Well the point has been made time and again over the centuries that Faith requires and act of the will and that one has no right to force the decision against the will.
Saying religious liberty is an error does not mean others should be forced to convert. Those are two different things. The Church has always maintained the principle of “religious toleration” whereby the State tolerates false religions without every saying man has a right to belong to them.
Hence the freedom to chose ones religion and possibly make a wrong choice. It is not a right to choose wrongly it is a freedom to do so. Subtle but there is a difference.
The subtle difference is made clear when you distinguish between natural freedom (free will) or moral freedom. Since we all have free will, we are free to do whatever we want. We can kill othe people, we can have abortions, we can do anything we want because we have free will. However, moral freedom is what we are allowed to do, and thus have a
right to do. No one has a right to have an abortion, or kill an innocent person. The limits of our natural freedom (free will) are set by law. A violation of a law is a violation of our moral freedom. Obviously, Divine positive law always usurps human law; and no human law can grant someone a “right” to do what God forbids. Man’s law can tolerate violations of God’s law (like God Himself does), but human law can never say man has a right to act contrary to Divine law.
Since the practice of a false religion is a violation of Divine law, many obviously has no “right” to do so.
If you read Libertas, by Pope Leo XIII, all of this is made perfectly clear. I could give you a much more thorough answer here, but the Pope’s words have much more authority than mine.
That being said, I told another friend today that the smart position is not to try to privately interpret the documents of the Council … we are bound to accept Vatican II as a legitimate Ecumenical Council and at least three Popes have said yes. So…do you follow the Pope or your private interpretation?
I follow the Pope, unless of course the Pope deviates into error and does what every Catholic should know is false. Let me give you an example of where I will never follow John Paul II.
As we know, false religions are a great offense to God, a mortal sin against the first commandment; and lead souls away from God and into hell. A horrible thing!
In spite of the fact that false religions are a mortal sin, John Paul II invited members of just about every false religion known to man (including snake worshippers and witch doctors) to Assisi, and provided them with their very own room, in which they could commit a mortal sin against the first commandment by performing false worship. John Paul II thought that God be so pleased with these mortal sins that he would grant “world peace”. John Paul also considered the false religion of Islam to be a “great religion” and held in in “esteem”. I believe Islam is a false religion and I despise it. So, in these things I did not follow John Paul II. Do you fault me for that?
For the record, I have never read anything from a Pope prior to Vatican II that I have ever disagreed with. These encyclicals are always a great light to my intellect and a joy to read. I know the voice of those Popes. Jesus said
“my sheep hear my voice, I know mine, and mine know me, but a stranger they follow not”.
The voice of the Popes before Vatican II is a voice I know. When I used to hear John Paul II speak of a new “civilization of love” with the “three great monotheistic religions” that was the voice of a stranger. I knew it not. I would have acted violated my conscience and the teachings of the Church if I would have imitated John Paul II by praising false religions and inviting representatives of false religions to my Church and asking them to commit a mortal sin against the first commandment.
So, to answer you question: I certainly do follow the Pope, but only when he teaches what the Church has always taught, and never when he deviates from it.
These conversations can go on forever. Rather than us going back and forth here (I am too busy at work for that right now), please read “Libertas” by Pope Leo XIII, and maybe also “Mortalium Animos” of Pope Pius XI. Libertas exposes and condemns false liberties (such as religious liberty), and Mortalium Animos condemns false ecumenism. If you read these, you should be able to see the amazing contradictions between the actions and teachings of John Paul II and the pre-conciliar Popes.
Since the Church has taugt the same thing for 2,000 years, I reject the contrary even if it is taught by a Pope.
(although, the list of encyclicals is 8 pages long, so it will probably take multiple PMs).. Seeking unity by trying to convert heretics and schismatics into the Church (which is what the Church has always done) is completely different than inviting members of every false religion known to man to Assisi to so that they could commit, at the request of John Paul II, a mortal sin against the first commandment. One is true ecumenism and the other is false.