Confusion on Society of St. Pius X

[loyola109]

I am a convert to Roman Catholicism. I am 23 years old and came into the church with much hostility from my family at the age of 21. My wife, who I have recently married, is going through RCIA in order to become a Catholic. My history is based upon protestantism and my journey through the Catholic world has been recent. I have read alot though, and have continued to study the Church and its traditions. During my studies, I came across the Traditionalist Movement within Catholicism and began to wonder why such a movement existed within the Church. Eventually, I made some inquiries and recieved a package in the mail from the Society of St. Pius X.

Well, I have read some material written by Archbishop Lefebvre, and well, some of it has been quite…shocking for me. Things like the influence of Modernist Marxism, the degeneration of the priesthood, the lack of teachings concerning the transubstantiated presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the confusion arising from Vernacular (i.e English, Spanish, Portugeuse masses all in one church seperated from each other), the pursuit of liberty and equality for all in social justice, and lastly, that all religions have inherent truths and are paths towards God all shocked and weighed heavily upon my mind. My own experiences within the parishes in my town also contributed to the state of my mind concerning my confusion. For example, one parish in my city has a thing called the “Labyrinth” which from my studies is a form of Eastern Mysticism (I have argued with many about this, don’t try to change my mind on this, my wife is a daughter of Punjabi immigrants and has explained this to me).

Another disconcernting experience was the conversation that I made with several priests concerning the validity of salvation within other religions. I was told in the affirmative that other religions are pathways to God. Religions ranging from buddhism, shintoism, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, Animism, etc etc… How can these religions contain the blueprint of salvation within them? Why become Catholic if we can find salvation through other religions? Did Christ die for our sins so that we can worship the spirits of the world, find Nirvana, go through Re-Incarnation, connect with Shiva, perhaps maybe go through a mystical journey through Voodooism and still go to Heaven and enjoy the everlasting paradise? What would be the point of even going to Church then or even less converting those who are not Catholic? Even the Catechism stated this that truth is found in other religions? Whatever happened to the truth and only truth of the Church? This is mind boggling for me and I hope others who actually read this long and distracting article hopefully can give me some explanations to the painful confusions that now engulf my mind in regards to the current state of our Church for I must admit that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre makes sense in my mind in regards to history, and the supposed unchanging traditions of our Holy Church.

 

[Rolltide]

Well first, I would pay attention to the news the next few weeks because some of this may finally be rectified. The excommunications of the SSPX bishops were lifted just this week, and several reports are now saying that the entire SSPX may be regularized back into the church as early as February 2. So, it seems that many, if not most of the issues regarding SSPX have been or are near to being solved.

 

[Dauphin]

On the subjects you mentioned, the Archbishop was absolutely right. The Church is in a grave state of confusion, with many people calling themselves “Catholics” teaching things contrary to the faith. The dogmatic teaching of the Church is that there is no salvation outside of Her. Anyone who has a problem with this simply cannot call themselves Catholic.

Orthodox Christianity is very much marginalized within the Church, especially in Europe. This is why the SSPX is particularly strong there, with Catholics seeking to escape the “silent apostacy”, to quote Pope John Paul II.

You should be happy to have discovered these problems in the Church. It’s not an occasion for despair, but a call to work to bring back the fullness of the Church’s Sacred Tradition.

 

[Sir_Anthony]

Frankly, I think true faith is a narrow path. I had once driven on a highway in Southern Utah that was on a spine of these mountains. On the left side, is a steep drop, and on the right side is also a steep drop, so you need to be focused on the road or else you fall. Likewise I think we have been greatly unbalanced in the last 40 plus years, you have some who have steered to the left and fallen off and those to the right like Lefebrve also fallen off.

The problem with those with the Left deny absolute Truth, that is the neccessity of the Gospel to be preached, to them the Church is a social institution for reform (which it is partly is), and that was the main message of Jesus was be good neighbors and stuff, which is certainly admirable. In doing so, they took out the other half of the Gospel, i.e. the Truth, the Way, and the Life and no one comes to the Father but me. They exchange the spiritual salvation in exchange for a material one in many cases. We need to preach, we need to covert people to the Faith because that is God’s Will so we may be saved, we are a missionary people, to deny the missionary aspect of the Church is deny the Calling of the Disciples, to deny Pentecost, to pretty say to all the martyrs who have lived and died in the faith that they lived in vain.

