Author Topic: Why religious liberty is necessary. (Read 3974 times)

Änσnymσus · « **on:** August 02, 2017, 08:30:54 AM »

If the tippy top religious leader of the world, does not teach religious freedom, everyone will be at each other's throats, and their wouldn't be peace. It is possible to say, in some way, that men have a right to choose their religion. If you keep in mind scholastic philosophy and what you can do with mental reservations, and all the philosophy that could be possible, the Church can say this safely. The Church can teach whatever she wants. The Church can give a pastoral directive here, for the peace of the world, easily within the powers of the keys of St. Peter.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #1 on:** August 02, 2017, 08:58:45 AM »

It's the age of tv and radio. We are all so close to each other. Hindi are two seconds away from this post at an Internet cafe.

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #2 on:** August 02, 2017, 01:52:54 PM »

Religious liberty places False gods and religions above Jesus. It makes many break the first Commandment.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #3 on:** August 02, 2017, 02:05:01 PM »

Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey on August 02, 2017, 01:52:54 PM

Religious liberty places False gods and religions above Jesus. It makes many break the first Commandment.

Absolutely true. "Religious Liberty" means that all religions must be tolerated. Which means that there is not one, true religion that it set above all others, such as Catholicism. I can understand how otherwise good Catholics can get caught up in believing that religious liberty will help the Church to maintain her rights, but her rights, in a religious liberty setting, cannot be properly maintained.

For example, Satanists believe that they have just as much right to practice and promote their evil "religion" as any other religion. And of course they cannot really be suppressed, except through public outcry, because they appeal to the false "Religious Liberty" for their right to exist.

There was a time in this country when Religious Liberty didn't seem like such as bad idea, especially since at least most Americans were some brand of Christian. But those days are over. Now the great flaw of Religious Liberty is painfully obvious.

Meg · « **Reply #4 on:** August 02, 2017, 02:05:23 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on August 02, 2017, 02:05:01 PM

Absolutely true. "Religious Liberty" means that all religions must be tolerated. Which means that there is not one, true religion that it set above all others, such as Catholicism. I can understand how otherwise good Catholics can get caught up in believing that religious liberty will help the Church to maintain her rights, but her rights, in a religious liberty setting, cannot be properly maintained.

For example, Satanists believe that they have just as much right to practice and promote their evil "religion" as any other religion. And of course they cannot really be suppressed, except through public outcry, because they appeal to the false "Religious Liberty" for their right to exist.

There was a time in this country when Religious Liberty didn't seem like such as bad idea, especially since at least most Americans were some brand of Christian. But those days are over. Now the great flaw of Religious Liberty is painfully obvious.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #5 on:** August 02, 2017, 02:11:22 PM »

Oops....sorry...I messed up the quote thing in the above post (double post). Please disregard.

Meg · « **Reply #6 on:** August 02, 2017, 02:11:58 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on August 02, 2017, 02:11:22 PM

Oops....sorry...I messed up the quote thing in the above post (double post). Please disregard.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #7 on:** August 02, 2017, 10:18:32 PM »

This is a catch 22....Being against religious liberty....

On one hand you have all the teachings of the church that say everyone must be Catholic or they are going to hell. Innocent III said that no one has the right not to be Catholic. Catholic nations with Catholic monarchies ruling Catholic subjects. When it is said, they are talking about nations 200 years ago and earlier. Where if you were not a Catholic, you were not a citizen. Where there was no separation between Church and state.

The catch that I find hypocritical is that if say America was a Catholic nation, with no religious tolerance, there would be no open Tradition movement. Anything Tradition would be considered schismatic and would need to be underground. The resistance, SSPX, and everyone who followed them would probably be excommunicated. Would the good priests be able to speak out against the heresies in the Vatican, without suffering repercussions from both the Church and the state? Going back several hundred years, the punishment for heresy and going against the Church was much harsher corporally and spiritually. Would a good hell fire sermon about the evils taught inside the Vatican and modern Church net the good Father a defrocking with jail time? Without the notion of religious liberty, where would we be if we didn't align ourselves with the Vatican.

