If the civil authorities forced you to go to Catholic Church, would you be free to go to Catholic Church?
Insufficient information. "Free" and "forced" in what senses?
Webster.
If a civil power compels you to go to the Catholic Church, do you have the Religious Liberty to go, thereby, in any which way, whatsoever?
Your question is still too vague.
"Religious liberty" (by a traditional Catholic interpretation) is defined as the "liberty" (i.e. the permission or allowance) to practice "religion" (i.e. the true religion, not false religions). If the Catholic religion is true, and if the police forcibly take you to a Catholic Church and make you attend Mass, then yes, you are free(/permitted/allowed) to practice religion, and yes, you have religious liberty. (In fact, in that sort of situation you have even more liberty, since the police are assisting you in your practice of religion.)
But by a secularist or a modernist interpretation, no, you wouldn't have "religious freedom". Because to them all "religions" (true religion as well as false religion) need to be regarded as equal, and "freedom" / "liberty" imply that you must have the option (or at least be permitted) to practice whichever "religion" you so choose. If the police force you to materially participate in Catholic worship, then you are no longer "free" to practice any "religion" which forbids its practitioners from material participation in Catholic worship.
Think of most Catholic countries before the 60s. Nobody was forced to go to a Catholic church. But the Protestant sects and the Communists etc were forbidden to proselytze Catholics - which is what Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ottaviani argued for. It would have benefited Latin America and all Catholic countries and the world to have made explicit declarations reiterating the Kingship of Christ and the Queenship of Mary and the duty of states to be confessionally Catholic. Those born in heresy or heathenism will not be denied freedom to live and work, in a Catholic State. They wil not, however, be given government support in proselytising.
Case in point. Traddies of a Scholastic bent use the word 'freedom' in a very peculiar sense that doesn't signify the same concept or reality which most of us would understand by it but one which, again, comes from Stoicism, in which right willing is following the natural law, which is the law of reason that predetermines the world like an intelligible clockwork, and so in attempting to account for how disobedience of the will to the law is even possible within it, supposedly by error of personal reason induced by the passions, defines freedom in terms of knowledge of the natural law (how these are themselves possible leads them in a logical circle back to disobedience). Thus Chrysippus: "So one can call freedom the knowledge of that which is permitted and forbidden, slavery the ignorance of that which is allowed and not allowed". This is word-for-word Thomistic pseudo-dogma, lifted not from the Scriptures but from Greco-Roman philosophers whose thinking on these matters was regarded as authoritative.
(Not saying it's wrong or totally wrong either)
Quote from: Daniel on November 08, 2018, 11:01:31 PM
Your question is still too vague.
Basically, Daniel, I only want to address your first comment here. I believe that my question, is, specific. Those words mean something, in a literal sense, and in that literal sense, of, those words, I believe that my question is specific. This is a modern, controversy, in the Church. We are talking about, Religious Liberty. Religious Liberty is in a council of the Church. Religious Liberty, has been approved, by Pontiffs in Rome. Liberty is a very wide, consideration. Liberty is freedom. Freedom is very open. So I would like, you, to consider if you could address, this issue, in a purely philosophical way, using the literal sense, of the words, in the way in which they are commonly defined, by, both the Church, and the civil authorities.
There is a way in which this consideration is literal. There is a way, in which this consideration is logical, and that, is what I would like to address, the
logic, of Religious Liberty.
If "religious liberty", as in a liberty to believe and practice whatever one chooses, were a "right", the First Commandment would be a violation of it, as would it's enforcement by the state under the Modaic law. That is logic.
Yes, the words are "in" Vatican 2. Now go read the relatio for the text.
Would you please send me a link to the relatio? I can't find it online.
Quote from: EliRotello on November 09, 2018, 08:34:46 AM
Quote from: Daniel on November 08, 2018, 11:01:31 PM
Your question is still too vague.
