Vatican II changes things?

[una_fides]

That is essentially non-responsive to the question. Given that Pius 12th pulled Father Feeney’s chain prior to Vatican 2 even being a wild thought, it should be clear that the Church did not hold to Feeney’s position that one had to be a visible memeber of the Church.

Therefore, the question stands: how has the Church officially defined the terms “subject to” the pope as per your quote that people had to be subject to him.
Your number 11 has to do with people who are already Catholics, and rebel; it does not answer the question of those who may be members through baptism and nothing more directly distinct.

I explained earlier that Fr. Feeney taught that only those who were baptized with water could be saved. He denied baptism of blood and desire. A catechumen is not yet a member of the Church because he is only preparing for baptism. However, he can be saved through his desire for baptism. A pagan who sees a Christian martyred for his faith and is converted and then is killed for proclaiming the same faith would be baptized by blood. Both of these baptisms acknowledge submission to the Pope as the head of the visible Church.
The question is whether one can be a member of the Church through an unconscious desire or whether this unconsciuos desire must become conscious at some point before the person dies. Either way, there is and can be no salvation outside the Church. If anyone does not have Church as mother, he cannot have God as his Father (St. Augustine).

 

[una_fides]

I’m open to the possibility (particularly as I’ve already admitted I don’t know for sure if the Church teaching at Florence is considered by the Church to have been taught infallibly).

Look at these words, Catechism para 846 ff. vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

To me, that’s not saying the same thing as the Council of Florence. Isn’t it saying the salvation is possible for those not part of the Church? If you think it is can you help me understand? If you think it’s not…then is the Church wrong?

It can’t possibly be saying that salvation is possible for anyone outside of the Church. Otherwise, it would clearly contradict prior infallible teachings. There is no salvation outside the Church. If anyone is saved who is invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith, cooperating with grace, and not guilty of any deliberate sin, following the natural law, having perfect charity for God, etc, he could only be saved IN the Church and not outside of it. Such a person would potentially be saved through their desire for baptism and as such would be placed into the Church. To illustrate, imagine a catechumen who was about to become a catechumen but just didn’t have the opportunity to tell anyone yet.

Regarding the “elements of salvation,” I recall one likening them to having “elements of a car.” You can have a steering wheel, a tire, a door, and a fuel tank, but without the rest of the parts of the car, you don’t have a car. Thus, someone who is still outside the Church with these “elements” still needs to be united into the fullness of salvation only found for those completely untied into the Church, for outside the Church there is no salvation.

If we understand Vatican II as stating everything in the most positive light and not focusing on the negative aspects of other religions, then it can make more sense when we complete the teachings of Vatican II by combining them with the negative aspects also emphasized prior to the Council. For example, in these “separated communities” (aka heretical sects), there are both “elements of salvation” as well as elements of damnation (i.e. heretical teachings such as sola fide, “once saved always saved,” anti-Catholic teachings, etc). Furthermore, the person outside the Church has an obligation to enter the Catholic Church as does every human creature. If such a person is invincibly ignorant of such an obligation, then the good elements in his community can be of help to him in coming to the truth and cooperating with grace. Nevertheless, the bad and deadly elements present in this same heretical sect if competely and obstinatnly accepted can lead to the person’s downfall and ultimate rejection of the truth when it is encountered.

I think the Church today is over-emphasizing the good aspects in the name of ecumenism so as to 1) not offend and further isolate protestants, etc, and 2) make the message softer and easier for them to accept. That said, I think the fruits have produced much indifferentism as well as a great degree of confusion as we’ve been experiencing here on this thread for example. I’m still trying to reconcile the two teachings, but I think I’m coming a lot closer after giving them a lot of thought.

 

[una_fides]

I agree. The catechism contradicts the Council of Florence.

This is only my opinion. You, I, the Church and all sincere Christians all struggle with the subject of who will go to heaven and who will not. I believe that the Popes did what was right for the circumstances at the time with the information they had. Infants who were not baptized were placed in limbo. Victims of suicide were condemned to hell. Anyone who left the Church had to come back or go to hell. All these hard line judgements changed and the Church has become more merciful. That is a work of God in all of us. He desires mercy.

Was the Church wrong? I think so. If you claim infallibility then you can’t change your position. I think they are wrong for claiming to be infallible. Someone started that in the 1800’s and now every Pope has to live up to it. As I stated before it’s only my opinion. I’m not the Pope.

Can you please tell me where you find the teachings of the Church that she is NOT infallible? Infallibility is not a new or recent teaching. It is found as early as the Gospels themselves, as Vatican I rightly pointed out. The Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). Christ prayed for Peter that his faith would not fail. To Peter alone was given the keys of authority to the kingdom of heaven, and he was promised that whatsoever he bound on earth would be bound in heaven (Mat 16:18-19). If you believe the Church got it wrong on infallibility, then there would be no reason to accept the Church’s teachings on the Assumption, as there is not a lot of historical evidence in support and the early Church did not hold this dogma as a requirement to be believed (at least not in our surviving writings). If the Church was wrong on that, why not about purgatory, praying to the saints, the immaculate conception, or other teachings? How do you know the Church got her interpretations of Scripture correct concerning that Scripture is inerrant in its teachings of faith? And if so, then why continue to believe in the Virgin Birth, Resurrection, or the Trinity? Furthermore, why would you trust her that she properly compiled the books of Scripture in the first place?! How do you know the books in the Bible are truly the Word of God? Without an outside source to authoritatively compile and preserve them, you have nothing else but your own opinion.

Lastly, the Church has authoritatively said in numerous General Councils that if you claim to be Catholic you must accept the whole of the Catholic faith as the Catholic Church teaches. If you reject as much as one dogma of the faith (including infallibility) that places one outside of Communion with the Church by this very denial of faith until he recants and confesses such lack of faith in order to enter back into full communion with the Church. I am saying these things so you realize the seriousness of such a claim. The Church recently stated that there are three legs on which the Church stands, all of which are necessary: Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. Without the Magisterium, the Catholic Church is no longer who she claims to be, and you then become the arbiter of truth. In the garden of Eden, the serpent posed a similar proposition to Eve: that she would be made like God. I hope you are able to recognize the teachings of the evil one and in response cling to Christ and to his Church and her teachings.

I will leave you with the Catholic prayer of the Act of Faith:

“O my God, I firmly believe that You are one God in three Divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; I believe that Your Divine Son became man and died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe that these and all truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because You have revealed them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. Amen.”

 

[una_fides]

*I agree. *The catechism contradicts the Council of Florence.
This is only my opinion. …

I’m at the point where I’m saying that perhaps it is just your understanding of the Council of Florence that contradicts the catechism and your understanding of the catechism that contradicts Florence. We can’t presume to have all knowledge. Let’s continue to try to reconcile them. Shall we…

 

[una_fides]

Are you saying that the early Christians (first 100 years) were taught everything mentioned above by kprobson? Did they have nuns,brothers, monks, priestly celibacy, the rosary and mass on Sunday in a Roman Catholic Church? Do you think they would qualify as being Catholic by what we know today about being Catholic?

The early Christians were most certainly Catholic just as Catholics today are Catholic. The difference between the Church then and 2000 years later is that she was not founded as a statue but as a living organism that grows and develops. You must distinguish dogmas from customs and practices. The roots of priestly celibacy can be found in Scripture (1 Cor 7); however, the mandate that Catholic priests must be celibate is a disciplinary practice and can change and has changed throughout the Church’s history. The rosary is a set of prayers and meditations that were given to the Church by Our Lady later in her history. When you pray the rosary you are effectively praying the gospel. You are meditating on the gospel of Jesus and the words from the prayers of the rosary are derived from Scripture.
Luke 1: 28 “And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail,[Mary] full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women” 42 And she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb [Jesus]." Sound familiar??
The early Church most certainly had Mass on Sundays from her onset. The priesthood was established when Christ said “do this in memory of me.” Since then, the bishops have been carrying on the apostolic Tradition of offering the sacrifice of Calvary at every Mass. To Christ it is said in Hebrews that He is a priest forever after the order of Melchisidek, who was an Old Testament priest who offered bread and wine. When Jesus offered bread and wine, he said “This IS My Body” and “This IS My Blood.” Hence, the first Mass was on Holy Thursday, and the apostles continued this Mass throughout her history. The prayers were developed throughout the centuries to more accurately reflect the realities and theology of the Church entrusted to her and preserved by Christ, who promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against his Bride the Church.
Your notion seems to be that the apostles and their successors were not Catholic or that they were not a part of the same Church that we are today or that somehow the Church changed drastically to the point where they would not recognize it or accept it today. Such teachings could not be further from the truth. The disciples of the apostles upheld the necessity to be subject to the bishops as one is subject to Christ himself (St. Ignatius of Antioch in 110 AD). I could post quotes from the early Church fathers all day, but ultimately it’s up to you to accept the Church and her teachings or to reject them. Those who choose to accept the teachings of the Church are Catholic and those who reject them (or even one) are not. You cannot have it your own way. The Church belongs to Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

 

[kprobson]

I, too, question the infallibility of the pope. Didn’t the papacy move to Avignon, France from Rome because of all the corruption of past popes and other clergy? Didn’t popes have “relations” with women in the past (recall famous daughter, Lucretia)? What about the whole Inquisition period? And how about when the popes “acquired” artwork and property from “sinners” simply because he wanted what the person had?

Tell me that the decisions of these popes were all constantly under the direction of our Lord and Savior. Tell me how the acts stated above prove infallibility of the popes’ decisions.

 

[una_fides]

I, too, question the infallibility of the pope. Didn’t the papacy move to Avignon, France from Rome because of all the corruption of past popes and other clergy? Didn’t popes have “relations” with women in the past (recall famous daughter, Lucretia)? What about the whole Inquisition period? And how about when the popes “acquired” artwork and property from “sinners” simply because he wanted what the person had?

Tell me that the decisions of these popes were all constantly under the direction of our Lord and Savior. Tell me how the acts stated above prove infallibility of the popes’ decisions.

You misunderstand what is meant by papal infallibility. There are certain special conditions for the pope to be able to teach infallibly; otherwise, as a private theologian, the pope is still non-infallible and can teach and believe errors. Infallibility also only applies to matters of the Church’s teachings on faith and morals and does not apply to the pope’s morality. A pope could be an extremely sinful person morally speaking, but that would not hinder or make void Christ’s promise to Peter that whatsoever he authoritatively binds will be bound concerning the deposit of revelation, which is pertaining to faith and morals. Popes are infallible, which means they cannot teach error regarding faith and morals when intending to bind all the faithful and speaking as the universal shepherd of the Church, but they are not impeccable, which would mean they could not sin. Only Christ was arguably impeccable. Popes are not. Popes sin. That does not change the nature of infallibility. I suggest reading “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” by Karl Keating, chapter 18, which is on the infallibility of the pope. You can read it online for free here: books.google.com/books?id=FlWAI0JeRcsC&dq=catholicism+and+fundamentalism+karl+keating&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=KXYNSqjqN4mmM_jAhbQG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA215,M1

Hope this helps.

 

[kprobson]

So, the whole “Do As I Say, Not As I Do” goes into effect? What about leading by example? If the pope commits adultery does he not teach his flock that it’s okay to do so? This is not moral teaching.

And the Inquisition was in the name of Heaven. However, John Paul II apologized for it. This indicates that the past actions and teachings were not, in fact, infallible.

 

[Spirithound]

I, too, question the infallibility of the pope. Didn’t the papacy move to Avignon, France from Rome because of all the corruption of past popes and other clergy? Didn’t popes have “relations” with women in the past (recall famous daughter, Lucretia)? What about the whole Inquisition period? And how about when the popes “acquired” artwork and property from “sinners” simply because he wanted what the person had?

Tell me that the decisions of these popes were all constantly under the direction of our Lord and Savior. Tell me how the acts stated above prove infallibility of the popes’ decisions.

So, the whole “Do As I Say, Not As I Do” goes into effect? What about leading by example? If the pope commits adultery does he not teach his flock that it’s okay to do so? This is not moral teaching.

And the Inquisition was in the name of Heaven. However, John Paul II apologized for it. This indicates that the past actions and teachings were not, in fact, infallible.

You are thinking of impeccability, not infallibility. The Pope is not impeccable.
And yes, it is precisely “do as I say, not as I do”. Jesus even said that with respect to the Pharisees. They were sinners and hypocrites, yet they sat in Moses’ chair.

 

[ron77nyc]

So, the whole “Do As I Say, Not As I Do” goes into effect? What about leading by example? If the pope commits adultery does he not teach his flock that it’s okay to do so? This is not moral teaching.

And the Inquisition was in the name of Heaven. However, John Paul II apologized for it. This indicates that the past actions and teachings were not, in fact, infallible.

You are thinking of impeccability, not infallibility. The Pope is not impeccable.
And yes, it is precisely “do as I say, not as I do”. Jesus even said that with respect to the Pharisees. They were sinners and hypocrites, yet they sat in Moses’ chair.

They already have that one figured out. Infallible------impeccable-----that was easy.
I think they fine tuned the definition after the Galileo incident.

It is also said that if a Pope doesn’t teach anything or he neglects to teach something , he is also infallible.

catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as “truth” something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it “inspire” him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.
Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won’t “neglect” to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made. It would be nice if he were omniscient or impeccable, but his not being so will fail to bring about the destruction of the Church.

 

[diggerdomer]

I agree. The catechism contradicts the Council of Florence.

You don’t agree with me if you think the Catechism contradicts the Council of Florence.

Knowing that you do, though, helps me understand where you’re coming from.

I think they are wrong for claiming to be infallible. .

I accept the Church’s teaching on infallibility. Guess that’s another disagreement we have.

 

[diggerdomer]

It can’t possibly be saying that salvation is possible for anyone outside of the Church. Otherwise, it would clearly contradict prior infallible teachings.

Are we reading the same Catechism? Seriously, you think para 847 is NOT saying that salvation is possible to those outside the Church? If that’s what you think, then please explain to me what it’s saying?

And I certainly do not think anything in the Catechism contradicts any infallible teaching. To me that would be a case of the Church contradicting Herself.

All Salvation comes from Christ.

 

[diggerdomer]

So, the whole “Do As I Say, Not As I Do” goes into effect? What about leading by example? If the pope commits adultery does he not teach his flock that it’s okay to do so? This is not moral teaching.

And the Inquisition was in the name of Heaven. However, John Paul II apologized for it. This indicates that the past actions and teachings were not, in fact, infallible.

Popes sin (as we all do). That does not mean they are teaching anyone that sin is ok. That example of adultery simply does not work.

I think you’re also neglecting the part of the teaching that clarifies infallibility is a gift to the Church, exercised by the Church. It’s not just about the Pope individually. It’s a charism of the teaching authority of the Church, the Magisterium.

 

[ron77nyc]

Lastly, the Church has authoritatively said in numerous General Councils that if you claim to be Catholic you must accept the whole of the Catholic faith as the Catholic Church teaches. If you reject as much as one dogma of the faith (including infallibility) that places one outside of Communion with the Church by this very denial of faith until he recants and confesses such lack of faith in order to enter back into full communion with the Church. I am saying these things so you realize the seriousness of such a claim. The Church recently stated that there are three legs on which the Church stands, all of which are necessary: Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. Without the Magisterium, the Catholic Church is no longer who she claims to be, and you then become the arbiter of truth. In the garden of Eden, the serpent posed a similar proposition to Eve: that she would be made like God. I hope you are able to recognize the teachings of the evil one and in response cling to Christ and to his Church and her teachings.

I will leave you with the Catholic prayer of the Act of Faith:

“O my God, I firmly believe that You are one God in three Divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; I believe that Your Divine Son became man and died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe that these and all truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because You have revealed them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. Amen.”

