National Review blasts SSPX
#21
Religious liberty is different from religious tolerance.
Reply
#22
(04-16-2012, 02:41 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: “They do not hesitate to put forward the view which is not only opposed to the Catholic Church, but very pernicious for the salvation of souls — an opinion which Gregory XVI, Our Predecessor, called absurd. This is the view that liberty of conscience and worship is the strict right of every man, a right which should be proclaimed and affirmed by law in every properly constituted state... When they rashly make these statements, they do not realize or recall to mind that they are advocating what St. Augustine calls a liberty of perdition” (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura).
Couldn't we say that man does not have the absolute right to believe and practice as he choose, but that the state cannot interfere in a person's religious practices?
Reply
#23
This concern over a "new type" of Cafeteria Catholicism is beyond priceless.

At least there would be some healthy choices on the menu.
Reply
#24
(04-16-2012, 03:37 PM)richness of tradition Wrote: The sspx doesn't believe ppl should be forced to accept the Catholic Faith do they?  I'm a bit confused about what they mean when they say they're against religious liberty.

No, conversion cannot be forced.

But, it's also true that error has no rights. Non-Catholic religious practices don't have to be tolerated in public, public spread of heresy can be made a crime, etc.
Reply
#25
(04-16-2012, 03:56 PM)Papist Wrote:
(04-16-2012, 02:41 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: “They do not hesitate to put forward the view which is not only opposed to the Catholic Church, but very pernicious for the salvation of souls — an opinion which Gregory XVI, Our Predecessor, called absurd. This is the view that liberty of conscience and worship is the strict right of every man, a right which should be proclaimed and affirmed by law in every properly constituted state... When they rashly make these statements, they do not realize or recall to mind that they are advocating what St. Augustine calls a liberty of perdition” (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura).
Couldn't we say that man does not have the absolute right to believe and practice as he choose, but that the state cannot interfere in a person's religious practices?

A state certainly can interfere. Error has no rights.
Reply
#26
(04-16-2012, 04:08 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(04-16-2012, 03:56 PM)Papist Wrote:
(04-16-2012, 02:41 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: “They do not hesitate to put forward the view which is not only opposed to the Catholic Church, but very pernicious for the salvation of souls — an opinion which Gregory XVI, Our Predecessor, called absurd. This is the view that liberty of conscience and worship is the strict right of every man, a right which should be proclaimed and affirmed by law in every properly constituted state... When they rashly make these statements, they do not realize or recall to mind that they are advocating what St. Augustine calls a liberty of perdition” (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura).
Couldn't we say that man does not have the absolute right to believe and practice as he choose, but that the state cannot interfere in a person's religious practices?

A state certainly can interfere. Error has no rights.
Hm, Interesting. But if the state interferes, are they really bringing about faith? Look at those countries in Europe that have state Churches. The faith is certainly not flourishing there.
Reply
#27
(04-16-2012, 04:08 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: A state certainly can interfere. Error has no rights.

As Emperor, I decree the formation of my personal chapel choir to be consisted entirely of castrati sede men.
Reply
#28
:LOL:
Reply
#29
(04-16-2012, 03:38 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Religious liberty is different from religious tolerance.
Can you express your view on the distinction between these two terms and why one is acceptable and the other is not?
Reply
#30
(04-16-2012, 04:20 PM)Papist Wrote:
(04-16-2012, 03:38 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Religious liberty is different from religious tolerance.
Can you express your view on the distinction between these two terms and why one is acceptable and the other is not?

I can't speak for CP, but my understanding is that religious tolerance is a prudent course of action in certain situations. Let people alone if thy worship in a false religion - tolerate.

Religious liberty gives a right to false worship, therefore it is wrong. It basically implies that non-Catholics should be able to do anything Catholics could do even in a Catholic state - hey couldn't be stopped frompreachingheresy, trying to convince Catholics to leave the Church, etc.

Rather than tolerating a synagogue or mosque to keep those groups happy, you would have to let hem build huge building, and let Muslims call out the Azan 5 times a day as you can hear in Manhattan for blocks along the big mosque in Spanish Harlem.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)