How do we read Vatican II in the light of tradition that comes out of the Council of Trent?

[Brendan]

You are saying something that even this quote from Lumen Gentium does not say. It says sanctification, and your saying salvation. Since the two are not the same, could you explain this?

Baptism is an element of both. See my post above.

Now you will note that neither I, LG or Trent will claim that it was the Lutheran ecclesial community that saved that infant, but rather God’s Grace operating via Sacrament of His Holy, Catholic Church. But one Sacrament that exists outside the visible boundaries of the Church, (the other Sacrament being Holy Matrimony) which is also a element of Sanctification, as all Sacraments are.

 

[T_More]

I did. Trent, Session 7 teaches that Baptism is essential to Salvation, and that the Baptism of heretics is Valid. Are you really trying to claim that Baptism is NOT an element of Salvation???

Of course not. If you took the time to read the many quotes I posted that the Church as taught about this, you would see that.

Now a question for you. If a child is Baptized by a Lutheran, and dies shortly afterward, what does the Church state on the State of Grace of that infants soul?

Of course the child, if he or she is before the age of reason, will not be cast out.

In regards to ‘elements’, that was the term used by LG. See what a
I posted above and tell me which of the logical points you find Error with ( Specify by number please)

**I think you and I are talking across purposes here. Of course baptism is essential, but not sufficient. This quote from LG does not differentiate between children before the age of reason and adults who are baptized with the Trinitarian formula into a heretical church (read outside the Roman Catholic Church). When an adult is baptized outside the Church, they are baptized into schism/heresy and therefore will not gain entry into heaven based on the prior infallible teachings of the Church, unless they then convert into the Catholic Church before death.

The issue with the quote is that it can be read that Christ subsists (it would have been clearer if the word “only” appeared before subsists) outside the Church. Grace received from baptism outside the Catholic Church is given by God for the sole purpose to move that person into** the Catholic Church. It is not by itself, salvific. Children before the age of reason, are of course, an exception.

Out of all the quotes I posted, this one from LG is perhaps the easiest to “get around”. There are far more problematic quotes that I posted.

 

[moon1234]

T_More:
An act of heresy or schism requires of the person some form of act or admonission to make the act heretical or schismatic. If an adult was baptised outside of the Church using proper form, matter and intention and then immediatly dies without commiting any sin the person goes straight to heaven.

Baptism is all that is needed to get TO heaven provided the person who receives baptism does not somehow exclude himself from heaven through sin. Baptism has ALWAYS been understood to wipe ALL Original AND Actual sin committed before the time of baptism along with all of the temporal punishment due to sin.

It is doubtful most people in protestant “faiths” know much about their faith. If they know the Catholic Church is the one true Church and reject it, then yes they are now apostates. If they beleive OTHER than what the church believes about a matter of faith then they are a heretic. Finally schismatics are those who set themselves up as a parallel church or breakaway church, but still fundamentally hold the same doctrines.

Salvation comes only through the Catholic Church. It is important to remember when speaking about “outside of the Church no one is saved” is TRUE for it is only through the Church that people can get to heaven. The Catholic Church consideres ALL baptized people to Catholics. It is the necessary first step to get to heaven. Since Christ established his church all those who are baptized are members of the Church.

Those who choose to disobey or remain outside of the Church, cut themselves off from the ordinary means of salvation. It is VERY rare that someone can stay seperated for the Church for a long amount of time and still get to heaven. It is not improssible, just highly unlikely. Rember the line about a camel passing through the eye of a needle!!!

Be careful when you damn all people who are not FORMAL members of the Church. The Church has NEVER held that position.

 

[Brendan]

I think you and I are talking across purposes here. Of course baptism is essential, but not sufficient.

 

[T_More]

An act of heresy or schism requires of the person some form of act or admonission to make the act heretical or schismatic. If an adult was baptised outside of the Church using proper form, matter and intention and then immediatly dies without commiting any sin the person goes straight to heaven.

