Understanding the difference between free speech and so-called “religious liberty”

“…Is support of “tolerance of free-speech” the same as an acceptance of Vatican II’s “religious-liberty”?  No.  I reject the modernist notion of “religious liberty” precisely because error has no rights.  Rights come from God and God can not give rights to follow a false-religion.  The Catholic Church has never believed in forced-conversions, so in some sense she believes in religious-tolerance, but never religious-liberty.  At least, not before Vatican II.

“The problem with the modernist-notion of religious-liberty is that it assumes that rights on matters of religion come from man.  They don’t.  They come from God.  And the Blessed Trinity can not give you a “right” to be a satanist.  Or a Hindu.  Or a Muslim.  God’s permissive will (or passive will) permits such error to engulf swathes of billions of people, but God has given no “rights” to any such dangerous errors that lead to hell.  Is this even controversial?  Yes, but how did we get to the point of even thinking this is controversial?  Because superiors didn’t want to be “mean” to heretics like Teilhard de Chardin about a hundred years ago.

“Again, that key line from Archbishop Chaput was, “Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, and then it tries to silence good.”

“We have reached that boiling-point of no free-speech in the Church, so I propose that we have no hope in establishing the Social Reign of Christ the King until we purge the global Catholic hierarchy of its errors (nearly to-a-man) of religious liberty, ecumenism and collegiality/synodality.  Projects like “synodality” persecute anyone on the right, despite the left’s deceitful mantras like “dialogue” and “accompaniment.” Such catch-phrases reveal a hierarchy open exclusively to more errors of liberalism, not the truth of Divine Revelation…”

Read the rest: https://padreperegrino.org/2022/11/tolerance/

2 thoughts on “Understanding the difference between free speech and so-called “religious liberty””

  1. We can, and perhaps should, tolerate other religions to exist. We don’t give them rights, but toleration is when you put up with something bad. If you don’t think there’s something bad about what you tolerate, “tolerance” is the wrong word.

    Also, the Church will not establish the messianic hope. Rather, it will triumph after the antichrist’s coming in an eschatological judgement in a battle of good versus evil. That is what the Catechism says.

  2. There needs to be a distinction between moral liberty and religious liberty. I suppose they are creating that now but backwards. You can be whatever religion you want but all religions must teach the standard morality. Too bad the left thought of it first and has made pro-homo abortion the standard morality. The problem is religious people put too much emphasis on the parts other than morality and so never thought of this. They only thought that ceremial creeds were necessary and not creeds defining morality. What a mistake. Morality ends up anarchy between churches even though they all be standardized on the Trinity by the creeds. It should not be this way.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.