Then those who fall off from the Right, deny the saving power of God. Jesus is the Way, He is the road to salvation. However, to say all those who aren’t in Christ (or the Church) are outside of salvation is very presumptous because though we have been revealed so much, God in the end is He who judges man on both faith and merit. (Not to mention, nonchristians are not saved by the goodness of their lives, but like us from the blood of Christ, if any moslem or buddhist is saved it is only through the sacrifice of Christ). In some cases these men become bullies and neglect other functions of the Church. There is some "t"ruth in other religions, for instance much of our Church’s philosophical and intellectual basis was form from the pagan Greeks. The Rosary started off as prayer ropes which had existed throughout the Near East long before Jesus. In the same breath though, "t"ruth should be not replace "T"ruth, that is man is fallen and is redeemed through Jesus, that there is only God in three divine persons. We cannot contradict what has been handed down to us in terms of the big T’s, Trinity, Tradition, and Truth.

I think the draw for the Traditional Community is that it is something to hold onto, before WWII, Catholics in America were divided generally by their ethnic group and after WWII you had a great demographic and economic shift by ethnic groups that were shunned or marginalized, by the time of the 60’s and VII, a lot of barriers were down, and in this era of openess, we lost some of our identity. One of the main focuses of communal identity is religion, it is something that helps societal bonds strong in the community and when you introduce this alien worship (and alien looking churches too) so quickly it frightens a lot of people and cause those people to cling even more rabid to those traditions because without it these people lose their identity. Indeed many people have lost their social identity especially children, and this is one of the reasons why teenagers have so much trouble is because we have stripped away our culture and heritage and there is no more a rite of passage, and if there is it is nothing more than a joke. It is great that there are a lot of young folk out there who are trying to reclaim that lost heritage.

It is kind of like the Children of Israel (with some differences), they were led out of Egypt in the middle of the night, which has been home to them for 400 years, they had abundant water and food and every luxury there, and they are told to go wandering into the barren desert and bitterly complain for 40 years, then they reach the Promised Land. And suddenly they don’t know what to do with themselves, how should they act, what should they do.

Right now, Benedict XVI is riding along the spine of that mountain, trying very hard to keep everyone on course. I am just worried about what will his successor do, because he is the perfect man for the Church right now, but unfortunately he is up there in age, and I hate to see his successor unravel everything he is trying to do but righting the wrongs of the Church the last 40 years, trying to reach out and bring back other bodies of Catholic and Christians into the Church.

 

[pnewton]

One can go too far either way. Many Catholics fell prey to the attraction of Eastern mysticism that became so popular among all Americans in the sixties and seventies, including some priests. It was the dawning of the Age of Aquarius. As would be expected the backlash of traditionalism drove some so far into the past that they left the Church entirely. As I was not a Catholic during this, I can testify that this same thing was happening in the Protestant world. With us, it was not formalized, as we had not hierarchial structure, so the seminaries became the common battleground. Instead of concerning oneself with either faction, it would be best to stick with the Catechism. It has come to us as a central, sure teacher of what the Church believes. Remember that the Holy Spirit guides His Church. He did so through John Paul II and is doing so now through Pope Benedict XVI.

If you are attracted to the worship style of the traditional Latin, it would be best for any Catholic to stay within those approved to operate in the Catholic Church. Check with your diocese. That way one can be sure of being in a faithful Catholic parish.

 

[jen_fla]

“no salvation outside the Catholic Church” is often misunderstood:

"Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX on 10 August, 1863 addressed to the Italian bishops, he said:

    It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin....

These statements are consistent with the understanding of the Church contained in the documents of Vatican II, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as explaining why the rigorist position of Fr. Feeney (**that all must be actual members of the Catholic Church to be saved) has been condemned by the Magisterium. **"

taken from here:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/outside_the_church.htm

 

[jim28]

“no salvation outside the Catholic Church” is often misunderstood:

"Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX on 10 August, 1863 addressed to the Italian bishops, he said:

    It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin....

