Need help reconciling Vatican II

[PrayforMallory]

I need some help with the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X. I’m having trouble reconciling it with Vatican II. I’m hoping some of you guys can help me out. I don’t really wanna provoke an argument. Just learn.

The biggest thing about Vat II that confuses me, is the ecclesiology. Thinking about it troubles me, and I’d like this burden to be lifted.

There is one part in particular that I want to reconcile. Pope St. Pius X speaks so clearly. It’s difficult to compare the direct language of Piux X with the Vat II documents (at least for me). Basically, what I’m having trouble with is the idea that the “invisible” Catholic Church exists in elements of Protestant Churches, and that the Protestants are “separated brethren.”

Here are the statements:

8 Q: What is the Catholic Church?

A: The Catholic Church is the Union or Congregation of all the baptized who, still living on earth, profess the same Faith and the same Law of Jesus Christ, participate in the same Sacraments, and obey their lawful Pastors, particularly the Roman Pontiff.
9 Q: State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church?

A: To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptized, to believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ,** to participate in the same Sacraments**, and to** acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church**.

12 Q: The many societies of persons who are baptized but who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not, then, belong to the Church of Jesus Christ?

A:** No, those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ**.

15 Q: Can there not be several Churches?

A: No, there cannot be more than one Church; for as there is but one God, one Faith and one Baptism, there is and can be but one true Church.

You guys are well-aware of the ecclesiology of Vat II. The idea that elements of the Church exist outside of the Catholic Church and that non-Catholics are members of the Church, in an imperfect way.

Also:

1 Q: Who are they who are outside the true Church?

A: **Outside the true Church are: Infidels, Jews, heretics, apostates, schismatics, and the excommunicated. **

12 Q: Who are infidels?

A: Infidels are those who have not been baptized and do not believe in Jesus Christ, because they either believe in and worship false gods as idolaters do, or though admitting one true God, they do not believe in the Messiah, neither as already come in the Person of Jesus Christ, nor as to come; for instance, Mohammedans and the like.

3 Q: Who are the Jews?

A: The Jews are those who profess the Law of Moses; have not received baptism; and do not believe in Jesus Christ.

14 Q: Who are heretics?

A: Heretics are those of the baptized who obstinately refuse to believe some truth revealed by God and taught as an article of faith by the Catholic Church; for example, the Arians, the Nestorians, and the various sects of Protestants.

Of course, there’s also:

62 Q: How should every Catholic act towards the Pope?

A: **Every Catholic must acknowledge the Pope as Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher, and be united with him in mind and heart. **

Obviously the last answer fills me with dread. I’m not questioning the Holy Father here, just looking to understand how the above teachings can be reconciled with the new ecclesiology. I’m not looking at all to place myself outside the Church.

I want to look at this in terms of “Hermeneutic of Continuity,” so I have the assumption that all of this can be reconciled. Any help would be appreciated.

 

[Dauphin]

It would be easier if you presented those excerpts from the Second Vatican Council which you believe contradict this teaching. As far as I know, there’s no explicit contradiction, in which the Church says that protestants and other heretics and schismatics are true members of the one Church of Christ.

The Council simply taught that the Spirit of Christ works outside the Church, and that baptised Christians, as members of the Body of Christ, are in a certain way united with the Church, although in an imperfect communion (thus, not true members of the Church).

 

[PrayforMallory]

It would be easier if you presented those excerpts from the Second Vatican Council which you believe contradict this teaching. As far as I know, there’s no explicit contradiction, in which the Church says that protestants and other heretics and schismatics are true members of the one Church of Christ.

The Council simply taught that the Spirit of Christ works outside the Church, and that baptised Christians, as members of the Body of Christ, are in a certain way united with the Church, although in an imperfect communion (thus, not true members of the Church).

Hmmm. I guess there isn’t any contradiction. I’ll have to go back in reread things with what you’ve said in mind.

I have a flawed understanding of Vat II. It wasn’t something taught to me during RCIA. It seemed like it basically was just used as an excuse to not discuss doctrine really.

 

[charlesbarkley]

I need some help with the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X. I’m having trouble reconciling it with Vatican II. I’m hoping some of you guys can help me out. I don’t really wanna provoke an argument. Just learn.

The biggest thing about Vat II that confuses me, is the ecclesiology. Thinking about it troubles me, and I’d like this burden to be lifted.

There is one part in particular that I want to reconcile. Pope St. Pius X speaks so clearly. It’s difficult to compare the direct language of Piux X with the Vat II documents (at least for me). Basically, what I’m having trouble with is the idea that the “invisible” Catholic Church exists in elements of Protestant Churches, and that the Protestants are “separated brethren.”

Here are the statements:

8 Q: What is the Catholic Church?

A: The Catholic Church is the Union or Congregation of all the baptized who, still living on earth, profess the same Faith and the same Law of Jesus Christ, participate in the same Sacraments, and obey their lawful Pastors, particularly the Roman Pontiff.
9 Q: State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church?

A: To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptized, to believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ,** to participate in the same Sacraments**, and to** acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church**.

12 Q: The many societies of persons who are baptized but who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not, then, belong to the Church of Jesus Christ?

A:** No, those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ**.

15 Q: Can there not be several Churches?

A: No, there cannot be more than one Church; for as there is but one God, one Faith and one Baptism, there is and can be but one true Church.

You guys are well-aware of the ecclesiology of Vat II. The idea that elements of the Church exist outside of the Catholic Church and that non-Catholics are members of the Church, in an imperfect way.

Also:

1 Q: Who are they who are outside the true Church?

A: **Outside the true Church are: Infidels, Jews, heretics, apostates, schismatics, and the excommunicated. **

12 Q: Who are infidels?

A: Infidels are those who have not been baptized and do not believe in Jesus Christ, because they either believe in and worship false gods as idolaters do, or though admitting one true God, they do not believe in the Messiah, neither as already come in the Person of Jesus Christ, nor as to come; for instance, Mohammedans and the like.

3 Q: Who are the Jews?

A: The Jews are those who profess the Law of Moses; have not received baptism; and do not believe in Jesus Christ.

14 Q: Who are heretics?

A: Heretics are those of the baptized who obstinately refuse to believe some truth revealed by God and taught as an article of faith by the Catholic Church; for example, the Arians, the Nestorians, and the various sects of Protestants.

Of course, there’s also:

62 Q: How should every Catholic act towards the Pope?

A: **Every Catholic must acknowledge the Pope as Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher, and be united with him in mind and heart. **

Obviously the last answer fills me with dread. I’m not questioning the Holy Father here, just looking to understand how the above teachings can be reconciled with the new ecclesiology. I’m not looking at all to place myself outside the Church.

I want to look at this in terms of “Hermeneutic of Continuity,” so I have the assumption that all of this can be reconciled. Any help would be appreciated.

Mallory Vatican II taught all those things you just mentioned. It may have used “nicer” language, but the teaching is the same.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I agree with those posting hat there is no contradiction. Nowhere in Church teaching does it say that future popes cannot shed light on the understanding of what prior popes said or taught by virtue of their office. All this does is give us a broader and deeper understanding of God’s love for us and his caring for us his children.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[VivatJesus]

I need some help with the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X. I’m having trouble reconciling it with Vatican II.

You can’t reconcile it, any more than you can show that 2+2+5.
…I’m sure that some of these posters who are more skilled than I am in the arena of mental gymnastics will be able to help you out though.

 

[Sepharad]

Do you what always puzzled me, as a non-Catholic?

I have read both the documents of V2 and also pre-V2 teachings (such as the Baltimore Catechism, Catechism of the Council of Trent, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott, etc)

Why is it that I can never understand what the docs of V2 are saying, but I have no trouble with pre-V2 writings?

I once fell asleep while trying to read some of the docs of V2 in fact!

I have the same problem while reading Orthodox Jewish writings as opposed to liberal Jewish writings…the liberal ones put me to sleep!

 

[VivatJesus]

Do you what always puzzled me, as a non-Catholic?

I have read both the documents of V2 and also pre-V2 teachings (such as the Baltimore Catechism, Catechism of the Council of Trent, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott, etc)

Why is it that I can never understand what the docs of V2 are saying, but I have no trouble with pre-V2 writings?

I once fell asleep while trying to read some of the docs of V2 in fact!

I have the same problem while reading Orthodox Jewish writings as opposed to liberal Jewish writings…the liberal ones put me to sleep!

Sephard, the documents of Vatican II were DELIBERATELY ambiguous…this is a fact and can be seen in a number of books about the history of Vatican II, such as The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber. Traditionalists say that Vatican II has “time bombs”…that is, it makes ambiguous statements that be interpreted in an “orthodox” Catholic manner but could also easily be interpreted in a “modernist”, heretical manner…the modernists who hijacked Vatican II put it in such vague language on purpose, so that later on they could use it to justify and enact their modernist agendas.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I need some help with the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X. I’m having trouble reconciling it with Vatican II. I’m hoping some of you guys can help me out. I don’t really wanna provoke an argument. Just learn.

The biggest thing about Vat II that confuses me, is the ecclesiology. Thinking about it troubles me, and I’d like this burden to be lifted.

There is one part in particular that I want to reconcile. Pope St. Pius X speaks so clearly. It’s difficult to compare the direct language of Piux X with the Vat II documents (at least for me). Basically, what I’m having trouble with is the idea that the “invisible” Catholic Church exists in elements of Protestant Churches, and that the Protestants are “separated brethren.”

Here are the statements:

8 Q: What is the Catholic Church?

A: The Catholic Church is the Union or Congregation of all the baptized who, still living on earth, profess the same Faith and the same Law of Jesus Christ, participate in the same Sacraments, and obey their lawful Pastors, particularly the Roman Pontiff.
9 Q: State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church?

A: To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptized, to believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ,** to participate in the same Sacraments**, and to** acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church**.

12 Q: The many societies of persons who are baptized but who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not, then, belong to the Church of Jesus Christ?

A:** No, those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ**.

15 Q: Can there not be several Churches?

A: No, there cannot be more than one Church; for as there is but one God, one Faith and one Baptism, there is and can be but one true Church.

You guys are well-aware of the ecclesiology of Vat II. The idea that elements of the Church exist outside of the Catholic Church and that non-Catholics are members of the Church, in an imperfect way.

Also:

1 Q: Who are they who are outside the true Church?

A: **Outside the true Church are: Infidels, Jews, heretics, apostates, schismatics, and the excommunicated. **

12 Q: Who are infidels?

A: Infidels are those who have not been baptized and do not believe in Jesus Christ, because they either believe in and worship false gods as idolaters do, or though admitting one true God, they do not believe in the Messiah, neither as already come in the Person of Jesus Christ, nor as to come; for instance, Mohammedans and the like.

3 Q: Who are the Jews?

A: The Jews are those who profess the Law of Moses; have not received baptism; and do not believe in Jesus Christ.

14 Q: Who are heretics?

A: Heretics are those of the baptized who obstinately refuse to believe some truth revealed by God and taught as an article of faith by the Catholic Church; for example, the Arians, the Nestorians, and the various sects of Protestants.

Of course, there’s also:

62 Q: How should every Catholic act towards the Pope?

A: **Every Catholic must acknowledge the Pope as Father, Pastor, and Universal Teacher, and be united with him in mind and heart. **

Obviously the last answer fills me with dread. I’m not questioning the Holy Father here, just looking to understand how the above teachings can be reconciled with the new ecclesiology. I’m not looking at all to place myself outside the Church.

I want to look at this in terms of “Hermeneutic of Continuity,” so I have the assumption that all of this can be reconciled. Any help would be appreciated.

Thank you for posting that clear teaching on the Church from Pope St. Pius X the Great.

If anyone tries to confuse you by teaching anything different than the clear teaching of Pope Pius X, you should turn a deaf ear to them.

And you must be very careful, because there are many crafty heretics today who teach a completely different ecclesiology and claim that it is due to a “deeper understanding”.

The truth is, it is a “different” (read heretical) understanding. Simply put, they reject the clear teaching of the past, and cloak their error in ambiguity, all the while claiming that their new error, which is concealed in ambigiuty, is actually a “clarification” of what was taught. Don’t fall for it. Instead, provide them with the following quotes which will expose them for what they are:

**Vatican I: **"For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding…

Vatican I: “If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.”

**Oath Against Modernism (that Pius X requried all clergy to take): **“I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously…”

 

[japhy]

I need some help with the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X. I’m having trouble reconciling it with Vatican II. I’m hoping some of you guys can help me out. I don’t really wanna provoke an argument. Just learn.

I want to look at this in terms of “Hermeneutic of Continuity,” so I have the assumption that all of this can be reconciled. Any help would be appreciated.

Pay close attention to Article 9, qq. 23, 24, and 29 (I think) of the Pius X catechism, that deal with the “body” vs. the “soul” of the Church, and those who are invincibly ignorant of the Church.

 

[Sepharad]

Sephard, the documents of Vatican II were DELIBERATELY ambiguous…this is a fact and can be seen in a number of books about the history of Vatican II, such as The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber. Traditionalists say that Vatican II has “time bombs”…that is, it makes ambiguous statements that be interpreted in an “orthodox” Catholic manner but could also easily be interpreted in a “modernist”, heretical manner…the modernists who hijacked Vatican II put it in such vague language on purpose, so that later on they could use it to justify and enact their modernist agendas.

I think you are exactly right.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I think you are exactly right.

Me too.

 

[SanJudas]

There has been a change, P4M, there most certainly has been. Just as so many other things have changed in our societies since the 1960’s, there have been tremendous changes in the Church. My parish priest, who was ordained in the late 1950’s, once commented that if someone would have told him then that one day he would have to preach homilies against gay marriage and legal infanticide, he might have resigned on the spot. He also said he would have called a liar anyone who told him that fifty years hence the majority of Catholics would not believe in the Real Presence, the Assumption of the Blessed Mother, or the need for absolution from a priest.
There was a change. Things are different now, and not for the better. I didn’t reach that conclusion easily or quickly. I fought against it for a long time because it calls too many things into question, the same things that you are questioning right now. I try to believe that these negative consequences were unintended by those involved in implementing them. I try to believe that mistakes were made, the same as those that many of us who lived through that era made. I want to believe that those mistakes are being corrected. I want to believe, but sometimes I wonder.