Vatican II changes things?

[diggerdomer]

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.

…

Fine but you didn’t answer my question: CCC 847 clearly indicates, to me, that salvation is possible outside the Church. You can start where you want to, I start with what the Church teaches today (which is of course consistent with what She has always taught). So, start where you will and draw what conclusions you will, but it would help if you would explain how you either (1) ignore what the Church teaches today e.g. CCC 847 or (2) claim that the Church today is in error.

And, still, you can claim statements from the 13th century or so are infallible, but I disagree and I have yet to find anyone who can show me where the Church teaches, definitively, that such statements were taught infallibly.

 

[una_fides]

And, still, you can claim statements from the 13th century or so are infallible, but I disagree and I have yet to find anyone who can show me where the Church teaches, definitively, that such statements were taught infallibly.

I’ve already shown where the Church teaches both in Vatican I and Vatican II that those teachings are infallible, so it is not I who am claiming that these dogmatic definitions from General Councils and ex cathedra declarations from popes are infallible; it is the Catholic Church. If you read the two most recent Church Councils, I do not see how you could walk away thinking they were only referring to future declarations and not past ones or that the past ones somehow do not qualify for whatever reason. If you would like to provide your own defense based on those documents themselves, then please do; otherwise, you cannot continue claiming that the two Vatican councils do not teach that both the pope and General Councils of the past were infallible when defining dogmas of faith and morals.
I strongly suggest reading the following article from the Catholic Encyclopedia on infallibility: newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm Once you get through through giving this document an honest reading, I am beyond confident that you cannot possibly continue to think that dogmatic definitions given from General Councils are not infallible.

 

[una_fides]

Fine but you didn’t answer my question: CCC 847 clearly indicates, to me, that salvation is possible outside the Church. You can start where you want to, I start with what the Church teaches today (which is of course consistent with what She has always taught). So, start where you will and draw what conclusions you will, but it would help if you would explain how you either (1) ignore what the Church teaches today e.g. CCC 847 or (2) claim that the Church today is in error.

Actually I did answer your question in my very next post. I’m guessing that perhaps you might have skimmed past that post possibly in a similar way in how you seem to continue to ignore the teachings from Vatican I and II on infallibility. (I know, very blunt and sarcastic, but I do mean it in the nicest way possible.)

I’d like to also add to my statements in that post that the Church does not teach that those who are invincibly ignorant can be saved outside of the Church. Rather they would only be saved within her through their desire to enter her. CCC 847 also does not state that they can or will be saved in their invincibly ignorant state. Hence, the text does not leave out the understanding that those souls invincibly ignorant yet cooperating with the grace available to them, following the dictates of their consciences engraved by the Holy Spirit, who have perfect charity for God and an openness to the truth, that such people would be the ones that God could reveal to them a special revelation at some point before their death of the truths of the Catholic faith and hence that person would not be saved in an invincibly ignorant state but would be saved through an explicit baptism of desire and would thus be unquestionably be saved through the Church, as the Church has from her earliest days acknowledged an explicit desire for baptism as sufficing to place one into the Church. If you can find any flaw with my reasoning here, I appreciate you showing me. If not, then any acknowledgment you’d like to give that the teachings can be reconciled would be greatly appreciated.

FYI:
A good traditional book on the topic of no salvation outside the Church is by Rev. Michael Muller, a Redemtorist priest and theologian. You can read the book free online here.

Hope this helps.

 

[Spirithound]

What can we say about those people who would join the One True Church, if only they were given the gift of faith necessary to realize where it was?

 

[Ocarm]

I only contributed briefly to this thread before, and that some while ago, but I have been following it. It seems to have become very circular and, with respect, unproductive. At least to my eyes.

I’m not saying there is contradiction. I’m saying there seems to be, and I’m trying desperately to resolve them.

There seems to be to you. Not apparently to most of the other posters in this thread. Is it possible that they’re right and you’re wrong? Serious question. Is it possible?

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.

Hmmm. So it’s the Church’s fault that people don’t accept her authority, and instead turn to their own form of protestantism. By the way, who are you, or any of us for that matter, to say that teaching documents are vague or overemphasise positivity? (The latter of which sounds like a contradiction in terms to me when we’re talking about the God of infinite love, but that’s just me).

And the ‘easy to misunderstand’ - which usually, I think means’ ‘doesn’t say what I want it to say’ - is, despite the prevalence of such views in the blogosphere and on forums like this, a minority position, which doesn’t enter the consciousness of 95% of Catholics.

And yes, I know - most of the ‘real’ Catholics stopped coming to church because - well, I’m not entirely sure why they stopped, if they were ‘real’ Catholics. Because real Catholics wouldn’t abandon the Church because of a few challenges in her teaching. And certainly not because the Church promulgated the idea that her boundaries were wider than was previously understood, and potentially shielded most if not all of humankind. ‘Real’ Catholics would rejoice that God’s mercy is so great, not sulk because the club they belong to is no longer as exclusive as they mistakenly thought it was, and rather than leave, would submit to the teaching even if they might also want to understand it better.

If there was a clear continuation of teaching, there would not be the problem here.

The vast majority of Catholics, and the popes of the last 50 years, and the magisterium of the Church, and the dicasteries responsible for promoting Church teaching, don’t agree that there is a problem in the continuity of teaching. I think they do, however, agree that there is an unhealthy emphasis on the belief that there is such a problem.

And those who disagree with the Church’s definition of infallibility cannot accept Vatican II for they have abandoned Vatican I.

Finally we agree on something. So what’s the difficulty, then?

If it’s the same Church, then she cannot err when infallibly teaching concerning these matters.

Alleluia! Amen. End of thread.

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.

Ah, I spoke too soon. Thread’s still alive.

I think its a little cheeky to move the blame to the ‘liberals and modernists’ here (whoever they are). They aren’t the ones arguing that V2 is in discontinuity with tradition. And as far as this forum (and most of the internet) goes, the substantial majority of disaffection with Church teaching comes from traditionalists and sedevacantists, not the liberal wing of the Church.

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.

Since you don’t believe she’s a lie, and since the principal contributors to this thread don’t either, why does this thread persist? If your aim is to produce a conclusive statement that will satisfy dissenters, then I think you’re being more falsely ‘positive’ than you accuse the Church of being.

People who have assumed that the Church was fallible in the process of V2 are already protestant; and once they’ve made that step, an appeal to infallible teaching is logically absurd, because they no longer believe the Church can claim infallibility. Dissenters may well correct their erroneous assumptions at some stage in the future, and I pray that they will, but so long as they’re open to the idea that the Church can proclaim dogma that is, in fact, in error, you have no grounds on which to appeal to them through other Church teaching. They’ve already decided that Church teaching can be flawed, so any amount of citations are meaningless.

I probably sound exasperated and/or sarcastic. I don’t feel that way, and hope that the written word isn’t expressing a level of discourtesy that I don’t intend. But I think you’re worrying this one to death. If the teaching is infallible, it is right whether or not it meets your understanding, and at some point we are best advised to let our doubts go. I don’t fully understand (note: I don’t say I don’t believe - I do believe) in the triune God, the immaculate conception and assumption of Our Blessed Mother, and why NFP is superior to other means of contraception, but I don’t want them to take up too much of my energies, because as a Christian, I should be more concerned with loving my neighbour and loving God. I can do that without perfect knowledge of either.

 

[ncjohn]

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.

If there was a clear continuation of teaching, there would not be the problem here.

I truly hope that it’s true that you’re trying to resolve them, though to be brutally honest you expend an incredible amount of energy providing “proof” that there ARE contradictions and discontinuities, very consistently following the reasoning of websites mostly out of communion with the Church while at least seeming to be unable to accept the possibility that what the Church Herself says is true. It is just hard for me to reconcile how one claims to believe in the Church and Her infallible teaching authority but then so goes out of one’s way to prove that there are problems. I don’t doubt your devotion and good intent for a second but I do worry about where one ends up when drinking continually from the poisoned well of dissent.

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.

I have a completely different perception on the whole “overemphasis on positive aspects” thing. For centuries the Church relied on anathemas and “thou shalt not” statements, giving the impression for the most part that as long as one did their best to keep the 10 commandments they would be saved. But as we know, not one of us is able to keep the law and we cannot be saved by it. The journey toward holiness was almost exclusively ignored and even our liturgies led to the idea that the priest was praying for us and was responsible for our salvation.

I see Vatican II, on the other hand, taking a positive approach in letting us know that WE are responsible for not only our own salvation but that of the world. That WE are part of that priestly class offering our own sacrifices and breaking our own bodies for the life of the world. That by the entire Body of Christ being involved we can do far more in evangelization than just having the “missionaries” doing that work, especially since that work always went largely neglected in our own personal environments. And in learning how to live lives of personal holiness we become living gospels calling to those around us in a loud voice. As St. Francis said, “preach the gospel always; use words if necessary.”

I see the difference in emphasis being from one of fear–largely a “fire insurance” religion–to one at least attempting to be based on the joy of the gospel and what Jesus called us to. What I tend to perceive in much of the traditionalist movement though is an “older brother” from the Prodigal Son story, who does not want to rejoice with those who are being “found” in this new approach but instead stands outside in bitterness because others are “getting away” with things while he has always been the “good boy”. In the end, I think this is mostly what drives the movement and that the twisting of doctrine to make the “proofs” is just a symptom.

