What is the Problem with Religious Liberty - Episode 09 - SSPX FAQ Videos
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 вер 2024
- sspx.org/ - Liberty of thought, liberty of conscience, liberty of religions, Religious Liberty, these were questions that were refuted by the Popes in the nineteen-century, but Vatican II took another stand on these questions. In this video, we will explain what is the problem with the new definition of Religious Liberty.
Both modernists and Catholics acknowledge that all men possess a natural dignity, constituted primarily by the free exercise of his reason and will. They also both agree that no one should violate this basic human liberty, not even in order to impose what is true or good.
Catholics and modernists disagree, however, on the proper use of this liberty. Modernism claims that the human conscience is the supreme arbiter of good and evil for each individual; thus everyone can act as he pleases except in cases where this action would endanger the rights of someone else. Catholicism insists that this liberty is a great gift from God and can be exercised well or poorly. To choose what is objectively good and in accordance with God’s will is a proper and fitting exercise of this liberty; it makes a man truly free. On the other hand, to choose what is objectively evil and contrary to God’s will is an abuse. No one has the right to abuse this liberty, even if it does not seem to directly harm someone else because such an abuse always opposes and offends God, the supreme good.
This is why modernism teaches that men, according to their subjective beliefs and in accordance with their natural liberty, can choose whichever religion best pleases them, whereas Catholicism affirms that man has a duty to choose the religion revealed by God. One, by neglecting this duty and choosing a religion that is untrue, commits an abuse of liberty.
These divergent understandings of freedom have created two different ideas of religious liberty. Man, according to Catholicism, is only free to choose what is good and believe what is objectively true. Many men, nevertheless, do make poor choices and embrace false religions. Society can never praise, encourage, or support such faulty judgment. It can, however, tolerate these individual abuses of liberty in order to maintain temporal peace while encouraging the adherents of false religions to see the errors of their ways and convert to the one, true faith.
Modernism, on the other hand, defends and praises every man’s right to choose whichever religion should please him best, regardless of whether this choice is right or wrong or whether his religion is true or false. So long as this exercise of liberty does not directly and physically harm anyone else, it must be permitted and respected for the sake of temporal peace and prosperity.
Unlimited freedom, then, is the focus of the modernist, whereas respect for God and the moral good of all men is the virtue of the Catholic. Modernism above all else values each man’s individual autonomy. Catholicism first and foremost loves, honors, and obeys God and seeks to preserve men from sinful error, even if this means condemning and opposing false religions.
This false notion of unlimited freedom is today praised and promoted by the Church leaders since Vatican II against the clear and infallible declaration of the previous Popes. The Syllabus of Pius IX, for example, states clearly that: “Every man is not free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.”
For further understanding and insight on this question, we recommend reading Archbishop Lefebvre’s book, or listening to the Audiobook, “Open Letter to Confused Catholics”. We also recommend reading “Religious Liberty Questioned”, both of which can be found at Angeluspress.org
Another great source we recommend is to read the Papal encyclicals on modern errors as well as, “Against the Heresies” by Archbishop Lefebvre available at Angeluspress.org
To learn more, go to sspx.org and subscribe to our email list.
-- Links to Resources in Video --
angeluspress.or...
angeluspress.or...
angeluspress.or...
angeluspress.or...
angeluspress.or...
The best part of living Catholic are the "rules", they give clarity, order and peace...I wouldn't know how to live by any other means.
I've just realised that the traditional teachings of the Cruch is the thing I need
I have not seen the "traditional" Roman view expressed more clearly than here. My father was raised in the Roman Church and, to his dying day, subscribed to SOME of its teachings. He came to believe however, that if he wouldn't want the beliefs, practices and prohibitions of another religion (Islam, for example) to be imposed on himself or his children, a literal interpretation of the Golden Rule required that he not use civil laws or coercion in any from to impose his religious beliefs, religious practices and religious prohibitions on others.
Catholic Church has never practised violent conversations of non baptised men. State, however, has the right to ban public expressions of false religions.
It's not about "my" faith and "your" faith... There is one true faith and others lead to hell. Thus, banning public expression of false religions is in keeping with golden rule, since we do not want either ourselves or others to go to hell. If you believe that holding that this true faith is Catholicism is purely opinion, then you are not Catholic, since the Church teaches that Catholicism is objective reality.
We have freedom to choose our religion. Ironically there's only one religion. The Catholic Faith.
I just love this video🥰
Yeah I rethink that when most other religions did not have morals of mercy, satanism is tolerated and shown to have authentic dark force, and other religions with human sacrifice in general is tolerated.
Do you have any other (other than in the video description) recomendations for books on the subject religious liberty and theology? Thanks!
Freedom of religion is a civil thing. God has told us how he wishes to be worshipped the idea of religious liberty means government does not force a religion on any one.
We need a religious liberty.
This dude thinks man's free will is awesome as long as we use our free will to think or do anything different from what his tiny, tiny, tiny portion of the catholic church says.
I have a question...if we have free choice. but we only have one option, then there's no free choice because there's no choices from where to choose.
Read your question carefully word per word, you said, ".if we have free choice. but we only have one option, then there's no free choice because there's no choices from where to choose."
The problem with your question is you technically want to have more than 1 Truth. Of course there's only 1 Option that leads to The Truth, every other option is false or fake or troublesome that leads to death.
In all reality the only options are 2:
- Obedience to God (Blessing & Life)
- Disobedience to God (Curses & Death)
Eve chose disobedience to God (and obedience to self will) and Adam listened to Eve and did the same.
We are all "free" in the sense that all angels are free as well. You see Lucifer chose to rebel against God, and so he fell and became Satan. We have the choice whether or not to obey or disobey God's Commands and there are consequences for both.
No, you have the choice to be right or wrong.
Liam F: Is right and wrong the same to you? If so, then what is the use of calling it right and wrong but just right. If so, another can still your car and the court or police must not arrest them and punish them, since it is right to do that. Is this what you mean? This is bogus!!
You are mistaking destined for known. Have you ever played chess & known what the other person would do? Because you knew their choice, doesn't mean they didn't have a choice. A parent has a duty to provide for their children. Thus they have the righy to work. A child has a duty to obey their parents. They have free will to make the wrong choice & disobey, but they didn't have the right to do so. Rights are for the sake of fulfilling duties. We have a duty to worship the one true God. While freewill makes it possible for one to choose not to, or choose to worship anfalse god - they do not have the righy to do so.
If someone is raised, let's say, in a devoutly Jewish home, how much freedom does he have to choose what he believes? It would take supernatural grace to lead him to the Catholic faith, wouldn't it? Perhaps there's another video that answers this question.
Redefining liberty. Interesting.
This isnt just about religion. It's also about politics, science, health and hygiene, and basic human day to day activities.
In the very beginning of D.H. (vatican 2 doc on religious liberty) it states that the Catholic Church is the way God has revealed men are to serve Him and to be saved. The documents position is largely, if not exclusively, a statement about civic realities, rooted it is true in man's dignity. Can the state coerce religious belief? The document responds in the negative. Whether one believes this is a different question. But if the sspx in North America doesn't, they should take the American flag out of the opening video sequence of this series.
Others religions can be tolerated in prudential decisions by secular rulers to maintain peace. But false religions (i.e. everything not Catholic) have no actual rights. A right is something that one can do without being punished for. That’s not true with the practice of other religions. State authorities can oppress and persecute other religions if they are trying to proselytize citizens or publicly preach too aggressively and audaciously. They need to remain quiet and humble if they are to be tolerated. The state shouldn’t allow citizens to have their souls put in peril over an evil concept such as religious freedom. Further the SSPX can fly the American flag wherever they want. They don’t have to accept all the errors of the country to still love it and work for its betterment.
But wouldn’t it go against Gods gift of free will to force our faith on people who reject it?
It isn't that we would force all individuals to support Catholicism, itis that error cannot be affirmed publicly as being in any way true. Individuals can hold erroneous beliefs but Christ is King over all the Universe
Were the Church's position, as articulated by V2, taken to its logical conclusion, the whole notion of law would of necessity be reduced to a form of mere positivism.
If ye love me, keep my commandments.
John 14:15 KJV
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exodus 20:8-9 KJV
Saturday is the day of the Lord
The claim that Christ by his death abolished his Father’s law, is without foundation. Had it been possible for the law to be changed or set aside, then Christ need not have died to save man from the penalty of sin. The death of Christ, so far from abolishing the law, proves that it is immutable. The Son of God came to “magnify the law, and make it honorable.” [Isaiah 42:21.] He said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law;” “till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law.” [Matthew 5:17, 18.] And concerning himself he declares, “I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart.” [Psalm 40:8.] GC88 466.3
Ecclesiastes 12:13 KJV
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
A question, in a society where the Catholic faith is the state recognized religion, how should non Catholics be treated? What rules would they be obliged to follow?
E.g Sunday Mass, Fasting during lent.. etc?
It makes sense that things like abortion and same sex marriage would be illegal but what about the above?
@David Phillips
That's wrong
@David Phillips
Everything you said about non-Catholics having to pay higher taxes, be closed on holy days of obligation, being banned from building their own houses of worship etc, is an affront to the first amendment. This is exactly what countries in the Middle East do to Christian minorities.
If it were the other way around, it would be anti-Catholicism.
What makes America exceptional in the eyes of the world is that it promotes religious freedom. This is why the first settlers came here: to be able to practice their faith freely.
America can never and will never endorse a state religion. And any attempt for America to do so must be resisted. It's against the very fabric of our nation.
And yes, I am Catholic.
Watching this video makes me understand why some Protestants voted for Richard Nixon in 1960.
Your conscience can give you permission to do something that is not right before God and it can also limit you to do what is right and prevent you from doing it. Adam became the god of his own life by eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. His spiritual communion with God was lost and his conscience now became his guide. The conscience therefore is the human spirit within that has been illuminated by the knowledge of good and evil. As Christians our guide should be the word of God and not just our conscience, because as Paul says in Romans 2 your conscience will either condemn or acquit you. The Scriptures tell us that the gifts and sacrifices being offered under the Old Covenant were not able to clear the conscience of the worshipper. But that the blood of Christ, cleanses our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
The SSPX has exercised its own religious liberty when it rejected Vatican II and consecrated four (minus one) bishops, and they stand before us preaching that religious liberty is "problematic"? The most laudable thing about this group is the fact that they chose their own path - now that is truly modernistic.
Lewandowski and visible Name china man:The question is on scientific Parameters. Empirical Science will not give us any subjective conscience science. This would be preaching self rather than the objective reality that exist for what it is. Religious Liberty in the Catholic Church is the same. The true objectively proven Religion is the object of one's scientific judgment. Subjective Conscience or made up because I feel like it is true, is not science, but man-religion. This is the beginning of false Religion. The Church condemns from this point of view, this view of the Catholic Church is defended by Rev. Fr. SSPX, as the Church since the Apostles who condemns it and Our Lord as well, has always defended it.
Following 1000 yrs of traditional dogma? Who is choosing their own path?
Actually the SSPX is following traditional Catholic teaching on the question of Religious Liberty. Have you read what the 19th century popes like Pius IX and Leo XIII taught? It was Vatican II’s teachings on this which was a rupture. If I call correctly from Mgr Lefebvre’s books, he called the Council the French Revolution in the Church as it taught false notions of religious liberty that were more in line with Freemasonry and secular humanist philosophy than Catholicism.
Secondly, as Vatican II was a pastoral council that did not dogmatically declare or define dogma (unless it cited dogma defined at previous councils such as Vatican I, which was dogmatic), its teachings on Religious Liberty are not infallible nor are they binding on the faithful.
Lmao!! Call the SSPX whatever you want but “modernistic” certainly doesn’t fit in this case. Modernist are those so called priests of the church who want to fashion the church in the mold of a more “democratic” institution , supporting globalism, the plurality of religions, one world govt objectives, etc. Now that is true modernism by definition as practiced under the leadership of this current Pontificate, they are now attempting to reform the pater noster prayer of their novus ordo liturgy. This current church is now walking a very thin line between true Catholicism and blasphemous modernism.
This video is fantastic!
Are they advocating for a theocracy?
Not necessarily. As in the Medieval Times, there was a distinction between the secular state and the Church despite their being intricately woven together. While their purpose and morals were meant to be identical in law and practice, they were still distinct entities. While the legitimacy of medieval monarchs rested on the authority of the Church, such secular states are not considered theocracies in the traditional sense of the term.
What they are in favour of is a building of the Kingdom of God on earth by means of a state founded on Christian principles in law and practice, which tolerates people in error but not their errors. In other words, the entitlement to hold erroneous ideas and act on this should not be enshrined in law, while at the same time the capacity for people to act according to their free will should not be taken from them. For instance, such a state would never attempt to enforce conversion at sword-point, but at the same time they would also not protect those errant beliefs/practices in law for this would legalize an abuse of free will. As such, for the sake of protecting Truth, those deemed to endanger the state or the eternal well-being its citizens should lawfully be removed if they persist in their error. If every means of reasoning with them has been exhausted, such a state would have the capacity to evict or execute them for the sake of their society as a whole.
An example of this from as late as the 18th century is the coronation oath of the French monarchs which bound the king with protecting his subjects from heresy or any error that would cause them the loss of eternal life. It was not his to determine what these were (that was the realm of the Church); his job was to enforce and promote Truth within his realm so far as he was able. No one at the time would have considered this a theocracy (direct ruling by religious authorities) nor should one today, despite the intricate ties to religion.
All the best!
What you just described is a theocracy. If the legitimacy of the kings rested on the authority/approval of the Church, that's a theocracy, even if only indirectly. And you say that such a state would never attempt to enforce conversion at sword-point, yet that's exactly what happened throughout history. Anyone who disagreed or opposed the Catholic Church within Europe was faced with torture or death if they did not recant and/or convert to Catholicism.
More like a veto.
No, a democracy!
No
If If there is a Truth, there's no such thing as 1 or 2 truths Then as you said; if there's no more options, there is no exercise of free will and even if this Truth is the only real one, we have nothing to do with free will.
I don't consider Curse, Death and Hell as an option to choose from. Those were created by God as a punishment for trying to seek out of the only option or path offered to Adam and Eve. But who wants to be punished? If we are not allowed to choose without punishment, nothing else to be seek or reach, what the need of a free will, if it is conditioned to be used with the sole intention to make decisions leading us always to the same direction?
The tree of life and wisdom was planted by God in Eden and even them having the only option not to eat from it. They used their free will and they got punished, but why the tree was planted there anyway? Do you have the option to reach out your own path and to say this is what I want without having a punishment for your choice? No.
So after Adam and Eve chose to eat from the fruit of knowledge searching to be like God, their eyes were open. Then as a punishment for their disobedience, they suffered pain, death and hard work. God created hell for Lucifer and all those who dare to choose or search a path out of what is the only option we have...obedience to His will. I'm not saying choosing God is bad, if we think we exist because of God, but the concept of a free will, I don't think so.
***** If is through the results on choosing and not through what I chose what determine right or wrong, based on my concept of right and wrong...then is supposed to be no place for punishment, just the results of choosing.
And if the options are conditioned, expecting to choose based on others experiences and results...is not free will, those are conditioned options based on previous experimentation and results...as I said, after all, no one like pain. Even taking the bleach and surviving, I'll be punished anyway just because I decided to experience and get my own results. Consequences, not the same as punishment. Punishment have not to be created against options imposed to choose from in order to condition or manipulate free will... or our illusion of having a free will. Is all bad? No is not. But when imposed limitations and fears goes and control beyond our capacity for experimentation, self awareness and build a core o values based in someone else interests until total submission and control,...that can be a problem in my point of view.
Exactly, because only will become good or bad once I choose to experience the results by free will. But consequences can't be mistaken with punishment... But no problem and thank you for sharing your point of view. Is not about being smart, you just have a different approach to the subject but equally valuable. I'll check the references. Thank you very much and God Bless you too.
As a former Protestant that converted to Catholicism and has fallen in love with the TLM and the traditional form of Catholicism, it really saddens me to see the SSPX get a few major issues wrong. There is so much right with what they put forth, but in videos like this, they unknowingly create a false dichotomy by their fundamental misunderstanding of what Catholicism and modernism teach.
+Michael Taylor since when has the church taught religious liberty? in fact it was condemned in prior councils of an infallible nature. Religious liberty is heresy according to the magisterium of the church prior to vatican 2. If they were wrong then, then you are saying the church is fallible. If you believe that, you are not a catholic. if you don't believe that the church is infallible in its extraordinary magisterium, you were not catechized or you are a heretic.
Michael Taylor you are right. on this point they simply got it wrong.
Nuova Apologetics: I must say you seem to follow the trend of MTaylor, you just disagree without substantiation. People these days have being mislead so much by other People, that they are now after scientific substantiation. qeddeq1 is very Catholic, not because SSPX said so, but the 250+ Papal Magisteriums of the Catholic Church that had condemned every heresy realized to be all born from subjective conscience, have said so. Rev. Fr. SSPX was presenting Modernist = Subjective Conscience and Catholics as Objective Conscience.
In what did they get wrong?
As a former Protestant, I will say they did not get it wrong here. The only way that I can see to interpret this presentation as a dichotomy is through the errant lens of individualism introduced and promoted by Protestantism and freemasonry (mostly in the west). With only one God, there can only be one faith, and hence, one Church. Free will does not mean we have a divine right to choose any religion - it simply means God has given us the freedom to reject Him in order for our love for Him to be free of coercion. The modernist belief - the civil/human right to choose one's religion - was at least partly founded in the individualism of Protestantism, and that has influenced and been infused into western culture, education and politics in the west systematically since the Reformation. But this belief is based on the false assumption of the authority of the individual (modernism), just as the video pointed out. In part, that false presumed "right" has led to the current chaos of "individual truth" now destabilizing modern society. To be and think Catholic, we have to stop thinking like Protestants/modernist westerners.
WOW
This video suffers from a fallacy of equivocation; see 2min, 30sec.
The equivocation is on the definition of "right" and, relatedly, "freedom." Each can be used in 2 senses, distinguished by asking the question, "Who has authority to enforce, and how?"
Imagine Mr. Jones, born into an agnostic household, and religiously illiterate, living in a Republic where 80% of voters are Protestants of a thousand different stripes. Mr. Jones has a Catholic friend, and after many talks about the faith, Mr. Jones is considering becoming a Catholic.
Is it morally wrong for Mr. Jones not to worship God? Yes, it is. Does he have a natural right before God to deny worship to God? No, he doesn't; there's no such thing as a natural right to do an intrinsically wrong thing. If Mr. Jones rejects the faith and dies while "exercising" a non-existent "right" to ignore God, will he go to hell? Yes. Will God's prohibition on atheism have been thereby enforced? Yes, it will, by God Himself.
So when we use "right" to refer to a man ignoring his obligation to God, it's clear he has no such "right" before God. He cannot "take God to court" when God enforces the obligation. The man has no "religious freedom" in the system of divine justice.
BUT...!
What if we consider human courts, created by representatives elected by a bunch of (mostly) Protestants? Let's assume for simplicity's sake that the mostly-Protestant electorate understands Natural Law sufficiently well that they only elect representatives who write laws guided by Natural Law. (Wherever this is, it isn't the modern U.S.) And the courts are established to adjudicate cases related to violations of those laws.
In such a society, does Mr. Jones have a "right" to either become a Catholic, or not? Why, yes, yes he does: But not before God. His "right" is only in the human criminal courts of his country. It isn't a right to not go to hell. It's a right to not go to jail.
If the Republic government creates a law requiring Mr. Jones to affirm the tenets of Protestantism by oath or face jail, should Mr. Jones be able to sue the government for violating his religious freedom? Why, yes, yes he should. He can't sue God if he finds himself in hell one day; but he can certainly sue the government of the Republic.
The reason is simple: God has just authority to enforce prohibitions of false religion, and even the obligation of obedience to true, divinely-revealed religion. But notice: "divinely-revealed" is critical here. Any authority that operates by Natural Reason alone lacks the capacity to adjudicate cases of disloyalty to divine revelation. The Church's magisterium is the authority in cases related to what is divinely revealed. But a human court created by the elected representatives of a Republic, who receive their authority from a bunch of Protestants by delegation, do NOT have magisterial authority to rule on questions of divine revelation! To say that they did, is to say that if enough Protestants get together as a group, they become a Magisterium, which is nonsense!
And if that bunch of Protestants lacks that authority, so do their employees. But, their representatives in a Republic are, precisely, a (special) kind of employee. And they can't delegate to their employees an authority they didn't have to start with!
So, no legislative body in a Republic has authority either to prohibit the Catholic faith or to make it obligatory. Consequently, no such Republic's human law-enforcement-officers may justly wield force to restrict the "religious freedom" of its citizens (except where some obscene cult's rites violate the Natural Law in other ways). They have a "right" to either be Protestants or Catholics, not because God will not hold them to account, but because their human government lacks just authority to jail or kill them for choosing one or the other.
That is the sense in which they have "rights" or "freedom of religion."
It is always possible, of course, that God may one day choose to send a prophet to divinely sanction a human government and delegate divine authority to that government. THAT kind of government could, of course, potentially have authority to use force to compel religion, because God had granted that authority (and all authority comes from God).
But until Samuel shows up to anoint a king for such a purpose, the only government on earth with such authority is Christ's government; i.e., the Catholic Church. And until the pope raises the largest and most-powerful army on earth, and rebuilds the Vatican scaffolds, and the bishops start building jail cells in their cathedrals, and every Catholic parish is designated an embassy of the Holy See for the purpose of territorial governance...until THEN, we aren't going to see the Catholic Church exercising the power of the sword to compel religion.
Read the great controversy by ellen white for the history of the reformation and the real object of catholicism
Wait, so I am free to choose the true religion of God, but I am not free to embrace it? How do you explain the conversions of those who are offered several different religions. They will start reasoning to find the truth. If, by chance, they come to believe a false religion, how is that an abuse when they made the best use of their freedom? Every religion claims truth, but only one actually us. How do expect to make converts when you tell them that they are not free to pursue truth, but simply embrace what you give them instead of offering every reasonable solution? That's not religious freedom, that's religious tyranny.
Freedom is only free if he uses his freedom to do what SSPX tells you to do??? Wait a second....something sounds kind of funny with that statement!!!!
The SSPX is safe guarding the true deposit of the Catholic Faith. IF they were some bogus, renegade group, then they would surely have come up with their own set of rules, based off of some heretical position. However, if you look at what’s going on in the Vatican and compare it with what’s going on in the SSPX, you tell me where e heretical statements are coming from. You tell me who is preaching the gospel in all its beauty and purity. You tell me who is obeying God’s law and living in accordance with His Ten Commandments. You tell me who is laying down his life for the sake of his fellow brethren’s souls.
@@MK-ok6xr Ha ha ha ha! Keep enjoying those magical Harry Potter ceremonies with dudes waving their hands around casting spells and mumbling in Latin dressed up in pretty party dresses....for you I guess it's a good way to kill an hour and convince yourself the non-existent God is giving you a gold star on your report card
RC still insists its the only interpreter of God's will ... if true, 2000 yrs should be enough to convince everybody ... only 16% of the world is RC ... ??
I like to respect and try and comprehend everyones point of view. But what I say is most important is not wether you are Catholic, Buddhist, Seventh Day Adventist, or Islam. because we can never agree in one true religion. BUT What I consider being the most important thing is to be faithful to whichever religion You believe in. and stand by it no matter what, also be open with others and understand them.
Beware of Schism, friends. Remember - Luther thought he was out-orthodox-ing the Holy Father. He has his reward.
God placed the conscience in man. it has been a great tool to reform the Catholic church's errors.
Superstitious thinking on the other hand ought to be subject to the Word of God.
Benjamin Wheeldon Heretic
Oh yes neomedievalism
This is video led me to leave traditional Catholicism and embrace Vatican ll.
Funny, it was this one that led me to do the opposite
Why?
Your children will marry non Catholics and you'll wonder what went wrong. Or maybe not. You might just say "as long as they're living a happy life, who am I to say anything!" The V2 spirit is a pernicious devil growing you closer to the world
SSPX: Love honor and obey God by doing only what we say!