous line, ever.[/quote]

If you believe that Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope, then you would be correct.

If you are not in alliance with Pope Benedict XVI, then you are in grave error.

You disagree with the Catechism which is clear on the matter of religious tolerance/freedom... which is unCatholic.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Jnorm888]

A prespyterian elder once told me that A Jesuit preist killed or tried to kill one of their missionaries with a grenade.


the man was an upright man so I knew he wasn't lying, but I still didn't want to believe him for the Jesuits in America didn't act like that.



But then again alot of muslims act differently over here too.



Well,



lets just say that after hearing what came out of some of the mouths on here I now know that what that minister told me was true.



Catholics in Catholic countries may have a different mind set than those in America.


All this tells me is that Roman Christians who try to use force to stop the spread of a Non Italian christian faith will see their cultural christian population convert to many different protestant denominations......as well as Old Catholic denominations.


Just look at Brazil.....The place where that Jesuit tried to kill that minister.


Well Brazil is becoming more and more Protestant. especially of the charismatic type.


And the growth will rapidly continue as long as Traditional Latin Christians use force to stop it.


And all those wild and awfull stories about Catholics that many Protestants were told and raised in will be confirmed as being true instead of as false.


And the bloodshed between Protestants and Catholics will continue. Surely this ain't the sermon on the mount type of Christianity that Jesus tought. The founder of the Christian Faith.


Such men who think they can kill and act carnal in the name of the Christian faith surely are not converted to the ways and mind of Christ.

For what they know is not Christianity but an ethnic political system.






INLOVE Jnorm


And Latin America is not the only hot spot for Protestants.

Europe is now one too. For if the people in Catholic Europe don't know anything about christianity then Protestants and Old Catholics will teach them. Spain and Italy are two of the new hot spots.

It is better for a cultural catholic to become Protestant than remain knowing nothing about the Christian faith. I dated a Roman Catholic who thought Satan was God's equal and she was into horascopes and she thought all of this was in line with catholic teaching.


no I say it is best for them to become Protestant or Old Catholic.



freedom of religion

Edited June 5, 2006 by jnorm888

[Jnorm888]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='996120' date='Jun 3 2006, 11:50 AM']
ohh come off it!
this is what the church has always thaught! is it really compassionate to let someone burn in hell because you didn't stick up for the Truth of God?

btw there were not continious witch trials from 400-1700.
[/quote]





IS that what they thought from 33 A.D. to 400 A.D.?



I think not.







INLOVE Jnorm

[jezic]

How does religious freedom degenerate into another argument about the NO Mass?

[Jnorm888]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='996122' date='Jun 3 2006, 12:01 PM']
why is that you all assume i have no love? of course i have love. im not racking some heretic, and making them convert by force. i am simply saying i do not believe in relegious liberity (niether did Pius XI).
[/quote]



If you didn't believe in religious liberty then you wouldn't have the liberty to disagree as you do.




You talk about all non Roman Catholics going to hell and being false religions and spitting lies.



But what does that make you and your group? Are you in communion with Rome?




If not then you are no different than a Protestant! A Reformer!


And according to your own arguement you shouldn't have the freedom to disagree with the Roman Catholic Church.


Your group should be persecuted and killed for speaking lies. Any and Every Roman Catholic Country should not allow your group to practice their religion nor to evangelize.






INLOVE JNORM


Your words condemn you for you stand outside of the Communion. Therefore heaven can't be yours.



I think it's time for you to believe in vatican II. At least then you will still be able to go to Heaven.









Just to let you know. I am a Protestant. I only said what I said just to get you to understand how illogical your beliefs are. For you are not Roman Catholic yet you claim that all non Roman Catholics are going to hell.

Edited June 5, 2006 by jnorm888

[ironmonk]

[quote name='jezic' post='997278' date='Jun 5 2006, 10:41 AM']
How does religious freedom degenerate into another argument about the NO Mass?
[/quote]

Because those who appose it have nothing reasonable to use against religious freedom so they try to come up with other things to base their reason on. aka Red Herring.




jnorm888,
I wouldn't believe the story so quickly... yes, it's possible, but if it were true then that Jesuit was acting against Church teachings that have held since 33 AD.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='997200' date='Jun 5 2006, 05:13 AM']
Ok, your post looks butchered due to the quote code not working... but I wrote what I wrote because I though you wrote somewhere basically stating that "The Pope wasn't the pope" - or at least that's the way I took it. [/quote]

Okay, basically I was agreeing with just about everything you said.

[quote name='ironmonk' post='997200' date='Jun 5 2006, 05:13 AM']If you believe that Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope, then you would be correct. [/quote]
Okay.

[quote name='ironmonk' post='997200' date='Jun 5 2006, 05:13 AM']If you are not in alliance with Pope Benedict XVI, then you are in grave error. [/quote]

Then apparently I am in grave error.

[quote name='ironmonk' post='997200' date='Jun 5 2006, 05:13 AM']You disagree with the Catechism which is clear on the matter of religious tolerance/freedom... which is unCatholic.

God Bless,
ironmonk
[/quote]

I only disagree with it if my quotes have indeed been taken out of context, which you still haven't shown me that they are. This is what the thread is about and am open to correction in this matter if they are indeed out of context. I completely believe in religious tolerance, but never would I believe in the freedom of error. Now, this is what the thread is about. Maybe you could now show me where I err in this regard. I only disagree with the Catechism if the Catechism disagrees with the quotes I gave, please show me how they do. THanks.

[quote name='jezic' post='997278' date='Jun 5 2006, 08:41 AM']
How does religious freedom degenerate into another argument about the NO Mass?
[/quote]

Has it? I hope not. That would be odd.

[quote name='jnorm888' post='997287' date='Jun 5 2006, 08:58 AM']
If you didn't believe in religious liberty then you wouldn't have the liberty to disagree as you do.
You talk about all non Roman Catholics going to hell and being false religions and spitting lies.
But what does that make you and your group? Are you in communion with Rome?
If not then you are no different than a Protestant! A Reformer!
And according to your own arguement you shouldn't have the freedom to disagree with the Roman Catholic Church.
Your group should be persecuted and killed for speaking lies. Any and Every Roman Catholic Country should not allow your group to practice their religion nor to evangelize.
INLOVE JNORM
Your words condemn you for you stand outside of the Communion. Therefore heaven can't be yours.
I think it's time for you to believe in vatican II. At least then you will still be able to go to Heaven.
Just to let you know. I am a Protestant. I only said what I said just to get you to understand how illogical your beliefs are. For you are not Roman Catholic yet you claim that all non Roman Catholics are going to hell.
[/quote]

Actually I believe everything you just said, except for the part about all unbelievers going to hell. That enters the realm of the doctrine of EENS which is not on this topic but might be a good one to start a thread about. But other than that I agree with you. If I am considered outside the Church, then my position should not be allowed to present itself openly. I would just have to go against the good law, just as I would expect any true believer of their faith to do. But I would not expect to do this without being persecuted.

[quote name='ironmonk' post='997290' date='Jun 5 2006, 09:02 AM']
Because those who appose it have nothing reasonable to use against religious freedom so they try to come up with other things to base their reason on. aka Red Herring.
jnorm888,
I wouldn't believe the story so quickly... yes, it's possible, but if it were true then that Jesuit was acting against Church teachings that have held since 33 AD.
God Bless,
ironmonk
[/quote]

I must have missed it. Which post mentions the Novus Ordo mass? Why would that have anything to do with this discussion?

Edited June 5, 2006 by goldenchild17

[Dave]

They way Lefebvre, EENS and certain others of you understand Dignitais Humanae in your private judgment is wrong. Pope Paul VI and John Paul II don't teach contrary to Quas Primas or Quanta Cura, but teach in perfect harmony.

Quas Primas or Quanta Cura were against the Freemasonry idea of Religious Freedom. That is perfect and remains today. Dignitatis Humanae and Paul VI were against COMMUNIST dictatorships that FORCED their people to be Godless.

Do you remember the time of Dignitatis Humanae? Does the Soviet Empire tell you something? Catholic Poland, Catholic Lithuania under Communist slavery? Millions of Christians in Ukraine, Vietnam, Cuba, Slovenia, etc under Communist and Official Atheism tells you something?

It is extremely easy: Quas Primas or Quanta Cura against Freemasonry state, Dignitatis Humanae against Communist slavery that forced their people to live without God.

Had you ever, ever, ever read the Catechism of John Paul II 2108 and 2109??

I bet you never had. So here it is:

2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,( 37 Cf. Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum 18; Pius XII AAS 1953,799) but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right (Pius XII, 6 December 1953).

2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner (Cf. Pius VI, Quod aliquantum (1791) 10; Pius IX, Quanta cura 3). The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order.” (cf Pío IX, enc. "Quanta cura").

So now you can see. The “modernist” Catechism of John Paul II goes to Quanta Cura and keep their teaching alive. There is no Moral Freedom to choose a religion. All is about a political Freedom so Communist states do not impose Anti-God teaching.

“In order to be faithful to the divine command, "teach all nations" (Matt. 28:19-20), the Catholic Church must work with all urgency and concern "that the word of God be spread abroad and glorified" (2 Thess. 3:1). Hence the Church earnestly begs of its children that, "first of all, supplications, prayers, petitions, acts of thanksgiving be made for all men.... For this is good and agreeable in the sight of God our Savior, who wills that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1-4). In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church. (35) For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself. Furthermore, let Christians walk in wisdom in the face of those outside, "in the Holy Spirit, in unaffected love, in the word of truth" (2 Cor. 6:6-7), and let them be about their task of spreading the light of life with all confidence(36) and apostolic courage, even to the shedding of their blood.” (Dignitatis Humanae)

And please don't forget that Lefebvre signed Dignitatis Humanae!

[Tata126]

My post about Vatican II was in response to perfectly good Catechism quotes which should have settled the issue being thrown out the window because they were pre-Vatican II. For your reference, in post 42, IronMonk gave the relevant Catechism points, and maybeI misread Akalyte's post, and he didn't intend to discredit the post-Vatican II source, but it seemed like he did to me, and at any rate nobody paid attention to the Catechism quotes anymore. I was only saying that if we consider the Church's teachings to be unified through the ages, as I think most of us here do, we should trust what the Catechism says, and read the other sources in light of the Catechism, being that it is the Church's unified statement of what she teaches. I think the Catechism's answer is fairly clear. Once again, I refer everyone to post 42.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Dave' post='997443' date='Jun 5 2006, 11:19 AM']
They way Lefebvre, EENS and certain others of you understand Dignitais Humanae in your private judgment is wrong. [/quote]
Okay, thank goodness I don't have to rely on my faulty private judgment as I am quite sure I would be wrong if I did so. It is fortunate that we have the past popes who have already cleared this one up for us.

[quote name='Dave' post='997443' date='Jun 5 2006, 11:19 AM']Pope Paul VI and John Paul II don't teach contrary to Quas Primas or Quanta Cura, but teach in perfect harmony. [/quote]
Okay. I disagree but will not argue it here as this would signify Catholic v. Catholic debate. I will not argue this side of it here as I don't care to get into too much trouble over it .

[quote name='Dave' post='997443' date='Jun 5 2006, 11:19 AM']Quas Primas or Quanta Cura were against the Freemasonry idea of Religious Freedom. That is perfect and remains today. Dignitatis Humanae and Paul VI were against COMMUNIST dictatorships that FORCED their people to be Godless. [/quote]
Not sure what this has to do with anything. Did it say communist and freemason religions were the only ones not allowed to show up in public? Not that I know of, but if you could point out where I would appreciate it. The only thing the documents said as far as I could tell was that error had no public rights. It didn't specify that only some errors didn't have public rights from what I read. But if I missed where it said this I'd be glad if you showed where.

[quote name='Dave' post='997443' date='Jun 5 2006, 11:19 AM']Do you remember the time of Dignitatis Humanae? Does the Soviet Empire tell you something? Catholic Poland, Catholic Lithuania under Communist slavery? Millions of Christians in Ukraine, Vietnam, Cuba, Slovenia, etc under Communist and Official Atheism tells you something? [/quote]
Definitely does. Tells me that Communism and athiesm and freemasonry smell of elderberries! : But I didn't see anything in the documents that show them specifying only these errors. But I could be wrong, just show me where it says only these things were being addressed.

[quote name='Dave' post='997443' date='Jun 5 2006, 11:19 AM']It is extremely easy: Quas Primas or Quanta Cura against Freemasonry state, Dignitatis Humanae against Communist slavery that forced their people to live without God. [/quote]

Most of their letters had a focus. I'm sure they did focus on Communism and Freemasonry as the main topic. However I see nothing to indicate that only these errors had no free reign in public. I saw it say that no error has rights and therefore no error is free to show itself in the public forum. Last time I checked, 'no error' meant 'NO error' and not 'most errors' or 'some errors' or 'only the errors that we mention in this specific document'...

[quote name='Dave' post='997443' date='Jun 5 2006, 11:19 AM']Had you ever, ever, ever read the Catechism of John Paul II 2108 and 2109??

I bet you never had. So here it is: [/quote]
Yes I did. I was within the Vatican II mindset defending it as hard as I could for all my life until the last year. I have read the CCC in it's entirety though not in awhile, but I remember these passages as I have read them recently.



[quote name='Dave' post='997443' date='Jun 5 2006, 11:19 AM']2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,( 37 Cf. Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum 18; Pius XII AAS 1953,799) but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right (Pius XII, 6 December 1953). [/quote]

This seems to refer more to religious tolerance than anything. I have no problem with tolerance of another religion.

[quote name='Dave' post='997443' date='Jun 5 2006, 11:19 AM']2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner (Cf. Pius VI, Quod aliquantum (1791) 10; Pius IX, Quanta cura 3). The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order.” (cf Pío IX, enc. "Quanta cura").

So now you can see. The “modernist” Catechism of John Paul II goes to Quanta Cura and keep their teaching alive. There is no Moral Freedom to choose a religion. All is about a political Freedom so Communist states do not impose Anti-God teaching. [/quote]

Okay. Good! Then how is my interpretation of the past documents wrong? That is what I am saying, except for the part about it referring only to Communist states. I'm not sure where you get that it only refers to Communist and/or athiestic states, as neither of these catechism quotes mention either communism or athiesm at all.

I would argue that more than just these 2 statements must be taken in context to show what post-Vatican II really teaches, but as I am not arguing that in this thread, or on this forum apparently, just show me how my interpretation is wrong. IF what you say is the real interpretation, then how am I disagreeing? I believe there is no moral freedom to choose one's own religion. I believe there is no moral freedom to choose one's own religion. I would say a bit more about it, but you haven't shown me how my interpretation is wrong yet(regardless of whether I agree with the post-VII interpretation or not).

[quote name='Dave' post='997443' date='Jun 5 2006, 11:19 AM']“In order to be faithful to the divine command, "teach all nations" (Matt. 28:19-20), the Catholic Church must work with all urgency and concern "that the word of God be spread abroad and glorified" (2 Thess. 3:1). Hence the Church earnestly begs of its children that, "first of all, supplications, prayers, petitions, acts of thanksgiving be made for all men.... For this is good and agreeable in the sight of God our Savior, who wills that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1-4). In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church. (35) For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself. Furthermore, let Christians walk in wisdom in the face of those outside, "in the Holy Spirit, in unaffected love, in the word of truth" (2 Cor. 6:6-7), and let them be about their task of spreading the light of life with all confidence(36) and apostolic courage, even to the shedding of their blood.” (Dignitatis Humanae)

And please don't forget that Lefebvre signed Dignitatis Humanae!
[/quote]

I have no idea what you are trying to accomplish by this. Again, just show me how my interpretation is wrong. That's all I'm asking for. I am not concerned with whether or not the great Archbishop signed this document or not. If this document is in error, then all people make mistakes. I know with certainty that Archbishop Lefebvre had serious issues with Vatican II's teaching on Religious Liberty. I know not under what conditions he signed this document. But as I am not arguing against the Vatican II teaching in this thread(instead only giving my belief and what I believe to be the Church's belief, regardless of whether Vatican II is in line with it or not) I am thus not concerned with it. I just want to know how my understanding of the pre-Vatican II documents is flawed.

[quote name='Tata126' post='997956' date='Jun 5 2006, 08:29 PM']I was only saying that if we consider the Church's teachings to be unified through the ages, as I think most of us here do, we should trust what the Catechism says, and read the other sources in light of the Catechism, being that it is the Church's unified statement of what she teaches. [/quote]
Sure just remember it goes both ways. If the Church's teaching is unified then we should have no problem going back before Vatican II and reading sources on the exact same subject and if it is a unified teaching we will come up with the same answer from reading either Pre-Vat or Post-Vat sources.