Basically, Daniel, I only want to address your first comment here. I believe that my question, is, specific. Those words mean something, in a literal sense, and in that literal sense, of, those words, I believe that my question is specific. This is a modern, controversy, in the Church. We are talking about, Religious Liberty. Religious Liberty is in a council of the Church. Religious Liberty, has been approved, by Pontiffs in Rome. Liberty is a very wide, consideration. Liberty is freedom. Freedom is very open. So I would like, you, to consider if you could address, this issue, in a purely philosophical way, using the literal sense, of the words, in the way in which they are commonly defined, by, both the Church, and the civil authorities.
There is a way in which this consideration is literal. There is a way, in which this consideration is logical, and that, is what I would like to address, the logic, of Religious Liberty.
Everyone has a right to do what is morally good. No one has a right to do evil. It is really pretty simple.
Is your right to do the moral good a Religious Liberty, in any which way whatsoever? Is that way true? Is thereby Religious Liberty true, in any which way whatsoever?
Quote from: EliRotello on November 09, 2018, 12:28:32 PM
Is your right to do the moral good a Religious Liberty, in any which way whatsoever? Is that way true? Is thereby Religious Liberty true, in any which way whatsoever?
Religious Liberty as understood by the Liberals, means that one is free to worship(or not) God in the manner that one thinks is the best. The Popes in their documents before V-II condemned this doctrine. The Catholic term as used by the Popes "Freedom of Religion"; by this term they meant that the Catholic Church, which is the only true religion, should be free to propagate and practice its doctrines to the exclusion of all other religions.
Quote from: EliRotello on November 09, 2018, 12:28:32 PM
Is your right to do the moral good a Religious Liberty, in any which way whatsoever? Is that way true? Is thereby Religious Liberty true, in any which way whatsoever?
Of course a right to do what is morally good is a religious liberty in the sense that a person is free to act in a morally good way with no moral punishments such as hell or sin. Free will is a different animal. You are free to not do a moral good and to do immoral thing but there is a punishment for choosing the evil way where there is no punishment and even a reward for doing the good.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on November 09, 2018, 02:19:53 PM
Quote from: EliRotello on November 09, 2018, 12:28:32 PM
Is your right to do the moral good a Religious Liberty, in any which way whatsoever? Is that way true? Is thereby Religious Liberty true, in any which way whatsoever?
Religious Liberty as understood by the Liberals, means that one is free to worship(or not) God in the manner that one thinks is the best. The Popes in their documents before V-II condemned this doctrine. The Catholic term as used by the Popes "Freedom of Religion"; by this term they meant that the Catholic Church, which is the only true religion, should be free to propagate and practice its doctrines to the exclusion of all other religions.
Michael, you lived a bit in Spain under Generalissimo Franco? A person once gave anecdotes as to how all other "religions" were allowed to practice. In the respective embassies. This person, a "conservative" decried the lack of religious freedom that existed there.
.
Heinrich stated:
Quote
Michael, you lived a bit in Spain under Generalissimo Franco? A person once gave anecdotes as to how all other "religions" were allowed to practice. In the respective embassies. This person, a "conservative" decried the lack of religious freedom that existed there.
Heinrich,
from 1939 (the end of the Civil War) until 1967, Spain was an official Catholic Country and no other religions were allowed to publicly practice their religion, in conformity with the teaching of the Church. In 1967, Spain changed its Constitution upon the request of the Vatican, in order to bring its Constitution in line with the novel teaching of Vatican II on Religious Liberty.
Here is an article from the N.Y.T. In !964 that explained (in its usual biased way) the situation:https://www.nytimes.com/1964/10/14/archives/spain-and-the-vatican.html
Quote The Concordat of 1953 contained a protocol upholding an article in the Fueros, or bill of rights, of 1945 that said : "None shall be molested for his religious beliefs or for private practice of his worship." But the key? word is "private." The basis of the Concordat is explicit. It states that "the Catholic, Apostolic, Roman religion continues to be the sole religion of the Spanish nation."
Quote from: Kreuzritter on November 09, 2018, 09:15:26 AM
If "religious liberty", as in a liberty to believe and practice whatever one chooses, were a "right", the First Commandment would be a violation of it, as would it's enforcement by the state under the Modaic law. That is logic.
Yes, the words are "in" Vatican 2. Now go read the relatio for the text.
But wouldn't there be liberty to practice the first commandment, either way, with the philosophical necessity of Religious Liberty, either way?
QuoteBut wouldn't there be liberty to practice the first commandment, either way, with the philosophical necessity of Religious Liberty, either way?
Religious Liberty as understood by the Liberals, would entail the right to practice or not to practice the first commandment; both would be seen as equally valid options. For the Liberal there is no legitimate law that would limit the free exercise of the citizen's right to exercise his religion; even if he was a free-thinker, agnostic, satanist etc. The only limit would be not to interfere with one's fellow citizen's right and the maintenance of public order.
But either way, that would be religious liberty too, wouldn't it be? Either way in anything religious whatsoever, there is liberty in Religion. I type Religious Liberty, and that is Religious Liberty, will anyone agree that is true?
I'm not sure what you are stating; but there is no "right" to practice a false religion; only the right and duty of men to practice the one true religion. The state can justly repress the practice of false religions, and even has the duty to. The state may "tolerate" the practice of false religions where a greater harm to the common good, would be caused by their repression; but that toleration never confers on the false religions any right.
Quote from: EliRotello on November 24, 2018, 12:55:25 PM
But either way, that would be religious liberty too, wouldn't it be? Either way in anything religious whatsoever, there is liberty in Religion. I type Religious Liberty, and that is Religious Liberty, will anyone agree that is true?
A Right is something that is something that is granted free from all debt. No one can have a Right to do something evil or immoral as that would incur a debt.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on November 24, 2018, 01:41:34 PM
there is no "right" to practice a false religion..
:coffee:..and that's that.
"...And that's that," is Religious Liberty, too, isn't it?
Quote from: EliRotello on November 25, 2018, 01:25:08 PM
"...And that's that," is Religious Liberty, too, isn't it?
You have the liberty or free will to do what ever you want. There is a huge difference between a liberty (free will) and a Right.
Just wondering, does the Church have any official teaching on the nature of "rights"? Because if not, then I think the easiest solution would simply be to deny the existence of "rights".
Forget about "rights" for a moment and focus only on "duties": Every man has a natural duty to practice the true religion, and, since men each have a duty to practice the true religion, every state has a consequent duty to allow its citizens and guests to practice that true religion. Conversely, nobody has a duty to practice a false religion, so no state has any sort of duty to allow its citizens to practice false religions (though this doesn't necessarily mean that the states have a duty to forbid the people from practicing false religions).
I'd think it would be as simple as that. No need to appeal to any doctrine of "rights".
From VII: DIGNITATIS HUMANAE
"2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits."
To call "religious freedom" a right is tantamount to heresy
My question is this statement the basis of what EliRotello is arguing for? If it is he is surely misguided.
Daniel,
excellent post; however, the state does have the duty to "repress" false religions; however that duty is not "absolute" i.e. It does not always apply in all cases at all times.
Here is a link to the article published by Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani on this very subject:
https://archive.org/stream/DutiesOfTheCatholicStateOttavianiCard.Alfredo4570/Duties%20of%20the%20Catholic%20State%20-%20Ottaviani%2C%20Card.%20Alfredo_4570_djvu.txt
I think Eli is a bot. I still don't know its question.
If he is not a bot, then he has a question that may be troubling him that he does not want to ask.
Quote from: james03 on November 25, 2018, 10:25:48 PM
I think Eli is a bot. I still don't know its question.
If he is not a bot, then he has a question that may be troubling him that he does not want to ask.
A third option might be that he's not a native English speaker and is having trouble formulating his question. Interestingly, he's started the exact same thread over at the Fisheaters forum, and people are just as confused there as they are over here.
https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=83596 (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=83596)
Quote from: EliRotello on November 24, 2018, 09:46:47 AM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on November 09, 2018, 09:15:26 AM
If "religious liberty", as in a liberty to believe and practice whatever one chooses, were a "right", the First Commandment would be a violation of it, as would it's enforcement by the state under the Modaic law. That is logic.
Yes, the words are "in" Vatican 2. Now go read the relatio for the text.
But wouldn't there be liberty to practice the first commandment, either way, with the philosophical necessity of Religious Liberty, either way?
Uggggghhh ... stop confusing ontological freedom to act with moral liberty to act. There is no liberty to contravene the Fist Commandment; do it, and all things equal, you separate yourself from the divine source of all existence and go to Hell.
What about this philosophical question Kreuzritter? Do you have freedom in the way of the law? In other words, if Moses commands you to follow the 10 commandments, do you have the, freedom, to do it? What do you think?
Eli,
there are three types of liberty: 1. Physical; the ability to move towards a desired object; this type of liberty is shared by both men and animals. 2. Psychological liberty: the ability to chose one course of action over another; men move themselves freely towards one object or another, not out of necessity like animals that are guided by instincts. 3. Moral liberty: the ability to choose one course of action or another to reach our final end, which is Heaven. Men are not 'morally' free to deviate from their final end, but may do so and will therefore lose Sanctifying Grace and friendship with God; and ultimately lose salvation.
Therefore to answer your question: Men are psychologically free to follow or not to follow the 10 Commandments; as is evident by observing the behavior of our fellows and noting our own; but men are not morally free to do so; the disobedience to the 10 Commandments carries a price, which is mentioned above.
No one is really answering my questions. Everyone is kind of mentioning things around it. These responses are not to the point. I want to know:
Are you posts to me, Religious Liberty, in any which way, whatsoever? Yes, or no? Remember, I said, any which way, whatsoever. That's important.
Quote from: Kreuzritter on November 26, 2018, 07:02:22 AM
Quote from: EliRotello on November 24, 2018, 09:46:47 AM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on November 09, 2018, 09:15:26 AM
If "religious liberty", as in a liberty to believe and practice whatever one chooses, were a "right", the First Commandment would be a violation of it, as would it's enforcement by the state under the Modaic law. That is logic.
Yes, the words are "in" Vatican 2. Now go read the relatio for the text.
But wouldn't there be liberty to practice the first commandment, either way, with the philosophical necessity of Religious Liberty, either way?
Uggggghhh ... stop confusing ontological freedom to act with moral liberty to act. There is no liberty to contravene the Fist Commandment; do it, and all things equal, you separate yourself from the divine source of all existence and go to Hell.
"There is no liberty to contravene the Fist Commandment"
So no one is free to contravene the First Commandment? That's not true.
Quote from: EliRotello on December 05, 2018, 06:12:29 PM
So no one is free to contravene the First Commandment? That's not true.
Everyone is
capable of contravening the First Commandment.
No-one has the actual
right to do so, though.
QuoteNo one is really answering my questions. Everyone is kind of mentioning things around it. These responses are not to the point. I want to know:
Are you posts to me, Religious Liberty, in any which way, whatsoever? Yes, or no? Remember, I said, any which way, whatsoever. That's important.
No, to be "religious liberty" it would take an outward manifestation of a religious nature. The discussion on this forum is probably closer to "freedom of speech".
re. The first commandment: People are 'free' to contravene the first commandment, if you refer to "free will" or "psychological freedom"; We can worship false gods all day long, and no-one will disturb us. But we are not "morally free" e.i. We incur a grave sin in the sight of God and He will punish us for this, if we die without repenting of it.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on December 05, 2018, 06:41:42 PM
Quote from: EliRotello on December 05, 2018, 06:12:29 PM
So no one is free to contravene the First Commandment? That's not true.
Everyone is capable of contravening the First Commandment.
No-one has the actual right to do so, though.
Yes they do have the right to do that. Just like, if I were wrong, and this were not Religious Liberty, I have the moral right, the actual right, to post it, and if it weren't a right of mine, at least in some way, any way, then it would never have happened. Would it have? What will be your Religious Liberty reply?
You have a right, to go to hell, if you so choose. Truth.
God gives everyone a right to contravene the first commandment especially. You could not have a right to eternal hell, if you were not given a right to it. There could not be salvation, merit, sin judgment, death, anything, without the right to do it. We are that intelligent now as society, and we can think with the council fathers. I was even told by my Priests when I was in High School at a Catholic High School, that there were presentations by Priests from Rome who came to our Diocese to do this very same discussion with them, in perfect philosophy. This is not unconsidered. In fact its was on Catholic forums in 1997, when I was in middle school. I saw the whole thing.
Without a moral right to hell, you can't go to hell. If you can't choose it, you can't have it, and that's not Catholic.
QuoteYes they do have the right to do that. Just like, if I were wrong, and this were not Religious Liberty, I have the moral right, the actual right, to post it, and if it weren't a right of mine, at least in some way, any way, then it would never have happened. Would it have? What will be your Religious Liberty reply?
No, that would be 'freedom of speech'; not "Religious Liberty"; but again, just because you are physically able to do something, does not give you the 'moral right' to do it.
For example, you are able to post lies and calumnies about somebody on this forum, but that doesn't mean that you have the right to, or that they are not sins.
Quote from: EliRotello on December 05, 2018, 07:21:46 PM
Without a moral right to hell, you can't go to hell. If you can't choose it, you can't have it, and that's not Catholic.
There is not "moral right" to go to Hell. The notion of right is bound up with the concept of 'good' and 'true'; one can choose to go to Hell by committing serious sins, but that doesn't mean one has the 'right' to do so.
Quote from: EliRotello on December 05, 2018, 07:19:41 PM
God gives everyone a right to contravene the first commandment especially. You could not have a right to eternal hell, if you were not given a right to it. There could not be salvation, merit, sin judgment, death, anything, without the right to do it. We are that intelligent now as society, and we can think with the council fathers. I was even told by my Priests when I was in High School at a Catholic High School, that there were presentations by Priests from Rome who came to our Diocese to do this very same discussion with them, in perfect philosophy. This is not unconsidered. In fact its was on Catholic forums in 1997, when I was in middle school. I saw the whole thing.
God gives men the freedom to follow or to disobey the first commandment, but God doesn't give anybody the right to do so. Salvation and merit come from making true and morally good choices and damnation from making false and sinful ones.
You have the ability to take a gun out and shoot somebody, but you don't have the right to do so; the same for shoplifting or cheating on your spouse etc. etc.
Read Pope Leo the XIII's Encyclical "Libertas" here: http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas.html
He explains everything very clearly.
Quote from: EliRotello on December 05, 2018, 07:16:06 PM
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on December 05, 2018, 06:41:42 PM
Quote from: EliRotello on December 05, 2018, 06:12:29 PM
So no one is free to contravene the First Commandment? That's not true.
Everyone is capable of contravening the First Commandment.
No-one has the actual right to do so, though.
Yes they do have the right to do that. Just like, if I were wrong, and this were not Religious Liberty, I have the moral right, the actual right, to post it, and if it weren't a right of mine, at least in some way, any way, then it would never have happened. Would it have? What will be your Religious Liberty reply?
I'm afraid I don't understand your question.
I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt not have strange gods before Me. All human beings without exception are morally obliged to offer to God alone the supreme worship that is due Him. There is no actual right to contravene it, although one may contravene it through his own sin. Human beings are able to do evil but being able to do evil is not a right in itself to do evil.
It is true that governments may grant toleration of false religions, or the civic right not to be harassed concerning one's beliefs. This falls on the realm of prudential judgment. However, an objective assessment of the issue tells us that there can be no such right, as it were, to disobey God.
Do you have a right, to have free will, in any which way, whatsoever?
.
Quote from: EliRotello on December 05, 2018, 06:12:29 PM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on November 26, 2018, 07:02:22 AM
Quote from: EliRotello on November 24, 2018, 09:46:47 AM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on November 09, 2018, 09:15:26 AM
If "religious liberty", as in a liberty to believe and practice whatever one chooses, were a "right", the First Commandment would be a violation of it, as would it's enforcement by the state under the Modaic law. That is logic.
Yes, the words are "in" Vatican 2. Now go read the relatio for the text.
But wouldn't there be liberty to practice the first commandment, either way, with the philosophical necessity of Religious Liberty, either way?
Uggggghhh ... stop confusing ontological freedom to act with moral liberty to act. There is no liberty to contravene the Fist Commandment; do it, and all things equal, you separate yourself from the divine source of all existence and go to Hell.
"There is no liberty to contravene the Fist Commandment"
So no one is free to contravene the First Commandment? That's not true.
Humans are
able to contravene the moral law; they are not
morally free to do so. Humans are also "free" to murder, rape, lie, steal, fornicate, whatever: so what? That mere physical fact has
nothing to do with "rights".
The one is ontological freedom, the other moral freedom, which I told you in that very post to stop confusing, yet you go and do it again in your answer to it!
When people speak of a "right to religious liberty", they are generally speaking either of moral law or human positive law, never mere physical ability, but "rights" in the context of classical and Catholic ethics are always "rights" in the moral sense, not in the sense of the law of the state allowing something within its borders. In that moral sense, nobody has a
right to practise a false religion, precisely because to do so is
immoral, which we know from the First Commandment.
Don't even bother responding until you've grasped the distinction between being
able to do something and having freedom under the
moral law to do it - and how the former doesn't imply the latter.
Quote from: EliRotello on December 05, 2018, 08:30:38 PM
Do you have a right, to have free will, in any which way, whatsoever?
God gave you the gift of free will in order to know Him, love Him and serve Him in this life and then to be happy with Him forever in Heaven; any use of your free will which takes you away from God or contravenes His commandments, is a misuse of this same faculty, and is against the moral law.
Quote from: EliRotello on December 05, 2018, 07:19:41 PM
God gives everyone a right to contravene the first commandment especially.
No, he does not. The First Commandment, as the expression of moral law, is
precisely his denial of any moral freedom, and with it any right, to practise a false religion. Your proposition is a
contradiction in terms.
QuoteYou could not have a right to eternal hell, if you were not given a right to it.
One wouldn't a right unless that right had been given to one? Ummm ... ok? What's your point?
QuoteThere could not be salvation, merit, sin judgment, death, anything, without the right to do it.
This is just nonsense.
QuoteWe are that intelligent now as society, and we can think with the council fathers.
Not all of us, apparently.
Quote
I was even told by my Priests when I was in High School at a Catholic High School, that there were presentations by Priests from Rome who came to our Diocese to do this very same discussion with them, in perfect philosophy. This is not unconsidered. In fact its was on Catholic forums in 1997, when I was in middle school. I saw the whole thing.
Then you either misunderstood them, or these priests were peddling Modernist nonsense.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on December 05, 2018, 07:35:45 PM
God gives men the freedom to follow or to disobey the first commandment, but God doesn't give anybody the right to do so. Salvation and merit come from making true and morally good choices and damnation from making false and sinful ones.
You have the ability to take a gun out and shoot somebody, but you don't have the right to do so; the same for shoplifting or cheating on your spouse etc. etc.
Read Pope Leo the XIII's Encyclical "Libertas" here: http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas.html
He explains everything very clearly.
Yes. By the OP's logic, we must have a right to murder, rape, lie and steal. In fact, anything we can possibly do, from praising God to sacrificing babies, and every mundane activity in-between, we have a right to. The only question is whether he will connect the dots and admit to that.
Of course, if I have a right to do something if and only if I am able to do it, the word "right" has basically become at best a synonym for "ability", at worst a meaningless word that retains an emotive impact.