[Premises on true religion and social order] Even the unbelievers say that divine revelation would be contrary to the peace of the republics, since she would forbid the Church to tolerate any other religion that does not follow revelation; and this would be the cause of a thousand seditions and discords among peoples. Therefore they cannot suffer the evangelical dogma, that outside the Catholic Church there is no health. This is how Rousseau writes (Emil. t. 3. p. 172): “God forbid that I ever preach to men the cruel dogmas of intolerance, and that leads them to hate their neighbors, telling others; you will be damned”. Adds in the same place: “Intolerance is a horrible dogma, what a weapon against each other, and makes them enemies of the human race”. So the deists would like our Catholic Church to allow ecclesiastical tolerance, with which the people were made to believe, “that every good man, in any religion that lives, can save himself”: thus speaks the named Rousseau in the letter on page. 86.
They say that religion must be regarded as a national law, a law of pure external politics (as Rousseau himself writes in the aforementioned letter), which consequently does not oblige, that as long as one resides in the country where such a law is in force. Beautiful rule of believing and operating! From this it would follow, than a Christian, if he dwells among Christians, must believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and Savior of the world: if among the Turks, must believe that Jesus Christ is but a miserable precursor of Muhammad: if among the Jews, an impostor and seducer. But all this belief would be external, since according to the deists internally everyone can believe what they want; and behold, with the dogma of tolerance, a public school of hypocrisy opened, abominated by the Gentiles themselves, who after having forced the Christians through torments to renounce the faith, they then mocked them and despised them, if those out of weakness denied it. Besides, according to the deists, tolerance is based on the interest of the state and the government police, it follows that, the reasons for the interest and the police changing over time, we will change the dogma of tolerance together; hence those who previously had to tolerate each other, over time they will no longer be tolerated. So the dogma, by unbelievers judged essential to religion for the common good of peace, it will be a variable law over time? Therefore the essential dogmas of religion are also variable?
But it cannot be denied, they reply, than many wars and seditions, occurred especially in several kingdoms of Europe, would have happened, because the Catholic Church would not have wanted to tolerate those who followed another religion. But of these seditions and wars, he asks, who was the cause? Perhaps Jesus Christ by reproving tolerance, as he expressly rejected it, when he commanded his apostles to preach the gospel throughout the earth, declaring that anyone who did not believe it would be condemned: “Preach the gospel to every creature. He who believed, and he was baptized, he will be saved; He who does not believe will be condemned” (Marc. 16. 16). And he ordered that anyone who does not conform to the Church should be considered an infidel. “If the church does not listen, let him be to you as an ethnic and a publican” (Matt. 18. 17). No, that it wasn't Jesus Christ, nor is the Church the cause of wars and seditions; they were the enemies of the truth, which is taught by the Church, by wanting to separate from it and its doctrines. The religion that our Church professes, by forbidding sins and promoting good morals, promote common peace together. This is a truth that is clearly proven through experience: in that kingdom, where obedience to the church is most observed, there we can see peace reigning more. Rousseau himself confesses (Emil. t. 3. p. 182) and says: “Our governments are indisputably indebted to Christianity for their more solid authority and less frequent revolutions and for being made less bloodthirsty.. This is proven by fact, comparing them to ancient governments. The best known religion, taking away fanaticism, gave more than sweetness to’ Christian customs. This change is not the work of letters, for everywhere they have flourished, humanity was no longer respected; the cruelties of the Athenians, of the Egyptians, the emperors of Rome and China fully believe it. How many works of mercy has the gospel performed! How many restitutions and reparations does confession make among Catholics!”. Add to Rousseau's confession that of the author of the spirit of the laws (L. 24. c. 3) that it helps me to repeat here: “Admirable thing! the Christian religion, which seems to have no other objective than the happiness of the other life still makes our happiness here!”. And it is also admirable that this author (he signor Montesquieu) confess this maxim of the gospel, as he writes in his work (L. 24. part 10), that the Stoics were pure atheists: and then he says that the destruction of the Stoics was one of the misfortunes of mankind: therefore the destruction of the atheists was one of the misfortunes of the human race?
