Can Vatican II's Teaching on Religious Liberty Be Reconciled with Tradition?

[Glenoy]

Nice column by John Salza

remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-1115-salza-vaticansspx_discussion.htm

Can Vatican II’s Teaching on Religious Liberty Be Reconciled with Tradition? **
by John Salza, J.D.

As the long-awaited dialogue between the Vatican and the Society of Saint Pius X gets underway, one of the more contentious issues that will be on the table is the Second Vatican Council’s teaching on religious liberty found in Dignitatis Humanae (DH).

Following is a brief critique of DH in light of the traditional teachings of the Church. The fact that volumes have been written evaluating whether DH is compatible with tradition demonstrates that the document is prima facie ambiguous, if not problematic. Never before in the history of the Catholic Church has a conciliar document caused so much angst and confusion. That being said, any attempts to reconcile DH with pre-conciliar teaching must ultimately be resolved by the pope who is our final authority on earth. We pray that Pope Benedict XVI’s efforts to restore the Church to her traditions will include a clarification of this most confusing document.

We first note that Vatican II at the beginning of the document declares that “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 quite amazing that an ecumenical council had to declare that it was not going to touch “traditional Catholic doctrine,” as if it had the power to change “traditional Catholic doctrine.” This unprecedented disclaimer only goes to show that what was to follow was going to give some the impression that the council actually did in fact alter “traditional Catholic doctrine.”

What is the “traditional Catholic doctrine”? The Council properly identified it as the moral obligation for all men to worship the true God through membership in the Catholic Church. This means that no man has the moral right to be a member of another religion or to worship God outside of the Catholic faith. This is the unchangeable doctrine of the Catholic Church regarding religious liberty. After setting forth this unprecedented disclaimer, the document reveals its intention to “develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society” (No.1). It was to do this by “bringing forth new things that are in harmony with the things that are old” (No.1). The Church has ever been so explicit about its intention to “develop doctrine,” and has never said that it was going to teach “new things” that are in harmony with “old things”, in other words, Tradition. The fact is, “new things” cannot be in harmony with Tradition, because Tradition is the Deposit of Faith that was “once for all delivered unto the saints” (Jd 3).

In the very next section, the document sets forth its understanding of “religious freedom.” It says, “This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs” (No.2).

The first part of this declaration can be easily squared with traditional Catholic teaching. The Council says religious freedom means immunity from coercion, that is, being forced to act against one’s will. The Church has always taught that man cannot be coerced to believe against his will. For example, Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei (1885) said that “No one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for as St. Augustine reminds us, Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own free will.” DH is simply reasserting the obvious.

The document’s “development” on religious freedom comes in the second part of the teaching which says, “Nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits” (No.2). This includes “honoring the Supreme Being in public worship,” and the “right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith” (No.4). The “development” continues as the document says, “the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person” and “in his very nature” (No.2). “Thus, it is to become a civil right” (No.2). These “developments” certainly challenge the traditional teaching of the Church on religious liberty. How?

First, DH is saying that man has a right to adhere to religious error which is based on his “dignity” and “nature.” If man has a “moral obligation” to be Catholic, then how can he have a right not to be Catholic which is based on his nature? What is from nature is God-given. It is true that the document says this right must “become a civil right” and never says this is a “moral right.” However, because it says the foundation for the civil right is based on a person’s God-given dignity and nature, it certainly implies that a person’s right to profess error is a God-given, or moral right. The only thing that saves the document from professing this error explicitly is the disclaimer at the beginning, where the Council said it was “leaving untouched” the traditional teaching that man has a moral obligation to the Catholic Church. Needless to say, associating one’s right to adhere to error with one’s dignity and God-given nature flirts with a serious error. The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifically says that man does not have a license to adhere to error (CCC 2108).

 

[Glenoy]

continuation:

Second, DH essentially says that man has a “civil right” to adhere to religious error. Never before has the Church ever said such a thing. No pope before Vatican II ever stated that a person has a civil right to teach error in public, which threatens the souls of Catholics and runs afoul of Christ’s Great Commission. Rather, the popes have said that the government can tolerate religious error for the sake of avoiding greater evil or preserving greater good (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei (1885) and Libertas (1888)). The Church’s tradition has never been to legitimize what God merely tolerates. Thus, the “development” of religious liberty in DH is to move from State toleration to State legitimization. This is the major discontinuity between DH and pre-conciliar teaching.

The propagation of error is an evil, not a good, and it can be tolerated only to preserve the public welfare by preventing a greater evil. If the public welfare is not an issue, the propagation of error should be prevented, not given the status of a “civil right” (which means the right exists irrespective of the common good). Granted, DH confines the propagation of religious error in public to “within due limits,” but it nevertheless elevates it to a “civil right” based on the “dignity” and “nature” of the human person. These are unprecedented developments in the Church’s teaching on religious liberty.

In the Summa, St. Thomas Aquinas emphasizes this distinction between “toleration” and the moral faculty of “right” in his treatment of human law. St. Thomas says that human law is derived from the natural law, but “if in any point [the human law] deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law” Q.95, Art. 2, I-II. As applied here, if a civil right (which gives a person a right to worship a false god and influence others to do so) deflects from the law of nature (which imposes upon a person the obligation to worship the true God and influence others to do so), then we have a perversion of the law. Thus, the civil right (and not mere toleration) to publicly profess error, and risk corrupting Catholics in the process, is a perversion of the law which DH sanctions.

It is true that human law cannot forbid all vices. St. Thomas explains that the purpose of human law is to lead all men to virtue gradually, not suddenly. If human law required men to abstain from all evil, St. Thomas says that men would break into even greater evils, being unable to bear such stringent precepts. Q.96, Art. 2, I-II. However, St. Thomas never says that men have a “civil right” to engage in lesser evils. Instead, “human law rightly allows some vices, by not repressing them” (ibid). In other words, the State tolerates some evil to avoid greater evil. St. Augustine says, “The law which is framed for the government of states, allows and leaves unpunished many things that are punished by Divine Providence” (De. Lib. Arb. i.5). Thus, the focus of Sts. Thomas and Augustine is on the toleration of evil for a greater good, not elevating the evil to a “right,” civil or otherwise.

Moreover, the evil that may be tolerated (which DH enshrines as a civil right) is subject to God’s divine justice because it is evil and not good.

 

[Glenoy]

continuation

In short, there is nothing in the writings of the Fathers, doctors, saints or popes that elevates State toleration of evil to a civil right, especially by basing it upon human nature and dignity. There is a distinction between treating evil as a “civil right” (which gives the State the right to allow evil to exist even if the common good weren’t harmed) and merely tolerating evil for the common good (which would allow the State to punish evil even if the common good weren’t harmed). This is why Pope Leo XIII teaches, in Immortale Dei (1885), that “the Church does not condemn rulers who, for the sake of securing some greater good, tolerate false religions.” Again, there is nothing in pre-conciliar teaching about granting civil rights to objectively evil acts (worshiping in and promoting false religions) based on the dignity of the human person. Pope Pius IX similarly condemned the following: “the best condition of human society is that wherein no duty is recognized by the government of correcting violators of the Catholic religion except when the maintenance of the public peace requires it” Quanta Cura (1864).

What is even more astounding is the fact that DH never reaffirms the Church’s infallible doctrine on the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ, as elucidated in Pope Pius XI’s Quas Primas (1925). One wonders how the Council could have possibly issued a document on the rights of the State without saying one single word about the rights of Jesus Christ. As Pope Leo XIII teaches in Annum sacrum, “the empire of Christ the King includes not only Catholic nations…but all those who are outside the Christian faith.” The State is a creature that is subject to Jesus Christ, who has a double claim upon every individual as both Creator and Redeemer.

Therefore, the State has an obligation to render to Christ the worship that He has revealed to us through the Catholic religion. This truth is reflected in Pope Pius IX’s condemnation of the following in the Syllabus, No. 77: “In the present day, it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.” States have no right to remain neutral regarding religion or to promote secular policies regarding religion. As St. Paul says in Romans 13:1, “There is no power but from God.” Because all governments derive their power from God, no government has a right to enact a law that is contrary to the laws of God. Through its glaring omission of the Kingship of Christ (Pax Christi in Regno Christi), DH gives the impression that it has given the rights of contemporary man priority over the rights of Jesus Christ.

