Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum
May 23, 2013, 06:45:PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The man still needs help!
 
   Fish Eaters    Forum Index   Forum Rules   Help Calendar Members Chat Room   Who's Chatting   Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
 
Author Topic: Card. Levada Defends Rel. Liberty; Claims Abp. Lefebvre was "on path into schism".  (Read 9982 times)
HMiS
Member

Gender: Male
Posts: 6,172



« Reply #80 on: September 30, 2008, 11:52:AM »

Newschoolman,

You ain't gonna purport Bishop von Ketteler did not want Catholicism to become the state religion or believed the Catholic Faith could not become state religion legitimately. Or do you?

He also does not purport that false religions and confessions could not be curtailed or limited by law in their public exercise.
Logged

„Ja, Ja, wie Gott es will. Gott lohne es Euch. Gott schütze das liebe Vaterland. Für Ihn weiterarbeiten... oh, Du lieber Heiland!” ("Yes, Yes, as God wills it. May God repay it to you. May God protect the dear fatherland. Go on working for him... oh, you dear Savior!") - Clemens August Cardinal von Galen, his last words.
newschoolman
Member

Posts: 1,422


« Reply #81 on: September 30, 2008, 12:17:PM »

Quote from: HMiS
Newschoolman,

You ain't gonna purport Bishop von Ketteler did not want Catholicism to become the state religion or believed the Catholic Faith could not become state religion legitimately. Or do you?

He also does not purport that false religions and confessions could not be curtailed or limited by law in their public exercise.


I would direct you to Part III for your answers.  Also, he indeed insists on the natural limits to religious freedom (see the end of Part II)
Logged
newschoolman
Member

Posts: 1,422


« Reply #82 on: September 30, 2008, 12:23:PM »

Quote from: StevusMagnus

Quote from: newschoolman
The CCC only explains the section of DH in its full and proper context.  When the Church explains or interprets a document -- it does not imply defect in the document.  Otherwise, we would have to admit that the Bible is defective (an absurdity) because it requires explanation and interpretation. 

No, there is a difference. This section of DH has an obvious prima facie meaning which is contrary to the writings of previous Popes. The CCC clears it up by injecting more orthodox meaning into words that can, by themselves, in no way signify this meaning. Thus the actual words of DH must be changed to give at least a prima facie orthodox meaning.

The auhor of the very schema of DH would seem to admit this as well.


No, the explanation of "public order" refers to the proper Christian notion relative to the "common good" and also exluding a false naturalist conception or interpretation of it.  That does not mean the term is defective or bad in itself -- it only denotes a proper understanding of it. 

Quote

2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40

39 Cf. Pius VI, Quod aliquantum (1791) 10; Pius IX, Quanta cura 3.


40 DH 7 # 3.


Logged
StevusMagnus
Guest
« Reply #83 on: September 30, 2008, 12:29:PM »

Apparently the author of DH himself, the conservative Council fathers, and the Protestants who lobbied for the term disagree with you.

DH needs to be officially corrected at the Papal level, in order to be crystal clear and in accord with Tradition. This should be done without regard for Modern sensibilities on the issue.

Strained unofficial orthodox interpretations of contradictory VCII texts that go ignored by 99% of Churchmen and Catholics do not suffice.
Logged
newschoolman
Member

Posts: 1,422


« Reply #84 on: September 30, 2008, 12:49:PM »

Quote from: StevusMagnus
Apparently the author of DH himself, the conservative Council fathers, and the Protestants who lobbied for the term disagree with you.

DH needs to be officially corrected at the Papal level, in order to be crystal clear and in accord with Tradition. This should be done without regard for Modern sensibilities on the issue.

Strained unofficial orthodox interpretations of contradictory VCII texts that go ignored by 99% of Churchmen and Catholics do not suffice.


I think you put way too much stock in Murray.  He may have penned the initial draft document -- but it went through numerous revisions by the intervention of council fathers.  When it was finally promulgated it was no longer a work of Murray -- but of the Council fathers. 
Logged


StevusMagnus
Guest
« Reply #85 on: September 30, 2008, 01:32:PM »

A LETTER TO POPE JOHN PAUL II
From Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer

Originally published in the January 1986 issue of The Angelus magazine

Ecône
31 August 1985

During the fifteen days preceding the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, Your Holiness has decided to gather together an Extraordinary Synod in Rome, with the purpose of making the Second Vatican Council, which closed twenty years ago, "an ever more living reality."

On the occasion of this event, allow us, who took an active part in the Council, to make known to you with all due respect our apprehensions and our desires, for the good of the Church, and for the salvation of the souls entrusted to us.

These twenty years, as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith himself says, have provided sufficient illustration of a situation resulting in a real self-destruction of the Church, except in those areas where the millennial Tradition of the Church has been maintained.

 

The change wrought within the Church in the nineteen-sixties was given concrete form and expression in the Council by the Declaration on Religious Liberty, which granted man the natural right to be exempt from any restraint imposed on him by divine law to adhere to the Catholic Faith in order to be saved, a restraint necessarily embodied in ecclesiastical and civil laws in subordination to the legislative authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

This freedom from any restraint by divine law or human laws in the matter of religion is inscribed among the freedoms proclaimed in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, an impious and sacrilegious declaration condemned by the Popes and in particular by Pope Pius VI in his Encyclical Adeo nota of April 23, 1791, and in his Consistory Allocution of June 17, 1793.

From this Declaration on Religious Liberty the following consequences flow, as from a poisoned spring:

  1. Religious indifferentism of states, even Catholic states, carried out over twenty years, at the instigation of the Holy See.
  2. The ecumenism pursued unceasingly by yourself and by the Vatican, an ecumenism condemned by the Church's Magisterium, and in particular by the Encyclical Mortalium Animos of Pius XI.

  3. All the reforms carried out over twenty years within the Church to please heretics, schismatics, false religions and declared enemies of the Church, such as the Jews, the Communists and the Freemasons.

  4. This freedom from the restraint of divine law in the matter of religion obviously encourages freedom from restraint in all divine and human laws, and destroys all authority in all areas, especially in the area of morals.

We have never ceased protesting, both during the Council and after the Council, at the incredible scandal of this false religious liberty. We have protested in speech and in writing, in private and in public, resting our protest upon the most solemn documents of the Magisterium: among others, the Athanasian Creed, the Fourth Lateran Council, the Syllabus (No. 15), the First Vatican Council (DS 2008), and the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas concerning the Catholic Faith (IIa IIae, Questions 8 to 16), a doctrine which has been that of the Church for almost twenty centuries, confirmed by Canon Law and its applications.

That is why, if the coming Synod does not return to the traditional Magisterium of the Church, in the question of religious liberty, but instead confirms this serious error from which heresies flow, we shall be forced to think that the members of the Synod no longer profess the Catholic Faith.

For their actions are contrary to the immutable principles of the First Vatican Council, which stated in the fourth Chapter of the Fourth Session:

For the Holy Ghost was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation transmitted through the Apostles, or the Deposit of Faith, and might faithfully expound it.

This being so, we can only persevere in the Church's holy Tradition and take whatever decisions are necessary for the Church to keep a clergy faithful to the Catholic religion capable of repeating with St. Paul, "For I received of the Lord what I also delivered unto you."

Holy Father, your responsibility is heavily engaged in this new and false conception of the Church which is drawing clergy and faithful into heresy and schism. If the Synod under your authority perseveres in this direction, you will no longer be the Good Shepherd.

We turn to our Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary, rosary in hand, begging her to impart to you her Spirit of Wisdom, as to all members of the Synod, in order to put an end to the invasion of Modernism within the Church.

Holy Father, be so good as to forgive the frankness of our approach to you, which has no other purpose than to render unto our one and only Savior, Our Lord Jesus Christ, the honor which is due to Him, as also to His one and only Church, and deign to accept our homage as devoted sons in Jesus and Mary.

Signature: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

Marcel Lefebvre,
Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle

Signature: Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer

Antonio de Castro Mayer,
Bishop Emeritus of Campos

Logged
StevusMagnus
Guest
« Reply #86 on: September 30, 2008, 01:39:PM »

At the very least the casual observer must admit that DH has been a disaster for Catholicism in the West. It single handedly caused all Catholic confessional states to be abandoned in favor of American style religious liberty. This has lead to porn, contraception, and abortion pervading the formerly Catholic societies in Latin America, Spain, Portugal, etc.

By their fruits ye shall know them...
Logged
newschoolman
Member

Posts: 1,422


« Reply #87 on: September 30, 2008, 01:54:PM »

Quote from: StevusMagnus
At the very least the casual observer must admit that DH has been a disaster for Catholicism in the West. It single handedly caused all Catholic confessional states to be abandoned in favor of American style religious liberty. This has lead to porn, contraception, and abortion pervading the formerly Catholic societies in Latin America, Spain, Portugal, etc.

By their fruits ye shall know them...


You are confused.  DH did not cause these things.
Logged
StevusMagnus
Guest
« Reply #88 on: September 30, 2008, 01:59:PM »

Quote from: newschoolman

Quote from: StevusMagnus
At the very least the casual observer must admit that DH has been a disaster for Catholicism in the West. It single handedly caused all Catholic confessional states to be abandoned in favor of American style religious liberty. This has lead to porn, contraception, and abortion pervading the formerly Catholic societies in Latin America, Spain, Portugal, etc.

By their fruits ye shall know them...


You are confused.  DH did not cause these things.

I am not confused in the slightest. The Spanish constitution was amended after VCII and mentioned DH by name for the reason it was abandoning its status as a Catholic confessional state. This paved the way for abortion, porn, contraception since the state no longer held that the Catholic Church was the One True Faith and instead adopted the American indifferentist approach lauded by DH. The result was the destruction of Catholic culture, the erosion of faith, and the loss of millions of souls.

Logged
newschoolman
Member

Posts: 1,422


« Reply #89 on: September 30, 2008, 02:11:PM »

The concordats between the Holy See and "Catholic" states had already reflected the requirements of changed circumstances under Pius XI and Pius XII.  It is no longer permissible to simply continue acting by the rules of a "confessional state" when the de facto situation is quite different.  Why should the Church pretend that Catholic states always act in the best interests of the Church and her divine mission?  Here is an interesting commentary on the new concordat with Portugal under Pius XII...
 
Quote

“Another aspect of the agreement instituted by the Concordat is the reciprocal autonomy of the Church and the State. Each one is independent and free in its respective sphere of competence. Neither does the State keep the Church under its tutelage, nor does the Church interfere with matters pertaining to the State.  The advocates of the supremacy of the State would like to add: enslavement of the Church, and, by the same token, of Catholic conscience. But we say: according to the very doctrine of the Church, the State has full authority, but only in its own field.  It was Christianity which introduced into the world that separation between the temporal and the spiritual, upon which rests the foundation of all Christian civilization. Here is the fountainhead of liberty of conscience...The Portugese State recognizes the Church as she is, and ensures her freedom; but it does not support or protect her as a State established religion...What the Church loses in official protection, she regains in virginal freedom of action. Free from any liability toward the political power, her voice gains greater authority upon consciences. She leaves Caesar a completely clear field, in order for herself better to attend to the things that are God's. She is the pure crystal from which the treasure of the Christian revelation is streaming forth.” (Cardinal Cerejeira, patriarch of Lisbon, November 18, 1941)

Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
 
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC