The Second Vatican Council
#51
(07-19-2019, 02:38 PM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote:
(07-17-2019, 04:21 PM)Augustinian Wrote: "Even interpreted strictly, this limitation of religious liberty to the “objective moral order” is inadequate because restricted to the natural order of things, thereby omitting consideration of the supernatural order. Such a conception of religious liberty fails to recognize the social kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ, the supernatural rights of His Church, and the supernatural end of man in the common good of the political order. It fails to consider that the false religions, by the mere fact that they keep souls from the Catholic Church, lead souls to hell. In a word, it is naturalism...

The saints have never hesitated to break idols, destroy their temples, or legislate against pagan or heretical practices. The Church—without ever forcing anyone to believe or be baptized—has always recognized its right and duty to protect the faith of her children and to impede, whenever possible, the public exercise and propagation of false cults. To accept the teaching of Vatican II is to grant that, for two millennia, the popes, saints, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, bishops, and Catholic kings have constantly violated the natural rights of men without anyone in the Church noticing. Such a thesis is as absurd as it is impious."

https://sspx.org/en/religious-liberty-co...-tradition

Can you please provide a citation that shows exactly where in the Document itself I can find the phrase you quote from the SSPX regarding the limits on religious liberty allegedly placed upon us by DH to only the "objective moral order."  If you can post that section here, the rest interested can either agree, disagree or provide even stronger proofs of the assertions made by you and the SSPX against Dignitatis Humanae.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.

Well, did you actually look at the SSPX link? They cite it right at the top of the article; Dignitatus Humanae § (section) 2 and then quote it.

Quote:2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

Here's a link to the document on the Vatican website: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_counc...ae_en.html
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

'Therefore do I weep, and my eyes run down with water: because the comforter, the relief of my soul, is far from me: my children are desolate because the enemy hath prevailed.' - Lamentations 1:16

[Image: LaSaletteTears.jpg]
[-] The following 1 user Likes Augustinian's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#52
Quote:2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.


Compare this to sections 15 & 16 of the Syllabus of Errors of Blessed Pius IX, remembering that these are condemned propositions, the 'it is a condemned opinion that' or 'it is not true that' being understood:

Quote:15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. — Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.

Fr John Hardon, S.J., in his Modern Catholic Dictionary, has this to say about the Syllabus (my emphasis),

Quote:SYLLABUS OF PIUS IX. A series of eighty condemned propositions listing the prevalent errors that aimed at the undermining of society, morality, and religion.Every Catholic is expected to give exterior and interior assent to the condemnation of errors expressed in this syllabus.

Fr Hardon's Dictionary was published in 1980 and bears a post-Conciliar Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. The nihil obstat  is an official declaration that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error, after being reviewed by a learned theologian appointed by the Ordinary granting the imprimatur, so it cannot be argued that Father's work is outdated, or opposed to the Faith.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#53
(07-19-2019, 10:30 PM)Augustinian Wrote:
(07-19-2019, 02:38 PM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote:
(07-17-2019, 04:21 PM)Augustinian Wrote: "Even interpreted strictly, this limitation of religious liberty to the “objective moral order” is inadequate because restricted to the natural order of things, thereby omitting consideration of the supernatural order. Such a conception of religious liberty fails to recognize the social kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ, the supernatural rights of His Church, and the supernatural end of man in the common good of the political order. It fails to consider that the false religions, by the mere fact that they keep souls from the Catholic Church, lead souls to hell. In a word, it is naturalism...

The saints have never hesitated to break idols, destroy their temples, or legislate against pagan or heretical practices. The Church—without ever forcing anyone to believe or be baptized—has always recognized its right and duty to protect the faith of her children and to impede, whenever possible, the public exercise and propagation of false cults. To accept the teaching of Vatican II is to grant that, for two millennia, the popes, saints, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, bishops, and Catholic kings have constantly violated the natural rights of men without anyone in the Church noticing. Such a thesis is as absurd as it is impious."

https://sspx.org/en/religious-liberty-co...-tradition

Can you please provide a citation that shows exactly where in the Document itself I can find the phrase you quote from the SSPX regarding the limits on religious liberty allegedly placed upon us by DH to only the "objective moral order."  If you can post that section here, the rest interested can either agree, disagree or provide even stronger proofs of the assertions made by you and the SSPX against Dignitatis Humanae.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.

Well, did you actually look at the SSPX link? They cite it right at the top of the article; Dignitatus Humanae § (section) 2 and then quote it.

Quote:2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

Here's a link to the document on the Vatican website: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_counc...ae_en.html
Thank you very much for responding.  As for your question regarding the SSPX, "Well, did you actually look at the SSPX link?" I've seen pretty much all I care to at that site.  I avoid it as much as possilbe.  It really is a sad, sad place. 
I want the exact phrase in the DH you and the SSPX are stating is there, not a cherry picked for attempting to make a point that is false or misleading.  The Protestants build whole denominations on cherries picked, pickled and packaged for those hostages they take with their interpretations of the cherries they selected to do the job.  The SSPX does the same thing.  3 words are what you say it contains; I do not have time to scan it for those three words, "this limitation of religious liberty to the 'objective moral order'".  If they are there, since you claimed they are, the burden of proof is on you. 
 
The next paragraph states this: "The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right."  http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_counc...ae_en.html

The reference to Scripture is the Creation and Fall of Man, Adam and Eve in Eden.  God gave them free will as a Gift, placing a condition on it, that they not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, lest they die.  You know the rest.  This limitation can also be applied to the last three words of the paragraph you cite.  There are limits on man placed there by God, positive and negative Law, thus even the free exercise of one's religion is limited and rightly so.  Imagine if you will a person using his religious freedoms, guaranteed by his homeland's government, to murder such as heathens did when they made human sacrifices.  If the just limits were removed, then no person could stop the heathen from killing in the name of religion.  Just government places limits on such things.  We agree they should.  In our religion, we too, are governed Justly, by governing persons within limits as well provided to us by God Himself.  We obey Him and expect that same obedience from those we govern accordingly and if they cannot adhere to the objective moral order ordering their lives, we too can show them the negative side of the Law and then the exit door.  
Your words here "The Church...has always recognized its right and duty to protect the faith of her children and to impede, whenever possible, the public exercise and propagation of false cults," applied to the situation with the SSPX is a perfect demonstration of this.  The SSPX refuses to adhere to the Law of the Church and her direction of them, so the Church had to apply the laws she has to them.  They brought it all upon themselves.  Since their split, they rely on their own interpretations of the Law they lived under voluntarily and attack their own Mother, the Church constantly, snatching souls from the Church for their schism pretending to be "holier than thou." Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchers, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness. Matt. 23:27.  

Your words here "To accept the teaching of Vatican II is to grant that, for two millennia, the popes, saints, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, bishops, and Catholic kings have constantly violated the natural rights of men without anyone in the Church noticing. Such a thesis is as absurd as it is impious."  If this fantasy of false accusations is justification for their rejection then they are breaking by it the Law of God contained in the Commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness," Ex. 20:16.  The natural law is upheld by the Law of Christ which the Church has always guarded and preserved for mankind should they choose by their own Baptism to fulfill their call from Christ, bearing His name as Christians given them at their Baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, otherwise they take upon themselves His name in vain, also against the Commandment "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain," Ex. 20:7 This is the object of moral order and the ordering of the individual's rights and obligations under the Law of God supported by the Church.  Those who bear the gentle yoke of Christ as Christians agree to live according to the Church and abide by her rules.  They are not free to pick and choose which rules they'll accept and which they reject.  Thus the fantasy of absurdity impugning "the popes, saints, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, bishops, and Catholic kings," of the 2 millennia you shake your finger at for violating the natural rights of men without anyone seeing it.  This itself is to impugn the Law of Christ itself as the natural law is upheld by the Law of God which is the depositum fidei we guard faithfully, semper habet, semper erit.  "Detract not one another, my brethren. He that detracteth his brother, or he that judgeth his brother, detracteth the law, and judgeth the law. But if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.  There is one lawgiver, and judge, that is able to destroy and to deliver."  James 4:11-12.   So there ya go.  I hope you can see the points made.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.
Reply
#54
(07-19-2019, 11:16 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: Fr John Hardon, S.J., in his Modern Catholic Dictionary, has this to say about the Syllabus (my emphasis),

Quote:
SYLLABUS OF PIUS IX. A series of eighty condemned propositions listing the prevalent errors that aimed at the undermining of society, morality, and religion.Every Catholic is expected to give exterior and interior assent to the condemnation of errors expressed in this syllabus.

Fr Hardon's Dictionary was published in 1980 and bears a post-Conciliar Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. The nihil obstat  is an official declaration that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error, after being reviewed by a learned theologian appointed by the Ordinary granting the imprimatur, so it cannot be argued that Father's work is outdated, or opposed to the Faith.

Well, I wouldn't bother with Hardon as a reliable source even though he is praised by Burke.  He has too many mistakes in the works themselves, may he rest in peace.  The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur granted is not the only time in recent years that one was given in error to something containing error itself.  It won't be the last.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.
Reply
#55
(07-20-2019, 03:17 AM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote: Your words here "To accept the teaching of Vatican II is to grant that, for two millennia, the popes, saints, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, bishops, and Catholic kings have constantly violated the natural rights of men without anyone in the Church noticing. Such a thesis is as absurd as it is impious."  If this fantasy of false accusations is justification for their rejection then they are breaking by it the Law of God contained in the Commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness," Ex. 20:16.  The natural law is upheld by the Law of Christ which the Church has always guarded and preserved for mankind should they choose by their own Baptism to fulfill their call from Christ, bearing His name as Christians given them at their Baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, otherwise they take upon themselves His name in vain, also against the Commanment "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain," Ex. 20:7 This is the object of moral order and the ordering of the individual's rights and obligations under the Law of God supported by the Church.  Those who bear the gentle yoke of Christ as Christians agree to live according to the Church and abide by her rules.  They are not free to pick and choose which rules they'll accept and which they reject.  Thus the fantasy of absurdity impugning "the popes, saints, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, bishops, and Catholic kings," of the 2 millennia you shake your finger at for violating the natural rights of men without anyone seeing it.  This itself is to impugn the Law of Christ itself as the natural law is upheld by the Law of God which is the depositum fidei we guard faithffully, semper habet, semper erit.  "Detract not one another, my brethren. He that detracteth his brother, or he that judgeth his brother, detracteth the law, and judgeth the law. But if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.  There is one lawgiver, and judge, that is able to destroy and to deliver."  James 4:11-12.   So there ya go.  I hope you can see the points made.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.

This is a response to Augustinian, but what he said is not a fantasy.

If DH is correct, then the Catholic Magisterium has been severely wrong for its entire history before Vatican II, and specifically Americanist John Courtney Murray showed the light.

When Dignitatis Humanae in Article 2 said no one can be restrained from acting according to their beliefs in public and "The Synod further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person and "This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. This is to become a civil right." this contradicted and betrayed the Church's constant doctrine.  John Courtney Murray, the Americanist Jesuit primarily responsible for the document even stated: 

"The course of the development between the Syllabus of Errors (1864) and Dignitatis Humanae Personae (1965) still remains to be explained by theologians."  

Modernist Fr. Yves Congar wrote regarding Article 2 of Dignitatis Humanae:

"It cannot be denied that a text like this does materially say something different from the Syllabus of 1864, and even almost the opposite of propositions 15 and 77-9 of the document."

Paul Blanshard, the virulent American anti-Catholic social commentator, praised "Religious Liberty." 

"Catholicism after centuries of delay has finally caught up at least in part to the United Nations, to Western Protestantism, to Western democracies, and to the social democratic parties of Europe in advocating what had been written into the American Constitution more than 175 years before. The final statement on religious liberty was an important achievement. It will make the struggle for religious liberty throughout the world easier. From now on every libertarian can cite an official Catholic pronouncement endorsing the principle of liberty."

There you have it, the Church's enemies gleefully recognized that the Catholic Church finally caught up with Protestantism and the Enlightenment on this doctrine.

Americanism, which was vociferously combatted by Msgr. Joseph Fenton here in America and the head of the Holy Office, Cardinal Ottaviani, "won out" and has since been passed off as Catholicism.

There is no other way around it. DH indicts the Catholic Church has having been unjust all of Her previous centuries towards non Catholics in Catholic states.

John Courtney Murray, the author of the document itself can't even explain how his teaching can be reconciled to previous Catholic teaching, which he expressly admits states the opposite of his own.
[-] The following 2 users Like BC's post:
  • Alphonse il Segundo, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#56
BC - "There is no other way around it. DH indicts the Catholic Church has having been unjust all of Her previous centuries towards non Catholics in Catholic states."

GF - Please show me where in the Document it states this. 

BC - "John Courtney Murray, the author of the document itself can't even explain how his teaching can be reconciled to previous Catholic teaching, which he expressly admits states the opposite of his own."

GF - Murray was not the sole author of DH, so your statement regarding him needs clarification.  Though he was silenced for a time on the subject of Church and state and obeyed diligently, his diligence and obedience was rewarded by the lifting of the censures and as a further reward, confirming his innocence, he was permitted to do as he has done for the Church in co-authoring DH.  Where do you find his failure to explain the allegations you make, that is what he wrote in DH is irreconcilable with previous Church teachings? This claim is rather far-fetched. I'm supposed to believe with all those Prelates with their eyes upon his proposals, reading and re-reading the drafts submitted, hashing out what they contain till they are ready for a final and binding copy, this most obvious of errors, that if true, would mean his words and those of his co-authors are introducting new teaching. Like they'd not catch that? No. We all know this is just not possible. These men aren't that ignorant that they'd not see a new teaching being introduced in any of the proposed drafts.

God bless.  Ginnyfree.
Reply
#57
(07-20-2019, 06:25 AM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote: BC  - "There is no other way around it. DH indicts the Catholic Church has having been unjust all of Her previous centuries towards non Catholics in Catholic states."

GF - Please show me where in the Document it states this. 

BC - "John Courtney Murray, the author of the document itself can't even explain how his teaching can be reconciled to previous Catholic teaching, which he expressly admits states the opposite of his own."

GF - Murray was not the sole author of DH, so your statement regarding him needs clarification.  Though he was silenced for a time on the subject of Church and state and obeyed diligently, his diligence and obedience was rewarded by the lifting of the censures and as a further reward, confirming his innocence, he was permitted to do as he has done for the Church in co-authoring DH.  Where do you find his failure to explain the allegations you make, that is what he wrote in DH is irreconcilable with previous Church teachings?  This claim is rather far-fetched.  I'm supposed to believe with all those Prelates with their eyes upon his proposals, reading and re-reading the drafts submitted, hashing out what they contain till they are ready for a final and binding copy, this most obvious of errors, that if true, would mean his words and those of his co-authors are introducting new teaching.  Like they'd not catch that?  No.  We all know this is just not possible.  These men aren't that ignorant that they'd not see a new teaching being introduced in any of the proposed drafts.  

God bless.  Ginnyfree.

DH doesn't say the Catholic Church has been wrong, it just simply ignored previous teaching on Religious Liberty, like it did with previously condemned Ecumenisim, and proceeded to assert a new position. Anyone familiar with the Traditional teaching recognized it as an implicit renunciation.

What do you mean where do I find it, or that it is far fetched? It's a direct quote from the man himself.

Why was this all not caught? In short, because the committees were stacked with theologians who had been condemned by Pius XII in the 50s were rehabilitated by John XXIII. The conservative bishops and cardinals were largely silenced or out maneuvered. These machinations were documented in the Rhine Flows into the Tiber.

"In fact, cardinal Liènart [a Freemason per Borghese, 1976], on the morning of the outset of the works, rose at the desk of the presidency, and threw away the mask. He said, in fact, that all the schemas predisposed by the members of the preparatory Commission created by John XXIII on 5 June 1960 with criteria that we might still define traditional, would be rejected a priori [in advance]. In that precise moment the ancient balances were shattered. The true [anti-Catholic] face of the Council appeared in all its actuality, before the Church, before the Catholics, before the world."  (Franco Bellegrandi, "The Counterlife of a Pope", Chapter XI.)

Jean Guitton(theologian and intimate confidante of Paul VI) confesses: the II Vatican Council has proclaimed what Saint Pius X condemned as Modernist heresy, in 1906:

When I read the documents relative to the Modernism, as it was defined by Saint Pius X, and when I compare them to the documents of the II Vatican Council, I cannot help being bewildered. For what was condemned as heresy in 1906 was proclaimed as what is and should be from now on the doctrine and method of the Church. In other words, the modernists of 1906 were, somewhat, precursors to me. My masters were part of them. My parents taught me Modernism. How could Saint Pius X reject those that now seem to be my precursors?” (Jean Guitton, Portrait du Père Lagrange, Éditions Robert Laffont, Paris, 1992, pp. 55-56).

“The word aggiornamento, which was chosen [by John XXIII] as a consignee for the actualization of the Church cannot prevent us from feeling a certain tickling if we think about how little it differs from the meaning of the taboo word Modernism” (Father T. M. Schoof, La Nueva Teologia Católica, Ediciones Caros Lohlé, Buenos Aires, 1971, p. 279. ).

“Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis had.... a devastating effect on the work of a number of pre-conciliar theologians.... theologians and biblical scholars, who had been under a cloud for years, surfaced as periti [theological experts who advised the Bishops] at Vatican II.”  (Nouvelle Théologie - NEW Theology - theologian, Bishop Aloysius Wycislo [b. at Chicago, Illinois in 1908 - d. in 2005] Vatican Two Revisited; Reflections by One who was there, paperback edition published by Alba House on October, 1987

John XXIII rehabilitated various theologians formerly considered suspect by the Holy See or even condemned for heterodoxy. Some of them were exponents of the Nouvelle Théologie (New Theology). Philippe Levillain wrote this about the theological commission that prepared the Council: "Among the advisors, one noted the presence of Frs. Congar, de Lubac, Hans Küng and others. The whole group of theologians implicitly condemned by the Encyclical Humani Generis in 1950 had been called to Rome at the behest of John XXIII"La mécanique politique de Vatican II, Paris: Beauchesne, 1975, p. 77.

The New Theology, condemned by Pope Pius XII in the Encyclical Humani Generis, has now "become the official theology of Vatican II." Jesuit Fr. Peter Henrici, 30 Days Magazine (December 1991),

Cardinal Congar confirmed the role of John XXIII in appointing progressivists to influential positions for the Council:

"Fr. De Lubac later told me that it was John XXIII himself who had insisted that we both become members of this commission [that prepared the Council]"Jean Puyo interroge le Cardinal Père Congar - Une vie pour la verité, Paris: Centurion, 1975, p. 124.
[-] The following 3 users Like BC's post:
  • Alphonse il Segundo, MagisterMusicae, yablabo
Reply
#58
And here is who Cardinal Ottaviani, Head of the Holy Office regarded as the greatest theologian in the U.S. at the time, Msgr. Joseph Fenton, Editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review and appointed to the preparatory Theological Commission, the Doctrinal Commission, and the Commission on Faith and Morals catching it, as noted in his personal diary at the Council.

“If I did not believe God, I would be convinced that the Catholic Church was about to end.” 
—Mgr. Joseph C. Fenton on Vatican II, Nov. 23, 1962

“I had always thought that this council was dangerous. It was started for no sufficient reason. There was too much talk about what it was supposed to accomplish. Now I am afraid that real trouble is on the way.” (Oct. 13, 1962)

"From surface appearance it would seem that the Lord Christ is abandoning His Church."  (Oct. 19, 1962)

“As far as I can see the Church is going to be very badly hurt by this council.(Oct. 27, 1962)

"This is going to mark the end of the Catholic religion as we have known it. There will be vernacular Masses, and, worse still, there will be some wretched theology in the constitutions.” (Oct. 31, 1962)

  “I am afraid that they are going to foist a lot of nonsense on the poor Catholic people.” (Mar. 6, 1963)

    “Liberal Catholicism as understood by these men was and is the system of thought by which the teaching of the Catholic Church were represented as compatible with the maxim that guided the French Revolution.” (May 11, 1963)

“M [Fr. John Courtney Murray] has just come in to see the triumph of his false doctrine [of religious liberty].” (Sept. 21, 1964)

“The part on ecumenism [in the text of the commission] is a joke. It reads like a 19th century text, or a second-rate article in a leftist magazine.” (Oct. 28, 1965)

    “The day before yesterday I had dinner with O [Cardinal Ottaviani]. On the way back I found that the Pope had written to O about [schema no.] 13. I saw the letter. It was a great mistake to let that one, the one on religious liberty [which became Dignitatis Humanae], and the one on non-Christian religions [which became Nostra Aetate] get by the council.” (Nov. 26, 1965)

Father Fenton removed himself from his position and died of a heart attack in relative obscurity in 1969.  You can see in his diaries the angst of a faithful Catholic who knew Catholic doctrine in and out and was in utter dismay about seeing his clerical modernist enemies who had already been condemned now achieving apparent victory and trying to comprehend it.
[-] The following 4 users Like BC's post:
  • Alphonse il Segundo, jovan66102, MagisterMusicae, yablabo
Reply
#59
(07-19-2019, 10:30 PM)Augustinian Wrote:
(07-19-2019, 02:38 PM)Ginnyfree2 Wrote:
(07-17-2019, 04:21 PM)Augustinian Wrote: "Even interpreted strictly, this limitation of religious liberty to the “objective moral order” is inadequate because restricted to the natural order of things, thereby omitting consideration of the supernatural order. Such a conception of religious liberty fails to recognize the social kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ, the supernatural rights of His Church, and the supernatural end of man in the common good of the political order. It fails to consider that the false religions, by the mere fact that they keep souls from the Catholic Church, lead souls to hell. In a word, it is naturalism...

The saints have never hesitated to break idols, destroy their temples, or legislate against pagan or heretical practices. The Church—without ever forcing anyone to believe or be baptized—has always recognized its right and duty to protect the faith of her children and to impede, whenever possible, the public exercise and propagation of false cults. To accept the teaching of Vatican II is to grant that, for two millennia, the popes, saints, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, bishops, and Catholic kings have constantly violated the natural rights of men without anyone in the Church noticing. Such a thesis is as absurd as it is impious."

https://sspx.org/en/religious-liberty-co...-tradition

Can you please provide a citation that shows exactly where in the Document itself I can find the phrase you quote from the SSPX regarding the limits on religious liberty allegedly placed upon us by DH to only the "objective moral order."  If you can post that section here, the rest interested can either agree, disagree or provide even stronger proofs of the assertions made by you and the SSPX against Dignitatis Humanae.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.

Well, did you actually look at the SSPX link? They cite it right at the top of the article; Dignitatus Humanae § (section) 2 and then quote it.

Quote:2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

Here's a link to the document on the Vatican website: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_counc...ae_en.html

Okie dokie.  If you say so.  I just read it again, this time a bit more slowly and prayerfully.  It really does provide much to meditate on.  I especially focused on this one passage: "It gives evidence of the respect which Christ showed toward the freedom with which man is to fulfill his duty of belief in the word of God and it gives us lessons in the spirit which disciples of such a Master ought to adopt and continually follow. "  Para. 9.  Master.  It reminded me of a saying I had on a wall back home.  It goes like this: Free will is God's Gift to man, what we do with it is our gift back to Him.  I also see in that short passage, the ability of our priest, religious and others to give up their wills to God's in a total self-donation of their entire lives.  St. John Paul II - Totus tuus Maria.  That's my Consecration too.  To Jesus thru Mary.  God freed me so I could give it all back to Him.  It is a joy to see the word "Master," in these pages.  Thanks for "twisting my arm" to read it again.

Now back to the dilemma.  This phrase is not in it anywhere: "this limitation of religious liberty to the “objective moral order," nor are those three little words.  So where are they?  If this is found in the document it puts some legs under their perspective.  It ain't there.  I prefer my baloney on a bun with mayo, maybe some nice sweet gerkins on the side, but if that is the best baloney they got.......Ya gotta do better than that.  God bless.  Ginnyfree.
Reply
#60
I think Vatican II was generally a bit ambiguous and after that misinterpreted and abused by those with an agenda to do so. The likes of Sacrosanctum Concillium gave an inch, some Bishops Conferences took a mile. The Pope did nothing. So it wasn't all the fault of the Council.

Sent from my moto g(7) plus using Tapatalk
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)