**If the adult is at the age of reason, he or she has chosen to enter a heretical sect. Have they started the herersy? Of course not. But if they truly sought Christ with a sincere heart, they would have been led to His Church, not a heretical sect, no? **

Baptism is all that is needed to get TO heaven provided the person who receives baptism does not somehow exclude himself from heaven through sin. Baptism has ALWAYS been understood to wipe ALL Original AND Actual sin committed before the time of baptism along with all of the temporal punishment due to sin.

**Agreed on all counts. However, Pope Boniface VIII, in his Bull Unam Sanctum (1302), spelled out the doctrine of the necessity of the Church for salvation and with it the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff. Regarding the primacy of authority of Peter and his successors he stated:

But this authority, although it is given to man and is exercised by man, is not human, but rather divine, and has been given by the divine Word to Peter himself and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an established rock, when he said to Peter himself: Whatsoever you shall bind etc. [Matt. 16:19]. Therefore, whosoever resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of God [cf. Rom. 13:2] … Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.

**

It is doubtful most people in protestant “faiths” know much about their faith. If they know the Catholic Church is the one true Church and reject it, then yes they are now apostates. If they beleive OTHER than what the church believes about a matter of faith then they are a heretic. Finally schismatics are those who set themselves up as a parallel church or breakaway church, but still fundamentally hold the same doctrines.

**What are the fundamental doctrines needed? When does the need of the other sacraments come into play?

[54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

**

Salvation comes only through the Catholic Church. It is important to remember when speaking about “outside of the Church no one is saved” is TRUE for it is only through the Church that people can get to heaven. The Catholic Church consideres ALL baptized people to Catholics.

**“Whether in the Catholic Church or in any heretical or schismatical church, if anyone receives the Sacrament of Baptism, he receives it intact; but he will not have salvation if he received that Sacrament outside the Catholic Church. Eternal life can never in any way be obtained by one who, with the Sacrament of Baptism, remains a stranger to the Catholic Church. Hold most firmly, and do not doubt at all, that the Sacrament of Baptism can exist among heretics, but that outside the Catholic Church it cannot be of profit. For the unity of this ecclesiastical society is of such value for salvation that he is not saved by Baptism to whom it has not been administered where it ought to have been. Hold most firmly, and do not doubt at all, that everyone baptized outside the Catholic Church cannot be made a partaker of eternal life is before the end of this earthly life he does not return to the Catholic Church and become incorporated with it.” St. Fulgentius
**

It is the necessary first step to get to heaven. Since Christ established his church all those who are baptized are members of the Church.

**

It would seem that man is not bound to believe anything explicitly, for no man is bound to do what is not in his power. On the contrary, it is written “He who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that he is a Rewarder to those who seek Him” (Heb.11:6). Therefore, as regards the primary points or articles of faith, man is bound to believe them just as he is bound to have the Faith. Both learned men and simple men are bound to EXPLICIT Faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly those publicly proclaimed and observed throughout the whole Church. St. Thomas Aquinas

“We must mention another fruitful cause of evil by which the Church is afflicted at present, namely: Indifferentism, that vicious “vice-filled”] manner of thinking which holds that eternal salvation can be obtained by the profession of any faith, provided that a man’s morals are good and decent. Seriously consider the testimony of the Savior that some are against Christ because they are not with Christ, that they scatter who do not gather with Him, and therefore without doubt they will perish in eternity unless they hold to the Catholic faith and observe it WHOLE and INVIOLATE**.” Pope Gregory XVI

Be careful when you damn all people who are not FORMAL members of the Church. The Church has NEVER held that position.

I condemn no one. I am simply quoting the teachings of the constant magisterium. Take the time to read the many quotes I have posted from authority on the subject.

 

[moon1234]

Baptism is ALL that is necessary. None of the other sacraments are required. The good thief only received baptism of desire and he went stright to heaven by our Lord’s own words.

Baptized babies go straight to heaven. They have commited no actual sin, no other sacraments are required.

Adults who know nothing of the Catholic church who are baptized and do not commit mortal sin WILL go to heaven eventually.

All of these are extensions of the Catholic Church. The Eucharist and Precious Blood provide life of grace, but it is NOT necessary to go heaven. MANY people have been baptized and then killed or died, they are not denied heaven.

As to holding the faith whole and inviolate, that requires knowledge OF the true Church. If one does not know, then they are not held to this standard. Indifferentism requires knowledge of faith and a rejection of it. If one does not know the faith then one can not be indifferent to it. That is what evangilists and missionaries are for.

You are reading these documents in a light that is incorrect.

 

[thewanderer]

T Moore, can I just say that it is very clear that you are not reading Vatican II in light of Tradition, but rather you are reading it with the hermenetic of discontinuity. This is the wrong way to read it. Until you are able to take a step back and do everything you can to try and reconcile the passages rather than trying to read incompatible meanings into them you will never be able to read VII and see how it does not contradict Tradition (note that I am not talking about tradition here, tradition can change, Tradition can’t). There really isn’t much point in trying to explain it to someone who is determined to read it with a hermenteic of discontinuity.

 

[clem456]

Sure.

"This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, continues to exist (subsists) in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines." Lumen Gentium.

I would just point out that the actual document does not say exists in, but subsists in as you have it in parenthesis. This one word makes all the difference.

You also left off the last line of that paragraph:

These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

 

[Thomas_Francis]

There was a very interesting article in “First Things” called “The Tridentine Genius of Vatican II: Reading the Council with Newman, not Nietzche” . It requires a subscription to view, but perhaps there is a library near you that has it.

 

[T_More]

Baptism is ALL that is necessary. None of the other sacraments are required. The good thief only received baptism of desire and he went stright to heaven by our Lord’s own words.

**The good thief was not bound by something that was later officially put in place at Pentecost by Our Lord. In other words, the thief was of the Old Covenant law. Our Lord saved by those means when he ministered to him as brought out in 1 Peter 3:19. We, and everyone else, are bound by assenting ot the Church and all of it’s teachings as given to her by Christ. **

Baptized babies go straight to heaven. They have commited no actual sin, no other sacraments are required.

For the last time, no one is arguing this. The Church’s quotes that I have posted are speaking of adults that are baptized, as well those who are adults but have not converted.

Adults who know nothing of the Catholic church who are baptized and do not commit mortal sin WILL go to heaven eventually.

This is a misunderstanding of the different graces that one receives as taught by the universal doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas. Baptism outside the Church is used by God for the sole purpose to move them to His Church. The completion is only accomplished if that person cooperates with His grace and assents to the Church and all her teachings. I suggest you read up on Aquinas teachings on Predestination.

All of these are extensions of the Catholic Church. The Eucharist and Precious Blood provide life of grace, but it is NOT necessary to go heaven. MANY people have been baptized and then killed or died, they are not denied heaven.

By people, do you mean children before the age of reason? If so,then I agree.

As to holding the faith whole and inviolate, that requires knowledge OF the true Church. If one does not know, then they are not held to this standard. Indifferentism requires knowledge of faith and a rejection of it. If one does not know the faith then one can not be indifferent to it. That is what evangilists and missionaries are for.

You are reading these documents in a light that is incorrect.

**I don’t know how much more plain you can get than this, so I’ll post it again with underlined emphasis. If you’d like, I can post many others:

“Whether in the Catholic Church or in any heretical or schismatical church, if anyone receives the Sacrament of Baptism, he receives it intact; but he will not have salvation **if he received that Sacrament outside the Catholic Church. Eternal life can never in any way be obtained by one who, with the Sacrament of Baptism, remains a stranger to the Catholic Church. Hold most firmly, and do not doubt at all, that the Sacrament of Baptism can exist among heretics, but that outside the Catholic Church it cannot be of profit. For the unity of this ecclesiastical society is of such value for salvation that he is not saved by Baptism to whom it has not been administered where it ought to have been. Hold most firmly, and do not doubt at all, that everyone baptized outside the Catholic Church cannot be made a partaker of eternal life is before the end of this earthly life he does not return to the Catholic Church and become incorporated with it.” St. Fulgentius

 

[RobbyS]

How could someone be incorporated into Christ and considered a brother while refused admittance to the Holy Eucharist? Is the Holy Eucharist essential to salvation?

