Is Vatican II Infallible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CatholicGeek1 said:
As I said before, that is as true today as it was then. What has changed is not teaching but understanding. What does persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church mean?
Click to expand...
“nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”

It’s specifically talking about those who shed their blood in the name of Christ. They would have to be non-baptized martyrs. It’s saying their sacrifice counts for nothing.
 
Tunesmith, the Church’s teaching is clear, willfully believing heresy is a mortal sin.
 
QuestingKnight said:
I see the ‘Vatican II Phenomenon’ as being enclosed in a circle of logic, which, if you don’t see all the elements, you think you can reach a conclusion but end up going around in a circle.

The circle is something like this:
  • Someone proposes that ‘Vatican II’ says X.
  • Traditionalists say X is different from tradition
  • Neo-conservatives say VII can only be interpreted as being in line with tradition.
  • Neo-conservatives say VII is ‘infallibile’,
  • Traditionalists say infallibilty is only invoked on specific occasions when the Pope defines a doctrine and this did not occur at VII.
  • Neo-conservatives say VII partakes of the ‘infallibility of the Magisterium’ and is owed assent or is binding in some way.
  • Traditionalists say, well, what exactly is ‘binding’ in these documents, that is different from what we are doing. Are ecumenisn without conversion, collegiality, ‘freedom of conscience’ and indifferentism ‘binding’?
  • Neo-conservatives say the documents don’t propose this.
  • Traditionalists say they are used to justify them.
Personally, I would say that a traditionalist can be a Catholic in good standing without ever reading or heeding the documents themselves or whatever speaker X says they imply. They don’t really impinge on ones daily, traditionalist, religious life.

But for those with an agenda to move the Church in a progressive, ‘modern’, updated, fashionable direction, they are very important. Because of VII and the huge revision in the Mass, the precedent for major changes in our religion has been set.

You can’t say NEVER! to a small thing like altar girls after a major rewrite of your rite and versus-populum with altar tables and so on. The dam has burst.
Click to expand...
One could say much of what you said about any council which has occurred previously. Interestingly a recurrent theme you find with most councils is heretics taking the council as an opportunity to evagalize their heresy. Councils always provide the air of having ‘changed’ something. Perhaps Vatican II is different in that a measure of small t traditions were changed with it. But certainly no dogmatic teaching.
 
crazzeto said:
Councils always provide the air of having ‘changed’ something. Perhaps Vatican II is different in that a measure of small t traditions were changed with it. But certainly no dogmatic teaching.
Click to expand...
This little thing…would you say it is still the same or has it changed?

newadvent.org/cathen/15126a.htm
Unam Sanctam
“Consequently, all who wish to belong to the fold of Christ are placed under the dominion of Peter and his successors. When, therefore, the Greeks and others say they are not subject to the authority of Peter and his successors, they thus acknowledge that they do not belong to Christ’s sheep.”
 
Tunesmith said:
“nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”

It’s specifically talking about those who shed their blood in the name of Christ. They would have to be non-baptized martyrs. It’s saying their sacrifice counts for nothing.
Click to expand...
You are offering your interpretation of what you believe that it means. I believe your interpretation is incorrect and offered my own. I do not believe that the teaching of the church has ever changed, I simply believe that our understanding of her teachings have grown through time, study, and prayer.
 
Tunesmith said:
This little thing…would you say it is still the same or has it changed?

newadvent.org/cathen/15126a.htm
Unam Sanctam
“Consequently, all who wish to belong to the fold of Christ are placed under the dominion of Peter and his successors. When, therefore, the Greeks and others say they are not subject to the authority of Peter and his successors, they thus acknowledge that they do not belong to Christ’s sheep.”
Click to expand...
I would say that it is still the same. However, through our enhanced understanding we have come to realize that the above holds true for those that would have baptism of blood or desire and not just for those that have had the baptism of water.
 
Tunesmith said:
This little thing…would you say it is still the same or has it changed?

newadvent.org/cathen/15126a.htm
Unam Sanctam
“Consequently, all who wish to belong to the fold of Christ are placed under the dominion of Peter and his successors. When, therefore, the Greeks and others say they are not subject to the authority of Peter and his successors, they thus acknowledge that they do not belong to Christ’s sheep.”
Click to expand...
It is the one and the same today as it was then:

philvaz.com/apologetics/debate9.htm
 
Tunesmith said:
Why didn’t anyone know about it?
Click to expand...
? Not sure what you are asking here. Are you suggesting nobody knew this? Not even leading Vatican II theologian Karl Ratziger who as Pope Benedict XVI made affirming Vatican II a requirement for the SSPX to reunite with the Church?
 
crazzeto said:
? Not sure what you are asking here. Are you suggesting nobody knew this? Not even leading Vatican II theologian Karl Ratziger who as Pope Benedict XVI made affirming Vatican II a requirement for the SSPX to reunite with the Church?
Click to expand...
Vatican II teachings were new to the average lay person. If you know a Catholic 80 years of age or older ask them what they were taught about Protestants and Jews and see if it lines up with the teachings of Vatican II. I’m sincerely researching everything you gave me and I know the early church and the Baltimore Catechism speak about invincible ignorance so I can’t find fault with that but salvation for Jews is a whole new thing and the imperfect union of Protestants was not an acceptable idea in 1943.

ewtn.com/library/encyc/p12mysti.htm
MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI (On the Mystical Body of Christ)
Pope Pius XII
Encyclical promulgated on 29 June 1943
  1. [15] Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely “pneumatological” as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond.
  2. 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 unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.”[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered—so the Lord commands—as a heathen and a publican.[19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
  3. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.
 
Tunesmith said:
Vatican II teachings were new to the average lay person. If you know a Catholic 80 years of age or older ask them what they were taught about Protestants and Jews and see if it lines up with the teachings of Vatican II. I’m sincerely researching everything you gave me and I know the early church and the Baltimore Catechism speak about invincible ignorance so I can’t find fault with that but salvation for Jews is a whole new thing and the imperfect union of Protestants was not an acceptable idea in 1943.

ewtn.com/library/encyc/p12mysti.htm
MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI (On the Mystical Body of Christ)
Pope Pius XII
Encyclical promulgated on 29 June 1943
  1. [15] Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely “pneumatological” as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond.
  2. 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 unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.”[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered—so the Lord commands—as a heathen and a publican.[19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
  3. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt many lay people misunderstood the teaching, this doesn’t mean the church ever changed doctrine. It did not change doctrine.
 
Those who desire to find a contradiction will find one.
 
Tunesmith said:
Vatican II teachings were new to the average lay person. If you know a Catholic 80 years of age or older ask them what they were taught about Protestants and Jews and see if it lines up with the teachings of Vatican II. I’m sincerely researching everything you gave me and I know the early church and the Baltimore Catechism speak about invincible ignorance so I can’t find fault with that but salvation for Jews is a whole new thing and the imperfect union of Protestants was not an acceptable idea in 1943.

ewtn.com/library/encyc/p12mysti.htm
MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI (On the Mystical Body of Christ)
Pope Pius XII
Encyclical promulgated on 29 June 1943
  1. [15] Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely “pneumatological” as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond.
  2. 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 unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.”[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered—so the Lord commands—as a heathen and a publican.[19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
  3. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.
Click to expand...
Actually, Tune, Vatican II’s "Declaration on Non-Catholic Religions (Nostra Aetate) took a positive look at non-Christian religions. This document states that the Catholic Church respects whatever is good and true in these religions, and even indicates that God, in his mercy, can grant salvation to those who have not yet accepted Christianity but who follow the truth as it is known to them through their consciences. Yet this document also stresses that Christians must never cease to proclaim to non-Christians the full saving message of Jesus Christ, the only Savior of mankind. Many may be lost who do not hear that message.

A large portion of the declaration concerns the Jewish people, who have a special relationship to Christians through Abraham, Moses, the prophets, and all who faithfully prepared the way for the coming of Christ.

Their is no conflict here with the pre-conciliar teachings of the Church.
 
Tomster said:
Actually, Tune, Vatican II’s "Declaration on Non-Catholic Religions (Nostra Aetate) took a positive look at non-Christian religions. This document states that the Catholic Church respects whatever is good and true in these religions, and even indicates that God, in his mercy, can grant salvation to those who have not yet accepted Christianity but who follow the truth as it is known to them through their consciences. Yet this document also stresses that Christians must never cease to proclaim to non-Christians the full saving message of Jesus Christ, the only Savior of mankind. Many may be lost who do not hear that message.

A large portion of the declaration concerns the Jewish people, who have a special relationship to Christians through Abraham, Moses, the prophets, and all who faithfully prepared the way for the coming of Christ.

Their is no conflict here with the pre-conciliar teachings of the Church.
Click to expand...
I think he was attempting to stress “…all must be under the roman pontiff in order to be saved…”. This phrasology however is being used out of context when it is used against Vatican II.
 
Tunesmith said:
Vatican II teachings were new to the average lay person. If you know a Catholic 80 years of age or older ask them what they were taught about Protestants and Jews and see if it lines up with the teachings of Vatican II. I’m sincerely researching everything you gave me and I know the early church and the Baltimore Catechism speak about invincible ignorance so I can’t find fault with that but salvation for Jews is a whole new thing and the imperfect union of Protestants was not an acceptable idea in 1943.

ewtn.com/library/encyc/p12mysti.htm
MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI (On the Mystical Body of Christ)
Pope Pius XII
Encyclical promulgated on 29 June 1943
  1. [15] Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely “pneumatological” as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond.
  2. 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 unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.”[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered—so the Lord commands—as a heathen and a publican.[19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
  3. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.
Click to expand...
Tune,

Just a word regarding conscience.

Conscience is the judgment of reason concerning the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an act about to be or already performed or omitted. The dictates of a true or right conscience are in real conformity with the law of God; those of a false or erroneous conscience represent an action as good which is really bad, or vice versa. The conscience is doubtful when the judgment remains suspended concerning the lawfulness or unlawfulness of contemplated action. A lax conscience habitually, and for the lightest of motives, judges to be right what is wrong and to be venial sin what is mortal sin. The clear voice of conscience, be it true or false, must always be obeyed; but for one, after his false conscience has been enlightened by authority or otherwise, to persist in his error and attempt to justify it by an appeal to his conscience is affectation, sinful, and a misuse of the word conscience.

So, the Church has always taught that the “clear voice of conscience, be it true or false, must always be obeyed”. This is “pre” and “post” conciliar Church teaching.

Additionally, " . . . after his false conscience has been enlightened by authority or otherwise, to persist in his error and attempt to justify it by appeal to his conscience is affectation, sinful, and a misuse of the word conscience". This, also, is “pre” and “post” conciliar teaching.
 
Tunesmith said:
Vatican II teachings were new to the average lay person. If you know a Catholic 80 years of age or older ask them what they were taught about Protestants and Jews and see if it lines up with the teachings of Vatican II. I’m sincerely researching everything you gave me and I know the early church and the Baltimore Catechism speak about invincible ignorance so I can’t find fault with that but salvation for Jews is a whole new thing and the imperfect union of Protestants was not an acceptable idea in 1943.

ewtn.com/library/encyc/p12mysti.htm
MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI (On the Mystical Body of Christ)
Pope Pius XII
Encyclical promulgated on 29 June 1943
  1. [15] Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely “pneumatological” as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are united by an invisible bond.
  2. 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 unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.”[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered—so the Lord commands—as a heathen and a publican.[19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
  3. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.
Click to expand...
Tune,

While I haven"t reached the ripe old age of 80, I am closing in on it rapidly. :rotfl:

I do remember, vividly, what the pre-conciliar Church looked like and what it taught. Having been educated by orthodox Dominicans, Franciscans and Jesuits, I can tell you, in all truth, that the teachings of the Church have not changed at all. The presentation of these truths has changed which is a good thing. Times and conditions in this world change and Holy Mother Church must speak to the world in a language the world can understand

In regards to Protestants and Jews we were always taught, and I do mean always, that not only did Jesus Christ die for Catholics, He died and rose for all of humanity and that it was up to us to bring that Good News to everyone. (That was my Confirmation promise just before the good bishop gave me my “tap” on the cheek. :knight1:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top