Salvation doctrine clarified

[McCall1981]

I have been trying to follow the dialogue between you and Sirach2 and am unsure as to where your disagreement lies.

Would you be able to summarize your arguments with a little “Sirach believes this and I believe that” synopsis?

Hm, I’m sort of afraid to put words in Sirach2’s mouth

Early in the thread I was trying to say that Church doctrine (like on salvation) doesn’t change over time or by Council etc. Then the thread sort of morphed, and I was saying the Church has always had the same doctrine on salvation, but that we get more detail or explanaiton *of the same doctrine * over time. Then the thread morphed again, and now I’m saying that Vat II can’t be understood in a vacuum, isn’t “superdogma”, and should not be the sole source of our understanding of the Church.

I think that’s the best I can do.

 

[PRmerger]

Hm, I’m sort of afraid to put words in Sirach2’s mouth

Early in the thread I was trying to say that Church doctrine (like on salvation) doesn’t change over time or by Council etc. Then the thread sort of morphed, and I was saying the Church has always had the same doctrine on salvation, but that we get more detail or explanaiton *of the same doctrine * over time. Then the thread morphed again, and now I’m saying that Vat II can’t be understood in a vacuum, isn’t “superdogma”, and should not be the sole source of our understanding of the Church.

I think that’s the best I can do.

Well, I don’t think there’s anything in the above that is contrary to Catholic teaching. It all sounds quite “kosher” to me.

 

[clem456]

Agreed.

It is also important to recognize that the OP started the thread because he was having difficulty reconciling the traditional understanding of the doctrine with what is being taught today. How that discussion can actually happen without an accurate presentation of what the Church has traditionally taught, is beyond my understanding. Yet, despite the fact that it was the whole point of the thread, anyone who presents the traditional teaching of the Church is attacked and the sources presented are discredited.

Respectfully, this is getting silly. You imply that the Church does not accurately convey it’s own full tradition with it’s current teaching. That is nonsense and is simply not Catholic. All of tradition is fully presented, in it’s full understanding, by the Church as it exists now.
**Please read your Catechism. **

 

[Lucky7]

Respectfully, this is getting silly. You imply that the Church does not accurately convey it’s own full tradition with it’s current teaching. That is nonsense and is simply not Catholic. All of tradition is fully presented, in it’s full understanding, by the Church as it exists now.
**Please read your Catechism. **

Here’s the thing (at least from my perspective):

When I read something written pre-Vatican II it sounds as if it was a lot less possible for non-Catholics to be saved per Catholic teaching. For example, if you read the excerpt from the text jwinch2 posted it is clear that words like “it is difficult, if not impossible” for a non-Catholic to remain in a state of grace without the Church. That sounds a lot different than the words you see in the current catechism that state that non-Catholics may achieve salvation:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

Now, it is very possible that when you read the FULL Vatican II document that speaks of salvation for those outside of the Church that the same phrases and understanding found in pre-Vatican II documents are expressed, but the new Catechism only shares a couple of paragraphs from the Vat II documents on the topic. So, to be fair, to just tell someone to “read the Catechism” is simply not enough.

I have gotten to the point where I think I have to read the documents to see what was/is really taught (not just snippets from the Catechism, quotes from Popes (which may or may not be infallible), excerpts from texts (even if they were given the Imprimatur), etc.

Now, depending upon how long these documents are, I wonder how long this will take me.

 

[jwinch2]

Respectfully, this is getting silly. You imply that the Church does not accurately convey it’s own full tradition with it’s current teaching. That is nonsense and is simply not Catholic. All of tradition is fully presented, in it’s full understanding, by the Church as it exists now.
**Please read your Catechism. **

Your understanding of this thread is incorrect. I have implied nothing of the sort. It is the OP who created the dichotomy between what the Church taught in this area prior to Vatican II and what is taught now, and he has been helped along in this by others expressing the same point of view. The entire point of responding was to show that there is, in fact, no difference in the teachings pre and post Vatican II. This is the first post of this thread, where the OP identifies the issue that he is having (emphasis mine):

I have been reading the boards, and it seems that many Traditional Catholics hold to the doctrine of No Salvation Outside the Church as it was strictly understood, for example, by Pope Eugene IV:

*Cantate Domino (1441): …

…The Church does not interpret the doctrine so severely in modern times, and I never could understand how a Traditional Catholic could defend the earlier understanding and believe in a just and loving God. I understand that a Fr. Feeney held and was condemned by the Church for his keeping with the earlier, narrow interpretation of the doctrine*. I have no doubt in my mind and in my conscience that the Lord will not condemn an innocent person to hell, and I personally do not want to be associated as a Traditional Catholic with those who hold this position.

