Author Topic: SSPX and religious liberty  (Read 1746 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline VCR

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 40
  • Reputation: +69/-0
SSPX and religious liberty
« on: July 06, 2014, 04:22:43 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I was recently watching this sermon by Fr. Hewko.
    At about 20:05 minutes into the sermon, Fr. talks about an official document signed by the superiors of the SSPX that states that religious liberty can be reconciled with the Church's magisterium.

    Can anyone tell me which document this is and where about this is stated in the document.

    Thanks.

    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5795
    • Reputation: +3170/-153
    • Gender: Male
    • Love God and Play, Do Good Work and Pray
      • Julian Moore
    SSPX and religious liberty
    « Reply #1 on: July 06, 2014, 04:49:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Wow. I would like to see this document. That would be another sign of treachery.

    I hope someone posts it here.
    I Love Watching Butterflies . . ..


    Offline songbird

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3558
    • Reputation: +1303/-104
    • Gender: Female
    SSPX and religious liberty
    « Reply #2 on: July 06, 2014, 06:33:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Could it be Protocol 1411 (July 3, 1999) [See The Angelus, Nov. 1999-Ed.]  

    I have the Angelus for May 2002 that states "religious liberty".  The meetings of ssPX and Fraternity of St. Peter with Rome.  Very interesting.

    Offline B from A

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 551
    • Reputation: +396/-107
    • Gender: Female
    SSPX and religious liberty
    « Reply #3 on: July 06, 2014, 09:48:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • He is probably referring to +F's AFD.  I am somewhat surprised there are still regulars here on CI that are not familiar with it.

    Quote
    5. The affirmations of the Second Vatican Council and of the later Pontifical Magisterium relating to the relationship between the Church and the non-Catholic Christian confessions, as well as the social duty of religion and the right to religious liberty, whose formulation is with difficulty reconcilable with prior doctrinal affirmations from the Magisterium, ...


    Please note, Bishop Fellay's Doctrinal Declaration states that the religious liberty of VII "is reconcilable" with prior doctrinal affirmations of the Magisterium.

      (If I say something is with difficulty doable, that means it is doable.  The words "with difficulty" do not negate the key phrase "is reconcilable".   Anyone who has read the AFD before and did not catch that +F said that the religious liberty of the council is reconcilable with prior teaching of the Church, your assignment is:  please re-read the document until you are familiar with it. )


    Please also note that the 1988 Protocol did not say this.

     

    Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger:
    Quote
    “Considering that the Declaration of Religious Liberty is contrary to the Magisterium of the Church, we ask for a wholesale revision of the text."




    Quote
    We are forced to choose. Naturally, in our time of liberalism many people cannot understand that we can defend opinions that can seem “outdated,” “antiquated,” “mediaeval,” etc. But the doctrine of the Church is the doctrine of the Church. When the Popes condemned liberty of thought, liberty of conscience, liberty of religions, they explained why they condemned them. Leo XIII wrote long encyclicals on the subject. One only has to read them [to understand the reasons for these condemnations]; the same applies for Pope Pius IX and Pope Gregory XVI.

    Again, all of this is based on the Church’s fundamental principles, on the fact that the Church is truth, the only truth. This is the way it is; you either believe it or you don’t, of course, but when you believe, then you have to draw the consequences. That is why, personally, I do not believe that the declarations of the Council on liberty of conscience, liberty of thought, and liberty of religion can be compatible with what the popes taught in the past. Therefore we have to choose. Either we choose what the popes have taught for centuries and we choose the Church or we choose what was said by the Council. But we cannot choose both at the same time since they are contradictory.
    (Archbishop Lefebvre, Religious Liberty Questioned)


    Archbishop Lefebvre:
    Quote
    ... we can conclude that the Liberal doctrine of Religious Liberty and the traditional doctrine are radically opposed.

    Offline B from A

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 551
    • Reputation: +396/-107
    • Gender: Female
    SSPX and religious liberty
    « Reply #4 on: July 06, 2014, 10:31:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Regarding the conciliar Declaration on Religious Liberty Archbishop Lefebvre
    The practical consequences of the Liberal thesis adopted by the Holy See after the Council are disastrous and anti Christian. It is the uncrowning of Our Lord Jesus Christ, with the reduction to an equal status before the law of all religions leading to an apostate ecumenism as that of Assisi.


    Quote from: Bishop Fellay
    The Religious liberty is used in so many ways and looking closer I really have the impression that not many know what really the Council said about it. The Council is presenting a religious liberty which is in fact a very, very limited one. Very limited. It would mean our talks with Rome, they clearly said that to mean that there would be a right to error or right to choose each religion, is false.


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4568/-575
    • Gender: Female
    SSPX and religious liberty
    « Reply #5 on: July 06, 2014, 11:41:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Very difficult to reconcile modernist Religious Liberty with the previous teaching of the Holy Catholic Church:

    Quote from: Leo XIII

    Justice therefore forbids and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness, namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of the truth are, as it were, engraved upon it.


