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

[wisdomseeker]

Well, the Church taught it first. Pope Leo XIII talks about separation of church and state being wrong in “Immortale Dei” and explains why. Pius IX condemns it in his Syllabus of Errors, if I recall correctly. I’m sure their teaching is present in many other popes. The Church certainly didn’t practice anything like separation of church and state in the Medieval Ages, or for most of her history in the modern era either.

My thing about “three conditions of government” is just my thing, my point of view based on my reading of history. No one needs to agree with me.

whose idea was that the state should be separated from the Church?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

whose idea was that the state should be separated from the Church?

James Madison credits Martin Luther’s doctrine of “two kingdoms” as the first major step toward separation of Church and State in European history. In his doctrine of two kingdoms, Martin Luther distinguishes between the spiritual world in which man is subject to God and the physical world which man is subject to the state.

The Englishman John Locke, an Enlightenment thinker, was one of the first people to argue for separation of church and state. He probably was the founder of explicit conception of separation of Church and State. Thomas Jefferson took most of his ideas from Locke when developing the founding beliefs of the American Republic. The idea had its origin in Reformation and Enlightenment thought, outside the Church. Vatican II acknowledges these beliefs’ origin outside the Church in a portion of Dignitatis Humanae, if I recall correctly. Religious liberty also was a belief formulated by mostly the same thinkers. Locke and Jefferson had a big impact on spreading religious freedom while the Church rejected it.

Luther initially supported religious freedom too, but he ultimately didn’t practice it when he gained power. He encouraged the extermination of Catholics, Anabaptists and Jews, cursed Calvin and praised God when Zwingli was killed in battle. But that’s unrelated to the topic at hand . . .

 

[wisdomseeker]

James Madison credits Martin Luther’s doctrine of “two kingdoms” as the first major step toward separation of Church and State in European history. In his doctrine of two kingdoms, Martin Luther distinguishes between the spiritual world in which man is subject to God and the physical world which man is subject to the state.

The Englishman John Locke, an Enlightenment thinker, was one of the first people to argue for separation of church and state. He probably was the founder of explicit conception of separation of Church and State. Thomas Jefferson took most of his ideas from Locke when developing the founding beliefs of the American Republic. The idea had its origin in Reformation and Enlightenment thought, outside the Church. Vatican II acknowledges these beliefs’ origin outside the Church in a portion of Dignitatis Humanae, if I recall correctly. Religious liberty also was a belief formulated by mostly the same thinkers. Luther, Locke and Jefferson had a bit impact on spreading religious freedom while the Church rejected it.

Though Luther ultimately didn’t practice religious freedom, when he gained power. He encouraged the extermination of Catholics, Anabaptists and Jews, cursed Calvin and praised God when Zwingli was killed in battle. But that’s unrelated to the topic at hand . . .

that is what i thought. how much more damage the people of me and my Bible can do?
and they continue on their journey wihtout realizing what they are doing. perhaps somebody can point out to them, what my Bible and me is doing to the world.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

that is what i thought. how much more damage the people of me and my Bible can do?
and they continue on their journey wihtout realizing what they are doing. perhaps somebody can point out to them, what my Bible and me is doing to the world.

Well, it’s valuable to remember that right now Protestant Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are functioning as a strong force against abortion, euthanasia, human embryonic stem cell research and homosexual marriage in the US. Because of their strong ethical stance on many moral issues and their reliance on a living experience of God, they endure a lot from secularists and liberals. Many of them suffer harassment or verbal abuse for their faith, their belief in the infallibility of the Bible, and their strong ethical positions. In all this, these Christians bring glory to God. Modern conservative Protestants are not the same people that rebelled against the Church in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Even though Protestant conservatives often harbor anti-Catholic sentiments because they believe we hold to false doctrines, they are our natural allies and I think we’d do well to work with them. God works through and lives among a lot of the Protestant conservatives of today. We should fight side by side with them against the deep evils of our day, while at the same time holding dialogue with the Protestants about Christianity so that we can understand them better, and the relationships with God they experience, and so that they can come into a fuller understanding and appreciation of our faith. Most divisions between conservative Protestants and Catholics exist because the Protestants don’t understand what we believe and are still brought up believing Reformation-era lies about the nature of Catholicism. Working with them and dialoguing with them (peacefully), we might help dispel some of those misunderstandings.

