do you believe in religious freedom?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='Tata126' post='996209' date='Jun 3 2006, 06:33 PM']
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.
[/quote]


Those three ideas were CONDEMNED by Pius IX. that is why i wrote condemned above them.

[ironmonk]

The wisdom of the Church...


[quote]
[b]The social duty of religion and the right to [u]religious freedom[/u][/b]

[url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt1.htm"]http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt1.htm[/url]
[b]2104 [/b]
"All men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and his Church, and to embrace it and hold on to it as they come to know it."26 This duty derives from "the very dignity of the human person."27 It does not contradict a "sincere respect" for different religions which frequently "reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men,"28 [u]nor the requirement of charity, which urges Christians "to treat with love, prudence and patience those who are in error or ignorance with regard to the faith[/u]."29


[b]2105 [/b]
The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially. This is "the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ."30 By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them "to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live."31 The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church.32 Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies.33


[b]2106 [/b]
"[u]Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, [b]within due limits[/b][/u]."34 This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. [u]For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it[/u]."35


[b]2107 [/b]
"If because of the circumstances of a particular people special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional organization of a state, the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom must be recognized and respected as well."36


[b]2108 [/b]
The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,37 but rather [u]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[/u]. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right.38


[b]2109 [/b]
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.39 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."40[/quote]


An answer to almost every question posed on these boards can be found in the Catechism.

Here is a great Catechism search tool... [url="http://www.usccb.org:8765/?col=&ht=0&qp=&qs=&qc=&pw=100%25&ws=1&la=en&si=0&ql=a&nh=10&lk=1&rf=1"]http://www.usccb.org:8765/?col=&ht=0&qp=&q...nh=10&lk=1&rf=1[/url]

Please use search tool, also note all the options. This can provide you with a easy and quick answer to any question about the faith and make you a stronger Catholic.



God Bless,
ironmonk
your friendly neighborhood CatholicBot.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='996181' date='Jun 3 2006, 03:32 PM']
frankness is not necessarily opposed to love. you needn't always seem "nice" and "soft" about things to be loving.
[/quote]

Werd




I'll be on at some point to put some things up. 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 .

[ironmonk]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='995347' date='Jun 2 2006, 01:50 AM']
I absolutely do not believe in religious freedom. Especially according to the above definition. I believe it is a heresy condemned by the Church(although I'm going to be a good boy and not debate it if such is not allowed to be debated here ).
[/quote]

We should all know and trust Christ... if we ever think the Pope is wrong on something, then we will have a misunderstanding somewhere in our understanding of the Catholic Faith.

Christ did not lie and He cannot be wrong... The Church will never be overcome, the Pope is the successor of Peter, and all who leave the Church or disrespect the Pope are wrong to do so.

Please read this page from the 1908 AD Catholic Encyclopedia...
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14763a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14763a.htm[/url]

A few excerpts...
[size=4][b]Religious Toleration[/b][/size]

I. The Idea of Toleration;
II. The Inadmissibility of Theoretical Dogmatical Toleration;
III. The Obligation to Show Practical Civil Toleration;
[u][b]IV. The Necessity of Public Political Toleration.[/b][/u]


IV. THE NECESSITY FOR PUBLIC POLITICAL TOLERATION
Since the State may not pose either as the mouthpiece of Divine Revelation or as the teacher of the Christian religion, it is clear that in regard to matters of religion it can adopt a much more broad-minded position than the Church, whose attitude is strictly confined by her teaching. The ethical permissibility, or rather the duty, of political tolerance and freedom of religion is determined by historical presuppositions and concrete relations; these impose an obligation which neither State nor Church can disregard. We will first consider the State in itself, and then the specifically Catholic State.
....


The state axiom of religious freedom can therefore mean only freedom for religion, not freedom from religion or irreligion. In his Encyclical "Vehementer nos", of 11 February, [u]1906, Pope Pius X sharply denounces for its injustice the violent breach of the Concordat by the French Government, instancing as the chief grievance that, by the official recognition of its own irreligion[/u], the French Republic had forsworn God Himself (cf. Denzinger, n. 1995).
...

