Questions about Vatican II doctrines

  • Thread starter Thread starter Triumphant_Of_Christ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Triumphant_Of_Christ

Guest
Hello! so my question for today is about the doctrines of Vatican II.
So my Question is "why does Vatican II say that an Atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, Protestant and Muslim can go to heaven without even excepting Jesus? "

Also, when a kid approached Pope Francis and asked him if his Atheist father was heaven why did Pope Francis say that his father was in heaven instead of telling the truth? (doesn’t that contradict Jesus? Mark 16:16 John 3:18)
 
Last edited:
Triumphant_Of_Christ said:
"why does Vatican II say that an Atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, Protestant and Muslim can go to heaven without even excepting Jesus? "
Click to expand...
It doesn’t. What it says is “God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him” (Vatican II, Ad Gentes 7) and that those He does this for are those that “through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.” (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 16; the footnote for this passage also notes the need for faith). As the Catechism notes, that necessary faith is faith in Christ (See CCC 161).

It does point out some true aspects of other religions, but notes “Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.” (Vatican II, Lume Gentium 16).

None of these were novel doctrines, but had been consistently taught by the Church prior.
 
Last edited:
Genesis315 said:
None of these were novel doctrines, but had been consistently taught by the Church prior.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is an important point.

There is no such thing as a “Vatican II Doctrine” in the sense of Vatican II somehow coming up with new doctrines. All Vatican II did was explain in more depth doctrines that already had been consistently taught by the Church since early Christian times.
 
It offered clarification on the Catholic dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. That dogma stands firm today as it ever was and every Catholic must believe it. It offered clarity that one will not be condemned due to no fault of there own, and God can supply the grace due to invincible ignorance and baptismal desire. However, these are extraordinary means of salvation. The dogma means that there is nothing in any other faith that offers salvation. I think the problem is that many may read this as other faiths are equal to Catholicism and if you are good person, you go to heaven. I have even witnessed it preached in homilies. It is heretical to see it that way or even promote that and goes against Catholic dogma. It is always good to go with the doctrines and dogma and not a watered down explanation that may be confusing which could lead people away from the sacraments and Christ’s Church.
 
And it didn’t even do all that much. It was not a wholesale, “we used to believe X, now we believe Y”. . .more a “we used to think X consisted of A and B, now we know that in addition to those there is C as well”.

And even there (don’t flame me), just as with any other similar council, these ‘deepening teachings’ can be further clarified, or even, if the clarification turned out to be based on a misunderstanding, put ‘back to the factory setting’ if you will, without any difficulty.

So if it turns out that there is say an ambiguity of terminology where the people thought something meant X as opposed to Y, and it turns out it really meant Y, that’s fine too. Many of the documents (I’ve read them) are ambiguous. And that is not necessarily a bad thing unless somehow a conclusion is made that brings us further from Truth, instead of nearer to.

There are so many outside factors and events that perhaps things were couched ambiguously in order to protect them from being irrevocably challenged and the Church broken over them. The trouble with that is that, after the ‘time of peril’ i.e. the 1960s etc., the time would be to start gently sending the teachings back into a more orthodox interpretation and not ramming the less orthodox and going even further. Still, we are not truly that ‘far’ from the original time and the Church moves slowly yet surely.
 
So let me get this straight, the kid’s father is not said to be an Atheist but a nonbeliever and Pope Francis didn’t give the kid (Emanuele) a direct answer that his father was in heaven or hell but that God was proud of his dad for baptizing his children. So, this means either Pope Francis is saying that he doesn’t know if his father is in heaven or hell because he is not God or that even though God was proud of his father for baptizing his children he still didn’t make it to heaven.
 
Triumphant_Of_Christ said:
either Pope Francis is saying that he doesn’t know if his father is in heaven or hell because he is not God
Click to expand...
The Pope is saying this, because it’s the teaching of the Church.

It is the normal practice when a beloved person has died to foster hope by pointing to good things the deceased did that put him into communion with the Church, such as having his children baptized even if he himself didn’t believe.
 
Last edited:
why does Vatican II say that an Atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, Protestant and Muslim can go to heaven without even excepting Jesus?
Click to expand...
I would say this is one of the examples of poor writting some V II documents and statements have. By poor, I mean not clear enough and/or not objective enough. In this case, it lacked a better explanation or at least a distinction between objective salvation and subjective salvation. Objectively speaking, salvation is only through the Catholic Church. No wonder why it is called the true Ark of Salvation (prefigured by Noah’s Ark). Subjectively speaking, on the other hand, a person might repent on their last second and be saved by God’s mercy. but this is an exception, and it is against reason to focus on exceptional ways instead of salvation by means Christ left us. Besides, this person who repented did it the Catholic way. So, in the end, the Catholic Religion is the only way of salvation.
Also, when a kid approached Pope Francis and asked him if his Atheist father was heaven why did Pope Francis say that his father was in heaven instead of telling the truth?
Click to expand...
I agree with others said here. Pope Francis didn’t really say the kid’s father was saved. He said his father was brave, that he had a “good heart”, that God was proud of his action of Baptizing all four children, and that God does not abandon the brave. But notice when the Pope asks the crowd whether the kid’s father was left away from God, he does not answer. Instead, he asks the crowd to answer. (“speak up, come on”). As you can see, he addresses the surroundings of the question instead of giving a straight answer. Lack of objectivity/clarity. And this leads many people to confusion, hence so many people attack him by saying “Pope Francis stated that an atheist may go to Heaven” (which he didn’t say).
 
Last edited:
Triumphant_Of_Christ said:
So let me get this straight, the kid’s father is not said to be an Atheist but a nonbeliever and Pope Francis didn’t give the kid (Emanuele) a direct answer that his father was in heaven or hell
Click to expand...
Actually, in the original Italian the pope says atheist. As for who is in heaven or hell, isn’t that up to God to decide? What did you expect the pope to have said to the little boy? that his father was in hell? how could the pope possibly know if the father is in hell? The boy said the father was good, so the pope built his answer on that. People who are saved, whether they Realize it or not, are saved by the Blood of Christ, regardless of their religion. The pope was alluding to purgatory when he told the little boy to pray for his father. as for purgatory, the lower levels of Purgatory are like hell, the only difference is that there is hope in purgatory; eventually those souls get out…
 
Do you know how much harder it would have been for a non-believer to have his kids baptized? You think God would ignore a parent who goes through that kind of effort to give their kids what they need, even if that parent can’t or won’t understand it?

Hint: If you do, you’re wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Really wrong. Totally wrong. Completely, stupendously, obliviously wrong.
 
Gab123 said:
he pope was alluding to purgatory when he told the little boy to pray for his father. as for purgatory, the lower levels of Purgatory are like hell, the only difference is that there is hope in purgatory; eventually those souls get out
Click to expand...
But why would he have to pray for his father and why would he be in a lower level of Purgatory if Jesus said he who does not believe shall not have eternal life? If the Catholic church faith is the one true faith then if anyone does not believe in it shall not have eternal life. Also, I don’t have anything against praying for people who are in the process of Purgatory but I don’t think God would let a non-believer in his kingdom and even though God was pleased by the father’s good work (by baptizing his children) he still won’t let a non-believer to enter his kingdom.
 
Triumphant_Of_Christ said:
If the Catholic church faith is the one true faith then if anyone does not believe in it shall not have eternal life.
Click to expand...
The Church teaches that even those not visibly part of the Church due to no fault of their own may be saved, if they follow the calling of God in their hearts and strive to live good, Godly lives.
 
Last edited:
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
The Church teaches that even those not visibly part of the Church may be saved, if they follow the calling of God in their hearts and strive to live good, Godly lives.
Click to expand...
Triumphant_Of_Christ said:
If the Catholic church faith is the one true faith then if anyone does not believe in it shall not have eternal life.
Click to expand...
You’re both right, but Triumphant errs in assuming this man died an atheist without faith in Christ. As the Church teaches, “in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him.” (CCC 848). This may even happen only at the “eleventh hour” (cf. Matt. 20:6).

That faith which is absolutely necessary for salvation the Church defines as “a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed.” (CCC 150).

Does this mean explicit knowledge and assent to all the dogmas of the faith? No, if one is in good faith, it is implicit in faith in Christ.

This is because Christ “is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one” (CCC 65); and “what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son” (CCC 65, quoting St. John of the Cross).

As such, the Catechism sums it up here:

CCC
The Necessity of Faith

161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.42 "Since “without faith it is impossible to please [God]” and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘But he who endures to the end.’"43
Click to expand...
As Pope Francis has noted, God may have rewarded the love of this father for his son with the gift of faith and salvation, even in the last moments:

Pope Francis, Lumen Fidei
Because faith is a way, it also has to do with the lives of those men and women who, though not believers, nonetheless desire to believe and continue to seek. To the extent that they are sincerely open to love and set out with whatever light they can find, they are already, even without knowing it, on the path leading to faith…Anyone who sets off on the path of doing good to others is already drawing near to God, is already sustained by his help, for it is characteristic of the divine light to brighten our eyes whenever we walk towards the fullness of love.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Genesis315 said:
Pope Francis, Lumen Fidei
Because faith is a way, it also has to do with the lives of those men and women who, though not believers, nonetheless desire to believe and continue to seek. To the extent that they are sincerely open to love and set out with whatever light they can find, they are already, even without knowing it, on the path leading to faith…Anyone who sets off on the path of doing good to others is already drawing near to God, is already sustained by his help, for it is characteristic of the divine light to brighten our eyes whenever we walk towards the fullness of love.
Click to expand...
But how can a non-believer’s works bring him eternal life? I mean I don’t believe in faith alone anymore but is Francis saying that a Non-believer by doing good to others is pleasing to God that the person can have eternal life and still not believe ? or that since these good works are pleasing to God the person will be drawn to God and become Christian?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Triumphant_Of_Christ said:
But how can a non-believer’s works bring him eternal life?
Click to expand...
It is not works, but the grace that came from following God’s will in baptizing his children, that may have guided him to Christ, even in his last moments.
 
Last edited:
There is a difference in having ignorance of Christ vs refusing to convert. Basically you’re either in the Kingdom or you’re not. Scripture says a person outside the Kingdom will perish.

We don’t know the ultimate fate of every individual who has passed. We present the good news of Salvation to everyone because salvation is for everyone. But people can choose not to enter the Kingdom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top