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

[T_More]

A papal Bull does not hold the weight of infallibility in most cases.

Well, in this, the Church herself has declared these decrees to be of the Extraordinaty Magisterium, ergo, infallible, So I’m really not sure what your point is.

Beig subject to the Roman Pontiff is not the same as formal membership in the Roman Catholic Church.

For purposes of this discussion, please elaborate how can this be.

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:

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.

**No, Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for calling the CDF heretical and failing to show multiples times for a summons. In other words, he was disobedient to the CDF, not because of his views on salvation. He held to the same view after the exommunication was lifted and died in communion with the Church.

My view is line with what the Church has always believed.

**

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

No one is arguing that. Your claiming then that your view on salvation is from God, and mine is from man then? How so?

 

[thewanderer]

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.

Just to be clear, I do not disagree with this.

 

[moon1234]

No one is arguing that. Your claiming then that your view on salvation is from God, and mine is from man then? How so?

I never claimed my view was from God. I just stated that the declarations of being formally incorporated into the Church are not required in order for God to save anyone he so chooses. i.e. a declaration of a Church official does not bind God to only saving those people who adhere to said Church decleration.

Being formally incorported into the Church is NOT what the Church teaches in order to be saved. What the Church teaches is that people are only saved through the Church. It may be a fine distinction, but there is one.

Here is the actual declaration from the Holy Office that relates to WHY Fr. Feeney was excommunicated. This response also covers much of the discussion in this thread. This was issued PRIOR to VII. It was sent to a Bishop in Boston explaining why Fr. Feeney was condemed.

That one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing. However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wants his will to be conformed to the Will of God. These things are clearly taught in the dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943 (Mystici Corporis)… he mentions those who are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer “by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation; but on the other hand, he states that they are in a condition “in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church!” With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally as well in every religion. (Letter to the Archbishop of Boston, August 8, 1949).

 

[T_More]

No one is arguing that. Your claiming then that your view on salvation is from God, and mine is from man then? How so?

I never claimed my view was from God. I just stated that the declarations of being formally incorporated into the Church are not required in order for God to save anyone he so chooses. i.e. a declaration of a Church official does not bind God to only saving those people who adhere to said Church decleration.

Infallible declarations from the Extraordinary Magisterium does not bind us? Why do we have a Church then?

Being formally incorported into the Church is NOT what the Church teaches in order to be saved. What the Church teaches is that people are only saved through the Church. It may be a fine distinction, but there is one.

It is precisely what the Church teaches. Have you not bothered to read what the magisterium has delcared from the past councils? Why won’t you address those?

Here is the actual declaration from the Holy Office that relates to WHY Fr. Feeney was excommunicated. This response also covers much of the discussion in this thread. This was issued PRIOR to VII. It was sent to a Bishop in Boston explaining why Fr. Feeney was condemed.

Feeney was not excommunicated until February 13th, 1953. Your letter here is from 1949. I think you need to do some more reading and find exactly why he was excommunicated.

 

[Silver_Thread]

Fr Cyprian O.S.B. stated qiuite clearly. “Tradition, from the Latin “traditio”, is a handing forward, not a reaching back.” It has nothing to do with nostalgia for the past. It has very little to do with convention and custom. It is fidelity to the immutability of God , to the stability of Revelation. “Ego sum Deus, non mutor. I am God and I do not change,” we read in the book of Deuteronomy."

 

[Like]

First, its important to note that not all protestants hold this teaching.

Second, its important to realize that some people are ignorant of the truth through no fault of their own. Or honestly seek the truth but have not yet realized the mistakes that have been inculcated into them by others. Such people are not truly culpable for their mistaken beliefs.

Third, even for those who are truly culpable for their mistaken beliefs it is important to recognize that in any attempt of dialogue with another (and if you ever wish to show another the truth some amount of dialogue will be necessary) it is extremely important to find the common groun between you first and emphasize this common ground so that you have a good starting place on which to base your discussion. In other words, you emphasize what it is that they have correct, and applaud them for their correct beliefs, and then go on to discuss the areas where you disagree using your common ground as fuel for your arguments for the truth. Holding all protestants at a distance and looking down on them and refusing to acknowledge what truth they do possess will not help them see the truth of Catholicism, instead it will drive them further away. And of course I am not advocating a watering down of the truth, but rather a recognition of the bits of truth that are contained in other religions. For instance, protestants believe that Christ is God, that he came to save us, that the Bible is the Word of God, etc. All of those things are true, and it is great that protestants recognize them as such. Why in the world would it be wrong to praise them for at least having got as much right as they have? To give them encouragement to hold on to those correct beliefs so that they will not fall so far away from the truth as to lose faith in Christ or the Bible?

Very good!

 

[T_More]

Not surprisingly, no one wants to tackle the magisteriums infallible declarations that refute the arguments presented.

 

[moon1234]

It is most likely because we do not agree with the way you are presenting the arguments. You are assigning infallibility and immutability where they do not always apply or exist.

 

[mgsk]

Fight the good fight, T More

Your posts at the end of page 1 are excellent, but it’s amazing that so many papal statements can be dismissed at a whim. The Church’s teaching on this was crystal clear for nearly two millennia. Any VII statements must be held in conformity with these, no matter how vague.

 

[T_More]

It is most likely because we do not agree with the way you are presenting the arguments. You are assigning infallibility and immutability where they do not always apply or exist.