[Obtain and maintain true peace] But say the deists, that revealed religion is not necessary to maintain public tranquility, but it is enough to establish each one in his duties. Gold I ask, by what means does each one establish himself in his duties? Natural religion with its natural lights alone is not enough, as we already proved from the beginning in the §. I., while it is not even sufficient to make man aware of his duties due to the sin that has so darkened our mind, which without the light of revelation often makes us miss our obligations; and also when we see them, temptations and passions often make us prefer evil to good. And therefore divine grace is necessary for us, that we may first know our duties, and then with the help of grace we can fulfill them. If revealed religion brought no other good, than to put man in a system of living in an orderly manner, for this alone good effect of common peace should be embraced by all. The unhappiness of republics from where it arises, if not from the disorder of the details? Because everyone only looks after their own interest and pleasure, therefore there is no one who provides the common good; and from this the common restlessness then arises. Religion revealed at the meeting, for it brings order to all states of people, therefore it brings common peace. The deists reply, that there are natural means to this effect, what the laws are like, punishment and good governance, which are enough to curb the audacity of the libertines. Ma well, that without the restraint of religion none of these means is sufficient to correct the vicious and especially the unbelievers: they listen to nothing but their appetites, and on the occasion of being able to satisfy them they despise everything, laws, punishments and sovereigns. The laws are very useful in preserving good morals in moderate men, but they do not form them into villains; revealed religion alone forms good morals, and then ensure that the laws are all observed. The Protestant clergy even says that if there was no religion, which teaches that there is a sovereign judge who avenges infidelities, Rarely would men keep their promises, so without this fear the wicked would grow in excess. Even the penalties threatened by the laws are not enough to moderate the insolences of the rascals who disturb public peace; since crimes often go unpunished, or to be occult, or because there is insufficient evidence to punish them; and not rarely, although the crimes are proven, By escaping, criminals free themselves from punishment. The same clergy writes like this: The majority of men are not capable of working well for the sole aim of the public good; particular interest is almost always opposed to the common interest: the fear of divine punishment alone puts a stop to the disorder. And so it happened (says Barbeyracco) than the Sadducees, because they denied the immortality of the soul, they were enemies of society.
[Against the germ of the Revolution] Then talking about good governance, it is not denied that the good government of princes contributes much to the happiness of peoples; but religion alone is that which establishes common happiness; she alone puts the right order between sovereigns and subjects; and this order is what produces public peace. Religion makes the subjects understand, that every podestà is from God: “For there is no power except from God“(Rom. 13. 1). So the princes are ministers of the same God: “For they are servants of God, in this very service” (Ib. towards. 6). And therefore the subjects are required to obey them, not only for fear of punishment, but also out of obligation of conscience: “Therefore be subject to necessity, not only because of anger, but also because of conscience“(Towards. 5). And adds Saint Peter, who must obey not only pious sovereigns, but also to naughty and unfaithful people: “Servi, Be subject to your masters in all fear, not so much the good and the modest, but also schoolchildren“(1. Petr. 1. 18). At the meeting religion lets the sovereigns know, that if they abuse their authority in the government of peoples, they have to give a very strict account to God: “Because power has been given to you by the Lord… who will question your works, and his thoughts will be scrutinized” (Sap. 6.). Therefore their judgment will be very rigorous: “Because the judgment is very hard for them, who are in charge, will be done“(Ib. v. 6). So religion preserves the obedience and loyalty of the subjects, and curbs the greed and tyranny of sovereigns. The unbelievers then with their pernicious maxims thus oppose the moderation of princes in commanding, as to the submission of subjects in obeying; since they, having no respect for God, not even sovereigns have it [Saint Alphonsus describes these dynamics which, Unfortunately, esonderanno, Then, with the French Revolution and elsewhere, ndR]. This is how the impious John Rousseau writes from his mountain in his same book as Emile, speaking of subjection to sovereigns: “When all the kings were taken away, things couldn't get any worse; because the multitude will always be sacrificed to a small number (he means principles), and the public interest over particular interest; and these specious names of justice and subordination will always serve as instruments of violence and weapons of iniquity. Hence it follows that the distinct orders, who claim to be useful to others, they are effectively useful only to themselves at the expense of others”. He adds: “The supreme power is from God, as every pestilential disease comes from God: so men are required to avoid that, how they do everything to protect themselves from this”. He further says: “The principality serves no other purpose than to cruelly strip man of the best he has received from nature; while as a free man who is born he is placed miserably among the stocks. The prince benefits the people, like the wolf to the herds, good only for devouring them”. End by saying: “Catholicism is vicious, for being too favorable to tyranny”. This infamous book was condemned by the Archbishop of Paris in his edict of the year 1762. But note here the reckless spirit of freedom and seduction [poisonous pills of Revolution and communism, ndR], who promote deists among the people against the subjection they owe to their sovereigns. In short, they claim to establish public tranquility by inducing subjects to withdraw from obedience to the princes and their laws..
[Against the germ of Communism] The unbelievers also say, that to establish common happiness among peoples it would be necessary to establish equality of goods among all. So, I ask, by making all men equal in the possession of goods, common happiness would benefit? I say that this would lead to common unhappiness, and I try it. If everyone were equal in riches and honors, everyone would be unhappy; because the rich man would not have anyone to serve him in the needs of human life: how he could be provided with clothes, of foods, of furniture and many other things necessary for life? Each, to be provided for, he should know how to do all the arts. What if everyone then had to work manually to feed themselves, to get dressed and for anything else he needed, who could wait to study the books, to write about the sciences necessary for a good life [es. medicine, ndR] and to understand the sacred writings well? Who could be responsible for examining and adjudicating cases in the courts? What man would then want to subject himself to serving another, if he were equally provided with goods and honors? And so the ignorant would not find anyone to teach them, the sick person would not find anyone to treat him, and whoever had lost his belongings due to some misfortune, he would have no one to turn to to help him: should appeal to the prince, provide means to obtain his favor; and meanwhile how he would do it? That's religion, that by bringing order to all human needs, let the rich help the poor, the poor serve the rich, the learned instruct the ignorant, etc… And in this way everyone met their own needs, and meaning is given to all inequalities, since these mutual aids sufficiently compensate for the unequal distribution of goods, and form public tranquility. This is said in passing, but let's get back to the point of intolerance.
[Against poisonous Relativism] We've tried it already, that intolerance is not the cause of wars and seditions; but taken for granted, how completely false it is, that the intolerance of religions separate from the Catholic one caused discord, therefore the Church should admit error and have communication with those who reject true religion? If there is God, there must be true religion, who teaches the true faith, with which God makes us know the truths we must believe and the precepts we must observe. And if there is God (something that is already not denied by deists, because natural reason itself demonstrates it to us), this God being the supreme and most perfect being, it cannot be anything other than one, and consequently faith cannot be other than one, as Saint Paul writes: “One Lord, a fides, one baptism” (Ephesus. 4. 5), The religions are therefore different, which hold different dogmas of faith that are completely opposed to each other, they can't all be true, but only one must be true, while the truth can only be one. Now if divine revelation, which is preserved only in the Christian religion, it is absolutely necessary (as it has been tried) to our eternal health, how can we tolerate other religions, the kind, the Mohammedan, Judaica or similar, who deny divine revelation?
[Against the pestilential Pan-Christianity] And if we Catholics, who believe that among the Christian religions, only Catholic is the true one, for the incontrovertible and evident reason that assists it, that is, why (according to what I wrote in the work of Truth of faith part. III. cap. 6. n. 5. and in dogmatics Against the reformed negotiable. XIII. for everything) the Catholic was the first Church founded by Jesus Christ (something that not even the innovators themselves deny), and the same Savior promised her his assistance until the end of the world: “And behold, I am with you always until the end of the age“(Matt. 38. 20). Ed ha dichiarato che ella non sarà mai abbattuta dalle porte dell’inferno, che sono l’eresia: “Portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam“(Matt. 16. 18). Posto ciò, come la nostra religione cattolica può tollerare le altre che insegnano dottrine tutte contrarie a quelle che essa tiene? Che un ateo tolleri tutte le religioni, am s'intende, perché l’ateo nulla credendo, Nothing [dovrebbe] riprova[re, ndR]; ma chi crede alla religione rivelata da Dio, non può giammai tollerare alcuno errore da quella riprovato.
[Contro il menzognero Ecumenismo] Per evitare la forza di questa verità, i riformati con la scorta del signor Iurieu hanno inventato la distinzione degli articoli fondamentali e non fondamentali [invenzione che oggi, In the 2016, devono tenere tutti gli ecumenisti col fine di tentare, vanamente, to hold up their papier-mâché construct, ndR]. We don't deny it, that the theological points about supernatural truths are not all fundamental, many of them so far are also controversial among doctors [only the declarations of the Magisterium put an end to certain controversies, ndR], and until they are decided by the Church as fundamental, we are not required to follow any party. The fundamentals therefore are those that have already been determined by the Church, which according to the apostle is the firm pillar of truth: “Know how you ought to behave in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of truth” (1. Timothy. 3. 15). And these fundamental points have already been decided, we are all obliged to hold for certain. Nell’antica Alleanza poteva alcuno salvarsi fuori della legge ebraica, osservando i precetti naturali, come si salvò Giobbe con più altri, secondo quanto è ritenuto, con la credenza di un Dio rimuneratore e con la fede almeno implicita del Redentore [Our Lord Jesus Christ, ndR] future: ma Gesù Cristo nella nuova alleanza ha stabilito per tutti la fede, che deve tenersi per conseguire la salute eterna; poiché solo in Gesù Cristo si trova la salute: “Non est in aliquo alio salus” (Act. 12). Sicché questa Chiesa di Gesù Cristo è l’unica vera, fuori di cui non vi è salute.
[La Chiesa cattolica odiata da tutti i nemici di Gesù] I deisti all’incontro, e parimente i protestanti, tollerano tutte le religioni, fuorché la cattolica, e così in sostanza non ne ammettono veruna, e si dichiarano nemici di Gesù Cristo, il quale disse: “Qui non est mecum, contra me est; et qui non colligit mecum, dispergit” (Luc. 11. 23) – Chi non è con Me è contro di Me …. Quindi l’apostolo ammoniva i suoi discepoli a rifiutare ogni dottrina diversa da quella ch’egli aveva loro insegnata, ancorché fosse venuto un angelo dal cielo ad annunziarla: “Sed licet vos, aut angelus de coelo evangelizet vobis, praeterquam quod evangelizavimus vobis, anathema sit” (Gal. 1. 8) – SIA ANATEMA!. Adducendone la ragione, perché tale dottrina l’aveva appresa per rivelazione di Gesù Cristo: “Neque enim ego ab homine accepi illud neque didici, sed per revelationem Iesu Christi” (Towards. 12). E lo stesso scrisse san Giovanni: “Si quis venit ad vos, et hanc doctrinam non affert, nolite recipere eum in domum, nec ave ei dixeritis” (2. Ep. n. 10) [“Se qualcuno viene a voi e non porta questo insegnamento, non ricevetelo in casa e non salutatelo”. Questo preciso passo sarà ricordato anche da Papa Pio XI nella sua The Souls of Mortals, che ripubblicheremo amDg on the number 27 Of Sursum corda, contro l’Ecumenismo e contro i Raduni ecumenici, ndR]. Come dunque può stimarsi irragionevole l’intolleranza della Chiesa cattolica romana, allorché separa da sé coloro che seguono altra dottrina? Ma perché poi, they say, la Chiesa romana condanna chi non è della sua comunione? La Chiesa non lo condanna, ma giustamente con la scomunica lo divide dal suo corpo, per ubbidire a Gesù Cristo che ordina: “Si autem ecclesiam non audierit, sit tibi sicut ethnicus et publicanus” (Matt. 18. 17) – [… e se non ascolterà neanche la Chiesa, sia per te come un pagano e un pubblicano, ndR].
[Contro i Raduni ecumenici per la falsa pace] Ma dicono: Iddio vuole la pace comune. E chi lo nega? ma non la vuole con discapito della sua fede; Egli ch’è il Principe della pace, la vuole, e ci comanda di conservarla con noi e cogli altri: “Inquire pacem, et persequere eam” (Ps. 33. 15). Ma di qual pace intende parlare il Signore? Parla della pace vera, che si acquista e si mantiene coll’esercizio delle virtù: “Fiat pax in virtute tua“(Oseae 6. 7). Parla di quella pace che si ottiene [solo, ndR] con lo stare unito con Dio e col prossimo; e questa ci conduce poi alla felicità eterna. Non parla già della pace falsa, che si suppone ottenersi col tollerare coloro che vogliono credere ed operare a loro piacere contro quello che Dio ha rivelato; questa è la pace degli empi che dormono nella lor perdizione; questa pace di morte non la vuole il nostro Salvatore, ma Egli è venuto a discacciarla dalla terra: “Nolite arbitrari (these), quia pacem venerim mittere in terram: non veni pacem mittere, sed gladium” (Matt. 10. 34) – [Non crediate che io sia venuto a portare pace sulla terra; non sono venuto a portare pace, ma una spada, ndR]. Saint Luke (12. 51) instead of “gladium” he wrote “separationem”; sicché Gesù Cristo è venuto a separare gl’infedeli dai fedeli, acciocché i fedeli non si perdano col comunicare con gl’infedeli, as he explains (Verso 58) lo stesso san Luca, saying: “Cum autem vadis cum adversario tuo ad principem, in via da operam liberari ab illo, ne forte trahat te ad iudicem, et iudex tradat te exactori, et exactor mittat te in carcerem“. Ecco il precipizio, al quale conduce la tolleranza col comunicare coi nemici della fede.
[Conclusion] Gian Leonardo Froereisen in una orazione detta e stampata in Argentina nell’anno 1743, essendo rettore di quella università, piange lo stato di molte chiese della comunione augustana, and says: “La nostra comunione pare un’armata, ove ciascuno vuol far da capo; ella è un serpe tagliato in più parti, le quali vivono, ma presto perderanno la vita“. Ecco la bella tranquillità che nasce dalla tolleranza! Inoltre dalla tolleranza, che i riformati [i Protestanti dai cui velenosi insegnamenti si spargerà nei secoli il germe della Rivoluzione, fino alla moribonda e deprimente società contemporanea, ndR] si sono posti a predicare nei loro libri, che n’è avvenuto? Che si è posto in dimenticanza il dogma, e così poi si è introdotto il deismo e l’ateismo, poich’è facilissimo il passare dal deismo all’ateismo, contro cui poi hanno cercato di scrivere con molto calore essi riformati; ma debbono confessare che a tal precipizio essi hanno dato la spinta, con promuovere la libertà di pensare in materia di religione, in modo che ora per quanto si affaticano, non possono più rimediarvi.
[Per dovere di testimonianza della vera fede, così per obbligo morale, il curatore del presente articolo informa i lettori che i documenti del cosiddetto Vaticanosecondo dai titoli: Unitatis redintegratio, Our Age, Gaudium ed Spes e Human Dignity, a volte con proposizioni spregiudicate, altre volte dietro elaborati sofismi, in alcuni casi ammettendo e poi negando, contraddicono nella sostanza tutto quanto è stato qui enunciato da sant’Alfonso Maria de’ Ligurians, which, on the contrary, si è rigorosamente attenuto al dogma cattolico (cf. Denzinger, EDB, pp. 974; cf. Benedict XIV, De Servorum Dei beatificatione, II, 28, § 2; Decreto della Sacra Congregazione dei Riti of the 18 maggio 1803 circa l’esame delle sue opere; Risposta della Santa Penitenzieria all’arcivescovo di Besançon, 5 July 1831; Risposta al “confessore dubbioso”, confermata dal Papa il 22 July 1831; Bolla di canonizzazione Sanctitas et doctrina of the 26 maggio 1839; Gregorio XVI, Acta, a cura di A.M. Bernasconi 2, 305a-309b; Decreto Inter eos qui of the 23 March 1871, che gli conferisce il titolo di «dottore della chiesa»; Pio IX, Acta, 1/V, 296-298; ecc …) ed al comune insegnamento della Chiesa a riguardo (lo impareremo adeguatamente studiando domenica 25 September 2016 the The Souls of Mortals di Papa Pio XI). Chi non vuol credere a questa precisazione, creda almeno ai fatti, alla storia, ndR].
Tratto da Sant’Alfonso Maria de’ Liguori, Riflessioni sulla verità della Divina Rivelazione, Cap. III. La divina rivelazione non si oppone alla pubblica tranquillità. Curatore dell’articolo CdP (Centro Studi Vincenzo Ludovico Gotti).
 

SOURCE – https://www.sursumcorda.cloud/massime-e-meditazioni/sant-alfonso-sull-ecumenismo.html