To be fair, the positive aspect leaves open a great possibility for presumption and a lackadaisical or non-existent practice of the faith. A feeling that it doesn’t really matter what we do because God loves us and we will be saved anyway. Of course that is wrong as we can only be saved through our faith and our action on it and the “lukewarm” will be spit out. “Not all who call ‘Lord, Lord’ will be saved.” But Jesus never forced himself on anyone, nor has God ever forced Himself on anyone. He’ll knock and stand always ready but WE have to cooperate. It always was so and always will be so. When Jesus restated the commandments as Love God and Love your neighbor, he was emphasizing that positive aspect of doing the right thing rather than NOT doing the wrong thing.

I really think that in the end we’re in the same playbook even if we’re looking at it differently. I truly believe that you and the traditionalists in general are seeking the Truth. I only wish you could accept that others of us are equally earnest and that maybe we’ve just come to a different stage in our journey that has more to do with surrender and acceptance than looking for problems that we don’t perceive to exist.

Peace be with you!

 

[Spirithound]

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.

Perhaps this is the key…Infallible statements don’t need to be clear. Infallibility is a negative charism. It only protects against error, it does not say that anything the Magesterium produces will ever be useful.

 

[una_fides]

Since you don’t believe she’s a lie, and since the principal contributors to this thread don’t either, why does this thread persist? If your aim is to produce a conclusive statement that will satisfy dissenters, then I think you’re being more falsely ‘positive’ than you accuse the Church of being.

My goal is not to satisfy dissenters. My goal is to find answers to satisfy my own desire to know the truth. If you are alright saying that what appears to be clear contradictions in Church teachings are ok, then that is your business. I am going through a process of figuring out how to reconcile what appears irreconcilable, and honestly, your evaluations are not contributing to us gaining an understanding of how we can reconcile them. You would just say: just believe. I would say that faith must correspond with reason. I believe in the Church and her infallibility, and now I’m trying to reconcile how the Church could teach one thing for two thousand years and then in 1962, after an invasion of modernists and modernist teachings into the Church hierarchy, she is now teaching something that sounds entirely different. If the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, then either she has a clear continuation of Tradition or there is a break. However, she cannot teach something infallibliy for 2000 years and then later say that such teaching was wrong. That is why I’m reconciling.

But I think you’re worrying this one to death. If the teaching is infallible, it is right whether or not it meets your understanding, and at some point we are best advised to let our doubts go. I don’t fully understand (note: I don’t say I don’t believe - I do believe) in the triune God, the immaculate conception and assumption of Our Blessed Mother, and why NFP is superior to other means of contraception, but I don’t want them to take up too much of my energies, because as a Christian, I should be more concerned with loving my neighbour and loving God. I can do that without perfect knowledge of either.

If you don’t want to understand how the teachings reconcile, that’s your business. If you feel that such is a waste of time, then you are obviously not an Aquinas by any means. If God has given you a desire more to do service and not figure out how the faith correlates with reason and fits together, then that’s fine, but please don’t try to shoot down other people or dissuade them from figuring out the truth. It seems every time I get on a thread like this, and I feel like I’m making progress that people will then come in and start sending out personal attacks to me or try to dissaude me and others from continuing to try to figure out the truth. If the Catholic faith is the truth, then it should fit together, and truth one day cannot contradict truth the next. Either V2 taught new things contrary to what was taught before or she continued the teachings. The Church today claims the latter, so I’m trying to piece together how that can be. I invite you to comment on how you feel they piece together and discuss the specifics, but please don’t try to shoot down the attempts. The truth should have nothing to hide if it is consistant throughout the years.

 

[una_fides]

I have a completely different perception on the whole “overemphasis on positive aspects” thing. For centuries the Church relied on anathemas and “thou shalt not” statements, giving the impression for the most part that as long as one did their best to keep the 10 commandments they would be saved. But as we know, not one of us is able to keep the law and we cannot be saved by it. The journey toward holiness was almost exclusively ignored and even our liturgies led to the idea that the priest was praying for us and was responsible for our salvation. …

Your later comments on V2 are somewhat helpful, but I would like to comment on a discrepancy I have with your comment about no one being able to keep the law. This notion that man is powerless to keep God’s law and is utterly deprived borderlines on several protestant teachings. Yes–apart from God’s grace–we cannot keep his law, but God does not give us an impossible standard. We must become holy in order to enter heaven. No one and nothing unholy can enter. We must keep the commandments if we are to enter into life. I think I know where you were going with this thinking, which is basically that you cannot rely on trying to keep the commandments alone and that there must be an interior life devoted to God through prayer and good works. I completely agree. Faith cannot save unless it is united with the love of God.
Many protestants, and unfortunately today, many Catholics mis-read St. Paul’s teachings that the law cannot save to think that they do not need to follow the commandments to get to heaven and that they can just be “good people” and do “good things” and somehow it will all work out. Such thinking truly misses the mark and is incredibly dangerous as just one unrepentant mortal sin will result in hell for any soul no matter how many good works the person has done. We absolutely must not sin. Christ’s constant teachings were to avoid sin and keep the commandments and to go and sin no more. I would like to say a lot more on this topic, but we can save that for another thread, as I feel i’m getting away from the point of the thread with this topic of keeping the law.

