Has the Catholic Church not contradicted itself already?

[Asimis]

Ok, so then the statement of Pope Eugene IV and the Vatican II are in contradiction then, the Church has contradicted itself, right?

Or how can we include the posibilityof salvation outside The Church?

RSiscoe:

With all due respect, that is a far stretch. It does not say “those who have left”, or “those who have rejected”. What is says is “those who are not living within” - and those who are not in the “bosom” of the Church.

This doctrine really should not be so controversial. This is what has been taught clearly since the beginning. The Catholic Church is the kingdom of God on earth - it is the mystical body of Christ. To be saved, a person must be a member of the mystical body of Christ. A non-Catholic Christian (whether a heretic or schismatic) is cut off from the Church, as a branch is cut off from a tree.

Augustine used the analogy of a limb that is amputated from the body. He said, just as the amputated limb does not partake of the spirit (but dies) so to the amputated member of the Church (heretic of schismatic) does not possess the spirit, and thus will not be saved.

The Liberals in the church today have so watered down the 2000 year old teaching, that it is completely foreign to us. But all we need to do is read what the Church, and saints have consistently taught for 2000 years. Then, when we are exposed to the watered down version, we will not be misled.

 

[RSiscoe]

Damascene:

Catechumens are not members of the Mystical Body, according to Pius XII. Can they be saved without sacramental reception of Baptism?

Yes. The Church teaches that if a Catechumen dies before receiving the sacrament of baptism, “their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.” (Catechism of Trent, pg 179).

A person who has received “grace and righteousness” is thereby incorporated into the mystical body of Christ. They would therefore be a member of the Church, and could be saved.

 

[DavidJoseph]

Here’s more text from what Pope Eugene said …

**

*Besides it anathematizes the madness of the Manichaeans, who have established two first principles, one of the visible, and another of the invisible; and they have said that there is one God of the New Testament, another God of the Old Testament.

It, moreover, anathematizes, execrates, and condemns every heresy that suggests contrary things. And first it condemns Ebion, Cerinthus, Marcion, Paul of Samosata, Photinus, and all similar blasphemers, who, being unable to accept the personal union of humanity with the Word, denied that our Lord Jesus Christ was true God, proclaiming Him pure man who was called divine man by reason of a greater participation in divine grace, which He had received by merit of a more holy life. It anathematizes also Manichaeus with his followers, who, thinking vainly that the Son of God had assumed not a true but an ephemeral body, entirely do away with the truth of the humanity in Christ. And also Valentinus who asserts that the Son of God took nothing from the Virgin Mary, but assumed a heavenly body and passed through the womb of the Virgin just as water flows and runs through an aqueduct. Arius also, who asserted that the body assumed from the Virgin lacked a soul, and would have the Godhead in place of the soul. Also Apollinaris, who, understanding that there was no true humanity if in Christ the soul is denied as giving the body form, posited only a sensitive soul, but held that the Godhead of the Word took the place of a rational soul. It also anathematizes Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius who assert that humanity was united with the Son of God through grace, and hence there are two persons in Christ, just as they confess that there are two natures, since they were unable to understand that the union of humanity with the Word was hypostatic, and so refused to accept the subsistence of God. For according to this blasphemy, the Word was not made flesh, but the Word through grace lived in the flesh; that is, He was made not the Son of God, but rather the Son of God lived in man. It anathematizes also, execrates, and condemns Eutyches the archimandrite; since he believed according to the blasphemy of Nestorius that the truth of the Incarnation is excluded, and therefore it is fitting that humanity was so united to the Word of God that the person of the Godhead and of humanity were one and the same and also, he could not grasp the unity of person as long as a plurality of natures existed, just as he established that there was one person of the Godhead and humanity in Christ, so he asserted that there was one nature, meaning that before the union there was a duality of natures, but in the assumption they passed over into one nature, with the greatest blasphemy and impiety granting either that humanity was turned into Godhead, or Godhead into humanity. It also anathematizes, execrates, and condemns Macarius of Antioch and all who hold similar views; although he had a correct understanding of the duality of natures and the unity of person, yet he erred greatly concerning the operations of Christ when he said that in Christ there was one operation and one will on the part of both natures. All these, together with their heresies, the Holy Roman Church anathematizes, affirming that there are two wills and two operations in Christ.
The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. *

 

[RSiscoe]

Asimis:

Ok, so then the statement of Pope Eugene IV and the Vatican II are in contradiction then, the Church has contradicted itself, right?

Or how can we include the posibilityof salvation outside The Church?

If you will quote a statement from Vatican II, that seems to contradict the dogmatic statements of Pope Eugene, I will try to reconcile them.

Also, in case you are not aware, Vatican II was not a dogmatic council. It did not defined any dogmas infallibly. It repeated some doctrines that had already been defined, but DID NOT DEFINE ANY NEW DOCTRINES.

After the Council, Pope Paul VI said, about Vatican II: “Given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.” Paul VI, General Audience of January 12, 1966

Therefore since Vatican II avoided the use of infallibility, if there is a seeming contradition between Vatican II (which is non infallible) and another Council which is, the answer is obvious: we are to adhere to the infallible decree rather than the one that could be fallible. Doesn’t that make sense?

At the close of Vatican II, the bishops asked Archbishop Felici (the Council’s Secretary) for that which the theologians call the “theological note” of the Council . That is, the level of authority of the Council. He said:

“We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic definitions in the past; as for the decelerations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations.”

That being said, if you will provide the quote from Vatican II that you are referring to, I will try to reconcile the two teachings.

 

[DavidJoseph]

Regarding the quite I posted, we notice, in the background, the mention of various heresies that have knowingly denied various truths of the Catholic faith. All of these heresies mentioned had contact with the full gospel and many (such as the Arians, Manichaeans, and Monophystes) were anathematized. All these sects have heard the message, but refused to enter the Church despite that fact. Also, notice at the end, it says, that those who** shed their blood for Christ, **will not be saved, unless they did it within the bosom of the Catholic Church. This again reiterates that they have heard the gospel of Christ. They indeed cannot be saved even if martyred because prior to this they had rejected the gospel.

In the same breath of the message of those who have rejected the true gospel, the Pope makes the statement about the pagans, Jews, etc. This takes as a starting assumption that they have (like the Arians, Monophystes, Ebionites) heard the message of Christ’s gospel. It is not talking about those who have not mentioned the gospel. The ones that these decrees are mentioning are those that have heard the message. If they had heard the message and obstinately stay outside the Church, they cannot be saved. Notice that in this decree, just like the first two mentioned, the decree does not say, “Well, if those pagans and Jews, etc. have never heard of the gospel, they cannot be saved.” In order for the strict “no salvation outside the Church” view to be correct, it needs to say that. It did not. After hearing the full gospel, they have rejected it, so anybody who stays a pagan, Jew, etc. are indeed condemned to hell (just like the Ebionites, Arians, etc.) They are thus condemned unless they physically become members of the Church. This is fully consistent with what the Church teaches now.

 

[Asimis]

Hello RSiscoe, here is the quote:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or of 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.(Lumen Gentium)

I think that this is what most refer to as Invicible Ignorance. The Council also teaches a lot of things which seem to be contrary to the quote provided in the OP like the validity of the sacraments, actions, etc of other Christians and the ability of those to grant salvation.

RSiscoe:

If you will quote a statement from Vatican II, that seems to contradict the dogmatic statements of Pope Eugene, I will try to reconcile them.

Also, in case you are not aware, Vatican II was not a dogmatic council. It did not defined any dogmas infallibly. It repeated some doctrines that had already been defined, but DID NOT DEFINE ANY NEW DOCTRINES.

After the Council, Pope Paul VI said, about Vatican II: “Given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.” Paul VI, General Audience of January 12, 1966

Therefore since Vatican II avoided the use of infallibility, if there is a seeming contradition between Vatican II (which is non infallible) and another Council which is, the answer is obvious: we are to adhere to the infallible decree rather than the one that could be fallible. Doesn’t that make sense?

At the close of Vatican II, the bishops asked Archbishop Felici (the Council’s Secretary) for that which the theologians call the “theological note” of the Council . That is, the level of authority of the Council. He said:

“We have to distinguish according to the schemas and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic definitions in the past; as for the decelerations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations.”

