T
TMC
Guest
I just don’t understand what those “ambiguities” are. To me the teachings on ecumenism and religious liberty are not unclear. I think that many people disagree with them, but they are not unclear.
- Status
T
TMC
Guest
Well, the document is not unclear on that point. It is clear that Jews, Muslims and atheists can be saved. That is clear Church teaching. No Church document says or suggests that they can be saved “no matter what.”
W
whatistrue
Guest
Apparently I wasn’t sufficiently clear. What specific item(s) in what specific document(s) were originally ambiguous and were not fully clarified subsequently? And why were the subsequent clarifications lacking? The statements you included don’t really mean anything to me without some context. Or if there is a reference link you can send where these are fully explored, that is sufficient; I can’t in fairness ask you to type out a full thesis in this forum.
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Thank you because, in all charity, I probably won’t be doing that. I am just going to say, study Church teaching, understand that the Church did not change the dogma outside the Catholic church there is no salvation and read the VII documents in the light of tradition.
Otherwise, I am going to step back out of this thread. The subject goes round and round frequently here at CAF and doesn’t really go anywhere except with the same comments. You could probably just search the forums and find many answers to that question.
God bless.
Last edited:
W
whatistrue
Guest
But none of those answers that I have been able to find actually address my question. I suspect that the final answer is as @TMC said (I paraphrase), that the clarity is actually there, but the answer is rejected.
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
You’ll need to pray about it and seek answers from Church teaching before and including Vatican II. My priest says the Roman Catechism/Catechism of Trent is a good place to start. Remember Vatican II documents are pastoral not dogmatic. If you want to know the dogmas of the Church you have to go beyond Vatican II.
God bless.
Last edited:
W
whatistrue
Guest
Yes. No dogmas or doctrines were changed. Some were expressed in a different way, but none were changed. Or at least that is my understanding. Therefore what I don’t understand is what the issue is that so many people seem to have.
M
Maximian
Guest
The technique of creating liturgy which people with different views can interpret in a way that is comfortable for them was pioneered by freemasonry, which is all about blurring distinctions with anodyne phrases.
Ring any bells…?
Ring any bells…?
Last edited:
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
The issue is just that. This has aided the confusion which exists today. A less clear expression of the truth. Even if nothing is directly erroneous, confusion now still reigns
Crusader13
New member
P
PetraG
Guest
Archbishop Sample talks about Vatican II all of the time. He is constantly saying, in essence, this was a great council, but let’s look to doing what the Council Fathers actually said to do. He’s big into “reforming the reform,” which means reexamining where we are, finding a place for the variety of things that are consistent with the Council and the Popes since, and un-doing those counter-productive things that Vatican II never said to do in the first place.
Look up what his office of Divine Worship puts out, and you’ll see what I mean. They put out loads of things in their newsletters and such.
https://archdpdx.org/divine-worship
Last edited:
I
ioannes_pius
Guest
That doesn’t mean Vatican II didn’t teach doctrines to which we must give our assent.
T
TMC
Guest
Well, that is Church teaching. So I guess that confirms that “unclear” simply means “I disagree”.
C
ConfirmedAgnes
Guest
I think there’s been a greater emphasis on God’s love and mercy rather than punishment. My mother once told me how when her dad took his life back in the day, they were told he was going to hell and were refused a Catholic funeral and a place in the Catholic cemetery. These days I’ve seen a much greater emphasis on God’s mercy plus an emphasis on the fact that most people who take their lives have mental health issues and thus aren’t fully culpable for their actions.
Crusader13
New member
I
ioannes_pius
Guest
A general note to the whole thread:
In his work Catholic Apologetics Today: Answers to Modern Critics and elsewhere, the late Fr. William makes the following threefold distinction, which I believe is very helpful to discussion like these: “ First of all, we must carefully distinguish and keep separate three areas: (1) The teachings of the Church (doctrine); (2) the rules or commands of the Church (legislation); (3) the question of how prudently the Church has acted in a given case.” (Appendix 1, Library - Most Theological Library | Catholic Culture)
As catholics, obviously we must always believe and uphold 1), and we must submit to 2). This is because Divine protection is promised to 1), and a divine mandate is given to the Apostles and their successors to do 2).*
In area 3), however, there is no divine guarantee, protection, or promise; it is not guaranteed that the Church will always act in the most prudent manner. For this reason, there can be legitimate, respectful disagreement among Catholics.
For example, Catholics may disagree that it was the most prudent to define papal infallibility when it was. Indeed, many good Catholics did, notably St. John Henry Newman.
Similarly, Catholics may disagree on whether Vatican II (and the post-Vatican II approach of Popes, for the most part)’s approach of positively teaching doctrine rather than condemning negative propositions is the most prudent at this time. Or, Catholics may disagree that the reforms of the Liturgy were the best idea. In doing this, we obviously are not setting ourselves against the Church in an area where we are not permitted to do so.
