Author Topic: Eleison Comments Number CCXCVI (296) (Read 2227 times)

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **on:** March 15, 2013, 08:16:39 PM »

Number CCXCVI 296) 16 March 2013

UNDIGNIFIED DIGNITY

A reader has argued in favour of the Vatican II teaching on religious liberty. Even if the subject has often come up in “Eleison Comments”, her arguments are surely worth going through, because it is vital for Catholics today to grasp thoroughly the falsehood of that teaching. What the Council taught in paragraph #2 of its Declaration on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae), is that all men are to be free from all coercion by any other men or group of men when it comes to acting in private or in public in accordance with their beliefs. Moreover every human State must make this natural right into a constitutional or civil right.

On the contrary, all the way up to Vatican II the Catholic Church consistently taught that every State, as embodying God’s civil authority over God’s human creatures, is obliged as such to use that authority to protect and favour God’s one true Church, the Catholic Church of the Incarnate God, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Obviously, non-Catholic States will be condemned rather for their lack of faith than for not giving civil protection to that faith. Likewise Catholic States may refrain from prohibiting the public practice of false religions where such prohibition will do more harm than good for the salvation of the citizens’ souls. But the principle remains intact: God’s States must protect God’s true religion.

In fact the Conciliar teaching implies either that States are not from God, or that there is no one true religion of God. Either way it is implicitly liberating the State from God, and so putting the liberty of man above the rights of God, or, simply, man above God. That is why Archbishop Lefebvre said that the Conciliar teaching was blasphemy. And it is no use saying that the other paragraphs of DH contain good Catholic teaching. One gash by the iceberg was enough to sink the Titanic. DH#2 alone is enough to sink Catholic doctrine. But let us see the arguments in defence of the Council’s teaching.

1 DH is part of the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium, which must be taken seriously.
DH came from the Church’s Magisters, or masters, yes, but not from the infallible Ordinary Magisterium, because DH contradicts the Church’s traditional teaching, as shown above.

2 DH merely makes clear human rights that are granted by natural law.
Natural law puts the rights of man below, and not above, the rights of God.

3 DH does not negate the Catholic model for Church-State relations.
It most certainly does ! Paragraph #2 liberates the State from its intrinsic obligation to the one true Church.

4 DH is written in the context of the modern world where everybody believes in human rights. Since when must the Church be adapted to the world, and not the world to the Church ?

5 DH does not teach that man has a right to error.
If God’s State must grant a civil right to practise, in public, false religions, then God is being made to grant a right to error.

6 DH is a plea to modern governments to grant half a loaf, which is better than no bread.
True Catholic doctrine is so logical and so coherent that to give away any of it is to give away all of it. And what sheep saved itself by offering itself to the wolf ?

7 Catholics must not retreat from the modern world into a doctrinal ghetto.
Catholics must do whatever they have to do, go wherever they have to go, in order not to give away the rights of God or compromise his honour. If that means martyrdom, so be it !

Kyrie eleison.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** March 15, 2013, 09:39:43 PM »

The claim that the state must give immunity for heresy, blasphemy, idolatry, and other violations of the First Commandment is to assert that those sins cause no injury to the Social Reign of Christ that the state has a right or obligation to prevent. To believe such acts do no injury is to be religiously indifferent. To believe the state must not guard against such injuries is to deny that the state should be Catholic. Surely, no Catholic power has the right to permit, when it is within its power to hinder, the spread of falsehood and errors that threaten Christ's Social Reign. The Vatican II religion praises false religions, and does not condemn them, and its practitioners engage false "ecuмenism" with false religions. They have disestablished the Social Reign of Christ in favour of the spread of false religions.

When it is said it does not establish a "right to error" - we must ask, how can such immunity exist without right? I suspect the answer given would be something like "They speak falsehood and evil but it could well be in accord with their conscience, so you must respect their conscience." Yet other violations of the Commandments could be done in accord with a warped conscience. Such circuмstances cannot justify immunity for giving offense to God. To grant such immunity is really to say: the exercise of religion is a personal matter, a matter of personal conscience, not a matter of public morals. So it seems to be based on the view that men should be free to think and act as they please so long as they do not impinge on the personal rights of others to do the same. That is to remove Rights of God and to substitute for them the Rights of Man.

Let us suppose that the conciliarists really do believe there is no right to err against the Faith. If there is no such right, then how is it denying them an object due to them in justice to forbid the spreading of their errors?

If the Catholic Church in the past did not respect this immunity to violate the First Commandment, how can the Catholic Church be the true religion? If for many centuries the Church did not teach immunity for false worship, then the Church for centuries was leading souls to perdition.

Of course, the "very limited liberty" of Dignitatis Humanae that pretends to be reconcilable with the past teachings and practice of the Church is pure sophistry. The Vatican II religion not only insists false worship be tolerated, it insists on its leaders worshipping in common with unbelievers. The Vatican II religion praises false religions, while it implicitly condemns the Catholic religion.

Quote from: Romans 13

[1] Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. [2] Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. [3] For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. [4] For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. [5] Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake.

[6] For therefore also you pay tribute. For they are the ministers of God, serving unto this purpose. [7] Render therefore to all men their dues. Tribute, to whom tribute is due: custom, to whom custom: fear, to whom fear: honour, to whom honour. [8] Owe no man any thing, but to love one another. For he that loveth his neighbour, hath fulfilled the law. [9] For Thou shalt not commit adultery: Thou shalt not kill: Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness: Thou shalt not covet: and if there be any other commandment, it is comprised in this word, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [10] The love of our neighbour worketh no evil. Love therefore is the fulfilling of the law.

Quote from: Quas Primas

24. If We ordain that the whole Catholic world shall revere Christ as King, We shall minister to the need of the present day, and at the same time provide an excellent remedy for the plague which now infects society. We refer to the plague of anti-clericalism, its errors and impious activities. This evil spirit, as you are well aware, Venerable Brethren, has not come into being in one day; it has long lurked beneath the surface. The empire of Christ over all nations was rejected. The right which the Church has from Christ himself, to teach mankind, to make laws, to govern peoples in all that pertains to their eternal salvation, that right was denied. Then gradually the religion of Christ came to be likened to false religions and to be placed ignominiously on the same level with them. It was then put under the power of the state and tolerated more or less at the whim of princes and rulers. Some men went even further, and wished to set up in the place of God's religion a natural religion consisting in some instinctive affection of the heart. There were even some nations who thought they could dispense with God, and that their religion should consist in impiety and the neglect of God. The rebellion of individuals and states against the authority of Christ has produced deplorable consequences. We lamented these in the Encyclical Ubi arcano; we lament them today: the seeds of discord sown far and wide; those bitter enmities and rivalries between nations, which still hinder so much the cause of peace; that insatiable greed which is so often hidden under a pretense of public spirit and patriotism, and gives rise to so many private quarrels; a blind and immoderate selfishness, making men seek nothing but their own comfort and advantage, and measure everything by these; no peace in the home, because men have forgotten or neglect their duty; the unity and stability of the family undermined; society in a word, shaken to its foundations and on the way to ruin. We firmly hope, however, that the feast of the Kingship of Christ, which in future will be yearly observed, may hasten the return of society to our loving Savior.

Ethelred · « **Reply #2 on:** March 16, 2013, 04:30:18 AM »

Thanks for that, ServusSpiritusSancti. You even preserved the formatting!

The good bishop observes and senses what's lying ahead of us, and so he's warning us to prepare :
Catholics must do whatever they have to do, go wherever they have to go, in order not to give away the rights of God or compromise his honour. If that means martyrdom, so be it!

The closer the moment of "so be it" comes to us (and it's approaching fast!), the more we Catholics could be frightened. Only God can give us the strength to pass through the upcoming horrific events of a basically totally apostate world and its demonic fruits. May God have mercy upon us.

Nishant · « **Reply #3 on:** March 16, 2013, 12:32:45 PM »

Quote

When it is said it does not establish a "right to error" - we must ask, how can such immunity exist without right? I suspect the answer given would be something like "They speak falsehood and evil but it could well be in accord with their conscience, so you must respect their conscience."

The traditional Church teaching on the union between Church and State allows for religious toleration. According to Pope Pius XII, who summarized Church teaching on the subject, there are two principles which must guide the Catholic statesman and jurist - one that error has no objective right to exist or be spread, second that a general non impedire policy of toleration may be followed by the Catholic state. The state itself would be bound to recognize in law the rights of Christ the King and offer exclusive public worship to God, but according to the circuмstances, may follow a policy of toleration towards false religions.

Quote

We have just adduced the authority of God. Could God, although it would be possible and easy for Him to repress error and moral deviation, in some cases choose the "non impedire" without contradicting His infinite perfection? Could it be that in certain circuмstances He would not give men any mandate, would not impose any duty, and would not even communicate the right to impede or to repress what is erroneous and false? A look at things as they are gives an affirmative answer. Reality shows that error and sin are in the world in great measure. God reprobates them, but He permits them to exist. Hence the affirmation: religious and moral error must always be impeded, when it is possible, because toleration of them is in itself immoral, is not valid absolutely and unconditionally.

...

Thus the two principles are clarified to which recourse must be had in concrete cases for the answer to the serious question concerning the attitude which the jurist, the statesman and the sovereign Catholic state is to adopt in consideration of the community of nations in regard to a formula of religious and moral toleration as described above. First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated. Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.

Before all else the Catholic statesman must judge if this condition is verified in the concrete—this is the "question of fact."

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** March 16, 2013, 12:39:14 PM »

Quote

First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated. Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.

There can be reasons for failure to impede it - not a general principle which says toleration must be accorded.

Certainly not a general principle that just happened to be discovered and promulgated in the 1960s, in conjunction with praise for those false religions in Nostra Aetate.

Nishant · « **Reply #5 on:** March 16, 2013, 01:26:00 PM »

Quote

There can be reasons for failure to impede it - not a general principle which says toleration must be accorded.

This is what Pope Pius XII refers to as the question of fact, to judge whether the circuмstances and conditions for the granting of tolerance are satisfied in a particular instance, by carefully weighing the evil that could arise from it against the greater good hoped to be gained for by toleration. Pope Pius XII distinguishes three possible scenarios, namely, where God gives the positive duty to Catholic powers to suppress, where He gives the right but not the duty, and finally, where He communicates neither. In his time, he says the last holds true.

So this is the self-same principle which has guided the Church through many centuries, and it is only different circuмstances that account for their differing application. So it was, at least, that much is clear, up until Pope Pius XII.

According to Bishop Fellay, in the doctrinal discussions with the Vatican, the Society told Rome, they understand that Christians are persecuted in different parts of the world, and must ask for immunity from the hostile government. The only question was, under what principle. And for that, he summarized the traditional Church teaching on religious tolerance.

Let me ask you, how would you go about doing that, convincing an anti-Christian government to grant immunity from coercion to Catholics?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #6 on:** March 16, 2013, 01:37:52 PM »

Quote

Let me ask you, how would you go about doing that, convincing an anti-Christian government to grant immunity from coercion to Catholics?

Catholicism is safest when they are principled, that is to say, when they are intolerant of error. Unbelievers respect the consciences of believers more than they respect the "conscience" of someone holding to implicitly indifferentist views.

Nishant · « **Reply #7 on:** March 16, 2013, 01:47:26 PM »

Ok, Telesphorus. So, let's consider the case of Christians in a non-Christian state - whether under atheists, pagans or heretics. Now, we know that Christians have a right to their own freedom and immunity from coercion, even in public, ultimately because Christianity is true. That is, error and falsehood have no rights, while truth and righteousness always do.

But, in the face of a hostile non-Christian government, which does not acknowledge the truth of Christianity, how is one supposed to establish the same? Obviously, one cannot appeal here to considerations drawn from the faith nor known through revelation alone, but in the first place, to those drawn from reason.

In other words, in a general way, one may say there is a true liberty to be granted, not as a supposed right to error which is license, but where every man freely fulfills his own duty to seek the truth (which excludes such a false right to remain in error) and live according to it once it is known, which according to the Popes, is true liberty such as that Christians have claimed always and everywhere and from the very beginning.

Here is Pope Leo XIII.

Quote

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. This is the kind of liberty the Apostles claimed for themselves with intrepid constancy, which the apologists of Christianity confirmed by their writings, and which the martyrs in vast numbers consecrated by their blood.

Would you disagree?

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #8 on:** March 16, 2013, 01:51:11 PM »

Nishant, it seems that you're attempting to defend Vatican II's teaching on religious liberty.

Obviously, a Catholic state cannot FORCE others to become Catholics, but Vatican II takes this to a much further level by saying that the views of false religions are to be respected. This is heresy.

Nishant · « **Reply #9 on:** March 16, 2013, 02:11:47 PM »

SSS, this is what Archbishop Lefebvre, writers like Michael Davies, and now the Society's theologians in their discussions with the Vatican are doing.

Those who've followed the controversy explain that the crux of the matter in this area was over whether there was a right to error. Indeed, Archbishop Lefebvre asked Pope Paul VI, "Could it, please, be explained to us how man can have a natural right to error?"

At the time, the answer was something like, "Now is not the time for theology".

But Bishop Fellay said recently, after the doctrinal discussions with the Vatican, that in fact, the Roman authorities themselves don't believe there is a right to error. That's why he said, "What we condemned in the Council comes from the common understanding of it"

In my opinion, that's an important and positive development, that Rome is now publicly saying that there is no right to error, which is the traditional doctrine the Society has maintained from the beginning.

Renzo · « **Reply #10 on:** March 16, 2013, 03:26:45 PM »

I thought this was clear,

"What the Council taught in paragraph #2 of its Declaration on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae), is that all men are to be free from all coercion by any other men or group of men when it comes to acting in private or in public in accordance with their beliefs. Moreover every human State must make this natural right into a constitutional or civil right. On the contrary, all the way up to Vatican II the Catholic Church consistently taught that every State, as embodying God’s civil authority over God’s human creatures, is obliged as such to use that authority to protect and favour God’s one true Church, the Catholic Church of the Incarnate God, Our Lord Jesus Christ..."

http://www.dinoscopus.org/#thisweek

As i understand it, for example, it isn't about wether spain, may have tolerated, at times, some muslims and Jєωs, but rather did Spain have an obligation to keep spain catholic. I think the traditional catholic view would praise queen isabella's attempt to keep spain catholic and ruled/controlled by true catholics and her use of the spanish inquisition to achieve that. On the other hand, it would appear that the post vatican ii view could condemn her efforts. That seems revolutionary to me.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #11 on:** March 16, 2013, 03:45:46 PM »

The Church is implicitly condemned as not knowing the Natural Law from the time of Constantine. That is the Vatican II religion.

Quas Primas was promulgated 1600 years after the Council of Nicaea, and it mentions that fact.

Renzo · « **Reply #12 on:** March 16, 2013, 04:36:00 PM »

"...and therefore [Christ] has necessarily supreme and absolute dominion over all things created.

8. Do we not read throughout the Scriptures that Christ is the King?"

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_11121925_quas-primas_en.html

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #13 on:** March 18, 2013, 11:10:49 AM »

The Vatican II docuмents are born from deception and deceit. They blend "freedom from coercion" into "freedom for error" and Bishop Williamson is correct in pointing this out.

The use of some of the same words but with a different meaning behind them. Also, most of the renouncing of Christ the King was done, as Archbishop LeFebrvre noted in his book "They Have Uncrowned Him" per the spoken word, one pope to his bishops and back again.

I will comment more on this later.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #14 on:** March 18, 2013, 08:49:21 PM »

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Nishant, it seems that you're attempting to defend Vatican II's teaching on religious liberty.

Obviously, a Catholic state cannot FORCE others to become Catholics, but Vatican II takes this to a much further level by saying that the views of false religions are to be respected. This is heresy.

I have an acquaintance who I meet from time to time, very rarely, and several
years ago he had answered my criticism of something JPII had done at the time
by saying, "At least he has respect for other religions," as if that would be some
kind of inherently virtuous outlook.

Just as a quick check, I'd like to know what other members here would have
to say in response to that? I don't recall what I had said exactly, but it was not
approving nor very "ecuмenical" if you know what I mean.