That being said, if you will provide the quote from Vatican II that you are referring to, I will try to reconcile the two teachings.

 

[RSiscoe]

Mordocai,

I wanted to respond to your post. I know what you mean about sorting out your thought by writing them. That helps me as well. I want to explain how a “Protestant” can be saved, without that being contrary to the dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation”. I usually don’t like to discuss this much because it can cause confusion for some. In fact, Pope Pius IX said this topic should not be discussed - he said it was “forbidden”. But, since it is so often discussed today, and since so many people are confused over it, I am going discuss it.

Firstly, we must admit that ALL heretics, every single one without exception, will descend into hell immediately after death, to remain there for as long as God is God (forever). “a man that is a heretic… is condemned by his own judgment” (Titus 3: 10,11) That is a dogma of the faith.

We also MUST acknowledge that Protestantism is completely heretical. They deny almost everything, with the exception of the Trinity and Divinity of Jesus.

That being said, there is what is known as the objective level and the subjective level. It is possible for a person to be a heretic (Protestant) “objectively”, but not subjectively; just as it is possible for a person to be a Catholic objectively, but not subjectively. A Catholic, for example, who knowingly rejects any dogma of the faith is actually a heretic - even if they go to Mass and confession every day.

On the otherhand it is possible for a person who attends a Protestant Church to be a member of the mystical body of Christ (to be a Catholic, subjectively). If they have been baptised, and believe all the truth that has been revealed to them, they could possibly be a member of the Church, even though it doesn’t appear so. To be a Christian, we are required to believe explicitly in two doctrines: The Incarnation and the Trinity. Most Protestants believe in both. As long as they do not reject any other dogma it is possible for them to have the faith, and thus be Catholic. A person only becomes a heretic (subjectively) when they reject the truth. It could be that a Protestant is “invincibly ignorant” of the truth (he has never heard it - and it was through no fault of his own), and therefore has not rejected anything.

This makes it possible for a person who goes to a Protestant Church to actually be a member of the body of Christ (the Catholic Church).

In this case the dogma still holds - “all heretics will go to hell” - but the person may not be a heretic subjectively, because he or she has not rejected any dogma.

Now, one way to find out if a Protestant actually has the faith, and is merely “invincibly ignorant” is that when the truth is made known to them, they immediately adhere to it. If they rejcted the truth when it is presented to them, it shows that they did not have the faith.

When we get into the realm of the “subjective” we can only make assumptions. We have no idea what is going on inside another person: that is why we are not supposed to judge on the subjective level. We are only supposed to make objective judgments. The subjective is the area for God, not man. That is why the Church has always taught objectively. They have said what is required to be saved, and what will cause a person to be damned. They leave the subjective to God.

There is much more I could say, but I’ll stop here. Feel free to continue the discussion.

 

[RSiscoe]

I will say a little more on this topic. In the last post, we dealt with how a Protestant can possibly be saved. Here we will discuss those who have not been baptised - Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Bhudists, etc.

There are two schools of thought regarding the non Baptized. St. Thomas and St. Augustine both teach that the “invincibly ignorant” are all damned, and that their “ignorance” is a punishment for some sin they have committed. They are not damned for their “ignorance” (since it is not their fault), but for some other sins. That was dealt with very clearly by St. Thomas, the greatest theologian of the Church, in the Summa.

Another school of thought allows for the possibility that they (the unbaptized) could be possibly be saved. One person who taught this was St. Alphonsus. He taught that baptism of desire can be both explicit (they actually desire to be baptized), and “implicit” (they love God and would desire it if they were aware of it). According to this theory, a person who is invincibly ignorant of baptism, may be able to make an act of perfect charity (which would contain implicit baptism of desire), which would allow them to obtain the state of grace.

I am of the opinion that if this has ever happened it is extremely rare - maybe one in a billion or so. It is very difficult to live a holy life, even with the sacraments. Without them it is much more difficult - virtually impossible.

So, the Church does allow for the possibility that those outside the visible boundaries of the Church may be able to obtain the state of grace and thus be incorporated into the mystical body of Christ, but if this has ever happened it is certainly extremely rare, and the Church leaders are doing no one a favor by focusing so much attention on this “possibility”. Rather, the Churchmem should using their efforts to bring these “invincibly ignorant” people into the Church our Lord Established. It was out of love for us that He gave His life and established the Church. The Church has the means of salvation. For a Catholic salvation is very possible; for those not exposed to the truth it is virtually impossible. Let us, therefore, encourage our Church leaders to once again “preach the Gospel” and try to bring those outside the Church into the Church; and stop confirming them in their errors by praising their false religions. That is very far from true charity.

 

[twf]

RSiscoe: Your explanation, and other similar ones I have seen, makes me quite concerned about my friends and family. I am a convert to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism. Most of my family are Evangelical Protestants…and many of my friends are as well. Many of them are extremely ignorant of Holy Mother Church, but others, particularily thouse I have engaged in discussion, have heard the fulness of the Gospel Truth. They have, at least so far, rejected it, or at least have not been convinced (though I do see progress in a couple cases ). I know so many who clearly love our Lord Jesus…it almost seems better, on a human level, to remain silent when it comes to the Church, for by witnessing to them, I may damn their soul. . (Yes, I know objectively I am not responsible, but it almost seems that way). I hold out hope that if those I have shared the most with do not come home, there is some way in which Christ can still save them.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

I think the focus here should be on “no fault of their own” - to me this means someone who is literally not able to know the message of the Catholic church.

For example, let’s say someone was born on the moon - completely isolated from the world and the Catholic church (same as many places on earth were in 14-- ) - the Church had/has a duty to spread the Faith to that person, but has to assume that if that person lives as good a life as they are aware, the Lord will guide them should they die before the Church can reach them.

Now, let’s say that person does hear and learn of the Catholic truths, but decides to deny their soul the redemption offered - then for them there is no salvation.

 

[RSiscoe]

twf:

RSiscoe: Your explanation, and other similar ones I have seen, makes me quite concerned about my friends and family. I am a convert to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism. Most of my family are Evangelical Protestants…and many of my friends are as well. Many of them are extremely ignorant of Holy Mother Church, but others, particularily thouse I have engaged in discussion, have heard the fulness of the Gospel Truth. They have, at least so far, rejected it, or at least have not been convinced (though I do see progress in a couple cases ). I know so many who clearly love our Lord Jesus…it almost seems better, on a human level, to remain silent when it comes to the Church, for by witnessing to them, I may damn their soul. . (Yes, I know objectively I am not responsible, but it almost seems that way). I hold out hope that if those I have shared the most with do not come home, there is some way in which Christ can still save them.

You should be concerned for your family. But don’t just be concerned, that won’t do any good: pray for them and make sacrifices for them.

I am also a convert and my entire family is also Protestant. I am in the same situation you are. This should not cause us to question what the Church has always taught; rather, it should impell us to pray more for them.

Actually, I have resolved NOT to water down the truth that the Catholic Church teaches. I personally believe that my firmness in adhering to what the Church teaches, may be what God rewards by converting my family. One of the most politically incorrect doctrines of the faith, in our day, is that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. This is even hard for many Catholics to accept. I refuse to deny this doctrine, or to water it down. I pray that God will use the sacrifice of my faithfullness (when so many reject it) to convert my family. That is kind of how I handle it.

What we should do is to present the truth to them as kindly as we can. Then we must leave the rest in God’s hand. One mistake I personally have made is that I have been too forecefull. I came on too strong in the beginning and pushed them away a little. Since then I have backed off, but they know exactly where I stand.

One thing we need to keep in mind when attempting to convert people is that we should always do so in a kind way. The will can be inclined in one way or another. In other words it is possible for a person to think “I would like to convert, but…” That is excellent because their will is inclined in the right direction. If we go at them to strongly, we will incline their will in the other direction. In that case, even if our arguments make a lot of sense to them (as mine did to my father), they will try NOT to believe.

By not arguing with them, and being as kind as possible, it helps to incline their will in the right direction.

On the other hand, when someone is completely against the Church (and their will is already hardened), then we are to come at them strongly. If I sometime come accross very harsh on these boards, that is why. But most American’s are not hardened heretics; they are just ignorant of the truth. Therefore, normally we should deal with people very kindly. This makes a good lasting impression; often times much better than a good argument.

The old saying comes to mind “your actions speak so loud I can’t hear a word you say”. We should try to let our action speak for us.

So in conclusion, keep the faith. Don’t water it down or reject it just because your friends and family are not Catholics. Maybe God will be so pleased with your faithfulness that he will grant them the light to see the truth. And make sure you always pray for them. And please pray for me as well.

May God bless you.

 

[puzzleannie]

if you do a search, I bet at least a third of threads on this forum deal with this topic, could you please do a little research, educate your self, then narrow it down to a specific question which has not been addressed, and deal with one thing at a time, thank you.

 

[Jim_B]

twf:

RSiscoe: Your explanation, and other similar ones I have seen, makes me quite concerned about my friends and family. I am a convert to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism. Most of my family are Evangelical Protestants…and many of my friends are as well. Many of them are extremely ignorant of Holy Mother Church, but others, particularily thouse I have engaged in discussion, have heard the fulness of the Gospel Truth. They have, at least so far, rejected it, or at least have not been convinced (though I do see progress in a couple cases ). I know so many who clearly love our Lord Jesus…it almost seems better, on a human level, to remain silent when it comes to the Church, for by witnessing to them, I may damn their soul. . (Yes, I know objectively I am not responsible, but it almost seems that way). I hold out hope that if those I have shared the most with do not come home, there is some way in which Christ can still save them.

Dear TWF,

Be Not Afraid! May God reward you for sharing your faith with your loved ones. Those who sincerely seek the truth will hear your words and eventually come around if they respond to God’s grace. Those who are not sincerely open to the truth are certainly no worse off for hearing it. Indeed, it may be their best hope for salvation.

God Love You,
Jim B

 

[TNT]

Asimis:

Hello RSiscoe, here is the quote:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or of 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.(Lumen Gentium)

I think that this is what most refer to as Invicible Ignorance.

I’m going to disect this and insert a parallel from [Pope Pius IX Letter **Quanto conficiamur maerore, August 10, 1863, to the Italian Episcopate
after each line in Bold:

Those who, through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or of His Church
1. that those who are invincibly ignorant of our most holy religion, and

  but seek God with a sincere heart

2. who, carefully observing the natural law and its precepts placed by God in the hearts of all men, and,

        and moved by grace

3. with the help of divine light and grace,

  try in their actions to do His will as they know it  through the dictates of their conscience

4. disposed to obey God,

those too may achieve eternal salvation.

5. can merit Eternal Life.

As anyone can see, they are substantially the very same thing.
The important part is:

and moved by grace
3. with the help of divine light and grace,

It is obvious that IF they are moved, receive help of Actual Grace, AND if, as it says, they are disposed, try in their actions to do His Will, then ONLY 1 THING CAN RESULT:
THEY WILL EMBRACE THE FAITH WHEN/IF IT IS PRESENTED TO THEM. Otherwise Actual Grace is of no effect.
Therefore,
those too may achieve eternal salvation.
can merit Eternal Life.

Provided they follow the stated Grace given.
So, LG does nothing but say in a little different lingo, the same thing that Pius IX said in 1863.
The danger in all this “exceptionalism” is that it is interpreted as saying they WILL be saved in any religion or none at all. No such thing is said. Also, the exception is now being made the rule by those with an agenda, be he Pope, laity or anyone in between.

Nevertheless, there are those on this thread and countless other threads that prove that the RESULT DOES happen.
Finally:
There is little in VATII documents that cannot be handled this same way.
HOWEVER, it was documents and sentiments AFTER VATII that became antagonistic to the traditional Faith.

The one exception to this, IMHO, is the Document on Ecumenism. Since Ecumenism in all its modern forms has been so condemned in the past, it is clearly a break with the traditional teaching, and it is THE most destructive force toward Internal unity as well as conversion and breeds indifferentism.
For that reason, I hate as much as Pius XI did, Ecumenism as it is being applied in the Church.
It is the one driving force in the negation and even elimination of venerable Ecclesiastical Traditions, condemned by the Council of Nicea.
It has had the twofold effect of loss of Faith and loss of conversions outside the 3rd world. What more could “auto-demolition” from the “smoke of Satan” ask for??

 

[VociMike]

It seems to me that Eugene’s statement is authoritative but not infallible. In which case, to whatever extent it conflicts with VC-II it is incorrect. At the same time, it may conflict much less, or not at all, than first appears.

 

[TNT]

VociMike:

It seems to me that Eugene’s statement is authoritative but not infallible. In which case, to whatever extent it conflicts with VC-II it is incorrect. At the same time, it may conflict much less, or not at all, than first appears.

If it wasn’t infallible-excathedra- then there is no such thing. VATII never “trumped” excathedra.

 

[Damascene]

RSiscoe:

A person who has received “grace and righteousness” is thereby incorporated into the mystical body of Christ. They would therefore be a member of the Church, and could be saved.

It is true to say that they are incorporated mentally, but not that they are incorporated bodily. Pius XII says, in Mystici Corporis:

Through the waters of Baptism those who are born into this world dead in sin are not only born again and made members of the Church, but being stamped with a spiritual seal they become able and fit to receive the other Sacraments. … Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the structure of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

You may find J. Fenton’s article, Questions About Membership in the Church, to be a useful reference:

The outward or bodily bond of union, joining men to Our Lord and to each other in His Church, is made up of the baptismal profession of the true faith, the communion of the sacraments, and subjection to legitimate ecclesiastical pastors, and ultimately, of course, to the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff. … It was the contention of St. Robert and of the great ecclesiologists upon whom he depended that all and only those who are joined to Our Lord and to each other by the external or bodily bond of union within the Church are members or parts of the Church militant according to the dispensation of the New Testament. … There are those who imagine, in spite of the clear teaching of the Suprema haec sacra, that the dogma which teaches that no one at all can be saved outside of the Catholic Church means that a man has to be a member of the Church at the moment of his death in order to attain to the possession of the Beatific Vision. … they imagine themselves obliged to dream up some way in which some non-Catholics can be called members of the true Church.

Note that participation in the communion of the sacraments is considered necessary for membership: catechumens don’t have that.

 

[VociMike]

TNT:

If it wasn’t infallible-excathedra- then there is no such thing. VATII never “trumped” excathedra.

No, VC-II doesn’t “trump” ex cathedra. Infallibility doesn’t trump infallibility. As to whether Eugene’s statement was infallible, one would have to apply the proper criteria:

*(1) The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher ar allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
(2) Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
(3) Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
(4) Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible. *

It’s not clear to me that Eugene’s statement as reported meets these conditions, especially #3 and #4. Just IMO.

 

[DavidJoseph]

The one exception to this, IMHO, is the Document on Ecumenism. Since Ecumenism in all its modern forms has been so condemned in the past, it is clearly a break with the traditional teaching, and it is THE most destructive force toward Internal unity as well as conversion and breeds indifferentism.
For that reason, I hate as much as Pius XI did, Ecumenism as it is being applied in the Church.
It is the one driving force in the negation and even elimination of venerable Ecclesiastical Traditions, condemned by the Council of Nicea.
It has had the twofold effect of loss of Faith and loss of conversions outside the 3rd world. What more could “auto-demolition” from the “smoke of Satan” ask for??

No, it’s not a break with tradition. The Church has never condemned ecumenism per se but rather FALSE ecumenism.

 

[plainswolf]

The greatest change I can see in the Church since Vatican II has been the new 'progressive’ theology. In the past, the Church has alway relied on Thomistic theology, or ‘scholasticism’, which was very precise and was so for a reason. However for this she is accused of being too ‘legalistic’…etc.

Scholasticism serves a very important function. It is more precise in its wording and unlike progressive theology, scholasticism does not allow one to play fast and loose with the terminology and arrive at interpretations that drift off from the true meaning of what is being stated.

Example:
The definition of a “Rock” in scholastic theology is, well, ‘rock’ or ‘stone’, which leaves little or no room for mis-interpretation.

The definition of “Rock” in progressive theology is something more vague like “Hardened earthen substance”. Which, though it is true, it can be interpreted to mean too many things.

It’s the prudence of this new theology that I question.