M
McCall1981
Guest
Believe me, I’d be happy to, I dont enjoy doing apologetics at all, but things keep getting said that misrepresent the Church, so I feel obligated.
- Status
G
gracepoole
Guest
I can’t pretend to add much of value to the conversation, but I’d like to offer you two points, DJ. First, it seems to me that the struggle you’re experiencing is one of an informed conscience. Your rejection of the damnation of certain groups and individuals is, I’m guessing, something that cannot be altered. It would probably be easier for you to alter your fingerprints – it’s that essential. If you’re extremely knowledgeable about the Church’s teachings on this subject and you’ve engaged in a lengthy and ongoing investigation into it with a spiritual director, credible teachers, etc. and you *still *feel as committed to this position, I’d say your informed conscience is doing its job.
Second, for the past decade, I’ve studied, taught, and written about the Holocaust. I’ve worked with survivors, historians, archivists, and educators from all around the world. And an ongoing and omnipresent problem exists regarding Christian supersessionary thinking. We’d often like to claim that Biblical and Vatican edicts regarding salvation are divorced from the practical outcomes of such edicts. I dislike excessive emotional drama and am not trying to introduce it here – but the Holocaust stands as an exceptionally clear and horrifying example of actualized supersessionary thinking. For myself, I cannot and will not accept that God does not – as a matter of routine rather than exception – offer salvation to, for instance, those with whom he first made a covenant.
L
Lucky7
Guest
Yes, of course. If you had written it I would have been able to understand it!No worries on my end. After all, I didn’t write it.
The thing is I’m still left with my same questions. Unless I missed it, I did not see anyone actually respond to my specific questions.
L
Lucky7
Guest
I am not exactly where you are. I have learned that sometimes God’s Truth does not have to make sense. Remember when Jesus said that we think as men do, not as God. So, just because I might think something makes more sense (on any matter, not just this one) doesn’t necessarily mean that this is what God thinks too.
I think the concern is your (and others on these fora) that the “innocent” is not punished. If the Church has always taught “invincible ignorance” (which is what I’m trying to ascertain to no avail so far), then yes, the truly innocent would get a pass. However, the real issue is who are the truly innocent? Is it anyone who isn’t in the Catholic Church? Or is it a very specific group of people (ie, a real exception)? How many folks truly don’t know the Catholic Church? Who is truly off the hook for not at least looking into what the Catholic Church teaches?
Then, of course, we have to look at whether the Catholic Church has done a good job of making the necessity of knowing that the Catholic Church is the ONE, true church and the ONE Truth known to others. That has been my other issue lately. How often do we hear priests, bishops, and popes making it clear that the surest way to Heaven is through the Catholic Faith? I would argue (and have often) that we are doing a dismal job of that. Most homilies I hear could be said in a Protestant church. How many folks walk away thinking it is that important to be Catholic (versus any other religion)? Why is it that it seems as if the Church is more concerned with offending others than proclaiming the hard truths of its Faith?
I finally have found a priest in my area that actually makes things clear and his homilies are clearly Catholic. He isn’t afraid to say the tough things, the hard truths. He is not afraid to actually ask the tough questions in confession. A special priest indeed. How I wish I didn’t have to look high and low to find him. He happens to also celebrate the Latin mass (not that is key to me, but I do think it is interesting to note).
As for my family, thank you. However, as much as I can’t imagine the Lord not letting them into Heaven, I also know that I converted, so my common sense also tells me that he has sent me to help lead them to the right path. If they choose not to go down the same path too, one could say they are not invincibly ignorant. God is giving them opportunities and they are not choosing his Church.
I think the concern is your (and others on these fora) that the “innocent” is not punished. If the Church has always taught “invincible ignorance” (which is what I’m trying to ascertain to no avail so far), then yes, the truly innocent would get a pass. However, the real issue is who are the truly innocent? Is it anyone who isn’t in the Catholic Church? Or is it a very specific group of people (ie, a real exception)? How many folks truly don’t know the Catholic Church? Who is truly off the hook for not at least looking into what the Catholic Church teaches?
Then, of course, we have to look at whether the Catholic Church has done a good job of making the necessity of knowing that the Catholic Church is the ONE, true church and the ONE Truth known to others. That has been my other issue lately. How often do we hear priests, bishops, and popes making it clear that the surest way to Heaven is through the Catholic Faith? I would argue (and have often) that we are doing a dismal job of that. Most homilies I hear could be said in a Protestant church. How many folks walk away thinking it is that important to be Catholic (versus any other religion)? Why is it that it seems as if the Church is more concerned with offending others than proclaiming the hard truths of its Faith?
I finally have found a priest in my area that actually makes things clear and his homilies are clearly Catholic. He isn’t afraid to say the tough things, the hard truths. He is not afraid to actually ask the tough questions in confession. A special priest indeed. How I wish I didn’t have to look high and low to find him. He happens to also celebrate the Latin mass (not that is key to me, but I do think it is interesting to note).
As for my family, thank you. However, as much as I can’t imagine the Lord not letting them into Heaven, I also know that I converted, so my common sense also tells me that he has sent me to help lead them to the right path. If they choose not to go down the same path too, one could say they are not invincibly ignorant. God is giving them opportunities and they are not choosing his Church.
D
DJLake
Guest
Thank you for your comments. I absolutely agree.
A
agnes_therese
Guest
Spending some time with the Gospels would answer your questions.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Actually, this is incorrect.
The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ. It was delivered, once for all, to the saints. That is what Sacred Tradition is.
S
Sirach2
Guest
I have seen this argument so often that it amazes me that it still circulates on this website. Readers will find statements that Church teachings are contradictory, so it must mean the Church is wrong in one of the two venues. Yet we know the Church, speaking for God, is not errant in her doctrines.
["]Here’s an example]("http://forums.catholic-questions.org/“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be made like him.” [Pr 26:4) of contradiction in scripture that some of you may enjoy chewing on in your spare time. Interesting that one verse follows the other.
“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be made like him.” (Prov. 26:4)
“Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he imagine himself to be wise.” (Prov. 26:5)
So which is it? The bible is wrong? The Holy Spirit who inspired it is wrong?
Or could it be that man’s limited translation and human understanding is just not capable of properly interpreting the Mind of the Spirit? Or the Church?
Now … apply this example to seemingly contradictory statements that the human mind applies to Church documents.
While we’re doing literal translations, how about the statement … right there in the bible … where Jesus tells us “unless we hate our mother, father, brother, sister, we cannot be his disciple.” (Lk. 14:26) Literalists will exclaim this is true, the bible doesn’t have errors. Others will chime in with plausible translations their mind suggests in order to get around this meaning. But only the Church who is authorized to deliver the true sense of scripture can accurately tell us what the meaning is. Armchair theorists will never come to a point of agreement.
Does it begin to make sense why Jesus told us to listen to the Church, in order to “hear” Him? Do we set aside our preferences to truly listen with an open heart and mind? Is it possible we don’t understand the apparent contradictions in our limited humanness? Aren’t we foolish to think we can?
["]Here’s an example]("http://forums.catholic-questions.org/“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be made like him.” [Pr 26:4) of contradiction in scripture that some of you may enjoy chewing on in your spare time. Interesting that one verse follows the other.
“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be made like him.” (Prov. 26:4)
“Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he imagine himself to be wise.” (Prov. 26:5)
So which is it? The bible is wrong? The Holy Spirit who inspired it is wrong?
Or could it be that man’s limited translation and human understanding is just not capable of properly interpreting the Mind of the Spirit? Or the Church?
Now … apply this example to seemingly contradictory statements that the human mind applies to Church documents.
While we’re doing literal translations, how about the statement … right there in the bible … where Jesus tells us “unless we hate our mother, father, brother, sister, we cannot be his disciple.” (Lk. 14:26) Literalists will exclaim this is true, the bible doesn’t have errors. Others will chime in with plausible translations their mind suggests in order to get around this meaning. But only the Church who is authorized to deliver the true sense of scripture can accurately tell us what the meaning is. Armchair theorists will never come to a point of agreement.
Does it begin to make sense why Jesus told us to listen to the Church, in order to “hear” Him? Do we set aside our preferences to truly listen with an open heart and mind? Is it possible we don’t understand the apparent contradictions in our limited humanness? Aren’t we foolish to think we can?