Besides, it is the doctrines anathematized by Trent which separates the Protestants from the RCC not their birth.

Trent is dealing specifically with doctrines taught by Luther, Calvin, etc, and their immediate disciples, to make clear that their doctrines were not those of the Catholic Church, which is what the Protestants of the time thought they were. In other words, they thought THEY were the “Catholics” --i.e. the persons true to the actual teachings of Christ. This may sound like the opinions of modern protestants, but the product of totally different circumstances. Luther et al. thought of themselves as reformers of an existing institution, but the moderns think of themselves as part of a totally separate institution. I except the “Catholic” members of the Anglican Church.

 

[moon1234]

You last paragraph is a quote from a saint, it is not part of the teaching authority of the magesterium. There have been many saints who wrote MANY things, that does mean that since the person is a saint, ALL of their writings of their life are held as de fide Catholic teaching.

St. Thomas wrote MANY things that the Church later threw out as either his personal opinon, his understanding based on the science of his time or just that he was wrong on one aspect of the faith or another.

You will NOT find any infallible teaching from the magesterium that states a baptized adult MUST receive communion in order to go to heaven. What you WILL find is a requirmen for a practicing Catholic to receive communion at LEAST once during the year. Again this regards those who are formally memebers of the Church. It does NOT say if you are baptized and then dpn’t receive communion you are not going to heaven. What about a person who converts to Catholocism in China, is baptized by another layman (since there are no clegy available) and then dies for whatever reason before he can attend a Mass or receive the Eucharist. Under your supposition this Catholic can not go to heaven.

I am sorry, but I personally disagree with you on this.

 

[thewanderer]

You last paragraph is a quote from a saint, it is not part of the teaching authority of the magesterium. There have been many saints who wrote MANY things, that does mean that since the person is a saint, ALL of their writings of their life are held as de fide Catholic teaching.

St. Thomas wrote MANY things that the Church later threw out as either his personal opinon, his understanding based on the science of his time or just that he was wrong on one aspect of the faith or another.

You will NOT find any infallible teaching from the magesterium that states a baptized adult MUST receive communion in order to go to heaven.

I am sorry, but I personally disagree with you on this.

And seeing as it is not (and never was) part of official Church teaching (ie Tradition) you are entirely allowed to disagree.

 

[poche]

Actually I think that we should look at Vatican II in the light of tradition and in relation to all the other councils that preceded it. While the council of Trent was an important council, to only look at it in relation to the council of Trent is a little bit myopic.

 

[T_More]

You last paragraph is a quote from a saint, it is not part of the teaching authority of the magesterium. There have been many saints who wrote MANY things, that does mean that since the person is a saint, ALL of their writings of their life are held as de fide Catholic teaching.

St. Thomas wrote MANY things that the Church later threw out as either his personal opinon, his understanding based on the science of his time or just that he was wrong on one aspect of the faith or another.

You will NOT find any infallible teaching from the magesterium that states a baptized adult MUST receive communion in order to go to heaven. What you WILL find is a requirmen for a practicing Catholic to receive communion at LEAST once during the year. Again this regards those who are formally memebers of the Church. It does NOT say if you are baptized and then dpn’t receive communion you are not going to heaven. What about a person who converts to Catholocism in China, is baptized by another layman (since there are no clegy available) and then dies for whatever reason before he can attend a Mass or receive the Eucharist. Under your supposition this Catholic can not go to heaven.

I am sorry, but I personally disagree with you on this.

This saint merely stated what the Church infallibly delared later. Here are decrees from the magisterium:

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

“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.” **(Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

And many of St. Thomas Aquinas’ teachings were never “thrown out”. To be a Doctor of the Church, your teachings are delcared to be free of error by the Church. I would appreciate it if you were to show which “many things” that the universal doctor taught that has been thrown out.

 

[T_More]

And seeing as it is not (and never was) part of official Church teaching (ie Tradition) you are entirely allowed to disagree.

I posted decrees from the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church supporting this saint (and many, many others that have taught the same) thus demonstrating the Tradition of the Church, So, we are not allowed to disagree with those. This saints statements, and others, show the immemorial Tradition of the Church and are in full harmony with the Extraordinary Magisterium. Reject these, and you reject dogma, which as Catholics, we are not permitted to do.

 

[moon1234]

A papal Bull does not hold the weight of infallibility in most cases. Beig subject to the Roman Pontiff is not the same as formal membership in the Roman Catholic Church.

As to the doctors of the church and their writings I will offer this from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which was approved by the Catholic Church:

It is not in any way an ex cathedra decision, nor does it even amount to a declaration that no error is to be found in the teaching of the Doctor. It is, indeed, well known that the very greatest of them are not wholly immune from error. No martyr has ever been included in the list, since the Office and the Mass are for Confessors. Hence, as Benedict XIV points out, St. Ignatius, St. Irenæus, and St. Cyprian are not called Doctors of the Church.

newadvent.org/cathen/05075a.htm

Your argument is the same as Fr. Feeney. He was excommunicated for his rigid view on formal incorporation for salvation. It is possible to be a member of the Church without formal incorporation into her.

You are also assuming that mans laws bind God, they do not.

 

[clem456]

I posted decrees from the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church supporting this saint (and many, many others that have taught the same) thus demonstrating the Tradition of the Church, So, we are not allowed to disagree with those. This saints statements, and others, show the immemorial Tradition of the Church and are in full harmony with the Extraordinary Magisterium. Reject these, and you reject dogma, which as Catholics, we are not permitted to do.

Correct, we are to follow Church teaching.

This is a very eloquent expression of the truth along these lines from Lumen Gentium:

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”.(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

Loads of exposition have been done on this by the Church. Are we willing to absorb, understand, and accept it? That seems to be the only question.

 

[thewanderer]

I posted decrees from the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church supporting this saint (and many, many others that have taught the same) thus demonstrating the Tradition of the Church, So, we are not allowed to disagree with those. This saints statements, and others, show the immemorial Tradition of the Church and are in full harmony with the Extraordinary Magisterium. Reject these, and you reject dogma, which as Catholics, we are not permitted to do.

And I do not disagree with those teachings. No slavation outside the Church. The Church is the body of Christ, got it. **However, **how does one join the Church? through baptism, whether sacramental, by fire, explicit baptism of desire or implicit baptism by desire. None of this is new, it was in my baltimore Catechism growing up, it was taught by popes. None of it new, and it is all in conformity with VII. You just need to be willing to try and read all of the teachings of the Church in light of each other instead of assuming that your current interpretations of both past and present teaching are correct, look to see how the texts could be reconciled and then base your understanding off of that. As you said, we must hold firm to the teachings of the Church. VII is one of those teachings whether you like it or not, and it is not conradictory to past teachings.

 

[moon1234]

I don’t think I would go so far as to say 100% of what came out of VII is without error or could contradict previous teaching. Not EVERYTHING the comes from a council is guaranteed free from error or even good. Only those things which restate items of faith and morals can be assumed free from error.

That is the problem with assuming everything from VII, or any council for that matter, is 100% free from error. It makes VII out to be some kind of superdogma that it is not. It is why so many people want clarifications from Rome about what this or that document means when read in light of previous doctrine.

Many documents can be interpreted to mean many different things. It is why I veyr much dislike long documents that are ambigious without being an expert in Church history. Reading documents at face value does not always convey what the document may have intended, because the words used in the document seem to indicate a different meaning.