But the question is not which belief is true, but how does a Catholic defend the doctrine that Church teaching does not change when it did change on this vital issue. I’ve read other posts where people say it did not change but developed, so it will not be helpful to my understanding if similar comments are made here or if subsequent documents introducing the notion of invincible ignorance are quoted as I do not think a doctrine can develop into a reversal. It will also not be helpful to be told to accept both conflicting teachings out of respect for the Magisterium. I assent to the teaching of the Catholic Church, but I do not know what this means when the old and the new are in conflict. I suppose what I am hoping for is a “loophole” that would support the notion that the older teaching was not infallible or that if it was, it was only considered so to a particular audience at a particular time. Otherwise, I wouldn’t know how to be an apologist for papal infallibility or for the doctrine that Church teaching does not change.

Notice how the OP identifies traditional teachings with Feenyism? This is incorrect, and has never been Catholic doctrine. I posted documentation as did others, showing that the Church prior to Vatican II taught baptism of blood and baptism of desire, which is opposed by Fr. Feeney. In addition, as you can see in the first post of the thread, the OP regularly asserts that the doctrine has changed to the point that they no longer mean the same thing or can be interpreted the same way. Several posters have tried to show the OP that doctrine cannot change, and that the traditional doctrine of the Church was never that of Fr. Feeney. Despite this, the OP has regularly argued a disconnect between what was taught prior to Vatican II and what was taught now.
DJLake;10816541:

I agree that it seems impossible to not hold the traditional position as it is so explicit! But how do you remain Catholic and hold the traditional position while assenting to a later opposing one?

I was asking because I am trying to understand how a Catholic can accept old and new teaching when they conflict, except to believe that one of them was not official since it was not proclaimed validly or by a valid pope

.

As was the point of starting this thread, I was looking for a way to reconcile teachings that clearly are not saying the same thing

. I am going to have to hold that the teaching that condemened innocent souls to hell was the one in error, as I can not hold both to be true at the same time.

I don’t think a Catholic should be expected to read through diffiuclt, ponderous documents and then be expected to interpret them in light of Church teaching, when that, too, is ambiguous, or, in the alternative, just accept and assent to what to a reasonable person is a clear contradiction.

If the earlier documents were more ambiguous, we wouldn’t be having these debates. Is it possible that the ambiguity could have been well intended so that a clarification of doctrine in the future would not appear to be a total reversal as the No Salvation doctrine seems to be

?

The one who has been arguing that the teachings are different was the OP, and then was joined in by another person. I, and several others, have been the ones arguing the entire time that the doctrine of the Faith cannot and has not changed since Vatican II. At no time have I suggested that the OP not read the documents of Vatican II or that they were in error. What I have suggested is that it is important to read them in line with all of Sacred Tradition so that they are not misinterpreted. This is the exact same thing which Pope Benedict said, more than once. Its also important to read how the doctrine were traditionally taught and interpreted if you are trying to reconcile one against the other.

 

[johnnyc176]

Respectfully, this is getting silly. You imply that the Church does not accurately convey it’s own full tradition with it’s current teaching. That is nonsense and is simply not Catholic. All of tradition is fully presented, in it’s full understanding, by the Church as it exists now.
**Please read your Catechism. **

Yes but wouldn’t tradition/teaching also be fully represented if you just read older pre vatican II documents? I thought that’s what this whole thing was about.

 

[Lucky7]

Yes but wouldn’t tradition/teaching also be fully represented if you just read older pre vatican II documents? I thought that’s what this whole thing was about.

I think this is exactly what jwinch2 has been trying to say.

 

[clem456]

Yes but wouldn’t tradition/teaching also be fully represented if you just read older pre vatican II documents? I thought that’s what this whole thing was about.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm
Notice especially the word “living”, as in “He lives”, as in “the one and only Living God”.

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the** living** teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome

Growth in understanding the faith

94 Thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church:

• “through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts”;57 it is in particular “theological research [which] deepens knowledge of revealed truth”.58

• “from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which [believers] experience”,59 the sacred Scriptures "grow with the one who reads them."60

• “from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.61

 

[Sirach2]

Here’s the thing (at least from my perspective):

When I read something written pre-Vatican II it sounds as if it was a lot less possible for non-Catholics to be saved per Catholic teaching. For example, if you read the excerpt from the text jwinch2 posted it is clear that words like “it is difficult, if not impossible” for a non-Catholic to remain in a state of grace without the Church. That sounds a lot different than the words you see in the current catechism that state that non-Catholics may achieve salvation:

You have a choice, Lucky. Follow Sir Jwinch2 or listen to the Church. Yes, it MAY be difficult, but it is not impossible. Many revere the opinion of Father Wm. Most, and JW has posted material from him recently. Let’s see if he believes him to be a good mentor in this example. (Excerpts)

**WHAT IF A PAGAN SINS MORTALLY? **

But suppose a person, pagan or other, has reached justification, the state of grace, by the means we have explained, suppose he later sins mortally. If he just continues to believe it is all right, that he need do nothing about it, will that cancel his mortal sin? Of course not. A mistake does not give absolution.

And yet Paul’s confidence expressed in Romans 3:29 that God is the God of all, suggests He has provided a way. Such a person will not make an act of perfect contrition. A pagan hardly even dreams of such a thing. The born-again man thinks there is no need.

Let us present for comment something new. In chapter 33 of Ezekiel God says emphatically that if the just man turns from the just way, he will not live.** But he also says that if the wicked man turns from his evil way, he will live. And there is no mention of perfect contrition.**

Let us recall that in God there are no real distinctions. We do not say that He has love, but that He is love. Similarly He is justice, He is mercy. If one, thinking of the fact that God is good in Himself, regrets having done something sinful, that is perfect contrition.

 

[Richca]

I stand by my earlier post (post #2):

The Holy (infallible) Council of Florence has a strong statement as well:

‎"Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains." - The Council of Florence, Session 6 (July 6, 1439)

I believe that God can save anyone but, we have no evidence that God will act outside of what he has established. God can save a pagan but, we cannot know if he ever will choose to do so.

You might want to see if your understanding of the statement from the Council of Florence or of the salvation of pagans is consistent with this scripture passage from St Paul:

All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it. For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified. For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts,* while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus. (Romans 2: 12-16)

 

[jwinch2]

I think this is exactly what jwinch2 has been trying to say.

What I have been trying to say is four things:

1. 
   *]If one really wants to understand the documents of Vatican II, they should follow the advice of Pope Benedict and read them in continuity with Sacred Tradition, rather then suggesting that they altered doctrine in some way.
   *]If one is having difficulty reconciling the teachings of the Church pre and post Vatican II, one should take the time to actually read what was written prior to the council and how the doctrines were taught.
   *]Doctrines can indeed develop, but any development must be in continuity with all that came before, and cannot be done in such a way that it alters the sense or understanding how the doctrine was understood previously.
   *]Since Vatican II proclaimed no doctrine, and since the preface to the CCC and Blessed John Paul II both stated that the CCC was not intended to replace any catechisms which existed prior, any teaching of the Faith which was valid prior to the council, or the promulgation of the new CCC, remains valid today.

 

[Lucky7]

You might want to see if your understanding of the statement from the Council of Florence or of the salvation of pagans is consistent with this scripture passage from St Paul:

All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it. For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified. For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts,* while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus. (Romans 2: 12-16)

Don’t forget that the Church teaches based on Sacred Tradition and Scripture. You can’t take a Bible passage and use it as the only means of teaching the Faith. That is a protestant thing to do.

 

[Sirach2]

jwinch2:

Since Vatican II proclaimed no doctrine, and it is heretical to alter doctrine in such a way that it changes its meaning, any teaching of the Faith which was valid prior to the council remains valid today.