If the State as such is under the same obligation to confess and venerate God as the individual, it must set bounds to religious freedom at least at the point where the unrestricted exercise of this freedom would lead to the subversion of state security and public morality. The history of religion shows that, to deceive unwary authorities, intrigues most immoral and most dangerous to the State have disguised themselves in the mantle of religion: the cults of Moloch and Astarte, religious prostitution and community of women, ritual child-murder and Anabaptist horrors, conventicles for debauchery and anarchistic secret societies, etc. No State with a regard for its own preservation will hesitate to raise a barrier against moral, religious, and political anarchy; and to repel with vigour all such attacks aimed, under the mask of freedom of belief, at the existence of society. Free competition between truth and error, which is sometimes urged in the name of tolerance, promises neither for the State nor the Church an enduring success; the free competition between virtue and vice could be upheld by the same reasoning.

....

When various Christian denominations establish themselves in any country, the Catholic State can no longer maintain its former exclusive attitude, but is compelled for reasons of State to show tolerance towards the heterodox and to grant them religious freedom within the limits described above and determined by natural law. If religious freedom has been accepted and sworn to as a fundamental law in a constitution, the obligation to show this tolerance is binding on conscience. The Catholic Church recognizes unreservedly the inviolability of constitutions confirmed by oath, of traditional laws, and regular religious compacts, because a breach of the constitution, of allegiance, of a treaty, or of an oath is a grievous sin, and because the Christian moral law prescribes fidelity to the State as an obligation strictly binding in conscience. To justify ethically tolerance towards certain religious practices of heathen subjects, medieval theologians appealed to the principle that tolerance might be always exercised wherever either its refusal would cause more harm than good, or, vice versa, whenever the granting of it ensured greater advantage than disadvantage. Thus[b] St. Thomas teaches (Summa theol., II-II, Q. x, a. 11): [/b] "Ritus infidelium tolerari possunt vel propter aliquod bonum, quod ex eis provenit, vel propter aliquod maum, quod vitatur" ([b]Heathen worships can be tolerated either because of some good that results from them or because of some evil that is avoided[/b]). In all the centuries the Church displayed an admirable tolerance especially towards the Jewish religion, since the survival of Judaism offered a living proof of the truth of Christianity.




God Bless,
ironmonk

[Dave]

I remember doing a previous post in a previous thread that dealt, in part, with religious freedom ... [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=44921&st=25&p=834031entry834031"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...31entry834031[/url]

[goldenchild17]

Okay. Thought I'd put up just a couple things before going to bed. I'll just let the popes speak. No need to force my interpretation onto anything .

Regarding whether or not everybody, regardless of their belief has the RIGHT to openly practice such Pope Leo XIII taught in Libertas (June 20, 1888):

[quote]“Right is a moral faculty, and as We have said, and it cannot be too often repeated, it would be absurd to believe that it belongs naturally and without distinction to truth and to lies, to good and to evil.”[/quote]

Also:

[quote]Libertas by Pope Leo XIII (June 20, 1888):
“...Civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness — namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges.”[/quote]

Pope Pius XII taught in his address to Catholic lawyers Ci Riesce (December 6, 1953):

[quote]“It must be clearly affirmed that no human authority, no State, no Community of States, of whatever religious character, can give a positive mandate or a positive authorization to teach or to do that which would be contrary to religious truth or moral good... Whatever does not respond to truth and the moral law has objectively no right to existence, nor to propaganda, nor to action.”[/quote]


[quote]“Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. Those remain ever one and the same and are no less changeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity to an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth, may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law” (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei).[/quote]

CONDEMNED in Syllabus of Errors: [quote]that it is left to the freedom of each individual to embrace and profess that religion which by the guidance of the light of reason he deems to be the true one.[/quote]

CONDEMNED in Syllabus of Errors: [quote]15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. [/quote]

CONDEMNED in Syllabus of Errors: [quote]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. [/quote]

CONDEMNED in Syllabus of Errors: [quote]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. [/quote]

CONDEMNED in Syllabus of Errors: [quote]79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.[/quote]

[quote]Quanta Cura by Pope Pius IX (December 8, 1864):
“Contrary to the teachings of the Holy Scriptures, of the Church, and of the holy Fathers, these persons do not hesitate to assert that ‘the best condition of human society is that wherein no duty is recognized by the government of correcting, by enacted penalties, the violators of the Catholic religion, except when the maintenance of the public peace requires it.’ From this totally false notion of social government, they fear not to uphold that erroneous opinion most pernicious to the Catholic Church, and to the salvation of souls, which was called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI (lately quoted) the insanity (deliramentum): namely, ‘that the liberty of conscience and of worship is the peculiar (or inalienable) right of every man, which should be proclaimed by law, and that citizens have the right to all kinds of liberty, to be restrained by no law, whether ecclesiastical or civil, by which they may be enabled to manifest openly and publicly their ideas, by word of mouth, through the press, or by any other means.’”[/quote]

[quote]Letter to the Bishop of Troyes by Pope Pius VII (1814):
“Our heart is even more deeply afflicted by a new cause of sorrow which, We admit, torments Us, and gives rise to profound dejection and extreme anguish: it is Article 22 of the Constitution. Not only does it permit the liberty of cults and of conscience, to cite the very terms of the article, but it promises support and protection to this liberty and, moreover, to the ministers of what are terms the cults....
“This law does more than establish liberty for all cults without distinction, it mingles truth with error and places heretical sects and even Judaism on equal terms with the holy and immaculate Bride of Christ outside which there can be no salvation. In addition to this, in promising favor and support to heretical sects and their ministers it is not simply their persons but their errors which are favored and tolerated. This is implicitly the disastrous and ever to be deplored heresy which St. Augustine describes in these terms: ‘It claims that all heretics are on the right path and speak the truth. This is so monstrous an absurdity that I cannot believe that any sect could really profess it.’”[/quote]

[quote]Mirari Vos by Pope Gregory XVI (August 15, 1832):
“We come now to another cause, alas! all too fruitful of the deplorable ills which today afflict the Church. We mean indifferentism, or that widespread and dangerous opinion sown by the perfidy of the wicked, according to which it is possible, by the profession of some sort of faith, to procure the soul’s salvation, provided that one’s morals conform to the norms of justice and probity. From this poisoned source of indifferentism springs that false and absurd maxim, better termed the insanity (deliramentum), that liberty of conscience must be obtained and guaranteed for everyone. This is the most contagious of errors, which prepares the way for that absolute and totally unrestrained liberty of opinions which, for the ruin of Church and State, is spreading everywhere and which certain men, through an excess of impudence, do not fear to put forward as advantageous to religion. Ah, ‘what more disastrous death for souls than the liberty of error,’ said St. Augustine."[/quote]

Again:

[quote]Mirari Vos by Pope Gregory XVI:

“This is the most contagious of errors, which prepares the way for that absolute and totally unrestrained liberty of opinions which, for the ruin of Church and State, is spreading everywhere and which certain men, through an excess of impudence, do not fear to put forward as advantageous to religion. Ah, ‘What more disastrous death for souls than the liberty of error,’ said St. Augustine. In seeing thus the removal from men of every restraint capable of keeping them on the paths of truth, led as they already are to their ruin by a natural inclination to evil, We state in truth that the pit of hell is opened from which St. John depicted a smoke which obscured the sun and from which locusts emerged to devastate the earth. This is the cause of the lack of intellectual stability; this is the cause of the continually increasing corruption of young people; this is what causes people to despise sacred rights, the most holy objects and laws. This is the cause, in a word, of the most deadly flail which could ravage states; for experience proves, and the most remote antiquity teaches us, that in order to bring about the destruction of the richest, the most powerful, the most glorious, and the most flourishing states, nothing is necessary beyond unrestricted liberty of opinion, that freedom of public expression, that infatuation with novelty.”[/quote]

___________________________________________

Note that this says nothing of Religious TOLERANCE which the Church okays as necessary. No person can be FORCED to believe something against their will. Otherwise it is not true faith. That is not what is being spoken against. What is being addressed is the faulty idea that error has the RIGHT to be practiced OPENLY and with the same RIGHTS that truth has. This is not so according to the popes of the past. One is allowed to practice his religion privately. But when it comes to the point where his error threatens the faith of another, then it has gone too far. No false religion may enjoy the protection that Catholicism enjoys.

[Akalyte]

sad thing is, you cant get anyone to believe in anything popes said in the 1800's. about the only thing people will accept here is what happened after Vatican II. I find it very troubling that Catholics will just ignore the rest of church history as if the church was founded at Vatican II. We have 2000 years of history people. What the church taught in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 14th, 16th, 17th, 18th century's, were true then, and are true now, and last time I read, future popes CANNOT go back and change or contradict what past popes taught. I dont care what age were living in. The church does not change to suit the worl. The world is suppose to change to suit the church.

[ironmonk]

He has taken what the Pope's have said out of context.

When looking at the light of everything they have written on the subject, from the time of the early Church until today, the teaching is the same.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='996520' date='Jun 4 2006, 01:03 PM']
He has taken what the Pope's have said out of context.

When looking at the light of everything they have written on the subject, from the time of the early Church until today, the teaching is the same.
[/quote]


how can you take the syllabus of errors out of context. prove it. the burden of proof is on you.

