Stuff the SSPX are wrong about

[quote=USMC]Interesting. One of the characteristics of schismatics is that they don’t understand the philosophical definition of liberty as used in th Vatican II documents.

I would be interested in hearing that definition. Could you define it for me please?
[/quote]

Liberty is the condition of being free from compulsion or restraint that makes true freedom possible. We are not “free” to do evil, but restraint and comulsion to avoid evil also eliminate the possibility of freedom as well as the reality of liberty. This was Jesuit Father John Courtney Murray’s contribution to Vatican II’s Decree on Religious Liberty. The Lefevbrist schismatics who object to this Vatican II decree ignore the fact that man is not truly free to worship God when he does not have religious liberty. Take away the religious liberty, you dilute the freedom to worship God as a true creature made in His image.

I don’t know how “interesting” this is, but it’s certainly basic.

[quote=RobNY]Well, remember, he’s just as afraid of you as you are of him.

Personally, the first step is to see if he can laugh at himself.

The Society of St. Pius I: To Be Any More Trad, You’d Have to Be Jewish.

Hilarious. :wink:

Rofl… sorry, this one too:
[/quote]

I am glad to see people spreading the good news about SSPI.:wink:

[quote=pnewton]Thanks for the links.

CNS said of the photo:

Vatican officials said that Brother Roger’s reception of Communion was not foreseen and was the result of him being seated in a group receiving Communion from Cardinal Ratzinger.]/quote]

In other words, oops.

A mistake does not set policy, but it can sure be embarrassing.

It wasn’t a mistake though. I know what the article says. Brother Roger was “in” with many in the Church Hierarchy. His Holiness most certainly knows and knew who he was…
Here’s a link…

and a quote from the article…

“In this moment of sadness, we can only entrust to the Lord’s goodness the soul of his faithful servant. We know that from sadness … will be reborn joy,” the pope said.

“Brother Roger is in the hands of eternal goodness and eternal love and has arrived at eternal joy,” he said.

This quote has even more problems, but that’s for a different debate…
[/quote]

If you are saying the Vatican lied about it, then I would find that far less feasible than anyone here having superior knowledge as to the what went on in the mind of His Holiness.

[quote=pnewton]Vatican officials said that Brother Roger’s reception of Communion was not foreseen and was the result of him being seated in a group receiving Communion from Cardinal Ratzinger.]/quote]
[/quote]

[/font]

In other words, oops.

A mistake does not set policy, but it can sure be embarrassing.

That sounds reasonable, except for one thing: Cardinal Ratzinger was a very good friend of brother Roger.

In fact, the day after brother Roger died (August 17th 2005), our new Pope had a few words to say about his death. This is what he said:

Pope Benedict: *"We have spoken at the same time of sadness and joy. In fact, this morning I received very sad, tragic news.

"During vespers yesterday afternoon, our beloved Frère Roger Schutz, founder of the Taizé Community, was stabbed and killed, probably by a mentally disturbed woman.

This news has affected me even more because precisely yesterday I received a very moving, affectionate letter from Frère Roger. In it he wrote that from the depth of his heart he wanted to tell me that “we are in communion with you and with those who have gathered in Cologne.”

So brother Roger was a good friend of Cardinal Ratziner (now Pope Benedict XVI), so it is extremely unlikely that giving communion to him was a “mistake”. And it is not as though brother Roger would have blended in with the crowd: He was 90 years old and in a wheel chair.

Something else for you to look into. Remember I spoke of the “big tent” ecumenism in a previous post?

Well, try reading a little about the “big tent” Taizé Community that brother Roger founded.*

and a quote from the article…

This quote has even more problems, but that’s for a different debate…
How many debates are you up for? When did it become a sign of faithfulness to pick apart everything the Pope says or does? You don’t have to like, I don’t have to like it myself, but the white smoke didn’t blow for us.
[/quote]

[quote=Fortiterinre]Liberty is the condition of being free from compulsion or restraint that makes true freedom possible. We are not “free” to do evil, but restraint and compulsion to avoid evil also eliminate the possibility of freedom as well as the reality of liberty.
[/quote]

OK, so we are only truly free when there is no restraint on our liberty? In other words, to truly exercise our “liberty”, we must be “free from compulsion or restraint”. We are not free to do evil, but any “compulsion to avoid evil eliminates the possibility of freedom and the reality of true liberty”.

So, based on that view of “liberty”, I guess we should make abortion a matter of choice, right? After all, if women are not given the “freedom to chose” then their liberty is being restrained, correct?

And, since this “liberty” is allowed with regard to religion which corresponds to the “first and greatest commandment”, then who could possibly object to this same “liberty” being extended to those who merely violate the 5th commandment through abortion?

Do you see where that false and erroneous idea of “liberty” leads? Now maybe we can see why Jesuit Father John Courtney Murray, who you refer to, was suspect of heresy under the Pontificate of Pope Pius XII.

Let’s compare this “Vatican II liberty” with what the Church has always taught.

Pope Leo XIII: “St. Augustine and others urge most admirably against the Pelagians that, if the possibility of deflection from good belonged to the essence or perfection of liberty, then God, Jesus Christ, and the Angles and Saints, who have not this power, would have no liberty at all, or would have less liberty than man has in his state of pilgrimage and imperfection. This subject is often discussed by the Angelic Doctor (St. Thomas) in his demonstration tht the possibility of sinning is not freedom, but slavery…” (Libertas – On the Nature of True Liberty).

[quote= Fortiterinre]This was Jesuit Father John Courtney Murray’s contribution to Vatican II’s Decree on Religious Liberty. The Lefevbrist schismatics who object to this Vatican II decree ignore the fact that man is not truly free to worship God when he does not have religious liberty. Take away the religious liberty, you dilute the freedom to worship God as a true creature made in His image.

I don’t know how “interesting” this is, but it’s certainly basic.
[/quote]

So, without religious liberty man is not truly free to worship God? I guess it would also be true to say that without “abortion liberty” women are not truly free choose not have an abortion. After all, their “liberty” in the matter is being restrained, and they are being forbidden, by law (God Forbid!) from having an abortion. We must put an end to this violation of their liberty!

But why oh why has the Church condemned religious liberty as an error? Maybe the Church was in error all that time; and maybe the Church will also soon realize that it has been in error when it claimed that women should not be “free” to have an abortion. After all, forbidding them from having an abortion is, according to your “Vatican II liberty”, a violation of their liberty. Remember what you said? “restraint and compulsion to avoid evil also eliminate the possibility of freedom as well as the reality of liberty”.

Maybe the Church should seek to persuade all countries to legalize abortion so the women in those countries can be truly “free”. Do you think that would be a good idea?

continue

continuation

To understand the true nature of human liberty liberty, you should read the Encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum of Leo XIII. That will explain what true liberty is, what it isn’t, and it will show you the true mind of the Church on the matter.

In addition to that encyclical, the following are a few quotes that refute your definition of “Vatican II liberty”:

Pope Leo XIII: “Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object…Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth, may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law” (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei).

Did you get that? That which is apposed to truth and virtue should not be brought temptingly before the eyes of men, and should not be sanctioned by law.

Pope Pius IX, in the Syllabus of Errors [it is an error to believe] “that it is left to the freedom of each individual to embrace and profess that religion which by the guidance of the light of reason he deems to be the true one.”

If is not left to each individual to chose his or her own religion. They do not have the “freedom” to chose that religion which, guided by the light of reason, they believe is true. That is not allowed.

Pope Pius XI: “They do not hesitate to put forward the view which is not only opposed to the Catholic Church, but very pernicious for the salvation of souls — an opinion which Gregory XVI, Our Predecessor, called an insanity. This is the view that liberty of conscience and worship is the strict right of every man, a right which should be proclaimed and affirmed by law in every properly constituted state; and that the citizens have a right to full freedom to manifest their opinions loudly and publicly, whatever these may be, by word, by printing, or otherwise, without the ecclesiastical or civil authority’s being able to limit it.”… When they rashly make these statements, they do not realize or recall to mind that they are advocating what St. Augustine calls a liberty of perdition” (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura)

According to the Pope, liberty of conscience and liberty of worship is not the strict right of every man.

Pope Leo XIII: “But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry ‘I will not serve’, and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread and powerful organization, who, usurping the name liberty, style themselves liberals” (Libertas).
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13liber.htm

[quote=USMC]Let’s compare this “Vatican II liberty” with what the Church has always taught.
[/quote]

The Church did not stop teaching in 1965; you are making a false distinction between “the Church” and “the Vatican II Church.” Liberty is not a complete absence of restraint. What Aquinas called a “well-ordered society” will always need restraints, but the principle of liberty is to minimize restraint while maximizing order.

The absence of restraints necessary for order is license. The teaching of the Church does not identify liberty and license. You use abortion in your false dichotomy, but you could just as easily use murder. Maybe to worship God with true freedom I need to sacrifice my next-door neighbor to him. Is this religious liberty? No, this would be capricious license (and would certainly lower my property values!). You also identify religious liberty with direct promotion of evil, which is silly.

Doctrine develops, and religious liberty is one of the clearest areas where there has been great development. The lack of religious liberty in former times was sometimes wrong and sometimes simply an unavoidable limitation of the times. I would not have expected Pius IX to pray with Buddhists at Assisi, but I also would not have expected him to take a Jewish child away from his mother. That was wrong, and he paid a price for it by losing his political liberty in the Papal States.

Did Catholics go into schism when the child was removed? No. Back to the point of this thread, schism is never the answer.

[quote=Fortiterinre]Liberty is not a complete absence of restraint.
[/quote]

Exactly. Law, and penalties for those who violate the law, are not a violation of true liberty.

There are three kinds of liberty. Natural liberty (also called Psycological liberty, physical liberty, and moral liberty.

Psychological liberty (or natural liberty) is simply free will – the ability to make a moral choice. Every person has free will and therefore every person possesses psychological liberty. Every action known to man (except the actions of a possessed person) proceeds from this “liberty”. In the encyclical I linked to, Pope Leo XIII called psychological liberty “natural liberty”.

Physical liberty is freedom from physical restraint. It is the “freedom” to perform a specific action. If someone was in prison, for example, they would not have complete “physical liberty”.

Moral liberty is what we are allowed to do. Psychological liberty is what we are able to do, but moral liberty is what we are allowed to do. “Law” is that which sets the boundaries for our moral liberty. The law of God sets the boundaries, as well as the just laws of the state. If we violate any just law, we abuse our liberty and fall into sin.

So, natural liberty or “psychological liberty” is another name for free will which is the faculty that enables us to make a moral choice. Physical liberty means that we are not physically restrained from doing what we desire. And finally moral liberty is what we are allowed to do.

Although we have free will and therefore are “able” to sin, we are not “allowed” to sin. We are only truly free to act within the law. For example, America is a free country, yet I am not “free” to rob a bank., or run red light. I may have the ability to rob a bank or run a red light (because of free will), but I am not allowed to do so, since it is a violation of the law.

Law is simply that which helps to direct us in the proper use of our liberty; and sanctions are there to impel us to follow those laws, even when we are tempted not to.

Sanctions are not at all a violation of our moral liberty, but they help to restrain and direct our natural liberty (free will).

continue…

So what is the problem with this liberty? Are you saying the state should have laws requiring people to be Catholic? Disallowing people to be Jewish or Protestant?

continuation

[quote=Fortiterinre] What Aquinas called a “well-ordered society” will always need restraints, but the principle of liberty is to minimize restraint while maximizing order.
[/quote]

Do you now see the error in that statement? For one thing it is very muddled, with a clear distinction between natural liberty, moral liberty, and physical liberty, being blurred.

In that statement, you must be referring to natural liberty (free will). You are saying that minimizing laws (which help to direct the proper use of our will), and the sanctions that punish violations of the law, will result in a maximizing of order. In a bad society that actually can be true, but it is certainly not called the “principle of liberty”, but the “principle of toleration”

The Church never says that a person has the “right” to belong to a false religion, but sometimes it will “tolerate” false religion to avoid another evil from errupting.

Pope Leo XIII: “For this reason, while not conceding any right to anything save what is true and honest, she (the Church) does not forbid public authority to tolerate what is at variance with truth and justice for the sake of the avoiding a geater evil, or of obtaining or preserving some greater good".

But it should be noted that to the extent that society tolerates evil, it is falling further away from perfection, to which it should aim.

Pope Leo XIII: "But if, in such circumstances, for the sake of the common good (and this is the only legitimate reason), human law may or even should tolerate evil, it may not and should not approve or desire evil for its own sake; for evil of itself, being a privation of good, is opposed to the common welfare which every legislator is bound to desire and defend to the best of his ability…

“But, to judge aright, we must acknowledge that, the more a State is driven to tolerate evil, the further is it 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, requires. Wherefore, if such tolerance would be injurious to the public welfare, and entail greater evils on the State, it would not be lawful; for in such case the motive of good is wanting. And although in the extraordinary condition of these times the Church usually acquiesces in certain modern liberties, not because she prefers them in themselves, but because she judges it expedient to permit them, she would in happier times exercise her own liberty; and, by persuasion, exhortation, and entreaty would endeavor, as she is bound, to fulfill the duty assigned to her by God of providing for the eternal salvation of mankind. One thing, however, remains always true – that the liberty which is claimed for all to do all things is not, as We have often said, of itself desirable, inasmuch as it is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights.” (Libertas)

continue…

continuation

[quote=Fortiterinre]The absence of restraints necessary for order is license.
[/quote]

Sort of. Actually, license would be granting a “liberty”, or a “right”, to do evil. For example, if one were to grant “religious liberty” - and if such liberty was granted to those who belong to a false religion - this “liberty” would actually be license, for no one is morally free to break the first commandment.

Removing all restraints would be bad, but it would not in itself be license.

[quote=Fortiterinre]Doctrine develops, and religious liberty is one of the clearest areas where there has been great development.
[/quote]

Doctrine developes, that is true: but it does not change. What has been condemned as an error in the past is still an error today. Developement of doctrine brings a more precise understanding of the particular teaching, but it never reverses a teaching: this is not true doctrinal developement, but doctrinal evolution, which is what Pope St. Pius X condemned in Pascendi.

[quote=Fortiterinre] The lack of religious liberty in former times was sometimes wrong and sometimes simply an unavoidable limitation of the times.
[/quote]

Oh, I see. The Chuch was wrong for 1965 years, and she has been right for the past 40 years. I don’t think so.

[quote=Fortiterinre] I would not have expected Pius IX to pray with Buddhists at Assisi, but I also would not have expected him to take a Jewish child away from his mother. That was wrong, and he paid a price for it…
[/quote]

Are you subjectively “judging” Pope Pius IX for following the law. Would you rather that he did not follow the law? The story may sound very bad to our sensitive modern ears, but it was the right thing to do. The baby was dying and the servant baptized it. No one knew the baby would later recover.

It was the law at that time that if a baby was baptized it was to be raised as a Catholic. The Pope took the baby in as his own and raised it. The child grew up to be a priest and had nothing but good things to say about Pope Pius IX. His diary will be published soon and all will be able to see what he thought of the Pope for what he did. Then maybe the Pope will be vindicated against those who have attacked him for simply following the law.

[quote=USMC]Do you now see the error in that statement? For one thing it is very muddled, with a clear distinction between natural liberty, moral liberty, and physical liberty, being blurred.

In that statement, you must be referring to natural liberty (free will). You are saying that minimizing laws (which help to direct the proper use of our will), and the sanctions that punish violations of the law, will result in a maximizing of order. In a bad society that actually can be true, but it is certainly not called the “principle of liberty”, but the “principle of toleration”
[/quote]

I am not at all saying that minimizing laws always “results” in a “maximizing” of order, only that the goal should be not to have more laws than necessary. Not all laws “help to direct use of the will;” bad laws merely supress the will.

[quote=Fortiterinre]I am not at all saying that minimizing laws always “results” in a “maximizing” of order, only that the goal should be not to have more laws than necessary.
[/quote]

I agree

[quote=Fortiterinre] Not all laws “help to direct use of the will;” bad laws merely supress the will.
[/quote]

Let be “develope” my statement “to bring more clarity”.

Just laws; that is, laws that are conformable to right reason, help to direct the use of free will.

Pope Leo XIII: “If, then, by anyone in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law, as being no rule of justice, but certain to lead men away from that good which is the very end of civil society.” (Libertas)

Unjust laws, which “have no binding force of law” can seem to supress the will, as you said, but in reality, unjust laws are not binding on the will of man.

[quote=USMC]Actually, license would be granting a “liberty”, or a “right”, to do evil. For example, if one were to grant “religious liberty” - and if such liberty was granted to those who belong to a false religion - this “liberty” would actually be license, for no one is morally free to break the first commandment.

Removing all restraints would be bad, but it would not in itself be license.
[/quote]

So all non-Catholic religions should be regulated to prevent them from breaking the first commandment? Basically if Saudi Arabia were Catholic, it would be the perfect state?

