do you believe in religious freedom?

[Jnorm888]

How will you handle naturalism?



Isn't that a religion too? It seems to be the Religion of Europe and America more and more.




If you push that arguement on them like you did me then they will pull the Copernicus and Galileo card on you.


So what will that do to your truth? You may still believe in your arguement but most of the world will ignore you.




For the truth wasn't what you thought it was and it can be seen by anyone with a telescope.










INLOVE Jnorm


Rome can change according to her present situation in the World. She has in the past and I'm sure she will in the future.

Edited June 2, 2006 by jnorm888

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

i reject relegious freedom. for my reasoning just read Open letters to Confused Catholics! lol.


i do believe however that if this country ever became a "Catholic" country that Relegious tolerance should be allowed.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Franimus' post='995366' date='Jun 2 2006, 04:34 AM']
Actually, this is exactly the place for you to debate it...
[/quote]

Okay, I'll post some stuff in just a bit.

If I get in trouble for arguing against this it's your fault! : j/k

[Resurrexi]

[quote] Not allowing other religions to at least privately evangelize, let alone practice, would be severe oppression. [/quote]

no it wouldnt be sever oppression, it would be the protection of the Truth. And even if it were so called "severe oppression" does it matter? Severe oppression is fine if it is to protect the Truth (I'm not defending Hitler here, by the way: you should never kill anyone because of their race, ethnicity, social status or medical condition; though buring people at the stake for being UNREPENTANT heretics is fine).

[quote]But such talk won't get you anywhere with Protestants like myself. Nor will it get you anywhere with the Orthodox.[/quote]

well, I'm debating, not trying to convert as I'm typing this post.

[quote]Nor will it make Roman christians in China and the Middle East have religious freedom.[/quote]

Please do not refer to the Catholic Religion as the "Roman Religion". Roman is an exceptable term to use for describing the Roman Tradition of the Church as distinct from the Eastern Tradition, but the term you should have used in your post was "Catholic", not "Roman". And, by the way, you should never compromise the Truth, even to help others, though I do firmly believe Catholics in the Orient and in the Holy Land do need much help.

[quote]Such a view will have a hard time surviving in this post modern age. Most likely it will fade in the background.[/quote]

well, Catholicism itself has a hard time surviving in this "post modern age" because it is not of this world and must not change with time, for it exists outside of time. The same must be said for the teachigns of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. And quite frankly my dear, I dont give a beaver dam if my views seem outdated. Moreover, the beliefs of the members of the One True Religion will never fade into the background, though one day they may appear to have faded.

[quote]But if that is the mode you are stuck on then you must accept the backlash or consequences for such a view.[/quote]

I'd rather be persecuted for my beliefs than reject them any day.

[quote]If you push that arguement on them like you did me then they will pull the Copernicus and Galileo card on you.[/quote]

Don't care, Galileo was wrong anyway.

[quote]So what will that do to your truth? You may still believe in your arguement but most of the world will ignore you.[/quote]

There will be a day when most of the world will ignore the Truth, and if they choose to deny it, then it's their loss. The Truth is the Truth, even if only a few still believe it. Oh, and by the way, the teachings of the Catholic Church are not "my truth", they are "[i]the[/i] Truth"


[quote]For the truth wasn't what you thought it was and it can be seen by anyone with a telescope.[/quote]

The Truth is what the Church thinks it is for God has revealed the Truth to His Church. And, by the way, you cannot see that the Earth revolves around the sun by looking through a telescope, for the sun revolves around the Earth.

[quote]Rome can change according to her present situation in the World. She has in the past and I'm sure she will in the future.[/quote]

the Catholic Church can not change because, as I have stated, she is not of this world or age, she is of Heaven. She has not in the past and will never do so in the future.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='995973' date='Jun 3 2006, 12:14 AM']for the sun revolves around the Earth.
[/quote]

I'm not disagreeing with you because I'm still studying this issue. But I think you just opened a can of worms that really should be left for another thread.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='996094' date='Jun 3 2006, 12:19 PM']
I'm not disagreeing with you because I'm still studying this issue. But I think you just opened a can of worms that really should be left for another thread.
[/quote]


yeah.....


to adress evangelization of relegions deemed to be incorrect: We as Catholics believe in One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which no one at all is saved. To allow someone to lead someone away from their only shot to Heaven should be considered spiritual murder (the murder of a person is bad enough, but at least that person can enter heaven, where as someone who leaves the church only has the chance of BOD or BOB). It also creates scandal to allow other's to faslely evangelize. If truth is so important we must protect it, and not allow others to lead the people away.

for those of you who speak of Human dignity i suggest you read this:

[quote]A little theology will help us toward a proper understanding of the spirit in which this declaration was drawn up. The initial--and, in fact, new--argument was based on the freedom of every man to practice inwardly and outwardly the religion of his choice, on the basis of “the dignity of the human person.” In this view, liberty is based on dignity, which gives it its raison d’être. Man can hold any error whatever in the name of his dignity.