The world and society has changed much over the last several hundred years. What would this look like anti religious liberty look like? Do you not sell things to Baptists, Methodist, Lutherans, etc? Do you not have a website for the thing you manufacture, because you can't verify that person online is Catholic. Do you kick the Novus Ordo Catholics out of your restaurant because they are religiously tolerant. Do we shop, work, pay rent, buy gas from people of these other religions all around us. As a nation, what would it look like for religious intolerance for anyone not Catholic? Do you deport all other religions? Do you not let non Catholics run for office. Do Novus Ordo Catholics get to vote? Can a non Catholic run a business? What made sense centuries ago is not really practical now.

I don't see the issue with being 'tolerant.' You know there no salvation outside the Catholic Church. You pay any attention to other religions because they are heresy. You don't follow the Novus Ordo because they are teaching heresy. What does it look like when we as Catholics do not show tolerance? Does that mean you don't associate yourself with anyone who is not tradition Catholic? Does that mean you drive out any one who is pagan or heretical?

Lets think about this practically not just be keyboard warriors of the Faith.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #8 on:** August 02, 2017, 11:57:24 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on August 02, 2017, 10:18:32 PM

This is a catch 22....Being against religious liberty....

On one hand you have all the teachings of the church that say everyone must be Catholic or they are going to hell. Innocent III said that no one has the right not to be Catholic. Catholic nations with Catholic monarchies ruling Catholic subjects. When it is said, they are talking about nations 200 years ago and earlier. Where if you were not a Catholic, you were not a citizen. Where there was no separation between Church and state.

The catch that I find hypocritical is that if say America was a Catholic nation, with no religious tolerance, there would be no open Tradition movement. Anything Tradition would be considered schismatic and would need to be underground. The resistance, SSPX, and everyone who followed them would probably be excommunicated. Would the good priests be able to speak out against the heresies in the Vatican, without suffering repercussions from both the Church and the state? Going back several hundred years, the punishment for heresy and going against the Church was much harsher corporally and spiritually. Would a good hell fire sermon about the evils taught inside the Vatican and modern Church net the good Father a defrocking with jail time? Without the notion of religious liberty, where would we be if we didn't align ourselves with the Vatican.

The world and society has changed much over the last several hundred years. What would this look like anti religious liberty look like? Do you not sell things to Baptists, Methodist, Lutherans, etc? Do you not have a website for the thing you manufacture, because you can't verify that person online is Catholic. Do you kick the Novus Ordo Catholics out of your restaurant because they are religiously tolerant. Do we shop, work, pay rent, buy gas from people of these other religions all around us. As a nation, what would it look like for religious intolerance for anyone not Catholic? Do you deport all other religions? Do you not let non Catholics run for office. Do Novus Ordo Catholics get to vote? Can a non Catholic run a business? What made sense centuries ago is not really practical now.

I don't see the issue with being 'tolerant.' You know there no salvation outside the Catholic Church. You pay any attention to other religions because they are heresy. You don't follow the Novus Ordo because they are teaching heresy. What does it look like when we as Catholics do not show tolerance? Does that mean you don't associate yourself with anyone who is not tradition Catholic? Does that mean you drive out any one who is pagan or heretical?

Lets think about this practically not just be keyboard warriors of the Faith.

My goodness, such an immature and childish rant!

You seem to not know a lot about Church history. But then you wouldn't learn much about Church history in the Novus Ordo.

Have you ever studied the lives of the children - the seers - who saw Our Lady of Fatima? Think about the Catholic society in which those children lived, in Portugal, and it was only one hundred years ago. Even though there were non-Catholics among them, it was basically a Catholic society. Here in the U.S., we don't know what that means. Except perhaps in New Mexico and a few other states which were at one time almost completely Catholic. You seem to have a liberal mindset which believes that we are going to burn anyone at the stake who doesn't agree with us, if we are a Catholic society.