 

[yosupman]

You know yosupman

, your post seems to touch lightly on my ideas about just government. I see there as being three conditions of government in regard to ethics, and each of these categories is a “general” condition rather than something that covers all bases. There will be counter-examples because the realities are very complex, but I think these three conditions of government are accurate on a general level.

Interesting.

The best form of government is one that upholds the good and suppresses the evil. That’s what we had in the Medieval Ages (not that I’m saying they made no mistakes, of course). In some Catholic states or empires, we had it for a substantial part of the modern era as well. The Austrian and Spanish Empires, for instance, were steady Catholic governments that generally suppressed the evil and upheld the good, basing their laws on the ethics laid down by the Vatican.

Its Jamal speak. It means that you are fully understanding the situation.

 

[diggerdomer]

I want to be a Catholic who maintains intellectual integrity while at the same time fulfilling all the obligations of my faith and obeying the Church faithfully. Therefore I need to know whether I am required to believe in religious freedom or not. The answer to that question appears to be no. Because of my perspective and the journey I’ve come down, that is important to me, while others will just shrug it off and say, “Who cares? We should just agree with them.” The Church certainly can be right when saying things without the protection of infallibility. But because of the evidence before me, I cannot agree with the Church on this point unless this teaching is infallibly defined and I’m required to believe it. If that was the situation, I would reject my reason and follow the Church out of sheer faith.

This situation is a tough situation for me, a “thorn in my flesh,” you might say. I hope and believe I’m a faithful Catholic though, and if I am required to believe in religious freedom, I would very much like to know it. I submit myself to the Church I love.

As far as I can see from the evidence, religious freedom is not a truly Catholic teaching and Vatican II did not obligate Catholics to believe in it, but rather, past Church teaching obligates me to reject claims that it is good. Therefore out of submission to the Church, I don’t believe I can agree with Dignitatis Humanae, though I will certainly obey all the Church’s commands and give Vatican II the “religious submission” she requires, as always. And I praise God for the Church’s wisdom. I do love the Church.

Thank you, sincerely, for your honesty and thoughtful sharing. I sincerely appreciate it. I think I can understand the difficulty of this issue. I hope that all of us who sincerely love the Church can continue to “iron out” these seeming differences so that the Gospel of Christ can be more effectively and powerfully proclaimed in our world today.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

yosupman, I agree completely with your last post except for one bit, so I guess that’s the part I should respond to. Except to say I’m glad we agree on so much else .

yosupman:

I started a thread, which was a bate and switch on infallibility. No one has hardly responded, because it’s so clear cut. The title was “Take the SSPX challenge”. I basically challenge anyone to out-and-out that Vactican II taught heresy. The first person to respond was an SSPXer, and he said no way. Not possible. So I don’t think our argument is about whether VII taught heresy.

I won’t say positively that the council taught heresy, but I do suspect that that happened. I don’t see it as impossible, since the council was not protected by the charism of infallibility. I’m not interested in making any accusations at a Church council. That is not a discussion I’d care to be in. I am interested in the discussion of whether or not it’s possible the council taught error. But I’m not interested in opinions on this anymore; I want solid evidence from official Church documents. I’m planning to buy Ludwig Ott’s book soon, and maybe I’ll get answers there.

yosupman:

Its about understanding where the church is comming from in this thread on DH.

That’s another discussion well worth having . To me, it’s a rather sad one, because I believe Dignitatis Humanae’s teaching is that religious freedom is an inherent right of man flowing from his free will, giving him even the liberty to teach and spread error and worship God in the way he chooses “within due limits.” If I recall correctly, it says men should be free to believe and spread error without fear from civil authorities, because they have the right to hold to and spread error in this way because of the inherent dignity their free will gives them.

The “within due limits” clause helps a LOT to make the teaching more consistent with the Church’s historical position, but it still leaves a lot of teaching present that looks contradictory to what the Church taught in the past.

I’d like to see your case that Dignitatis Humanae was teaching what you believe it’s teaching, for the reasons you said .

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Thank you, sincerely, for your honesty and thoughtful sharing. I sincerely appreciate it. I think I can understand the difficulty of this issue. I hope that all of us who sincerely love the Church can continue to “iron out” these seeming differences so that the Gospel of Christ can be more effectively and powerfully proclaimed in our world today.

Agreed!

