Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Jehanne on May 07, 2015, 07:00:49 AM
-
http://sspx.org/en/what-is-the-problem-with-religious-liberty-sspx-faq-ep9-video
The good Father states, "Both Modernists and Catholics acknowledge that all men possess a natural dignity constituted primary by the free exercise of his reason and will. They also both agree that no one should violate this basic human liberty not even in order to impose what is true and good."
This is contrary to the eternal teaching of the Catholic Church:
"With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.
On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame." (ST II II, 11, 3)
[quote"]Among unbelievers there are some who have never received the faith, such as the heathens and the Jєωs: and these are by no means to be compelled to the faith, in order that they may believe, because to believe depends on the will: nevertheless they should be compelled by the faithful, if it be possible to do so, so that they do not hinder the faith, by their blasphemies, or by their evil persuasions, or even by their open persecutions. It is for this reason that Christ's faithful often wage war with unbelievers, not indeed for the purpose of forcing them to believe, because even if they were to conquer them, and take them prisoners, they should still leave them free to believe, if they will, but in order to prevent them from hindering the faith of Christ.
On the other hand, there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfill what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received." (ST II II, 10, 8)[/quote]
-
Personally, I don't see how you can have a 6 minute video on the topic of Religious Liberty without the words "heresy," "condemned', or "anathema" being used anywhere. If I recall from watching it, the only time the word "error" occurred was in a printed context.
The title... "What is the Problem with religious liberty?"
The answer is, because it's heretical, condemned, has an anathema cast upon it, and is an error.
::shrugs::
-
Show me a priest that believes you have to be a Catholic to be saved, and I will show you one who condemns religious liberty correctly.
-
http://sspx.org/en/what-is-the-problem-with-religious-liberty-sspx-faq-ep9-video
The good Father states, "Both Modernists and Catholics acknowledge that all men possess a natural dignity constituted primary by the free exercise of his reason and will. They also both agree that no one should violate this basic human liberty not even in order to impose what is true and good."
This is contrary to the eternal teaching of the Catholic Church:
"With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.
On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame." (ST II II, 11, 3)
"Among unbelievers there are some who have never received the faith, such as the heathens and the Jєωs: and these are by no means to be compelled to the faith, in order that they may believe, because to believe depends on the will: nevertheless they should be compelled by the faithful, if it be possible to do so, so that they do not hinder the faith, by their blasphemies, or by their evil persuasions, or even by their open persecutions. It is for this reason that Christ's faithful often wage war with unbelievers, not indeed for the purpose of forcing them to believe, because even if they were to conquer them, and take them prisoners, they should still leave them free to believe, if they will, but in order to prevent them from hindering the faith of Christ.
On the other hand, there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfill what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received." (ST II II, 10, 8)
In addition to cleaning-up my formatting, but, more importantly, I have a question for the SSPX:
Was burning heretics alive at the stake immoral?
Someone "in the know" please ask them!
-
The secular arm is duty bound to serve Christ our King, to seek and zealously defend the rights and interests of the Church, to restrain heretics and infidels who seek to promote their errors or hinder the freedom of Christians. All men have the duty to seek the truth and embrace it once it is known, no one has the right or liberty to remain in error and spread it. Pope Leo XIII says, Another liberty is widely advocated, namely, liberty of conscience. If by this is meant that everyone may, as he chooses, worship God or not, it is sufficiently refuted by the arguments already adduced. But it may also be taken to mean 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 desired and held most dear. In the strictest and truest sense, only Christians can have a natural right to religious liberty, because rights are founded in truth.
-
The secular arm is duty bound to serve Christ our King, to seek and zealously defend the rights and interests of the Church, to restrain heretics and infidels who seek to promote their errors or hinder the freedom of Christians. All men have the duty to seek the truth and embrace it once it is known, no one has the right or liberty to remain in error and spread it. Pope Leo XIII says, Another liberty is widely advocated, namely, liberty of conscience. If by this is meant that everyone may, as he chooses, worship God or not, it is sufficiently refuted by the arguments already adduced. But it may also be taken to mean 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 desired and held most dear. In the strictest and truest sense, only Christians can have a natural right to religious liberty, because rights are founded in truth.
What hole did you come out of? Do you not know Vatican 2 "revised" all this and that your last 6 "popes" have consistently taught the exact opposite for decades?
POPE FRANCIS SAYS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IS A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT -Link (http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-01-15/pope-francis-says-religious-freedom-trumps-right-free-speech)
Francis said that both religious freedom and the freedom of expression are “fundamental human rights.” But ultimately, he believes, religious rights are paramount. “It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others,” the pope said during a 45-minute press conference.
-
What hole did you come out of? Do you not know Vatican 2 "revised" all this and that your last 6 "popes" have consistently taught the exact opposite for decades?
You know that he knows that and that pretty much every traditional Catholic knows that.
-
What hole did you come out of? Do you not know Vatican 2 "revised" all this and that your last 6 "popes" have consistently taught the exact opposite for decades?
You know that he knows that and that pretty much every traditional Catholic knows that.
It was to ridicule his non-Catholic position of "recognizing" the V2 popes but then ignoring them 100%, disobeying them and living like they don't exist.
Nishant is one of the most obstinate ones in insisting SV is heretical and that the V2 popes "must all be popes" but then living like they don't even exist, ignoring them, not being a part of their church, disobeying, judging, condemning them etc. etc.
When has the Church ever taught the Pope or even the Church itself can be seen merely as a cardboard pope or church, a figurine, someone and something you can ignore and disobey 100%?
You have to have lost all common sense and touch with reality to believe such a thing is Catholic and to not recognize it immediately as patent nonsense.
The only place such madness is seen as normal is in a cult.
-
When has the Church ever taught the Pope or even the Church itself can be seen merely as a cardboard pope or church, a figurine, someone and something you can ignore and disobey 100%?
You have to have lost all common sense and touch with reality to believe such a thing is Catholic and to not recognize it immediately as patent nonsense.
The only place such madness is seen as normal is in a cult.
This is a terrible, widespread error today. I've noticed that those afflicted are unable to debate or discuss, as if the possibility of leading them to truth will cause them to melt.