Our Lord told His Apostles to go out and teach all nations. "All Nations," as in the nations. He didn't say "All Peoples." As a nation, we ought to promote Christ the King. There shouldn't be a separation of Church and state. A society which rejects Christ the King will eventually return to Paganism. That's what's happening now.

We can be tolerant of those whom we meet and have to see regularly. That is, tolerant of people. But we don't have to be tolerant of their religion, though we do have to tread carefully at times, and be prudent.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #9 on:** August 03, 2017, 03:08:21 AM »

.
It should not be legal for false religions to conduct their ceremonies in public.
.
When Catholics process with the Blessed Sacrament down a public street they are doing what the Church is allowed to do, conduct religious ceremonies in public, because the Catholic Faith is the True Faith, and the Catholic Church is the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation.
.
We are seeing now satanists going public like in Oklahoma and Denver CO, putting their devil statues out in public places and conducting Black Masses in public. They're doing that in order to upset Catholics, and trying to make us become violent. If they can cause civil unrest to erupt, eventually it could go to the Supreme Court where ALL religious ceremonies in public could be made illegal, because they can't just have the non-Catholic services prohibited. Well, yes they can, but that would violate the FALSE principle of RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
.
That's why religious freedom is a false principle, for it is only proper to have free practice of the True Faith. All false religions should be prohibited in public, but they can go into their private secluded places and do what they will and Catholics can't stop them. Catholics can PRAY for them but we can't make them stop having their false worship behind closed doors.
.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #10 on:** August 03, 2017, 03:18:09 AM »

.
If you want to whine and moan that Vat.II approved Religious Liberty or Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae), I can't disagree, but what I CAN say is that there are a lot of problems with Vat.II and that's one of them. The bishops opposed DH from the very beginning (when the liberals usurping the council tried from the start to get something like that passed but were shot down) and kept trying for the duration of all 3 sessions, and only at the very end after some had already gone home and others just wanted the whole thing to END, so they may have given approval under duress. Anyway, it was a BAD THING, and should never have been passed.
.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #11 on:** August 03, 2017, 07:02:28 PM »

Alright Neil,

I should not type late at night. I ramble without explaining myself coherently.

1) We are in agreement that the satanist scuм that call themselves a religion should not exist or be allowed to exist. By allowing religious liberty, they are allowed to exist. This is a perversion from a fringe element. You are 100% correct in your statement.

The same applies with your comments about Dignitatis Humanae. It absolutely negates all the previous teachings laid down by the magisterium. Gregory XVI and Leo XIII were pretty specific about this topic. Innocent III said that no one was has the right not to be Catholic. So this is where I ask how far do you take it?

The Church has very strong wording from multiple councils about heresies and those following heresies being anathema. That's what all these false protestant religions all are heresies. Looking back in history there were several countries that expelled the Jєωs. 30 Years of religious wars were fought against the Huguenots. The English cινιℓ ωαr and all the Death in Germany over the Lutherans. My problem with the Fatima example is that Portugal granted civil liberties to non Catholics in the 1880's. Louis XVI lifted the ban and let protestant and Jєωs to become citizens. Germany made peace in the late 1500's. So if following the teachings of the Catholic Church, should a Catholic country even admit non Catholics?

Nearly every country in this world today has religious freedom. We live in America, which has never been a Catholic nation, and have enjoyed the benefits of that liberty. Especially, being apart of the Catholic Resistance. We are schismed from the mainstream heretical Church. If all other false religions should be prohibited in public, where does that leave Resistance versus the mainstream heretical Church? This is where I can not agree with you. If the Church/Catholic nation would take such a strong stance, prohibiting false religions, would they not take action against those that don't align themselves with the heresies?