I’m so grateful for the unity of faith we share in the Catholic Church! I’m much less concerned about this issue than I am about bringing others into full communion with the Church, the Orthodox, the Anglicans and all the scattered Protestant denominations around the world. I’m so glad Pope Benedict XVI is so focused on unifying the Church, that that is his great passion! We may live to see divisions that have rent the Church for centuries healed.

I’m also very glad the pope is reaching out to the SSPX as he is.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Well, it’s valuable to remember that right now Protestant Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are functioning as a strong force against abortion, euthanasia, human embryonic stem cell research and homosexual marriage in the US. Because of their strong ethical stance on many moral issues and their reliance on a living experience of God, they endure a lot from secularists and liberals. Many of them suffer harassment or verbal abuse for their faith, their belief in the infallibility of the Bible, and their strong ethical positions. In all this, these Christians bring glory to God. Modern conservative Protestants are not the same people that rebelled against the Church in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Even though Protestant conservatives often harbor anti-Catholic sentiments because they believe we hold to false doctrines, they are our natural allies and I think we’d do well to work with them. God works through and lives among a lot of the Protestant conservatives of today. We should fight side by side with them against the deep evils of our day, while at the same time holding dialogue with the Protestants about Christianity so that we can understand them better, and the relationships with God they experience, and so that they can come into a fuller understanding and appreciation of our faith. Most divisions between conservative Protestants and Catholics exist because the Protestants don’t understand what we believe and are still brought up believing Reformation-era lies about the nature of Catholicism. Working with them and dialoguing with them (peacefully), we might help dispel some of those misunderstandings.

you are a much better than i am. i command you for that. the fact is they have done so much damage to the CC for centuries. that is the reason we have all this troubles today.

still we should not forget those other christian force out there who insist in those immoral issues. this is harmfull to the Faith and lead many into err.

it is all in God’s hand.

 

[yosupman]

Lief,
.
Ok, I think the church in DH, and always and everywhere has held the right not to be coerced in believing in Christ. I’m sure that is a truth the church will never change. Of course it doesn’t mean that the population has a right to spread error about the Catholic faith

Some friends of mine, that used to be in the SSPX, and then left have an interesting take on DH. Their point is that when you have a Catholic country with a majority of the population being Catholic, then it’s total legit to restrain religious liberty in the sense, you can crack down on heresy, etc. The reason is, to be a public heretic threatens public order and safety. In today’s democracies, with a lot of countries even in the West without majority Catholic populations, and much more pluralism, you can’t crack down on heresy from a civil law viewpoint. But it doesn’t prevent the government from passing laws that enforce the natural law.

Lets start here, and see what you think.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Lief,
.
Ok, I think the church in DH, and always and everywhere has held the right not to be coerced in believing in Christ. I’m sure that is a truth the church will never change. Of course it doesn’t mean that the population has a right to spread error about the Catholic faith

One cannot convert non-Christians by force. However, one can wield the civil law against people spreading errors that lead people away from God, and against public heretics who threaten the unity of the Church through their bad example. I personally would favor leaving heretics alone unless they are spreading their errors or leading people away from God through their bad example. It’s the spread of error that civil law really needs to crack down on.

In the Medieval Ages, the Church was generally tolerant of groups of intellectuals who embraced heresy but kept their errors to themselves. It was when they tried to spread those errors that the Church cracked down.

The reason is that as long as an error is contained to an individual, that person alone is being hurt, and we need to help that soul. However, when the person is not only destroying himself through his error but is destroying others too, then the law needs to step in and prevent this evil from spreading.

Some friends of mine, that used to be in the SSPX, and then left have an interesting take on DH. Their point is that when you have a Catholic country with a majority of the population being Catholic, then it’s total legit to restrain religious liberty in the sense, you can crack down on heresy, etc. The reason is, to be a public heretic threatens public order and safety. In today’s democracies, with a lot of countries even in the West without majority Catholic populations, and much more pluralism, you can’t crack down on heresy from a civil law viewpoint. But it doesn’t prevent the government from passing laws that enforce the natural law.

Lets start here, and see what you think.

I agree with this.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

you are a much better than i am. i command you for that. the fact is they have done so much damage to the CC for centuries. that is the reason we have all this troubles today.

still we should not forget those other christian force out there who insist in those immoral issues. this is harmfull to the Faith and lead many into err.

it is all in God’s hand.

Some Protestants hold to more errors than others, and some ally themselves in modern times with evil forces to spread wickedness in our culture, while others fight these people in order to spread righteousness.