This is putting the cart before the horse. For whoever clings to error loses his dignity and can no longer build upon it. Rather, the foundation of liberty is truth, not dignity. "The truth will make you free," said Our Lord.

What is dignity? According to Catholic tradition, man derives dignity from his perfection, i.e, from his knowledge of the truth and his acquisition of the good. Man is worthy of respect in accordance with his intention to obey God, not in accordance with his errors, which will inevitably lead to sin. When Eve the first sinner succumbed, she said, “The serpent deceived me.” Her sin and that of Adam led to the downfall of human dignity, from which we have suffered ever since.

We cannot then make the downfall the cause of liberty. On the contrary, adherence to truth and the love of God are the principles of authentic religious liberty, which we can define as the liberty to render to God the worship due to Him and to live according to His commandments.

If you have followed my argument, you see that religious liberty cannot be applied to false religions; it does not allow of being split up in this way; the only right that must be recognized by the state is that of the citizens to practice Christ's religion.[/quote]

A man who practices a false relegion has no dignity in the eyes of God, becuase dignity comes from Man's intention to do God's will, and therefore Man loses his dignity when his intention is not to obey God.

[quote]“Just as the civil power considers it right to protect citizens from the seductions of error, so it may also regulate and moderate the public expression of other forms of worship and defend its citizens against the diffusion of false doctrines which, in the judgment of the Church, endanger their eternal salvation.”[/quote]
-Cardinal Ottaviani

[desertwoman]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='996100' date='Jun 3 2006, 10:33 AM']
yeah.....
to adress evangelization of relegions deemed to be incorrect: We as Catholics believe in One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside of which no one at all is saved. To allow someone to lead someone away from their only shot to Heaven should be considered spiritual murder (the murder of a person is bad enough, but at least that person can enter heaven, where as someone who leaves the church only has the chance of BOD or BOB). It also creates scandal to allow other's to faslely evangelize. If truth is so important we must protect it, and not allow others to lead the people away.

for those of you who speak of Human dignity i suggest you read this:
A man who practices a false relegion has no dignity in the eyes of God, becuase dignity comes from Man's intention to do God's will, and therefore Man loses his dignity when his intention is not to obey God.
-Cardinal Ottaviani
[/quote]


wow. I'm just speachless. No love, no compassion. This statment seems like it could have come from the time of the witchtrials of 400-1700.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='996116' date='Jun 3 2006, 01:34 PM']
wow. I'm just speachless. No love, no compassion. This statment seems like it could have come from the time of the witchtrials of 400-1700.
[/quote]


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.

[Fidei Defensor]

"The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power."

It's your complete disregard towards charity and love that helps people condemn themselves to hell. If they see no love coming from the Church that claims to be of God, then why in hell would they convert and become members?

We must love one another, or die.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

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).

[Era Might]

[quote]The human nature of Christ represented, to a great extent, the human nature of every single person who has ever lived. ...Every single human being that would ever be born until the end of time was incorporated into this humanity. Hence, there is not a Buddhist, Confucioanist, communist, sinner, or saint who is not in this human nature of Christ. We're in it. Our neighbor next door is in it. Every persecutor of the Church is, too. When we are puzzled about how other people are saved, we need only realize that implicitly all salvation of all men, are in Christ. They may not recognize their incorporation to Christ, but in a certain sense every person in the world is implicitly a Christian in his human nature. ...If the sin of Adam had so many repercussions in every human being who has lived, shall we deny the incarnation of our blessed Lord has had a greater repercussion? Can the sin of one man have greater effects and disorder in human nature than the Incarnation of the Son of God has in ordering all humanity? Thus, I say everybody in the world is implicitly Christian.

--Archbishop Fulton Sheen, "Your Life Is Worth Living", pgs. 67-68[/quote]

Edited June 3, 2006 by Era Might

[desertwoman]

ah, I'm not Catholic.

