21c7b9 No.582322
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
> The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design
What did they mean by this? Why would the Catholic Church condemn its own actions in the past? No Pope in the 16th or 17th century would have argued that it was wrong to discriminate on the grounds of religion. They didn't want to eradicate religious discrimination, they wanted to eradicate other religions. So what has happened? Has the modern Church finally found the truth, or has Papal Infallibility been unable to prevent heresy from becoming official doctrine?
b5276e No.582330
I would love for a Catholic to answer this question instead of squirming out of it. This is from Pope (Blessed) Pius IX in his encyclical Syllabus of Errors, wherein he lists a number of modernist heresies people fall into. The list includes:
>15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
>16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. — Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.
>17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. — Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
>18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. — Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.
However, I was raised Catholic and went to a Catholic school and was taught things like this.
3db44e No.582333
Muddy modernism. We are all one in Christ, but to conflate this with the rules and ways of men and the world is an error since Christ's kingdom is not of us or it.
180921 No.582334
>>582322
>> The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design
it's called liberal humanism
it's almost as horrible as the CCC's stance on "muslims" and how they worship the same god as Catholics
bfeca0 No.582337
>>582334
But they DO worship the same God as us, they just don't have any of his Books of Law.
3db44e No.582339
>>582334
It's frustrating because there are kernels of truth to these modernist ideas – we are all one in Christ, godhead is perennial, etc. – but they are completely distorted and misunderstood.
>>582337
Allah is God insofar as metaphysics are concerned, generally-speaking, otherwise it isn't the case at all.
9a1ae1 No.582341
>>582322
Which actions are you talking about specifically? The catechism calls for us to convert all to the Church, as stated in the catechism, there is no salvation outside the Church.
>>582334
Wrong. The catechism states that Muslims profess to hold the faith of Abraham.
Saint Pope John Paul II explains this:
>Whoever knows the Old and New Testaments, and then reads the Koran, clearly sees the process by which it completely reduces Divine Revelation. It is impossible not to note the movement away from what God said about Himself, first in the Old Testament through the Prophets, and then finally in the New Testament through His Son. In Islam all the richness of God's self-revelation, which constitutes the heritage of the Old and New Testaments, has definitely been set aside. Some of the most beautiful names in the human language are given to the God of the Koran, but He is ultimately a God outside of the World, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God-with-us. Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the Cross and the Resurrection(p. 92).
St. John Paul first acknowledges the truth that Muslims get it right when they profess faith in one God. Then, and only then, does he point out they have it as wrong as wrong can be when it comes to what God has revealed to us in Scripture about who he is, and, I would add, what he asks of his people by way of his commandments.
6ad3b4 No.582346
>>582337
The absolute state of papism
(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST) 3db44e No.582347
18a6b5 No.582354
>>582322
unclear and uncharitable language to make it seem like it is pushing what the left is pushing.
it's like when leftists quote this:
>There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.
>>582330
what's the question? Catholic schools ( the majority of them) have not taught the faith for a long while, Archbishop Sheen was warning about Catholic schools in his time. many members of the clergy are lukewarm and do not teach the faith, pray for them. If the Catholic Church was not the church of Christ, and if Christ did not promise that the gates of hell would not prevail, the Catholic Church, with this many unfaithful prelates and clergy, would be like the Anglicans and have female priests and more… however Christ to build his church on Peter and promised us that we would not succumb, even now uncharitable priests have to use unclear language to distort the truth, they can't come out with their false teachings. They have to either never teach the teaching or teach it in a matter that makes it seem like it's something else. Woe to those priests. Woe to those bishops. If you want clear language, read the catechism of Trent o St. Pius X or of Spirago.
>>582346
it's a testament to Christ's promise. While the Protestants have ever-changing doctrines and are following the spirit of this world (Protestants hundred years ago would have called you heretics), the Catholic Church is standing firm as a rock during a tempest. the Catholic Church has never contradicted its infallibility in 2000 years and it never will, while what is a sin for Protestants is changing every day and depends on who you talk to.
>He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.
Is it any wonder that Protestantism will have 50,000 denominations by 2020, while heretics in the Catholic Church have to play in the shadows because they can't change the Truth.
