Vatican II changes things?

[una_fides]

Maybe one of the “elements of sanctification” is that they may be inspired to make Perfect Acts of Contrition.

Interesting thought, as perfect contrition would be absolutely necessary to gain forgiveness for anyone without access to the sacrament of penance. However, I don’t think that this is the case for several reasons:
First, perfect contrition is not a very common occurrence and is not easy to foster apart from a very special grace. Even those within the Church rarely attain this level of contrition and love for God. Those outside the Church who do not have access to the sacraments are in a much worse condition. Think about it, Catholics actually receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Almighty God within their human bodies when they receive Communion. The grace available in this sacrament is beyond human comprehension. Catholics also have access to the sacrament of Confession, which not only places them in a state of grace but it also provides special graces for the penitent to sin no more.
Second, “separated communities” (aka heretical and schismatic sects) not only contain “elements of sanctification” but they also contain elements of condemnation, which consist of their heretical beliefs. These false teachings lead countless souls to hell when they are relied upon. For example, if someone believes he is saved by faith alone and that he does not need to confess his sins at all or have any contrition for them but merely to believe they are forgiven, then even if he were invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith, he could very well die failing to make his peace with God or call upon an available priest and then be lost eternally. Without contrition, the Council of Trent infallibly declares, there is no forgiveness of sins. Pope Pius X explained the following about those who are ignorant of the truth in his encyclical Acerbo Nimis:
“Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: “We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect.” vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_15041905_acerbo-nimis_en.html

I have other reasons as well, but I do not want to go off on too much of a tangent here. For the sake of our understanding of these “elements of sanctification” let’s stick to the ones the document listed: “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.”

 

[una_fides]

Can anyone point to ANY document prior to Vatican II (by anyone, saint, Church father, pope, etc) that taught the following:

“It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.” vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

I can’t think of any. If this teaching is not innovation and if it is the same as “what the Church has taught throughout the centuries” as the document claims, then we should be able to find it in the Church’s teaching tradition, correct? I’ve searched through so many documents on the dogma of no salvation outside the Church, and I can’t say I’ve come across any that teach that. Can anyone else provide any sources here?

I want to understand these things better, so I figure if there is more teaching tradition to read on this matter, that would help. I’m just having a difficult time finding anything prior to Vatican II…

 

[una_fides]

Here is another troubling text from this document which is a rewording from the catechism text we’ve been trying to unravel:
“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”

Notice that in this case the word “instruments” is used rather than “means” as pertaining to the bringing of the Church’s salvation to these people. The word conjures up the idea of one using a musical instrument to play music. A man blows a flute, the air goes through the flute, and the result is music. It seems as if this document would be saying that the Church is the man, the air is the wind, and the music is the salvation. How though can these heretical groups be bringing the Church’s salvation to them if they remain outside of the Church?? This document does not seem to address this matter. The only thing I can think of is that it assumes that such people to whom these “elements of sanctification” can reach are those who are invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith. Such people, however, would still need to be joined to the Church before death. Let me quote again from this infallible declaration so that we do not go off track:
"those not living within the Catholic Church…will depart “into everlasting fire”. Thus, we would have to conclude that such people who the conciliar document says are separated from the Church are actually “living within the Catholic Church.” The problem with that understanding is that the infallible text continues to explain that living inside the Church is synonomous with in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." How could invincibly ignorant people be “in the unity of the Catholic Church” if they are not even within her or believe her teachings? A “partial communion” with the Church also does not work, for one cannot be patially in a state of grace. You are either in or out; in the Church or out of her. To be partially united means that you’re on your way or going the right direction but not there yet.

Any thoughts?

