Author Topic: Quanta Cura/Dignitatis Humanae (Read 4462 times)

Raoul76 · « **Reply #5 on:** July 06, 2010, 05:47:06 PM »

I should not have tried to read this after consuming a bunch of donuts. I'm not kidding, this caused my stomach to do somersaults. What bad faith from this Brian hαɾɾιson, what sophistry!

DH doesn't fall under the condemnation of Pius IX? Are you out of your gourd, Brian hαɾɾιson? It is a direct 180 from everything Pius IX said, almost if not exactly word-for-word. At least be a man and use honest arguments, such as that the Church has the right to change its approach to religious liberty, and that this matter is one of discipline and not faith. That is how I would defend it, if I were inclined to do so.

What bad faith! What sophistry! Did I already say that?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #6 on:** July 06, 2010, 05:52:51 PM »

Yes, that passage praising DH for using the language that was specifically condemned is quite bad.

The defenders of DH who do not believe it changes Church teaching have two arguments:

1) That the original condemnations somehow applied only to extreme 19th century positions of Lamennais and his followers.

2) That DH has disclaimers that somehow cause it to not fall under that which was previously condemned.

Well, these arguments are tenuous at best, because of course a reversal opinion would need excuses.

The bottom line is that religious liberty goes from being called bad in principle to being a right that the Catholic Church demands be granted.

There's no concealing that.

When we consider that the teaching of heresy from the pulpit is now the ordinary course of events, when we consider the "liberty" at Assissi, we see something far beyond what Lamennais and his followers had in mind.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #7 on:** July 06, 2010, 05:58:05 PM »

Telesphorus said:

Quote

Yes, that passage praising DH for using the language that was specifically condemned is quite bad.

That's a better way to put it. I realize now that my last post suggests hαɾɾιson is lying, and since he's a priest ( maybe, depending on all that business with the new rite of consecration ), I don't want to do that. I have a paranoia about that ever since reading in Liguori that calling a priest a liar is a mortal sin.

His argument reeks to high heaven, let me say that.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #8 on:** July 06, 2010, 06:17:54 PM »

Telesphorus said:

Quote

The bottom line is that religious liberty goes from being called bad in principle to being a right that the Catholic Church demands be granted.

There's no concealing that.

Exactly. It goes from being bad in principle to being ENFORCED with an iron rod.

Telesphorus said:

Quote

When we consider that the teaching of heresy from the pulpit is now the ordinary course of events, when we consider the "liberty" at Assissi, we see something far beyond what Lamennais and his followers had in mind.

We know the Church is infested with heretics, but I'm trying to take DH at face value, in itself, the same way we try to decide if the Novus Ordo in its Latin, official form is intrinsically bad.

What about if hαɾɾιson or someone else said that DH was a way to protect freedom of worship for Catholics in an increasingly hostile and secular world?

I said in the other thread that this holds no water logically, since no tyrannically atheistic government would listen to the Vatican. But thinking it over more closely, just because those in question won't listen hasn't stopped the Vatican ( the real Vatican ) from condemning communism and other evils.

However, that is very relativistic. As Leo XIII said, tyrannical, atheistic governments may be worse than modern governments where the Church is separated from the state -- but both are bad IN PRINCIPLE.

If it really is against the faith to say that governments should allow error to have rights, then nothing can change that. The question I ask again, does this controversy over the Right to Religious Error ( a more accurate term for what we call "religious liberty" ) fall under the category of discipline or faith?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #9 on:** July 06, 2010, 06:24:46 PM »

Quote

We know the Church is infested with heretics, but I'm trying to take DH at face value, in itself, the same way we try to decide if the Novus Ordo in its Latin, official form is intrinsically bad.

The problem is that hαɾɾιson's defense tries to bring in particular circuмstances instead of principles. It obviously holds no water, because if we look at the Church today, we see things many many times worse than was dreamed of in the time of Lamennais, from the mouths of churchmen.

Those who have unleashed anarchy in the Church try to argue DH doesn't contradict Quanta Cura on a technicality. They have no credibility. It is just like neo-modernism in that way: gutting the teachigns of the Church while strenuously denying it.