Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: frogjerk
In 1864, Pope Pius IX "infallibly" declared that the idea that people have a right to freedom of conscience and freedom of worship is "insanity," "evil," "depraved," and "reprobate". He also declared that non-Catholics who live in Catholic countries should not be allowed to publicly practice their religion. In 1888, Pope Leo XIII "infallibly" declared that freedom of thought and freedom of worship are wrong. These encyclicals are available on-line. [Note 4 gives addresses for them.]

The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) produced a document entitled "Declaration on Religious Liberty" which states that all people have a right to freedom of religion. [Note 5]

Now I certainly agree with the idea of freedom of religion. However, it totally contradicts the "infallible" declarations of Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII. It also contradicts the anathemas of the Council of Trent, the killing of "heretics," the Inquisition, the burning of people who translated the Bible into the language of the common people, and the persecution of Protestants.

Freedom of religion also contradicts modern Canon Law (1988). Canon 1366 says that parents are to be punished with "a just penalty" if they allow their children to "be baptized or educated in a non-Catholic religion". The reference to baptism shows that this refers to Christian religions which are not Roman Catholic. [Note 6] (During the Inquisition, "a just penalty" included things like torture and being burned at the stake. The Inquisition was based on Canon Law.) (See the article "Hunting 'Heretics'".)

Here the Catholic Church is on the horns of a dilemma. If it says that people have a right to freedom of religion, then it admits that it is not infallible. If it says that it is infallible, then it admits that it really does not believe that people have a right to freedom of religion.

The Catholic Church can claim infallibility, or it can claim that it has seen the error of its ways and it now supports freedom of religion. But it can't have it both ways.

Source

350 posted on 05/30/2006 5:00:10 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies ]


To: Luis Gonzalez

Tinfoil sites


351 posted on 05/30/2006 5:43:05 PM PDT by frogjerk (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies ]

To: Luis Gonzalez

Another error stated by you and your source. You do not have "freedom of religion" if you are Catholic. Catholics are bound by marriage to raise their children in the Catholic faith. I see no problem with this.


354 posted on 05/30/2006 5:48:48 PM PDT by frogjerk (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies ]

To: Luis Gonzalez

Please state a couple of reasons for me why I should stop being a Catholic.


357 posted on 05/30/2006 5:58:53 PM PDT by frogjerk (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies ]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Are you actually using this as a source? The source you site is supposedly written by Mary Ann Collins an ex-Nun. Too bad she doesn't know her history and too bad the elusive ex-Nun cannot prove she even exists.

"She" can't even get the date right on Pope Pius IX right off the bat...1870...NOT 1864. This site is rife with the same old evangelical misinformation spread all over the Internet.

From: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/10/reflections-on-papacy-papal.html

James Cardinal Gibbons

"You will tell me that infallibility is too great a prerogative to be conferred on man. I answer: Has not God, in former times, clothed His Apostles with powers far more exalted? They were endowed with the gifts of working miracles, of prophecy and inspiration; they were the mouthpiece communicating God's revelation, of which the Popes are merely the custodians. If God could make man the organ of His revealed Word, is it impossible for Him to make man its infallible guardian and interpreter? For, surely, greater is the Apostle who gives us the inspired Word than the Pope who preserves it from error . . .

"Let us see, sir, whether an infallible Bible is sufficient for you. Either you are infallibly certain that your interpretation of the Bible is correct or you are not.

"If you are infallibly certain, then you assert for yourself, and of course for every reader of the Scripture, a personal infallibility which you deny to the Pope, and which we claim only for him. You make every man his own Pope.

"If you are not infallibly certain that you understand the true meaning of the whole Bible . . . then, I ask, of what use to you is the objective infallibility of the Bible without an infallible interpreter?

"If God, as you assert, has left no infallible interpreter of His Word, do you not virtually accuse Him of acting unreasonably? for would it not be most unreasonable of Him to have revealed His truth to man without leaving him a means of ascertaining its precise import?

"Do you not reduce God's word to a bundle of contradictions . . . which give forth answers suited to the wishes of every inquirer? . . .

"Is not this variety of interpretations the bitter fruit of your principle: `An infallible Bible is enough for me,' and does it not proclaim the absolute necessity of some authorized and unerring interpreter? You tell me to drink of the water of life; but of what use is this water to my parched lips, since you acknowledge that it may be poisoned in passing through the medium of your interpretation?

"How satisfactory, on the contrary, and how reasonable is the Catholic teaching on this subject!

"According to that system, Christ says to every Christian: Here, my child, is the Word of God, and with it I leave you an infallible interpreter, who will expound for you its hidden meaning and make clear all its difficulties.

"Here are the waters of eternal life, but I have created a channel that will communicate these waters to you in all their sweetness without sediment of error.

"Here is the written Constitution of My Church. But I have appointed over it a Supreme Tribunal, in the person of one `to whom I have given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,' who will preserve that Constitution inviolate, and will not permit it to be torn to shreds by the conflicting opinions of men. And thus my children will be one, as I and the Father are one." (2:108-110)

360 posted on 05/30/2006 6:23:49 PM PDT by frogjerk (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson