Specific Objections to Vatican II Documents

[consumedconvert]

Up here where I live , I’m quite sure the Lectionary now being used in the Liturgy of the Word hasn’t even been approved by Rome.

It’s a blessed thing to be vigilant regarding some modern day translations of our so called “Catholic” bibles ! One of mine (published in 1970) also reduced “full of grace” to “highly favored daughter”. These changes trickle down into the missalettes too, leaving a large part of the faithful aloof to the gradual erosion of certain key terms and phrases.

Some texts have taken the liberty to render Isaiah 7:14 to the “young woman” shall be with child, instead of the “virgin” shall be with child…so where’s the miracle…? When I inquired about this particular change in the passage which appeared in the missalette, I was informed by a minister ordained to preach God’s word that, “The prevalent thought is that this passage did not apply to the Blessed Virgin Mary”, [even though the Gospel of Matthew 1:22-23, consecrates these very words to the Incarnation: **"All this happened to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘The virgin shall be with child and give birth to a son, and they shall call him Emmanuel, a name which means God is with us.’

"].

It would appear that somehow during the rendering process of certain of these particular “translations”,sometimes even the Holy Spirit is asked to take a back seat.

Is it possible that the same Greek phrase often translated “Full of Grace” might also be legitimately translated “Highly favored daughter?” Or that the Greek term for virgin can mean eitheryoung woman or virgin in the modern sense (with an underlying assumption that virgins are young women and non-virgins no longer qualify as young women)? Certainly. As far as what your pastor said about the passage referring to a different young woman–is it possible that it did refer to a young woman present with Isaiah when he said that (I believe that interpretation is based on the demonstrative pronoun, which indicates someone actually physically present–the thought was that it was the woman known as “the prophetess”) but does double-duty as a prophecy, prophesying not only the birth of the child of the prophetess (probably fathered by Isaiah) but also the Christ-child? Might, then, the ancient words for virgin been providentially made intentionally ambiguous by the King of Kings, so that both prophecies could be fulfilled? Isn’t it possible that Isaiah had no idea when he was propsying, he had no clue he was actually prophesying two events?

This reminds me of KJVers, who believe that every new translation is trying to undermine their faith. But thankfully we have the Magisterium to guide us. As long as a translation is above all faithful to the text, I believe that it can help us go deeper into the Christian mysteries. But we don’t get our doctrine straight from the Bible. We get it from the Magisterium. And of course, we need not fear that a faithful rendering of Scripture will undermine or contradict the Magisterium any more than we have to worry that the next dogmatic ex-Cathedra statement with contradict the Magisterium.

 

[stmaria]

From your article:

=DustinsDad;3645574]]
." In the face of post-Vatican-II polarizations and divisions, the 1985 Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, as well as Pope John Paul II’s 1988 Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, exhorted the Church’s scholars to give deeper study to the Council documents, so as to understand them better and show more clearly their harmony with Tradition. **But why should the documents even require this “deeper study” for that kind of purpose, unless their conformity with Tradition - that is, their orthodoxy - did not always emerge with great clarity from the texts. **"

Why the ambiguity? Pre-Vatican II encylicals are straight to the point. No truth is veiled in ambiguous terms.
For example from Religious Liberty
“all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the **demands of truth **”

What is meant by “truth” ?
How would a protestant that reads this define 'truth"?
Why not say as pre-vatican II teaching did that" all men are bound by divine law to embrace the true Church of God" and “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church”
That is the meaning of “truth”

But that couldn’t be said at Vatican II. The Protestant observers would have walked out. This council was about ecumensim and dialogue with all religions.
As Pope John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council,
"The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another”
… the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity…the Catholic Church, raising the torch of religious truth by means of this Ecumenical Council, desires to show herself to be the loving mother of all, benign, patient, full of mercy and goodness toward the brethren who are separated from her.”

In my opinion the ambiguity has led good Catholics to become sedevacantists and the SSPX to remain separated.

 

[DustinsDad]

…For example from Religious Liberty
“all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the **demands of truth **”

What is meant by “truth” ?
How would a protestant that reads this define 'truth"?
Why not say as pre-vatican II teaching did that" all men are bound by divine law to embrace the true Church of God" and “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church”
That is the meaning of “truth”

But that couldn’t be said at Vatican II. The Protestant observers would have walked out. This council was about ecumensim and dialogue with all religions.

Indeed, folks here seem to think EENS only applies to those who believe the Church to be the One True Church and then reject her…but not to those who remain “unconvinced.”

Alas, these folks have become slaves to a false naturalism - failing to believe in that which they cannot see - the actual grace of God that enables all to believe the Truth. These are the folks we see so often on this board attacking tradition - confused by the ambeguity of Vatican II, they ask such things as:
“You’d be surprised, but there are masses of people who are born protestant, raised protestant and live in a protestant environment (family, friends, church, etc…). Yes, they know that some Catholic Church exists, but how should they know it is the one true Church? Why even should they care (from their perspective)?”
Once the gospel is preached, once a person is presented with the gospel, once they become aware that the Catholic Church exists, they have the responsibility and duty to God to enter her no matter their background. For we know, from the infallible words of the First Vatican Council, that God’s grace is there to enable this conversion…
First Vatican Council, Chapter 3 On faith:
6. Now, although the assent of faith is by no means a blind movement of the mind, yet no one can accept the gospel preaching in the way that is necessary for achieving salvation without the inspiration and illumination of the holy Spirit, who gives to all facility in accepting and believing the truth.

1. And so faith in itself…is a gift of God, and its operation is a work belonging to the order of salvation, in that a person yields true obedience to God himself when he accepts and collaborates with his grace which he could have rejected.
2. Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.
3. So that we could fulfil our duty of embracing the true faith and of persevering unwaveringly in it, God, through his only begotten Son, founded the church, and he endowed his institution with clear notes to the end that she might be recognised by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word.
4. To this witness is added the effective help of power from on high. For, the kind Lord stirs up those who go astray and helps them by his grace so that they may come to the knowledge of the truth; and also confirms by his grace those whom he has translated into his admirable light, so that they may persevere in this light, not abandoning them unless he is first abandoned.
5. Consequently, the situation of those, who by the heavenly gift of faith have embraced the catholic truth, is by no means the same as that of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion; for those who have accepted the faith under the guidance of the church can never have any just cause for changing this faith or for calling it into question.
   DD

 

[antimon]

DustinsDad, those were my words…

You’d be surprised, but there are masses of people who are born protestant, raised protestant and live in a protestant environment (family, friends, church, etc…). Yes, they know that some Catholic Church exists, but how should they know it is the one true Church? Why even should they care (from their perspective)? It is our responsibility to preach and defend the Catholic faith to them, so they have a chance to really know and understand our faith.

You somehow “forgot” to include the last sentence, you rip my words out of context and then call me a slave to false naturalism etc… you should know better . God will bring Protestant to the Church only if we tell them the truth (Romans 10:17), it won’t happen by itself only because “Catholic Church exists”. Yes, they know that some Catholic Church exists, but how many of them have heard some sound arguments that this is THE Church? Most of the time they have just heard some anti-Catholic propaganda or nothing at all, so they just follow what they think is truth. This is very common pattern when reading stories of converts. Faith and truth doesn’t spread itself by existing, but by preaching. People don’t become Christians because they heard that Christianity exists, but because Truth is preached to them, and the similar is true for our separated brethren. So these my words are perfectly consistent with all the tradition, yet you mock me.

 

[DustinsDad]

…You somehow “forgot” to include the last sentence, you rip my words out of context and then call me a slave to false naturalism etc… you should know better .

Those words your defence of the Assisi ecumenical meeting - where no one was ever told about the need to convert to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church for the salvation of their souls, but instead were invited to pray to false gods, and given catholic chapels to do so.

It was in the same thread were you defended JR’s classic demonstration of religious indifference, the new apparent “dogma” that that protestants just have to be “good protestants”, muslims good muslims, jews good jews, etc. in order to gain salvation. In other words, heresy.

God will bring Protestant to the Church only if we tell them the truth (Romans 10:17),

Yes, and part of that truth is that they need to convert to the One True Church to be saved…why is this always left out of the discussion? Why throw a road block up to a soul who the Lord wants to bring home to save their souls? The Holy Spirit is telling these folks to convert with actual grace all the time, to seek the One True Church, , and us knuckleheads down here don’t want to offend them and so tell them, “Oh, we don’t believe that anymore…Vatican II changed it…you can be saved where you are at…”

it won’t happen by itself only because “Catholic Church exists”.

They have a moral duty and responsibility to God to respond to the graces He sends them. Once they learn of the existance of the Catholic Church (which is in and of itself a grace), they have the duty to God to investigate it and to convert. His grace there to make it possible - as is clearly demonstrated at the First Vatican Council.

Yes, they know that some Catholic Church exists, but how many of them have heard some sound arguments that this is THE Church?

The ones that talk to tradional catholics hear it, that’s for sure. The ones that talk to liberal, modernist influenced, ecumenical minded catholics probably don’t. At best they’ll hear the “Caddilac of religions” pitch…the ol’ “all religions are good and you can be saved there, but ours is best. Give ours a whirl if you feel up to it.” And that pitch - however well intentioned - is false. Period.

Thing is, here again you are looking at the situation with natural eyes - not wanting to see the supernatural graces God is sending the person. He prompts them to investigate, He promts them to convert, and* He* wants to use us to invite them home, to tell them the TRUTH about their perilous situation outside of the visible bonds of Holy Mother Church, and to call them to conversion. And He always provides the grace to say, “YES!”
…no one can accept the gospel preaching in the way that is necessary for achieving salvation without the inspiration and illumination of the holy Spirit, who gives to all facility in accepting and believing the truth.

Most of the time they have just heard some anti-Catholic propaganda or nothing at all, so they just follow what they think is truth.

And this again, ignores the work of the Holy Spirit who “gives to all the facility in accepting and believing the truth.” This is exactly what I meant by “false naturalism.” Do you believe this or not?

Human error can make it more difficult, sure, but the Holy Spirit is stronger. His grace is there nonetheless.

And what’s more scandalous than anti-Catholic rhetoric - is catholics themselves who throw water on the fire of the Holy Spirit, and in their effort “not to offend”, in their fear of rejection, instead cause doubt and confusion in the minds of the non-Cathollic by distorting the awesome Truth of the Catholic Faith that’s been taught and proclaimed since day one. It’s an awesome responsibility we have.

This is very common pattern when reading stories of converts. Faith and truth doesn’t spread itself by existing, but by preaching.

Yep. That’s what the traditional folks are saying.

People don’t become Christians because they heard that Christianity exists,

Sure they do - learning of Christ and His One True Church (Christianity) is usually the first grace. Then they have a duty to respond to this grace and to investigate.

but because Truth is preached to them,

False dichtomy. They often hear of Christianity and the One True Church in preaching. Why pit the two against each other. Either way, these are both graces from God that must be responded to. Yes or no?

DustinsDad

 

[antimon]

DustinsDad:
first, those words were about whether Protestants are saved and whether that means that they don’t need to hear the truth.

There is a BIG difference between learning that a religion called Christianity or Church named Catholic exists and learning what it is about. Therefore it’s not false dichotomy. Many people know that Christianity and Catholic Church exists (from news, from religion or philosophy or history classes), but that doesn’t mean they know what it is about.

It’s true that the Holy Spirit moves person to searching the truth, but again that is something totally different from instantly joining the Church just because one have intellectual knowledge of it’s existence. Protestants know that some CC exists, but it’s no good unless you begin to share Catholic truth with them. Preaching and apologetics is how Holy Spirit works, not by some mysterious instant urge to join CC.

As for Vatican II, I think It’s teachings are quite clear and faithful to Tradition.

…We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God…

…We believe that this unity subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time…

…Catholics, in their ecumenical work, must assuredly be concerned for their separated brethren, praying for them, keeping them informed about the Church, making the first approaches toward them…

…It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded…from vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

I don’t see how anyone can excuse not sharing the truth with Protestants by Vatican II. One does not have to be “traditionalist”, but one does need to know what Vatican II really challenges us to do.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Is it possible that the same Greek phrase often translated “Full of Grace” might also be legitimately translated “Highly favored daughter?” Or that the Greek term for virgin can mean eitheryoung woman or virgin in the modern sense (with an underlying assumption that virgins are young women and non-virgins no longer qualify as young women)? Certainly. As far as what your pastor said about the passage referring to a different young woman–is it possible that it did refer to a young woman present with Isaiah when he said that (I believe that interpretation is based on the demonstrative pronoun, which indicates someone actually physically present–the thought was that it was the woman known as “the prophetess”) but does double-duty as a prophecy, prophesying not only the birth of the child of the prophetess (probably fathered by Isaiah) but also the Christ-child? Might, then, the ancient words for virgin been providentially made intentionally ambiguous by the King of Kings, so that both prophecies could be fulfilled? Isn’t it possible that Isaiah had no idea when he was propsying, he had no clue he was actually prophesying two events?

This reminds me of KJVers, who believe that every new translation is trying to undermine their faith. But thankfully we have the Magisterium to guide us. As long as a translation is above all faithful to the text, I believe that it can help us go deeper into the Christian mysteries. But we don’t get our doctrine straight from the Bible. We get it from the Magisterium. And of course, we need not fear that a faithful rendering of Scripture will undermine or contradict the Magisterium any more than we have to worry that the next dogmatic ex-Cathedra statement with contradict the Magisterium.

I’m sorry my writing reminds you of KJVers consumedconvert. Actually,I own quite a few different bibles, but all of the bibles I use for prayerful reading of scriptures and not just examination contain all the canonical books. BTW,some of the KJVers I know are very loving pious people.

I’m fairly well acquainted with the story surrounding the passage of Isaiah 7:14 .You make some good points.Yes I agree that his words could also be attributed to announcing the birth of the child of the young woman mentioned in your quote - especially if, at that particular period in history,it were intended as a sign contending the preservation of Judah in the midst of distress.

And yes prophecy does have a periodic tendency to do “double duty”, I would even dare say triple duty based on certain things I’ve read.

But the previous reference would have been to the future King Hezekiah; the fact that the virgin “shall name him Immanuel” therefore points principally to the fulfillment of God’s earlier promise to David recounted in 2 Sm 7, 12-16.

Speaking of the Magisterium, the “church has always followed St. Matthew in seeing the transcendent fulfillment of this verse (Isaiah 7:14) in Christ and his Virgin Mother”.

Most of us know that Immanuel means “God with us.” It comes from two Hebrew words: the preposition ‘im’ meaning with, beside, by, among and 'el’ meaning God.

On the other hand Hezekiah is a Hebrew name meaning “God gives strength”. Now if Isaiah had said the virgin shall call him “Gabriel” (which means “God is my strength” or “hero of God”) then maybe the inclination to direct the impetus of the prophet Isaiah’s words more in the direction of King Hzekiah’s birth rather than our dear Lord Jesus Christ’s own birth would be more warranted.

Immanuel wasn’t (isn’t) just any of God’s names. How many times have we read in scripture where God says “I am with you”, or “I will not leave you” or " I will send my Angel before you" or" I am with you always unto the end of time". I never took the time to
record them all but here are a few places where it appears *:
Matthew 1:20.
Matthew 1:22-23.
Genesis 28:15.
Exodus 3:12.
Joshua 1:5
Matthew 20:18, 20.
Hebrews 13:5.
Luke 1:34-35.

My point is that abuses do exist; and it doesn’t seem to be a good idea to just turn a blind eye to them. I know some good priests who are using very strong criticisms of certain “new” translations of sacred scripture.

Case in point: I bought a copy of the Gospel according to John of a biblical translation which bears the imprimatur of the then president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. I bought it to have proof because I didn’t know if anyone would believe what I read in it.

We are familiar enough with the facts surrounding the wedding feast in Cana where in John 2:3 the Blessed Mother tells Jesus her Son that they’ve run out of wine…right? And certain translations render Jesus’ reply (John 2:4) thus:

• “Woman,how does this concern of yours involve me ? My hour has not yet come.”
• or “O woman, what have you to do with me ? My hour has not yet come.”
• or"What has it to do with you and me ? My hour has not yet come."

Well in the aforementioned Gospel According to John, that same passage - John 2:4 is rendered: “You must not tell me what to do"…"My time has not yet come.”

That’s the same as saying, “Don’t you tell me what to do!”
Never mind the fact that it’s supposed to be the Author of “Honour thy father and thy mother” speaking here… how many of us would have gotten away with saying that to our own mother ?

One needn’t be a rocket scientist or exegesist to see that something is wrong here.*

 

[DustinsDad]

…first, those words were about whether Protestants are saved and whether that means that they don’t need to hear the truth.

That it is necessary for us who have been blessed to already be a part of the One True Church to share this Truth with those outside of Her should be obvious. Unfortunately, given the modern approach to Ecumenism, this obvious responsibility for catholics is lost on all too many people. That you recognize this is great. Pehaps we aren’t that far apart (which we shouldn’t be!) I truly hope it’s not just lip service though, being as it was made in defence of Assisi, as none of the non-Catholic participants there were invited to convert. You can’t say - “we all need to share the Truth” out of one side of your mouth, and agree that protestants “just need to be good protestants to be saved” out of the other.

The infallible words of the First Vatican Council make it clear that the responsibility is on us human beings to seek out the Truth, and that the Holy Spirit makes it possible for us human beings to accept it. Failing to seek it out and to accept it means a soul is is in eternal peril. That’s the point of contention here. For when we see souls simply “being born Protestant” and derive from that some sort of free “invincible ignorance” pass into Heaven so long as they are “good Protestants”, we err. Mightily.

.There is a BIG difference between learning that a religion called Christianity or Church named Catholic exists and learning what it is about. Therefore it’s not false dichotomy. Many people know that Christianity and Catholic Church exists (from news, from religion or philosophy or history classes), but that doesn’t mean they know what it is about.

But it does mean that they have a moral responsibility to find out what it’s about. This is where false naturalism creeps in. You seem to place the Catholic Church more or less on the same level as all the other religions out there. It’s not. It’s different. For none of those other false religions have the Holy Spirit drawing folks into them. The Holy Spirit is, however, providing the graces necessary to seek out and enter the One Holy Catholic Church. A person can be culpable, therefore, for their ignorance. If they reject these graces that we know the Holy Spirit offers and subsequently choose not to hear and enter the One True Church. To understand and accept this reality, my friend, you have to rise above the natural level and see things with the eyes of faith, see things with supernatural eyes.

It’s true that the Holy Spirit moves person to searching the truth, but again that is something totally different from instantly joining the Church just because one have intellectual knowledge of it’s existence.

You are arguing against a straw man - “instantly joining because of intellectual knowledge of its existance” is not my argument.

Protestants know that some CC exists, but it’s no good unless you begin to share Catholic truth with them. Preaching and apologetics is how Holy Spirit works, not by some mysterious instant urge to join CC.

Another false dichtomy, and more naturalism. That “mysterious urge” is the Holy Spirit. Our preaching the Truth (of which issuing the call to conversion is a crucial part) - that’s us cooperating with the Holy Spirit as well.

As for Vatican II, I think It’s teachings are quite clear and faithful to Tradition.

I’ll address each of these in detail - tomorrow (put in alot of hours of work today and need to hit the sack).

…to be continued…

 

[antimon]

That it is necessary for us who have been blessed to already be a part of the One True Church to share this Truth with those outside of Her should be obvious. Unfortunately, given the modern approach to Ecumenism, this obvious responsibility for catholics is lost on all too many people. That you recognize this is great. Pehaps we aren’t that far apart (which we shouldn’t be!) I truly hope it’s not just lip service though, being as it was made in defence of Assisi, as none of the non-Catholic participants there were invited to convert. You can’t say - “we all need to share the Truth” out of one side of your mouth, and agree that protestants “just need to be good protestants to be saved” out of the other.

The infallible words of the First Vatican Council make it clear that the responsibility is on us human beings to seek out the Truth, and that the Holy Spirit makes it possible for us human beings to accept it. Failing to seek it out and to accept it means a soul is is in eternal peril. That’s the point of contention here. For when we see souls simply “being born Protestant” and derive from that some sort of free “invincible ignorance” pass into Heaven so long as they are “good Protestants”, we err. Mightily.

You the one who creates false dichotomies. Non-Catholic Christians ARE saved, as the Magisterium teaches us (Unitatis Redintegratio):

But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.

…(and more)…
Yet that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to bring them to the full communion with CC.

But it does mean that they have a moral responsibility to find out what it’s about. This is where false naturalism creeps in. You seem to place the Catholic Church more or less on the same level as all the other religions out there. It’s not. It’s different. For none of those other false religions have the Holy Spirit drawing folks into them. The Holy Spirit is, however, providing the graces necessary to seek out and enter the One Holy Catholic Church. A person can be culpable, therefore, for their ignorance. If they reject these graces that we know the Holy Spirit offers and subsequently choose not to hear and enter the One True Church. To understand and accept this reality, my friend, you have to rise above the natural level and see things with the eyes of faith, see things with supernatural eyes.

Another false dichtomy, and more naturalism. That “mysterious urge” is the Holy Spirit. Our preaching the Truth (of which issuing the call to conversion is a crucial part) - that’s us cooperating with the Holy Spirit as well.

You seem to be confused about HOW the Holy Spirit works. People are urged to join the Church AFTER they find out the truth, not BEFORE. All through the Bible people converted AFTER being preached to, not BEFORE. The Church’s duty is to go out and preach, not to wait till some converts knock on it’s gates. There is a dichotomy, although you don’t see it. In the Bible, the Holy Spirit didn’t convert people until they were preached to. The Holy Spirit works by bringing missionaries to potential converts, not by somehow mysteriously preaching the truth Himself. You confuse this with “false naturalism”.