The only saving grace in DH’s teaching on the “civil right” to publicly profess error is that the right must be constrained “within due limits.” As we have said, if the greater good is harmed, then the religious freedom falls outside of “due limits” imposed by DH and must be restrained. Because the “common good” is a relative condition based upon the evolution of culture, the Church’s approach to religious freedom and the common good in DH is a policy that can change, not a doctrine that cannot change. The Catechism in paragraph 1906 defines the “common good” as “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.” Thus, because “social conditions” change, the “common good” and policies relating to it can also change. This also means DH’s questionable teachings are not part of the Church’s ordinary and universal infallible Magisterium, and are subject to amendment and reform in the future. This needed reform will undoubtedly be one of the agenda items for the Vatican/SSPX discussions.

 

[johnnykins]

Here is what the Council itself says about your question:

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2relfre.htm
“Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. 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.” (emphasis added)

It seems to me to be a pretty clear distinction between the prudential application of civil authority v. the doctrine of moral duty.

No big deal.

 

[Jacafamala]

Here is what the Council itself says about your question:

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2relfre.htm
“Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. 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.” (emphasis added)

It seems to me to be a pretty clear distinction between the prudential application of civil authority v. the doctrine of moral duty.

No big deal.

But DH says man has the right not to be Catholic. And that is the big ol’ fly in the proverbial ointment.

 

[rep140]

It is hard for the average layman to reconcile some of Pius IX’s teaching with V2.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’ve never understood why Dignitatis Humanae has been such a point of contention. I’ve read the thing several times and it seems like common sense: we can’t coerce people to choose a particular religion. Why is that such a controversial idea?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

But DH says man has the right not to be Catholic. And that is the big ol’ fly in the proverbial ointment.

I think he is right. Just as a man has the right to chose to go to Hell.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Okay, suppose I’m a Catholic monarch, and most of the population in my country is Catholic. I’m considering taking the following actions:

(1) Shutting down all non-Catholic churches and other houses of worship.

and/or

(2) Making it illegal not to be a Catholic, punishable with either (2a) an annual fine or (2b) imprisonment.

---

Under Catholic teaching, is action (1) legitimate but civilly imprudent, or actually immoral and against God’s will? Same questions for action (2a) and (2b).

It seems to me that prior to Vatican II, the general answer would have been all three possible actions were legitimate but civilly imprudent, but after Vatican II, I’m not so sure what the answer is now.

 

[Lainey63]

In regards to Just Lurkings hypothesis…we can easily see the ramifications of those conditions…by looking at Islam countries in which those conditions are met. I don’t see any good in where a particular religion has control over a country. History has proven that. As a matter of fact it is one of the fundamental reasons for the United States and one state in particular…Rhode Island

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Okay, suppose I’m a Catholic monarch, and most of the population in my country is Catholic. I’m considering taking the following actions:

(1) Shutting down all non-Catholic churches and other houses of worship.

and/or

(2) Making it illegal not to be a Catholic, punishable with either (2a) an annual fine or (2b) imprisonment.

Under traditional Catholic teaching, shutting down non-Catholic houses of worship could be valid, depending on the circumstances. Under this teaching, there is no “right” to propagate error that creates division from Christ. The whole purpose of life on Earth is to come into unity with Christ.

However, it wouldn’t be considered valid to punish people for not being Catholic. Generally heretics were treated pretty mildly in the Medieval Ages, if they didn’t try to spread their false doctrines. Anyone trying to spread a false religion among the faithful could be punished.

Under Catholic teaching, is action (1) legitimate but civilly imprudent, or actually immoral and against God’s will? Same questions for action (2a) and (2b).

It seems to me that prior to Vatican II, the general answer would have been all three possible actions were legitimate but civilly imprudent, but after Vatican II, I’m not so sure what the answer is now.

Under present Catholic teaching, none of the above actions is valid. I don’t believe in religious freedom myself, but the Vatican supports it and I’ll never cease in my obedience to Rome. The Church calls on the faithful to support religious freedom in law, so I’ll obey. Besides, I consider religious freedom a matter of necessity in our current political climate, because abolishing it would only create great persecutions against the Church. I don’t consider it to be a moral good, though.

ByzCath:

I think he is right. Just as a man has the right to chose to go to Hell.