C
clem456
Guest
Right. I believe Scott Hahn has a new book out addressing this issue of the full existence of the New Covenant before scripture was defined. I have not read it and am not sure if is available yet. It was talked about on EWTN Saturday night.
Jesus Christ IS the new covenant. The Church is Christ’s mystical body. Faith in Christ is not merely a matter of knowing some things, or merely understanding some Church doctrines. It is not merely the written word. Faith is not a formula it is a relationship, with Christ, through and with his Church. And this is not an argument in favor of blissful ignorance, it is a call to trust and faith in Jesus Christ, which is the only way understanding can come. If a person refuses to assent to the authority and wisdom of Church teaching, there can be no understanding. There is only continual doubt, second-guessing, and anxiety, which these many threads seem to demonstrate.
Traditional Catholic spirituality argues against faith as being the possession of our own understanding and knowlege. St John of the cross for instance is very good reading on this topic. .For instance from The Spiritual Canticle:
catholictreasury.info/books/spiritual_canticle/cn_4.php
D
DJLake
Guest
Your first concern is whether the Church has always taught “invincible ignorance”. We know that it teaches it now, so if you become convinced that it did not teach it in the past, you are rejecting current Church teaching and will have doubts that you are not in union with the Church. So I think you are looking for evidence that the Church has always taught “invincible ignorance” and then just what does this mean? Who are the invincibly ignorant? If we are seeking truth with our God-given reason, how can we doubt that God has given us the capacity to discern His truth because His ways are not our ways. If we abandon reason, how would we even come to the decision to abandon reason if not by reason (although it be faulty)?
The passage you quote about God’s ways not being our ways is not inferring that at all. We can not understand the triune God or how He can become Man or how He can ordain that bread and wine become His body and blood, and these mysteries we accept on faith because we believe that what God has revealed to us is true. It is reasonable to believe these mysteries. It is not reasonable to attribute to God that which is not good because we know that God is good. God desires that all men be saved (as you can find in scripture).
As I said before, our sense of justice and mercy, what is good and what is evill, right and wrong, comes from God, and we can not be more good, more merciful or more just that He is. Would an all-good, all-holy, all-just and all-merciful God condemn someone who through no fault of his own has not found His truth? Why does God give His grace to some and not to others to come to the knowledge of His truth is a mystery, but the knowledge that God is good is certain. If good people can make good judgmens and be expected to form an informed conscience, that means we can use our reason and our conscience to rule out anything we can conceive about God that is not good, fair or just.
L
Lucky7
Guest
Key words: “through no fault of his own.” I guess my point is still, yes, it makes sense that God allows for exceptions on His terms. The problem is that what we think is an exception is probably not what he thinks as an exception. There are way too many people (Catholics) out there thinking this exception means all Jews, Muslims, and Protestants (oh and atheists) have an equal shot at Heaven as a Catholic who dies in a state of grace. That is not what the Church ever taught. But it seems as if some would like to make that the case.
M
McCall1981
Guest
This is how I see it too. We know there are “exceptions” but we dont know how common they are or exactly where they apply. This leads everyone to have their own personal theory about it. I personally think the exceptions are rare, and I base that on the testimony and visions of all the Saints that have said how narrow the road is, the reality of hell , etc. Also the Marian visions like Fatima. As much as possible I try to keep my understanding of it consistent with what the Saints have said, so that its based as little as possible on me, and as much as possible on what God has revealed through His Saints. Though admittedly this is still subjective and personal opinion, I think its the best I can do.
J
jwinch2
Guest
A very direct and understandable presentation of the teaching of the Church prior to Vatican II on this issue. The textbook that this came from, Our Quest for Happiness: The Ark and the Dove, was written by Msgr. Clarence Elwell and was given both the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, which, while not suggestive of agreement with the positions contained therein, are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. This was part of a textbook series used to teach the Faith to high school students in the 1950’s and beyond.
If this interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus was free from doctrinal error prior to Vatican II, it should be free from doctrinal error today.
We need to pray for people, that God will move their hearts towards conversion. We need to evangelize them to bring them into the truth of the Faith. We need to offer Masses, fast, pray the liturgy of the hours, pray devotions, and do penance in reparation for not only our own sins, but those of others, that God might have mercy on them, and us. What we should not do is exactly what Pope John XXIII specifically said that Vatican II was not to do, which is attenuate or distort the doctrine.
If this interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus was free from doctrinal error prior to Vatican II, it should be free from doctrinal error today.
We need to pray for people, that God will move their hearts towards conversion. We need to evangelize them to bring them into the truth of the Faith. We need to offer Masses, fast, pray the liturgy of the hours, pray devotions, and do penance in reparation for not only our own sins, but those of others, that God might have mercy on them, and us. What we should not do is exactly what Pope John XXIII specifically said that Vatican II was not to do, which is attenuate or distort the doctrine.
J
jwinch2
Guest
These teachings are hard, as many of Christ’s were. I pray daily for the salvation of those I love, most of whom are not Catholic. I completely understand the temptation to try to latch on to the idea that most are saved. I feel the same desire myself.
The danger in this obviously is that it is not rooted in truth. We should not presume God’s mercy, we should not put Him to the test. We should do those things that the Church has always done: prayer, fasting, penance, Mass offerings, evangelization, etc. rather than allowing our sentimentality to lead is in the wrong direction.
I will probably get attacked for saying these things as I typically do, that is fine. Those who do so show far more about themselves than they do my argument. Regardless, I spoke about this in the confessional yesterday, prayed long and hard about it last night, today at Mass, and again during today adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. I am done not saying what needs to be said. If you wish to attack me for it, have at it.
M
McCall1981
Guest
A
acadepdf
Guest
Thi?t k? website giá r? ch? 500k
S
Sirach2
Guest
What is rather unusual is to find that you are submitting the views of a Monsignor (one step above a parish priest) who is not the Magisterium, has not put forth a Catechism of our Faith, and is simply offering his catechesis in the same manner as you are doing here. You made this comment at F.E. this week which suggests the explanation for this departure from Church doctrine.
“However, as the poster noted above, if you do have a good understanding of Sacred Tradition prior to reading the documents, then you really don’t need the documents in the first place. Frankly, I think that Vatican II should have simply been a synod on evangelization in the modern world, or something along those lines, and everything probably would have worked out pretty well.”
This second post continues your reflection:
“If what Pope Benedict, and others, have stated is true, and nothing was changed regarding doctrine then there is zero reason why pre-Vatican II catechisms and presentations of the Faith cannot hold just a much value and present the Faith just as accurately as they did previously. Either the Faith changed, or it didn’t. You cannot have it both ways. If Vatican II did indeed alter our understanding of doctrine, then it is indeed a problem. If it did not, thenthere is zero reason why previously accurate depictions of the Faith are not still accurate today.”
Today you have followed up on your resolve to bypass Vatican II and instruct CAF readers with your older catechesis sources. I believe you are doing them a great disservice in failing to present the entire truth that the Church has taken great pains to deliver to the faithful through this holy Council. Not saying Monsignor’s words are in error, just that they are **incomplete in the face of **magisterial teachings.
The Council put forth four separate documents that reinforced these teachings, so clearly they considered these to be important in instructing the faithful. I will consider compiling them tomorrow so our readers will have a second source to study, one that is invested with full magisterial authority consisting of hundreds of bishops. (No need for an imprimatur.)
S
Sirach2
Guest
In honor of our beloved Brother Jay, I want to share his words tonight, for they are speaking very strongly to my spirit as I reflect on some of the posts in this thread.
“If I could leave all of you one single message it would be to repeat what has so often been said, “Be children of the Church.” Mother can make prudential mistakes, like all mothers do; but there is only one Mother. Love her. Cherish her. Obey her. Live and die in her bosom.”
Some of you know that I was professed as a Carmelite in 1981, and in the same vein as Brother expressed above, I would like to share the last words of our Foundress, St. Teresa of Avila, just before she died. She spoke them three times in solemn proclamation, “I am a Daughter of the Church!” Her entire life was lived in obedience and fidelity to the Church, and nothing whatsoever could persuade her to deviate an iota from anything that the Church taught.
