Teachings Contrary to Tradition? Religious Liberty
Quote:The problem I have with the professors document is that it spends far too much time establishing the teaching of the Church and far too little time looking at DH itself or how the council fathers proposed and interpreted it. Ultimately we are being asked to say that he knows more than those who voted on the document, those who implemented it and those who interpreted it, this is extremely unlikely. In the face of the fact of the teaching of Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, as well as the Vatican proposed and supported disintegration of Catholic states, the new concordat negotiated with Italy and other such scandals, it is pretty clear how those in power interpreted the document, further even those who opposed it such as Archbishop Lefebvre and his supporters were pretty clear with what it meant.

Pretty much, yeah. They know more about the document than those who wrote and implemented it.
(06-21-2012, 05:00 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote: Public order isn't the only standard by which false religions may be suppressed under DH.

Actually it rather is I'm afraid, in fact they can never actually be suppressed, they can only be 'restricted' or did you not bother reading the document?

Quote: Correspondence to natural law is another standard by which false religious practices may be suppressed.

But this is nonsense, naturalism even, all condemned by the popes. False religious practices are suppressed because they are false, not because they affect public order or don't correspond with natural law, indeed one could say that no false religion corresponds with natural law, our most natural duty is to praise and serve God in the true religion, now all religions but the Catholic one being false, no other religion can strictly speaking be said to be compatible with natural law.

Quote:Further, I don't see how you can criticize "public order" for being amorphous ... it is quite an objective standard, but seems subjective to you because of its very intent -- that the objective standard be applied to a particular circumstance as a matter of prudence for the particular situation of the state. This illustration makes the point:

[Image: File?id=dhf3gffd_68db652mfw_b]

This is a total sophism, it is by definition a subjective standard.

Quote:You can see that of course, where there is unity of faith, it wouldn't be make sense for any Catholic to support a "back sliding" to the due limits or "public order" being limited to merely matters of natural law. However, in a situation where that backsliding has already occurred as a matter of fact, then natural law becomes the ordinary basis for due limits. The continuum shows that the standard remains objective -- but the application remains variable -- that is all DH affirms.

I'm sorry that came off like modernist doublespeak, contradictory and mostly meaningless, DH applies to all states, it requires all states to limit only when public order requires, there is none of the nuance you speak of.

Quote:You might argue that even the above illustration concedes the ideal state as having ultimate unity of faith. At first this seems to conflict with a natural state of man being free from external coercion to which he has not submitted himself.

a)thats being the ultimate state is one where all believe the same, united towards one goal
b) only if you have bought into the idea of freedom being freedom from all restraint, you again give away you liberal tendencies. Sadly you have been a little too blatant in your liberal tendencies and have shown your true colours, you are no traditional Catholic, you are a liberal catholic, one of those the popes fought against for so long and one of those who with the principles of the french revolution has been eating away at the church from the inside. This is what Pope Pius VI says in reply to your absurd idea that we are free from external coercion:

'But what could be more unwise than to establish among men this equality and this uncontrolled liberty, which stifles all reason, the most precious gift nature gave to man, the one that distinguishes him from animals?

After creating man in a place filled with delectable things, didn’t God threaten him with death should he eat the fruit of the tree of good and evil? And with this first prohibition didn’t He establish limits to his liberty? When, after man disobeyed the command and thereby incurred guilt, didn’t God impose new obligations on him through Moses? And even though he left to man’s free will the choice between good and evil, didn’t God provide him with precepts and commandments that could save him “if he would observe them”? …

Where then, is this liberty of thinking and acting that the Assembly grants to man in society as an indisputable natural right? Is this invented right not contrary to the right of the Supreme Creator to whom we owe our existence and all that we have? Can we ignore the fact that man was not created for himself alone, but to be helpful to his neighbor? …

Man should use his reason first of all to recognize his Sovereign Maker, honoring Him and admiring Him, and submitting his entire person to Him. For, from his childhood, he should be submissive to those who are superior to him in age; he should be governed and instructed by their lessons, order his life according to their laws of reason, society and religion. This inflated equality and liberty, therefore, are for him, from the moment he is born, no more than imaginary dreams and senseless words

In other words that idea is total nonsense.

Quote:The "euphoria" was so overwhelming, the Churchmen went about changing all areas of the Church under the banner of the Council that didn't really reflect the Council's teaching. One need only look at what happened the liturgy after the Council to see that this was the case. Some will say these changes were implied by the Council -- that would be the modernist and sedevacantists.

Simply put you have no evidence, thanks for admitting it, your case is thus so badly founded, no honest judge in any country in the world would hear it, all would throw it out as the most utter nonsense.

Right, so anyone who says these changes were implied by the council is either a modernist or a sedevecantist? You accuse everyone in the SSPX, including Archbishop Lefebvre of this? What utter nonsense. Oh and lets not forget half the worlds episcopate, dozens of cardinals including Cardinal Ratzinger etc... Moreover your conclusion, even if it were true, doesn't follow just because someone is a modernist or a sede does not mean what they are saying is untrue.

Quote:I concede the principles outlined apply to all countries, but their application has a contingent component as the graph above illustrates.

More liberal doublespeak, if you concede that the principles apply to all countries, its utter nonsense to pretend that there can be a nuance in their application, if all states must guarantee freedom of religion, of association, of conscience etc... bar public disorder, then all states will do so, that is in fact what happened is it not?

Quote:Manifestly false. If you want to discount anything by John XXIII, DH cites Leo XIII (Immortale Dei, Officio Sanctissimo), Pius XII (Mystici Corporis, Ci Resce, Summi Pontificatus), Pius XI (Firmissiman Constantiam), St. Gregory the Great, St. Ambrose, Council of Toledo, and Clement III -- see the official footnotes here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_counc...ae_en.html

One or two quotes, which are then completely contradicted, do not count for much I'm afraid. All the teaching of Pius XI vis a vis quas primas, all the teaching of Pope Leo XII, Gregory XVI, Pius VII and VII, all ignored. Why? Because Vatican II says the opposite

You do not recognise this because you, like the last few popes, have what Bp Williamson called 'The liberal disease', it is at its heart a denial of the principle of non contradiction and leads to the absurdity we've seen displayed on this thread.

Quote:You deny the Church has libertas ecclesiae ... wow ... it's only been a constant teaching since apostolic times.

Take your false sophisms and liberal rubbish to Catholic Answers, you'll fit right in. 'Libertas ecclesiae' translates as liberty of the church, not religious liberty so yet again you are making stuff up as you go along. The church has freedoms guaranteeded it by God because it is the true religion, these have nothing to do with religious liberty, as is obvious to anyone.

Quote:Then I ask you to simply pray for me in your charity ...  :tiphat:

You're not getting off that easy I'm afraid, this scandalous attempt of yours to reconcile the spirit of the devil with the spirit of God that has degenerated into meaningless ramblings has gone on for quite long enough.
Trent -- I beg your pardon and will simply let this conversation lie. May God have mercy on my soul if I have led anyone to sin or astray in these matters of the faith.
(06-21-2012, 11:36 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote: Trent -- I beg your pardon and will simply let this conversation lie. May God have mercy on my soul if I have led anyone to sin or astray in these matters of the faith.

:) God bless,

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)