Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Religious Liberty  (Read 388 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline OurFatherRN1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Reputation: +10/-2
  • Gender: Male
Religious Liberty
« on: November 08, 2018, 03:34:42 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If the civil authorities forced you to go to Catholic Church only, would you be free to go to Catholic Church?

    Offline TheJovialInquisitor

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 63
    • Reputation: +23/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Religious Liberty
    « Reply #1 on: November 08, 2018, 04:15:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Unless they literally put a brainchip in you that forces you to obey, then yes, you are capable of disobeying a law.


    Offline OurFatherRN1

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 42
    • Reputation: +10/-2
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Religious Liberty
    « Reply #2 on: November 08, 2018, 08:21:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If a civil power compels you to go to the Catholic Church, do you have the Religious Liberty to go, thereby, in any which way, whatsoever?

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3379
    • Reputation: +4010/-203
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: Religious Liberty
    « Reply #3 on: November 08, 2018, 08:59:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, I don't think so, not in the relevant sense.  Jovial Inquisitor is right that you would be free in the ontological sense, just like you're "free" to commit murder or essentially do anything that physics doesn't disallow.  But that's not what's meant by the Church's understanding of religious liberty.
    .
    The Church only has jurisdiction over those who freely belong to her (i.e., the baptized, and in particular the baptized who are members of the Church).  These she of course has the power and duty to compel to religious observance.  I'm not sure that the state has the power to compel that observance, and in fact the inquisition was in large part the Church stepping in to stay the hand of the state which she regarded as having overstepped its bounds in enforcing her own laws.  The state should of course promote the rights of the Church and enable her flourishing, as well as the flourishing of her members.  But I'm not sure it can lawfully (i.e., lawfully in the eyes of God) compel mass attendance.
    .
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Offline OurFatherRN1

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 42
    • Reputation: +10/-2
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Religious Liberty
    « Reply #4 on: November 08, 2018, 09:06:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Do you have Religious Liberty, to have Religious Liberty, in any way whatsoever, and doesn’t take make Religious Liberty true, in some way, no matter what?


    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3379
    • Reputation: +4010/-203
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: Religious Liberty
    « Reply #5 on: November 08, 2018, 10:01:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Do you have Religious Liberty, to have Religious Liberty, in any way whatsoever, and doesn’t take make Religious Liberty true, in some way, no matter what?
    .
    The Catholic view of religious liberty is that people have a fundamental right to worship God correctly.  Religious liberty means that the Catholic religion is not impeded by the state nor are Catholic citizens restrained or otherwise coerced by the state in religious observance.
    .
    It doesn't mean that everyone has a right to believe or worship however they like.  In fact, they man does not have a right to error, which is precisely what he is claiming a right to when he asserts that he has a right to his Lutheran Church, Mosque, or whatever other non-Catholic worship. 
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Offline rosenley

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 11
    • Reputation: +3/-0
    • Gender: Male
    • Roman Catholic.
      • Rigid Catholicism
    Re: Religious Liberty
    « Reply #6 on: November 08, 2018, 11:45:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thomas Pink outlines what Mithrandylan is saying in this paper, for anyone that is curious: https://www.academia.edu/639061/What_is_the_Catholic_doctrine_of_religious_liberty 

    Offline trad123

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 996
    • Reputation: +135/-53
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Religious Liberty
    « Reply #7 on: November 09, 2018, 12:36:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Pope Leo XIII on True Liberty

    http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/true-liberty.htm


    Quote
    He then explains that "freedom of choice is a property of the will, or rather it is identical with the will in so far as it has in its action the faculty of choice."

    (. . .)

    Freedom is exercised legitimately only when man conforms his will to that of God. He has no natural right to prefer his own counsel to that of his Creator, even though physically and psychologically he is able to do so. A crucial distinction must be made here in discussing the nature of free will. This is the distinction between being physically and psychologically able (free) to choose evil, and having a natural right to choose evil. In the language of liberalism, to say that a man is free to do something means that he has a right to do it, subject to the requirements of public order. 

    "Nothing more foolish can be uttered or conceived," teaches Pope Leo, "than the notion that because man is free by nature, he is therefore exempt from law." 

    (. . .)

    A man who chooses what is objectively evil is making himself not free but the slave of sin (Jn. 8:34).

    (. . .)

    When a man exercises his liberty in accordance with the law of God he renders his Creator homage which is due to Him in strict justice and also follows the only path by which he can be saved. He does not abdicate his dignity, he asserts it. When he chooses evil he abuses and profanes his most sacred possession.