I think we basically have to support all that is good and resist all that is evil. So we need to ally with and encourage Protestants in the good they are doing while working to dispel the errors they hold to. We need to do all things in love, and when we can’t, we need to pray to be able to.

For a time, I hated Martin Luther. I seriously hated him because of how he tore apart the Body of Christ, encouraged bigamy, tried to get “Papists” killed, encouraged and then ruthlessly betrayed the German Peasants’ Revolt, spread abominable doctrines, sought the destruction of the Jews and everyone who disagreed with him, and encouraged the spread of many sins. I read from his books and they were abominable.

However, I felt the Lord calling my spirit toward forgiveness and when I told my priest in Confession about my hate, he told me to pray for Martin Luther’s soul. So that’s what I’ve been doing. It’s extremely hard, but it helps to dispel some of that anger.

That man was evil, like Hitler was (and indeed, Hitler was largely following his teachings), but it would be hard to find any modern Protestants like him. Conservative Protestantism today is very different from 16th century Protestantism, is a lot more open to truth and less violent in error. Most conservative Protestants are holding fast to Christ insofar as they are able. I lived among them and know what they are like and believe, and there is a LOT of holiness among many of them. Many are sincerely following Christ insofar as they are able, given what they have. They are a great, great blessing to our modern society, certainly part of the “salt of the earth” that brings delight to God and is a stench in the nostrils of the wicked men of the world.

Would you join me in praying to Mary for all the Protestants? Many of them are our natural allies and we need unity with them, for they are part of the Body of Christ and Jesus calls on all His Body to come to Heaven perfectly, as one (John 17:23). You can’t imagine how blessed we would be to have them as our companions in fighting the world’s evil, whether in full unity or not!

 

[diggerdomer]

Some Protestants hold to more errors than others, and some ally themselves in modern times with evil forces to spread wickedness in our culture, while others fight these people in order to spread righteousness.

I think we basically have to support all that is good and resist all that is evil. So we need to ally with and encourage Protestants in the good they are doing while working to dispel the errors they hold to. We need to do all things in love, and when we can’t, we need to pray to be able to.

For a time, I hated Martin Luther. I seriously hated him because of how he tore apart the Body of Christ, encouraged bigamy, tried to get “Papists” killed, encouraged and then ruthlessly betrayed the German Peasants’ Revolt, spread abominable doctrines, sought the destruction of the Jews and everyone who disagreed with him, and encouraged the spread of many sins. I read from his books and they were abominable.

However, I felt the Lord calling my spirit toward forgiveness and when I told my priest in Confession about my hate, he told me to pray for Martin Luther’s soul. So that’s what I’ve been doing. It’s extremely hard, but it helps to dispel some of that anger.

That man was evil, like Hitler was (and indeed, Hitler was largely following his teachings), but it would be hard to find any modern Protestants like him. Conservative Protestantism today is very different from 16th century Protestantism, is a lot more open to truth and less violent in error. Most conservative Protestants are holding fast to Christ insofar as they are able. I lived among them and know what they are like and believe, and there is a LOT of holiness among many of them. Many are sincerely following Christ insofar as they are able, given what they have. They are a great, great blessing to our modern society, certainly part of the “salt of the earth” that brings delight to God and is a stench in the nostrils of the wicked men of the world.

Would you join me in praying to Mary for all the Protestants? Many of them are our natural allies and we need unity with them, for they are part of the Body of Christ and Jesus calls on all His Body to come to Heaven perfectly, as one (John 17:23). You can’t imagine how blessed we would be to have them as our companions in fighting the world’s evil, whether in full unity or not!

Does it make a difference to you that in hating Martin Luther you were hating a Catholic priest? Just wondering.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Some Protestants hold to more errors than others, and some ally themselves in modern times with evil forces to spread wickedness in our culture, while others fight these people in order to spread righteousness.

I think we basically have to support all that is good and resist all that is evil. So we need to ally with and encourage Protestants in the good they are doing while working to dispel the errors they hold to. We need to do all things in love, and when we can’t, we need to pray to be able to.

For a time, I hated Martin Luther. I seriously hated him because of how he tore apart the Body of Christ, encouraged bigamy, tried to get “Papists” killed, encouraged and then ruthlessly betrayed the German Peasants’ Revolt, spread abominable doctrines, sought the destruction of the Jews and everyone who disagreed with him, and encouraged the spread of many sins. I read from his books and they were abominable.