[quote=USMC]Doctrine developes, that is true: but it does not change. What has been condemned as an error in the past is still an error today. Developement of doctrine brings a more precise understanding of the particular teaching, but it never reverses a teaching: this is not true doctrinal developement, but doctrinal evolution, which is what Pope St. Pius X condemned in Pascendi.
[/quote]

How does doctrine develop without changing at least somewhat? Development by definition involves change. Boniface VIII said that “every living creature” had to be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation; taken without change, this suggests that Lefebvrist schismatics cannot be saved. Gregory XVI condemned railroads as immoral until his death in 1846, when Pius IX was elected and immediately started laying down track throughout the Papal States.

[quote=USMC]Oh, I see. The Chuch was wrong for 1965 years, and she has been right for the past 40 years. I don’t think so.

Are you subjectively “judging” Pope Pius IX for following the law. Would you rather that he did not follow the law? The story may sound very bad to our sensitive modern ears, but it was the right thing to do. The baby was dying and the servant baptized it. No one knew the baby would later recover.

It was the law at that time that if a baby was baptized it was to be raised as a Catholic. The Pope took the baby in as his own and raised it. The child grew up to be a priest and had nothing but good things to say about Pope Pius IX. His diary will be published soon and all will be able to see what he thought of the Pope for what he did. Then maybe the Pope will be vindicated against those who have attacked him for simply following the law.
[/quote]

Absolute monarchs like Pius IX have very little to excuse them in terms of “following the law.” As an absolute monarch, he should not have followed any law that involved stealing children from their mothers. In fact, he should have dismantled the Roman Ghetto, also a scandal and deeply wrong. The Church has done lots of embarrassing things over the years, and still schism is never the answer.

Let’s let the Pope explain it for us.

Pope Leo XIII: “But man is by nature rational. When, therefore, he acts according to reason, he acts of himself and according to his free will; and this is liberty. Whereas, when he sins, he acts in opposition to reason, is moved by another, and is the victim of foreign misapprehensions. Therefore, ‘Whosoever committeth sin is the slave of sin’.”[4] Even the heathen philosophers clearly recognized this truth, especially they who held that the wise man alone is free; and by the term “wise man” was meant, as is well known, the man trained to live in accordance with his nature, that is, in justice and virtue.

"Such, then, being the condition of human liberty, it necessarily stands in need of light and strength to direct its actions to good and to restrain them from evil. Without this, the freedom of our will would be our ruin. First of all, there must be law; that is, a fixed rule of teaching what is to be done and what is to be left undone. This rule cannot affect the lower animals in any true sense, since they act of necessity, following their natural instinct, and cannot of themselves act in any other way. On the other hand, as was said above, he who is free can either act or not act, can do this or do that, as he pleases, because his judgment precedes his choice. And his judgment not only decides what is right or wrong of its own nature, but also what is practically good and therefore to be chosen, and what is practically evil and therefore to be avoided. In other words, the reason prescribes to the will what it should seek after or shun, in order to the eventual attainment of man’s last end, for the sake of which all his actions ought to be performed. This ordination of reason is called law. In man’s free will, therefore, or in the moral necessity of our voluntary acts being in accordance with reason, lies the very root of the necessity of law. Nothing more foolish can be uttered or conceived than the notion that, because man is free by nature, he is therefore exempt from law. Were this the case, it would follow that to become free we must be deprived of reason; whereas the truth is that we are bound to submit to law precisely because we are free by our very nature. For, law is the guide of man’s actions; it turns him toward good by its rewards, and deters him from evil by its punishments. (Libertas, Pope Leo XIII).

You should really read that encyclical. It is very good and shines the light of truth on many error of our day.

[quote=Fortiterinre]So all non-Catholic religions should be regulated to prevent them from breaking the first commandment?
[/quote]

Ideally, yes. Ideally, violations of the first commandmend will be forbidden by the State. Let’s phrase it this way: Ideally, human law will reflect Divine Law. That is obviously the goal.

However, in our very imperfect world, human law sometimes “tolerates” that which is contrary to the Divine law. That is obviously not good, but it happnes.

Thus, in our day, when heresies are everywhere, the Church has taught that it is prudent for human law to tolerate that evil which is contrary to the Divine Law: specifically the 1st commandment.

[quote=]Basically if Saudi Arabia were Catholic, it would be the perfect state?
[/quote]

Let’s say you are against abortion, and you are arguing on a Catholic message board with one who is in favor of it. You explain to him that you believe abortion should be illegal, because it is against the law of God. He then says to you: "Oh yeah, well Saudi Arabia also says that abortion is wrong; so I guess they are a perfect state, huh?