    (. . .)

    In order to promote freedom of conscience in its correct sense, Pope Leo teaches that the state should not ensure that "everyone may, as he chooses, worship God nor not" but that every man in the state may follow the will of God and, from a consciousness of duty and free from every obstacle, obey His commands. This indeed, is true liberty, a liberty worthy of the sons of God, which nobly maintains the dignity of man, and is stronger than all violence or wrong-----a liberty which the Church has always maintained and held most dear. 

    Freedom of conscience is not, then, a natural right if it is taken as meaning that man has a right to choose error. But although an individual has no natural right to choose error he does possess a right not to be coerced into choosing truth in the internal forum of his private life. Pope Leo XIII taught in his encyclical Immortale Dei: 

    The Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, "Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own free will." 


    A coerced act is not a free act, even though it be tending towards some 'good' for that person. 

    If someone is refusing to eat, and starving themself, and I force them in some manner to take food, that person is not engaging in liberty, so to speak.

    Back to the article; to the point, true liberty is freedom from sin.
    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 OurFatherRN1

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 42
    • Reputation: +10/-2
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Religious Liberty
    « Reply #8 on: November 09, 2018, 08:24:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here, is a more purely, philosophical, speculation...  Do you have Religious Liberty to have Religious Liberty, in any which way, whatsoever?  In other words, according to philosophical speculation, in a sense, there is a way in which I understand that if I have the choice to make a Religious decision in any which way whatsoever, then, either way, no matter what that is, then I have had, a Religious Liberty, no matter what, either way.  Does't that make sense?

    So in my view, I believe that by the very words, of saying Religious Liberty, you have had thereby a liberty, in Religion, of some kind.  And, in my view, that seems to make some kind of Religious Liberty, true, at least in some sense.  Does anyone here understand that with me, at least, in some way, in some, sense, whatsoever?

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3379
    • Reputation: +4010/-203
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: Religious Liberty
    « Reply #9 on: November 09, 2018, 08:52:29 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thomas Pink outlines what Mithrandylan is saying in this paper, for anyone that is curious: https://www.academia.edu/639061/What_is_the_Catholic_doctrine_of_religious_liberty
    .
    For the record, I agree with Pink's principles but I disagree with his evaluation of Dignitatis Humanae. 
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3379
    • Reputation: +4010/-203
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: Religious Liberty
    « Reply #10 on: November 09, 2018, 09:37:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    For the record, I agree with Pink's principles but I disagree with his evaluation of Dignitatis Humanae.
    .
    That is, I think he understands religious liberty correctly, but I don't think he's correct that DH was merely a "policy shift," and to the degree that it was a policy shift, I don't think it's the kind of shift the Church can make.  DH premises its "policies" in man's alleged right to practice whatever religion he pleases, and this alone is a major error.  Add to that, I think DH did more than just "rescind" the Church's request for aid from nation-states (which I do think she is free to do), but additionally requested and exhorted them to promote all religions equally.  It strikes me as a violation of the Church's divine constitution to positively recommend for societies or individuals to worship however they please. 
    .
    To back up "my" reading of DH, I would point to the fact that DH has been enacted and applied by the Novus Ordo episcopate in exactly the way I just described and understood in the way I just described.  Pink's defense of it is definitely the best defense there is, and he's certainly put a great deal of thought, effort, and research into the defense-- but it remains his defense, and his defense only; it certainly isn't the way that his religious superiors have understood the document.  
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com


    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3379
    • Reputation: +4010/-203
    • Gender: Male
      • The Trad Forum
    Re: Religious Liberty
    « Reply #11 on: November 09, 2018, 09:43:18 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Here, is a more purely, philosophical, speculation...  Do you have Religious Liberty to have Religious Liberty, in any which way, whatsoever?  In other words, according to philosophical speculation, in a sense, there is a way in which I understand that if I have the choice to make a Religious decision in any which way whatsoever, then, either way, no matter what that is, then I have had, a Religious Liberty, no matter what, either way.  Does't that make sense?