I’ll address each of these in detail - tomorrow (put in alot of hours of work today and need to hit the sack).

I don’t care what you think about Vatican 2 documents, I take them as binding and believe them 100%, so don’t bother.

 

[DustinsDad]

You the one who creates false dichotomies. Non-Catholic Christians ARE saved, as the Magisterium teaches us (Unitatis Redintegratio):

But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.
…(and more)…

Yet that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to bring them to the full communion with CC.

Here we go again. You now demonstrate precisely the traditional concerns regarding VII documents - the ambiguity can lead to material heresy for those who, like you now demonstrate,* absolutely refuse* to read them in light of Apostolic Tradition.

The words - “all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body” is not formal error - Christ’s promise to the Church still stands of course. But this is only a partial and ambiguous phrase precisely because of what it leaves out (and even moreso because it’s surrounded by other ambiguous language that can easily be taken the wrong way ). For the statement above is true - but only for those who have not rejected the Catholic Church or the graces the Holy Spirit gives to lead them into the Catholic Church.
6. Now, although the assent of faith is by no means a blind movement of the mind, yet no one can accept the gospel preaching in the way that is necessary for achieving salvation without the inspiration and illumination of the holy Spirit, who gives to all facility in accepting and believing the truth.
(Vatican I, Chapter 3)
Note, the Holy Spirit gives to ALL the facility to accept and believe the truth. Not some of the truth, not a portion of the truth, but all truth.

And what happens when the individual in question denies even a portion of the truth, thus rejecting a grace of the Holy Spirit who we know gives the facility for accepting and believing it. That person loses salvific faith - supernatural faith. The person, in their rejection of the truth and of these graces of the Holy Spirit, loses that which is necessary for salvation:
7. And so faith in itself…is a gift of God, and its operation is a work belonging to the order of salvation, in that a person yields true obedience to God himself when he accepts and collaborates with his grace which he could have rejected.
(Vatican I, Chapter 3)
Which shouldn’t come as a big surprise to you -
*Luke 10:16
*“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
Bottom line, one cannot reject the Church and accept Christ at the same time. It’s one or the other.

Yet you manage to take an ambiguous phrase from a Vatican II document, and suddenly rewrite a dogma of the Church so that all Protestants are now ipso facto by their Protestantism somehow a part of the Church that they, by their Protestantism, reject. Thus, contradicting yourself with your own words. And these words of yours fully justify my using your earlier phrase as a good example of false naturalism, and now even moreso, of religious indifference.

You seem to be confused about HOW the Holy Spirit works. People are urged to join the Church AFTER they find out the truth, not BEFORE. All through the Bible people converted AFTER being preached to, not BEFORE. The Church’s duty is to go out and preach, not to wait till some converts knock on it’s gates.

What and who in the world are you arguing against here?

I don’t care what you think about Vatican 2 documents, I take them as binding and believe them 100%, so don’t bother.

You believe an erroneous interpretation thereof. And it demonstrates the truth of what Fr. Brian Harrison (who has written for This Rock) wrote in the article I cited earlier:
“In the past, conciliar teachings were frequently ‘signs of contradiction,’ being subsequently rejected with vehemence by certain groups claiming to be Christian and Catholic. But in each of these controversies, both sides to the dispute were at least in agreement as to whose side the Council was on, so that the dissident party had no alternative other than to reject openly the conciliar teaching in question. The fourth and fifth-century Arians could make no attempt to claim that Nicea and Constantinople were really ‘opening new doors’ to their own anti-trinitarian heresy; the Greek Orthodox after Florence could not maintain that that Council was really ‘moving in their direction’ as regards the Petrine primacy; and the sixteenth-century Protestants protested just as vehemently and openly against Trent as did Döllinger and his faction against Vatican I. After Vatican II, in contrast, practically every heterodox notion that has sullied the Church’s countenance or infected her immune system has brazenly presented itself as being the ‘real’ teaching, or at least the real implication, of the Council itself.”
(Excerpt from a book-review on In the Murky Waters of Vatican II published in The Wanderer, April 23, 1998)
I think I will go through those excerpts. Just for the heck of it.

DustinsDad

 

[mercygate]

If I were to have an objection to the documents of Vatican II (and I do not), it would be that there are so many loopholes.

The documents attempt to address the entire Church and in doing so they leave a lot of interpretation to personal discretion. What was meant to be a guideline to be followed whenever possible becomes, like The Pirates’ Code in “Pirates of the Caribbean”, something to be ignored whenever possible.