religious freedom

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

why do non-catholics have relegious freedom? i don't understand. this is the biggest stumbling block as i re-verted back to Catholicism.

why does the second vatican council grant relegious freedom to non- catholics?

[qfnol31]

In very short, no one can be forced to follow any religion, and that's part of why we have Divine Law.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

but is it not holding up an evil, by allowing it to be practiced?

wasn't it taught that non-catholics had no relegious freedom before the Council?

[qfnol31]

Sorta...it was actually the states who decided their religions. I think that France had freedom of religion at one point well before this, and that was allowed by one of the Popes. Unfortunately this part is rusty in my mind, but I know I've posted on it...I'll look it up.

Also, it may be an evil that people are not Catholic, but what can the Church say? The Church holds most firmly and certainly that people should be Catholic.

The Church can say that, but to make everyone Catholic is an external thing...it cannot change their interior. Again I shall mention the Divine Law versus Natural Law here. Divine Law reigns over the interior of men.

Natural Law can only change the exterior...
Well, religion is internal, not external. The Church would have to work by human laws to make all people Catholic, and that can't work because human laws only work through the Natural Law, and not the Divine Law.

Does that make sense?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

it does. i don't if my heart is hard or what, but of all days i feel tempted to go back to bieng a rad trad i defiently understand your argument about divine law and natural law.

but if others are allowed to be non-Catholics, would it set a bad example for catholics?

also if a country were to say you have to be Catholic to livev here, and made all other relegions agianst the law, would the vatican be opposed or supportive of it?

i don't know if you have an answer to the last question. but its an interesting one.

[p0lar_bear]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Dec 19 2005, 12:55 PM']wasn't it taught that non-catholics had no relegious freedom before the Council?
[right][snapback]830654[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I don't have a lot of time to get into this, so this is admittedly a bit vague and not supported with documentation...

Yes and no... Statements before the council, particularly in the last couple of centuries, against religious freedom generally refer to religious indifferentism (which is obviously still condemned). Religious freedom was allowed and in some ways supported by the Church before Vatican II. Jews and Muslims were not killed or even tried by the Church for being Jewish or Muslim (a Catholic who left the Church is a different matter). They were allowed to worship as Jews and Muslims. Aside from some very intense persecutions on both sides during and immediately following the Reformation, there was little done to prevent people from worshiping as they chose, even in countries ruled by Catholics (actually, in many cases, the Catholics were more tolerant, but that's a whole other discussion).

The Church has always allowed a degree (at times greater than others) of religious tolerance simply because people cannot be forced to believe. People do not come to Christ because a law tells them to but because they are converted.

Religious freedom, as allowed by Vatican II, does not mean that it doesn't matter what you believe or that we don't still maintain that the Catholic Church is the one true Church. It simply means that people cannot be forced to worship in a particular way, or prevented from worshipping as they believe they should.

If you want everyone to be Catholic, convert them, don't persecute them.