Crusader13
New member
Exactly. Provided we adhere to what is commanded of us! Which is exactly why in the past we prayed for the conversion of all unbelievers. Including the Jews.
- Status
Crusader13
New member
Yes that’s what it says. Unfortunately people will interpret knowing as believing. So if we tell nonbeliever’s about Jesus and baptism and they reject both. Does that count as knowing???
If a person is driving down the road and there is a sign that says the bridge is out, but they continue on and crash. Is it sufficient to say that they didn’t know even though the sign said it was out. Can they logically come back and say “well the sign said the bridge is out but I didn’t know for certain if it was out.”
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
No, it does not. The Church’s teaching is clear. If you disagree, that is fine, your choice, but the teaching is not “unclear.”
S
StudentMI
Guest
I forget if I shared it in this thread but there’s a book called The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council by Agostino Marchetto that is worth reading.
C
commenter
Guest
Prior to papal infallibility being publicly proclaimed, Catholics like Newman like Newman offered (name removed by moderator)ut. I believe he thought the timing was not right.
After it was proclaimed he accepted it. It would not be reasonable to use him to justify others who reject something after the fact. (Not you, but others have).
Last edited:
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
That applies to invincible ignorance or lack of knowledge, " ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church"and as you said earlier it only says "can be saved" not will be saved and it also says, It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. In other words we are only supposing, assuming, thinking, hoping, suspecting that might be their desire if they knew.
So, back to there is no salvation outside the Catholic church and we need to be about evangelizing people to that truth.
Last edited:
I
ioannes_pius
Guest
What is “it”? The definition, or the timing?
Crusader13
New member
You’re right it is clear. Because the teaching has always been that you need Jesus and baptism to be saved. Even a desire to be baptized is acceptable, because a person is still desiring that witch is necessary.
The documents don’t say otherwise but your insistence on the opposing view is based upon those who chose to interpret them differently.
Which is why the documents are too ambiguous. Because they allow for too many errors to be believed.
P
pnewton
Guest
Good point. Correlation does not equal causation, which makes all sort of alternate history evaluation a little dicey. Nonetheless, I think it true that without Vatican II, there would be no V2 attendees, which was one of the steps of leadership, and the eventual selection, of St. John Paul II, which is one heck of a good fruit, and at the top of my list. The broadening of the selection of a new Pope beyond the confines of Italy gave use the greatest man of the last century.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
Why would you consider this to be a great thing?
C
commenter
Guest
My hunch is that if the Ambiguity/Clarification lobby needed and wanted to “find” loose ends or dangerously open ended wording in the Encyclicals of Pope Pius 12 (,or Trent, or anything), they could do it. If they wanted to - if it would generate web site traffic - they could “identify” specific examples in Pius writings where a misplaced nuance here, or a careless phrase there, through no fault of his, were exploited by bad guys to justify specific ruinous teaching and scandal.
Thus, we need to support their website, to demand clarification.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
Timidity and relativism are not the same as understanding and acceptance. When you see the first, you’re not seeing the second.
What does that have to do with what was promulgated during the 2nd Vatican Council?
P
PetraG
Guest
We who know much had better hope there is an ocean of mercy for those who did less than they knew to do. How much do you and I know that we nevertheless fail to do?
Last edited:
Crusader13
New member
Why do you always connect everything back to websites and clickbait? I’m just curious, but it seems like you put a heavy emphasis on explaining every objection from a traditional perspective as having no credibility, but simply a ploy to generate revenue. I’m sure many people on these forums can form an understanding of Vatican II from a traditional mindset without ever supporting one of “those” websites.
Crusader13
New member
Not sure what you’re referring to.
It wasn’t a comparison to a specific VII document. I was speaking more of a generalized view of Catholicism by many people.
Or were told to do. There is a difference in telling someone you “should” do something versus you “must” do it.
Last edited:
C
C.Ray
Guest
I wonder how we’re doing on that one.
Crusader13
New member
All I’m saying is that with regards to VII many of their documents are cited by various people, both within the clergy and the laity. They usually start by saying “well the Church says…” and then begin citing VII documents.
Which is why when people hear comments coming from Bishop Barron talking about Catholicism and Jesus as being the privileged way, they believe that this is truly Catholic doctrine and teaching.
When in reality it’s a point of view based upon documents from VII which opened the door for this misunderstanding. Documents, which as some have noted, are not meant to be doctrinal but pastoral.
So we start teaching from a pastoral perspective because it’s easier to tell someone that they don’t need Jesus or the Church, but it is preferable.
Which is why when people hear comments coming from Bishop Barron talking about Catholicism and Jesus as being the privileged way, they believe that this is truly Catholic doctrine and teaching.
When in reality it’s a point of view based upon documents from VII which opened the door for this misunderstanding. Documents, which as some have noted, are not meant to be doctrinal but pastoral.
So we start teaching from a pastoral perspective because it’s easier to tell someone that they don’t need Jesus or the Church, but it is preferable.
Last edited:
C
commenter
Guest
- The power of the internet, for good and evil, is enormous.
- Many Catholics I meet, in person or online, think these Catholic Sounding sites are in union with the Church. They’re not.
- Other Catholics think the old rules requiring Catholic religious media to be in union with the Church (Pascendi, V2, Canon Law) have all been repealed. It seems fair to refute common misconceptions.
- I’m not refuting Traditional perspectives, but Traditionalist ones.
- Years ago when many thought National Catholic Reporter was a Catholic ministry, I tried to refute that misconception. If that misconception becomes widespread again, I would refute it again.
Last edited:
E
enoch1
Guest
i agree with you brady. i think genesis315 is wrong . V2 is the best thing that ever happened to the church. ive read the documents and believe they were on track. i went through v2 as a young man, and was so excited to hear mass in english.
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
So,not everything a traditional Catholic or any Catholic hears comes from a website. Many people study the faith on their own, read catechisms, read the saints, hear homilies, etc… so wouldn’t it be better to discuss the issue rather than blindly accuse.
Also, the comments I have made here in this thread did not come from any website.
God bless
Last edited:
- Status