First of all this is not an infallible statement and even if it was it would not prove or even promote invincible ignorance. For LOYOLA’s sake , let’s be honest. The two previous sentences of this encyclical the Pope teaches that it is a grave error of those “who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life.”
If we are going to quote things, let’s quote all relevant items.
Second, notice again that Pope Pius IX does not say anywhere that the invincibly ignorant can be saved where they are. Rather, he is reiterating that the ignorant, if they cooperate with God’s grace, keep the natural law and respond to God’s call, they can by God’s “operating power of divine light and grace” [being enlightened by the truth of the Gospel]
attain eternal life, **since God will certainly bring all of his elect to the knowledge of the truth and into the Church by baptism. ** According to the specific definition of Sacred Scripture, “divine light” is the Gospel truth of Jesus Christ (the Catholic Faith) which removes the ignorant from darkness.

These statements are consistent with the understanding of the Church contained in the documents of Vatican II, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as explaining why the rigorist position of Fr. Feeney (**that all must be actual members of the Catholic Church to be saved) has been condemned by the Magisterium. **

Show me anywhere in the Magisterium, before 1958, that the Church teaches infallibly, that there is actually Salvation Outside the Church, Fr. Feeney was actually a defender of the Church’s dogma and was being persecuted for it.

Loyola, don’t let anyone tell you that one can be saved outside the Catholic Church.

 

[jen_fla]

all i am saying is that it is not as black and white as you make it out to be.

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following historic Christian theology since the time of the early Church Fathers, refers to the Catholic Church as “the universal sacrament of salvation” (CCC 774-776), and states: “The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men” (CCC 780).

Many people misunderstand the nature of this teaching. Indifferentists claim that it makes no difference what church one belongs to and that salvation can be attained through any of them. Certain radical traditionalists claim that unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned.

The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as does the contemporary Church-that while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).

Notice that the same Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics. These can be saved by what later came to be known as “baptism of blood” or " baptism of desire" (for more on this subject, see the Fathers Know Best pamphlet, “The Necessity of Baptism” March 1998).

The Fathers likewise affirm the possibility of salvation for those who lived before Christ and who were not part of Israel, the Old Testament Church.

However, for those who knowingly and deliberately-that is, not out of innocent ignorance-commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity."

the rest can be read here:

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9909frs.asp

also,

"Since God intends (plans, wills) that every human being should go to heaven, doesn’t the Church’s teaching greatly restrict the scope of God’s redemption? Does the Church mean—as Protestants and (I suspect) many Catholics believe—that only members of the Catholic Church can be saved?

That is what a priest in Boston, Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J., began teaching in the 1940s. His bishop and the Vatican tried to convince him that his interpretation of the Church’s teaching was wrong. He so persisted in his error that he was finally excommunicated, but by God’s mercy, he was reconciled to the Church before he died in 1978.

In correcting Fr. Feeney in 1949, the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a document entitled Suprema Haec Sacra, which stated that " extra ecclesiam, nulla salus" (outside the Church, no salvation) is “an infallible statement.” But, it added, “this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church itself understands it.”

Note that word dogma. This teaching has been proclaimed by, among others, Pope Pelagius in 585, the Fourth Lateran Council in 1214, Pope Innocent III in 1214, Pope Boniface VIII in 1302, Pope Pius XII, Pope Paul VI, the Second Vatican Council, Pope John Paul II, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Dominus Iesus.

Our point is this: When the Church infallibly teaches extra ecclesiam, nulla salus, it does not say that non-Catholics cannot be saved. In fact, it affirms the contrary. The purpose of the teaching is to tell us how Jesus Christ makes salvation available to all human beings."

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp

 

[jim28]

all i am saying is that it is not as black and white as you make it out to be.

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following historic Christian theology since the time of the early Church Fathers, refers to the Catholic Church as “the universal sacrament of salvation” (CCC 774-776), and states: “The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men” (CCC 780).

Many people misunderstand the nature of this teaching. Indifferentists claim that it makes no difference what church one belongs to and that salvation can be attained through any of them. Certain radical traditionalists claim that unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned.

I asked you to quote any statements from the Magisterium before 1958. This is from JPII’s “catechism”.

The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as does the contemporary Church-that while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).

