Author Topic: Declaration on Religious Liberty  (Read 1197 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline trad123

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • Reputation: +188/-112
  • Gender: Male
Declaration on Religious Liberty
« on: July 08, 2011, 01:59:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I don't think this is the first topic I've made on this point, and I'll likely be repeating myself, but I want this discussed.

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

    Quote
    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.


    Now, reading that, it doesn't state a person has a right to practice religion according to the dictates of their conscience, but not to be prevented from doing so privately or publicly.

    My contention is not concerning their worship in private, but publicly.

    After this paragraph it's stated:

    Quote
    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.


    If this right is founded in man's very nature then that means he possessed it at all times. Does anyone agree?

    Since religious liberty here means "all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power" and this is so even when they do so publicly doesn't that mean the suppression of non-Catholic worship in Catholic countries is against the natural law?

    http://www.cmri.org/95prog2.htm

    Quote
    The 1953 Concordat upholds the Spaniard’s Charter of July 13, 1945, which states:

        Article 6 of the Spanish Charter:
        “1) The profession and practice of the Catholic religion, which is that of the Spanish State, will enjoy official protection.
        “2) No one shall be disturbed for his religious beliefs nor the private exercise of his religion. There is no authorization for external ceremonies or manifestations of other than those of the Catholic religion.


    Wouldn't #2 violate man's right to not be impeded of religious liberty, publicly, which right has its foundation in man's very nature (according to Vatican II)?
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline trad123

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1182
    • Reputation: +188/-112
    • Gender: Male
    Declaration on Religious Liberty
    « Reply #1 on: July 08, 2011, 02:17:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Does "within due limits", merely mean within keeping public order? As I recall Fr. Most stated that the decree wouldn't permit witch doctors to cut off peoples heads, as called for in their religious practices.
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.


    Offline trad123

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1182
    • Reputation: +188/-112
    • Gender: Male
    Declaration on Religious Liberty
    « Reply #2 on: July 08, 2011, 02:20:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: ajpirc
    Gaudium et Spes

    Quote
    She will even give up the exercise of certain rights which have been legitimately acquired, if it becomes clear that their use will cast doubt on the sincerity of her witness or that new ways of life demand new methods.


    Vatican II abolished Catholicism being the state religion, too.


    76. ( . . .)

    Quote
    There are, indeed, close links between earthly things and those elements of man's condition which transcend the world. The Church herself makes use of temporal things insofar as her own mission requires it. She, for her part, does not place her trust in the privileges offered by civil authority. She will even give up the exercise of certain rights which have been legitimately acquired, if it becomes clear that their use will cast doubt on the sincerity of her witness or that new ways of life demand new methods. It is only right, however, that at all times and in all places, the Church should have true freedom to preach the faith, to teach her social doctrine, to exercise her role freely among men, and also to pass moral judgment in those matters which regard public order when the fundamental rights of a person or the salvation of souls require it. In this, she should make use of all the means—but only those—which accord with the Gospel and which correspond to the general good according to the diversity of times and circumstances.


    That certainly is troubling.
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline the smart sheep

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 307
    • Reputation: +111/-0
    • Gender: Female
    Declaration on Religious Liberty
    « Reply #3 on: July 08, 2011, 02:59:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: trad123
    I don't think this is the first topic I've made on this point, and I'll likely be repeating myself, but I want this discussed.

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

    Quote
    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.



    As I read this quote I see illuminatti "word art".

    The word "person" in this Zionist Banker NWO mess we are in means a corporation.   A "person" volunteers themselves to be servants or slaves of this NWO by sending in IRS forms, having a Social Security Card, etc.

    The word human person means a "human being".  A child of God. God gave this earth to His children to live free of charge and to give Sacrifice to Him freely.

    A "human being" has religious rights but a "person" does not.

     The Vatican is at the top of the Zionist Banker pyramid. And every time you send in your taxes you are telling them that you are a "person" and not a "human being".


    sheep

    Offline the smart sheep

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 307
    • Reputation: +111/-0
    • Gender: Female
    Declaration on Religious Liberty
    « Reply #4 on: July 08, 2011, 03:05:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: trad123


    Quote
    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.


    If this right is founded in man's very nature then that means he possessed it at all times. Does anyone agree?

     


    Yes, "human beings" possess this dignity. "Persons" do not, they are slaves or servants of the Zionist.

    Jesus talks to Peter about this in St. Matthew chapter 17

    sheep


    Offline the smart sheep

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 307
    • Reputation: +111/-0
    • Gender: Female
    Declaration on Religious Liberty
    « Reply #5 on: July 08, 2011, 03:27:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: trad123

    Since religious liberty here means "all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power" and this is so even when they do so publicly doesn't that mean the suppression of non-Catholic worship in Catholic countries is against the natural law?

    http://www.cmri.org/95prog2.htm

    Quote
    The 1953 Concordat upholds the Spaniard’s Charter of July 13, 1945, which states:

        Article 6 of the Spanish Charter:
        “1) The profession and practice of the Catholic religion, which is that of the Spanish State, will enjoy official protection.
        “2) No one shall be disturbed for his religious beliefs nor the private exercise of his religion. There is no authorization for external ceremonies or manifestations of other than those of the Catholic religion.


    Wouldn't #2 violate man's right to not be impeded of religious liberty, publicly, which right has its foundation in man's very nature (according to Vatican II)?


    So, let me see if I can apply my train of thought to this next question.

    First, the 1953 language does not match Vatican II. In other words, it wasn't until the 1960's that the Zionist Bankers used and defined "person" as a corporation.

    I am thinking the answer to your question would be, no.

    Because, before this "person" slavery was defined and before Vat II all Catholics were a child of God, they were "human beings".

    But  the non-Catholics became slaves of the Zionist or already were slaves and so therefore  the 1953 Catholic Church claimed  that there "is no authorization for external ceremonies or manifestations of other than those of the Catholic religion", otherwise they would be condoning Satanism and Satan's ceremonies.

    Give it up already, sheep?

    sheep

    Offline trad123

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1182
    • Reputation: +188/-112
    • Gender: Male
    Declaration on Religious Liberty
    « Reply #6 on: July 08, 2011, 04:16:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In regards to Illuminati and Bankers I don't know much.

    It seems that the Spanish Carter makes no exception at all for public expression of non-Catholic worship, no "within due limits", but absolute denial.
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline ajpirc

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 163
    • Reputation: +48/-0
    Declaration on Religious Liberty
    « Reply #7 on: July 08, 2011, 05:56:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: trad123
    That certainly is troubling.


    Indeed. Why wouldn't the Church want to be the official state religion? Seperation of Church and State is a flaw. Society would be much better if the Church was in state affairs. Now the state should stay out of the affairs of the Church because that would lead to chaos (Church of England). State controlled religion and official religion of a state are two seperate things.
    "If I saw an Angel and a priest, I would bend my knee first to the priest and then to the Angel." --St. Francis of Assisi (later quoted by St. John Vianney)

    "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of ev


    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Declaration on Religious Liberty
    « Reply #8 on: July 11, 2011, 03:53:57 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The mad genius of Vatican II in Dignitatis Humanae is that, in classic mind-boggling Modernist fashion, they use the term "religious freedom" where the real Catholic Church would use "free will," and at the same time they virtually redefine religious freedom, the way the term was always used.  

    Humans have free will, they don't have the right to religious freedom.  That being said, the definition given here is not necessarily the classic definition of religious freedom but perhaps more limited ( one of the hallmarks of Modernists is that their definitions and terminology is always in flux, there is no consistent use of language ).  

    DH says that humans have the right to a certain amount of religious freedom, the right to private and public worship -- but only "within due limits," the crowning touch of infuriating ambiguity.

    Maybe they thought that "within due limits," would save them, but it doesn't, because the sense of this document could not be more clear, and it also directly flouts Pius IX.  I was fortunate today to find a French translation of Maxima quidem of Pius IX, the one he quoted in the Syllabus of Errors regarding religious liberty.  It is shocking to read because the Modernists of Vatican II do exactly what he speaks against, so blatantly that it's almost embarrassing, considering their reputation for finessed ambiguity, attributed them by Caminus and others.  Though they attempt to be ambiguous, they are not so brilliant that they don't show their true non-Catholic colors from time to time.  That is why traditionalists of all stripes reject the Novus Ordo with disgust, as well as many actions of JPII and Ratzinger.  We all feel in our gut that what sits in Rome is no longer Catholic, but the SSPX, playing on fear, rationalizes this gut feeling away with emotional outbursts like "There's no way God would leave us without a Pope for fifty years!" or "The sedes are extremists!"

    Couldn't help sneaking that in.  Anyway, here is what Pius IX said:  

    Quote
    Tandis qu'ils font malicieusement dériver toutes les vérités de religion de la force native de la raison humaine, ils accordent à chaque homme une sorte de droit primordial par lequel il peut librement penser et parler de la religion et rendre à Dieu l'honneur et le culte qu'il trouve le meilleur selon son caprice.

    While they [ indifferentists, people who work against the Church ] contrive maliciously to make it seem as if all truths of religion were given to us by human reason, they attribute to every man a sort of primordial right by which he can freely think and speak of religion, and give God honor and worship in whatever way he thinks best according to his whims...


    Now Dignitatis Humanae --

    Quote
    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.


    They used exactly the same idea he condemned, as if kicking him in his grave.  But why not?  Ratzinger himself dared to say aloud that Gaudium et Spes was a counter-Syllabus!  

    Pius IX clearly says that we DO NOT have the right to speak, or even to THINK, about religion according to our whims.  We have the free will to do so, but that is not what DH is talking about.  Defenders of the Caminusian theory that Vatican II covered all its tracks through ambiguity may try to get out of this by saying, "Er, they were really talking about free will," but no, that doesn't work.  

    It is true that the way DH defined religious freedom is somewhat limited, only that "within due limits" -- whatever that means -- people should not be coerced to worship in any way that offends their inclinations, that they shouldn't be repressed.  Of course, the state, working with the Church, absolutely has the right to repress heresies -- heard of the Inquisition?  The war against the Cathars?  But perhaps the Cathars went too far and fell within the "due limits."  

    Nevertheless, here is the catch.  DH clearly says -- if you can speak of clarity in this case -- that people have the right to think as they please without being coerced.  Due limits or not, this is wrong.  There are no limits involved.  We do not have the right to think as we please, not ever, not within any limits.  We only have the right to be Catholic.   The "due limits" clause is a sort of distraction, a MacGuffin.  

    The bottom line is that we have no right even to THINK anything other than what God has revealed to us through the Catholic Church alone.  Thus we have no right to religious freedom, whatever our definition of religious freedom, whether it's broad or relatively narrow as it is here.  Thus, this document is heretical, falls directly under the condemnation of Pius IX, and shows that Vatican II was hatched by the exact same anti-Christ spirit that he was trying to stifle -- which I hope doesn't come as a surprise to anyone here.
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16