Unitatis Redintegratio - V2 Decree on Ecumenism

[DJim]

Pope Leo makes no such distinction of “intentions” - To be separated from the body is death. Period.

My point was clear–it is Baptism that joins one to the Body–whether that Baptism takes place in a Catholic Church or a Protestant Church. If it’s valid Baptism, that person IS part of the Mystical Body of Christ. Period. And, unless that person does something intentionally to separate from the Church, they remain a member. Period.

[/INDENT]And as for the above mention of the Church calling those outside of her to the unity desired by Christ and fulfilled in Holy Mother Church, here are the words from the same encyclical from Pope Leo XII:
And with the same yearning Our soul goes out to those whom the foul breath of irreligion has not entirely corrupted, and who at least seek to have the true God, the Creator of Heaven and earth, as their Father. Let such as these take counsel with themselves, and realize that they can in no wise be counted among the children of God, unless they take Christ Jesus as their Brother, and at the same time the Church as their mother.
Peace in Christ,

Once again, I find a papal quote clearly pulled out of context to support a view that does NOT match the teaching of the Council of Florence on Baptism.

IN CONTEXT, Leo is saying that those “whom the foul breath of IRRELIGION has not entirely corrupted”! He’s talking about those who are irreligious–WITHOUT religion. He’s NOT talking about Protestants!

How do we take Christ Jesus as Brother and Church as Mother? According to the Council of Florence, through Baptism.

DJim

 

[DJim]

Sometimes things really do get quiet after the truth is spoken…

DJim

 

[DustinsDad]

Sometimes things really do get quiet after the truth is spoken…

DJim

Cool your jets there honcho - some of us have other things going on too. Stand by for more dialogue (thought you’d like that word).

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

Actually, my response focuses on one specific issue that makes the million dollar question moot–whether error can be present in a council’s universal teaching on faith and morals. The answer to this question actually has nothing to do with whether a council has created a new dogmatic formula that is to be taught.

It does in the sense that if you interpret the documents of Vatican II contrary to what the Church has always taught, then you are doing something the Council didn’t claim to do. For example, as Pope Benedict XVI said in his address to the Chilean bishops in 1988:

“There are many accounts of it [the Second Vatican Council] which give the impression that, from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and that what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II. The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of super-dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.” (second hand quote from this article).

If the Council presented no new doctrines, then any interpretation of the Council documents must be in line with what the Church has always taught…we can’t go and bend what the Church has always taught to fit into a “new” theology or understanding that supposedly came forth from the Council. I think you are falling into this latter category.

In other words, I think the Council documents can - with some difficulty - be reconciled with Tradition. I just don’t think you’re doing it correctly.

For example, if you try to tell me that there is no dogma or doctrine present in the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, merely because the Council is “pastoral” and that therefore there are no infallible teachings present in that Constitution, of course I will consider that a ludicrous position.

I would agree that there is no new dogma or doctrine defined/proclaimed universally and authoritatively taught at VII. Further, if you read the documents and come up with a new understanding that contradicts the old, then you have either “invented” new doctrine yourself, or the text is sufficiently ambiguous as to lead to that conclusion while not positively teaching it. The answer is to read the documents in light of tradition, not bend tradition to fit an erroneous conclusion based on ambiguities.

For example, the Church has always taught the normative necessity of formal membership in the Church (and being in a state of Sancitifying Grace of course) in order to enter Heaven. There have always been theological mysterious “exceptions” to this rule of formal membership of course…these would deal with invincible ignorance, Baptism of desire/blood, and responding positively to all the actual graces God sends the individual, etc (and of course being in a state of Sanctifying Grace). All of this is mysterious because it is the Lord who will judge - the Lord who knows the hearts of the individuals, who knows where invincible ignorance crosses over to willful rejection of the Truth, etc.

Thing is, the documents of Vatican II tend to present the possibility of Salvation outside the Church as if such is the norm rather than the exception. It does not positively teach error, but unless you read them in light of all that has been taught before, you would certainly be given the impression that it is not normitively necessary to be a formal member of the One True Church to be saved. That all religions are leading to heaven, just some better than others, with the Catholic Church is just the best one…sort of the Cadillac of religions, as opposed to the One True Religion.

For example, you have a couple of brief lines in paragraph 16 of LUMEN GENTIUM that saves the document from formally teaching error in regards to false religions. For they surounded by paragraph after paragraph heaping praises on false religions for the “elements of sanctification and of truth” that can be found in them. Miss those couple of lines - or even reading them buried in this document (which also has some beautiful words regarding the One True Church) - and you can walk away from it with the erroneous opinion that belonging to the One True Church isn’t really necessary after all.

(Continued…)

 

[DustinsDad]

(continued from above)

The Church infallibly teaches that the faithful “cannot err in matters of belief”–whic is my point.

I think you mean the Church as a whole - we can see historically that heresy can overtake a very large portion of the Church - including a very large portion of the hierarchy. In God’s time, He rectifies the situation.

This teaching is what underpins the concept that at no time can the Magisterium teach universal error in faith and morals. For, if it did, then it would be possible for the faithful to err universally, which can’t happen.

I would agree with that. All I was suggesting is the possibility that the Magisterium could lay down some guidelines(as it did at Vatican I with the Pope) as to when it is protected by the Holy Spirit from error and when it is not. And remember, I am not saying Vatican II formerly taught error, I am of the opinion that Vatican II was sufficiently ambiguous enough that it could lead folks into erroneous opinions. I don’t think this is a failure of the Holy Spirit, I think this simply means we’re living in a certain period of crisis in the Church. Won’t be the first, and won’t probably won’t be the last. Holy Mother Church will prevail - Christ said so.

…This protection exists even if/when a Council is not intending to make any new dogmatic statments. By default, anything it teaches universally on faith and morals will be protected from error, whether it’s new or old…

I won’t disagree with this if you are talking about teaching formal error in matters of faith and morals - but I will disagree with anyone who says the documents don’t need clarification - of the unambiguous kind.

…“Look like contradictions” to whom? Not to me. Not to the Church. Perhaps they look that way if you are looking for contradiction (or, as in a recent example, when one forces a document to say what the person desires it to say…)

To the multitude who left the Church in the wake of VII - to the world at large - to just about anyone who looks at the situation objectively. You response to the one example of SATIS COGNITUM is utterly unconvincing. More on that in a later post. Be patient.

(continued…)

 

[DustinsDad]

(continued from above…)

…By saying–contrary to Vatican ONE–that a council like Vatican II might have taught without the necessary continuity in teaching, you negate not only Vatican II but also the infallible statement of Vatican ONE which says it’s not possible. If you say it is possible, in my view you are dissenting from Vatican ONE…

Well, it goes without saying that wordy Vatican II documents in their essay form were a departure from the canons and declarations and anathemas of all previous councils. That in an of itself can lead to confusion. And if, in this confusion, they seem to contradict what was previously taught - why the big surprise on your part? The fact that you won’t allow yourself to even admit that they might seem to contradict what was previously taught tells me you might be to emotionally attached to “winning” this argument to really examine the situation objectively. We’ll see how it goes.

…I can, have, and do demonstrate the absence of contradiction, as I did with Pope Pius XI’s 1928 document on Christian unity, badly misquoted by stmaria…

You overstate your case here - declaring “victory” doesn’t make it so. I don’t think you demonstrated anything at all except that you seem to take erroneous conclusions from VII and apply them backwards to the Church.

…Meanwhile, I have asserted the fundamental principle of the Church–that it can’t err in teaching universally on faith and morals, period…

I would agree with this - but I do not think the guarantee of the Holy Spirit protects a council from being ambiguous. I also don’t think the guarantee of the Holy Spirit protects what is not said.

For example, a Council can be called and proclaim Jesus Christ was true man. Period. End of Council. Okay, guess what - no error was proclaimed. Now this hypothetical Council didn’t say that Jesus Christ was also true God, but it doesn’t matter…it didn’t say He wasn’t, so the guarantee is not broken.

A similarly hypothetical Council could write essay format documents with paragraph after paragraph on the humanity of Christ, and slip in a couple of lines about his Divinity in there. While it would not formally teach error, the fact is that the reader could come away downplaying the Divinity of Christ and fall into error that this is not really a big deal. Do you follow?

Now take the ambiguities of VII documents, take all the things it didn’t say that have always been said but are rarely said any more outside of traditional circles, and couple those two things with the massive erroneous “Spirit of Vatican II” that the faithful were hit with in the wake of the Council, and you’ve got yourself a recipe for the crisis we’re in right now.

The first step out is to pray. Second step out is to admit a crisis exists.

That’s all for now, Peace in Christ!

DustinsDad

 

[DJim]

It does in the sense that if you interpret the documents of Vatican II contrary to what the Church has always taught, then you are doing something the Council didn’t claim to do. For example, as Pope Benedict XVI said in his address to the Chilean bishops in 1988:

But this is the exact straw man argument that is being put forth by many–that Vatican II teaches something “different,” something “new,” something “contrary” to what was always taught. And, simly put, it does not.

If the Council presented no new doctrines, then any interpretation of the Council documents must be in line with what the Church has always taught…we can’t go and bend what the Church has always taught to fit into a “new” theology or understanding that supposedly came forth from the Council. I think you are falling into this latter category.

This is slightly funny to me–can you show me in any of my posts where I’ve even endorsed a particular “theology” or “understanding”??? Please cite what it is. All I’ve done in this thread is articulate the Magisterial teachings rooted in such “novel” sources as the Council of Florence from the 1440s and Vatican ONE…!

I guess you’d better tell me what my “new” theology is–is it what I quoted from Florence???

In other words, I think the Council documents can - with some difficulty - be reconciled with Tradition. I just don’t think you’re doing it correctly.

Well, if “Tradition” shines forth with unmitigated clarity, in contrast to Vatican II, how can it even be possible to “reconcile” Tradition and V II incorrectly??? You sure seem to want to have it both ways here. My view is simple–all Councils, including Vatican II, proclaim the truth in a consistent manner. Its consistency is derived from the same source–the Holy Spirit.

I would agree that there is no new dogma or doctrine defined/proclaimed universally and authoritatively taught at VII. Further, if you read the documents and come up with a new understanding that contradicts the old, then you have either “invented” new doctrine yourself, or the text is sufficiently ambiguous as to lead to that conclusion while not positively teaching it. The answer is to read the documents in light of tradition, not bend tradition to fit an erroneous conclusion based on ambiguities.

Exactly. But, since you’ve accused me of being the one doing the “bending,” you’ve got your work cut out for you to prove it by citing what I’ve “bent.”

Thing is, the documents of Vatican II tend to present the possibility of Salvation outside the Church as if such is the norm rather than the exception.

MAJOR “straw man alert” here…there is no such presentation in these documents. You are already “assuming” that which has not been proven. Cite some examples of where this “presentation as norm” takes place, please…the burden of proof is on you for positive evidence of this claim.

It does not positively teach error, but unless you read them in light of all that has been taught before, you would certainly be given the impression that it is not normitively necessary to be a formal member of the One True Church to be saved.

Unless you read them in light of all that has been taught before???

I thought you already established that all Magisterial teaching MUST be read in this light…are you now suggesting that Vatican II is “weak” because you claim it can’t be read in isolation???

That all religions are leading to heaven, just some better than others, with the Catholic Church is just the best one…sort of the Cadillac of religions, as opposed to the One True Religion.

Straw man, yet again–can you cite texts please, in which in V II teaches this relativistically? In any case, the “One True Religion” is the best among all religions, isn’t it?

For example, you have a couple of brief lines in paragraph 16 of LUMEN GENTIUM

that saves the document from formally teaching error in regards to false religions.

In your opinion. I very much disagree with your opinion of this text…there is much more than a “couple of brief lines” of truth here–it’s all true. Period.

Miss those couple of lines - or even reading them buried in this document (which also has some beautiful words regarding the One True Church) - and you can walk away from it with the erroneous opinion that belonging to the One True Church isn’t really necessary after all.

You appear to be making the claim that if there can be misinterpretation of a text, then that text is somehow “responsible” for introducing error into the Church. I feel you are leaving the impression that the documents of Vatican II are more susceptible to misinterpretation than other Magisterial documents…

DJim

(Continued…)

 

[DJim]

I think you mean the Church as a whole - we can see historically that heresy can overtake a very large portion of the Church - including a very large portion of the hierarchy. In God’s time, He rectifies the situation.

Actually, what I’m saying is that the Magisterium can never teach genuine error in faith and morals to the universal Church. I’m saying there is no “rectifying” done by God because there’s nothing to rectify relative to the Magisterium. Yes, the Church as a “whole” cannot err in matters of belief precisely because the Magisterium is positively prevented from teaching universal error.

I would agree with that. All I was suggesting is the possibility that the Magisterium could lay down some guidelines(as it did at Vatican I with the Pope) as to when it is protected by the Holy Spirit from error and when it is not.

The guidelines already exist–the truth is unmistakable–no error possible in universal teaching on faith/morals…

And remember, I am not saying Vatican II formerly taught error, I am of the opinion that Vatican II was sufficiently ambiguous enough that it could lead folks into erroneous opinions.

That same description can be applied to every Magisterial teaching in every age, by those who are inclined toward ambiguity in order to protect their own agendas…In fact, what you say clearly applies even to SCRIPTURE–the infallible Word of God, uniquely inspired by the Holy Spirit.

As such, you seem eager to hold the documents of Vatican II to a higher and essentially impossible standard…

I don’t think this is a failure of the Holy Spirit, I think this simply means we’re living in a certain period of crisis in the Church.

Well if it’s not a “failure of the Holy Spirit,” then it’s also NOT a failure of the Council protected by the Holy Spirit. Whither the Council goes, so goes the Holy Spirit–if one is weak so is the other. If one has not failed, neither has the other…That’s the nature of “protection”…

I won’t disagree with this if you are talking about teaching formal error in matters of faith and morals - but I will disagree with anyone who says the documents don’t need clarification - of the unambiguous kind.

The documents of Vatican do not need any more clarification than any other Magisterial documents of the Church. This all rises or falls together–either the Holy Spirit “protects” all the teaching equally and sufficiently, or it does not adequately protect.

To the multitude who left the Church in the wake of VII - to the world at large - to just about anyone who looks at the situation objectively.

So I am supposed to infer that anyone who left the Church and who agrees with you are looking at the situation “objectively,” but I am not???

Nice…

You response to the one example of SATIS COGNITUM is utterly unconvincing. More on that in a later post. Be patient.

I am extremely looking forward to any form of rebuttal of my “utterly unconvincing” repair of stmaria’s hopelessly damaged paraphrase of Pope Pius XI’s work…

DJim

 

[DJim]

I think you mean the Church as a whole - we can see historically that heresy can overtake a very large portion of the Church - including a very large portion of the hierarchy. In God’s time, He rectifies the situation.

Actually, what I’m saying is that the Magisterium can never teach genuine error in faith and morals to the universal Church. I’m saying there is no “rectifying” done by God because there’s nothing to rectify relative to the Magisterium. Yes, the Church as a “whole” cannot err in matters of belief precisely because the Magisterium is positively prevented from teaching universal error.

I would agree with that. All I was suggesting is the possibility that the Magisterium could lay down some guidelines(as it did at Vatican I with the Pope) as to when it is protected by the Holy Spirit from error and when it is not.

The guidelines already exist–the truth is unmistakable–no error possible in universal teaching on faith/morals…

And remember, I am not saying Vatican II formerly taught error, I am of the opinion that Vatican II was sufficiently ambiguous enough that it could lead folks into erroneous opinions.

That same description can be applied to every Magisterial teaching in every age, by those who are inclined toward ambiguity in order to protect their own agendas…In fact, what you say clearly applies even to SCRIPTURE–the infallible Word of God, uniquely inspired by the Holy Spirit.

As such, you seem eager to hold the documents of Vatican II to a higher and essentially impossible standard…

I don’t think this is a failure of the Holy Spirit, I think this simply means we’re living in a certain period of crisis in the Church.

Well if it’s not a “failure of the Holy Spirit,” then it’s also NOT a failure of the Council protected by the Holy Spirit. Whither the Council goes, so goes the Holy Spirit–if one is weak so is the other. If one has not failed, neither has the other…That’s the nature of “protection”…

I won’t disagree with this if you are talking about teaching formal error in matters of faith and morals - but I will disagree with anyone who says the documents don’t need clarification - of the unambiguous kind.

The documents of Vatican do not need any more clarification than any other Magisterial documents of the Church. This all rises or falls together–either the Holy Spirit “protects” all the teaching equally and sufficiently, or it does not adequately protect.

To the multitude who left the Church in the wake of VII - to the world at large - to just about anyone who looks at the situation objectively.

So I am supposed to infer that anyone who left the Church and who agrees with you are looking at the situation “objectively,” but I am not???

Nice…

You response to the one example of SATIS COGNITUM is utterly unconvincing. More on that in a later post. Be patient.

I am extremely looking forward to any form of rebuttal of my “utterly unconvincing” repair of stmaria’s hopelessly damaged paraphrase of Pope Pius XI’s work…

DJim

 

[DJim]

Well, it goes without saying that wordy Vatican II documents in their essay form were a departure from the canons and declarations and anathemas of all previous councils. That in an of itself can lead to confusion.

Can we apply some common sense here–aren’t you the one who has made absolutely clear that Vatican II taught nothing new?? How on earth would you expect this Council to teach via “canons and declarations and anathemas” if all it is doing is merely developing the themes and topics of already-existing doctrine??

I guess the wordy narrative form of the Bible is also weak because of how much confusion it leads to–and so many different writing styles!

And if, in this confusion, they seem to contradict what was previously taught - why the big surprise on your part? The fact that you won’t allow yourself to even admit that they might seem to contradict what was previously taught tells me you might be to emotionally attached to “winning” this argument to really examine the situation objectively. We’ll see how it goes.

Actually, my “point” here is not that Vatican II is somehow “above” confusion and misinterpretation, but rather that it is the absolute equal to all other Magisterial documents (as well as Scripture) in terms of its ability to be misunderstood.

Look, we seek it all the time in folks who are MISquoting the pre-Vatican II teachings of the Magisterium in order to supposedly “contrast” those teachings with what is taught by Vatican II. I’m saying that this is not unique at all to Vatican II–as in all ages of the Church, some “interpreters” go too far, some do not go far enough.

But since I’m obviously not objective, I’m glad I can rely on you as a pinnacle of impartiality to guide me… (especially relative to the utterly unconvincing explanation I gave of Pius XI’s text…)

You overstate your case here - declaring “victory” doesn’t make it so. I don’t think you demonstrated anything at all except that you seem to take erroneous conclusions from VII and apply them backwards to the Church.

A serious charge on your part–what “erroneous conclusions” have I offered? Feel free to list them in the form of canons or anathemas if that would seem to add clarity…

If you happen to be referring to the dogmas surrounding Church membership, please tell me straightforwardly–does Baptism make one a member of the Church, or not???

I would agree with this - but I do not think the guarantee of the Holy Spirit protects a council from being ambiguous. I also don’t think the guarantee of the Holy Spirit protects what is not said.

But do you believe the Holy Spirit gives equal protection to all such Councils, or not?

A similarly hypothetical Council could write essay format documents with paragraph after paragraph on the humanity of Christ, and slip in a couple of lines about his Divinity in there. While it would not formally teach error, the fact is that the reader could come away downplaying the Divinity of Christ and fall into error that this is not really a big deal. Do you follow?

Yes, I follow–you’re describing a Council that would write something akin to the Gospel of Mark…

Or, if you go the opposite direction–emphasizing divinity more than humanity–the Gospel of John…

“Ambiguity” has been with the infallible Church from the beginning…

Now take the ambiguities of VII documents, take all the things it didn’t say that have always been said but are rarely said any more outside of traditional circles, and couple those two things with the massive erroneous “Spirit of Vatican II” that the faithful were hit with in the wake of the Council, and you’ve got yourself a recipe for the crisis we’re in right now.

Sort of like the crisis the Apostle John wrote about in his New Testament letters, seems to me…

The first step out is to pray. Second step out is to admit a crisis exists.

The “crisis” has always existed. That’s my point.

There was a crisis after Vatican ONE, a crisis all around the Council of Trent…all the way back to Pentecost…

All I have been doing is articulating as clearly as I can what the authentic teaching of the Magisterium really is, according to the documents we have.

If you or anyone else wish to challenge me on my approach to that, that’s fine. The truth can and will emerge from open and candid “dialogue”–that’s how crises of any age are best addressed…

DJim

 

[DustinsDad]

My point was clear–it is Baptism that joins one to the Body–whether that Baptism takes place in a Catholic Church or a Protestant Church. If it’s valid Baptism, that person IS part of the Mystical Body of Christ. Period. And, unless that person does something intentionally to separate from the Church, they remain a member. Period.

Okay - of course Pope Leo recognizes the validity of Baptism in certain protestant sects too (as long as the form, matter, and intent is all there, it’s valid) - but he still makes no distinctions regarding even validly baptized Protestants as to there “intentions”. He is speaking of the normative situation that even a baptized Protestant holds to heresies condemned by the Church, and by holding to them they are therefore cut off from Her and not living the life of the same Spirit. For even a validly baptized adult Protestant will be condemned, for example, Canon 1 of Session VII of the Council of Trent: Canon 1. If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, or that there are more or less than seven, namely, baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order and matrimony, or that any one of these seven is not truly and intrinsically a sacrament, let him be anathema.
That is just one example of a whole host of examples where the protestant will be holding to condemned prepositions and thus cut of from the Church…just by the mere fact of holding to them they are rejecting the One True Church.

Now you say they must “do” something to intentionally separate from the Church after valid baptism…it is clear from Pope Leo and from what the Church has always taught, that by *choosing *to remain outside the visible bonds of the Church, by refusing to hear Her, they are doing just that act that separates them, cuts them off from the body of Christ.

The only way we could say for sure this was *not *the case would be where infants and youths bare baptized in a Protestant sect before the age of reason. For adults it’s trickier…we can speculate that they may be invincibly ignorant, etc., and Our Lord will judge them accordingly. This doesn’t negate the urgency of calling them home to Holy Mother Church, and it doesn’t negate the perilous situation they are in by remaining outside Her visible bonds.

To only point to the fact that they have some remaining elements of truth that they haven’t rejected does not negate the fact that they are holding to some heresies that cut do them off. You don’t do those outside the Church any favors by making them feel more safe and secure and confident outside of Her - that only serves to make “getting along” easier…less stones will be thrown at you that way…but we will all have to answer for what we don’t say. Myself included.

(Continued below…)

 

[DustinsDad]

Once again, I find a papal quote clearly pulled out of context to support a view that does NOT match the teaching of the Council of Florence on Baptism.

IN CONTEXT, Leo is saying that those “whom the foul breath of IRRELIGION has not entirely corrupted”! He’s talking about those who are irreligious–WITHOUT religion. He’s NOT talking about Protestants!

Let’s take a look again at that from Pope Leo you are referring to…And with the same yearning Our soul goes out to those whom the foul breath of religion has not entirely corrupted, and who at least seek to have the true God, the Creator of Heaven and earth, as their Father. Let such as these take counsel with themselves, and realize that they can in no wise be counted among the children of God, unless they take Christ Jesus as their Brother, and at the same time the Church as their mother.
(Pope Leo XIII, SATIS COGNITUM , from the closing paragraph)

Pope Leo is talking (as he has throught the letter) about all those who do not hold to the ONE True Religion…this means those holding to false religions, and this includes Protestants.

In fact, tying this in with what I wrote above, it looks like Pope Leo is clearly calling those outside the One True church who are invincibly ignorant, calling them home…for these are people Pope Leo says “at least seek to have the true God, the Creator of Heaven and earth, as their Father” - these are not atheists who have no religion at all! Looks pretty clear that the “foul breath of IRRELIGION” is the very notion that there is not a One True Religion (or a One True Church).

Further, the closing thought above from Pope Leo above perfectly ties in with the opening thought below - this letter is mainly directed at bringing home those who have strayed from the Church - i.e., protestants…It is sufficiently well known unto you that no small share of Our thoughts and of Our care is devoted to Our endeavour to bring back to the fold, placed under the guardianship of Jesus Christ, the Chief Pastor of souls, sheep that have strayed. Bent upon this, We have thought it most conducive to this salutary end and purpose to describe the exemplar and, as it were, the lineaments of the Church.
(Pope Leo XIII, SATIS COGNITUM , from the opening paragraph)

How do we take Christ Jesus as Brother and Church as Mother? According to the Council of Florence, through Baptism

An interesting conundrum you propose - one who by baptism takes the Church for his mother and at the very instant rejects his mother by refusing to hear her.

Objectively speaking, this person, if byond the age of reason and having heard about the Church, is in a bad situation - the soul is in jeopardy. Better to let 'em know their situation and urgently call them home then to assume they are invincibly ignorant - even as if that’s a good place to be.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

This is slightly funny to me–can you show me in any of my posts where I’ve even endorsed a particular “theology” or “understanding”???

See posts 70 & 71.

Well, if “Tradition” shines forth with unmitigated clarity, in contrast to Vatican II, how can it even be possible to “reconcile” Tradition and V II incorrectly???

By taking erroneous interpretations based on the ambiguities of Vatican II and applying them backwards onto Tradition.

Straw man, yet again–can you cite texts please, in which in V II teaches this relativistically?..Cite some examples of where this “presentation as norm” takes place, please…the burden of proof is on you for positive evidence of this claim.

Paragraph 15 of Lumen Gentium would be an example…The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God. They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.The ambiguous thing here is you could take it one way - that these folks are in good shape since they share so much in common with us, and isn’t that nice! They’re “good” where they are, but they’d be “better” in the Catholic Church. Now, that would be wrong but that’s the common understanding among the rank and file Catholics these days…that it doesn’t really matter if one is Catholic or not, doesn’t matter what religion one belongs to. . .these folks must all be invincibly ignorant anyway, right?

Another way - the correct way - to take it would be in light of tradition, and recognize that by not “professing the faith in its entirety”, they are professing one or more heresies condemned by the Church - and that cuts them off from the Mystical Body of Christ if they do so knowingly - that’s serious business here my friend. All the sugar coating in the world ain’t gonna change it.

By the way - do you know what a “straw man” argument actually is?

In any case, the “One True Religion” is the best among all religions, isn’t it?

Yes, the True religion is better than a false religion. Got me there.

I feel you are leaving the impression that the documents of Vatican II are more susceptible to misinterpretation than other Magisterial documents…

Uh…yep.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[stmaria]

Oh really?–so you then believe that it’s possible for an ecumenical council of the Church established by Jesus Christ to universally teach error to the faithful???

Keep in mind again what Vatican ONE taught:

"3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema… "

The irony of the texts you quoted is found in the fact that, true enough, Vatican II did not infallibly teach any NEW dogmas.

Rather, it just infallibly taught a bunch of OLD dogmas.

Anything Vatican II taught the universal Church in the area of faith and morals is of necessity true.

Or do you want to disagree with that?

DJim

What am I to think when the very men that wrote the Declaration on Religious Liberty concede that the Declaration is not a development of previous doctrine and it conflicts with Traditional teachings. The principle theologians that wrote the document were Fr John Courtney Murray, and Fr. Yves Conger.
Fr. Murray:
“The course of the development between the Syllabus of Errors and Dignitatis Humanae still remain to be explained by theologians.” The Documents of Vatican II 1967

Fr. Conger: “It cannot be denied that a text like this [the conciliar declaration on Religious Liberty] says materially something different than the Syllabus of 1864, and even almost the opposite of propositions 15, and 77 to 79 of that document.” Yves CONGAR (O.P) La Crise de l’Eglise et Mgr. Lefebvre [The Crisis in the Church and Archbishop Lefebvre],Cerf, Paris, 1977, p.54. Lumen gentium (chapter 3 on collegiality)

Isn’t the Syllabus of Errors infallible teaching?

What am I to think when Pope John Paul said Vatican taught “new”doctrine”
Pope John Paul said the following in his Apostolic Letter “Ecclesia Dei “
5 b) Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.

When, in the history of the Church, has a Pope called on theologians to explain what is meant in points of doctrine? Why do they need to be explained? Because they are ambigious. Why are the ambigious? Because they were written by men that Pope Pius X wrote about in Pascendi
“ It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality they are quite fixed and steadfast… Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed… In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly… Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist."

 

[stmaria]

Who has said Hinduism is “worship” of the “devil” as you put it?

Where did you get your definition of “Gentile”??? Never seen it defined that way before. I’m a “Gentile” and a Christian…

DJim

Dictionary.net
Gentile \Gen"tile, n. [L. gentilis belonging to the same clan, stock, race, people, or nation; in opposition to Roman, a foreigner; in opposition to Jew or Christian, a heathen: cf. F. gentil. See Gentle, a.] One of a non-Jewish nation; one neither a Jew nor a Christian; a worshiper of false gods; a heathen.

New Advent:
As the non-Jewish nations did not worship the true God and generally indulged in immoral practices, the term Gôyîm “Gentiles” has often times in the Sacred Writings, in the Talmud, etc., a disparaging meaning. Since the spread of Christianity, the word Gentiles designates, in theological parlance, those who are neither Jews nor Christians

Would not the following apply to Hindus and Buddhists?
.
First epistle of John 4:2-3 “every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God,** while every spirit that fails to acknowledge him does not belong to God. Such is the spirit of the antichrist”**

You don’t believe that false religions are of the devil???

 

[DJim]

stmaria–I will respond shortly to your recent posts…in the meantime, please won’t you offer an apology for taking Pope Pius XI so completely out of context?

Or, if you believe you did not do so, show me why your patchwork quotation of him was justifiable??

DJim

 

[DJim]

Okay - of course Pope Leo recognizes the validity of Baptism in certain protestant sects too (as long as the form, matter, and intent is all there, it’s valid)

So then you and I are in agreement with the Church–all the Baptized are, by default, members of the Mystical Body of Christ, regardless of whether they are baptized in a Catholic Church or not…

That is just one example of a whole host of examples where the protestant will be holding to condemned prepositions and thus cut of from the Church…just by the mere fact of holding to them they are rejecting the One True Church.

I think it is now clear where the error is–“by the mere fact of holding to them…” THIS is the problem–those who are baptized who “hold” to these views may very well be holding the views without ever having been in a position to reject the One True Church.

THAT’s the whole point–there are those in Protestantism who grow up never learning the full truths of the One True Church and therefore never rejecting those truths with full knowledge and consent. They remain inculpable, and thus, by default, remain IN the Mystical Body of Christ.

Now you say they must “do” something to intentionally separate from the Church after valid baptism…it is clear from Pope Leo and from what the Church has always taught, that by *choosing *to remain outside the visible bonds of the Church, by refusing to hear Her, they are doing just that act that separates them, cuts them off from the body of Christ.

YES, we agree on this point–IF they actually are in a position to choose between the full truth and the “heresy.”

For adults it’s trickier…we can speculate that they may be invincibly ignorant, etc., and Our Lord will judge them accordingly. This doesn’t negate the urgency of calling them home to Holy Mother Church, and it doesn’t negate the perilous situation they are in by remaining outside Her visible bonds.

Well, of course. And you are stating in that paragraph exactly what Vatican II teaches as well…

You don’t do those outside the Church any favors by making them feel more safe and secure and confident outside of Her - that only serves to make “getting along” easier…less stones will be thrown at you that way…but we will all have to answer for what we don’t say. Myself included.

Then you agree with the clearly articulated teaching of the Second Vatican Council.

Our positions appear to be identical…

DJim

 

[DJim]

Let’s take a look again at that from Pope Leo you are referring to…And with the same yearning Our soul goes out to those whom the foul breath of religion has not entirely corrupted, and who at least seek to have the true God, the Creator of Heaven and earth, as their Father. Let such as these take counsel with themselves, and realize that they can in no wise be counted among the children of God, unless they take Christ Jesus as their Brother, and at the same time the Church as their mother.
(Pope Leo XIII, SATIS COGNITUM , from the closing paragraph)

Pope Leo is talking (as he has throught the letter) about all those who do not hold to the ONE True Religion…this means those holding to false religions, and this includes Protestants.

NO, Pope Leo is NOT referring to Protestants in this paragraph. He referred to them in the PREVIOUS paragraph, which reads:

“Let all those, therefore, who detest the wide-spread irreligion of our times, and acknowledge and confess Jesus Christ to be the Son of God and the Saviour of the human race, but who have wandered away from the Spouse, listen to Our voice. Let them not refuse to obey Our paternal charity. Those who acknowledge Christ must acknowledge Him wholly and entirely. “The Head and the body are Christ wholly and entirely. The Head is the only-begotten son of God, the body is His Church; the bridegroom and the bride, two in one flesh. All who dissent from the Scriptures concerning Christ, although they may be found in all places in which the Church is found, are not in the Church; and again all those who agree with the Scriptures concerning the Head, and do not communicate in the unity of the Church, are not in the Church” (S. Augustinus, Contra Donatistas Epistola, sive De Unit. Eccl., cap. iv., n. 7).”

Then, after the above paragraph, he states he has the “same yearning” for a different group: “those whom the foul breath of IRreligion has not entirely corrupted, and who at least seek to have the true God, the Creator of Heaven and earth, as their Father.”

It is absolutely clear from context that the paragraph you cited refers not to Christians at all. The paragraph that comes before is the one that refers to non-Catholic Christians…

In fact, tying this in with what I wrote above, it looks like Pope Leo is clearly calling those outside the One True church who are invincibly ignorant, calling them home…for these are people Pope Leo says “at least seek to have the true God, the Creator of Heaven and earth, as their Father” - these are not atheists who have no religion at all! Looks pretty clear that the “foul breath of IRRELIGION” is the very notion that there is not a One True Religion (or a One True Church).

The “foul breath of irreligion” is a reference to those not religious at all. Leo is say that there are those who are “not entirely corrupted” by this–those who believe in God. The paragraph you quote refers basically to monotheists–people still seeking one God…NOT Protestants Christians…

Further, the closing thought above from Pope Leo above perfectly ties in with the opening thought below - this letter is mainly directed at bringing home those who have strayed from the Church - i.e., protestants…

The paragraph you quoted does not refer to Protestants. It refers to non-Christian believers in one God…

Go back and read the text from start to finish–it’s crystal clear…

An interesting conundrum you propose - one who by baptism takes the Church for his mother and at the very instant rejects his mother by refusing to hear her.

Any such who does what you describe would break the bond unity established by Baptism. The point is that NOT everyone baptized outside the Catholic Church “instantly” will reject the fullness of truth. It’s probably fair to say that most modern Protestants may well go for a very long time without ever hearing the real truths of the Catholic faith professed within their Protestant environment!

Objectively speaking, this person, if byond the age of reason and having heard about the Church, is in a bad situation - the soul is in jeopardy. Better to let 'em know their situation and urgently call them home then to assume they are invincibly ignorant - even as if that’s a good place to be.

Which is exactly what Vatican II urges–an acknowledgment of what is true and what is not true within other churches and ecclesial communities…

Other than your misinterpretation of the Leo passage, I don’t think we have any other conflict of view here…

DJim

 

[DJim]

See posts 70 & 71.

Those two posts are authored by you–I see nothing in them that we conflict upon other than the fact that you’ve misquoted Leo’s encyclical…

By taking erroneous interpretations based on the ambiguities of Vatican II and applying them backwards onto Tradition.

Well, all I’ve been doing is taking genuine interpretations from Tradition and applying them to the clear texts of Vatican II…

The ambiguous thing here is you could take it one way - that these folks are in good shape since they share so much in common with us, and isn’t that nice! They’re “good” where they are, but they’d be “better” in the Catholic Church. Now, that would be wrong but that’s the common understanding among the rank and file Catholics these days…that it doesn’t really matter if one is Catholic or not, doesn’t matter what religion one belongs to. . .these folks must all be invincibly ignorant anyway, right?

This really boils down to something really very simple:

1. You and I are both saying Vatican II teaches only the truth.
2. You and I are both saying that in all eras of the Church, people have misunderstood the truth.

Lumen Gentium, for example, is written for the express purpose of being understood according to the mind and will of the Church. Why would anyone wish to say that, IF such a document can be view in a way NOT in accord to the mind and will of the Church, it must be flawed or faulty or unhelpful?

Should we throw out the documents of Vatican II because some people might not read them correctly?? (btw, how many people in the pew actually read the documents anyway??? 2 percent??)

If you say “yes” to that idea, then you’d better be prepared to ditch the New Testament as well, for the same reason…

Sniping at “Vatican II” on this basis seems really unreasonable. It seems like the “issue is not the issue”…

and that cuts them off from the Mystical Body of Christ if they do so knowingly - that’s serious business here my friend. All the sugar coating in the world ain’t gonna change it.

Are you saying Vatican II “sugar coats” the truth? If you are, don’t you see that is merely opinion, not fact? You’re entitled to that opinion, but nowhere did God say the Magisterium had to meet our definitions of what’s “sugar coating” and what isn’t…

By the way - do you know what a “straw man” argument actually is?

A weak argument proposed by someone seeking to claim victory by attacking it…

Uh…yep.

Well, if you believe that Vatican is more susceptible to misinterpretation than other magisterial works, then perhaps you wish to explain why the Holy Spirit is being inconsistent?

St. Peter professed that many of St. Paul’s letters were difficult to understand and easy to misinterpret.

But, in doing so, he didn’t say those letters were less true, or that the Holy Spirit was less present in the harder-to-understand letters.

DJim

 

[DJim]

stmaria wrote:

What am I to think when the very men that wrote the Declaration on Religious Liberty concede that the Declaration is not a development of previous doctrine and it conflicts with Traditional teachings. The principle theologians that wrote the document were Fr John Courtney Murray, and Fr. Yves Conger.
Fr. Murray:
“The course of the development between the Syllabus of Errors and Dignitatis Humanae still remain to be explained by theologians.” The Documents of Vatican II 1967

Please cite for me the text which states that this Declaration “is not a development of previous doctrine and it conflicts with Traditional teachings.” (btw, it’s “Congar”) The passage you cite above does not state that at all and has again been ripped from context and isolated to appear to support your view…

Further, Congar and Murray are fallible–Vatican II is NOT. The irony here being that you accept fallible testimony because it supports your view, but reject the truth of the teaching of Vatican II, it seems…or do you?

Fr. Conger: “It cannot be denied that a text like this [the conciliar declaration on Religious Liberty] says materially something different than the Syllabus of 1864, and even almost the opposite of propositions 15, and 77 to 79 of that document.” Yves CONGAR (O.P) La Crise de l’Eglise et Mgr. Lefebvre [The Crisis in the Church and Archbishop Lefebvre],Cerf, Paris, 1977, p.54. Lumen gentium (chapter 3 on collegiality)

Congar has an opinion–so what? I happen to disagree with his opinion–I think it can be denied.

Isn’t the Syllabus of Errors infallible teaching?

Infallible by what mode? Papal, conciliar, or universal ordinary?

One thing is sure: it’s true even if it possibly is not taught with the note of infallibility…

What am I to think when Pope John Paul said Vatican taught “new”doctrine”

He didn’t say that–he said new POINTS OF DOCTRINE. Very important distinction (at least in this arena)–a new “point of doctrine” is a phrase that denotes the authentic development of doctrine–such as that which took place which gave us dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and even papal infallibility…

You would have us believe the Pope is asserting that there’s something brand-new to consider when context makes it crystal clear that nothing could be further from the truth. The point he is making is that the development of doctrine does indeed require deeper reflection and greater exposition to show the continuity claimed by the Church…

When, in the history of the Church, has a Pope called on theologians to explain what is meant in points of doctrine?

NONSTOP, since the New Testament…

Why do they need to be explained? Because they are ambigious. Why are the ambigious? Because they were written by men that Pope Pius X wrote about in Pascendi

An abject false statement.

So you really believe that Vatican II is a plot by Modernist heretics?

Unbelievable…

DJim