 

[real2all]

Well, time does change things in all of our lives, doesn’t it? We as a people started off believing that there were many gods. Then as man evolved in a higher state of consciousness we all started to believe in one god. As catholics we believe in the holy trinity. With the birth and death of our savior, we worship Jesus even to this day. Over 2000 years have passed, and we still believe and practice our lords mass. Small changes have occurred from time to time with the teaching of the church, am I wrong? Now we have “Vatican II”. Started in the sixties, before I was born, mind you. Yet, these are radical new concepts for any time period through out history. With the introduction of liberalism in our society, that introduction is what made the Catholic church more P.C.
If we can all be saved without Jesus Christ, then why are we Catholics? Why not be a Buddhist, Baptist, Hindu, or hell why not even a Muslim. The President of the United States calls himself a “Christan” but when asked a question about his belief in Jesus, Obama said that he was a great “Prophet”, not our lord and savior. I, as a Catholic will continue to be a practicing participant or the faith, until the “faith” will not have me anymore. What we all have forgot as I continue to read all the post here is we as Catholics need to have one thing and that is “FAITH”. Faith, that our lord will come and fix all the mess that is before us. Faith that all the teaching of over 2000 years is right and there is salvation after all is said and done. Hope that we all make the right decisions for all the hardships that will follow as well.

 

[Lisa44]

Hi Una Fides
I read your posts with great interest as I am struggling with similar questions.
I have not been able to reconcile all of Vat II with former Catholic teachings.
I actually just posted this on another thread but I’ll bring it over to add to your thread. Maybe I’ll get some answers too.

Here is an example that illustrates the confusion between Vat II and previous church teachings.

The Douay Catechism 1649

Q. Why may not a well-meaning person be saved in any religion?
A. Because there is but one Lord, one faith, one baptism, Ephes. iv. 5, and without (that one) faith, it is impossible to please God. Heb. xi. 6.
Q. What other reason have you for it?
A. Because, as in a natural body, that part which has not a due connection to the heart or root, presently dies for want of continuity; so in the church (the mystical body of Christ) that man who has not a due subordination and connection to the head and common councils thereof, (that is, the Pope and general councils from whence under Christ we have our spiritual life and motion, as we are Christians,) must needs be dead, nor indeed can he be accounted a member of that mystical body.
Q. Who, I beseech you, are those who are not to be accounted members of the Church?
A. All such as are not in the unity of the church, by a most firm belief of her doctrine, and due obedience to her pastors; as Jews, Turks, Heretics, &c.
Q. Why may not Heretics and Schismatics justly claim to be in the Unity of the Church and Members of Christ’s body?
A. Because Catholics can show to each sect of Heretics and Schismatics the time they began; the date of their separation from the Church: the name of the person or persons of their sect who first separated themselves, and the cause of their condemnation; whilst the Catholic Church always was from the beginning.
Q. What if a Protestant should tell you, that the difference between them and us, are not differences in fundamentals, or in faith, but in opinion only, and therefore do not exclude them out of unity of the Catholic Church?
A. I should answer, they contradict themselves; for they accuse us of robbing God of his honour, in holding priestly absolutions from sins; in adoring Christ’s body and blood, as really present in the eucharist, and holding the Pope’s supremacy in things belonging to the spiritual government of the Church, also the infallibility of the Church and general councils, in delivering and defining points of faith, which are no matters of indifference, but high fundamentals.
Q. How do you prove all obstinate Innovators to be Heretics?
A. Because they wilfully stand out against the definitive sentence of the Church of God, and submit not to any tribunal appointed by Christ to decide religious controversies; but follow their own interpretation of the dead letter of the scriptures.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994

819 Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth 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.” 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, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

841 The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.

The constitution on the church (Vatican II)

1. The Catholic Church professes that it is the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church of Christ; this it does not and could not deny. But in its Constitution the Church now solemnly acknowledges that the Holy Ghost is truly active in the churches and communities separated from itself. To these other Christian Churches the Catholic Church is bound in many ways: through reverence for God’s word in the Scriptures; through the fact of baptism; through other sacraments which they recognize.
2. The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church.

 

[diggerdomer]

Your comments on what Augustine believed concerning no salvation outside the Church seem to demonstrate that you are reading into his texts something never intended. If you take certain of his statements out of context, they can seem to say that; however, in their context they are clearly not at all saying that those outside of the Body of Christ can be saved. Augustine most clearly taught NSOC. Here are a couple excerpts:

“We believe also in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church. For heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God; and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor” (*Faith and the Creed *10:21 [A.D. 393]).

“[J]ust as baptism is of no profit to the man who renounces the world in words and not in deeds, so it is of no profit to him who is baptized in heresy or schism; but each of them, when he amends his ways, begins to receive profit from that which before was not profitable, but was yet already in him” (*On Baptism, Against the Donatists *4:4[6] [A.D. 400]).

“Whoever is separated from this Catholic Church, by this single sin of being separated from the unity of Christ, no matter how estimable a life he may imagine he is living, shall not have life, but the wrath of God rests upon him” (ibid., 141:5).

Augustine certainly says that many within the Church will perish but he never says that those outside the Church will be saved. They may be catechumens with an explicit desire for baptism who could be saved in his opinion but not those who were actually outside of the visible fold, such as Jews, heretics, schismatics, etc…

I was referring to the City of God. If you read it you’ll see what I mean.

I was not reading him out of context any more than you are by tossing the above quotes out without any context for the nature/genre of the writing, time period, audience, circumstances that prompted them, etc.

Plus, the City of God was written after the sources you cite, so Augustine in writing it was of course well aware of what he had written previously.

 

[diggerdomer]

Could someone help me see how to interpret this text correctly?

If the text you’re referring to is Catechism para 819, I’d suggest starting by reading it as straightforwardly as possible.

Christ is the means of salvation, Christ is not bound to the visible structure of His Church regarding the way He chooses to accomplish His mission of salvation.

 

[diggerdomer]

Hi Una Fides
I read your posts with great interest as I am struggling with similar questions.
I have not been able to reconcile all of Vat II with former Catholic teachings.
I actually just posted this on another thread but I’ll bring it over to add to your thread. Maybe I’ll get some answers too.

Here is an example that illustrates the confusion between Vat II and previous church teachings.

The Douay Catechism 1649

Q. Why may not a well-meaning person be saved in any religion?
A. Because there is but one Lord, one faith, one baptism, Ephes. iv. 5, and without (that one) faith, it is impossible to please God. Heb. xi. 6.
Q. What other reason have you for it?
A. Because, as in a natural body, that part which has not a due connection to the heart or root, presently dies for want of continuity; so in the church (the mystical body of Christ) that man who has not a due subordination and connection to the head and common councils thereof, (that is, the Pope and general councils from whence under Christ we have our spiritual life and motion, as we are Christians,) must needs be dead, nor indeed can he be accounted a member of that mystical body.
Q. Who, I beseech you, are those who are not to be accounted members of the Church?
A. All such as are not in the unity of the church, by a most firm belief of her doctrine, and due obedience to her pastors; as Jews, Turks, Heretics, &c.
Q. Why may not Heretics and Schismatics justly claim to be in the Unity of the Church and Members of Christ’s body?
A. Because Catholics can show to each sect of Heretics and Schismatics the time they began; the date of their separation from the Church: the name of the person or persons of their sect who first separated themselves, and the cause of their condemnation; whilst the Catholic Church always was from the beginning.
Q. What if a Protestant should tell you, that the difference between them and us, are not differences in fundamentals, or in faith, but in opinion only, and therefore do not exclude them out of unity of the Catholic Church?
A. I should answer, they contradict themselves; for they accuse us of robbing God of his honour, in holding priestly absolutions from sins; in adoring Christ’s body and blood, as really present in the eucharist, and holding the Pope’s supremacy in things belonging to the spiritual government of the Church, also the infallibility of the Church and general councils, in delivering and defining points of faith, which are no matters of indifference, but high fundamentals.
Q. How do you prove all obstinate Innovators to be Heretics?
A. Because they wilfully stand out against the definitive sentence of the Church of God, and submit not to any tribunal appointed by Christ to decide religious controversies; but follow their own interpretation of the dead letter of the scriptures.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994

819 Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth 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.” 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, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

841 The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.

The constitution on the church (Vatican II)

1. The Catholic Church professes that it is the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church of Christ; this it does not and could not deny. But in its Constitution the Church now solemnly acknowledges that the Holy Ghost is truly active in the churches and communities separated from itself. To these other Christian Churches the Catholic Church is bound in many ways: through reverence for God’s word in the Scriptures; through the fact of baptism; through other sacraments which they recognize.
2. The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church.

This may be somewhat tangential and if so I apologize. I was struck by this comment, though, to ask: if you sense there’s a disconnect in Church teaching, why would you favor something from the 17th century vs. today?

I mean, 500 (or so) years ago many (including the Church) thought the earth was flat, and the earth was the center of the universe with the sun revolving around it. Today we know the earth is (more or less) round, and the earth is certainly not stationary nor the center of the universe. There’s a disconnect there…but who would reasonably start with teachings from 500 years ago and challenge today, rather than start with today and see how to explain the differences working back?

The teaching of the Church that those outside the visible structure of the Church are not a priori excluded from salvation, from God’s mercy, should not be the stumbling block. I’d offer that we should accept that teaching, then as needed or interested we can look back to piece together how previous statements fit. The other way around seems to me to be more problematic–why would we assume God’s love and mercy is limited, then argue about whether or not it can be expanded, rather than the other way around?

Certainly what the Church taught about e.g. slavery in the past would not fit our contemporary sensibilities…does that mean we need to demand more proof that slavery should not exist, from the Church, before we accept it, since for so long (centuries ago) the Church did not teach against it?

 

[una_fides]

If the text you’re referring to is Catechism para 819, I’d suggest starting by reading it as straightforwardly as possible.

Christ is the means of salvation, Christ is not bound to the visible structure of His Church regarding the way He chooses to accomplish His mission of salvation.

But Christ already clarified infallibly through the means of his Church that he only brings salvation to those who are members of her flock and are in full union with her. Christ “is not bound by the sacraments” but he has infallibly revealed to mankind how he operates through what his Church has infallibly taught on the matter.

 

[una_fides]

This may be somewhat tangential and if so I apologize. I was struck by this comment, though, to ask: if you sense there’s a disconnect in Church teaching, why would you favor something from the 17th century vs. today?

I mean, 500 (or so) years ago many (including the Church) thought the earth was flat, and the earth was the center of the universe with the sun revolving around it. Today we know the earth is (more or less) round, and the earth is certainly not stationary nor the center of the universe. There’s a disconnect there…but who would reasonably start with teachings from 500 years ago and challenge today, rather than start with today and see how to explain the differences working back?

The teaching of the Church that those outside the visible structure of the Church are not a priori excluded from salvation, from God’s mercy, should not be the stumbling block. I’d offer that we should accept that teaching, then as needed or interested we can look back to piece together how previous statements fit. The other way around seems to me to be more problematic–why would we assume God’s love and mercy is limited, then argue about whether or not it can be expanded, rather than the other way around?

Certainly what the Church taught about e.g. slavery in the past would not fit our contemporary sensibilities…does that mean we need to demand more proof that slavery should not exist, from the Church, before we accept it, since for so long (centuries ago) the Church did not teach against it?

You must distinguish between dogma and scientific theory or temporal custom. The Church never authoritatively taught that slavery (in the modern sense of the word) was just nor did she say that it was part of divine revelation. Slavery is dealing with the temporal relation in society and is not dogma. We are however to be slaves of Christ, so it depends on what you mean by the word.
The Church also never authoritatively held as a doctrine of the faith that the world was flat. It was simply the scientific understanding at the time that people accepted. It was never claimed to be a part of divine revelation and no dogmatic or authoritative definitions were ever given to the subject because it is not even close to that level. The Church does not define such mundane things because they do not pertain to faith and morals.
The Church’s infallible teaching that there is no salvation outside her Body, however, is most definitely an infallible and unchanging dogma of the faith. It may develop but it cannot change and it must be understood in the same sense as always.
When dealing with matters of faith, the Church relies on Tradition, and Tradition always builds upon what was handed down as its foundation. Tradition never starts with modern sensibilities and then tries to re-interpret that into what she had previously believed. Rather dogmas of the faith must continue to be understood in the same sense as they always have, as the Church has infallibly declared in Vatican I. Past teachings of the Church on faith and morals take an absolute precedent over modern teachings, and any modern teachings absolutely must be interpreted and understood in light of sacred Tradition (meaning the teachings from the past). Thus, if you do not understand the Church’s past teachings, you will likely not correctly understand her teachings today on many issues.

Tradition safeguards the teachings of Christ that he entrusted to his apostles and that they have handed down through their successors, safeguarded by the Holy Spirit, for 2000 years. When the Church defines a dogma, she does not create something a-new; she reaches into the sacred deposit of divine revelation of what was handed down before the death of the last apostle and clarifies an issue that is being contended.

Hope this helps.