Therein lies the difficulty with many trads. It is claimed that V-2 changed the doctrine stated in former encyclicals such as Eugene IV’s Cantate Domino. It did not change. The problem is with private and ultra-literal translation without knowing the reason that the encyclical was written, to whom, and why. So these people believe V-2 erred.

newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm
The Council of Basle/Florence is only ecumenical till the end of the twenty-fifth session, and of its decrees Eugene IV approved only such as dealt with the extirpation of heresy, the peace of Christendom, and the reform of the Church, and which at the same time did not derogate from the rights of the Holy See.

I submitted this post earlier in this thread, explaining that this writing was strictly aimed at heretics who willingly, knowingly left the Church. Several sects were mentioned. But folks only see the literal part that no pagan, jew, etc. can be saved unless they join the church.

Notice that this decree does not say, “If those pagans and Jews, etc. have never heard of the gospel, they can not be saved.” In order for the strict ‘No Salvation’ view to be correct, it needs to say that. It did not. If, after hearing the full gospel, they have rejected it, anybody who stays a pagan, Jew, etc. are indeed condemned to hell (just like the Ebionites, Arians, etc.) This is fully consistent with what the Church teaches now.

 

[Lucky7]

I have gotten to the point where I think I have to read the documents to see what was/is really taught (not just snippets from the Catechism, quotes from Popes (which may or may not be infallible), excerpts from texts (even if they were given the Imprimatur), etc.

Now, depending upon how long these documents are, I wonder how long this will take me.

OK, I’m going ask in this thread too because I don’t think many are reading the other one.

What official Church document(s) should I read regarding this topic for pre-Vatican II?

I’m guessing Lumen Gentium is the Church document to read for Vatican II?

 

[jwinch2]

Therein lies the difficulty with many trads. It is claimed that V-2 changed the doctrine stated in former encyclicals such as Eugene IV’s Cantate Domino.

I specifically stated the opposite, which is that Vatican II did not change the doctrine.

 

[Sirach2]

Don’t forget that the Church teaches based on Sacred Tradition and Scripture. You can’t take a Bible passage and use it as the only means of teaching the Faith. That is a protestant thing to do.

Good grief, Lucky. We have explained that many of the Fathers understood this very scripture as a basis for natural law and the possibility of salvation. It is not taking the passage out of context. You really need to study before dismissing so abrubtly Richca’s very solid contribution to this subject.

All of the pre-V-2 catechisms plus our own CCC spoke about baptism of desire and baptism of blood. It has been a doctrine of our faith for many years, and goes all the way back to Aquinas in the 13the century, followed by the Council of Trent who upheld this as well.

Yet posts in CAF have been made by certain trads that deny both of these doctrines. That’s where the problem lies. Folks read that nonsense and find weeds in their wheat. And so the snowball rolls . . .

 

[Sirach2]

I specifically stated the opposite, which is that Vatican II did not change the doctrine.

Yes, I saw that, Jason. I’m speaking in general, that this is usually the encyclical that trads quote in order to spread their incorrect version of EENS. I am not faulting you on this particular contribution.

 

[Richca]

All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it. For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified. For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts,* while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus. (Romans 2: 12-16)

Don’t forget that the Church teaches based on Sacred Tradition and Scripture. You can’t take a Bible passage and use it as the only means of teaching the Faith. That is a protestant thing to do.

What is your point? The Church’s magisterium cannot nor does it contradict Holy Scripture. Indeed, the teaching of Vatican II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church appear to be in agreement with the scripture passage from St Paul above.

 

[Sirach2]

Guys, I am getting a super migraine and have had enough of these mental gymnastics that simply go in circles without any resolution.
There is certainly sufficient information presented in these many pages so a person can sort it out for themselves. I need to get back to living and am not interested in further debate. There are hundreds of threads on this in Apologetics as well as here.

Again, I quote Brother JR who summed it up rather succinctly:

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."

The CCC is our manual for the faith. Let us use it wisely and avoid the trappings of speculation that are rampant on the internet.

 

[Lucky7]

All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it. For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified. For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts,* while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus. (Romans 2: 12-16)