The Fruits of Vatican II

[TMC]

The documents don’t say otherwise but your insistence on the opposing view is based upon those who chose to interpret them differently.

LOL, yes “those” like the bishops sitting in council and the Popes. “Those” people.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

No, it does not. The Church’s teaching is clear. If you disagree, that is fine, your choice, but the teaching is not “unclear.”

This is your own interpretation of Church teaching and your not “clear”

LOL, yes “those” like the bishops sitting in council and the Popes. “Those” people

Are there bishops out there saying baptism is not necessary for salvation, even baptism of desire, or if you choose to disagree with the Church no problem, still saved?

Haven’t heard any say that.

 

[TMC]

This is your own interpretation of Church teaching and your not “clear”

I am just reading the documents.

Are there bishops out there saying baptism is not necessary for salvation, even baptism of desire, or if you choose to disagree with the Church no problem, still saved?

Haven’t heard any say that.

I am just quoting the documents, which state that invincible ignorance applies to any that would have sought to enter the Church if they knew that doing so was necessary for salvation. Do you dispute that is how the Church defines invincible ignorance?

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I am disputing and disagreeing with how you are reading the documents. They must be read in light of Scripture and Tradition and the Church alone has the right and responsiblity of interpreting Scripture and Tradition, not the laity, nor non Catholics either.

 

[TMC]

I am disputing and disagreeing with how you are reading the documents. They must be read in light of Scripture and Tradition and the Church alone has the right and responsiblity of interpreting Scripture and Tradition.

Yes, but the words actually written must be respected. I agree that the Church alone has the right to interpret whether this teachings is consistent with Scripture and Tradition - and the Church says it is.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Yes, but the words actually written must be respected. I agree that the Church alone has the right to interpret whether this teachings is consistent with Scripture and Tradition

Yes, absolutely they must be respected but they are not infallible words or documents. Pope Paul VI has said so himself.

and the Church says it is.

umm, no. The Church has never said baptism, even baptism of desire is not necessary for salvation, nor are there any dogmas that say, salvation can be found elsewhere if you choose to disagree with the Catholic Church. No.

 

[TMC]

umm, no. The Church has never said baptism, even baptism of desire is not necessary for salvation, nor are there any dogmas that say, salvation can be found elsewhere if you choose to disagree with the Catholic Church. No.

I am simply quoting directly from Church documents. How can you say that the Church didn’t say what it put in the actual documents?

Also - I am not saying the Church is saying baptism of desire is not necessary, but the Church makes clear that baptism of desire covers all those that would have sought to enter the Church if they knew that doing so was necessary for salvation.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I am simply quoting directly from Church documents. How can you say that the Church didn’t say what it put in the actual documents?

Understanding Church documents in the light of Catholic Tradition and Scripture takes a whole lot more than just quoting them. Again the Church alone decides what is dogma and doctrine.

but the Church makes clear that baptism of desire covers all those that would have sought to enter the Church if they knew that doing so was necessary for salvation.

if they knew, that is the key phrase. It does not cover everyone who makes a choice not to enter.

You are actually make a very good case for the argument that the documents can be misinterpreted and exagerated by those reading them. As one of my favorite priests said, understanding what the Church teaches takies a whole lot more than just reading a couple of documents.

 

[Crusader13]

I am just reading the documents

So do a lot of other people. Bishop Barron cited Vatican II as his reason for telling Ben Shapiro that he didn’t need to believe in Jesus or be a Catholic in order to attain Heaven. He reassured Ben Shapiro that belief in Jesus Christ was the privileged way to Heaven.

Ben Shapiro has no desire to be baptized and no belief in Jesus Christ whatsoever. Check out his interview with Joe Rogan and you’ll see he makes this point very clear.

So what bishop Barron told him was very misleading and the fact that he cited VII as his understanding of this so called “privileged” way to Heaven, only further proves how bad these documents were worded. Because, like yourself, I’ve read the documents on salvation and I saw nothing about a privileged way versus a non privileged way to Heaven.

