Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion for anyone who adheres to the Extraordinary form of the mass and any issues related to the practices of Eastern Rite Catholicism.

Saint Athanasius is counted as one of the four Great Doctors of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Athanasius

02/13/2013 new

(Quote) John-324285 said: Bad internet = 3 posts, my apologies. To give a clear example of what I'm spea...
(Quote) John-324285 said:

Bad internet = 3 posts, my apologies.

To give a clear example of what I'm speaking of in regards to recent encyclicals. From Benedict XVI www.vatican.va

"29. There is another aspect of modern life that is very closely connected to development: the denial of the right to religious freedom"

From the syllabus of errors Pius IX. www.papalencyclicals.net

" 77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship."

Benedict XVI does not give clarification as to his interpretation of religious freedom in the prior or post paragraph to the one that the sentence is used in. Does he mean it according to what the world believes is religious freedom which is clearly error as pronounced by Pius IX? or does he mean it in a way that is in conformity with Church teachings?

This is the type of ambiguity or even error being strewn about in our age and needs to be clarified, or better yet go back to how the Church always taught which was to always clarify and give more clarity to things, never to be ambiguous.

--hide--

Gee, if I pick and choose isolated sayings of Christ in the New Testament, I can prove just about anything I want to prove. That is why the Church tells us we must look in the bible in total.

So here you are, nit picking what to you are ambiguous statements and presenting them as some kind of proof that Benedict is committing the sin of, I presume, modernism.

Yet taken in context of the Chuirch's teaching, there is no ambiguity.

The Church proposes it does not impose. But in order for it to propose its God given message, freedom of religion honored by the temporal authorities must be present. And that means freedom of religion to everyone, no matter what their belief is.

Saying that the Catholic religion should not be the only religion of the State is the recognition of reality. The Muslims believe their religion should be the religion of the State. Would you want to live in that State?

Why would you even begin to think that somehow that statement is erroneous? He is simply saying the State has no place dictating what religion people should follow whether The Catholic Faith or any other.

The ambiguity exists solely in your mind, not in what the Church teaches and Benedict proclaims.

Where do you get these ideas?

LOCKED
02/13/2013 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: Gee, if I pick and choose isolated sayings of Christ in the New Testament, I can prove ju...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

Gee, if I pick and choose isolated sayings of Christ in the New Testament, I can prove just about anything I want to prove. That is why the Church tells us we must look in the bible in total.

So here you are, nit picking what to you are ambiguous statements and presenting them as some kind of proof that Benedict is committing the sin of, I presume, modernism.

Yet taken in context of the Chuirch's teaching, there is no ambiguity.

The Church proposes it does not impose. But in order for it to propose its God given message, freedom of religion honored by the temporal authorities must be present. And that means freedom of religion to everyone, no matter what their belief is.

Saying that the Catholic religion should not be the only religion of the State is the recognition of reality. The Muslims believe their religion should be the religion of the State. Would you want to live in that State?

Why would you even begin to think that somehow that statement is erroneous? He is simply saying the State has no place dictating what religion people should follow whether The Catholic Faith or any other.

The ambiguity exists solely in your mind, not in what the Church teaches and Benedict proclaims.

Where do you get these ideas?

--hide--

The syllabus clearly states that the Catholic church SHOULD be held as the only religion of the State. I get that idea from Pius the IX who was affirming prior Church teaching.

LOCKED
02/13/2013 new
(Quote) Paul-866591 said: Gee, if I pick and choose isolated sayings of Christ in the New Testament, I can prove just abou...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:



Gee, if I pick and choose isolated sayings of Christ in the New Testament, I can prove just about anything I want to prove. That is why the Church tells us we must look in the bible in total.



So here you are, nit picking what to you are ambiguous statements and presenting them as some kind of proof that Benedict is committing the sin of, I presume, modernism.



Yet taken in context of the Chuirch's teaching, there is no ambiguity.



The Church proposes it does not impose. But in order for it to propose its God given message, freedom of religion honored by the temporal authorities must be present. And that means freedom of religion to everyone, no matter what their belief is.



Saying that the Catholic religion should not be the only religion of the State is the recognition of reality. The Muslims believe their religion should be the religion of the State. Would you want to live in that State?



Why would you even begin to think that somehow that statement is erroneous? He is simply saying the State has no place dictating what religion people should follow whether The Catholic Faith or any other.



The ambiguity exists solely in your mind, not in what the Church teaches and Benedict proclaims.



Where do you get these ideas?

--hide--


Kings, princes and emperors imposing Christianity from above I think created a society in Western Europe where people never truly internalized it despite centuries of going through the motions. If one looks at the history of Western Europe it leads one to wonder.
LOCKED
02/13/2013 new

(Quote) John-324285 said: The syllabus clearly states that the Catholic church SHOULD be held as the only religion of th...
(Quote) John-324285 said:


The syllabus clearly states that the Catholic church SHOULD be held as the only religion of the State. I get that idea from Pius the IX who was affirming prior Church teaching.

--hide--


There has been a massive shift in the Church becoming "inclusive" (a word I dislike for many reasons) and yielding to the world. The purported reasons are many and include theories of infiltration by "bad guys" into the Church. Whatever the reasons for the status quo are (am not going to speculate here) the fruits are there to see by all including believing/promoting:

1) All Churches are equal and all forms of worship within the Catholic Church (Charismatic, TLM, Std Novus Ordo etc) are also equal (no unity on this front). This is a great video showing two "equal" types of worship:

www.youtube.com

2) Primacy of conscience is doing whatever you feel like doing as long a you feel comfortable with it. The teachings of the Church are not relevant in making personal decisions in 2013. I always go back to a relevant point of how many on this site do not tick 7 out of 7 for Catholic beliefs although I do respect personal honesty in answering those faith questions.

3) God is good and kind and will never rebuke or punish a sinner-in fact there is no sin.

4) As John pointed out, the Encyclicals of some of the greatest Catholic Popes/Saints in the Church's history are pushed aside because they are no longer "relevant or inclusive." My opinion is that the Encyclical of Pope St Pius X , Pascendi (1907) could easily be reprinted with 2013 on it as it is more relevant than ever.

5) The teachings of Christ and his Church are meant to evolve (eg marriage was once a lifetime commitment and now if things don't work out- get an annulment- God supports it. Those who are not open to pursuing relationships with previously married people are not in communion with the Catholic Church so I have been told). The teachings of the Church must blend in nicely with what society demands or we are free to ignore them or the Church must alter her position.

Modern times have taken centuries of black and white Catholic teaching and dismembered them. The Devil's favourite colour is gray and we have plenty of that to go around.

The Holy Father has a big job ahead of him. May the Holy Spirit guide him, give him strength and may he do God's Will.




LOCKED
02/13/2013 new

(Quote) John-324285 said: The syllabus clearly states that the Catholic church SHOULD be held as the only religion ...
(Quote) John-324285 said:

The syllabus clearly states that the Catholic church SHOULD be held as the only religion of the State. I get that idea from Pius the IX who was affirming prior Church teaching.

--hide--


That changed with Vatican II. The Church no longer wished to be associated with thug regimes like Franco's Spain or various Latin American dictatorships - and RIGHTLY so. Political realities had changed dramatically since the early 18th century and Rome finally realized that it was better not to be the established or "official" religion of any country. (For the nit-pickers - other than the Vatican City.) This was a prudent and wise policy shift. It's not faith or morals; it's practical and for the good of the Church.


Why do so many traditionalist favor a coercive enforcement of religion by governemtns and absolute monarchies? The state can't and won't make us holy. God doesn't force himself or his ways on anyone so neither should government attempt to legislate Catholicism. Holiness is entirely voluntary. When the world doesn't go the way some Catholics wish it would go, why do they think that forcing people to follow the faith will make things better?


When religion is enshrined in politics or established it is religion that gets tarnished - very badly tarnished.



LOCKED
02/13/2013 new

(Quote) John-220051 said: Kings, princes and emperors imposing Christianity from above I think created a society in Western...
(Quote) John-220051 said:

Kings, princes and emperors imposing Christianity from above I think created a society in Western Europe where people never truly internalized it despite centuries of going through the motions. If one looks at the history of Western Europe it leads one to wonder.
--hide--


Yes, thank you. Conversion and faithfulness come only from within. They can only be voluntary, never coerced. This is how God does it so who are we to do otherwise? Force it on people and things get worse, not better. I think we learned that lesson.


Certain people in the Chruch (or on the outer fringes of the Church as the case may be) are very frustrated because no one will do what THEY want. Not the Pope, not the bishops, not their parish priest, not the secular society. So they dream of a state (a Catholic monarchy where Catholicism is the official religion) which enforces their will on others. They appear to be saying: "Since no one takes me seriously or does what I tell them to do, then I'll find a way to force them into doing it." Some pine for a monarchy, others want to take over a small town somewhere and turn it into a theocracy. This is not healthy and, although very well intentioned, it is not a reflection of the gospels.

LOCKED
02/13/2013 new

(Quote) David-364112 said: Yes, thank you. Conversion and faithfulness come only from within. They can only be ...
(Quote) David-364112 said:


Yes, thank you. Conversion and faithfulness come only from within. They can only be voluntary, never coerced. This is how God does it so who are we to do otherwise? Force it on people and things get worse, not better. I think we learned that lesson.


Certain people in the Chruch (or on the outer fringes of the Church as the case may be) are very frustrated because no one will do what THEY want. Not the Pope, not the bishops, not their parish priest, not the secular society. So they dream of a state (a Catholic monarchy where Catholicism is the official religion) which enforces their will on others. They appear to be saying: "Since no one takes me seriously or does what I tell them to do, then I'll find a way to force them into doing it." Some pine for a monarchy, others want to take over a small town somewhere and turn it into a theocracy. This is not healthy and, although very well intentioned, it is not a reflection of the gospels.

--hide--


Do you know of any actual example in which a Catholic monarchy forced Catholicism on anyone? I can't. To my knowledge, all that was required was that the non-Catholics (like muslims or jews, not speaking of heretics) stay segregated from the Catholics and wear some distinguishing garb, like what was laid out at the Council of Florence. Also, the edict of Nantes, if you recall even granted heretics moral powers, allowing them to work in public offices, etc (by prudential judgment of the king of France).

I think what you're envisioning is more of an oriental notion, which does not show an appreciation for separation of Church and state as the occidentals know of it. An example of this is shown in the iconoclast controversy in the Byzantine east with the Roman emperors mandating specific belief and practice as if the spiritual arm and then enforcing it with the might of the secular arm.

LOCKED
02/13/2013 new

I meant to say "I don't know of any such example." rather than "I can't." haha! That's funny.

LOCKED
02/13/2013 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: Gee, if I pick and choose isolated sayings of Christ in the New Testament, I can prove ju...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

Gee, if I pick and choose isolated sayings of Christ in the New Testament, I can prove just about anything I want to prove. That is why the Church tells us we must look in the bible in total.

So here you are, nit picking what to you are ambiguous statements and presenting them as some kind of proof that Benedict is committing the sin of, I presume, modernism.

Yet taken in context of the Chuirch's teaching, there is no ambiguity.

The Church proposes it does not impose. But in order for it to propose its God given message, freedom of religion honored by the temporal authorities must be present. And that means freedom of religion to everyone, no matter what their belief is.

Saying that the Catholic religion should not be the only religion of the State is the recognition of reality. The Muslims believe their religion should be the religion of the State. Would you want to live in that State?

Why would you even begin to think that somehow that statement is erroneous? He is simply saying the State has no place dictating what religion people should follow whether The Catholic Faith or any other.

The ambiguity exists solely in your mind, not in what the Church teaches and Benedict proclaims.

Where do you get these ideas?

--hide--


If you actually read Caritas in Veritate, you'll see that Pope Benedict XVI does not say in the least that freedom of religion must be given to every individual regardless of beliefs. He even explicitly states that "Religious freedom does not mean religious indifferentism, nor does it imply that all religions are equal." He goes on to speak of the discernment needed to be made by state authorities to judge basically the value to society of different cultures and religions "based on the criterion of charity and truth." My understanding, then, would be that some religions can be disqualified (i.e., luciferanism, satanism, islam, etc.) immediately on those grounds as having no developmental value to society, and therefore be suppressed.

There is quite a bit of ambiguity in the notion of "religious freedom" standing on its own, as a term stated without making the definition explicit and used in varying ways within a single text, or the in varying ways in texts used as reference for the text which one is studying. It lends one to the belief that there is no definition, just a wishy-washy sentiment.

Beyond that, quite a bit of the encyclical letter Caritas in Veritate on the undefined subject of religious freedom is written at least implicitly in opposition to the Syllabus of Errors.

These four articles from the Syllabus come to mind in particular (remember, these are positive statements of error):

'77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

'78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

'79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

'80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.'

LOCKED
02/13/2013 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: Do you know of any actual example in which a Catholic monarchy forced Catholicism on an...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:



Do you know of any actual example in which a Catholic monarchy forced Catholicism on anyone? I can't. To my knowledge, all that was required was that the non-Catholics (like muslims or jews, not speaking of heretics) stay segregated from the Catholics and wear some distinguishing garb, like what was laid out at the Council of Florence.

--hide--


Oh. Is that all?


The era of the ghetto and the casbah are, thankfully, a thing of the distant past. Let's keep it that way.


Religious freedom benefits Catholics. If the state stays out of religion, we're all the better for it. Countries that don't have a First Amendment end up with the state imposing restrictions on religious practice. We're much better off without an established catholic Chruch. The Church will only be tarnished by association with a secular government.

LOCKED
Posts 101 - 110 of 200