Jan Hus

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Winchester' date='04 October 2009 - 09:45 PM' timestamp='1254710757' post='1977850']
Excrement. People had right to property, right to life, the state's obligation to the people was recognized. All this was abused then as it is now, but to pretend human rights are a new invention (women have recovered the ones they lost during the Rennaiscance) is indefensible. Read REgine Pernoud--in the original French if you can (I can't).


Actually, a great deal of value was placed on human life. Hence the terrible punishments meted out to those who affected it. I am aware of the irony.
[/quote]

Conceded.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='04 October 2009 - 09:50 PM' timestamp='1254711055' post='1977859']
Stop providing your own.
[/quote]

No.

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='04 October 2009 - 09:53 PM' timestamp='1254711217' post='1977865']
No.
[/quote]
Flat out refusal to acknowledge the painfully obvious.
Is this the "gymnastics" you were talking about?

Edited October 5, 2009 by OraProMe

[Winchester]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='04 October 2009 - 10:53 PM' timestamp='1254711207' post='1977864']
Conceded.
[/quote]
Oprah,

REALLY, well, in the....wait.

Okay, very well then. Thank you.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='04 October 2009 - 09:55 PM' timestamp='1254711304' post='1977867']
Flat out refusal to acknowledge the painfully obvious.
Is this the "gymnastics" you were talking about?
[/quote]

I'm not refusing to acknowledge the obvious. I am refusing to say that Vatican II contradicted previous magisterial teachings. It isn't an incredibly rare position.

[OraProMe]

If you believe that then please explain how these two statements are not in contradiction:

Condemned:

"This is the view that liberty of conscience and worship is the strict right of every man, a right which should be proclaimed and affirmed by law in every properly constituted state. (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura)."

"This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed; thus it is to become a civil right.” (Vatican II)

Your "in due limits" quote does not work because that is not what the two extracts I am providing talk about. They're not talking about extremes (so your example of a non-existant sect doesn't work either) they're talking about freedom of belief and if it should be enshrined in state law or not.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='04 October 2009 - 10:17 PM' timestamp='1254712628' post='1977880']
If you believe that then please explain how these two statements are not in contradiction:

Condemned:

"This is the view that liberty of conscience and worship is the strict right of every man, a right which should be proclaimed and affirmed by law in every properly constituted state. (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura)."

"This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed; thus it is to become a civil right.” (Vatican II)

Your "in due limits" quote does not work because that is not what the two extracts I am providing talk about. They're not talking about extremes (so your example of a non-existant sect doesn't work either) they're talking about freedom of belief and if it should be enshrined in state law or not.
[/quote]

You can't just take the quote out of context of the whole document. It is pretty ridiculous to say I can't use any other part of DH, because one quote from DH cannot be read isolated from the rest of it.

[OraProMe]

But Rex the quote you're using from DH isn't relevant. Because it's advocating religious liberty within due limits whereas Pius IX is condemning it altogether. Just because they've added "in due limits" at the end doesn't negate the entire document.

[Winchester]

I haven't the document in front of me, but I think that saying man is truly at liberty to choose any religion and stating the state must not require men to join a particular religion are two different things.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Winchester

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Winchester' date='04 October 2009 - 10:40 PM' timestamp='1254714038' post='1977904']
I haven't the document in front of me, but I think that saying man is truly at liberty to choose any religion and stating [b]the state must not require men to join a particular religion are two different things.[/b]
[/quote]

That's not what the document says.

[Guest]

I just think people should be burned on stakes. No more no less. Preferbally with good music in the background and snacks and juices.

[Winchester]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='04 October 2009 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1254714235' post='1977909']
That's not what the document says.
[/quote]
Nor does it say the state must compel someone to join a religion. That's not your assertion, is it?

[OraProMe]

My only assertion in this thread is that Dignitatis Humanae advocates freedom of religion and states that it must be enshrined in the law and made a civil right whereas Quanta Cura condemns the idea that "every properly constituted state" should protect freedom of religion in their laws.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' date='04 October 2009 - 11:46 PM' timestamp='1254714406' post='1977915']
I just think people should be burned on stakes. No more no less. Preferbally with good music in the background and snacks and juices.
[/quote]

Why do you say such bizarre things??

[OraProMe]

.....perhaps I'm only picking on Rexi because I know he secretly dislikes the idea of religious liberty and he knows that Vatican II advocates it. Hence his admission that sometimes it seems that magisterial documents contradict themselves.