Thank you for that prayer. I wasn’t aware that it existed. I believe everything in the Apostles Creed but I have trouble accepting contradictions. I’d rather be honest and say I don’t believe something than say I do when I don’t. If you’re comparing me to Eve and think I’m being influenced by Satan that is a very serious accusation. My doubts are common to many Catholics. You can’t condemn someone in the Church for not accepting the teachings 100% and then say that those outside the Church can be saved by the small amount of truth they have received.

 

[ncjohn]

Without the Magisterium, the Catholic Church is no longer who she claims to be, and you then become the arbiter of truth.

And to me, the problem is that this is what is so prevalent in so much of traditionalism.

The documents of Vatican II state clearly that they do not contradict any previous teaching, and often refer to the previous teachings, both in the body of the documents and in the footnotes.

The Church, through its Magisterium, has repeatedly stated that there is no contradiction between the documents and previous documents.

Yet many traditionalists here continue on this road of stating that they are in fact in contradiction. The fact that you accuse diggerdomer of denying things while making the argument that the Magisterium is erring in saying that there are no contradicitons would seem to be more than a bit of irony.

Is the Church the only and ultimate authority for interpreting its teachings or not? That has been a clear and consistent teaching of the Church and a basis on which traditionalists rely to quote all the past documents they quote. It is up to the Church to determine whether all of those were in fact infallible statements, and whether there is contradiction or clarification within them, and then for us to accept. We can certainly study them, and question them so as to come to a clearer understanding, but WE don’t get to proclaim contradictions.

I just really have a hard time understanding the position of condemning those of us who accept the teaching authority of the Church, and the statements it has made, while claiming to be “traditional”. To do so, in my mind, can only mean that one believes that the Popes are not really Popes and the Church has actually lapsed in heresy, the sedevacantist position. Can you explain how one can claim that there are contradictions in documents of an ecumenical council but still be in communion with the Church as it currently exists? It just really makes it hard to understand how to carry on a dialogue without understanding that basic premise of where someone is coming from.

Or maybe I’m just totally missing something in the postion.

Peace,

 

[una_fides]

So, the whole “Do As I Say, Not As I Do” goes into effect? What about leading by example? If the pope commits adultery does he not teach his flock that it’s okay to do so? This is not moral teaching.

And the Inquisition was in the name of Heaven. However, John Paul II apologized for it. This indicates that the past actions and teachings were not, in fact, infallible.

I agree that those actions were not infallible, and the Church does not claim they were infallible either! Papal infallibility only applies to certain conditions. You’ve got to distinguish between teachings and actions. The pope is not impeccable and is not infallible except in certain conditions that are rarely met. Please read the book I suggested: “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” by Karl Keating. He answers these questions on infallibility and also has a chapter on the Inquisition as well.

 

[una_fides]

Are we reading the same Catechism? Seriously, you think para 847 is NOT saying that salvation is possible to those outside the Church? If that’s what you think, then please explain to me what it’s saying?

And I certainly do not think anything in the Catechism contradicts any infallible teaching. To me that would be a case of the Church contradicting Herself.

All Salvation comes from Christ.

Let me finish your last statement. “All salvation comes from Christ” through his Body, the Church.

“One indeed is the universal Church of the Faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved.” IV Lateran Council 1215. Pope Innocent III ex Cathedra. fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html

The same Catholic Church that published the modern Catechism unquestionably teaches that dogmatic declarations from General Councils, such as the one above, are undoubtedly infallible and irreformable (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 25). The same Church teaches that catechisms, though they are authoritative, are not infallible. Statements from Vatican II absolutely must and can only be understood in light of the constant teaching of the Church.

Bearing that in mind, one must therefore start with the understanding that only those inside the Church can be saved. “No one at all” is saved outside the Catholic Church as the infallible decree above states. In my next post I will apply this truth when reading the vague and positiviely formulated statements from the current catechsim.

…

 

[una_fides]

816 "The sole Church of Christ is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it.

…"For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."268…
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
…
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know [have knowledge of] Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

The wording implored in the catechism passage above is quite vague, and is formulated in the most positive way possible almost to the exclusion of anything negative. As a result it easily can lead to opinions that differ from the Traditional and infallible teachings of the Church.

A few things must be clarified. First, those invincibly ignorant can only be saved through the Church, and before their death they must be placed within her through a desire motivated by perfect charity. Hence, they may seem to be outside the Church, but in reality, such people could be saved *within *the Church through their desire. Paragraph 848 is important because it states that God leads those invincibly ignorant to the faith that pleases him. This statement can be understood to mean that at some point before death such a person could cease to be invincibly ignorant and be saved as an implicit Catholic though not baptized with water yet truly baptized by desire. There is also the opinion that if they were not given some special revelation before death that such persons would have accepted the gospel message had it been made known to them because of their openness and cooperation with the available grace. In 847, the passage does not say such people will attain eternal salvation but that they may or in other words they could potentially be saved, but there is no guarantee that any will.

Regarding 819 and the phrase “means of salvation,” this statement can only be understood that the way these “ecclesial communities” are “means of salvation” is by bringing people to the Catholic Church. Hence the phrase that they are “calls to unity” or stated elsewhere they “impel towards Catholic unity” is significant in that they bring salvation to people by placing them inside the Catholic Church through water baptism, which infuses into the soul the life of faith, hope, and charity. For those who continue in those seperated faiths and through absolutely no fault of their own are not Catholic (meaning no reasons of pride, obstinacy, etc), then they could potentially be saved.

I believe that these statements are thus reconcilable with prior teachings, but that they are not necessarily the complete message. I believe that such people who at no time were at fault for not joining the Church *and *who live a life of grace and have perfect charity for God and perfect contrition for any sins committed, and who are open to God and the leading of his grace, would still at some point be made known of the Church before death and have a chance to enter it at least through desire. Those conditions I believe seem to reconcile well with Traditional Catholic dogmas and her infallible teachings.

I now stand ready for cross examination.

 

[una_fides]

And to me, the problem is that this is what is so prevalent in so much of traditionalism.
…
Or maybe I’m just totally missing something in the postion.

I think it’s the latter. First, I’m not saying there is contradiction. I’m saying there seems to be, and I’m trying desperately to resolve them. The Church’s recent more protestant-friendly teachings, vague wording, and overemphasis on positive aspects make her current teachings easy to misunderstand–hence this thread and the traditionalist movement. If there was a clear continuation of teaching, there would not be the problem here. And those who disagree with the Church’s definition of infallibility cannot accept Vatican II for they have abandoned Vatican I. If it’s the same Church, then she cannot err when infallibly teaching concerning these matters. If she’s not the same Church as before, then those who think so should leave, most especially the liberals and modernists who have invaded her and are trying desperately to destroy her and make her into something that she is not–a mere human institution that contradicts herself regularly. Either the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth that she has always claimed to be from the beginning (1 Tim 3:15) or she is a lie.

 

[una_fides]

Thank you for that prayer. I wasn’t aware that it existed. I believe everything in the Apostles Creed but I have trouble accepting contradictions. I’d rather be honest and say I don’t believe something than say I do when I don’t. If you’re comparing me to Eve and think I’m being influenced by Satan that is a very serious accusation. My doubts are common to many Catholics. You can’t condemn someone in the Church for not accepting the teachings 100% and then say that those outside the Church can be saved by the small amount of truth they have received.

I said that such teachings that deny the Catholic faith and try to exalt one’s self to the point of wanting to know more than God come from the devil. One thing the pre-and post-Vatican II Churches are quite clear on is that anyone who willfully rejects the Church and her teachings cannot be saved. Just because many “Catholics” deny dogmas of the faith and think they know more than the Church does not make that a viable opinion any more than the fact that most “Catholics” do not regularly attend Mass and use contraception, both of which are mortal sins.

Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914:
Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved” (Athanas. Creed). papalencyclicals.net/Ben15/b15adbea.htm