In other words, just because Saudi Arabia may believe that other religions should be forbidden, does not mean that the basic principal is false. The principal is based on God’s law. The problem is that they belong to false religion so they would be outlawing the true religion and thus in violation of a true “right” of man: The right to worship God in the true religion.

[quote=]How does doctrine develop without changing at least somewhat? Development by definition involves change.
[/quote]

Not so. Doctrinal developement does not at all mean change. For example, it had always been believed that the Eucharist was Jesus. But the doctrine developed so that we now know exactly how it is Jesus: Through transubstantiation, whereby the substance is transformed into the body, blood, soul, and Divinity of our Lord, while the accidents (that which appears), remains that of bread.

See, no change, just a development.

[quote=]Boniface VIII said that “every living creature” had to be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation; taken without change, this suggests that Lefebvrist schismatics cannot be saved.
[/quote]

Objectively speaking, schismatics cannot be saved. There has been no change there. Schism is a very serious evil. Those who separate from the Church of God, separate themselves from the body of Christ and cannot be saved (unless before death they reunite). Now, subjectively it is possible for a person who attends a schismatic church to be saved, but that is only if they are in reality united to the Catholic Church “outside of which there is no salvation”.

Whether or not the SSPX is truly in schism is another matter. By what appears, they are in schism; but so was St. Athanasius and his followers. They were “outside” of the normal diocese. This was an extraordinary case in an extraordinary time. The situation with the SSPX may very well be the same as that of St. Athanasius. They claim it is. Time will tell.

[quote=] Gregory XVI condemned railroads as immoral until his death in 1846, when Pius IX was elected and immediately started laying down track throughout the Papal States.
[/quote]

But is this based on doctrine? Of course not. It was probably on the level of Canon law, which does indeed change with the times. For example it used to be forbidden to even work with heretics. Today that would be impractical. Canon law deals with the application of the faith, and can be changed.

[quote=]Absolute monarchs like Pius IX have very little to excuse them in terms of “following the law.” As an absolute monarch, he should not have followed any law that involved stealing children from their mothers. In fact, he should have dismantled the Roman Ghetto, also a scandal and deeply wrong. The Church has done lots of embarrassing things over the years, and still schism is never the answer.
[/quote]

I agree with what Pope Pius IX did. I think it was a good thing that resulted in a good end. Just because you think it was bad does not mean it was bad. That is just your opinion against the Vicar of Christ. I’ll side with the Pope on this one.

One thing I do agree with is that churchmen (not the Church itself) have done some very embarrassing things. For example John Paul II inviting snake worshippers to the Vatican to violate the 1st commandment at his request was more than embarrassing; and his praising Martin Luther, who was probably the wost heretic in the history of the Church, was also an extremely embarrassing thing.

So, I do agree with you when you say that churchmen have indeed done some extremely scandelous and embarrassing things. But we might dissagree on which things were scandalice and embarrassing.

[quote=pnewton]Our missalettes specifically mention that Communion is not to be received by those outside the Church because it would demonstrate a unity that does not exist.

While I do not doubt that there are those that would like to wishy-wash us all into one, they are not the Church. By the same token those that “ordain” women priest are not the Church. I would have had a great deal more respect for the SSPX on such topics like ecumenism had they chosen obedience in all other matters. The ordinations performed outside of obedience to the church served only to diminish their voice.
[/quote]

I agree. The missalettes where I go say no communion for non Catholics as well. So I question what was said earlier.

As for the whole obedience thing, thats really where it hinges, they pretend to be in communion with the Chair of Peter, but in reality must violate Church law to stay in existance.

The only religious liberty that needs to be morally protected is the liberty to give God authentic worship: Catholic worship. A liberty to practice false religions does not lead people to Heaven so therefore there is no need for it. Now, no one can force anyone to have a change of heart, so in that sense there is a freedom of conscience, but there’s nothing wrong with the state removing near occasions of sin–like public profession of false religions.

This is what the Church has always taught and it is what Vatican II teaches (some exerpts):

DIGNITATIS HUMANAE

"On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it."

"Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ."

"It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth."

From the current Catechism:
2105 **The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially. This is “the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ.”**30 By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them "to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live."31 The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church.32 Christians are called to be the light of the world. **Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies.33 **

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.