    So in my view, I believe that by the very words, of saying Religious Liberty, you have had thereby a liberty, in Religion, of some kind.  And, in my view, that seems to make some kind of Religious Liberty, true, at least in some sense.  Does anyone here understand that with me, at least, in some way, in some, sense, whatsoever?
    .
    There's danger of equivocation here.  If we just look at the expression "religous liberty" and through self-inflicted Cartesian doubt reason our way to its meaning, as though it existed in a vacuum, we'd probably conclude with some "absolute" form of religious liberty where there is a strict universal right, at least in some sense, for man to worship in whatever way he finds fit.
    .
    But religious liberty has a very specific meaning if we're considering it as Catholic doctrine (which, as Catholics, is how we look at it).  And that meaning is constrained by the Divine Law and the rights of God, which include and entail man's duty to worship Him "as He is", i.e., the Triune God who, through Jesus Christ, established and maintained One Christian Church, the Catholic Church, with a deposit of faith and corresponding praxis to express that faith.  That is the religion which is the object of religious liberty.  According to Catholic teaching, but also in the philosophical sense.  The axiom "error has no rights" is not merely a religious brute fact, it belongs to natural philosophy and theology as well, at least in any natural philosophy or theology that commits to an objective view of the world and morality.
    .
    More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15656
    • Reputation: +8260/-2595
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Religious Liberty
    « Reply #12 on: November 09, 2018, 09:54:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Religious Liberty, like all the V2 errors, is rooted in subjectivism ... as Bishop Williamson famously likes to point out.  If one pleases God and saves his soul by following even an erroneous conscience, then, since a person has a right (and duty) to please God and save his soul, then he has a right to follow even an erroneous conscience.  That's why the EENS issue is so critical in all this ... and yet so many Traditional Catholics blow it off as unimportant.

    If you grant that people save their souls by following error, so long as they do it in good faith, then Vatican II reduces to nothing more than a presumption in the external forum of good faith.  So, for instance, if before Vatican II the Church PRESUMED in the external forum that non-Catholics were actually outside the Church (even though they technically could be in the Church), now after Vatican II, the presumption is that they are in good faith and actually in the Church.  That is all.  While one might disagree, there's no actual shift in principle from what many Traditional Catholics believe regarding the core ecclesiology and soteriology.

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2398
    • Reputation: +1274/-624
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Religious Liberty
    « Reply #13 on: November 09, 2018, 09:56:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What is liberty, what is freedom? In his encyclical called Libertas, Pope Leo XIII defines liberty and freedom, as the power to choose. That is all liberty is, a power. It is not intrinsically good or evil, nor is it a right, it is just a power. Every person has the power (the liberty) to worship a tree, the devil, or the Holy Trinity. Liberty, freedom or power, mean nothing, it is how it is used that determines if it is good or evil, right or wrong. Worshipping God through any way other than the Catholic faith and the Catholic Church, is false worship and repugnant to God.
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17898
    • Reputation: +8168/-615
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Religious Liberty
    « Reply #14 on: November 09, 2018, 04:30:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    True religious liberty in our time properly understood means one thing only:
    .
    Catholics have the right to worship God in public, in the open, officially, for all to see, using the Traditional Latin Mass and all associated rituals.
    .
    Of course, there are Catholic rites besides the Roman Latin rite, and these others (Greek, Armenian, Aramaic, Russian, etc.) are likewise okay.
    .
    At the same time, neither Catholics or non-Catholics have the right to pretend to PUBLICLY worship God (or anything else) in other ways.
    .
    That means that Lutheran, Mormon, Seventh-Day Adventist, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Mohammedan, Zoroastrian or any other sects have no such right.
    .
    They would be worshiping God (or whatever) in ways that are not Catholic, and they are not at liberty to publicly do so, under true religious liberty.
    .
    Only the one true faith has the liberty to be practiced in public, and since the Catholic Church is the one true faith, it must be public.
    .
    But you won't find a word of that in Dignitatis Humanae, and as such it is an abominable desecration of the Church's authority in the world.
    .
    Consequently we can logically take this one step further, to say that inasmuch as the Novus Ordo you-name-it complies and agrees with Vat.II --
     everything Novus Ordo is tantamount to DH from the viewpoint of traditional Catholicism, and must be opposed with our heart, mind and will.
    .
    This means that the Novus Ordo ceremonies you see published coming out of the Vatican on Christmas, etc., are all fake, non-Catholic and abominable.
    .
    If you think this is too "harsh" what do you have to say about the laws for religious public practice in Moslem countries, such as Saudi Arabia?

    .
    .
    Go back now, and read  trad123's post regarding the words of Pope Leo XIII, keeping ^ this ^ in mind, and see what difference it makes.
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

     

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