May we reflect prayerfully upon these words and align our hearts and minds to live and proclaim, “I am a daughter/son of the Church.”
“If I could leave all of you one single message it would be to repeat what has so often been said, “Be children of the Church.” Mother can make prudential mistakes, like all mothers do; but there is only one Mother. Love her. Cherish her. Obey her. Live and die in her bosom.”
Some of you know that I was professed as a Carmelite in 1981, and in the same vein as Brother expressed above, I would like to share the last words of our Foundress, St. Teresa of Avila, just before she died. She spoke them three times in solemn proclamation, “I am a Daughter of the Church!” Her entire life was lived in obedience and fidelity to the Church, and nothing whatsoever could persuade her to deviate an iota from anything that the Church taught.
May we reflect prayerfully upon these words and align our hearts and minds to live and proclaim, “I am a daughter/son of the Church.”
J
jwinch2
Guest
I have no problem with using the documents of Vatican II or the current catechism. I have read them both in their entirety. In fact, I have suggested repeatedly in this thread and elsewhere on CAF that people in fact should read those documents. However, my suggestion has been, and will continue to be, that they read them in continuity with all that came before, not in isolation, as Pope Benedict has instructed us to do. My point in sharing the older teachings (which is what the OP asked about by the way), is to show how the doctrine was interpreted by the Church prior to Vatican II. We cannot have one interpretation then, and a different one now. This means that any interpretation of the council documents or the text in the CCC which goes against how the Church taught the doctrines prior to that, is an incorrect interpretation. It does not mean the documents are wrong, or that the CCC is incorrect. It means that people are reading them in the wrong way.
As for wanting it both ways, I suggest you take a look at your own posts. Despite the fact that it has been explicitly condemned by the Church, you are the one who argued consistently above for the ability of doctrines to change. Then, half way through the thread, you changed your position to trying to show that what the Church has taught on invincible ignorance and salvation is not really what the Church has taught.
Finally, you seem to have a strong tendency to attack the source, or the arguer, rather than the argument. You spend a good deal of time trying to discredit the source or the person rather than actually coming up with a plausible and rational refutation of the argument or source which was presented. If you want to convince me, or probably anyone else who you have been debating with in this, and other, threads, why don’t you demonstrate where people like Dr. Ott, or Msgr. Elwell were wrong? Both of those sources had official declarations from the Church saying that they contained nothing contrary to the doctrine of the Faith, yet you seem to think otherwise. Ott’s text is recommended by Catholic Answers, is required reading for seminaries and theology programs, and is on the recommended readings lists of several priests. Yet, you don’t like it or don’t think it is a good source. Fine If you think those are not accurate sources, do not correctly portray the doctrine of the Church, and are wrong in their interpretations, then prove it. Either these sources that myself and others have posted are solidly presenting the Faith, or they are not. If they are not, prove it.
As for wanting it both ways, I suggest you take a look at your own posts. Despite the fact that it has been explicitly condemned by the Church, you are the one who argued consistently above for the ability of doctrines to change. Then, half way through the thread, you changed your position to trying to show that what the Church has taught on invincible ignorance and salvation is not really what the Church has taught.
Finally, you seem to have a strong tendency to attack the source, or the arguer, rather than the argument. You spend a good deal of time trying to discredit the source or the person rather than actually coming up with a plausible and rational refutation of the argument or source which was presented. If you want to convince me, or probably anyone else who you have been debating with in this, and other, threads, why don’t you demonstrate where people like Dr. Ott, or Msgr. Elwell were wrong? Both of those sources had official declarations from the Church saying that they contained nothing contrary to the doctrine of the Faith, yet you seem to think otherwise. Ott’s text is recommended by Catholic Answers, is required reading for seminaries and theology programs, and is on the recommended readings lists of several priests. Yet, you don’t like it or don’t think it is a good source. Fine If you think those are not accurate sources, do not correctly portray the doctrine of the Church, and are wrong in their interpretations, then prove it. Either these sources that myself and others have posted are solidly presenting the Faith, or they are not. If they are not, prove it.
- Status