Why I'm Against the 150 Mile Fence Suggestion

The Scriptures tell us how various family relations crimes should be punished (all verse references are to Leviticus 20):

Cursing Mother or Father - Death (9)

For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Adulterer and Adulteress - Death (10)

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Incest with Father's Wife - Death (11)

And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Incest with Daughter in Law - Death (12)

And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.

Male Homosexuality - Death (13)

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Incest with Step-Daughter, Daughter, or Mother-in-Law - Death by Fire (14)

And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.

Male or Female Bestiality - Death (15-16)

And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Incest with Sister or Half-Sister - God Will Punish (17)

And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.

Sex During a Woman's Period - God Will Punish (18)

And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

Incest with Aunt - God Will Punish (19-20)

And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity. And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.

Incest with Sister-in-Law - God Will Punish (21)

And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.

Summary

Yes, male homosexuality is set forth as being a capital crime, like a number of family relations crimes. In terms of the sentence given it, it is more heinous in God's sight than certain kinds of incest and period violation. But for those of you who like to beat up on homosexuals, note that it is not the most heinous. The most heinous is taking both a woman and her mother. There, the punishment is not just death, but death by fire.

So, no. The appropriate Biblical teaching regarding how to deal with these family crimes is not internment in a prison camp.

On the other hand, if you want to rush to impose the Biblical sentence of death, keep in mind that for consistency you must be ready to hand out death sentences for bestiality, all adulterers, and most types of incest. You also can't include lesbians in your plan. While Scripture certainly does teach that lesbianism is a sin, the code doesn't provide for lesbianism to be punished.

Frank Turek on Same Sex Marriage

Marcus McElhaney has posted a video series from Frank Turek providing arguments about and against same sex marriage. I don't fully agree with Turek's approach of saying that we shouldn't bring the Bible into the discussion, but the arguments he uses mostly seem like pretty strong arguments. Check it out at this link.

Post-Modern Roman Catholicism - Guest Post by Adam Blauser

Recently, in the comment box on this blog, a member of the Roman communion provided the following comment:

Again and again. Who has the authority in Protestantism to determine the correct interpretation of the Bible?. No one.

Adam Blauser has provided a thorough response, namely:

Again and again, why does Roman Catholicism pull out the arguments of Jacques Derrida and Stanley Fish, when postmodernism destroys Roman Catholicism too? What is the assumption behind this statement: that the only thing that factors into the interpretation of a text is the interpreter. If I allow for the author and his intention to play a role in interpretation, then it is easy to see who has the authority to determine the correct interpretation of the Bible-the authors of the Bible. Correct interpretation, then, is more of an ethical issue. The interpreter has an obligation to "not bear false witness" against the author of the text, and accurately represent what he is saying. If that is the case, then the issue of interpretation is actually an argument against Roman Catholicism, because, once you impose traditions upon the text, you are changing the world of the author, and thus, not accurately representing the world he has constructed accurately.

More than that, destroying the author as a reference point leads to total and complete postmodernism. For example, why do you accept Rome as the infallible interpreter of scripture and history? Eastern Orthodoxy also makes the same claim, as does Syrian Orthodoxy. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses make the same claim. Before you go running off to history, let us also remember that these groups claim the right to infallibly interpret history too, just like Rome does. So, who has the authority to decide which group has the authority to infallibly interpret history and scripture? It becomes totally dependent upon which group you are a part of as to what the correct interpretation of both history and scripture is. Hence, it is relative to community. That is utter and complete postmodernism.

Not only that, but if you need an "infallible interpreter" to know which interpretations of a text are correct, then how do we know what the correct interpretations of the Egyptian Book of the Dead are? Scholars disagree. How do we know what the correct interpretation of the Baal epic is? Scholars disagree. How do we know what the correct interpretation of the Epic of Gilgamesh is? Scholars disagree. The point is, there is no text upon which there is not disagreement as to the correct interpretation. However, where is the infallible magisterium of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Apparently, because it doesn't exist, that must mean we cannot correctly interpret what the Book of the Dead says. Where is the infallible magisterium of the Baal epic? Apparently, because it doesn't exist, that must mean we cannot correctly interpret what the Baal epic says. Where is the infallible magisterium of the Gilgamesh Epic? Apparently, because it doesn't exist, that must mean we cannot correctly interpret what the Epic of Gilgamesh says. Such results in utter destruction of all of our knowledge of what written texts say.