Notice that the same Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics. These can be saved by what later came to be known as “baptism of blood” or " baptism of desire" (for more on this subject, see the Fathers Know Best pamphlet, “The Necessity of Baptism” March 1998).

The Fathers likewise affirm the possibility of salvation for those who lived before Christ and who were not part of Israel, the Old Testament Church.

The Fathers were not infallible nor magisterial, they were not unanimous, some were on both sides of the issue (St. Augustine)

However, for those who knowingly and deliberately-that is, not out of innocent ignorance-commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity."

Not true and it can’t be proven by the Magisterium or Scripture.

that only members of the Catholic Church can be saved?

That is what a priest in Boston, Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J., began teaching in the 1940s. His bishop and the Vatican tried to convince him that his interpretation of the Church’s teaching was wrong. He so persisted in his error that he was finally excommunicated, but by God’s mercy, he was reconciled to the Church before he died in 1978.

Fr. Feeney was excommunicated because he refused to go to Rome when he was summoned because they refused to state the charges leveled against him . This was well within his rights as defined in Canon Law 1715 and 1723. He was not excommunicated for the EENS dogma. He was also reinstated before death without having to relinquish his belief in the Catholic dogma. This proves that the Catholic Church could not condemn him for this belief because it is what the Church teaches. If he did not give up this belief and his belief was not Catholic, then the Church could not receive him back into Her.

In correcting Fr. Feeney in 1949, the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a document entitled Suprema Haec Sacra, which stated that " extra ecclesiam, nulla salus" (outside the Church, no salvation) is “an infallible statement.” But, it added, “this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church itself understands it.”

This statement, Suprema Haec Sacra or Protocol 122/49, was 1. a letter written from one Bishop to another, 2. was not published in the Acts of the Apostolic See (Acta Apostolicae Sedis), and 3. was never signed by Pius XII. This makes the letter nothing more than a letter between two malicious Bishops intent on introducing a lie into a dogma.
If one looks at the problems with the vatican ii church it can be traced back to a loss of faith in this doctrine. This was lucifer’s way of trying to destroy the faith of billions.

When the Church infallibly teaches extra ecclesiam, nulla salus, it does not say that non-Catholics cannot be saved.

This is untrue. It very much says that all non-Catholics will not be saved. It is in the words of the very name of the Dogma and, more importantly, it is in the words of all the explanations and reiterations of the Dogma in all Magisterial statements.

The purpose of the teaching is to tell us how Jesus Christ makes salvation available to all human beings.

It teaches us that salvation is only available to those human beings who are Baptized and are really in the Catholic Church.

 

[jen_fla]

I asked you to quote any statements from the Magisterium before 1958. This is from JPII’s “catechism”.

The Fathers were not infallible nor magisterial, they were not unanimous, some were on both sides of the issue (St. Augustine)

Not true and it can’t be proven by the Magisterium or Scripture.

Fr. Feeney was excommunicated because he refused to go to Rome when he was summoned because they refused to state the charges leveled against him . This was well within his rights as defined in Canon Law 1715 and 1723. He was not excommunicated for the EENS dogma. He was also reinstated before death without having to relinquish his belief in the Catholic dogma. This proves that the Catholic Church could not condemn him for this belief because it is what the Church teaches. If he did not give up this belief and his belief was not Catholic, then the Church could not receive him back into Her.

This statement, Suprema Haec Sacra or Protocol 122/49, was 1. a letter written from one Bishop to another, 2. was not published in the Acts of the Apostolic See (Acta Apostolicae Sedis), and 3. was never signed by Pius XII. This makes the letter nothing more than a letter between two malicious Bishops intent on introducing a lie into a dogma.
If one looks at the problems with the vatican ii church it can be traced back to a loss of faith in this doctrine. This was lucifer’s way of trying to destroy the faith of billions.

This is untrue. It very much says that all non-Catholics will not be saved. It is in the words of the very name of the Dogma and, more importantly, it is in the words of all the explanations and reiterations of the Dogma in all Magisterial statements.

It teaches us that salvation is only available to those human beings who are Baptized and are really in the Catholic Church.

so i see you feel JP II’s “catechism” is in error. i am sorry about that.

i have no problem with JP’s teaching as it does not contradict any statements before 1958, but expands upon them.

