Author Topic: Catholic Tradition vs Vatican II (Read 4945 times)

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #1 on:** November 11, 2006, 04:05:51 PM »

The alternative is that only the True Religion enjoys the protection of the State. All the laws should facilitate right-ordered living by the members (citizens) thereof, always keeping in mind the true end of men. All that is contrary to both right reason and what God has revealed should be suppressed in the public arena.

Essentially, only that which is true has the right to protection from law, which includes the public practice and propogation (spreading) of the true religion.

CampeadorShin · « **Reply #2 on:** November 11, 2006, 10:23:22 PM »

THE INQUISITION! :scared2:

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #3 on:** November 13, 2006, 05:48:53 PM »

Quote from: Trinity

The more I think about it, the more it seems that religious liberty became inevitable after the Protestant schism became well established.

It became prudent to tolerate the myriad false sects, but that is not the same thing as "religious liberty".

Error does not, cannot, and shall not ever have any rights.

Quote

Can you imagine the fighting if a serious proposition to do away with religious liberty was tendered?

You will soon see it, although the 'religion' that shall be protected is the one-world, dogma-less humanitarianism which is being set up before our eyes. There will only be one that is outlawed - the true one.

student · « **Reply #4 on:** November 16, 2006, 06:01:14 PM »

I still don't understand why the religious liberty teaching of V2 is erroneous. Isn't it just saying that people can't be forced to become Catholic?

CampeadorShin · « **Reply #5 on:** November 17, 2006, 05:02:31 PM »

Its close to saying, "you don't have to be Catholic to go to Heaven" or it can also be interpretted as "you don't have to help convert people anymore".

No one can be FORCED to convert! Where do you get that idea student?

student · « **Reply #6 on:** November 18, 2006, 01:43:11 PM »

I know no one can be forced. I was saying that I thought that all the council was saying was that no one can be forced. Therefore, no error. Right?

The very phrasing of your response makes me suspicious of SSPX/sede claims that V2 is in error: you said that it "could be interpreted" to be teaching error. But anything can be interpreted to be teaching error, even the Bible. We have to go with what it's saying, and at least at this point, I don't see any error. It seems to be saying that one can't be forced to convert, which is of course true.

What liberals bent on the destruction of the Church do with the statement does not touch its truth or falsity.

CampeadorShin · « **Reply #7 on:** November 18, 2006, 03:29:58 PM »

Actually the SSPX seems to say "Hey, Rome! Can you please reword the docuмents so that they CAN'T be misinterpreted as something heretical? Or at least put together an official interpretation that doesn't allow room for heresy?"

The sedevacantists usually say "heretical!", I think...

But I think you should ask gladius about sedevacantism's position.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #8 on:** November 21, 2006, 05:57:32 PM »

Quote from: student

I know no one can be forced. I was saying that I thought that all the council was saying was that no one can be forced. Therefore, no error. Right?...

...It seems to be saying that one can't be forced to convert, which is of course true.

It says far more, although since I must get ready to travel tomorrow for the big holiday - happy Thanksgiving early, btw - I cannot provide the necessary quotes at the moment. I will do so over the weekend, or after I return.

Yes, one cannot be forced to convert - as the use of force renders any action not truly human (as it violates the freedom of the will).

Clodovicus · « **Reply #9 on:** April 14, 2007, 02:40:22 PM »

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #10 on:** April 14, 2007, 09:24:21 PM »

Clodovicus · « **Reply #11 on:** April 17, 2007, 07:26:28 PM »