Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum
May 22, 2013, 08:01: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 ... 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 9965 times)
newschoolman
Member

Posts: 1,422


« Reply #190 on: October 06, 2008, 01:16:PM »

Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: newschoolman
Quote from: Caminus

Oh, see the brilliant weaving of phrases, both true and suspect, so calculated to subtly dance around the question.  Why do you liberals refuse to simply answer the question.  The separation of the Church and State is an evil, certainly to be tolerated at times, but an evil nonetheless.  The Catholic Church and the civil government ought to be united in perfect concord.  To approve of something that was once tolerated is to betray the truth.     


The Church and state are really distinct entities -- and therefore not "united" in the sense that they become fused into one entity.  The ought to be united in the sense of mutual cooperation with a view toward their respective ends.

Right and the Church ought to be the soul of the State, per the papal magisterium.  The analogy of the soul is not to be taken literally, as it is a moral/legal union.  DH did not teach this, it taught the opposite, while allowing for the thesis.  DH made the hypothesis, that which is the result of concrete circumstances, to become the thesis or the principle. 

No, DH simply affirmed the traditional teaching on the matter.

Quote

This is "the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ."30

Logged
Caminus
Guest
« Reply #191 on: October 06, 2008, 02:14:PM »

What is?

Logged
Catholicmilkman
Guest
« Reply #192 on: October 06, 2008, 02:16:PM »

Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: newschoolman
The Church and state are really distinct entities -- and therefore not "united" in the sense that they become fused into one entity.  The ought to be united in the sense of mutual cooperation with a view toward their respective ends.
Right and the Church ought to be the soul of the State, per the papal magisterium.  The analogy of the soul is not to be taken literally, as it is a moral/legal union.  DH did not teach this, it taught the opposite, while allowing for the thesis.  DH made the hypothesis, that which is the result of concrete circumstances, to become the thesis or the principle.
 You will say all sorts of nonsense and erroneous reasoning to stick your error that a valid and papally approved General Council can really and truly and objectively error when all the pre-Vatican II catechisms I've read say that such an event is an impossibility. Why, for the sake of the truth and the good of the WHOLE Church, don't you just admit that the Council was only rash, leaned towards ambiguity and heterodoxy, and morst probably infiltrated by very smart Modernists and Freemasons who knew exactly what they were doing and would never put objective error in an ecumenical Council for they knew they would have been stop?
Logged
Catholicmilkman
Guest
« Reply #193 on: October 06, 2008, 02:21:PM »

Quote from: Caminus
What is?
That there is a moral obligation for both society and person to be united to God in, by and through His Catholic Church, but not an physical obligation. That is, if some won't or aren't for whatever reason then they will be held responsible for it by God in perfect justice in the next life if it is a person and in this life if it is a nation for nations cannot enter the next.
Logged
Caminus
Guest
« Reply #194 on: October 06, 2008, 02:23:PM »

Moral obligations don't exist outside of the man who possesses them.  At any rate, schoolman quoted the catechism stating 'this is the teaching.'  And I ask, what is this teaching as presented by DH?

Logged


Catholicmilkman
Guest
« Reply #195 on: October 06, 2008, 02:38:PM »

Quote from: newschoolman
Quote from: Caminus
Oh, see the brilliant weaving of phrases, both true and suspect, so calculated to subtly dance around the question.  Why do you liberals refuse to simply answer the question.  The separation of the Church and State is an evil, certainly to be tolerated at times, but an evil nonetheless.  The Catholic Church and the civil government ought to be united in perfect concord.  To approve of something that was once tolerated is to betray the truth.
The Church and state are really distinct entities -- and therefore not "united" in the sense that they become fused into one entity.  The ought to be united in the sense of mutual cooperation with a view toward their respective ends.
Caminus speaks the truth on this subject. The Church and State are to be united to one another in a perfect and substantial union as is analogized in that of the human soul and human body which are one substance, one man. Similarly the Church and State are like one Mystical Christ. Would you say it is fine to have the Mystical Christ's Soul separated from His Body? No. It can happen, yes, but so can death but you would not and ought not to desire someone's death (though reason may be had for it). The Church and State are distinct, you are right, and so are the human soul and body for one is spirit and the other physical matter, the soul cannot do what the body does nor the body what the soul does, but their unity is substantial, "they" are one entity, even as the Church and State ought to be united substantially by both being Catholic. The Catholic Church united to the Catholic State (preferably the Roman Catholic Empire).
Logged
Catholicmilkman
Guest
« Reply #196 on: October 06, 2008, 02:47:PM »

Quote from: Caminus
Moral obligations don't exist outside of the man who possesses them.  At any rate, schoolman quoted the catechism stating 'this is the teaching.'  And I ask, what is this teaching as presented by DH?
The State has moral obligations, all societies do, even the family. Leo XIII is clear on this and so is Dignitatis Humanae though Pope Leo is more so. The Dignitatis Humanae just does explain it completely. There's no heresy in explaining something incompletely, there may be personal subjective sin if the individual or group were trying to commit the sin of heresy but that's as far as it goes. You might be able to blame men at the Council of heresy but not the Council documents themselves at they have no objective error. E.g. nowhere do they say "the Church ought to be separated from the State" or "the State ought to be separated from the Church".

"Moral obligations don't exist outside of the man who possesses them." I hope you're not saying morals are not objective because that's what it sounds like to me. Morals are an objective truth, just as sin is an objective evil.
Logged
Caminus
Guest
« Reply #197 on: October 06, 2008, 02:50:PM »

Is religious liberty based upon the dignity of man?

Logged
Catholicmilkman
Guest
« Reply #198 on: October 06, 2008, 02:53:PM »

Quote from: Caminus
Is religious liberty based upon the dignity of man?
Well that depends on your definition of religous liberty. Is the liberty of practicing the true Christian Religion, Catholicism, based upon the dignity of Mankind as created in the image of God by God Himself?
Logged
Caminus
Guest
« Reply #199 on: October 06, 2008, 02:55:PM »

Answer the question as presented by DH.

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 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