 

[jim28]

so i see you feel JP II’s “catechism” is in error. i am sorry about that.

i have no problem with JP’s teaching as it does not contradict any statements before 1958, but expands upon them.

Can you please explain how it expands on Magisterial teaching without changing the meaning or teaching the opposite, please?

 

[jen_fla]

First of all this is not an infallible statement and even if it was it would not prove or even promote invincible ignorance. For LOYOLA’s sake , let’s be honest. The two previous sentences of this encyclical the Pope teaches that it is a grave error of those “who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life.”
If we are going to quote things, let’s quote all relevant items.
Second, notice again that Pope Pius IX does not say anywhere that the invincibly ignorant can be saved where they are. Rather, he is reiterating that the ignorant, if they cooperate with God’s grace, keep the natural law and respond to God’s call, they can by God’s “operating power of divine light and grace” [being enlightened by the truth of the Gospel]
attain eternal life, **since God will certainly bring all of his elect to the knowledge of the truth and into the Church by baptism. ** According to the specific definition of Sacred Scripture, “divine light” is the Gospel truth of Jesus Christ (the Catholic Faith) which removes the ignorant from darkness.

Show me anywhere in the Magisterium, before 1958, that the Church teaches infallibly, that there is actually Salvation Outside the Church, Fr. Feeney was actually a defender of the Church’s dogma and was being persecuted for it.

Loyola, don’t let anyone tell you that one can be saved outside the Catholic Church.

i am not really concerned with teachings of the sspx. i was just presenting what the Holy Catholic Church taught on the matter.

and i am not sure if i like your tone that you are taking with me either.

you implied that i was not being honest when i took direct unaltered (albeit not the entire text which is why i gave the link) quotes from two reputable sources: ewtn and this site, Catholic Answers.

i think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the Catechism is incorrect. do i understand fully how they came to this conclusion? no. but do i accept it. aye.

once again this is what it states:

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

 

[jim28]

i am not really concerned with teachings of the sspx. i was just presenting what the Holy Catholic Church taught on the matter.
and i am not sure if i like your tone that you are taking with me either.

Do you mean you do not like it when people disagree with you and refute what you are saying

you implied that i was not being honest when i took direct unaltered (albeit not the entire text which is why i gave the link) quotes from two reputable sources: ewtn and this site, Catholic Answers.

I was implying that you were being dishonest. Now that I see that the quotes you gave were from those other sources, and now I am implying that those sources were being dishonest in their half quotes of Pius IX.

i think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the Catechism is incorrect. do i understand fully how they came to this conclusion? no. but do i accept it. aye.

Here are some Infallible statements which explain this dogma. Notice that there is no exceptions to the rule for over 1900 years then all of the sudden there is.

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 30, 1311‐1312, ex cathedra:“Since however there is for both regulars and seculars, for superiors and subjects, for exempt and non‐exempt, one universal Church, outside of which there is no salvation, for all of whom there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism…”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives… and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516, ex cathedra: “For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non‐exempt, belong to the one universal Church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they all have one Lord and one faith.”

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, “Iniunctum nobis,” Nov. 13, 1565, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved.… I now profess and truly hold…”

Pope Benedict XIV, Nuper ad nos, March 16, 1743, Profession of Faith: “This faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, and which of my own accord I now profess and truly hold…”

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870, ex cathedra: “This true Catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold…”

 

[loyola109]

I am proud that my question has sparked this debate within this forum. I have gone and asked my parish RCIA director about the questions that I have had concerning the validity of the Second Vatican Council, along with my questions concerning the infiltration of Social Humanism within our Church. As a reminder, I want everyone to remember that I am new in the Church in the fact that I have been Catholic for one year now (full complete Catholic). However, I am inquisitive in nature (or so I believe) and have many questions. My #1 complaint about the Church in its present stage is how can a structure or system that has endured so much, has been so steadfast in its structure, all of a sudden, change aboutface in regards to salvation.

Certainly the items concerning the “priesthood of the many” and truth in all religions (religious plurality which has nothing to do with our Holy religion), and of course, the concept of salvation for all, when all are not part of our Church; all these items baffle and confuse myself in light of the near 2,000 year history of our Holy Church. It does not make sense, nor would it ever make sense to me as the primary reason why I was attracted to the Church was the fact that it was the Church established by Christ, and thus must be the only Church of Christ. Customs like Celibacy and Latin Mass (though I do not know Latin, and am finishing learning Spanish, I have an urge and a strong one, to attend a Latin Mass) are one thing, but truths like “Salvation” and the gifts “Sacraments” that are given to us, by Christ, are unalterable.

As for the Catechism, from what I have learned, there are many good things and truths within it. However, I have to disagree with some of the notions (or at least study further) that are contained within it. Worse, I hope someone will answer this question for me. I have heard and read that the Second Vatican and the Catechism were both influenced and assisted by Protestants. If this is true, and I hope someone can disprove or confirm this for me, then that within itself, lends further to my confusion and perhaps a state of anxiety in regards to what I have been taught and learned.

Thank you again everyone,

God Bless.

-Alex

 

[Sir_Anthony]

with Vatican II and the Protestants being present, it was mostly over, if I am not mistaken, the liturgical calendar. The liturgical Protestant churches (Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist) were brought to assist as additional imput (they had no vote on any manners of the Council) and I guess the reason was in order to develop a unified calendar that could be shared among them (a breadcrumb of Christian unity). They were allowed to also sit in the various sessions of the council if I am not mistaken too.

you mentioned “priesthood of the many” which is not accurate if I am reading it right. There are two priesthoods, the Priesthood of the Believers, which belongs to all baptized Christians. Then there is the liturgical and sacramental priesthood, which are the priests and bishops.

There is often a lot of debate some of which unfounded about the validity of VII. Some believe that the Council brought about a rupture of continuity, that is everything before it was bad and evil and needed to be replaced. And there is the debate about certain bishops like Bugnini who is thought by some conspiracy theorists of being a freemason. If you want to see another example of the change look at St. Francis of Assisi, the modernists and pluralists have hijacked his image to purport an image of peace loving, open minded, tolerant, flower child Francis, the Spirit of Assisi (you can google this up). Which is different from the Saint Francis that went out to Egypt to convert the country and even dared muslim clerics to a trial by fire while five of his francisicans were subsequently martyred in Morocco, the Francis that came to convert the heretics and bring other back into the Church(often being impatient and rash), the Francis who found a coin on one of his brethern and made the man put the coin on his lips and made him put it into a cow paddy.

The truth is that VII did not bring command all the changes that happened in the Church (stripping of the altars, versus populam, and other things), it was hijacked by those who had an agenda. It is not super dogma as some would claim. Indeed, the Vatican repeatedly have insisted that the council was one of pastoral nature, not anything more and that nothing has changed dogmatically.

All I can say Alex is that you joined the Church at an exciting time, after forty years of being in the desert, we are reclaiming our heritage and faith. But the battle is not over, and we must be ever vigilent and feverant in our prayers. When we become complacent is when the devil strikes the hardest.

 

[mdstanzel]

I am proud that my question has sparked this debate within this forum. I have gone and asked my parish RCIA director about the questions that I have had concerning the validity of the Second Vatican Council, along with my questions concerning the infiltration of Social Humanism within our Church. As a reminder, I want everyone to remember that I am new in the Church in the fact that I have been Catholic for one year now (full complete Catholic). However, I am inquisitive in nature (or so I believe) and have many questions. My #1 complaint about the Church in its present stage is how can a structure or system that has endured so much, has been so steadfast in its structure, all of a sudden, change aboutface in regards to salvation.

Certainly the items concerning the “priesthood of the many” and truth in all religions (religious plurality which has nothing to do with our Holy religion), and of course, the concept of salvation for all, when all are not part of our Church; all these items baffle and confuse myself in light of the near 2,000 year history of our Holy Church. It does not make sense, nor would it ever make sense to me as the primary reason why I was attracted to the Church was the fact that it was the Church established by Christ, and thus must be the only Church of Christ. Customs like Celibacy and Latin Mass (though I do not know Latin, and am finishing learning Spanish, I have an urge and a strong one, to attend a Latin Mass) are one thing, but truths like “Salvation” and the gifts “Sacraments” that are given to us, by Christ, are unalterable.

As for the Catechism, from what I have learned, there are many good things and truths within it. However, I have to disagree with some of the notions (or at least study further) that are contained within it. Worse, I hope someone will answer this question for me. I have heard and read that the Second Vatican and the Catechism were both influenced and assisted by Protestants. If this is true, and I hope someone can disprove or confirm this for me, then that within itself, lends further to my confusion and perhaps a state of anxiety in regards to what I have been taught and learned.

Thank you again everyone,

God Bless.

-Alex

I have read much of the documents form VCII. I can assure you that it does not diverge from authentic Catholic teaching. It is permissible for Catholics to believe that non-Catholics have no salvation. However it must be understood that Salvation does not come through other faiths or non-faiths “PERIOD”. Salvation is only through the Church if there is any salvation at all. No one knows for certain because no one knows the hearts of man except God. But setting Traditional Catholic against orthodox Catholic is such a devious thing to do because in all my life I have never seen peaceful discourse come from it. My father and his closest friends were traditionalist. Keep in mind that “Clericalism”…the elevation of priests about the laity in such a way as to margianalize us is also a heresy. The lack of charity that exudes from traditionalists speaks for itself. Need I say more? At least that has been my personal experience both in real life and online.

You made the right choice by converting. Conversion is an ongoing process. To me, it is questionable, uncertain, that salvation exists in other faiths. It depends on whether they heard, understood and reject or accepted I would think. Only God knows the answer. But I do believe that a soul that if saved that was not a faithful practicing Catholic would spend nearly an enternity in purgatory. My dad could not even live up to his own standards, nor his friends that were traditionalist as well. In fact I’ve found many of them to be bigots, but hope that is only because of the ignorant environment they grew up in…ring a bell yet. I elude to the possiblity that maybe we don’t know as much as we profess. That is why we must listen to the Holy Father inspite of what these other Catholics say for or against non-Catholics being saved for example.

 

[mdstanzel]

Let me say it this way by introducing another topic within this topic. Catholics are permitted to believe in either evolution or creation theory so long as they believe it to be with the Hand of God.

 

[jim28]

I have read much of the documents form VCII. I can assure you that it does not diverge from authentic Catholic teaching. It is permissible for Catholics to believe that non-Catholics have no salvation. However it must be understood that Salvation does not come through other faiths or non-faiths “PERIOD”. Salvation is only through the Church if there is any salvation at all.

This is not what VII teaches. Here are three quotes that show that salvation can be achieved in, through and of other faiths according to this “council”.

1. Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium # 16:
   “But the plan of salvation also embraces those who acknowledge the Creator, and among these the MOSLEMS are first; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham AND ALONG
   WITH US THEY WORSHIP THE ONE MERCIFUL GOD
   WHO WILL JUDGE HUMANITY ON THE LAST DAY.”- This obviously means that if the God of Islam is the same as that of Christianity then both paths should lead to heaven.
2. Vatican II Declaration, Nostra Aetate (#4): “Although the
   Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be
   presented as rejected or cursed by God, as if such views
   followed from the holy scriptures.”- *This tells me that if I feel that Jesus was not really the Christ and I wanted to convert to Judaism, then there is no way that I could be rejected or cursed by God, assuming that I lived up to God’s expectations of the Jews. *

3.Vatican II document, Nostra aetate # 2:
“In Buddhism, according to its various forms, the radical
inadequacy of this changeable world is acknowledged and a
way is taught whereby those with a devout and trustful spirit
may be able to reach either a state of perfect freedom or, relying on their own efforts or on help from a higher source, the highest illumination.”- This teaches me that I can save myself through Buddhism with a devout and trustful spirit.

That is why we must listen to the Holy Father inspite of what these other Catholics say for or against non-Catholics being saved for example.

Well let’s just see what your “holy father” believes about this. Which, by the way, if you believe he is Catholic and you believe you are in communion with him, you must believe also.

Joseph Ratzinger, Zenit News story, Sept. 5, 2000:** “[W]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved…”**

 

[wisdomseeker]

I am a convert to Roman Catholicism. I am 23 years old and came into the church with much hostility from my family at the age of 21. My wife, who I have recently married, is going through RCIA in order to become a Catholic. My history is based upon protestantism and my journey through the Catholic world has been recent. I have read alot though, and have continued to study the Church and its traditions. During my studies, I came across the Traditionalist Movement within Catholicism and began to wonder why such a movement existed within the Church. Eventually, I made some inquiries and recieved a package in the mail from the Society of St. Pius X.