Dignitatis Humanae denies that people have a right to choose Hell. It says everyone has a moral obligation to choose the Catholic religion. Therefore Hell is not a “right,” but a depraved choice. No one has a “right” to do evil. Just because God gives us the ability to steal or commit murder doesn’t mean we have the right to.

God gives people the ability to choose evil, but only the right to choose good.

 

[johnnykins]

But DH says man has the right not to be Catholic. And that is the big ol’ fly in the proverbial ointment.

Are we talking moral right or civil right? They are different. I really don’t see the big deal. The distinction is pretty apparent to me.

Now you could try to claim that the changes concerning the obligations of the state in this regard are somehow irreconcilable. However, I’m of the opinion that the civil application of moral law, i.e., how should the civil government react, is a matter of prudence. In that light it’s not a difficult matter at all.

Look, Pius IX gave us the infamous Mortara case in his abysmal application of moral law to that poor child and family. He royally screwed up, IMHO, the civil application of moral law in that matter. Well, he was human. The Church has no particular authority in civil law. Sorry, it’s a fact. The Church’s authority is in the Deposit of the Faith and morality. Specific civil actions, or applications of civil law, do not fall within that ambit beyond the fact that the civil authority must do what it best believes supports the moral law within the facts and powers at issue.

So, DH is simply using “right” within the civil context, not the moral context. It’s an application of prudence, then.

 

[johnnykins]

Under traditional Catholic teaching, shutting down non-Catholic houses of worship could be valid, depending on the circumstances.

Yep - and no wants wants to go there, now!

Under this teaching, there is no “right” to propagate error that creates division from Christ. The whole purpose of life on Earth is to come into unity with Christ.

true, but how the state uses it’s power is a very big issue. Frankly, the Church has often supported counterproductive uses of that power.

However, it wouldn’t be considered valid to punish people for not being Catholic. Generally heretics were treated pretty mildly in the Medieval Ages, if they didn’t try to spread their false doctrines. Anyone trying to spread a false religion among the faithful could be punished.

Not quite right. Heresy was punished severely. As was apostasy.That is being a Catholic and teaching error or leaving Catholicism were often capital offenses. Simply being non-Christian - say Jewish or Moslem, was different. Though any review of history shows there were issues there.

Under present Catholic teaching, none of the above actions is valid.

not supported and probably were always counterproductive is a better way to put it

. I don’t believe in religious freedom myself, but the Vatican supports it and I’ll never cease in my obedience to Rome. The Church calls on the faithful to support religious freedom in law, so I’ll obey. Besides, I consider religious freedom a matter of necessity in our current political climate, because abolishing it would only create great persecutions against the Church. I don’t consider it to be a moral good, though.

prudence, then?

Dignitatis Humanae denies that people have a right to choose Hell. It says everyone has a moral obligation to choose the Catholic religion. Therefore Hell is not a “right,” but a depraved choice. No one has a “right” to do evil. Just because God gives us the ability to steal or commit murder doesn’t mean we have the right to.

civil right v moral right Not every sin need be a crime

God gives people the ability to choose evil, but only the right to choose good.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Are we talking moral right or civil right? They are different. I really don’t see the big deal. The distinction is pretty apparent to me.

Now you could try to claim that the changes concerning the obligations of the state in this regard are somehow irreconcilable. However, I’m of the opinion that the civil application of moral law, i.e., how should the civil government react, is a matter of prudence. In that light it’s not a difficult matter at all.

Look, Pius IX gave us the infamous Mortara case in his abysmal application of moral law to that poor child and family. He royally screwed up, IMHO, the civil application of moral law in that matter. Well, he was human. The Church has no particular authority in civil law. Sorry, it’s a fact. The Church’s authority is in the Deposit of the Faith and morality. Specific civil actions, or applications of civil law, do not fall within that ambit beyond the fact that the civil authority must do what it best believes supports the moral law within the facts and powers at issue.

Christ is King over all that exists, all peoples and all civil laws and everything else. He isn’t only the King of Ethics. The Vicar of Christ is His representative on Earth, and the Church is Christ’s Body. Jesus said of the Church leaders, “He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me.” All civil laws are subject to Christ’s authority and therefore all governments and peoples have a responsibility to fill them with His truth. That truth is found in the Catholic Church.