The real problem here is that the church is finite. Not only can other groups claim the authority to infallibly interpret both history and tradition, but, because of the finitude of all of these groups including Rome, the issue can never be settled. Not only that, Rome cannot explain why, in the instance of other texts, we can come to the correct interpretation despite differences of opinion. All of these things relate to the limited and finite nature of the church. I really wish Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would consider these things before they go making this argument again and again. A limited, finite church is a poor base for meaning in language.

Confirmation of Ancient Bethlehem

The Scriptures preserve ancient history for us. If we had to go with just the extent documents from the ancient near east, there are a lot of things we wouldn't know about. For example, apparently until recently there was a complete absence of mention of the city of Bethlehem before the Babylonian exile (outside the Bible).

Of course, we have always believed that Bethlehem was a real historical city, despite the absence of archaeological evidence, but now there appears to be some archaeological evidence in the form of a clay seal found in the "city of David" in Jerusalem.

But don't worry, atheists. The Bible's supernatural claims still have no predictive power, aside from things like the afterlife and the final judgment, which you can't experience yet. You'll get to experience them some day, but for now you'll have to be content with the predictive power of the Bible with respect to archaeology.

- TurretinFan

Jason Sabalow Partially Affirms Perspicuity

It's always nice to hear one of Rome's apologists confessing the perspicuity of Scripture on matters that are necessary for salvation: "the Gospels testify and testify clearly to who Jesus is, and who he is is God." Jason Sabalow is correct about that, and the post-modernistic folks within Rome's communion who try to suggest that the Scriptures are not clear about this or any other item necessary for salvation are wrong.

So that Mr. Sabalow does not get in trouble with his colleagues, I will note that he has not completely affirmed perspicuity, as he has not stated that all things necessary for salvation are found clearly in Scripture, nevertheless, he has affirmed a point that I have seen others in his communion attempt to deny, namely that the divinity of the Son is clearly taught in Scripture.

- TurretinFan

E2k or L2k?

Vocal E2k advocate, Zrim, posted a bizarre recent piece in which he attempted to criticize Pastor Scott's stand for the gospel and against the false gospel of Dayna Muldoon. Of course, he didn't take a manly approach and accuse Pastor Scott of sin and suggest that Pastor Scott seek repentance, instead he was "just asking" about whether Pastor Scott's motives and methods.

Zrim's real problem with what Pastor Scott did seems to be that Zrim thinks that Christians have some kind of moral obligation not to disrupt the worship of idolators. Zrim writes:

I couldn’t help but have a few questions. There are plenty of religious outfits and organizations that tout themselves as channels of Christian and religious orthodoxy even here in Little Geneva that are also far removed from Reformed orthodoxy, from your usual Roman Catholic churches to your Mormon and Jewish Temples, to name just several. Would anyone think of showing up in the middle of their public services and disrupting them in such a bold way? Is there anything unbecoming about what Rodriguez did? Does it matter? Is it possible that Rodriquez is just as given to wanting to be the center of attention as Muldoon might be? Is there a difference between vigorously opposing that which opposes the gospel and singling out certain kinds of opposers as deserving especially forward and blunt criticism? Is this really only about preserving the true gospel and protecting people from being sucked into the cultish maneuvers of wily profiteer and religious wing nut? Is there a biblical justification for this kind of confrontation?

First of all, Zrim should enlighten himself about the particular circumstances surrounding the clip. It was not about ego, but about protecting the flock against the suggestion from Muldoon that Pastor Scott approved of what was going on.

Second, he was invited to speak. He spoke. If I were invited to speak at a Jewish service, Roman Catholic service, or Mormon service, I hope I would be as bold as he was. When we get opportunities to debate these folks, we take that opportunity.

Third, there is Biblical justification. Not only do we have the example of Jehu, but look at Paul the apostle not only at Areopagus but many times in the Jewish synagogues.

Acts 14:1
And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.
Acts 17:10
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Acts 17:17
Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.
Acts 18:4
And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
Acts 18:19
And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.
Acts 18:26
And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

What we really see in E2k is liberalism. The E2kers of Zrim's stripe would be as scandalized by Paul as they are by Pastor Scott. Of course, they wouldn't be so manly as to actually state that Paul is wrong to go into the synagogues and reason with them there, but they would question his motives. It's not very post-modern of Paul to assume that it's ok for him to go into those synagogues and disrupt them in such a bold way. Look at Paul's epistle to the Galatians! Talk about "singling out certain kinds of opposers as deserving especially forward and blunt criticism!"

And forget about Jehu. Is there anything "unbecoming" about his elimination of Baal-worship from the land?

I can see why E2k appeals to post-modern liberals, who think all religions are the same and that there is some kind of "right" to hold religious services, no matter how evil and blasphemous they are. But why would it appeal to any person who has a 66 book canon of Scripture and actually believes what it says? Maybe we should call it "Liberal 2k" instead of "Escondido 2k," since surely there are folks in the faculty at Escondido who would be unwilling to go where Zrim is going here.

-TurretinFan

The Bede vs. the Shroud

Jason, a shroud of Turin advocate, wrote:

There's a vast amount of material in the Shroud literature about references to objects resembling the Shroud and possible depictions of the Shroud in artwork prior to the fourteenth century.

In point of fact, as best we can tell from the scientific and historical evidence, the shroud is not an ancient hoax, but a medieval hoax, probably dating to the 14th century - possibly later than that. But what about these claims that there is older historical evidence?

Unfortunately for shroud advocates, these claims are not very reliable. I happened to be reading the Venerable Bede's, "On Holy Places," in "Bede: A Biblical Miscellany," trans. Foley and Holder. In that work, chapter IV is titled: "Concerning the Lord's head-cloth and Another Great Shroud made by St. Mary." This naturally got my attention, given that I had recently seen Jason's comment.

Is this a possible historical reference to the shroud of Turin? Alas for Jason, it is not. After describing the allegedly miraculous eight foot long head cloth, Bede reports:

Another somewhat bigger shroud is also venerated in a church. Said to have been woven by St. Mary, it contains images of the twelve apostles and the Lord. It is red on one side and green on the other.

("On the Holy Places," Chapter IV, Section 3, p. 11) The italics is material taken by Bede from Adamnan's "Of Holy Places," and the parts used here can be found at Adamnan De loc. sanc. 1, 10 (CCSL 175: 194, 1-9).

While this is a shroud, and one that allegedly comes from the 1st century, and even one very loosely associated with the burial of Christ, it is pretty clearly not the Shroud of Turin. The Shroud of Turin is not red on one side and green on the other, and does not have images of the twelve apostles on it.

Adamnan's and Bede's silence regarding the Shroud of Turin at this point is fully expected by those of us who recognize that the Shroud of Turin is a later creation. Had such a shroud been known to exist in Bede's time, he could hardly be expected not to discuss it at this point in his work. So, while silence cannot prove the non-existence of the shroud, it certainly suggests that the most prominent historian of the age was not aware of it.

So, yes, strictly speaking there were references to objects resembling the Shroud before the 14th century (Bede and Adamnan are 7th-8th century writers). However, these references are not references to the Shroud of Turin. Moreover, the references that are clearly not to the shroud of Turin, but to other shrouds and supposed burial clothing, demonstrate that vague references to a shroud should not be assumed to be the shroud of Turin, but can instead be related to the objects that were actually known in the earlier ages.

-TurretinFan

N.B. In fairness to Jason, after he threw out this assertion about the historical evidence, he immediately followed it by: "It's a subject I don't know much about. I don't affirm any of the theories circulating about the Shroud's transmission prior to the fourteenth century, but I wouldn't want to reject all of them either at this point." In criticism, though, he really shouldn't be throwing this out as an argument, unless he's prepared to defend the argument.

One Reason that Abuse Accusations are as Few as They are ...

... is this approach to addressing them. The article calls him a "former ... priest" and "ex-priest," but that's not really possible. He's presumably not serving in his capacity as priest, however. Apparently, he will be in jail for the next 15 years. The full story of his abuse and the Roman hierarchy's actions in response to him have been well documented (link).

One interesting aspect of the story:

Fiala, who was born and raised in Omaha, was drawn to the Catholic Church in the seventh grade, when he met a priest who wrote a letter of recommendation for him to enter the seminary.

The priest, Daniel Herek, later became an infamous convicted child sex offender in Nebraska.

Meanwhile, John "Black Sheep Dog" Corapi has disappeared.

-TurretinFan

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor on the Eternal State of Atheists

I previously reported some thoughts by Cardinal George Pell. Pell had suggested that there will be those who were atheists in this life who will be in heaven.

Cardinal O'Connor has something similar to say:

Q: And hell?

A: We're not bound to believe that anybody’s there, let's face it. ...

Q: It is sometimes said that there will be a separate heaven for Bavarians because they would not be in a state of eternal happiness if they had to share heaven with the Prussians. Will Catholics and Protestants be together in heaven?

A: I hope they won't be separate. I think that the divisions manifest here on earth will be reconciled in some mysterious way in heaven. I'm not thinking just of Catholics and Protestants, but people of other faiths and people of no faith. We are all children of God.

Q: So we shouldn't be surprised if we were to meet in heaven someone who was a Muslim or an atheist on earth?

A: I hope I will be surprised in heaven... I think I will be.

(source - thanks to Steve Hays)

Neither Cardinal Pell nor Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor denies that hell is real, but both seem to think that it might be empty.

-TurretinFan

The "Here I am" Girl or the "Where were you" Girl?

As reported by the Vatican Information Service, Benedict XVI stated (on 18 May 2012):

Mary of Nazareth is the woman of a full and total "Here I am" to the divine will. In her "Yes", repeated even when faced with the sorrow of the loss of her child, we find complete and profound beatitude".

A) The Bible calls Jesus, "Jesus of Nazareth." It never calls his mother, "Mary of Nazareth." We don't know where she was raised.
B) There is no "yes" recorded from Mary in Scripture.
C) There is no "yes," recorded from Mary when faced with the sorrow of the crucifixion.
D) Her state was one of mourning, not bliss, as it was prophesied: "Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also," (Luke 2:35).
E) Although Mary does not say, "Here I am," in Scripture, the following people do:

1) Abraham (Genesis 22:1 & 11)
2) Jacob (Genesis 31:11 & 46:2)
3) Moses (Exodus 3:4)
4) Samuel (1 Samuel 3:4-6 & 8)
5) Isaiah (Isaiah 6:8)
6) Ananias (Acts 9:10)

Why not draw from those six men if one wishes to learn "Here I am," to the divine will?
F) Moreover, on the contrary, one of the few recorded statements of Mary is not, "Here I am," but almost "Where were you!"

Luke 2:43-52

And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance. And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him.

And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, "Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing."

And he said unto them, "How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?"

And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Full and total, "Here am I"? Really? Why not pick an exemplary man like the prophet Isaiah? or one of the patriarchs who Scripture praises for their faith and devotion, rather than a woman whose blessedness is totally derived from being chosen to bear Christ?

The answer, of course, lies in Benedict XVI's devotion to Mary, as one might be devoted to a goddess. He is blind to her faults, and creates virtues in her for which there is no support in Scripture.

-TurretinFan

The Gospel of the Shed Blood of Jesus Christ vs. the False Gospel of Miracles

Impressive testimony from "Pastor Scott" against the false gospel promoted by Dayna Muldoon:

- TurretinFan

Trent, Augustine, Scripture, and Justification

Trent makes a number of explicit claims about justification.

Of this Justification the causes are these:
the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting;
while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance;
but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father;
the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified;
lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one’s proper disposition and co-operation.

Trent immediately explains:

For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity.

Whether or not other aspects of Trent can be reconciled to Augustine, these conceptions are not consistent with Augustine. Augustine took the position that the thief on the cross had the faith that justifies without having baptism. To use Trent’s categories, the instrumental means for the thief was (in Augustine’s view) faith, not baptism.

Augustine connects the dots with Cornelius as well. Clearly he had the Spirit before baptism, which demonstrated his right standing with God (compare the argument about circumcision in Acts 15).
Augustine points out that the fact that the benefit can be invisibly applied (applied without the sacrament, the visible sign) should not lead us to scorn the sacrament. After all, even Cornelius was subsequently baptized.

Acts 10:30-48

And Cornelius said, "Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing, and said, 'Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God. Send therefore to Joppa, and call hither Simon, whose surname is Peter; he is lodged in the house of one Simon a tanner by the sea side: who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee.' Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God."
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) that word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins."
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.
Then answered Peter, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?"
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Augustine goes on to say: “But what is the precise value of the sanctification of the sacrament (which that thief did not receive, not from any want of will on his part, but because it was unavoidably omitted) and what is the effect on a man of its material application, it is not easy to say.”
That’s perhaps the most troubling piece of all for those hoping to make Augustine in the image of Trent. Trent treats baptism itself as the instrumental means of justification, but it seems pretty clear that’s not what Augustine thinks.

And in case you think I’m speculating about his view on Cornelius, look at the parallel Augustine himself draws just shortly after:

And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision, which was received by God’s earlier people, and before receiving which Abraham was justified, as Cornelius also was enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized.

Notice what Augustine concedes: he concedes that baptism and circumcision are parallel, that Abraham was justified before circumcision, and that Cornelius was analogously “enriched with the gift of the Holy Spirit” before baptism.

If Rome would concede the same, we would find faith alone as the instrumental means of justification, rather than baptism. Moreover, we would find reputed righteousness, rather than actual righteousness, the formal cause. Whether that latter point is something that Augustine himself held, perhaps we can consider another time.

- TurretinFan

Peter Enns and the Historical Adam

Peter Enns' latest post suggests that he has identified the biggest theological objection to rejection of the historical Adam, the first man, specially created by God. Enns thinks that the biggest problem is the wrath of God. Adam's sin in the garden is important to explain why God's wrath is against the human race.

Obviously, I don't agree with much of what Enns says. As far as I am concerned, it seems pretty clear that he has rejected the Word of God, and consequently is outside the fold. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see which theological topics Enns thinks are most directly affected by a rejection of the literal sense of Genesis 1-2.

-TurretinFan

Religious Liberty - Vatican For or Against?

The Catholic News Service reported comments of Bishop Bernard Fellay, the superior general of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), one of the most prominent "traditionalist" groups. Fellay seemed to take the position that Vatican II has been widely misunderstood. On the topic of "Religious Liberty," Fellay said that "In our talks with Rome, they clearly said, that to mean that there would be a right to error - or a right to choose each one his religion is false." (link)

On the other hand, compare the Vatican's statements as recently as 2 March 2011:

... there is a fear that respecting the freedom to choose and practice another religion, different from one’s own, is based on a premise that all truth is relative and that one’s religion is no longer absolutely valid. That is a misunderstanding. The right to adopt, and to change, a religion is based on respect for human dignity: the State must allow each person to freely search for the truth.

(source)

Or consider these words of Benedict XVI, reported 14 February 2012:

I ask the whole Church, through patient dialogue with Muslims, to seek juridical and practical recognition of religious freedom, so that every citizen in Africa may enjoy not only the right to choose his religion freely and to engage in worship, but also the right to freedom of conscience. Religious freedom is the road to peace

(source)

To see why this sort of thing concerns traditionalists, compare to the following from Leo XIII (20 June 1888):

19. To make this more evident, the growth of liberty ascribed to our age must be considered apart in its various details. And, first, let us examine that liberty in individuals which is so opposed to the virtue of religion, namely, the liberty of worship, as it is called. This is based on the principle that every man is free to profess as he may choose any religion or none.

20. But, assuredly, of all the duties which man has to fulfill, that, without doubt, is the chiefest and holiest which commands him to worship God with devotion and piety. This follows of necessity from the truth that we are ever in the power of God, are ever guided by His will and providence, and, having come forth from Him, must return to Him. Add to which, no true virtue can exist without religion, for moral virtue is concerned with those things which lead to God as man's supreme and ultimate good; and therefore religion, which (as St. Thomas says) "performs those actions which are directly and immediately ordained for the divine honor",(7) rules and tempers all virtues. And if it be asked which of the many conflicting religions it is necessary to adopt, reason and the natural law unhesitatingly tell us to practice that one which God enjoins, and which men can easily recognize by certain exterior notes, whereby Divine Providence has willed that it should be distinguished, because, in a matter of such moment, the most terrible loss would be the consequence of error. Wherefore, when a liberty such as We have described is offered to man, the power is given him to pervert or abandon with impunity the most sacred of duties, and to exchange the unchangeable good for evil; which, as We have said, is no liberty, but its degradation, and the abject submission of the soul to sin.

21. This kind of liberty, if considered in relation to the State, clearly implies that there is no reason why the State should offer any homage to God, or should desire any public recognition of Him; that no one form of worship is to be preferred to another, but that all stand on an equal footing, no account being taken of the religion of the people, even if they profess the Catholic faith. But, to justify this, it must needs be taken as true that the State has no duties toward God, or that such duties, if they exist, can be abandoned with impunity, both of which assertions are manifestly false. For it cannot be doubted but that, by the will of God, men are united in civil society; whether its component parts be considered; or its form, which implies authority; or the object of its existence; or the abundance of the vast services which it renders to man. God it is who has made man for society, and has placed him in the company of others like himself, so that what was wanting to his nature, and beyond his attainment if left to his own resources, he might obtain by association with others. Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness-namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engravers upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they would provide - as they should do - with prudence and usefulness for the good of the community. For public authority exists for the welfare of those whom it governs; and, although its proximate end is to lead men to the prosperity found in this life, yet, in so doing, it ought not to diminish, but rather to increase, man's capability of attaining to the supreme good in which his everlasting happiness consists: which never can be attained if religion be disregarded.

22. All this, however, We have explained more fully elsewhere. We now only wish to add the remark that liberty of so false a nature is greatly hurtful to the true liberty of both rulers and their subjects. Religion, of its essence, is wonderfully helpful to the State. For, since it derives the prime origin of all power directly from God Himself, with grave authority it charges rulers to be mindful of their duty, to govern without injustice or severity, to rule their people kindly and with almost paternal charity; it admonishes subjects to be obedient to lawful authority, as to the ministers of God; and it binds them to their rulers, not merely by obedience, but by reverence and affection, forbidding all seditious and venturesome enterprises calculated to disturb public order and tranquillity, and cause greater restrictions to be put upon the liberty of the people. We need not mention how greatly religion conduces to pure morals, and pure morals to liberty. Reason shows, and history confirms the fact, that the higher the morality of States; the greater are the liberty and wealth and power which they enjoy.

(source)

Rome's singing a different tune today, because Rome is finding itself without the political power to which it had become accustomed. But what is curious is that the SSPX folks, or at least their superior general, seems to have received the impression that Rome agrees with SSPX that there is no right of religious liberty - no right of men to freely choose their own religion.

- TurretinFan

Congratulations to Triablogue

The Triablogue has racked up 10,000 posts. Congratulations!