Bishop Sanborn responds to the "rupture theology" article
#81
Like I said, this best article on this subject [DH] is linked below.  If you want real understanding (in continuity with Tradition) then give it a serious read.  Warning: it deals with a complex subject matter and may not be easy reading for some.

(06-03-2009, 10:57 PM)newschoolman Wrote: The notion that DH contradicts sacred Tradition is nonsense.  This article by Bishop Ketteler (1862) gives the proper perspective on the whole matter and distinguishes between true and false relgious freedom.  It is simply "Rupture Theology" to argue that DH contradicts prior teaching.

http://remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/200...cathol.htm
Reply
#82
lamentabili sane Wrote:
GodFirst Wrote:
lamentabili sane Wrote:
Quote:But there is also the right not to be coerced into practicing the true religion because God has created men endowed with free will. Love and Faith can only be given freely.
This is not at issue here. It's a red herring. The true faith is freely accepted (it is a gift from God) or freely rejected.
That is the issue here because that is what DH is saying in different words though.
You misunderstand DH as well as the traditional teaching of the Church.
Yeah, I misunderstand it and I'm just reading its strict wording according to my reason and not trying to read anything else into it. I've seen you've more than once read something into people's words that was not there.
Reply
#83
lamentabili sane Wrote:
GodFirst Wrote:What I don't understand is why you won't accept that DH doesn't even talk about "a right to practice an objectively false religion" when the document doesn't even contain these words.
No, DH does not use those words. What do you think it is giving a right to do?
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.

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.
Exactly what it says it is giving a right to, which is, the right to be free from being forced or coerced into doing something that is against your conscience . Tell me where the Church has ever taught that She has the right to force men to be baptized against their wills. Not to mention that it is impossible to force a person to believe what he does not want to believe. You can coerce or force a person to do many things but that always leaves the door open for insincerity which in turn would invalidiate any Sacrament. The Catholic Doctrine stands: YOU CANNOT MORALLY FORCE OR COERCE A PERSON INTO BECOMING CATHOLIC OR YOU COMMIT GRAVE INJUSTICE AGAINST THAT PERSON AND LIKELY A MORTAL SIN.
Reply
#84
(06-04-2009, 06:21 PM)GodFirst Wrote: Exactly what it says it is giving a right to, which is, the right to be free from being forced or coerced into doing something that is against your conscience .

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I can't imagine how joining the Catholic Church could ever be objectively opposed to someone's conscience. I never really thought about it I guess. But considering we are required to love and seek Truth, and we know that God wants to lead everyone to Truth, I don't know how union with the True Church of Christ could ever be objectively opposed to the conscience. No, we can't force someone to forfeit his free will (this would be robbing him of his gift from God), but... Well, I think you know what I'm saying.

Reply
#85
"GodFirst" Wrote:Exactly what it says it is giving a right to, which is, the right to be free from being forced or coerced into doing something that is against your conscience .

Which means you have a right to do what your conscience says, like practice a false religion. That right must be tied to some duty to practice a false religion.

Quote:Tell me where the Church has ever taught that She has the right to force men to be baptized against their wills.

She does not. But that is not what the issue is here.

Quote:Not to mention that it is impossible to force a person to believe what he does not want to believe. You can coerce or force a person to do many things but that always leaves the door open for insincerity which in turn would invalidiate any Sacrament. The Catholic Doctrine stands: YOU CANNOT MORALLY FORCE OR COERCE A PERSON INTO BECOMING CATHOLIC OR YOU COMMIT GRAVE INJUSTICE AGAINST THAT PERSON AND LIKELY A MORTAL SIN.

Again, nobody is say that and I don't know why you keep repeating it.
Reply
#86
All men have a duty to profess the true religion (The Catholic Religion), therefore they have a right to do so and may not lawfully stopped from doing so.

No man has a duty to profess a false religion (it is evil), therefore they have no right to do so and may be stopped (coerced) from doing so. However, the common good also requires that at times they be tolerated.
Reply
#87
(06-04-2009, 05:47 PM)newschoolman Wrote: Like I said, this best article on this subject [DH] is linked below.  If you want real understanding (in continuity with Tradition) then give it a serious read.  Warning: it deals with a complex subject matter and may not be easy reading for some.