Well, I have read some material written by Archbishop Lefebvre, and well, some of it has been quite…shocking for me. Things like the influence of Modernist Marxism, the degeneration of the priesthood, the lack of teachings concerning the transubstantiated presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the confusion arising from Vernacular (i.e English, Spanish, Portugeuse masses all in one church seperated from each other), the pursuit of liberty and equality for all in social justice, and lastly, that all religions have inherent truths and are paths towards God all shocked and weighed heavily upon my mind. My own experiences within the parishes in my town also contributed to the state of my mind concerning my confusion. For example, one parish in my city has a thing called the “Labyrinth” which from my studies is a form of Eastern Mysticism (I have argued with many about this, don’t try to change my mind on this, my wife is a daughter of Punjabi immigrants and has explained this to me).

Another disconcernting experience was the conversation that I made with several priests concerning the validity of salvation within other religions. I was told in the affirmative that other religions are pathways to God. Religions ranging from buddhism, shintoism, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism, Animism, etc etc… How can these religions contain the blueprint of salvation within them? Why become Catholic if we can find salvation through other religions? Did Christ die for our sins so that we can worship the spirits of the world, find Nirvana, go through Re-Incarnation, connect with Shiva, perhaps maybe go through a mystical journey through Voodooism and still go to Heaven and enjoy the everlasting paradise? What would be the point of even going to Church then or even less converting those who are not Catholic? Even the Catechism stated this that truth is found in other religions? Whatever happened to the truth and only truth of the Church? This is mind boggling for me and I hope others who actually read this long and distracting article hopefully can give me some explanations to the painful confusions that now engulf my mind in regards to the current state of our Church for I must admit that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre makes sense in my mind in regards to history, and the supposed unchanging traditions of our Holy Church.

I too am confused since the Church seems to be more and more confused and with all the world also fell into confusion.

but i will say this. dont loose heart, for the Church does not belong to the pope or magisterium. they are the stewardships. She belongs to our Lord. He is the Buillder and Owner of the Church.

when our Lord had enough, He will elect new ones who are faithfull to Him. our Lord s way is not our way. when all seem to be failing our Lord comes and revive it.

Just keep praying for the Church.

 

[wisdomseeker]

This is not what VII teaches. Here are three quotes that show that salvation can be achieved in, through and of other faiths according to this “council”.

1. Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium # 16:
   “But the plan of salvation also embraces those who acknowledge the Creator, and among these the MOSLEMS are first; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham AND ALONG
   WITH US THEY WORSHIP THE ONE MERCIFUL GOD
   WHO WILL JUDGE HUMANITY ON THE LAST DAY.”- This obviously means that if the God of Islam is the same as that of Christianity then both paths should lead to heaven.
2. Vatican II Declaration, Nostra Aetate (#4): “Although the
   Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be
   presented as rejected or cursed by God, as if such views
   followed from the holy scriptures.”- *This tells me that if I feel that Jesus was not really the Christ and I wanted to convert to Judaism, then there is no way that I could be rejected or cursed by God, assuming that I lived up to God’s expectations of the Jews. *

3.Vatican II document, Nostra aetate # 2:
“In Buddhism, according to its various forms, the radical
inadequacy of this changeable world is acknowledged and a
way is taught whereby those with a devout and trustful spirit
may be able to reach either a state of perfect freedom or, relying on their own efforts or on help from a higher source, the highest illumination.”- This teaches me that I can save myself through Buddhism with a devout and trustful spirit.

Well let’s just see what your “holy father” believes about this. Which, by the way, if you believe he is Catholic and you believe you are in communion with him, you must believe also.

Joseph Ratzinger, Zenit News story, Sept. 5, 2000:** “[W]e are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved…”**

this reminds me of i heard from a priest that a good non christian had a better chance to be saved than a bad Catholic.

also what i read here says that it is ok to reject Christ as the Savior. they can still be save. am i wrong?

anybody knows when this idea came about?

:byzsoc: