Unitatis Redintegratio - V2 Decree on Ecumenism

[DJim]

Very good - then my original point regarding this portion…is correct…that the Church did call back Protestants to the Church prior to VII (a point which you strangely found objectionable). And that as Protestants, they were ipso facto not a part of the mystical body of Christ.

I note again that you say “VERY GOOD” to my interpretation of Pope Leo.

Please cite where I objected to the idea that the Church called (calls) Protestants back to the Church…Or let me save you the trouble, since I never said that…

What I object to is the erroneous statement you repeat above, which is that “ipso facto” Protestants are “not a part of the mystical body of Christ.”

That is an egregiously erroneous statement, since “ipso facto” ALL the Baptized are part of the Mystical Body of Christ. Remember the Council of Florence?

What happens “post ipso facto” is the real issue, or should be. Anyone who consciously severs himself from that Body is not part of the Church…

Thank you again for making my points, even when trying to disprove them.

Well I can’t say “you’re welcome” since I haven’t actually don that…all I’ve done is state the truths taught by the Church. I think the problem you’re having is contextualizing what is taught about Church membership… that our separated brothers and sisters in Christ may well be members of the Mystical Body of Christ.

Very well then - it seems now that you are saying non-Christian religions are not religions (the term irreligous and all), …QUOTE]

I would suggest that the Pope uses “irreligion” to describe those who do not practice a religion at all.

But these would be non-Christian religions (Jews, Muslims, etc.) - are you saying these folks are not religious at all? I think you’re confused. …

The confusion appears to be yours–let me simplify:

1. Irreligious = those with no religion
2. those “not entirely corrupted by irreligion” = monotheists such as Jews and Muslims.
3. “Those who acknowledge Christ” = non-Catholic Christians.

Leo deals first with category 3, and then with category 2.

Ah, so you demonstrate my point once again! Now you assume that invincible ignorance is the norm

! Funny, that obviously isn’t how it was approached prior to VII!!! … Are you saying Protestants were for 400 years more enlightened about the truths of the Catholic faith, but within the last 40 have suddenly become invincibly ignorant on a massive scale?

Is “invincible ignorance” the “norm”–Ask Pius IX, whom I quoted earlier on invincible ignorance…

What I said was that, in order for a baptized Protestant to choose AGAINST the fullness of the true faith, there must be a choice involved–ipso facto. Without knowledge of the fullness of the true faith, there can be no choice.

Do you know any Protestant denominations that actively and accurately teach the fullness of the Catholic faith to its members? I don’t. Therefore it’s reasonable to suggest that, for a Protestant to “dis-member” himself from the Body of Christ after Baptism, he must find the means first to “discover” the truth of what the Catholic Church really teaches. THEN and ONLY THEN will he be in a position to make the choice necessary to sever relationship with the Mystical Body of Christ…consciously, deliberately, and culpably…

Or do you disagree with this?

Keep in mind that the Protestant Reformers were all heretics precisely because they LEFT the true faith and true Church, culpably. The Protestants of today do not have a similar choice until they know what it is their founders really rejected…

And it’s mere speculation on your part as to “how much” accurate information they “need” before they become “not” invincibly ignorant. It could just be a matter of hearing that the Catholic Church exists and failing to investigate it. Who knows? Who are you or I to say?

Then we agree–neither of us get to judge IF or “when” a baptized non-Catholic is no longer a member of the Mystical Body of Christ precisely because that is a concern of God and the person (and the Church if such a person is determined by the Church to be outside the Church)…

Err on the side of caution here, go with what we’ve been given through the ages and as the Church has always done, assume as the normative

rule that adults beyond the age of reason have a responsibility to respond to God’s grace, seek out God’s One True Church, and come home.

That is assumed. In fact it’s assumed for every soul, not just Protestants…

You seem to be saying that outside the Church there is no salvation, unless

you happen to be unconvinced by this preposition.

I have always said that outside the Church there is no salvation. It is a sure truth of the Catholic faith (cf. Unam Sanctam, 1302)

DJim

 

[DJim]

I don’t think the VII documents teach error, but the problem is there shouldn’t be so much difficulty and disagreement in interpreting their meaning. Most official Church teachings over the centuries were pretty cut and dry, without much room for debate about their true meaning.

But that’s just not the case–Vatican ONE seems pretty cut and dried, and in keeping with 1800 years of Catholic faith–that is, unless you disgreed like those who splintered off and became the “Old Catholics” because they refused to accept papal infallibility. Why? Because they objected that papal infallibility really was NOT consistent with Tradition and was a “new” doctrine…

History will record that from the New Testament onward, there has always been debate over supposedly “clear” teaching.

I note that dustinsdad and stmaria have ignored this concept completely–that, if we were to apply their objections to Vatican II to the New Testament, we’d also have to revise the written Word of God as well because it is “ambiguous”…

They were always written with an air of conviction and finality to avoid this sort of confusion, but the way some of these VII documents were written - very beautifully written, almost poetic - there’s IS a certain ambiguity about them.

Beautifully written precisely because they expound on what the Church has always taught and are not formally and infallibly defining anything via canon or anathema…

DJim

 

[DustinsDad]

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??

That’s just it…no other Council was quite like Vatican II. No other Council was called to “merely develop” themes and topics of already existing doctrine. And despite that intention, much of it appears on the surface to develop them quite contrary to what they had always been understood as. Quite perplexing.

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!

Well that’s because the role of the Bible and the role of the Magestarium are quite different. The Magestarium role is to interpret - to make clear, to apply the Scripture AND Tradition AND previous Magesterial teachings to answer questions that pop up over time when it becomes necessary.They’ve always done this pretty darn clearly and consisely (a little to clearly and consisely it seems for some folks nowadays). But to call a Council merely to muse over theological questions for the sake of “opening up to the world” is quite novel in the history of the Church. The mere fact that like so many, you and I and others are here debating over what the Council actually meant demonstates this point precisely.

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.

Looking at this from a strictly historical perspective, your point falls flat on its face. There was no such confusion over what Trent “meant”. You could agree with it or disagree with it, but what it meant was crystal clear. Same with the other Councils - aside from Vatican II. There is simply no evidence for this ludicrous position that Vatican II’s documents are the same as all the other Councils with the same ability to be misunderstood…the point is quite preposperous.

Look, some popes were better than others, some taught better than others, some were more clear and direct - others were weaker and gave ambiguous statements at times. None of them formerly taught errors. Guess the same goes for Councils. What’s the big deal - why are you so emotionally attached to this weak line of argument?

DustinsDad: 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.

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

Yes, equal protection from formally teaching error.

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

Not because people were confused about what Vatican I and the Council of Trent meant. What they meant was clear. Accept it or reject it, it was crystal clear what in the heck these two Councils were teaching. Not the case with Vatican II - folks are still trying to figure it all out 40 years later.

Don’t agree with that, take a look at the recent RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH . I guess prior to this document you’d have been one of those folks claiming there is absolutely nothing confusing about using “subsists in” rather than “is”. Ah well, you probably still can’t quite grasp it. In any case, the ambiguities of VII will still have folks asking alot of questions, holding alot of debates for some time. This recent letter is a nice attempt to clarify. And it does to some extent - but since it still uses some of the same ambiguous language as VII, there will still be more questions to answer. It’s a good start though.

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

… Most official Church teachings over the centuries were pretty cut and dry, without much room for debate about their true meaning. They were always written with an air of conviction and finality to avoid this sort of confusion, but the way some of these VII documents were written - very beautifully written, almost poetic - there’s IS a certain ambiguity about them.

And I can’t remember it, but one of the Protestant leaders back at the time of Vatican II heaveily involved with ecumanism at the time said something to the effect of “there is no ecumanism without ambiguity”…which makes alot of sense if you think about it.

Seems logical that a Council concerned primarily with this new approach to ecumanism would be ambiguous. I’m looking for the source of the quote - if anyone knows of it, post it please. Thanks!

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

Please note that again you have said “YES” to my assessment of the papal text.

Yes, stmaria didn’t quote the papal text in its entirety. But no - the “missing” portions don’t prove your point, they prove hers. And no, not quoting the text in its entirety was not dishonest on her part - in fact, seeing how the “missing” portions further demolish your position, it seems she may have been merciful to you by leaving them out.

Now, how you can conclude that stmaria’s “case” is strenghtened by egregious error is beyond me…

I don’t think failing to post an entire papal text is “egregious”. What she did post from it was strong - what she didn’t post makes her point even stronger. Your “gotcha” got you.

But I’m sure you will explain. So, how does a looong passage by Pius XI on *PAN-Christianity" contradict anything said in the Decree on Ecumenism???

Already addressed this exact question in another post.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

Okay–so you are accusing the living Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church of the heresy of pan-Christianity??

I think its safe to say that many of the individuals in the magistrium are guilty of the very things and actions and attitudes condemned by past popes.

And you seem to believe Pope John Paul II is guilty of indifferentism…?

I’m not judging the soul and heart of Pope John Paul II. But the gift of infallibility only goes so far and doesn’t cover personal actions.

I will humbly say, as is my right as a lowly lay person within the Church, that some of the Holy Father’s actions in the name of ecumanism did lead many to embrace indifferentism…just as Pius XII and previous popes warned. This is just from real world experience, what I’ve witnessed talking with folks out there who seen things such as the Assisi deal, the pope getting insensed by witch doctors, putting on the Hindu third-eye thingamajig, kissing the Koran, etc. and came away thinking that it doesn’t matter what religion one professes. That’s religious indifferentism. Pains me to say it - but maybe someone’s got to. Only being honest here.

And your complaints are attached to practices, not the direct teaching? You have yet to demonstrate contradiction in teaching…and have only your opinion that “practice” is not consistent with teaching. I certainly disagree with your opinion…

Well, when one couples ambiguous documents with “unorthodox” practices - well, what do you think most of the rank and file folks are going to conclude the interpretation is from said documents? What side of the fence are they going to fall on? What side do you fall on?

No, it’s not. Pius XI condemned indifferentism and PAN-Christianity–trying to create a false unity apart from the authentic and true source of Christian unity–the Catholic Church…Pius did NOT condemn interreligious prayer or ecumenical prayer. Nor would he.

I’ve already addressed this - don’t think we need to keep going 'round in circles. Folks can just go read Mortalium Animos themselves if they are still undecided. It’s pretty darn clear in my humble opinion.

I’ll only add that you since you say interreligious prayer and ecumenical prayer is* not* PAN-Christianity, I have to ask…wouldn’t you agree that interreligious prayer and ecumencial prayer is at least a crucial and central part of “PAN-Christianity”?

DustinsDad

 

[DJim]

That’s just it…no other Council was quite like Vatican II. No other Council was called to “merely develop” themes and topics of already existing doctrine. And despite that intention, much of it appears on the surface to develop them quite contrary to what they had always been understood as. Quite perplexing.

You continue to speak with a forked tongue on this–you say there is no “formal error” in the Vatican II documents, yet much is superficially “quite contrary” to what came before. This is what I find so disturbing.

If it’s NOT a source of positive error, then quite treating it like it is!

Well that’s because the role of the Bible and the role of the Magestarium are quite different. The Magestarium role is to interpret - to make clear, to apply the Scripture AND Tradition AND previous Magesterial teachings to answer questions that pop up over time when it becomes necessary.

You dodged the issue–you continually claim that the documents themselves–the printed word–is so ambiguous as to draw people into error. You make that your chief criticism of the work of Vatican II.

I have pointed out that the same can be said about SCRIPTURE, and you ignore the issue entirely…

You are trying to hold Vatican II to a higher standard than that which applies to Scripture itself. Amazing.

They’ve always done this pretty darn clearly and consisely (a little to clearly and consisely it seems for some folks nowadays). But to call a Council merely to muse over theological questions for the sake of “opening up to the world” is quite novel in the history of the Church. The mere fact that like so many, you and I and others are here debating over what the Council actually meant demonstates this point precisely.

As I keep pointing out, you and I actually AGREE on what the Council “meant”…But you are saying that despite this meaning, people can get confused and therefore criticism of Vatican II is justified. THAT’s what we disagree on…

Looking at this from a strictly historical perspective, your point falls flat on its face. There was no such confusion over what Trent “meant”. You could agree with it or disagree with it, but what it meant was crystal clear. Same with the other Councils - aside from Vatican II. There is simply no evidence for this ludicrous position that Vatican II’s documents are the same as all the other Councils with the same ability to be misunderstood…the point is quite preposperous.

The point is quite accurate–go through the threads on this forum sometime and see how many people STILL struggle with the “meaning” of supposedly crystal clear teachings from previous popes and councils. In THIS very thread, people exhibit the inability to properly discern the meaning of papal documents they are quoting, recklessly applying them in an attempt to condemn the living Magisterium of the Church.

What’s the big deal - why are you so emotionally attached to this weak line of argument?

It’s not emotional attachment–it’s simple fact. Everything written or spoken is subject to misinterpretation. You are trying to hold one Council to a higher standard than everything else.

Yes, equal protection from formally teaching error.

Well, then we (again) agree that the Holy Spirit protects the teachings of Vatican II in the same way and at the same level as everything else…

I guess prior to this document you’d have been one of those folks claiming there is absolutely nothing confusing about using “subsists in” rather than “is”. Ah well, you probably still can’t quite grasp it.

Resorting to ad hominems now? Nice.

But, yes, I had no difficulties with the term “subsists”. One thing is clear, the Vatican today is doing a good job of responding to all the criticism heaped upon Vatican II and clarifying what was and is taught. I have no problem with that.

People who are genuinely confused should receive such clarifications. But you and I both know that many people have their own agendas and are not allowing the Magisterium to make clarifications. These folks are rather answering questions on their own, and doing so in erroneous fashion…that’s not the fault of Vatican II–that’s the fault of human pride.

DJim

 

[DJim]

Yes, stmaria didn’t quote the papal text in its entirety. But no - the “missing” portions don’t prove your point, they prove hers. And no, not quoting the text in its entirety was not dishonest on her part - in fact, seeing how the “missing” portions further demolish your position, it seems she may have been merciful to you by leaving them out.

Demolish my “position”??? Are you being serious??? What “position”? I offered the full text and articulated what the text referred to, and you agreed with my view of the text.

Stmaria (and now you) are contriving to have a text from 1928 that deals with 1928 issues somehow stand in condemnation of a later ecumenical council of the Church! It’s not only absurd but also offensive.

She attempted this by cherry-picking three sections of the text to leave us with the impression that the pope’s words directly contradicted the Decree on Ecumenism.

You seem to think this is okay, even after agreeing that the Pope was talking about very different things.

Please face it, you’re wrong on this. It is not possible to pit the words of Pius XI against the teaching of the Decree on Ecumenism. He condemned indifferentism and PAN-Christianity, among other things–things NOT taught by Vatican II.

DJim

 

[DesertBrother]

People who are genuinely confused should receive such clarifications. But you and I both know that many people have their own agendas and are not allowing the Magisterium to make clarifications. These folks are rather answering questions on their own, and doing so in erroneous fashion…that’s not the fault of Vatican II–that’s the fault of human pride.

DJim

I agree - It’s more likely that people who are already in error - whether ultra-progressive or ultra-traditionalist - find themselves able to confirm their errors by misinterpreting the documents of VII. The subtlety and openness of the language used in the documents allows them to read things that are not there. The language of Scripture is poetic and needs interpreting. The documents of VII use a similar poetic style and maybe over the years we will see more clarification.

 

[DustinsDad]

You continue to speak with a forked tongue on this–you say there is no “formal error” in the Vatican II documents, yet much is superficially “quite contrary” to what came before. This is what I find so disturbing.

Not teaching formal error does not mean it is impossible for the documents to be so ambiguous as to give that impression. that you find it disturbing is quite reasonable. So many others do as well.

By the way, “speaking with forked tounge” means lying. I don’t think you’re using that phrase, or the “strawman” phrase correctly. Perhaps you should refrain from using such phrases unless you really grasp their meanings.

I

f it’s NOT a source of positive error, then quite treating it like it is!

I’m treating them like ambiguous documents that can easily give the wrong impression.You seem to think the wrong impression is the right impression and are trying to bend all previous Church history into that wrong impression in order to make it all fit.

You dodged the issue–you continually claim that the documents themselves–the printed word–is so ambiguous as to draw people into error. You make that your chief criticism of the work of Vatican II.

Specifically addressing the issue is not dodgeing the issue.

I have pointed out that the same can be said about SCRIPTURE, and you ignore the issue entirely…

No I have not, I specifically answered this point by filliing you in on the fact that the role of Scripture and the role of official magisterial documents are different. Official magisterial documents, such as those coming from a Council, are specifically proposed to clarify.

And as an aside - Scripture and magisterial documents also differ in that Scripture is Divinely inspired, magisterial documents are only protected from formerly teaching error. There is a difference there too that you seem to have missed.

(continued…)

 

[DustinsDad]

You are trying to hold Vatican II to a higher standard than that which applies to Scripture itself.

Not a higher standard, a different standard perhaps. The living magesterium is there to clarify and to teach from Scripture, Apostolic Traditioni, and the constant teachings of the Catholic Church. In doing so, they are protected from formerly teaching error. If the living magistarium, as happened in Vatican II, did not formerly and officially teach error but falled very short on the “clarity” part of their function, that is merely the human side of the equation, not weakness and error on the part of the Holy Spirit.

As I keep pointing out, you and I actually AGREE on what the Council “meant”…

.

Nope. You seem to think the erroneous interpretations are correct - such as that protesants are just fine where they are since they are for the most part invincibly ignorant, they’d just be “better off” in the Catholic Church. I think the correct interpretations (the traditional interpretations) are correct, that protestants are not “just fine” where they are, that we can’t assume they are all invincibly ignorant, and that their souls are in eternal jeopardy by being outside the visible bonds of the Catholic Church, and that as such we shouldn’t just heap praises on them for those parts of the Truth they haven’t yet rejected, but should clearly and explicitly call them back home to Holy Mother Church for the very salvation of their souls. Because the fact is those elements of the Truth they have not yet rejected (no matter how much you praise and celebrate them and slap 'em on the back for still having them) are not enough to save them if they hold to other falsehoods that automatically forfeit their salvation.

That very attitude that they are all invincibly ignorant and are “just fine” is what has lead to religious indifference - just as previous (pre-VII) popes and councils have warned.

The point is quite accurate–go through the threads on this forum sometime and see how many people STILL struggle with the “meaning” of supposedly crystal clear teachings from previous popes and councils. In THIS very thread, people exhibit the inability to properly discern the meaning of papal documents they are quoting, recklessly applying them in an attempt to condemn the living Magisterium of the Church.

I see you struggle with the meaning of previous popes and councils. You seem to think pointing out the contradictions from yesteryear’s clear teachings from the erroneous interpretations easily given by current teachings is somehow “comdemning” the magisterium. I don’t. I think it’s the faithful’s rightful plea for the liviing magistarium to clarify these ambiguities. “Traditionalists” see the current situation, the vast ocean of religious indifference that has infiltrated the Church in the last 40 years, and cry out for the magistarium to help…it is their right:

“When there is an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, “Summa Theologica” II, II, q. 33, a. 4

It’s not emotional attachment–it’s simple fact. Everything written or spoken is subject to misinterpretation. You are trying to hold one Council to a higher standard than everything else.

Nope. Held to the same standard of clarity, VII falls short where previous Councils did not. Was anyone really confused about whether the Church believed it was the One True Church and the One True Religion and that all other “churches” and “religions” were false and not of God - no matter how many bits and pieces of the truth they happened to retain?

But, yes, I had no difficulties with the term “subsists”.

Well, neither did the liberals who interpreted it to mean that the Church is “bigger” than the Catholic Church. That protestants are in “some mysterious way” a part if it as well - despite the canons of Trent, etc. Sort of like the position you’ve been presenting.

One thing is clear, the Vatican today is doing a good job of responding to all the criticism heaped upon Vatican II and clarifying what was and is taught.

Well, Pope Benedict is starting it…little by little. Deo Gratias.

But you and I both know that many people have their own agendas and are not allowing the Magisterium to make clarifications.

That doesn’t even make sense.

More to come later, I’ll respond to the mish-mash of earlier posts…gotta go to work now.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DJim]

Not teaching formal error does not mean it is impossible for the documents to be so ambiguous as to give that impression. that you find it disturbing is quite reasonable. So many others do as well.

You are continuing to propose two contradictory positions–the documents are completely free from formal error, you say, BUT they are to be criticized for making people believe formal error.

By the way, “speaking with forked tounge” means lying. I don’t think you’re using that phrase, or the “strawman” phrase correctly. Perhaps you should refrain from using such phrases unless you really grasp their meanings.

I think “forked tongue” is an appropriate description of one who speaks two conflicting viewpoints at the same time…I’m not accusing you of lying, though the expression can mean that, it is not limited to that accusation…And “straw man”? I defined it for you and use it accordingly.

I’m treating them like ambiguous documents that can easily give the wrong impression.You seem to think the wrong impression is the right impression and are trying to bend all previous Church history into that wrong impression in order to make it all fit.

Clarify your point–state clearly (since ambiguity is vexing to you) what the “wrong impression” is. Define it.

THEN state clearly what the “right impression” is. Define that.

Then, let’s compare everything I’ve said to your definitions and see if your characterization is correct.

Please try to make your definitions as clear as you would have hoped from the Vatican II Fathers. No ambiguity.

No I have not, I specifically answered this point by filliing you in on the fact that the role of Scripture and the role of official magisterial documents are different. Official magisterial documents, such as those coming from a Council, are specifically proposed to clarify.

Oh NOW I get it–Scripture is supposed to befuddle and the Magisterium is supposed to clarify. Is that it?

And as an aside - Scripture and magisterial documents also differ in that Scripture is Divinely inspired, magisterial documents are only protected from formerly teaching error. There is a difference there too that you seem to have missed.

Ironically, you keep making my point for me–that divinely inspired Scripture is so ambiguous that it requires the Magisterium to “clarify” its meaning. That’s my whole point in comparing the two–you will vilify the work of Vatican II on the basis of “ambiguity” and not admit the fact that all teaching documents–even inspired Scripture–have ambiguity.

DJim

 

[DJim]

…If the living magistarium, as happened in Vatican II, did not formerly and officially teach error but falled very short on the “clarity” part of their function, that is merely the human side of the equation, not weakness and error on the part of the Holy Spirit.

Please explain–how is it that the Holy Spirit’s protection afforded the Magisterium greater “clarity” all the way until Vatican II and then couldn’t quite sustain that clarity?

Or is “clarity of teaching” NOT under the protection of the Holy Spirit? Is “clarity of teaching” a purely human category?

Ironically, you need to be more clear on this point…

Nope. You seem to think the erroneous interpretations are correct - such as that protesants are just fine where they are since they are for the most part invincibly ignorant, they’d just be “better off” in the Catholic Church.

I’m really getting tired of your baseless characterization of what I supposedly “think”. Put your money where your mouth is, please: show me where I’ve ever said protestants are “just fine where they are”–if you can’t, then please apologize for mischaracterizing my view.

I think the correct interpretations (the traditional interpretations) are correct, that protestants are not “just fine” where they are, that we can’t assume they are all invincibly ignorant, and that their souls are in eternal jeopardy by being outside the visible bonds of the Catholic Church,

Show me. Show me where the Decree denies anything you have said above. The Decree does not say Protestants are just fine, does not say we can assume all are invincibly ignorant, does not say that souls are not in eternal jeopardy when outside the visible bonds of the Church…

STRAW MAN. You prop up a scarecrow and then attack “him” to
(supposedly) show the “strength” of your position…

Because the fact is those elements of the Truth they have not yet rejected (no matter how much you praise and celebrate them and slap 'em on the back for still having them) are not enough to save them if they hold to other falsehoods that automatically forfeit their salvation.

No one says they are. The same holds true for Catholics, btw…it’s that way for any member of the Mystical Body of Christ.

That very attitude that they are all invincibly ignorant and are “just fine” is what has lead to religious indifference - just as previous (pre-VII) popes and councils have warned.

Perhaps if you quit putting words in the mouths of the Vatican II Fathers, you’ll see your error–the error being that, in fact, it is you who are responsible for imposing false interpretations upon clear teaching…

I see you struggle with the meaning of previous popes and councils. You seem to think pointing out the contradictions from yesteryear’s clear teachings from the erroneous interpretations easily given by current teachings is somehow “comdemning” the magisterium. I don’t.

Actually, the act of claiming contradiction between Magisterial teachings is anathematized by Vatican One. Which is why I don’t understand why or how you can keep doing it…

I think it’s the faithful’s rightful plea for the liviing magistarium to clarify these ambiguities. “Traditionalists” see the current situation, the vast ocean of religious indifference that has infiltrated the Church in the last 40 years, and cry out for the magistarium to help…it is their right:

The living Magisterium did clarify the ambiguities of previous teaching. Vatican II was the clarification. Now, I agree that if people are still struggling to understand the authentic teaching as expressed by Vatican II, it is their right to seek more clarity. BUT, if people merely want the “living Magisterium” to reverse what was clarified in Vatican II, they will be gravely disappointed.

Nope. Held to the same standard of clarity, VII falls short where previous Councils did not. Was anyone really confused about whether the Church believed it was the One True Church and the One True Religion and that all other “churches” and “religions” were false and not of God - no matter how many bits and pieces of the truth they happened to retain?

By this standard, then, I presume you believe that the schismatic Society of St. Pius X is “false and not of God”–right?

Your statement is a two-edged sword, isn’t it?

That protestants are in “some mysterious way” a part if it as well - despite the canons of Trent, etc. Sort of like the position you’ve been presenting.

Everything I have presented regarding Church membership YOU have agreed with. Be careful…

DJim

 

[DustinsDad]

Okay, found time to sqeeze in a few more. Here goes…

…See the part underlined above–isn’t THAT what is taught in the documents of Vatican II?

Here’s the underlined part you refer to…There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
(QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE, cf7, Pope Pius IX, 1863)

Now let’s look at the crucial part of Lumen Gentium that deals with non-Catholic Christians…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.
(LUMEN GENTIUM, 15, Vatican II, November 21, 1964)

Now if you assume that all of these people described in this paragraph are the people described in Pius IX’s letter (the invincibly ignorant really struggling to do God’s will and ignorant of the Church through no fault of their own), it holds no formal error. In fact, that is the only way to read it without it containing formal error. Unfortunately, the document here doesn’t even mention invincible ignorance as a crucial part of the formula for their being “linked” with the Church - that’s precisely why it’s ambiguous - you can read it and figure that all protestants are thus “linked” - when such is not the case in light of Apostolic Tradition.

(continued below…)

 

[DustinsDad]

(continued from above…)

It’s certainly a difficult preposition to assume that all or even most protestants are thus invincibly ignorant when reading the rest of Pius IX’s letter - namely paragraph 8, -"Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom “the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.”[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: “If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;”[5] “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;”…(QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE, cf 8, Pope Pius IX, 1863)

Also, in Pius’s letter paragraph 9, he states emphatically what the Church should be doing in regards to those outside of her visible bonds- “First of all,** let them rescue them from the darkness of the errors into which they have unhappily fallen and strive to guide them back to Catholic truth** and to their most loving Mother who is ever holding out her maternal arms to receive them lovingly back into her fold. Thus, firmly founded in faith, hope, and charity and fruitful in every good work, they will gain eternal salvation.”

(QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE, cf 9, Pope Pius IX, 1863)
And I’m sorry, but I don’t see a really clear direct effort to rescue non-Catholic Christians from the darkness of their errors and back to the Church for the salvation of their souls in Lumen Gentium. Just a sort of vague call to Christian unity, but not explicitally stating that Catholic Christians need to come back to this unity - the Catholic Church - for the sake of their own souls’ salvation.

Now all of this doesn’t make Lumen Gentium heretical - just ambiguous and confusing. You’ve really got to do some serious plugging in of Apostolic Tradition to make it work. It ain’t easy, but it can be done.

Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

You are continuing to propose two contradictory positions–the documents are completely free from formal error, you say, BUT they are to be criticized for making people believe formal error.

Those are not contradictory positions. They can be free from formal error, but be so ambiguous as to give that impression.

Let’s see here, how to give the example:

Formal error: It does not matter whether a non-Catholic Christian rejects the pope, the Eucharist, the Sacrament of Confession, the One Holy Catholic Church, etc, that they can be saved simply by virute of a valid baptism - subsequent acceptance of condemned and heretical teachings matter not in regards to the salvation of their souls.

Ambiguous statement: Non-Catholic Christians “shouldn’t” reject the pope, the Eucharist, the Sacrament of Confession, the One Holy Catholic Church, etc, but nonetheless, many sanctifying elements are still “there” and they can be saved simply by virute of their valid baptism which makes them a part of the Church.

What makes this latter statement contain no formal error yet ambiguous?

• failure to mention the validly baptized non-Catholic Christian’s soul is in jeopardy for rejection of Holy Mother Church, for their clinging to heresies condemned by Holy Mother Church,
• not mentioning the normative necessity of the Sacraments which said non-Catholic Christians reject,
• the lack of highlighting in detail the eternally crucial role of invincible ignorance,
• and the lack of addressing the responsibility on the part of the Christian to investigate the Church and respond accordingly.
  These all amount to making this statement confusing and seemingly contradictory of previous Church teachings, and can lead to religious indifference.

Ambiguous statements such as this can lead to something you seem to propose - that to be cut off from the Church, there is some newly discovered “requirement” that the Christian has to really really really understand and believe in the One True Faith and then and only then subsequently reject it. Which amounts to creating a new doctrine of “There is no salvation outside the Church unless you aren’t entirely convinced there is no salvation outside the Church.”

This whole concept of, “Well you have really really really know and really really really understand that the Church is the One True Church and then reject it for ‘Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus’ to apply” is ridiculous.

None of the canons of Trent nor the Encyclicals of past popes made any such broad disclaimers or nuances - much less make the disclaimers and nuances the central message. Trying to “soften” the message of the Gospel so as not offend those outside of Her isn’t doing anybody any good - and it’s certainly not doing anything for building up of the Church.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DJim]

Now if you assume that all of these people described in this paragraph are the people described in Pius IX’s letter (the invincibly ignorant really struggling to do God’s will and ignorant of the Church through no fault of their own), it holds no formal error. In fact, that is the only way to read it without it containing formal error. Unfortunately, the document here doesn’t even mention invincible ignorance as a crucial part of the formula for their being “linked” with the Church - that’s precisely why it’s ambiguous - you can read it and figure that all protestants are thus “linked” - when such is not the case in light of Apostolic Tradition. (continued below…)

But Lumen Gentium 15 is not addressing the same thing addressed by the papal text. LG 15 is NOT addressing the question of salvation at all. It is acknowledging an existing link via the true elements present in these other groups, AND exhorting all to unity.

Pius IX is reflecting on the question of salvation. LG 15 is NOT.

DJim

 

[DJim]

It’s certainly a difficult preposition to assume that all or even most protestants are thus invincibly ignorant when reading the rest of Pius IX’s letter - namely paragraph 8,

But LG 15 was NOT assuming invincible ignorance–as you noted, the term is NOT THERE. It’s not there because that’s not the topic! Not because it’s “ambiguous”!

The topic involves the acknowledgment that the truthful elements found in other Christian denominations do indeed create a link betwee “us” and “them”–and that this link is a reason to hope and pray diligently for the unity we are all called to.

Why you would think Pius IX’s text has any direct bearing upon LG 15 is beyond me…nothing in LG 15 contradicts what Pius teaches…

And I’m sorry, but I don’t see a really clear direct effort to rescue non-Catholic Christians from the darkness of their errors and back to the Church for the salvation of their souls in Lumen Gentium. Just a sort of vague call to Christian unity, but not explicitally stating that Catholic Christians need to come back to this unity - the Catholic Church - for the sake of their own souls’ salvation.

But that wasn’t the point of the text! The text is a reflection of what the Church understands about itself, remember??? It’s the “Dogmatic Constitution on the CHURCH”. It’s not a treatise on what Protestants had better do to save their souls…

No, the Church is making an acknowledgment about her/our understanding of who she is–that there really is a tangible link with Protestants through the truths we still hold in common. It is upon that link that our best hope for unity arises.

Now all of this doesn’t make Lumen Gentium heretical - just ambiguous and confusing. You’ve really got to do some serious plugging in of Apostolic Tradition to make it work. It ain’t easy, but it can be done.

DustinDad, what you are doing is the equivalent of trying to “reconcile” something like “Macbeth” with “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”–the whole reason it’s “ambigous and confusing” to do so is because they’re really NOT talking about the same thing! Same author, different topic.

Similarly, Pius IX may be speaking of Protestants and salvation, but LG 15 is speaking of the Church and the common truths that provide a basis for hope for future unity.

DJim

 

[DJim]

Ambiguous statements such as this can lead to something you seem to propose - that to be cut off from the Church, there is some newly discovered “requirement” that the Christian has to really really really understand and believe in the One True Faith and then and only then subsequently reject it.

You said it–SEEM to propose–but do NOT propose.

Do you know the meaning of “invincible ignorance”?

Which amounts to creating a new doctrine of “There is no salvation outside the Church unless you aren’t entirely convinced there is no salvation outside the Church.”

You “seem” to be referring to the fact that, in order for someone to be “relieved” of invincible ignorance, they must first postively receive valid information. Do you deny this?

Am I wrong to assert that a member of the Mystical Body of Christ must culpably reject the faith to be severed from that Body?

This whole concept of, “Well you have really really really know and really really really understand that the Church is the One True Church and then reject it for ‘Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus’ to apply” is ridiculous.

Is it now? How else can one reject something culpably?

Test case: A 12-year-old Baptist boy, validly baptized, has been taught by Mom and Dad that the Church of Rome is the “whore of Babylon” and has never heard the truth about Roman Catholicism. He dies of cancer at age 13.

Is he damned for all eternity?

Can’t wait to hear your response…

DJim

 

[DustinsDad]

But LG 15 was NOT assuming invincible ignorance–as you noted, the term is NOT THERE. It’s not there because that’s not the topic! Not because it’s “ambiguous”!

Lumen Gentium here states that - “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.”

The only way they can be joined with us in the Holy Spirit is if they are not cut off from the mystical body of Christ, the Church. The only way this is possible is if they are outside the Church be reason of invincible ignorance, etc. This document - as you readily admit - does not make that distinction.

Further, “sanctifying power” is the power to make holy - to infuse sanctifying grace - which is to say, grant salvation. The only way this is possible for those outside the visible bonds of Holy Mother Church is if they are in a state of invincible ignorance, etc. Which again, as you admit, the document leaves out. It is thus, ambiguous. My point made yet again.

It’s the “Dogmatic Constitution on the CHURCH”. It’s not a treatise on what Protestants had better do to save their souls…

If all Protestants (which is the impression given, as you admit above) are joined with us “in some real way…in the Holy Spirit”, as the document says, then it is discussing salvation (salvation being the purpose of the Church Christ founded of course and the whole point of the Holy Spirit sanctifying through Her).

Why you would think Pius IX’s text has any direct bearing upon LG 15 is beyond me…nothing in LG 15 contradicts what Pius teaches…

It speaks not only of common truths shared - but in some way in the life in the Holy Spirit…the latter can only be the case of invincible ignorance, etc. Not mentioning it is ambiguous and can lead many to believe that religion doesn’t matter any more and that paragraph 8 of QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE has been, well, changed.

I mean after all, if we’re all connected in the same Holy Spirit, then what’s the big deal? See what you’re erroneous conclusions of ambiguous documents can lead to! :tsktsk:

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad