Lionel : With Vatican Council II interpreted with the Rational Premise the Council is no more just pastoral, as Pope Paul VI described it, but also dogmatic. It is ecclesiocentric and supports the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So a dogmatic Council takes the Catholic Church back to the old ecclesiology with Traditional Mission and the Old Ecumenism. Since there are no objective exceptions to EENS mentioned in the text of Vatican Council II.
LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc are not practical exceptions to Catholic Tradition and so the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics can be proclaimed.
In a Catholic State based upon an ecclesiocentric Vatican Council II and Tradition, the Catholic State will decide on the extent of religious liberty to be given. During the time of the Papal States when the ecclesiology of the Church was traditional it was important that all people enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell and so it was important that the Government also be Catholic and they decided on the extent of Religious Freedom. .-L.A
'The Council and The Eclipse of God' by Don Pietro Leone - PART XVI - 'The Right to Propagate Error'
In this installment, Don Pietro focuses further on the origins of the concept of ‘Religious Liberty’ which has wormed its way into the Church and minds and hearts of countless Catholics, contradicting centuries of Church teaching. We shall see in more detail how this notion of religious liberty reflects the concepts of the American Constitution and the French Revolution’s ‘Declaration on the Rights of Man’, emanating from the Freemasonic ideals and philosophy of the likes of Jean-Jacque Rousseau, an opposer of the order of natural morality, and one who believed in the concept of ‘The Sovereign People’ and their right to ‘self-determination.’ Don Pietro emphasizes that the Council’s obsession about religious liberty contradicts centuries of papal documents in which they denounce it as: ‘insanity’; ‘a monstrous error’; ‘most pernicious to the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls’; ‘the liberty of perdition’ ; ‘the pest of indifference’ ; ‘a public crime’ ; and ‘atheism, however it may differ in name’ (See the sources for these quotes in the footnotes of this installment).
F.R.
THE COUNCIL AND THE ECLIPSE OF GOD by Don Pietro Leone
PART XVI
Part 2 of Chapter 4 on Religious Liberty
4. The Right to Propagate Error
i) ‘… within due limits, no men are forced to act against their convictions nor are any persons to be restrained from acting in accordance with their convictions in religious matters in private or public, alone or in association with others’ (DH 2);
Lionel: In a Catholic State the freedom could be determined. In a secular state, defacto the Church cannot force its convictions.
_____________________
ii) ‘… to deny the free exercise of religion in society, when the just requirements of public order are observed, is to do an injustice to the human person and to the very order established by God for human beings’ (DH 3);
iii) ‘… if it [the civil authority] presumes to control or restrict religious activity it must be judged to have exceeded the limits of its power’ (DH 3);
iv) ‘… provided the just requirements of public order are not violated, these groups [religious communities]… must be allowed to honor the supreme Godhead (supremum numen) in public worship, help their members to practice their religion and strengthen them with religious instruction, and promote institutions in which members may work together to organize their own lives according to their religious principles… [they have] the right… not to be prevented from freely demonstrating the special value of their teaching for the organization of society and the inspiration of human activity in general’ (DH 4).
Lionel: In a secular state this is possible.
_____________________
These texts declare that religious groups are not to be prevented from practicing their religion in public, as long as public order is not violated. This teaching corresponds to that condemned in the encyclical Quanta Cura as follows: ‘The best condition of human society is that wherein no duty is recognized by the Government of correcting, by enacting penalties, the violators of the Catholic religion, except when the maintenance of the public peace requires it.’ The encyclical describes the proposition as ‘contrary to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers’ and adds: ‘From this totally false notion of social government they fear not to uphold… the insanity [1], namely: “that the liberty of conscience and of worship is the peculiar (or inalienable) right of every man, which should be proclaimed by law, and that citizens have the right to all kinds of liberty...[including the freedom of speech].” ’
Lionel: In a Catholic State the ethos of the Government would be Catholic.
____________________
Quanta Cura rightly makes a connection between ‘not being prevented’ from violating the Catholic religion and the liberty of worship. In the language of Dignitatis Humanae, we might express the thought as follows: not to be prevented from practicing the religion of one’s choice is equivalent to the freedom to do so (is equivalent, in other words, to religious liberty). The reason for this is that the meaning of the term ‘freedom’ is nothing other than the concept of ‘not being prevented’, or of not being impeded, from doing that thing. Furthermore, the right to religious liberty in effect amounts to the right to error, in that the Catholic Religion is the one true religion, so that giving some-one the right to choose another religion is in effect giving him the right to error.
Lionel: The right to error can be avoided in a Catholic State.
__________________
Religious liberty, the belief that the State must accord equal freedom to truth and error, has been condemned frequently and forcefully by the Popes [2], for the Church teaches that the State should indeed repress falsehood and evil: In the words of Pope Leo XIII: ‘Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable… but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life, should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State’ [3]. It is true that the State may tolerate falsehood and evil for motives of the common good, but only to the minimal degree necessary: ‘To judge aright’, declares the Pope in the same encyclical, ‘we must acknowledge that the more a State is driven to tolerate evil, the further it is from perfection; and that the tolerance of evil which is dictated by political prudence should be strictly confined to the limits which its justifying cause, the public welfare, demands.’
Corollary: Historical Origins of the Right to Religious Liberty
Conceding Religious Liberty to all men, then, and consequently the right to error, the Council brings its social teaching into conformity with that of the American Constitution: ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or of abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance.’ [4] As Father Courtney Murray himself commented: ‘The object or content of the right to religious freedom, as specified both in the Declaration and in the American constitutional system, is identical’ [5].
Lionel: Yes for a secular state.
Why must Catholics interpret Vatican Council II with the False Premise of Fr. John Courtney Murray, Fr. Pietro Leone and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ? We have a rational choice and the conclusion would be traditional.
______________
Now although in the early drafts of Dignitatis Humanae , the common good was still the criterion for tolerating falsehood and evil in the State, the term was deliberately removed in deference to Protestant objections, and replaced by ‘public order’, the term that can be seen in texts (ii) & (iv) above [6]. In this way the declaration Dignitatis Humanae was also brought into conformity [7] with article 10 of the ‘Declaration of the Rights of Man’ of the French Revolution [8] which states: ‘No-one may be troubled regarding his opinions, even religious ones, providing that their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law’ [9].
Father Denis Fahey (1883 – 1954) - scholar and theologian
Father Denis Fahey points out that the Constituent Assembly of the French Revolution responsible for the Declaration, of which more than 300 members were Masons, and given ‘the naturalism of Freemasonry, the Declaration... is simply a formal renunciation of allegiance to Christ the King, of supernatural life, and membership of His Mystical Body’ [10]...
Lionel : Yes. Also the interpretation of Vatican Council II with the False Premise by Don Pietro Leone is Masonic. It is the interpretation supported by George Soros and others. Why must we choose it ?
________________________
Pope Pius X, author of the Ant-Modernist Oath of 1907 - abolished by Paul VI in 1967
We observe finally that the Church’s bounden duty to denounce and, if possible, to suppress falsehood and evil which was renounced by the Council for the World, was to be renounced by Pope Paul VI for the Church Herself in the two years following the Council: with the abolition of the Index in June 1966 and with the abolition of the Anti-Modernist Oath in July 1967; while his deposition of the tiara in 1964 while the Council was still in full course, although apparently motivated by the desire to succour the poor and needy, may be understood on a deeper level as a symbol of his renunciation of the Papal exercise of the munus regendi altogether...
Lionel : Vatican Council II interpreted with the False Premise is modernist.-Lionel Andrades
Lionel Andrades
Writer on Vatican Council II being dogmatic and not only pastoral.It is in harmony with the extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, the Athanasius Creed etc.
It is found that there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other irrational. Since one uses a Rational Premise and the other a False Premise.One is Magisterial with the past Magisterium and the other, the common one, has an objective error and so cannot be Magisterial.It is the same with the Creeds and Catechisms.There can be two interpretations.
Why should Catholics choose the irrational version which is heretical, non traditional, liberal and schismatic, while a rational option is there, which is traditional ?.
__________________
Posts
