Do There Exist "enemies Of The Church"?

[Perigrina]

Hmmm. I think it's that you don't understand where most traditionalists are coming from when they go document diving. They are coming, most of them, from a restorationist or integralist point of view.

 

It is really confusing when I think that someone is having a conversation with me and she is actually addressing the views of people who are not there.

 

I have been participating in trad forums for several years.  I have a pretty good idea of the range of views held among trads.  Yes, some of them are really messed up.  Some of them misuse quotes from Church documents.  I have not, however, seen any misused quotes in this thread.  Moreover, the overwhelming majority of posts that I have seen from trads on this forum since I have been here have perfectly reasonable.  I am not sure why you want to talk about some bad trads who are out there somewhere.

[Maggyie]

P, re-read the beginning of the thread. Nihil is one of the traditionalists I'm talking about.

[Nihil Obstat]

That is rather hurtful.

[Perigrina]

P, re-read the beginning of the thread. Nihil is one of the traditionalists I'm talking about.

 

What a coincidence.  He was one of the people I was talking about who is perfectly reasonable.  I really do not see how you could have a problem with what he has written.

[Maggyie]

Come on Nihil. Maybe I've misunderstood you. Do you believe with the church in the importance of freedom of religion and the press, primacy of conscience, democracy and so forth? Or do you think Catholic teaching actually goes toward an official Catholic state where the throne and altar are entwined?

[Perigrina]

Come on Nihil. Maybe I've misunderstood you. Do you believe with the church in the importance of freedom of religion and the press, primacy of conscience, democracy and so forth? Or do you think Catholic teaching actually goes toward an official Catholic state where the throne and altar are entwined?

 

What a loaded question!  You are identifying things as "believing with the Church" which the Church does not teach, at least not the way that you appear to understand them.  Everything that Nihil wrote in this thread is consistent with recent Church teaching.  The only questionable post he has made in this thread is the yawn smiley. That was not courteous.  But you are portraying him as rebelling against Church authority and there is no evidence for that.

[Maggyie]

P, there's no question that what I wrote is current Catholic teaching. If someone believes differently they are not thinking with the Church. Someone who believes differently would not be a candidate to teach theology in an orthodox Catholic seminary.

[mortify ii]

Since this doesn't seem to be removed yet, I'll point it out. For those who don't know, "synagogue of Satan" is a white supremacist, anti Semitic book by Andrew Carrington Hitchcock. Although the phrase is used in the book of Revelation, most people use it in the same breath with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the Illuminati etc.

 

I am not familiar with the book you mentioned nor am I white supremacist. I was using the phrase as it appears in the Book of Revelation. 

[mortify ii]

Not all feminists and homosexuals are out to get you

 

I agree, which is why I prefaced those terms with the word "radical".

[mortify ii]

P, there's no question that what I wrote is current Catholic teaching. If someone believes differently they are not thinking with the Church. Someone who believes differently would not be a candidate to teach theology in an orthodox Catholic seminary.

 

Interesting. So is "orthodoxy" a shifting term? 

[Canonistwannabe]

I believe the current United States president and his fellow liberals are enemies of the Church. Many support abortion, gay marriage, and through Obama care force the church to provide contraceptives to employees.

[Perigrina]

P, there's no question that what I wrote is current Catholic teaching. If someone believes differently they are not thinking with the Church. Someone who believes differently would not be a candidate to teach theology in an orthodox Catholic seminary.

 

You seem to think that the Church's teaching on religious freedom precludes a Catholic confessional state.That is simply wrong.  Vatican II understood religious freedom in a way that  "leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ".   You do not seem to understand that the teaching on primacy of conscience assumes that Catholics form their conscience based on the Church's ability to authoritatively teach truth.  There are some positive comments in recent teaching about freedom of the press when limited by moral order and the common good.   I have no idea how you got the idea that the Church teaches the importance of democracy.  

 

You seem unable to support your opinions about what is entailed in current Church teaching.  You just assert them and belittle people who are actually able to show Church documents in support of their views.  You have not given any reason for anyone to believe your claims about thinking with the Church.   

[mortify ii]

"If we do not have hierarchies, we are eventually unjust with everything.
Even with what we were, or what we are."

 

Don Colacho

[Nihil Obstat]

What a loaded question! You are identifying things as "believing with the Church" which the Church does not teach, at least not the way that you appear to understand them. Everything that Nihil wrote in this thread is consistent with recent Church teaching. The only questionable post he has made in this thread is the yawn smiley. That was not courteous. But you are portraying him as rebelling against Church authority and there is no evidence for that.

You are right; the yawn was not very courteous. I apologize for that.

[mortify ii]

Hoping Maggie will retract her offensive suggestion that I was promoting some ridiculous piece of white supremacist literature...

Edited June 2, 2014 by mortify ii

[Basilisa Marie]

Since we're talking documents, here's the whole snippet from Dignitatus Humanae
 

 

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.

Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society.

2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

 

Church teaching doesn't reject a Catholic state, and it follows logically that a perfect world would be one in which everyone were Catholic. But the Church also believes that a government cannot coerce people to become Catholic (or any other religion, for that matter, partly because you can't coerce people to convert and mostly because other religions are wrong). Democracy on a grand scale really isn't a Catholic virtue, and hasn't been since the first few centuries when bishops were still elected. Plus before America, the Church only really flourished in places where the throne and altar really were intertwined, since like the time of Constantine.  But DH does go on to say:

 

 

Government is also to help create conditions favorable to the fostering of religious life, in order that the people may be truly enabled to exercise their religious rights and to fulfill their religious duties, and also in order that society itself may profit by the moral qualities of justice and peace which have their origin in men's faithfulness to God and to His holy will. (6)

If, in view of peculiar circumstances obtaining among peoples, special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional order of society, it is at the same time imperative that the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice.

Finally, government is to see to it that equality of citizens before the law, which is itself an element of the common good, is never violated, whether openly or covertly, for religious reasons. Nor is there to be discrimination among citizens.

It follows that a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the profession or repudiation of any religion, or when it hinders men from joining or leaving a religious community. All the more is it a violation of the will of God and of the sacred rights of the person and the family of nations when force is brought to bear in any way in order to destroy or repress religion, either in the whole of mankind or in a particular country or in a definite community.

 

So basically, even in a Catholic state, you'd still have religious freedom in nearly the same way as it is practiced in America.  The fact that they call this a development of doctrine in the first snippet I quoted signals to me that they recognize that this is a shift how we understand how to carry out our obligation to pursue truth, our freedom to pursue truth, and how the Church relates to the state. 

Edited June 2, 2014 by Basilisa Marie

[mortify ii]

Some food for thought: must a Catholic state permit the publication and distribution of Wahhabist literature? 

[Maggyie]

No, a confessional state is not precluded so to speak.

Here is what the church teaches about freedom of religion.

2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.

... If, in view of peculiar circumstances obtaining among peoples, special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional order of society, it is at the same time imperative that the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice.

In the life of the People of God, as it has made its pilgrim way through the vicissitudes of human history, there has at times appeared a way of acting that was hardly in accord with the spirit of the Gospel or even opposed to it. Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Church that no one is to be coerced into faith has always stood firm.

... The council exhorts Catholics, and it directs a plea to all men, most carefully to consider how greatly necessary religious freedom is, especially in the present condition of the human family. All nations are coming into even closer unity. Men of different cultures and religions are being brought together in closer relationships. There is a growing consciousness of the personal responsibility that every man has. All this is evident. Consequently, in order that relationships of peace and harmony be established and maintained within the whole of mankind, it is necessary that religious freedom be everywhere provided with an effective constitutional guarantee and that respect be shown for the high duty and right of man freely to lead his religious life in society.

There are a ton of examples, but I feel I'm being hypocritical in doing a document dump. If you're confused about the Church's acceptance of democracy as legitimate I'd refer you to Centesimus Annus, which again I don't really want to reproduce.

If you're unaware of the tremendous earthquake this development of doctrine caused in Catholic theology - if you don't know the bitter history of how this issue came to be addressed at the Council, with the parties fighting tooth and nail over the development you believe never occurred - If you can't see the revolution in approach when comparing these words to those of the 19th century reaction - I don't know what to tell you.

[mortify ii]

:bananahi:

 

Hi Maggie

[Maggyie]

Ha Basalisa you beat me to it!

Mortify I'm so glad you're not associated with Jew or synagogue bashing. The phrase "synagogue of satan" isn't used very much, except by radical traditionalists and the like, for that purpose. So to avoid confusion I would encourage you to choose different terms in the future.