However, I felt the Lord calling my spirit toward forgiveness and when I told my priest in Confession about my hate, he told me to pray for Martin Luther’s soul. So that’s what I’ve been doing. It’s extremely hard, but it helps to dispel some of that anger.

That man was evil, like Hitler was (and indeed, Hitler was largely following his teachings), but it would be hard to find any modern Protestants like him. Conservative Protestantism today is very different from 16th century Protestantism, is a lot more open to truth and less violent in error. Most conservative Protestants are holding fast to Christ insofar as they are able. I lived among them and know what they are like and believe, and there is a LOT of holiness among many of them. Many are sincerely following Christ insofar as they are able, given what they have. They are a great, great blessing to our modern society, certainly part of the “salt of the earth” that brings delight to God and is a stench in the nostrils of the wicked men of the world.

Would you join me in praying to Mary for all the Protestants? Many of them are our natural allies and we need unity with them, for they are part of the Body of Christ and Jesus calls on all His Body to come to Heaven perfectly, as one (John 17:23). You can’t imagine how blessed we would be to have them as our companions in fighting the world’s evil, whether in full unity or not!

Thank you. you are an encouragement to many. i will pray like you for those who are an error. God bless.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Does it make a difference to you that in hating Martin Luther you were hating a Catholic priest? Just wondering.

To be honest, I didn’t think of that. He was excommunicated and so ceased to be a Catholic priest, at least as far as I know. Can a heretic who has abandoned the Church and is fighting her still be a Catholic priest, or is he automatically defrocked upon excommunication?

He was, to a large extent, responsible through his betrayal of the Church for bringing the world to the state of corruption and destruction it is in now. As I came to love the Church more, I came to hate evil more, and unfortunately I extended that hate not only to the evil itself but to one of its chief perpetrators.

Thank you. you are an encouragement to many. i will pray like you for those who are an error. God bless.

Great! It gives me more heart to have another ally in this matter . Prayers are powerful!

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

I’ve been away for a while, and just finished reading up to this point. There’s a few points that I want to address.

Lief,

Ok, I think the church in DH, and always and everywhere has held the right not to be coerced in believing in Christ. I’m sure that is a truth the church will never change. Of course it doesn’t mean that the population has a right to spread error about the Catholic faith

Some friends of mine, that used to be in the SSPX, and then left have an interesting take on DH. Their point is that when you have a Catholic country with a majority of the population being Catholic, then it’s total legit to restrain religious liberty in the sense, you can crack down on heresy, etc. The reason is, to be a public heretic threatens public order and safety. In today’s democracies, with a lot of countries even in the West without majority Catholic populations, and much more pluralism, you can’t crack down on heresy from a civil law viewpoint. But it doesn’t prevent the government from passing laws that enforce the natural law.

Lets start here, and see what you think.

That is exactly right. The only question I have is what you meant in the last sentence. When you said that, “it doesn’t prevent the government from passing laws that enforce the natural law” did you mean that it would be lawful for a government to forbid the public profession of heresy as an enforcement of the natural law? In other words, although it may not be practically possible or even good (given the circumstances) for a particular government to suppress all heresy, that doesn’t imply that the government does not have the right to do so when it deems it prudent (such as when 99.9% of the population is Catholic).

If that is what you meant, then I agree with everything you said, because everything you wrote is in line with what the Church always taught.

In post #156, the discussion drifted to “the principle of toleration”, which means that, due to certain circumstances, it is sometimes best for a government to tolerate false worship in order to maintain public order. This is a good topic to discuss because it deals with the “other side” of religious liberty; namely, that although man has no right to profess a false religion, it is sometimes the best policy for a State to tolerate false worship. That is Catholic teaching.

Now, I think most, if not all, would agree that in a pluralistic society such as we have in America, it is certainly best for the government to tolerate heresy. Since American is not a Catholic country; and since it is made up of a high percent of heretics, infidels and other non-believers, for our government to attempt to forbid heresy would be a disaster. Therefore, the principle of toleration is certainly the best policy for America.

The following is from the encyclical Libertas. This is one of the encyclicals I quoted earlier that condemns religious liberty and separation of Church and state as an error. Here’s the “other side” of the issue.

Pope Leo XIII, Libertas: " Yet, with the discernment of a true mother, the Church weighs the great burden of human weakness, and well knows the course down which the minds and actions of men are in this our age being borne. For this reason, while not conceding any right to anything save what is true and honest, she does not forbid public authority to tolerate what is at variance with truth and justice, for the sake of avoiding some greater evil, or of obtaining or preserving some greater good. God Himself in His providence, though infinitely good and powerful, permits evil to exist in the world, partly that greater good may not be impeded, and partly that greater evil may not ensue. In the government of States it is not forbidden to imitate the Ruler of the world; and, as the authority of man is powerless to prevent every evil, it has (as St. Augustine says) to overlook and leave unpunished many things which are punished, and rightly, by Divine Providence.[10] But if, in such circumstances, for the sake of the common good (and this is the only legitimate reason), human law may or even should tolerate evil, it may not and should not approve or desire evil for its own sake; for evil of itself, being a privation of good, is opposed to the common welfare which every legislator is bound to desire and defend to the best of his ability…

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

continue

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

continuation

Toleration of certain evils is sometimes necessary for the government, depending on the circumstances. Based on the circumstances today, I think all would agree that the evil of false worship will have to be tolerated.

But there’s a difference between saying an evil should be tolerated (at least for the time being) and saying that men have a *right *to do the evil. If they have a “right” to do the evil, it follows that the government would be forbidden from suppressing the evil - to do so would be to take away something that the individual a right to.

Here is where we get to the controversy over religious liberty. No one (that I know of) claims that the government has a duty to always suppress false worship (Pius XII condemns that idea); however, the government does have the right to suppress false worship when it deems it prudent to do so.

But according to the new understanding of religious liberty, man has a *natural *right to publicly profess a false religion. They claim that it is not a “moral right”, but somehow still a natural right; and that the State has the duty to acknowledge as a “civil right”, this natural right that to religious liberty that man possesses. Do you see the problem?

If the State has a duty to enshrine into law the “civil right” of religious liberty for all citizens, it follows that the State would be forbidden from suppressing false worship. If the State has a duty to allow religious liberty as a civil right, and can’t simultaneously have the right to suppress false worship.

That’s why the Church uses the term “toleration” when it speaks of a State permitting false worship. By saying the State can merely tolerate certain evils, it does not contradict the fact that it has the right to suppress the evil when it deems it prudent to do so. However, if it is said that man has a natural right to do the evil; and that, as a result of this “natural right”, the State has a duty to allow the evil, it removes the State right to suppress the evil when it deems fit.

 

[Glenoy]

Thank you Ultima for sharing your ideas. I’m a fan of yours in this forum.

Do you see the problem?

yeah, Yosupman, do you see the problem? Yes or No?

 

[yosupman]

Ultima,

The church makes it very clear in DH of the doctrine of non-coersion. In fact the church says that the doctrine of non-corersion is contained in the deposit of faith. I mean that no man can be forced to believe in Christ.

The chuch I don’t think is not saying you can never restrict freedom of worship. But see this statement from paragraph 15:

"The council exhorts Catholics, and it directs a plea to all men, most carefully to consider how greatly necessary religious freedom is, especially in the present condition of the human family."

I think this teaching is based upon the current circumstances.

In responding to this post, make sure you don’t set up a straw man, punch him, then claim victory. I think you’re putting words in the mouth of the magisterium, and using false logic sometimes.

 

[Glenoy]

Ultima,

The church makes it very clear in DH of the doctrine of non-coersion. In fact the church says that the doctrine of non-corersion is contained in the deposit of faith. I mean that no man can be forced to believe in Christ.

The chuch I don’t think is not saying you can never restrict freedom of worship. But see this statement from paragraph 15:

"The council exhorts Catholics, and it directs a plea to all men, most carefully to consider how greatly necessary religious freedom is, especially in the present condition of the human family."

I think this teaching is based upon the current circumstances.

In responding to this post, make sure you don’t set up a straw man, punch him, then claim victory. I think you’re putting words in the mouth of the magisterium, and using false logic sometimes.

Yosupman, you are not responsive. This post of yours does not answer the #176 and #177 of Ultima Ratio. Remember that Ultima agrees that none should be coerced. This post of yours only affirms the preceeding post of Ultima.

In responding to this post, make sure you don’t set up a straw man, punch him, then claim victory. I think you’re putting words in the mouth of the magisterium, and using false logic sometimes.

You know, Yosupman, Ultima has an excellent post on #177. It was a scholarly approach against your post especially in the concluding part of it. He asks you if you see the problem but until now you failed to see his logic.