[ironmonk]

Pope Leo XIII's Libertas does not have the context that he claims. The context was in reference to countries denying God altogether.

More from Libertas...
[quote]19. To make this more evident, the growth of liberty ascribed to our age must be considered apart in its various details. And, first, let us examine that liberty in individuals which is so opposed to the virtue of religion, namely, the liberty of worship, as it is called. [b]This is based on the principle that every man is free to profess as he may choose any religion or none.[/b]


44. Again, it is not of itself wrong to prefer a democratic form of government, if only the Catholic doctrine be maintained as to the origin and exercise of power. Of the various forms of government, the Church does not reject any that are fitted to procure the welfare of the subject; she wishes only—and this nature itself requires—that they should be constituted without involving wrong to any one, and especially without violating the rights of the Church.[/quote]



Please go look up the documents and read them completly... and then read other documents from the same people to get a real picture of the teaching. You will see that is is the same teaching as of today.

Great resources:
[url="http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/papal.asp"]http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/papal.asp[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/documents.asp"]http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/documents.asp[/url]


God Bless,
ironmonk

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='996528' date='Jun 4 2006, 01:27 PM']
how can you take the syllabus of errors out of context. prove it. the burden of proof is on you.
[/quote]


The burden of proof is the one who goes against the successor of Peter.

If the Pope is not the Pope then there is no God.

To much proof to prove God, so the Pope must be the Pope.

Time for the both of you to wise up. Have you forgotten about Saint Pio or Lucy?! The people who actually walked and talked with Mary... St. Pio walked and talked with Jesus, Mary, and his gaurdian angel...
Did you see them profess such nonsense? No, no one did. The remained loyal to the Pope.

Unless you are getting a direct message from Jesus, Mary, or an Angel who proclaims Christ has come in the flesh, you put your soul in grave danger.

Do you want to talk burden of proof? First learn the faith. Stop reading and listening to those who use Ian Paisley style tatics to warp the teachings of the Church and read the entire documents for yourselves.

To go against the Pope the way you two do is pure foolishness and ignorance.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='996531' date='Jun 4 2006, 11:45 AM']
Pope Leo XIII's Libertas does not have the context that he claims. The context was in reference to countries denying God altogether.

More from Libertas...
Please go look up the documents and read them completly... and then read other documents from the same people to get a real picture of the teaching. You will see that is is the same teaching as of today.

Great resources:
[url="http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/papal.asp"]http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/papal.asp[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/documents.asp"]http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/documents.asp[/url]
God Bless,
ironmonk[/quote]

How exacty does this quote provide a different "context"? Might you explain it because I don't see how it's anything different. Besides that is only one reference. Maybe the rest are all out of context as well? I sure hope they are, trust me I do. But I don't see how it is.

[quote]The burden of proof is the one who goes against the successor of Peter.

If the Pope is not the Pope then there is no God.

To much proof to prove God, so the Pope must be the Pope.

Time for the both of you to wise up. Have you forgotten about Saint Pio or Lucy?! The people who actually walked and talked with Mary... St. Pio walked and talked with Jesus, Mary, and his gaurdian angel...
Did you see them profess such nonsense? No, no one did. The remained loyal to the Pope.

Unless you are getting a direct message from Jesus, Mary, or an Angel who proclaims Christ has come in the flesh, you put your soul in grave danger.

Do you want to talk burden of proof? First learn the faith. Stop reading and listening to those who use Ian Paisley style tatics to warp the teachings of the Church and read the entire documents for yourselves.

To go against the Pope the way you two do is pure foolishness and ignorance.
[/quote]

Since no one here realizes what I've been through during the last year or know just how far I have studied or how hard I have worked to make Vatican II jive with the rest of Church teaching, I will disregard the rest of this post.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='996531' date='Jun 4 2006, 01:45 PM']
Pope Leo XIII's Libertas does not have the context that he claims. The context was in reference to countries denying God altogether.

More from Libertas...
Please go look up the documents and read them completly... and then read other documents from the same people to get a real picture of the teaching. You will see that is is the same teaching as of today.

Great resources:
[url="http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/papal.asp"]http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/papal.asp[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/documents.asp"]http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/documents.asp[/url]
God Bless,
ironmonk
The burden of proof is the one who goes against the successor of Peter.

If the Pope is not the Pope then there is no God.

To much proof to prove God, so the Pope must be the Pope.