 

[TMC]

You are actually make a very good case for the argument that the documents can be misinterpreted and exagerated by those reading them. As one of my favorite priests said, understanding what the Church teaches takies a whole lot more than just reading a couple of documents.

This is becoming somewhat farcical, honestly. You are making a very good case for the argument that “unclear” and “misinterpreted” actually mean “disagree.”

You are essentially saying that the Church does not understand its own teaching, but you do. Every Pope since Vatican II has affirmed many times that those outside the Church can be saved. Are you saying that when the bishops sitting in Council wrote and approved these documents, they did not understand what they meant? Or that every Pope and all but a couple of bishops do not understand the documents? I thought you said that only the Church has the right to determine Church teaching.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

You are essentially saying that the Church does not understand its own teaching, but you do

No, absolutely not. As I said above a couple of times, it IS the Church that decides or says what is true. As St. Paul said, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Every Pope since Vatican II has affirmed many times that those outside the Church can be saved.

Yes, but there is a difference between CAN and WILL or that salvation can be found anywhere else. People can be saved because God alone can act outside of the Church if He chooses but we here must follow what He has given us, that is the Church and the Sacraments.

Are you saying that when the bishops sitting in Council wrote and approved these documents, they did not understand what they meant?

Or that every Pope and all but a couple of bishops do not understand the documents?

Nope, not saying that at all. As I said, it is the Church that teaches and they are bishops and popes, they know and understand what they wrote and a whole a lot more than we laity and non Catholics. They also understand the whole of Church teaching and documents way better than laity and non Catholics.

So, I’m just saying that laity or nonCatholics reading the documents outside of Church teaching can lead to misinterpretation.

 

[TMC]

Yes, but there is a difference between CAN and WILL or that salvation can be found anywhere else. People can be saved because God alone can act outside of the Church if He chooses but we here must follow what He has given us, that is the Church and the Sacraments.

Where did I ever say “will”? The Church does not say that anyone “will” be saved. We are talking about who “can” be saved.

Nope, not saying that at all. As I said, it is the Church that teaches and they are bishops and popes, they know and understand what they wrote and a whole a lot more than we laity and non Catholics. They also understand the whole of Church teaching and documents way better than laity and non Catholics.

I agree with this, which is why I rely on the Pope and Church documents for Church teaching.

So, I’m just saying that laity or nonCatholics reading the documents outside of Church teaching can lead to misinterpretation.

I suppose anything can be misinterpreted, but the Vatican II documents are not particularly prone to misinterpretation.

 

[Crusader13]

Every Pope since Vatican II has affirmed many times that those outside the Church can be saved.

Yes but not simply because they choose to be outside the faith and view Jesus and the Church as unnecessary. One cannot take the probability of salvation outside the Church as a generalized view that all non-Catholics will be saved.

And many Popes have said many things and done many things that don’t align with Church teaching. We can’t simply point to a Pope’s own view and say “well the church says…”.

 

[TMC]

Yes but not simply because they choose to be outside the faith and view Jesus and the Church as unnecessary.

Then what does the text mean?

Suppose someone is born Jewish, raised Jewish, knows that the Church exists and also knows that the Church believes itself to be essential to salvation. But that person does not seek to join the Church because he or she believes in Judaism. Church teaching is that salvation is possible (not guaranteed) for that person IF that person would have sought to join the Church if he knew that doing so was necessary.

Is it your view that person can not be saved? If so, how do you square that view with Church teaching (if you do)?

 

[MagdalenaRita]

The Church does not say that anyone “will” be saved. We are talking about who “can” be saved.

Agreed, though because of Divine Revelation, and authority given to it by God, the Church tells us how one is saved and where one is saved.

I suppose anything can be misinterpreted, but the Vatican II documents are not particularly prone to misinterpretation.

I agree with part of this, except that for as long as I can remember people have been talking about Vatican II documents, how they have been misinterpreted and led to the spirit of Vatican II, false ecumenism and on and on and for me hearing all this goes back to the 1980’s and I believe it is true. Because, now in 2020 by Catholic laity and non Catholics, I am seeing what these misinterpretations have led to and the popular phrase I am hearing when discussing salvation is, “there is one God and many ways to Him or to Heaven” and that is not true.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

knows that the Church exists and also knows that the Church believes itself to be essential to salvation.

But that person does not seek to join the Church because he or she believes in Judaism.

That would depend on why they do not believe and why they do not know. Does invincible (too powerful to be overcome) ignorance play a part or are they choosing, making a choice to not believe. Most times not believing is more of a choice to not accept or not listen rather than it being invincible ignorance. This is often preceded by a “do not want to change” or a fear of the possible consequences in life and relationships.

God knows people’s hearts and their circumstances and their life. We can do a pretty good job of deceiving ourselves but we can’t decieve Him.

There is also the false notion that one can believe Catholicism is true but choose a different route because the Church allows us to choose our own route to salvation, false ecumenism.

how do you square that view with Church teaching (if you do)?

Church teaching goes beyond the Vatican II documents.

 

[Crusader13]

Suppose someone is born Jewish, raised Jewish, knows that the Church exists and also knows that the Church believes itself to be essential to salvation. But that person does not seek to join the Church because he or she believes in Judaism. Church teaching is that salvation is possible (not guaranteed) for that person IF that person would have sought to join the Church if he knew that doing so was necessary.

In your example you state that they knew the Church believed herself to be necessary, but they still refuse to believe in the Church or Jesus.

This is not unique and your example is what we face everyday. Which is why, for centuries, the Church strove to evangelize and make disciples of all nations, because the Church knew that Salvation could not be achieved apart from Jesus and His Church.

There was a time when the Church fought against these very errors of salvation, that we are debating today. When people believe that the Church teaches that we don’t need to convert Jews because they are saved already, this is wrong.

Just because we don’t know for sure if any individual will go tell hell for remaining a outside the Church, that doesn’t imply that they are safe. There is a possibility that they might be saved, but this possibility is not reason to teach that they are part of the non-privileged route to Heaven.

 

[Crusader13]

My understanding of salvation, based upon the Church’s teaching, is that we cannot be saved outside of Jesus and the Church. We need the sacraments; and the truth of salvation is not found anywhere else, but in the Church.

Many clergy and laity focus on the possibility of unbelievers being saved and they push this view as if it’s somehow merciful to tell someone, “you might be saved outside of the church because you have some truth, so just stay where you are because you’ll probably get to Heaven.”

That’s like telling someone “the ship is sinking, but don’t worry you don’t need to get into a lifeboat and you really don’t need your life vest either, just jump in the water when the ship goes under and wait to be rescued!”

 

[Dovekin]

My understanding of salvation, based upon the Church’s teaching, is that we cannot be saved outside of Jesus and the Church. We need the sacraments; and the truth of salvation is not found anywhere else, but in the Church.

And where did you get this? It has never been taught by the Church, though some things very similar have been taught. If the Church teaches that sacraments, and the truth of salvation, are found outside the boundaries of the Church, don’t you think that should be the basis for what counts as Church teaching? Isn’t your “understanding of salvation” just plain wrong, according to Church teaching?

And have you not seen Titanic? Kate Winslett doesn’t have a lifeboat, she jumps in the water and waits to be saved…

 

[MagdalenaRita]

If the Church teaches that sacraments, and the truth of salvation, are found outside the boundaries of the Church,

Are you saying that the sacraments that other denominations have and the some of the truth that is found in other religions comes from those other religions and denominations or some truth is found there because of Divine Revelation from the Catholic church that has found it’s way into other denominations or religions and/or because of the natural law written on man’s heart? In other words, are you saying salvation can come from other religions?