    Quote from: Pius XI

    By degrees the religion of Christ was put on the same level with false religions and placed ignominiously in the same category with them.


    Quote from: Leo XIII
    :
    The Church deems it unlawful to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the true religion, but does not on that account, condemn those rulers, who for the sake of securing some great good of hindering some great evil, patiently allow custom or usage to be a kind of sanction for each kind of religion having its place in the State. And in  fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no once shall be forced to embrace the Catholic Faith against his will.


    There is no way Religious Liberty can even be reconciled with Church dogma.  The Truth of the Catholic religion as an exclusive means of human salvation is not an option, but a certitude and an obligation.

    With Religious Liberty what they seek is not conversion to Catholicism but simply convergence and tolerance of error, of falsehood. To supplant what is truly Catholic, divine and heavenly, with what is merely a global common lowest denominator, until there is nothing left from the Authentic Faith of Christ. In the pursuit of Religious Liberty, they forget that the real obstacle is Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, nonetheless. The Son of God made flesh! The Very Word Incarnate! who cannot be denied by the True Church. There is not possible reconciliation there since this Truth is exclusive.

     
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Sneakyticks

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 290
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    SSPX and religious liberty
    « Reply #6 on: July 07, 2014, 12:23:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Cantarella
    Very difficult to reconcile modernist Religious Liberty with the previous teaching of the Holy Catholic Church:

    Quote from: Leo XIII

    Justice therefore forbids and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness, namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of the truth are, as it were, engraved upon it.


    Quote from: Pius XI

    By degrees the religion of Christ was put on the same level with false religions and placed ignominiously in the same category with them.


    Quote from: Leo XIII
    :
    The Church deems it unlawful to place the various forms of divine worship on the same footing as the true religion, but does not on that account, condemn those rulers, who for the sake of securing some great good of hindering some great evil, patiently allow custom or usage to be a kind of sanction for each kind of religion having its place in the State. And in  fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no once shall be forced to embrace the Catholic Faith against his will.


    There is no way Religious Liberty can even be reconciled with Church dogma.  The Truth of the Catholic religion as an exclusive means of human salvation is not an option, but a certitude and an obligation.

    With Religious Liberty what they seek is not conversion to Catholicism but simply convergence and tolerance of error, of falsehood. To supplant what is truly Catholic, divine and heavenly, with what is merely a global common lowest denominator, until there is nothing left from the Authentic Faith of Christ. In the pursuit of Religious Liberty, they forget that the real obstacle is Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, nonetheless. The Son of God made flesh! The Very Word Incarnate! who cannot be denied by the True Church. There is not possible reconciliation there since this Truth is exclusive.

     


    Well then, you claim to be in full communion with Chaos Frank and that he is the head of your Church, so how dare you deny the official and infallible teaching of your Church?

    The Ratman, your "Antipope Emeritus", as well as the "CDF", say that religious liberty (and the whole Vatican 2 dish), IS NOT OPTIONAL.

    Do you have the same faith as Chaos Frank, your Pope, who is the unity of faith in your Church?

    Offline B from A

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 551
    • Reputation: +396/-107
    • Gender: Female
    SSPX and religious liberty
    « Reply #7 on: July 07, 2014, 07:52:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  :thinking:    That's strange; I thought this thread was about the SSPX and religious liberty, or the question:  what was the official document signed by Bp. Fellay that states that religious liberty can be reconciled with the Church's magisterium?

     


    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4568/-575
    • Gender: Female
    SSPX and religious liberty
    « Reply #8 on: July 07, 2014, 10:30:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from:  B from A
    :thinking:    That's strange; I thought this thread was about the SSPX and religious liberty, or the question:  what was the official document signed by Bp. Fellay that states that religious liberty can be reconciled with the Church's magisterium?

     


    Yet, we have a completely off topic response from another unbalanced sedevacantist.  
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 20130
    • Reputation: +10995/-5299
    • Gender: Male
    SSPX and religious liberty
    « Reply #9 on: July 07, 2014, 10:40:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If I believed, as Bishop Fellay does, that the "Hindu in Tibet" can be saved, then religious liberty is EASILY (not "with difficulty") reconcilable with Catholic teaching.

    Offline Cantarella

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 7782
    • Reputation: +4568/-575
    • Gender: Female
    SSPX and religious liberty
    « Reply #10 on: July 07, 2014, 05:28:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ladislaus
    If I believed, as Bishop Fellay does, that the "Hindu in Tibet" can be saved, then religious liberty is EASILY (not "with difficulty") reconcilable with Catholic teaching.


    Excellent point. Archbishop Lefebvre also shared the same position.
    If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ" Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit" (Jn 3:5) let him be anathema.


     

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