Yes, the trials were not singular, they were plural. They started in certain areas and some areas were quite. They happened for different reasons ie... social, political, and religious issues did spawn them.

I'm becoming such a nerd about these trials. This class I'm taking is fun!!

oh, and telling someone the truth of Christ is one thing. WHen they refuse, we shouldn't deny them freedoms or the such.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='996122' date='Jun 3 2006, 01:01 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]
Sam, love is not something that you keep to yourself and harbor in your own heart. It must flow through your actions and your words. You say you have love, but your actions and words are stone cold.

[journeyman]

The problem with this question is a problem that has plagued the Church since it was founded. People live in the here and now, in this world. Jesus' kingdom is not of this world.

Men of government need to be guided by the morality that is the special province of the church. The church needs to be separate from the grasping for power in the secular sphere, so its teaching on morality is not tainted by those secular considerations.

When it gets right down to it, the authority of the government has always been dependent upon the ability to compel - through moral, economic, or physical means. It doesn't matter how well intentioned government may be, if it causes my death because I am too stupid or too stubborn to join a particular religion, it has killed me. Deliberately and purposefully. That constitutes murder.

If you, as the representative of the government, believe my death under those circumstances would be a lawful or justified killing, that is a reflection of your belief about my status as a human being.

[avemaria40]

I came from a nonreligious background and converted to Catholicism at the age of 15. Yes, I do believe in religious freedom because if we didn't have that, I wouldnt' be free to choose it! God gave us free will, no man should ever be allowed to deny that.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='996127' date='Jun 3 2006, 02:39 PM']
Sam, love is not something that you keep to yourself and harbor in your own heart. It must flow through your actions and your words. You say you have love, but your actions and words are stone cold.
[/quote]


Do i assume correctly that anyone who is against relegious liberity Has "actions and words that are stone Cold"?

So, do i assume correclty that your condemnation applies to His Late Holiness Pius IX?

CONDEMNED:
[quote]"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." (No. 77)[/quote]

CONDEMNED:
[quote]
"every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true." (No. 15) and that "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." (No. 78)[/quote]

It seems Pius IX was also cold and unloving, like me?

i am only restating Church teaching, but i guess that makes me unloving. But i always thought that Charity was rooted in Truth? 'guess not.


was Pope Boniface VIII unloving when he defined EENS?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='996136' date='Jun 3 2006, 02:26 PM']
Do i assume correctly that anyone who is against relegious liberity Has "actions and words that are stone Cold"?

So, do i assume correclty that your condemnation applies to His Late Holiness Pius IX?

CONDEMNED:
CONDEMNED:
It seems Pius IX was also cold and unloving, like me?

i am only restating Church teaching, but i guess that makes me unloving. But i always thought that Charity was rooted in Truth? 'guess not.
was Pope Boniface VIII unloving when he defined EENS?
[/quote]
I refuse to converse with you any longer. I am talking to you about your words. You know very well that I am not condemning his Holiness or anyone. I am not even condemning you. I am simply telling [b]you[/b] that [b]your[/b] words do not have love in them.

Good day, God bless.

Edited June 3, 2006 by fidei defensor

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='996167' date='Jun 3 2006, 04:54 PM']
I refuse to converse with you any longer. I am talking to you about your words. You know very well that I am not condemning his Holiness or anyone. I am not even condemning you. I am simply telling [b]you[/b] that [b]your[/b] words do not have love in them.

Good day, God bless.
[/quote]

your obligation as a Christian would be to tell me why, so i can fix the problem....

[Aloysius]

frankness is not necessarily opposed to love. you needn't always seem "nice" and "soft" about things to be loving.

[Tata126]

Wait... don't the Pope Pius quotes defend religous freedom? Or did I read them wrong? Or did I misunderstand extra ecclesia - I thought he took them as condemning religious freedom?

"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." (No. 77)

-doesn't this say that the Catholic religion should NOT be held as the only religion of the state?


"every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true." (No. 15) and that "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." (No. 78)

-and doesn't this say that every man should be free to worship as he chooses?

The State's job is in protecting basic human life and allowing people to live together peacably, and it's the Church that has the obligation to preach truth and convert people who believe what is not true - which means that the State should allow people to practice and profess whatever religion they hold, as long as it does not harm people, and that means physically, not spiritually, because the State has no authority in the spiritual realm. It is not up to the government to decide what is good for people's souls. Though it is legitimate for there to be a religion particularly favored by the State, it's not legitimate for the State to persecute other religions, unless the practice of those other religions endangers the citizens of the State.