What I was referring to in my previously post was pointing out the contradiction about living life in country with religious freedom. Take the Amish for example. They shun the outside world and people. Even the people they friend that are not Amish are called "stetlers." (never seen it written down, only spoken) This means city folk, and they limit their contact with them. If we are following the letter and spirit of what the Church has taught and anathema is a strong word, would we not live in communities like them? This is my hang up.

I am not writing all this to argue, but rather have a civil discussion. I don't claim to be right, just hung up on details. I look forward to your reply.

poche · « **Reply #12 on:** August 04, 2017, 05:01:00 AM »

True religious freedom is the freedom to teach and profess the Catholic Faith.
8) 8) 8)

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #13 on:** August 04, 2017, 01:18:19 PM »

Here is how Catholic religious freedom worked in the constitutional Catholic countries of Brazil and Colombia before the Vatican II church oredered them to drop Catholicism as the State religion:

Non - Catholic religions (Jєωs, Protestants, Mohamedans etc.) were permitted to have meeting places, but no public proselytizing was permitted, and no signs were permitted on the meeting place.

Meg · « **Reply #14 on:** August 04, 2017, 02:57:30 PM »

Quote from: Anonymous on August 04, 2017, 01:18:19 PM

Here is how Catholic religious freedom worked in the constitutional Catholic countries of Brazil and Colombia before the Vatican II church oredered them to drop Catholicism as the State religion:

Non - Catholic religions (Jєωs, Protestants, Mohamedans etc.) were permitted to have meeting places, but no public proselytizing was permitted, and no signs were permitted on the meeting place.

It seems reasonable that Jєωs, Mohamadens, and Protestants were permitted to have a meeting place, but no public proselytizing, and no signs permitted.

I think that Novus Ordo Catholics tend to believe that the American way of treating religions is more fair that what is written above. They believe that all religions should be considered as equal to Catholicism, at least as a society. But I don't think that that's what the Church has traditionally believed and taught.

A society which is thoroughly Catholic is more fair and just, in that it maintains the public order, and promote God's laws, which ultimately leads souls to Heaven .

I recall reading about the history of Mexico in a book called "Blood-drenched Altars," written by a Catholic priest. He wrote that Mexico, before it became independent in about the year 1800, had a higher standard of living among its populace that the populace of the United states. That may seem hard to believe now, but I believe it. After Mexico's independence, revolutions began to be fomented by the enemies of the Church - some who started them were Mexicans, and they were supported by freemasons in the U.S., who did not like the idea of sharing a border with a strong Catholic country such as Mexico.

It's often difficult for a Catholic country to survive the snares of the enemies of Catholicism. The Protestant Reformation is what helped to start it all, IMO.

I think that the founding fathers of our country had good intentions, in believing that if only men were free, that they would be good, and do the right thing, for the most part. But they didn't take into account original sin. If a country chooses to live outside of God's laws, these laws of which are for the public good, and also exist to assist souls in salvation, then that country which chooses to live outside of God's laws will be doomed, though it could take awhile.

Author Topic: Why religious liberty is necessary. (Read 3974 times)

Änσnymσus

Why religious liberty is necessary.

Änσnymσus

Re: Why religious liberty is necessary.

Viva Cristo Rey

Re: Why religious liberty is necessary.

Änσnymσus

Re: Why religious liberty is necessary.

Meg

Re: Why religious liberty is necessary.

Änσnymσus

Re: Why religious liberty is necessary.

Meg

Re: Why religious liberty is necessary.

Änσnymσus

Re: Why religious liberty is necessary.

Änσnymσus

Re: Why religious liberty is necessary.

Neil Obstat

Re: Why religious liberty is necessary.

Neil Obstat

Re: Why religious liberty is necessary.

Änσnymσus

Re: Why religious liberty is necessary.

poche

Re: Why religious liberty is necessary.

Änσnymσus

Re: Why religious liberty is necessary.

Meg

Re: Why religious liberty is necessary.