 

[Lisa44]

You must distinguish between dogma and scientific theory or temporal custom. The Church never authoritatively taught that slavery (in the modern sense of the word) was just nor did she say that it was part of divine revelation. Slavery is dealing with the temporal relation in society and is not dogma. We are however to be slaves of Christ, so it depends on what you mean by the word.
The Church also never authoritatively held as a doctrine of the faith that the world was flat. It was simply the scientific understanding at the time that people accepted. It was never claimed to be a part of divine revelation and no dogmatic or authoritative definitions were ever given to the subject because it is not even close to that level. The Church does not define such mundane things because they do not pertain to faith and morals.
The Church’s infallible teaching that there is no salvation outside her Body, however, is most definitely an infallible and unchanging dogma of the faith. It may develop but it cannot change and it must be understood in the same sense as always.
When dealing with matters of faith, the Church relies on Tradition, and Tradition always builds upon what was handed down as its foundation. Tradition never starts with modern sensibilities and then tries to re-interpret that into what she had previously believed. Rather dogmas of the faith must continue to be understood in the same sense as they always have, as the Church has infallibly declared in Vatican I. Past teachings of the Church on faith and morals take an absolute precedent over modern teachings, and any modern teachings absolutely must be interpreted and understood in light of sacred Tradition (meaning the teachings from the past). Thus, if you do not understand the Church’s past teachings, you will likely not correctly understand her teachings today on many issues.

Tradition safeguards the teachings of Christ that he entrusted to his apostles and that they have handed down through their successors, safeguarded by the Holy Spirit, for 2000 years. When the Church defines a dogma, she does not create something a-new; she reaches into the sacred deposit of divine revelation of what was handed down before the death of the last apostle and clarifies an issue that is being contended.

Hope this helps.

Brilliant

 

[dnar]

Prior to Vatican II Pope Pius IX, in his encyclical “On Promotion of False Doctrines (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore),” said the following:

    We all know that those who suffer from invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law which have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can, by the power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life. For God, who knows completely the minds and souls, the thoughts and habits of all men, will not permit, in accord with His infinite goodness and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal punishment.

St. Augustine’s position is also consistent with Vatican II. "When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body…. All who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:28 [39] [A.D. 394]).

Clement I, a contemporary of the Apostles, wrote, “Let us go through all generations and learn that in generation after generation the Master has given a place of repentance for those willing to turn to him. Those who repented for their sins, appeased God in praying, and received salvation, even though they were aliens to God” (1 Clement, no. 7 [AD 95]).

staycatholic.com/salvation_outside_the_church.htm

 

[una_fides]

Prior to Vatican II Pope Pius IX, in his encyclical “On Promotion of False Doctrines (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore),” said the following:

    We all know that those who suffer from invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law which have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can, by the power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life. For God, who knows completely the minds and souls, the thoughts and habits of all men, will not permit, in accord with His infinite goodness and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal punishment.

St. Augustine’s position is also consistent with Vatican II. "When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body…. All who are within [the Church] in heart are saved in the unity of the ark (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:28 [39] [A.D. 394]).

Context is key here. Have you read the context of that statement of Augustine’s per chance? I suggest doing so, and hopefully the meaning will become more clear to you. He is specifically referring to those who have an explicit desire for baptism: catechumens. He is not referring to those who are outside the Church and do not have an explicit desire to enter therein or who are invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith.

 

[una_fides]

Regarding Pope Piux IX’s statement, that too must be understood in its fuller context. Let me quote it in more context:
Pope Pius IX (1846-1878), Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863:
7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. 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.
8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. 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.” 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;”“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;” “He who does not believe will be condemned;”“He who does not believe is already condemned;”"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."The Apostle Paul says that such persons are "perverted and self-condemned;"the Prince of the Apostles calls them “false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm

Notice that it only says those people who are observing the natural law (which the vast majority of us who have access to the sacraments do even do) and they must also not be guilty of deliberate sin. The question remains, how do they gain forgiveness of sins if they are outside the Catholic Church? Those inside the Church are the only ones privy to being able to be forgiven for mortal sins through the sacrament of penance with imperfect contrition sufficing. Outside the sacrament, however, only perfect contrition (with a desire to confess asap) will suffice. Most Catholics rarely attain perfect contrition and are instead motivated out of fear of hell more than anything else, and even for the very few who desire to have perfect contrition, often their reasoning for doing so is to escape the fires of hell, thus often leaving it imperfect. Catholics also have access to the fullness of grace and truth: receive the divinity of Christ into their mortal bodies, receive special graces in confession to not sin again, have the fullness of Christ’s teachings; yet they still rarely attain perfect contrition. Someone outside of the Church is in a much worse condition. Thus, the invincibly ignorant who could be saved if they cooperate with grace end up being very few as the Church fathers virtually universally attest and which Augustine, Aquinas, Pope St. Gregory the Great, and other doctors of the Church clearly taught. And of these few, Aquinas speculated that they could be saved by God sending them an angel to instruct them in the Catholic faith or through some infused knowledge of the teachings necessary to be believed for salvation (i.e. Trinity, Incarnation, subjection of the Roman Pontiff, etc).

The question is can these people who are outside the Church be saved if they are invincibly ignorant? Well according to Pope Pius IX, if these people are “alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity,” then they cannot be saved. Thus, Pope Pius IX is saying that these people not guilty of deliberate sins would be somehow given the ability to no longer be separate from Catholic unity, and could enter the Church through their desire to do so perhaps after being exposed to divine revelation.

If we say that their desire can be implicit, then that means that if the person were to be exposed to the true faith, then they would readily respond and accept it, since they would be humble and open to God’s grace, which would be impelling them towards his Mystical Body, the Catholic Church. Where does that leave those who are “stubbornly separated” from the Church or who do not believe the true message they have heard and are thereby obligated to accept. See Piux IX’s comments on such people above for the answer.

 

[una_fides]

All that said, we are still left with our difficulty reconciling the passages in Vatican II and the CCC, which seem to be saying that heretical communities can bring salvation to their members. Aren’t these communities by their very nature “stubbornly opposed” to Catholic unity? If not, they would repent of their heresies and would rejoin the Church to which God’s grace is calling them. Again, can anyone find me ANYTHING pre Vatican II that said such things about heretical sects being “instruments / means of salvation”?

 

[dnar]

All that said, we are still left with our difficulty reconciling the passages in Vatican II and the CCC, which seem to be saying that heretical communities can bring salvation to their members. Aren’t these communities by their very nature “stubbornly opposed” to Catholic unity? If not, they would repent of their heresies and would rejoin the Church to which God’s grace is calling them. Again, can anyone find me ANYTHING pre Vatican II that said such things about heretical sects being “instruments / means of salvation”?

Just off the top of my head…I can think of dozens of people who were ‘saved’ without ever knowing Jesus or a Catholic Church.

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, etc.

That teaching “no salvation outside the church” cannot be applied strictly or every OT saint is in hell right now, exceptions do exist.

 

[una_fides]

Just off the top of my head…I can think of dozens of people who were ‘saved’ without ever knowing Jesus or a Catholic Church.

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Joshua, etc.

That teaching “no salvation outside the church” cannot be applied strictly or every OT saint is in hell right now, exceptions do exist.

The fathers have already explained how the OT saints were saved, and yes, it was through their explicit faith in Jesus Christ and through his Church, once his Church was established.

The OT “righteous” men were those who were a part of God’s Old Covenant and on whom God bestowed his grace through that means. This was prior in history to Christ’s coming or the establishing of his Church. Thus, no one had the possibility of joining the Church or even being saved since Christ had not yet suffered and died for sins. We believe as part of our Creed that after Christ died he “descended into hell.” St. Peter hints at what took place:
1 Pet 3:18 “Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, 19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: 20 Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. 21 Whereunto baptism, being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but, the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

The fathers have taught that Christ when he descended into “hell” went to a place they refer to as “Abraham’s Bosom,” where the souls of the righteous were waiting for the Messiah. There Christ taught them about himself and his Church, and those who accepted were then taken with Him to Paradise. So the OT saints were most certainly saved through Christ and through His Church and were brought in as members of the Body of Christ.

Now, on the other hand, that the Church has been established, Christ has given to every human creature the obligation to join the Church and be subject to the Roman Pontiff (See infallible definition in Unam Sanctam).

Next, you are likely to bring up the thief on the Cross who was not able to be baptized. How could he be saved if he were not a baptized member of the Church? Well, I would ask you if he had the ability to be baptized. Obviously he did not, but he had an implicit desire for baptism because He had faith in Christ and the contrition necessary. The thief was baptized by desire, which has been a constant teaching of the Church and poses no problem for those who believe that there is no salvation outside the Church. The thief was most definitely a member of the Church before he died.

Any other questions?

 

[otjm]

I guess to simplify it: Catholics are unchanged for 2000.

That statement is either true or false depending on what you mean by “change” and by “things”. People have a tendency to use both terms bvery loosely, resulting in confusing dialogue. The Church has not “changed” any doctrine or dogma, if by “change” you mean that any doctrine now held would be contradictory to that same issue say, 100 years ago, or 1000 years ago. The Church has continued over the 2000+/- years since Christ to meditate on what he revealed, and our understanding has changed in that doctrines and dogmas have become more nuanced. There are some people who, without theological training, and/or relying on others who either had no training, or whose training is not in line with Church teaching, whe have said that various pronouncements of the Church are a denial of, or a change of doctrine. They do the same thing that the Protestants do, whcih is called proof-texting; they take something out of context, ignore anything the Church has said since that statement was made long ago, and then attempt to show that a recent statement violates it.

On the other hand, the Church has changed “things” which are neither doctrine nor dogma; they are “things” which the Church has the authority to change, such as rules and regulations, practices and proceedures. An example is Communion in the hand; it wa practiced in the early Church; was gradually phased out in the Roman rite between the 6th and the 9th centuries but continued uninterrupted in some of the Eastern rites; and has been re-introduced.

Does the Vatican II contradict pre-vatican II beliefs?

If by beliefs you mean did it change either doctrine or dogma, no. One of the tennants of Catholic belief is that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church in matters of faith and morals; if that is true, then it is not possible for the Church to make a proclamation such as the documents of Vatican 2 that would deny either Faith or Morals.

Who do you mean by “Catholics”? Do you mean the laity? Do you mean certain moral theologians? Do you mean the bishops of the Church? Do you mean Rome (that is, the Vatican - the Pope and those who work for him in the various offices)? Your question is more than a bit vague.

There is little or no question that various people have proposed that some issues in moral theology are not the same as were held by people prior to Vatican 2. However, the Church - and by this I mean the Magisterium - the bishops in union with the Pope - have not changed teachning on moral theology in the sense of declaring that issues thought to be sinful before no longer are. The issue is an interesting one, as there has been a good deal of things said by various and multitudinous priests about moral theology that have not necessarily been reflective of the Magisterium. How we got to that point is beyond the scope of this thread.

A facitious answer would be that your parish and mine are not the same. The Church is still the Church. There is a fringe element that says it is not. Perhaps the best question is, who anointed them? Keep in mind that throughout the history of the Church there have been fringe elements who have declared from time to time that the Church is in error, that it no longer teaches the truth. They have all been wrong, and a number of them have been labled heretics by the Church. Sadly, the Church doesn’t do as much labeling any more. And, historically, even those labled heretics have managed to convince not a few people that they were right anyway.

 

[otjm]

All that said, we are still left with our difficulty reconciling the passages in Vatican II and the CCC, which seem to be saying that heretical communities can bring salvation to their members. Aren’t these communities by their very nature “stubbornly opposed” to Catholic unity? If not, they would repent of their heresies and would rejoin the Church to which God’s grace is calling them. Again, can anyone find me ANYTHING pre Vatican II that said such things about heretical sects being “instruments / means of salvation”?

It would appear that you have not read the documents and anything that the Magisterium has taught since then. It is a sad statement that people follow those who are not part of the Magisterium, allowing self-anointed “experts” to sow dissention.

 

[Spirithound]

All that said, we are still left with our difficulty reconciling the passages in Vatican II and the CCC, which seem to be saying that heretical communities can bring salvation to their members. Aren’t these communities by their very nature “stubbornly opposed” to Catholic unity? If not, they would repent of their heresies and would rejoin the Church to which God’s grace is calling them. Again, can anyone find me ANYTHING pre Vatican II that said such things about heretical sects being “instruments / means of salvation”?

If faith is a gift, what can we say about those who have not been given it?