If you have any thoughts on my posts attempting to reconcile pre and post V2 teachings on NSOC, I welcome them!

 

[una_fides]

Perhaps this is the key…Infallible statements don’t need to be clear. Infallibility is a negative charism. It only protects against error

We must keep in mind, however, that the following statement is entirely protected from error and then understand how that fits into the Church’s teachings today:
“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
Either “no one at all” is protected from error or it is not. You can’t say that it is error and that some are saved outside of the Church. Thus, V2’s teachings must be shown to reconcile that everyone who is saved is saved not outside but *within *the Church.

 

[Lisa44]

I truly hope that it’s true that you’re trying to resolve them, though to be brutally honest you expend an incredible amount of energy providing “proof” that there ARE contradictions and discontinuities, very consistently following the reasoning of websites mostly out of communion with the Church while at least seeming to be unable to accept the possibility that what the Church Herself says is true. It is just hard for me to reconcile how one claims to believe in the Church and Her infallible teaching authority but then so goes out of one’s way to prove that there are problems. I don’t doubt your devotion and good intent for a second but I do worry about where one ends up when drinking continually from the poisoned well of dissent.

I have a completely different perception on the whole “overemphasis on positive aspects” thing. For centuries the Church relied on anathemas and “thou shalt not” statements, giving the impression for the most part that as long as one did their best to keep the 10 commandments they would be saved. But as we know, not one of us is able to keep the law and we cannot be saved by it.

What? People cannot keep the 10 commandments? People cannot be saved by keeping the 10 commandments? I honestly didn’t know that.

The journey toward holiness was almost exclusively ignored and even our liturgies led to the idea that the priest was praying for us and was responsible for our salvation.

I see Vatican II, on the other hand, taking a positive approach in letting us know that WE are responsible for not only our own salvation but that of the world. That WE are part of that priestly class offering our own sacrifices and breaking our own bodies for the life of the world. That by the entire Body of Christ being involved we can do far more in evangelization than just having the “missionaries” doing that work, especially since that work always went largely neglected in our own personal environments. And in learning how to live lives of personal holiness we become living gospels calling to those around us in a loud voice. As St. Francis said, “preach the gospel always; use words if necessary.”

I see the difference in emphasis being from one of fear–largely a “fire insurance” religion–to one at least attempting to be based on the joy of the gospel and what Jesus called us to. What I tend to perceive in much of the traditionalist movement though is an “older brother” from the Prodigal Son story, who does not want to rejoice with those who are being “found” in this new approach but instead stands outside in bitterness because others are “getting away” with things while he has always been the “good boy”. In the end, I think this is mostly what drives the movement and that the twisting of doctrine to make the “proofs” is just a symptom.

There isn’t supposed to be many ways to the kingdom of Heaven, is there? The road is narrow. We should all, all Catholics I mean, have the same idea of what is required for salvation. True?

To be fair, the positive aspect leaves open a great possibility for presumption and a lackadaisical or non-existent practice of the faith. A feeling that it doesn’t really matter what we do because God loves us and we will be saved anyway. Of course that is wrong as we can only be saved through our faith and our action on it and the “lukewarm” will be spit out. “Not all who call ‘Lord, Lord’ will be saved.” But Jesus never forced himself on anyone, nor has God ever forced Himself on anyone. He’ll knock and stand always ready but WE have to cooperate. It always was so and always will be so. When Jesus restated the commandments as Love God and Love your neighbor, he was emphasizing that positive aspect of doing the right thing rather than NOT doing the wrong thing.

I really think that in the end we’re in the same playbook even if we’re looking at it differently. I truly believe that you and the traditionalists in general are seeking the Truth. I only wish you could accept that others of us are equally earnest and that maybe we’ve just come to a different stage in our journey that has more to do with surrender and acceptance than looking for problems that we don’t perceive to exist.

Peace be with you!

I don’t percieve traditionalists to be “looking for problems”. When I became a Catholic I had NO IDEA that there was such a thing as traditional Catholics. I thought Catholic was one. However, you would have to be blind not to notice the protestant inroads in the church. Hmm, during catechism I had to go to a charismatic event in the church where a guy was yelling out THE HOLY SPIRIT IS IN THE ROOM and smacking people on the forehead. Lets stop denying that the church is changing and lets be okay to talk about it okay. sorry to diverge from thread.

Una Fides, I am enjoying your comments.

 

[Ocarm]

Hello again.

If you are alright saying that what appears to be clear contradictions in Church teachings are ok, then that is your business.

I don’t believe that there are any clear contradictions in this Church teaching. My own desire to know the truth has already been satisfied by my study of the subject.

I am going through a process of figuring out how to reconcile what appears irreconcilable, and honestly, your evaluations are not contributing to us gaining an understanding of how we can reconcile them.

I’ve only made one contribution in the last week, so I don’t think I’ve somehow derailed a thread that was only moments away from uncovering a solution to your problem. But in any event, my point was that if all the authorities and experts - the people who matter, in terms of Church teaching - don’t have a problem here, then perhaps your ongoing struggle is wasted energy. But of course you’re free to continue.

You would just say: just believe. I would say that faith must correspond with reason.

You’re a bad clairvoyant.

I would also say there is no lack of correspondence between fides et ratio. But I would approach that with humility, and an acceptance of the fact that I may not be knowledgeable enough to find that correspondence. As I was attempting to point out - and obviously failing so to do - there is room for holy mystery in our faith, and a necessity to accept this at times.

The greatest theologians in our history - including the authors of dogma - have not been able to fully articulate the hypostatic union or the nature of the Trinity. Perhaps they are also unable to articulate a salvific ecclesiology that fully explains membership of the Church in a way that satisfies you.

If the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, then either she has a clear continuation of Tradition or there is a break.

If the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, there cannot be a break. And everyone who matters - which excludes all of us here at the forum - says there is no break.

However, she cannot teach something infallibliy for 2000 years and then later say that such teaching was wrong.

I don’t perceive her as doing this.

If you don’t want to understand how the teachings reconcile, that’s your business.

I don’t find them to require reconciliation.

If you feel that such is a waste of time, then you are obviously not an Aquinas by any means.

Er…

Ok, you’ve got me. I admit I’m not an Aquinas. It was foolish of me to claim that I was.

Just a minute. I don’t think I even claimed I was a theologian, did I? Let alone an Aquinas.

But enough about me.

If God has given you a desire more to do service and not figure out how the faith correlates with reason and fits together, then that’s fine, but please don’t try to shoot down other people or dissuade them from figuring out the truth.

God has given me a desire to do both, and not to let one become overly troubled by the other. I don’t suppose you believe me, given the apparent anger of your response to me, but I said what I said in my last post out of compassion, not with the intent to admonish or dismiss. I was hoping to get across my belief that mystery is an integral part of our faith, and can’t always be bargained with. God is too big for us to completely understand: I don’t believe that anyone, St Thomas included, has ever made the claim that they had said the final word on Catholic theology.

It seems every time I get on a thread like this, and I feel like I’m making progress that people will then come in and start sending out personal attacks to me or try to dissaude me and others from continuing to try to figure out the truth.

I’m sorry, but that’s a bit much. You’re free to ignore my posts, the same as anyone else is. The idea that any of us are throwing you off your stride by disagreeing with you is illogical. If the thoughts of others are so troubling to you, don’t think ‘out loud’ here on the forum where people can challenge you.

If the Catholic faith is the truth, then it should fit together, and truth one day cannot contradict truth the next. Either V2 taught new things contrary to what was taught before or she continued the teachings.

Once again, I don’t see contradictions. The Church expanded her understanding of herself to more explicitly state her dominion over all people, her salvific role to all people, and the authority of the Pope over all people, irrespective of their awareness of this. Praise be to God in His Mercy.

The truth should have nothing to hide if it is consistant throughout the years.

Nothing has been hidden. It’s the truth which is right in front of you.

I won’t contribute again to the thread because I don’t wish to be the object of your frustration. And I apologise if anything I have said has sounded discourteous or patronising, because neither was my intent (I would like you to believe that, but of course you may not). Best wishes in your search.

 

[ncjohn]

Your later comments on V2 are somewhat helpful, but I would like to comment on a discrepancy I have with your comment about no one being able to keep the law. This notion that man is powerless to keep God’s law and is utterly deprived borderlines on several protestant teachings. Yes–apart from God’s grace–we cannot keep his law, but God does not give us an impossible standard. We must become holy in order to enter heaven. No one and nothing unholy can enter.

I would like to say a lot more on this topic, but we can save that for another thread, as I feel i’m getting away from the point of the thread with this topic of keeping the law.

I’m really not so sure that this is really off-topic on a thread titled “Vatican II changes things” but since it isn’t exactly the direction the thread has gone, I agree that it would take it in a different direction. The only comment I’ll make here is that the “just man sins seven times a day.” None of us are worthy enough in any degree of sinfulness to enter heaven and none of us can be sinless however hard we may try, especially when considering the sins of omission as well as those of commission. I tend to think that we sin more often in failing to do the right thing–likely in most cases without even thinking about it!–than in choosing to do the wrong.

If you have any thoughts on my posts attempting to reconcile pre and post V2 teachings on NSOC, I welcome them!

I have so long since reconciled them in my own mind that the debates get old and difficult at this point. The continual problem that I find is that no matter how many articles and documents and footnotes are cited, the sources are written off as “liberal” or “modernist” interpretations. Even when Popes do them, such as the explanation of the “subsists” terminology, the explanations continue to be resisted and/or rejected.

In the end the debate becomes circular because so many of the traditionalists insist that the only valid references are the old documents themselves, but will not allow even the Church’s own statements relative to those documents to be accepted—though there seems to be no problem with accepting the often uneducated interpretations from the internet websites that abound on the subject. If the starting premise is that there IS a discrepancy and that the overwhelming majority of the bishops at the Council were modernists plotting to overthrow the Church–follwed by anyone supporting the Council then being a modernist whose intelligence, devotion, and sources are suspect in the very best-case scenario–it really becomes hard after a while to believe that people are actually trying to reconcile the issues.

The NSOC issue is a typical one. I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t accept that all salvation comes through the Church. We may not know how those exceptions outside physical communion are saved but I’ve met few people not totally on the fringe who don’t accept that one can be saved through blood or desire (be it explicit or implicit). Yet when we start trying to do the “let’s pretend we can authoritatively interpret old documents” game, we get ourselves all tied up in knots because very few of us can possibly grasp all the intricacies of how the different documents tie together through the centuries and what the language formulas meant at the time, just to mention of couple of issues.

For instance, you have stated a couple times now that Innocent III proclaimed his statement ex cathedra. Since I’m pretty sure that term didn’t even exist until V1 and the necessary requirements for such a proclamation had not been defined, I don’t believe there is a way in the world that a statement made more than 600 years earlier could be determined to meet the criteria. And if we make decisions that it did, then we get in a lot of other hot water over such things as the consistent teaching that the sun revolved around the earth, which was considered a matter of “faith” since it was thought to contradict scripture to believe otherwise. Having a Pope explicitly affirm that in affirming Galileo to be in heresy would then also seem to qualify as ex cathedra though I personally don’t accept it as meeting the requirements either because we can’t know that it was his intent to do so, which is a requirement.

So, how do we get past the stumbling block of basically not having anything said after 1962 being credible, regardless of the source? Without that I just don’t know of anything that overcomes the foregone conclusion of those who came up with the premise that there are problems. Since my own reading of the documents, my research on the topics, and the statements of the Church have fully satisfied me, I’m not sure how else one gets to the point of reconciliation, especially if they cannot or will not accept anything outside the traditionalist interpretations.

Peace

 

[Lisa44]

The only comment I’ll make here is that the “just man sins seven times a day.” None of us are worthy enough in any degree of sinfulness to enter heaven and none of us can be sinless however hard we may try, especially when considering the sins of omission as well as those of commission. I tend to think that we sin more often in failing to do the right thing–likely in most cases without even thinking about it!–than in choosing to do the wrong.

Peace

Hi I am not derailing this thread, this is just an aside to ncjohn-
What you are saying is what my Baptist friend says. I honestly did not know as a Catholic that I sinned about 7 times a day. Can you give me an example of 7 sins a Catholic would commit in one day? Do you go to confession daily?
I admit I am a new Catholic and my list of sins to confess is not that long…I must be really missing something. Thanks

 

[ncjohn]

Hi I am not derailing this thread, this is just an aside to ncjohn-
What you are saying is what my Baptist friend says. I honestly did not know as a Catholic that I sinned about 7 times a day. Can you give me an example of 7 sins a Catholic would commit in one day? Do you go to confession daily?
I admit I am a new Catholic and my list of sins to confess is not that long…I must be really missing something. Thanks

Hi Lisa. I will respond by PM so as to not take this off in another direction.

 

[una_fides]

I’m really not so sure that this is really off-topic on a thread titled “Vatican II changes things” but since it isn’t exactly the direction the thread has gone, I agree that it would take it in a different direction. The only comment I’ll make here is that the “just man sins seven times a day.” None of us are worthy enough in any degree of sinfulness to enter heaven and none of us can be sinless however hard we may try, especially when considering the sins of omission as well as those of commission. I tend to think that we sin more often in failing to do the right thing–likely in most cases without even thinking about it!–than in choosing to do the wrong.

Can you please show me where the Church teaches that we can sin without any knowledge that we are doing so whatsoever? Such “sins” would be venial at best. Your statement that none are worthy to enter heaven is true or false depending on how you meant it. Apart from Christ and grace it is true that none of us are worthy; however, Christ changes us and makes us worthy. We pray to the blessed Mother–who was without any sin and was a human as us–“that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.” How can we pray for such if it is impossible? The idea that no human can be holy is protestant, and is most definitely not Catholic by any means. We must be made holy to enter heaven. Luther marketed the heresy that we could never be holy even with God’s help and that everything we do is evil and that Christ “covers us with his righteousness” though we remain evil underneath. The Catholic Church teaches that we actually become holy in our flesh. Please study the Church’s position on this issue. I would be willing to debate you on this issue in another thread, or if you like, I will locate the sources of Catholic teaching that clearly teach that we can be holy on earth and absolutely must be holy to enter heaven.

I have so long since reconciled them in my own mind that the debates get old and difficult at this point. … Since my own reading of the documents, my research on the topics, and the statements of the Church have fully satisfied me, I’m not sure how else one gets to the point of reconciliation …

If you’ve reconciled the teachings like you say, please by all means enlighten us. Despite your claims that I’m relying on “traditionalist interpretations and teachings” etc, I’m honestly just trying my best to take what the Church taught before, understand it in the same sense as she meant it then (as Vatican I taught we must) and then apply that understanding to Vatican II texts. From your comments so far, it seems you take the opposite approach. Again, I welcome your comments if you would like to try to reconcile the teachings. I made my attempt on this thread, asked you and all to respond if they disagree or agree or w/e and so far I’ve had no takers.

 

[ncjohn]

Can you please show me where the Church teaches that we can sin without any knowledge that we are doing so whatsoever? Such “sins” would be venial at best. Your statement that none are worthy to enter heaven is true or false depending on how you meant it. Apart from Christ and grace it is true that none of us are worthy; however, Christ changes us and makes us worthy. We pray to the blessed Mother–who was without any sin and was a human as us–“that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.” How can we pray for such if it is impossible? The idea that no human can be holy is protestant, and is most definitely not Catholic by any means. We must be made holy to enter heaven. Luther marketed the heresy that we could never be holy even with God’s help and that everything we do is evil and that Christ “covers us with his righteousness” though we remain evil underneath. The Catholic Church teaches that we actually become holy in our flesh. Please study the Church’s position on this issue. I would be willing to debate you on this issue in another thread, or if you like, I will locate the sources of Catholic teaching that clearly teach that we can be holy on earth and absolutely must be holy to enter heaven.

First off, I am not saying that we don’t pursue holiness on earth–indeed we must!–nor am I in any way saying that we are not made worthy by God. What I am saying is that none of us are capable of remaining sinless and are only able to “accomplish” as much as we do by our cooperation with the grace of God. The Church clearly teaches, along with scripture, that nothing imperfect can enter heaven and it is from this premise that our belief in purgatory stems. I have no problem whatsoever with Catholic teaching on sin and/or holiness and have studied it quite thoroughly through the years.

As to the idea of sinning without our knowledge, let me first make clear that I am not addressing the concept of mortal sin, which of course requires knowledge and consent. But to further explain what I am addressing let me bring up two foundational concepts. First, the definition of sin is to “miss the mark”, to not accomplish all that was meant to be accomplished. In a word, to be “imperfect”. Second is the concept that we have the duty to always seek the truth and to always seek God’s will. Especially those supporting a more rigid view of NSOC use this premise to imply that in our modern day especially no one can really be “invincibly” ignorant because of all the information available.

Our primary goal is to always seek God’s will and to then do it “My brothers and sisters and mother are those who know my commands and do them.” I would hope that we would agree that when one should know what God is asking but just don’t take the time to consider that, or are just not thinking about what God might want at all, that we are failing in our duty. In legal terms, it is often expressed as “he knew, or should have known, that…” The fact that one doesn’t know that a town has a town-wide speed limit of 25 miles per hour doesn’t absolve one from guilt if you get caught speeding.

In the parable of the sheep and goats, the goats are separated on the premise of the times they did NOT feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc, and sent to eternal damnation: sins of omission. Their first question is “When did we not do these things?”, making clear they failed to do them without realizing it. The simple point is that each of us is required to seek the will of God and then to act on it, because of the love He and mercy He has shown us. When we fail to do so, we are placing ourselves among those calling “Lord, Lord” to whom He then responds “I do not know you; begone you evildoers.”

As we grow in holiness we become more in tune with Him and we respond more as He would. And we sometimes fail to do the right thing without even realizing it. When that is the overall pattern of one’s life, I fear that one can become a goat because one has not ever formed a true desire for God and has hardened the heart. I would say that this is a true mortal sin, even if we are not aware of it at the time, because we should have been aware!

(continued with other question in a separate post)

 

[ncjohn]

If you’ve reconciled the teachings like you say, please by all means enlighten us. Despite your claims that I’m relying on “traditionalist interpretations and teachings” etc, I’m honestly just trying my best to take what the Church taught before, understand it in the same sense as she meant it then (as Vatican I taught we must) and then apply that understanding to Vatican II texts. From your comments so far, it seems you take the opposite approach. .

No, as I said previously, I don’t start from the opposite point, despite your continued sarcastic comments. I’ve read the documents, both old and new. I’ve read the traditionalist explanations. I’ve read the Church’s statements; I’ve studied Church history; and I’ve read numerous articles by those in the hierarchy and theologians on both sides of the issue. The arguments you make are straight out of the ones made on all the traditionalist websites, which always write off anything the Church says to rebut or clarify, including explicit statements from the Popes. The forum is full of the references from what the Church says and I’m sure you can find them easily, though I don’t really believe it would make any differerence since they’ve already been rejected.

I have to come to the conclusion that you either haven’t read those, though they are numerous, or you have been formed to reject them. Either way, my limited abilities aren’t going to be enough to change your mind if they can’t and I have no desire or need to become just a target to sharpen the presentation skills for a viewpoint that the Catholic Church says is in error. I clearly have no credibility with you and thus anything I say will be written off anyway and just affirm you in your position. Perhaps someone else is more up to the task or is still naive enough to think that minds will be changed but I’ve been through these discussions enough times now to realize that if even the Church can’t convince people I certainly won’t be able to. I do still take the time occasionally to enter the debate, but it isn’t with a view toward changing the minds of those making the assertions. It is instead for the lurkers so that those assertions are not left unchallenged.

I wish you peace in your search and pray that your mind does truly remain open as you go forward.

 

[brotherhrolf]

My brother John and I are of an age (literally and figuratively - he is the same age as I). He and I do not agree on everything but he and I represent a “snap shot” of HMC before and after Vatican II. For me, we broke with sacred tradition in permitting all that has happened liturgically in the last forty years. But as John has pointed out, there is a great deal that was changed after Vatican II that was needed and has brought good to HMC.

I am going to focus on just one thing. My paternal grandfather was Catholic when he married my protestant (and divorced) grandmother in the 1910s. His family “excommunicated” him. My mother and father could not be married on the altar in 1947. They were married in the sacristy. They had to get permission from the archbishop of New Orleans and my father had to sign a written statement that he would raise his children Catholic. (God rest your soul, Daddy. It was you who woke me up and you who drove me to all of those 6am Masses to serve).

We were taught in no uncertain terms back then that if you weren’t a Catholic, you were going to hell. Do any of you have any idea of how that affected me as a child? How I worried about if my father died he was destined for hell?

When my grandmother died in 1967, I was a sophomore in a Catholic high school. We were allowed to go to the wake but not the burial because of the protestant thing - yes, you are reading me correctly. A month later, according to my grandmother’s protestant heritage (reformed German [although not Lutheran]) a memorial service was to be held at her church. We had to seek permission from our priest to attend.

This was my grandmother. We attended the service with my father’s brother and sister and their families. (My father’s brother also married a Catholic and my cousin sat with my brother and sister and I - in fear). I cannot begin to convey to a Catholic of today how mind-boggling it was for a Catholic to attend a protestant service.

I don’t ever want to go back to that. I have far too many protestant friends - people that I care for deeply. I never want to go back to 1967.

 

[Lisa44]

… The idea that no human can be holy is protestant, and is most definitely not Catholic by any means. We must be made holy to enter heaven. Luther marketed the heresy that we could never be holy even with God’s help and that everything we do is evil and that Christ “covers us with his righteousness” though we remain evil underneath. The Catholic Church teaches that we actually become holy in our flesh. Please study the Church’s position on this issue. I would be willing to debate you on this issue in another thread, or if you like, I will locate the sources of Catholic teaching that clearly teach that we can be holy on earth and absolutely must be holy to enter heaven.

Hi Una Fides, this is how I understand protestants too.

First off, I am not saying that we don’t pursue

holiness on earth–indeed we must!–nor am I in any way saying that we are not made worthy by God. What I am saying is that none of us are capable of remaining sinless and are only able to “accomplish” as much as we do by our cooperation with the grace of God.

Hi ncjohn
And doesn’t that grace come through the sacraments?