21c7b9 No.582356
>>582341
> Which actions are you talking about specifically
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Inquisition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inquisition
Clearly in the past the RCC had no problem using all manner of violence to promote and protect its doctrines. Now the RCC believes that religious discrimination is unacceptable and must be wiped out. Something is wrong here. Could you imagine a Pope like Pius V suggesting that it would be unacceptable to violate the human rights of someone in regards to religion? It would be absurd.
698315 No.582357
>>582356
>Could you imagine a Pope like Pius V suggesting that it would be unacceptable to violate the human rights of someone in regards to religion?
>human rights
OpinionDiscarded.jpg
21c7b9 No.582358
>>582357
Buddy, I'm not the one talking about human rights, your catechism is. Let me remind you of what it says, because you clearly didn't read the OP
> The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design
Again, how do you reconcile the RCC of the 16th century and earlier, which had no problem with torturing and killing non-Catholic Christians, with the one of the 21st century one, which believes that "every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of…..religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design". Either the old Church was wrong or the current one is.
6ad3b4 No.582361
>>582354
>it's a testament to Christ's promise. While the Protestants have ever-changing doctrines and are following the spirit of this world (Protestants hundred years ago would have called you heretics), the Catholic Church is standing firm as a rock during a tempest. the Catholic Church has never contradicted its infallibility in 2000 years and it never will, while what is a sin for Protestants is changing every day and depends on who you talk to.
Is this a falseflag? Is it an attempt to make Catholics look as self-deceived as possible? Or have we just hit maximal possible cognitive dissonance?
e5f312 No.582366
>>582322
Yes, in the Second Vatican Council a huge change occurred. Liberalization, protestanization, weakening Church discipline. Yes, in many cases the teaching of the council outright contradicts what popes up until then said and did. It did not change dogma, but it did change basically everything else - ecumenism, liberty of religion, rites of sacraments, theology. These do not fall under papal infallibility, papal infallibility applies only when a pope solemnly pronounces dogma.
The teaching of the Second Vatican Council, which was a pastoral council, is not infallible since it taught ordinary magisterium and did not pronounce dogma ie the extraordinary magisterium. So, ordinary magisterium can be changed, but the Church up until 50 years ago always had the same stance and no pope dared to change it for the sake of tradition. Then, 2 very liberal popes came who had no such reservations and just cleaned house, so to speak.
Your question is why. Because the progressive elements that started working against the Church in mid 19th century finally succeeded. All the past actions against heretics were justified and no liberal pope can change that.
6ad3b4 No.582369
>>582366
>Because the progressive elements that started working against the Church in mid 19th century finally succeeded
The Roman Catholic Church confirmed NOT the Church founded by Jesus Christ (see Matthew 16:18)
e5f312 No.582373
>>582369
You obviously didn't read everything I wrote. The changed discipline and politics, they did not and can not change dogma and the rites of sacraments to the point where they would be invalid. A pope can't say 'we no longer believe in the True Presence' because he would at that second cease to be pope because he's a heretic. A new pope can sit on st. Peter's throne tomorrow and throw everything everyone said over the last 50 years in the trash. Fortunately, for many in Rome, Francis is the straw that broke the camel's back and we may very soon get back to traditional teaching.
Also, it's very funny how dishonest you are. The Church instituted many protestant policies and theology and you, probably a protestant, condemn it because of it. Shouldn't you be happy? Yet, you see this protestantization as a proof of the Church's downfall.
27927b No.582378
>>582322
>social or cultural discrimination
Concentrate especially on this particular phrase.
Denying every follower of some false religion fundamental human rights on account of their religion alone is obviously evil - their belief is usually due to invincible ignorance, and material sins aren't to be punished.
6ad3b4 No.582379
>>582373
>he would at that second cease to be pope because he's a heretic
How convenient
>The Church instituted many protestant policies and theology
No, they didn't. Protestantism is not Liberalism. If Rome really reformed, the mass would no longer exist. Instead they had Liberals change the way Catholicism looks in order to attract unwitting Protestants. Rome is a chameleon, she changes color to catch her prey.
>>582378
>Denying every follower of some false religion fundamental human rights on account of their religion alone is obviously evil
Freedom of conscience? Right to life? Both of these were principally violated by the Inquisition.
27927b No.582381
>>582379
First, Inquisition was aimed at formal, not material, heretics.
>freedom of conscience
Freedom of conscience, as a real right, refers to according to what one's honest judgement dictates. Since acting against your conscience, as here defined, is always a sin, forcing someone to act against their conscience is making them commit a sin. This the Church has always held.
>Right to life?
Right to life can be forfeited; again, the Inquisition was aimed at formal heretics.
Also, Church members, even popes themselves, can sin, and grieviously so. This doesn't change the teachings.
e5f312 No.582383
>>582379
>How convenient
Yes it is, because extraordinary magisterium is infallible and can't be changed. Ordinary can. If you can't understand that, I'm sorry.
>No, they didn't.
Yes they did. Freedom of religion and human rights are explicitly protestant concepts, I mean, have you ever read the American constitution? Then go and look who signed it, all protestants.
>Instead they had Liberals change the way Catholicism looks in order to attract unwitting Protestants. Rome is a chameleon, she changes color to catch her prey.
This tin hat protestantism always makes me laugh. Actually, this statement is so inane I have trouble taking it seriously so I won't even respond to it.
698315 No.582386
>>582383
>Freedom of religion and human rights are explicitly protestant concepts
>The Roman Empire was protestant
>Alexander the Great was protestant
>Emperor Justinianus was protestant
6ad3b4 No.582388
>>582381
>Freedom of conscience, as a real right, refers to according to what one's honest judgement dictates. Since acting against your conscience, as here defined, is always a sin, forcing someone to act against their conscience is making them commit a sin. This the Church has always held.
The Protestants of the Reformation were motivated by conscience to be "formal heretics".
>Right to life can be forfeited; again, the Inquisition was aimed at formal heretics.
You said
<Denying every follower of some false religion fundamental human rights on account of their religion alone is obviously evil
If someone is not a Catholic, understands what Catholicism is, and rejects it in favor of their own religion, and then burned at the stake for heresy, then they are being deprived of the right to life on account of their religion alone.
Was Martin Luther's famous speech at Worms an example of formal heresy?
>>582383
>Freedom of religion and human rights are explicitly protestant concepts
If you mean in the sense as they are held modernly, they are Jacobin concepts from the (((Enlightenment))). The Declaration of the Rights of Man is not a Protestant document.
>Actually, this statement is so inane I have trouble taking it seriously so I won't even respond to it
You sound like a fedora tipper
b5276e No.582392
>>582354
>what's the question?
Pope Pius IX:
>>15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
Vatican II:
<Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design
How do you not see the blatant contradiction here?
8e16b0 No.582398
>>582337
>>582339
>do not worship Jesus
>worship God
choose one and only one
7f8e23 No.582414
>>582337
do you really believe this?
Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.
eaad2b No.582515
>>582398
the historical Israelites before the times of Christ also did not worship God?
4acd19 No.582528
>>582358
>Either the old Church was wrong or the current one is.
Since neither the "old" or "new" church denies the validity of the veracity of Our Faith, they are both right. This same Catechism which you are cherry picking from also literally affirms that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.
Recently we have moved into error with some hierarchs preaching religious tolerance for some strange reason. I'm not thrilled with it, and neither are a lot of other Catholics, but it's not like we are conceding that other faiths are slightly true or that ours is less so "relatively speaking".
As said elsewhere ITT, what has changed most of all is a collapse in discipline and urgency, particularly with regard to evangelisation. Pope Benedixt XVI talked about this, lamenting that in the previous centuries missionaries treated their work like a race against time to save souls that would otherwise be irretrievably lost, and so spared no expense or effort to save even a single soul from Outer Darkness. Now that has been sidelined and have given way to this complacency. We must regain this urgency. For us, for the church, it's not like it's going anywhere. God gave us His Word that it should never fail, so with that confidence, we should ge back to the graft.
21c7b9 No.582596
>>582528
> Since neither the "old" or "new" church denies the validity of the veracity of Our Faith, they are both right. This same Catechism which you are cherry picking from also literally affirms that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.
That has absolutely nothing to do with my criticism and is pure doubethink. My point was not about salvation, though that is a thorny area as well. My point was something that is much less ambiguous that cannot be weasled out of, and that is simply that the old RCC was perfectly ok with practicing religious discrimination which deprived certain people of what a modern person would consider human rights, while the new Church condemns this sort of religious discrimination in the Catechism. Both old and new Church cannot be right, either the new has slipped into heresy or the old was imperfect and needed to be reformed by later enlightened Popes.
21c7b9 No.582607
>>582366
Well thank you for honestly answering my question and actually acknowledging the problem. So since a whole bunch of official doctrine is not infallibly defined as true, it can be safely ignored by traditionalist Catholics. The problem is that those doctrines, infallible or not, do change the very nature of the Church, of what its priests and lay people believe. Traditionalists may hold to the older traditions, but the rest of the Church is happily accepting heresies as true. It makes me wonder why Papal authority has failed to prevent these heresies from being accepted. It seems that not only can the Vicar of Christ be a terrible sinner, they can also actively aid in the corruption of the RCC with heresies. But so long as it’s not infallibly defined, everything is ok and hell has not prevailed.
21c7b9 No.582629
Is this thread on autosage now? Gee, I wonder why?
4acd19 No.582640
>>582596
I brought it up because in recognising plurality, there is also a tendency towards ecumenism/relativism. This is not the case.
And yes, like I said, it is an error that we have strayed into. The Pre-VII church, even pre-19thC Church was correct about non-Catholics. One doesn't need to be a Feeneyist, but the point still stands and is inescapable - Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
>>582607
>It makes me wonder why Papal authority has failed to prevent these heresies from being accepted. It seems that not only can the Vicar of Christ be a terrible sinner, they can also actively aid in the corruption of the RCC with heresies.
Man do I have some reading for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum_obscurum
>But so long as it’s not infallibly defined, everything is ok and hell has not prevailed.
It depends what "It" is, since there are currently 255 confirmed dogmas of faith, and a further hundred or so semi-confirmed/accepted. In the former case, if you deny or preach against these, and do not cease, you are a heretic, and a pope can indeed be a heretic.
56a034 No.582713
>>582640
Fair enough, I can at least understand such a view, and I can understand that within the logic of the RCC, a great many things may be said which are nevertheless not true dogma, and could even be heresy. I have problems with this understanding of the Church, same as I have problems with the Protestant view that the true Church went into slumber for over a thousand years. It bothers me in either case that real Christianity could ever disappear into the margins of what is the official Church.
4374d0 No.582795
>>582337
They can't have the Father without the Son, and their version of God is inherently blasphemous. Therefore they don't worship the God we do.
4374d0 No.582803
>>582713
This. It seems cheap or weasely to interpret verses like Matthew 16:18-19 to claim that the Catholic Church is an insurmountable bulwark of salvation, but only in some extremely specific, borderline-legalistic sense wherein your average layman will fall victim to heresy unless he strains out all but the infallibly defined dogmas and intentionally hunts down conservative parishes when no instruction to do so is commonly given.
5ebe92 No.582831
I'm surprised it hasn't been established yet that the Catechism is absolutely not meant to stand on its own as a text, and it's strongly recommended that it is read in context with the Bible and Canon Law (which it constantly references to such an extent that reading every reference will have you reading other texts more than the Catechism itself), the compendium to the Catechism, and qualified instructors within the Church who are meant to create more fleshed out statements from the Catechism. It is encouraged to be read by all Christians and especially Catholics, but it's not a text meant to stand on its own, and the arguments presented within are not meant to stand fully on their own. In fact, one of the intentions of the official Catechism is that qualified others create their own catechisms from it, catered specifically for the level of knowledge of the people they are teaching. Please do not read something from it and think that it is the end of the argument or even a completely argument in itself.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/aposcons.htm
7cd4bb No.583060
>>582596
>perfectly ok with practicing religious discrimination which deprived certain people of what a modern person would consider human rights
Provide examples. Not of Church members and institutions like Inquisition doing this or that thing, but actual Magisterial (since it's the Magisterium that is the teaching authority of the Church) documents.
6ad3b4 No.583066
>>583060
>Provide examples. Not of Church members and institutions like Inquisition
<provide examples, except for all examples, I reject those a priori
7cd4bb No.583073
>>583066
I reject these as examples because they don't constitute Church teachings, which nobody denies. You are making them a source of doctrine, even though it has always been agreed they are not. You are without any justification creating additional conditions for an argument (namely, making me accept that individual actions are Magisterial) and since these additional conditions are taken out of thin air, I won't bother accepting them.
8c22d1 No.583108
>>583073
Of course it's not formal teaching. Many things are not dogmatically defined at all. Yet this somehow allows the Catholic Church to completely divorce itself from its actions and evade any question of its past conduct, de facto beliefs, and whether or not these align with the fruits expected from the true Bride of Christ.
6ad3b4 No.583146
>>583073
>I reject these as examples because they don't constitute Church teachings, which nobody denies
But they do constitute church behavior, because they are either a branch of the church or told to do it by a branch of the church. This is like distinguishing the CIA from the US government.
a7ff24 No.583196
>>582515
The israelites worshipped God the Father, were unaware of his trinitarian nature, and most importantly didn't deny christ and worship something completely contrary to his nature. Think of it this way; if you think of me as a person typing on a computer, you're thinking of me. if you think of me as a woman after I've explicitly revealed that I am a man, you're not thinking of me. Now let's say you picture me not as a woman, but as a desert moon demon, what truth is there in saying that that insane distortion you've concocted is just me by another name?
fff185 No.583309
>Papal Infallibility been unable to prevent heresy from becoming official doctrine?
Your problem lies in not understanding the Office of Peter. The Pope only has the option to invoke infallibility when it concerns matters of truth and morals and cannot use that to contradict a previous Pope and is typically only invoked to settle disputes or misunderstandings. It is invoked very rarely. This does not mean that modernists can't infiltrate the Church, commit crimes as priests, spout heretical garbage or undermine the church.
The Catholic Church has been under attack from within for centuries and now it is showing fruit as modernism and neglect is spreading rapidly. Being ashamed of the past is one of those things.
84592a No.583494
>>582640
>>582640
>>582640
Is there a list of these somewhere
3646f4 No.583745
>>582386
>human rights
are an 18th century deist invention.
7cd4bb No.583760
>>583745
The Church has always recognised them, and indeed, Catholic morality wouldn't work without admitting at least a few; I don't know much about history of human rights as a concept - maybe the deists gave them the name, maybe they recognised the general concept, I don't know. But it has always been accepted that there are rights which everyone has.
473e6f No.583762
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>583760
>But it has always been accepted that there are rights which everyone has.
But in virtue of what? Where do they come from? That's the problem. And what exactly are these rights? To whom do they place duties upon? How can you set a limit to them?
Video related - a good and concise introduction to the phoney doctrine of 'human rights.'
f4bb9f No.583782
>>582386
>The Roman Empire had freedom of religion
Que?
4acd19 No.583808
>>582386
>Roman Empire
>Alexander the Great
This is such a weasel argument and you know it. Look up "Interpretatio Graeca/Romana". The truth was the Romans and Greeks believed that others worshipped the same Gods as they did, not different ones, only using different names.
Also
<the Romans didn't have a formal board which regulated acceptable religions within the empire, and banned the others
<the Romans didn't slaughter druids because they practised human sacrifice
<the Romans didn't wage war against Carthage because, amongst other things, they ritually murdered children
<the Romans didn't forcibly halt and occasions of human sacrifice wherever they found it
<the Romans tolerated Christianity
>Emperor Justinianus
So tolerant he only closed down the Academy, made heresy and apostasy a crime punishable by exile or death, persecuted Sarmatins, Manichaeans, cucked the Jews (and made them use the Septuagint lel), sent missions to convert the pagans, levelled cult centers and idols etc.
dcf248 No.583868
>>582383
>Freedom of religion and human rights are explicitly protestant concepts, I mean, have you ever read the American constitution?
Freedom of religion was actually established in colonial Rhode Island, by Baptists who were tired of the protestant state church in Massachussetts taxing them and harrassing with other laws. That's where that came from. And "human rights" is a corruption of God-given rights. Only by making that clear can we figure out what those rights actually are and who gave them, by reading God's word.
027b03 No.584871
>>582330
>Also perverse is the shocking theory that it makes no difference to which religion one belongs, a theory which is greatly at variance even with reason. By means of this theory, those crafty men remove all distinction between virtue and vice, truth and error, honorable and vile action. They pretend that men can gain eternal salvation by the practice of any religion, as if there could ever be any sharing between justice and iniquity, any collaboration between light and darkness, or any agreement between Christ and Belial.
From qui Populus
As you see the Holy Father is quoting retards who say such heresies.
Did you read what you posted or are you just baiting?
027b03 No.584872
>>582330
>But these enemies realize that they cannot hope for any agreement with the Catholic Church, which allows neither tampering with truths proposed by faith, nor adding any new human fictions to them. This is why they try to draw the Italian people over to Protestantism, which in their deceit they repeatedly declare to be only another form of the same true religion of Christ, thereby just as pleasing to God.
From Nostis Et Nobiscum December 8 1849.
Well you tried well. Best bait I've ever seen.
You actually made me read them.
c125f1 No.584881
>>584871
>As you see the Holy Father is quoting retards who say such heresies.
Yes exactly my point. Pope Francis also is one of those "retards" who say such "heresies" (those are your words) and it is also in the catechism
<The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design
>Did you read what you posted or are you just baiting?
I think you're misunderstanding me.
>>584872
Read what I said again. I'm saying that the Catholic Church used to say freedom of religion is heresy and now they teach that it is good. How can you resolve this contradiction?
c125f1 No.584886
>>584883
>Depends what one means by freedom of religion.
Once again, look at my original post. Error number 15 is "Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true."
So Pope Pius IX is saying that anyone who says that man should be free to embrace the religion he believes is true is a heretic.
However, Vatican II literally says in the document called 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.
027b03 No.584889
>>584881
Ah Ok. Yes I misunderstood you sorry.
The actual pope is retarded or is trying to play a dangerous game with the Jews.
The teachings of the pope are only infallible if spoken ex catreda. Pope Francis would be infallible is the "all religions are good meme" was a doctrine praticed by everyone in the church for centuries. Therefore he is just voicing his erroneous opinion and he can err.
Dont worry. He has already been notified by bishops and theologists that he is wrong. If he refuses to listen then the cardinals can summon an imperfect council and kick him out.
About the catechism, they might have erroneous errors, even in the past they were corrected by later editions. They're just a basic doctrinal guide to most faithful. They sometimes might have some unnoticed heresies and are "patched" sometime later. Because that catechism contradicts itself on the subject of outside of the church salvation.
c125f1 No.584890
>>584889
Look also at my previous post: >>584886
Vatican II taught Freedom of Religion as a doctrine of the Catholic Church. How is this not a contradiction?
>Therefore he is just voicing his erroneous opinion and he can err.
Would that not make him a heretic according to Canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law?
027b03 No.584891
>>584886
Just another thing the Vatican II is a pastoral council which means it's no infallible and you can discard everything it says without damage to the faith (ironically following it is dangerous).
Just another try of the jew to attack the Jews.
Pope benedictus XVI tried to fight against them and he had (or was forced) to resign.
Its a sad reflexion of our times.
The point is the doctrine of the church cannot be changed (fags and other degenerates BTFO) and among the new generations a there's a increasing interest in the tradition of the church.
Next possible popes are traditional as fuck so I have confidence in the future.
027b03 No.584892
>>584890
True. He is an heretic. In the upcoming years shit is about to hit the fan.
I guess the reason why he hasn't been excommunicated right now it's because that could lead to a new schism and we all know where the majority of the sheep would side with.
027b03 No.584893
>>584891
*to attack the church
Fixed
e42e88 No.584900
>>584891
>and you can discard everything it says without damage to the faith (ironically following it is dangerous).
No, you can't, because it's part of the Magisterium, even if not infallible. The "dangers" don't seem such when you actually learn pre-VII theology instead of looking at single documents, or quotes from them, without the necessary context. Above I gave two links regarding the issue; read especially the one abput tolerance, because it dwelves deep into the subject it talks about, deeper than single condemnations of some specific problem.
>>584886
Have you read the links? You seem as if you have already formed, basing yourself on two small quotes, a firm judgement on the issue and aren't interested in any explanation which takes the full theology into account. Words like "free" can mean subtly different things depending on the context; again, read the links to get the full pre-VII theology instead of presenting a small bit and basically pretending that that is all the Church had to say.
027b03 No.584905
>>584900
Thanks brother I'll read those links.
027b03 No.584968
>>584900
Now I understand what the church meant by tolerance. It's not accepting their religion as true, but in order to among other things to maintain civil peace.
Thanks brother.