Time for the both of you to wise up. Have you forgotten about Saint Pio or Lucy?! The people who actually walked and talked with Mary... St. Pio walked and talked with Jesus, Mary, and his gaurdian angel...
Did you see them profess such nonsense? No, no one did. The remained loyal to the Pope.

Unless you are getting a direct message from Jesus, Mary, or an Angel who proclaims Christ has come in the flesh, you put your soul in grave danger.

Do you want to talk burden of proof? First learn the faith. Stop reading and listening to those who use Ian Paisley style tatics to warp the teachings of the Church and read the entire documents for yourselves.

To go against the Pope the way you two do is pure foolishness and ignorance.
[/quote]


this coming from the guy who thought the episcopal ordinations of the four SSPX bishops were invalid. St. Pio never celebrated the NO mass, and was good friends with Archbishop Lefebvre.

[img]http://www.statveritas.com.ar/Imagenes/PIO_LEF2.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.statveritas.com.ar/Imagenes/PIO_LEFE.jpg[/img]


[img]http://www.sspx.org/images/Saints/padrepio_kissing_abs_ring.jpg[/img]

I remain as loyal to the Pope. Paisley is a protestant... i am not, so i do not see how that applies.

[Tata126]

Am I seeing this right? Is this a discussion that's thrown the Catechism out the window, denying the Church the ability to speak for herself through her own interpretation of her teaching through the ages??? May I remind people that Vatican II did not change the Church's teaching, but interpreted the truths she has always taught in light of a world that is VERY different from the world in which some of the teachings had been made. This is why counsels are called, because the world changes, and if the Church did not address the new events of the world, she really would be antiquated and irrelevant.

I just think maybe you'd understand better what the Church teaches and why if you'd give primacy to the documents that were written in light of our own times, and take the other documents in context with them, instead of reying solely on documents that were written before everything in the 20th century that rocked our entire identity as humans to the core and changed the way we look at ourselves and the world around us.

It seems like there are two types of Catholics in the world: those whose belief in the Catholic Church stops at Vatican II, and those whose belief in the Catholic Church starts at Vatican II, and I think it's a tragedy. In your haste not to be just a "Vatican II Catholic," you disregard the great body of teachings that has happened in the past half century, and that is NOT the way to be a good Catholic. Take the Church's teaching as an entire body, and recognize that new clarifications and distinctions are made, and have always been made, because the world changes, and the question must always be answered, "How do the Church's teachings, which have always been true, apply in a post-Auschwitz world? How do they apply in a post-Enlightenment world?"

I'll bet Paul's teaching that circumcision wasn't necessary anymore looked to a lot of Early Christians pretty much the way Vatican II looks to a lot of traditionalists.

[ironmonk]

Oh, so I was wrong about a schismatic group that goes against the foundation of Catholic teaching since 33 AD.... I don't focus on th errors.

St. Pio was totally obedient and humble... Someone holding a higher ranking than him, he would obviously show respect... I know for a fact that St. Pio did not approve of ANY schisms.



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.

The Pope is the Pope. All who disobey him are wrong to do so.

We must trust Christ even when our own reasoning says otherwise. Can Christ lie? No. Can Christ be wrong? No.
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).

Everything from Christ's mouth is fact. Therefore the Pope must be the Pope or there is no God... 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.

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.



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.

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.

Our point of view should be humble and change as the Magisterium dictates. The Church has the power to bind... AND loose.

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.

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).

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.

Don't you understand that even if the Vatican was wrong, by office of Peter is still the head teacher?

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.

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.

We can never be wrong to obey the Church.

We will always be wrong when we go against her.

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.

Christ's very words = (2+2=4) = Fact.

The Pope is the Pope.

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.

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.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='996577' date='Jun 4 2006, 03:43 PM']
Oh, so I was wrong about a schismatic group that goes against the foundation of Catholic teaching since 33 AD.... I don't focus on th errors.

St. Pio was totally obedient and humble... Someone holding a higher ranking than him, he would obviously show respect... I know for a fact that St. Pio did not approve of ANY schisms.
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.

The Pope is the Pope. All who disobey him are wrong to do so.

We must trust Christ even when our own reasoning says otherwise. Can Christ lie? No. Can Christ be wrong? No.
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).

Everything from Christ's mouth is fact. Therefore the Pope must be the Pope or there is no God... 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.

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.
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.

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.

Our point of view should be humble and change as the Magisterium dictates. The Church has the power to bind... AND loose.

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.

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).

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.

Don't you understand that even if the Vatican was wrong, by office of Peter is still the head teacher?

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.

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.

We can never be wrong to obey the Church.

We will always be wrong when we go against her.

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.

Christ's very words = (2+2=4) = Fact.

The Pope is the Pope.

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.

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]


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

[Winchester]

It has to be limited. There are religions I believe should be illegal, there is no limit on the creation of a religion (essentially what was done with neo-paganism so guys could get women in bed easier) (BTW, it worked)

[cappie]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='996556' date='Jun 5 2006, 05:51 AM']
this coming from the guy who thought the episcopal ordinations of the four SSPX bishops were invalid. St. Pio never celebrated the NO mass, and was good friends with Archbishop Lefebvre.

.
[/quote]

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.

SAINT PADRE PIO—On Humanae vitae & Vatican II

Your Holiness,

I unite myself with my brothers and present at your feet my affectionate respect, all my devotion to your august person in an act of faith, love and obedience to the dignity of Him whom your are representing on this earth. The Capuchin Order has always been the first in the first line of love, fidelity, obedience and devotion to the Holy See; I pray to God that it may remain thus and continue its tradition of religious seriousness and austerity, evangelical poverty and faithful observance of the Rule and Constitution, certainly renewing itself in the vitality and in the inner spirit, according to the guides of the Second Vatican Council, in order to be always ready to attend to the necessities of Mother Church under the rule of your Holiness.

I know that your heart is suffering much these days in the interest of the Church, for the peace of the world, but above all, for the lack of obedience of some, even Catholics, to the teachings that you, assisted by the Holy Spirit and in the name of God, are giving us. I offer you my prayers and daily sufferings as a small but sincere contribution on the part of the least of your sons in order that God may give you comfort with His grace to follow the straight and painful way in the defense of eternal truth, which never changes with the passing of years. Also, in the name of my spiritual children and the Prayer Groups, I thank you for your clear and decisive words that you especially pronounced in the last encyclical, Humanae vitae; and I reaffirm my faith, my unconditional obedience to your illuminated directions.

May God grant victory to the truth, peace to his Church, tranquility to the world, health and prosperity to your Holiness so that, once these fleeting doubts are dissipated, the Kingdom of God will triumph in all hearts, guided by your apostolic work as Supreme Pontiff of all Christianity.

Prostrate at your feet, I pray you to bless me in the company of my brothers in religion, my spiritual children, the Prayer Groups, my sick ones and also bless all our good endeavors which we are trying to fulfill under your protection in the name of Jesus.

Humbly yours,
P. Pio, Capuchin

[This letter was dated September 12, 1968, San Giovanni Rotondo. On September 23, 1968, Padre Pio of Pietrelcina, who had borne the wounds of Christ for fifty years, blessed his tomb, sacrificed his final High Mass, then died in the flesh, "to be able to do even greater things from Heaven."]

[homeschoolmom]

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote]This was the same year, 1965, in which Padre Pio said to papal
representative Cardinal Bacci: For pity's sake, end the Council quickly!"
(Fr. Jean, O.F.M. Cap., a colleague of Padre Pio's in the Capuchin Order,
apud "Padre Pio," Catholic Family News, June 1999)[/quote]


and...

[quote]

Padre Pio and the Novus Ordo Missae

He was a model of respect and submission towards his religious and ecclesiastical superiors, especially during the time when he was persecuted. Nonetheless, he could not remain silent over a deviation that was baneful to the Church. Even before the end of the Council, in February 1965, someone announced to him that soon he would have to celebrate the Mass according to a new rite, ad experimentum, in the vernacular, which had been devised by a conciliar liturgical commission in order to respond to the aspirations of modern man. Immediately, even before seeing the text, he wrote to Paul VI to ask him to be dispensed from the liturgical experiment, and to be able to continue to celebrate the Mass of Saint Pius V. When Cardinal Bacci came to see him in order to bring the authorization, Padre Pio let a complaint escape in the presence of the Pope's messenger: "For pity sake, end the Council quickly."

The same year, during the conciliar euphoria that was promising a new springtime to the Church, he confided to one of his spiritual sons: "In this time of darkness, let us pray. Let us do penance for the elect"; and especially for the one who has to be their shepherd here below: All his life, he immolated himself for the reigning pope, whose photograph was among the rare images that decorated his cell. [/quote]


Padre Pio never celebrated a NO mass, and even wrote to Paul VI so he would not have to. Sure Padre Pio had obedience to Paul VI, but i do not see how that differs from Archbishop Lefebvre's obedience to Paul VI.

[cappie]

Padre Pio was never excommunicated