Finally, it should go without saying that if we are to disagree on a given aspect of 3), the disagreement has to be respectful, and we be careful not to deny 1) or withdraw submission to 2).
*It should be noted that, in her universal disciplinary laws, the church enjoys an indirect and negative infallibility, meaning that it can enact nothing contrary to Divine Law or forbid anything that divine laws exacts. It is possible for these laws to be in accord with divine law but not the most prudent decisions in a given situation.
In his work Catholic Apologetics Today: Answers to Modern Critics and elsewhere, the late Fr. William makes the following threefold distinction, which I believe is very helpful to discussion like these: “ First of all, we must carefully distinguish and keep separate three areas: (1) The teachings of the Church (doctrine); (2) the rules or commands of the Church (legislation); (3) the question of how prudently the Church has acted in a given case.” (Appendix 1, Library - Most Theological Library | Catholic Culture)
As catholics, obviously we must always believe and uphold 1), and we must submit to 2). This is because Divine protection is promised to 1), and a divine mandate is given to the Apostles and their successors to do 2).*
In area 3), however, there is no divine guarantee, protection, or promise; it is not guaranteed that the Church will always act in the most prudent manner. For this reason, there can be legitimate, respectful disagreement among Catholics.
For example, Catholics may disagree that it was the most prudent to define papal infallibility when it was. Indeed, many good Catholics did, notably St. John Henry Newman.
Similarly, Catholics may disagree on whether Vatican II (and the post-Vatican II approach of Popes, for the most part)’s approach of positively teaching doctrine rather than condemning negative propositions is the most prudent at this time. Or, Catholics may disagree that the reforms of the Liturgy were the best idea. In doing this, we obviously are not setting ourselves against the Church in an area where we are not permitted to do so.
Finally, it should go without saying that if we are to disagree on a given aspect of 3), the disagreement has to be respectful, and we be careful not to deny 1) or withdraw submission to 2).
*It should be noted that, in her universal disciplinary laws, the church enjoys an indirect and negative infallibility, meaning that it can enact nothing contrary to Divine Law or forbid anything that divine laws exacts. It is possible for these laws to be in accord with divine law but not the most prudent decisions in a given situation.
T
TMC
Guest
Read the Catechism. Para 1260 is relevant, and cites to the Vatican II documents.
I
ioannes_pius
Guest
Vatican II taught exactly what you are saying: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” (Lumen Gentium, No. 14, Lumen gentium)
D
Dovekin
Guest
St Paul said “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”
The Jews are still God’s chosen people. The Church has never taught anything that contradicts that, though there are plenty of statements from Church authorities that sound like they contradict it.
The Jews are still God’s chosen people. The Church has never taught anything that contradicts that, though there are plenty of statements from Church authorities that sound like they contradict it.
Crusader13
New member
Unfortunately mercy, understanding and acceptance have overshadowed the hard sayings of the Church and Scripture. Too many people want to believe in Jesus as the loving lamb who welcomes everyone and doesn’t turn anybody away.
If you were take the situation that the Jews faced back in Egypt, where they had to kill the lamb, spread it’s blood over the door posts and eat that same lamb, we would be in a world of hurt.
Too many people wouldn’t believe that God would kill their firstborn, nor would He punish the Egyptians for being unbelievers. He would spare the vegetarians and those who didn’t like lamb. They would be told to substitute some soy based substance instead and they’ll be alright.
God isn’t about ecumenism and being pastoral to appease those who are offended by the truth. It’s not just an OT mindset either, as if God has softened his approach. In Revelation, it’s God who unleashed those plagues and tribulations on the unbelievers. God used the Roman army to destroy the Temple and kill everyone inside.
We need to start taking Him at his word. So when He says you must eat my flesh, we eat it. When He says you can’t enter heaven without being born again of water and the spirit, we don’t reinterpret his words to allow free passes to those who disbelieve.
If you were take the situation that the Jews faced back in Egypt, where they had to kill the lamb, spread it’s blood over the door posts and eat that same lamb, we would be in a world of hurt.
Too many people wouldn’t believe that God would kill their firstborn, nor would He punish the Egyptians for being unbelievers. He would spare the vegetarians and those who didn’t like lamb. They would be told to substitute some soy based substance instead and they’ll be alright.
God isn’t about ecumenism and being pastoral to appease those who are offended by the truth. It’s not just an OT mindset either, as if God has softened his approach. In Revelation, it’s God who unleashed those plagues and tribulations on the unbelievers. God used the Roman army to destroy the Temple and kill everyone inside.
We need to start taking Him at his word. So when He says you must eat my flesh, we eat it. When He says you can’t enter heaven without being born again of water and the spirit, we don’t reinterpret his words to allow free passes to those who disbelieve.
- Status