Questions on councils

[TNT]

Catholic2003:

No, that particular section of Unitatis Redintegratio is not infallible. Prior ecumenical councils often used anathemas to indicate the doctrinal and thus infallible teachings. However, in light of its pastoral orientation, Vatican II used a different verbal formula. The only infallible teaching in Unitatis Redintegratio is the following (infallible part in bold, verbal formula underlined):

So, do I act on it , believe it,? What do I do with it, re: my realtives and a wife who is SSPX? Is she in the part I quoted?

 

[Catholic2003]

TNT:

So, do I act on it , believe it,? What do I do with it, re: my realtives and a wife who is SSPX? Is she in the part I quoted?

Faithful Catholics are supposed to accept and embrace all of Vatican II (not just the few infallible parts) as the teaching of the Church’s supreme magisterium.

My quick take on the section of UR that you quoted is that it applies to long-standing Protestant denominations, but not recent schismatic groups like the SSPX. But that’s just my opinion.

 

[TNT]

Catholic2003:

Faithful Catholics are supposed to accept and embrace all of Vatican II (not just the few infallible parts) as the teaching of the Church’s supreme magisterium.

My quick take on the section of UR that you quoted is that** it applies to long-standing Protestant** denominations, but not recent schismatic groups like the SSPX. But that’s just my opinion.

The brethren divided from us also use many (actually ALL in this case) liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.
It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

So,
what does “according to the condition of each Church or Community” mean? This was all written in 1964.
Where are the Exclusions if any? Were these “conditions” time oriented, or belief oriented?

My understanding is that the SSPX holds all doctines of the Catholic Church as true. That is, they believe exactly the same doctrines as my parents and grand parents did. They even use the Baltimore Catechism for catechesis.
If doctrine hasn’t changed since then, are they not included in that “**mystery of salvation” **…"**must be regarded as capable" … as described?

To put it diectly, is my Wife “objectively” out of the way of salvation for being in the SSPX?
**Re: the "infallible part quoted by another:

---

this holy Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them, since these are better suited to the character of their faithful, and more for the good of their souls.

SSPX hold to this infallible statement.
Doesn’t “deficient in some respects” include objecting to some non-infallible teachings of VATII? That some of these is what I am told they object to.
This is so damn confusing…first yur in, then yur out, then yur in, then ?
If I take the quote of UR at face value, they are in, and I need not worry?

 

[Catholic2003]

TNT:

To put it diectly, is my Wife “objectively” out of the way of salvation for being in the SSPX?

I don’t think anyone is objectively out of the way of salvation based on factors that we can observe. Only God can judge each person. Conversely, I don’t think that anyone is guaranteed salvation based on factors that we can observe.

But these are deep questions, which I have given very little study to. (Unlike the issue of infallibility, which I have been researching for several years now.)

The reason I excluded SSPX was this introductory statement from UR 3:

The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection.

 

[TNT]

Catholic2003:

Only God can judge each person. Conversely, I don’t think that anyone is guaranteed salvation based on factors that we can observe.
The reason I excluded SSPX was this introductory statement from UR 3:

Thank you. But by Objectively, I mean in the sense of the precepts, rulings, laws of the Church. “God can judge each person” is the subjective point, which I fully understand.

The Intro statement of UR3 is “born into”. She came from a Prot. charismatic. She did not schism in the sense that she was in the VATII church, then exited to the SSPX.
On top of all that is the fact that, that part (UR3) apparently is not infallible, therefore, not exempt from error.

Sounds like Limbo is being re-created here on earth!

Next, a baby of ours : will it be “born into” in the sense of UR3?
It sounds like all it takes is for about 2 generations to wipe out a schism guilt altogether.
I intro’d her to the Catholic faith via indult TLM. But she entered via SSPX.
This is the reason for me supporting the SSPX indirectly on other threads. I got BLOOD and souls on the line here.

Thanks again for having the interest to step into this mess.

 

[BulldogCath]

When you read the Vatican II documents, and those who ACTUALLY Try to Defend it-dont you get a flashback to Bill Clinton and "It depends on what your definition of “is” is.

**That is because they were trying to “Invent a New Religion” or at least Protestantize ours, and at the same time-make it look like they were being Catholic and following past teachings. **

**It is clear, as Vatican I stated, that when a council teaches already defined church doctrine, or is unclear in its teaching-IT IS PASTORAL and not INFALLIBLE. What More needs to be said? **
Fr Greely-one of V2’s biggest supporters even admits this is the roadblock that Vatican II has faced and will face, is that it is in direct contradiction to Vatican I. You would have thought, as we are talking about a council that only happened something like 90 years before, that the Vatican II council fathers might have at least taken a peek at those documents-did they think that most would have forgotten about them by 1962?

Catholic2003:

I don’t think anyone is objectively out of the way of salvation based on factors that we can observe. Only God can judge each person. Conversely, I don’t think that anyone is guaranteed salvation based on factors that we can observe.

But these are deep questions, which I have given very little study to. (Unlike the issue of infallibility, which I have been researching for several years now.)

The reason I excluded SSPX was this introductory statement from UR 3:

 

[bear06]

IT IS PASTORAL and not INFALLIBLE. What More needs to be said?

I’ve asked you time and again to show me the Church teachings on this. Where, oh where, does it say that if a council does not express new doctrine that it is not infallible in her teachings? If you’re not going to answer, would you mind dropping this argument?