(06-03-2009, 10:57 PM)newschoolman Wrote: The notion that DH contradicts sacred Tradition is nonsense.  This article by Bishop Ketteler (1862) gives the proper perspective on the whole matter and distinguishes between true and false relgious freedom.  It is simply "Rupture Theology" to argue that DH contradicts prior teaching.

http://remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/200...cathol.htm

Well, it seems to me this guy engages in "Gymnastic Theology" where he goes through all kinds of contortions and gyrations to invent continuity.  He doesn't even address the Syllabus, except to use selective quoting from the CE where he says:

"Gymnastic Theologian" Wrote:Other laws that presuppose religious unity also begin to lack foundation once that basic unity has been shattered. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912) states: “…the coexistence of the most varied religious beliefs in every land have imposed the principle of state tolerance and freedom of belief upon rulers and parliaments as a dire necessity and as the starting-point of political wisdom and justice. The mixture of races and peoples, the immigration into all lands, the adoption of international laws concerning colonization and choice of abode, the economic necessity of calling upon the workers of other lands, etc., have so largely changed the religious map of the world during the last fifty years that propositions 77-79 of the Syllabus published by Pius IX in 1864 (cf. Denzinger, op. cit., 1777-79)…do not now apply even to Spain or the South American republics to say nothing of countries which even then possessed a greatly mixed population (e.g. Germany).”

Now, let's continue in the CE where he conveniently left off:

"The rest of the story" Wrote:Since the requisite conditions for the erection of new theocratic states, whether Catholic or Protestant, are lacking today and will probably not be realized in the future, it is evident on the basis of hard facts that religious liberty is the only possible, and thus the only reasonable, state principle. If, in those lands where she still enjoys a privileged position as state Church (e.g. Italy and Spain), the Catholic Church would not allow herself to be driven from this position without a protest, she has not only a right, but is even under obligation to offer this protest. For a justly acquired right should not be surrendered in silence.
[/quote]

Reply
#88
INPEFESS Wrote:
GodFirst Wrote:Exactly what it says it is giving a right to, which is, the right to be free from being forced or coerced into doing something that is against your conscience.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I can't imagine how joining the Catholic Church could ever be objectively opposed to someone's conscience. I never really thought about it I guess. But considering we are required to love and seek Truth, and we know that God wants to lead everyone to Truth, I don't know how union with the True Church of Christ could ever be objectively opposed to the conscience. No, we can't force someone to forfeit his free will (this would be robbing him of his gift from God), but... Well, I think you know what I'm saying.
It's not OBJECTIVELY opposed to any RIGHTFUL IMFORMED conscience. But consciences can be misinformed or taught error and believe those errors as truth. Any sincere Lutheran or Anglican would be an example (though I believe traditionally the Church has the right over such baptized souls to force them to practice the Catholic Religon). We therefore must consider non-baptized Muslims, Jews or Pagans then. These also can have an misinformed conscience from their parents. This all leads to the conclusion of the Church's primary offensive Mission which is to peach the Gospel of Jesus Christ crucified. The Church is to teach the divinely revealed truth, Divine Public Revelation, to such souls, thereby, fulfilling Her mission of saving souls.
Reply
#89
I guess I don't understand why a key element is always missed or passed over in the debate/argument over DH.  At the time it was written the Catholic Church and her members were being persecuted and denied worship by the Communist in Eastern Europe, particularly Poland.  There was a very influential Polish archbishop who had a GREAT influence in the writing and pushing forth of DH.  That certain archbishop is a hero to many in Poland because he put his neck on the line, literally. 

It is easy to sit here some 40 odd years later in the comfort of the grand ol' US of A where "freedom rings" behind a keyboard, having no concept of what it is like to be under a communist government.  For those of you against DH and Vatican II, I say to you, how short sighted and exceedingly arrogant you are. 

God Bless our Pope and God bless the Catholic Church. 
Reply
#90
lamentabili sane Wrote:No man has a duty to profess a false religion (it is evil), therefore they have no right to do so and may be stopped (coerced) from doing so. However, the common good also requires that at times they be tolerated.
To coerce is not always to merely stop someone from doing something.
Quote:co·erce  
TRANSITIVE VERB:
co·erced , co·erc·ing , co·erc·es
To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance. See Synonyms at force.
To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement.
----------------------------
ETYMOLOGY:
Latin coercre, to control, restrain : co-, co- + arcre, to enclose, confine
They may be stopped from doing so but not by not coercion, that is, threats or intimidation.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)