The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. In Christ is the fullness of truth and the fullness of truth fills His Body. Therefore separation of Church and state is vile. It is separation of the state from truth, and separation from truth results in abomination. Hence the abortion and homosexual marriage crises, and the gross spread of perverted ideologies that fill the Earth without proper state censors to halt their progress in damning millions of souls to Hell.

johnnykins:

true, but how the state uses it’s power is a very big issue. Frankly, the Church has often supported counterproductive uses of that power.

Researching governments separate from Catholicism shows that these tended to be a lot worse. Ethical abuses are the natural consequence of separating the fully true religion from the state and basing law on the will of the people rather than the will of Christ.

johnnykins:

Not quite right. Heresy was punished severely. As was apostasy.That is being a Catholic and teaching error or leaving Catholicism were often capital offenses. Simply being non-Christian - say Jewish or Moslem, was different. Though any review of history shows there were issues there.

According to historian William Durant, the Church was generally lenient with heretics, provided they didn’t try to spread their false beliefs. There were periods in Church history where this wasn’t the case, but these were the exception rather than the rule. Liberal history books like to stereotype Medieval history in some abominable ways.

johnnykins:

civil right v moral right Not every sin need be a crime

But turning a soul away from God is probably the gravest sin, depending on the knowledge of the false prophet.

 

[Kook]

I think Fr. Harrison and Chris Ferrara have done a good job reconciling DH with traditional teaching. Consider that DH would have passed with much less controversy if the “due limits” in question had been described as the “common good.” The CCC says this very thing, so I think it makes for a gloss on the original document.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

I thought I would post a few quotes from the Popes regarding religious liberty.

After the French Revolution, an article of the Constitution in France allowed religious liberty. This is what Pope Paul VI said about that article:

Pope Paul VI: "T**here is certainly no need of many words, in addressing you, to make you fully recognize by how lethal a wound the Catholic religion in France is struck by this article. For when the liberty of all “religions” is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. ** **For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored HERESY which, as St. Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), “asserts that all heretics proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me.” **(Pope Pius XI, Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814.)

About 20 years later Pope Gregory XVI wrote the following in the encyclical Mirari Vos:

Mirari Vos: "This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit” is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws – in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

About 30 years later, Pope Pius IX wrote the following in the encyclical Quanta Cura:

Quanta Cura: “For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” **And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,” viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;” **

About 25 years later Pope Leo XIII wrote the following in the encyclical Libertas - an encyclical in which he condemned modern errors:

Libertas: “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**.

1. **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. **… 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."

 

[edwest2]

Vatican II said people should not feel coerced to the faith. Jesus did not coerce His disciples. The Church is here to spread the Gospel and there are some who do not accept it. But we must continue to preach the Gospel to the whole world. Later, a few took this message of freedom as one excuse behind the creation of the “free” Hippie culture of the late 1960s.

Certain complaints have been made about Vatican II but I was there before and after. Basic Church teaching remained.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Jacafamala]

I think he is right. Just as a man has the right to chose to go to Hell.

Well, it’s not about what you or I personally think, rather the issue is that Church teaching can never contradict itself. But perhaps these apparent contradictions will one day be explained to us better by the hierarchy.

 

[peary]

Why not? God does not force one to come to Him, and has given us free will to make that choice. Also, anyone who has been baptized with the Trinitarian formula is baptized in Christ regardless as to what denomination he or she is a member. This realization on the part of the Church was beginning to be serioiusly discussed at the First Vatican Council in the 1800s, but was continued by the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. It also threw new light on the relationship among our “separated brethren” and the Catholic Church.

 

[Jacafamala]

Why not? God does not force one to come to Him, and has given us free will to make that choice.

Were you replying to me or just in general?

What you say above is true, but still we’re not free to go against God’s will. To do so is a sin. As our late Holy Father JPII stated so well, we’re not free to choose evil.

Also, anyone who has been baptized with the Trinitarian formula is baptized in Christ regardless as to what denomination he or she is a member. This realization on the part of the Church was beginning to be serioiusly discussed at the First Vatican Council in the 1800s, but was continued by the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s. It also threw new light on the relationship among our “separated brethren” and the Catholic Church.

I’m not sure what your point is here. Could you explain a little further?