I am quoting decrees made by the Extraordinary Magisterium (read BINDING to us) that is quite plain in it’s language. I do not assign infallibility to anything save for what the Church herself has decreed infallible. You will not find one decree made by the magisterium of the Church that supports your position. If you have one, please present it. I have quoted multiple times on this thread quotes from the Church herself that is quite plain in it’s language and all you are offering is “You are not reading it right.”

All I ask is to show me how that I’m reading ex cathedra statements incorrectly using the Church’s decrees. What point would you like to start with?

 

[clem456]

It seems that several people are saying the same thing, and having a spitting match over semantics.
The Church is clear that you do not have to be, in our earthly lifetime, -a member of- the Catholic Church to be saved. The Church is also clear that no salvation is possible outside the Church.
Salvation subsists in, not consists of membership in, the CatholicChurch.

If you want to say that everyone in heaven is a member of the Catholic Church, who could argue with that? But if you want to say that a person must be a member as we can see it ourselves, that is not so. We do not see with the eyes of God.

 

[mgsk]

It seems that several people are saying the same thing, and having a spitting match over semantics.
The Church is clear that you do not have to be, in our earthly lifetime, -a member of- the Catholic Church to be saved. The Church is also clear that no salvation is possible outside the Church.
Salvation subsists in, not consists of membership in, the CatholicChurch.

Is explicit faith in Jesus Christ necessary for salvation?

And what does the Athanasian Creed (an official Creed of the Church) mean when it says, “Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this…”?

 

[thewanderer]

Not surprisingly, no one wants to tackle the magisteriums infallible declarations that refute the arguments presented.

I’ve already given you my reason, I am unwilling to discuss these matters with someone who continues to read VII with a spirit of discontinuity as you have clearly shown yourself to do. Instead of looking for ways that they could be harmonious you insist on understanding them in a way which causes them to appear at odds with each other. Why would I want to get into a battle with someone like that? I am not ignoring the teachings, but I also don’t see VII as being conradictory to past Church teachings. Perhaps peoplewould be more willing to discusss this with you if you showed yourself willing to actually consider the possibility that they are compatible?

 

[T_More]

I’ve already given you my reason, I am unwilling to discuss these matters with someone who continues to read VII with a spirit of discontinuity as you have clearly shown yourself to do. Instead of looking for ways that they could be harmonious you insist on understanding them in a way which causes them to appear at odds with each other. Why would I want to get into a battle with someone like that? I am not ignoring the teachings, but I also don’t see VII as being conradictory to past Church teachings. Perhaps peoplewould be more willing to discusss this with you if you showed yourself willing to actually consider the possibility that they are compatible?

Have you ever considered that they are in compatible?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Have you ever considered that they are in compatible?

You did not ask me this queston, but here is my answer anyway.

No, I have not, because the Holy Father says that the Vatican II is not “incompatable” with what the Church has always taught.

Are you saying that Benedict XVI is wrong?

 

[clem456]

You did not ask me this queston, but here is my answer anyway.

No, I have not, because the Holy Father says that the Vatican II is not “incompatable” with what the Church has always taught.

Are you saying that Benedict XVI is wrong?

How did that elephant get into my living room!

 

[clem456]

Is explicit faith in Jesus Christ necessary for salvation?

Not according to the Catholic Church.
What a source of joy it is, to know our non-Catholic brothers and sisters can live eternal life with us.

 

[johnnyc176]

First, its important to note that not all protestants hold this teaching.

Second, its important to realize that some people are ignorant of the truth through no fault of their own. Or honestly seek the truth but have not yet realized the mistakes that have been inculcated into them by others. Such people are not truly culpable for their mistaken beliefs.

Third, even for those who are truly culpable for their mistaken beliefs it is important to recognize that in any attempt of dialogue with another (and if you ever wish to show another the truth some amount of dialogue will be necessary) it is extremely important to find the common groun between you first and emphasize this common ground so that you have a good starting place on which to base your discussion. In other words, you emphasize what it is that they have correct, and applaud them for their correct beliefs, and then go on to discuss the areas where you disagree using your common ground as fuel for your arguments for the truth. Holding all protestants at a distance and looking down on them and refusing to acknowledge what truth they do possess will not help them see the truth of Catholicism, instead it will drive them further away. And of course I am not advocating a watering down of the truth, but rather a recognition of the bits of truth that are contained in other religions. For instance, protestants believe that Christ is God, that he came to save us, that the Bible is the Word of God, etc. All of those things are true, and it is great that protestants recognize them as such. Why in the world would it be wrong to praise them for at least having got as much right as they have? To give them encouragement to hold on to those correct beliefs so that they will not fall so far away from the truth as to lose faith in Christ or the Bible?

Why would we be evangelizing at all if non Catholics are already saved? I guess another way of putting it is…why be Catholic?

Most Protestants I know don’t believe we as Catholics are saved. Heck…that is why this website got founded. Aren’t we to defend the faith? In order to defend the faith we need to speak the truth. (a good defense is a good offense)

 

[clem456]

Why would we be evangelizing at all if non Catholics are already saved? I guess another way of putting it is…why be Catholic?

I’m guessing, because you love God and the Church?
We do not know who is saved, saints aside.Maybe the basic question is, Is there enough room in heaven for everyone who’s ever lived? Or is there only room for those who professed the Creeds?

Most Protestants I know don’t believe we as Catholics are saved. Heck…that is why this website got founded. Aren’t we to defend the faith? In order to defend the faith we need to speak the truth. (a good defense is a good offense)

Yes, speak the truth always is a good idea.

 

[mgsk]

Not according to the Catholic Church.

I’m sorry, but you’re wrong.

Countless popes, creeds, and documents beg to differ.