Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum
May 25, 2013, 02:34: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  
Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum > Church > SSPX "vs" Diocesan "vs" Novus Ordo Discussion > Excommunication
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9
 
Author Topic: Excommunication  (Read 2037 times)
PeterII
Member

Gender: Male
Posts: 4,286
« Reply #60 on: November 13, 2011, 04:47:PM »
Quote from: aquinasg
The governement can surpress, and it must make the decision of when by itself. The non-Catholics only have the right to religious freedom when the common good calls for tolerance. The common good takes priority over individual rights.

"The oppression of any people for opinion's sake has rarely any other effect than to fix those opinions deeper, and render them more important"  Hosea Ballou

A "right" that can be legitimately suppressed is not a right at all. 
Logged
The hope only
Of empty men.
aquinasg
Member

Gender: Male
Posts: 342
« Reply #61 on: November 13, 2011, 05:10:PM »
It ceases to be a right if the common good requires surpression. A slaveowner has the right to be obeyed until the slave has the right to be freed
Logged
PeterII
Member

Gender: Male
Posts: 4,286
« Reply #62 on: November 13, 2011, 05:37:PM »
Quote from: aquinasg
It ceases to be a right if the common good requires surpression. A slaveowner has the right to be obeyed until the slave has the right to be freed

Those are just legal "rights" which are a pretense, and not a natural right which you were claiming before. 
Logged
The hope only
Of empty men.
aquinasg
Member

Gender: Male
Posts: 342
« Reply #63 on: November 13, 2011, 05:42:PM »
It is binding Church teaching that people have a natural right to such freedom, which is required so that they can honestly find the truth. Read all of Dignitatis Humanae; it presents a good case from natural law
Logged
aquinasg
Member

Gender: Male
Posts: 342
« Reply #64 on: November 13, 2011, 05:44:PM »
Legal rights need natural laws supporting them; your position is just bad political philosophy
Logged


PeterII
Member

Gender: Male
Posts: 4,286
« Reply #65 on: November 13, 2011, 06:06:PM »
Quote from: aquinasg
Legal rights need natural laws supporting them; your position is just bad political philosophy

Bad enough to know that there is no such thing as a natural right to publicly practice a false religion. 
Logged
The hope only
Of empty men.
Crusading Philologist
Member

Gender: Male
Personality type: Melancholic-Choleric, INTJ
Posts: 3,412
« Reply #66 on: November 13, 2011, 06:14:PM »
I would just point out that "natural rights" are alien to the Catholic tradition. They were only incorporated into Catholic thought with Leo XIII who used the concept because Thomism had not yet developed the intellectual framework to deal with the new threat presented by socialism. The only rights that actually do exist are civil and customary ones. "Natural rights" are a liberal fiction.
Logged
Loyalty to a doctrine ends in adherence to the interpretation we give it.
Only loyalty to a person frees us from all self-complacency. - Nicolás Gómez Dávila
aquinasg
Member

Gender: Male
Posts: 342
« Reply #67 on: November 13, 2011, 06:39:PM »
Why can't traditionalists get this through their heads: Vatican II didn't say people have a natural right to practice false religions, but a natural right not to be prevented from practicing it within due limits. THere is a complete difference between the two rights. One is a permissive right, the other protective right.

And Leo XIII and all the latter Popes all taught about natural rights, so its binding on us. What is with people on here dissenting from Church teachings? That's private judgment
Logged
Crusading Philologist
Member

Gender: Male
Personality type: Melancholic-Choleric, INTJ
Posts: 3,412
« Reply #68 on: November 13, 2011, 06:46:PM »
Quote from: aquinasg
Why can't traditionalists get this through their heads: Vatican II didn't say people have a natural right to practice false religions, but a natural right not to be prevented from practicing it within due limits. THere is a complete difference between the two rights. One is a permissive right, the other protective right.

And Leo XIII and all the latter Popes all taught about natural rights, so its binding on us. What is with people on here dissenting from Church teachings? That's private judgment


First, I think you would have a difficult time showing that all popes after Leo XIII taught natural rights. Second, it's just bad philosophical and theological anthropology. The conception of man that gave us natural rights is completely anti-Christian. It's liberal nonsense created to justify the destruction of the old order and the rise of greed. I don't see how any Christian could accept an idea created by 18th century liberals who were out to destroy what remained of Christendom.
Logged
Loyalty to a doctrine ends in adherence to the interpretation we give it.
Only loyalty to a person frees us from all self-complacency. - Nicolás Gómez Dávila
aquinasg
Member

Gender: Male
Posts: 342
« Reply #69 on: November 13, 2011, 07:10:PM »
Leo XIII's teaching has been approved by every Pope after him. Go research it and stop dissenting from Church teaching.  The Summa Theologica II-II, q. 58, a. 1 says that justice is "the habit whereby a man renders to each one his due by a constant and perpetual will."  A right by definition is that which is owed to someone. Aquinas spoke of owing people things; speaking of rights merely speaks about it from the "owed" person's perspective. If there are natural duties, there must be rights

You don't even think people have a right to life? Where's your head at?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9
 
 
Jump to:  

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