D
dnar
Guest
Next week we will have another church built on Main St…labeled Una Fides Church of the anointing.
- Status
U
una_fides
Guest
If the answer is so simple, then why do you not provide it? If you read my earlier posts and comments, then it should have been apparent to you that I have studied this topic in depth both concerning pre and post Vatican II teachings, and I’m on here to try to get answers. And can you please tell me who these “self-anointed experts” that you claim I’m following are? I base my studies and knowledge on the Church’s authoritative documents themselves. Why is it that whenever it seems I start questioning what people may believe about what the Church teaches and provide difficult questions that I encounter people trying to attack me and impugn my motives, when all I am seeking it to find the truth?
If you can show how to reconcile the pre and post Vatican II statements on the issue, please do enlighten us.
U
una_fides
Guest
Very funny, dnar. Please don’t resort to ad hominem attacks. If I stated anything contrary to the Catholic faith, please show me where. Otherwise, let’s keep the comments on point. Agreed.
C
Canardmom85
Guest
Ultimately it is God who decides who gains salvation by the church. 
O
otjm
Guest
Try reading what both John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 (and prior to his becoming Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger) have written. Both of them were at Vatican 2 as assistants; both of them are brilliant as theologians and philosphers, both of them have said that the documents of Vatican 2 are not in contradiction to prior statements of the church, and John Paul 2 wrote concerning the issue (I am still wading through work by Ratzinger).
In particular are comments by John Paul 2 concerning the Orthodox and Protestant groups. You keep asking how a heretical group can assist in salvation. Your first issue is that title - heretical. You can’t get your mind around the issue; you are too close to the phrase “false in part, suspect in all” from law. Any Protestant church that baptizes using the Trinitarian formula is an accepted baptism by the Catholic Church - were a member so baptized to seek to join the Church subsequently, we would not re-baptize them. That is the first clue. The second was the repeated statements by John Paul 2 that said the focus had previously been on what separates us; what we need to look at is what unites us. Yes, there are doctrinal differences, but I can tell you that more than a few Pritestant denominations preach Christ, and Him cruciified, and do a better job than a whole lot of priests I have heard. A multitude of your “heretical” groups profess a whole lot more in common with us than you seem to want to accept.
We don’t get to heaven by memorizing and accepting any or a bunch of doctrines. We get to heaven by living our life in Christ. We get to heaven by not being in a state of mortal sin, and by doing more than that - by living as Christ directs us - loving one another, and loving God. You seem to dwell on the fact that others (non-Cahtolics) don’t have the sacrament of Reconcilliation. Christ is not bound by the sacraments, and it is ultimately between God and the individual in terms of repentance. Note - I do not say the sacrament is meaningless, on not essential to those who have been given the gift; only that God wills that all be saved, and how he distributes his mercy is not directed by how we think it should be applied.
Christ managed to put all of it into two laws - Love God with your whole heart, mind and soul, and love one another as you love yourself. Taht was the essence of what it takes to get to heaven.
The Good Thief has no recorded information of ever being baptized, or even having been a follower of Christ, but Christ promised him right then and there he was going to heaven. You might keep in mind that we may not be the recipient of exactly how Christ acts in a salvific manner. But to presume that Christ cannot or will not save someone who was born Protestant and never told the truth about the CAtholic faith is to presume against the ability and work of the Holy Spirit.
It is a misunderstanding of the teaching office of the Papacy, and a misunderstanding of the term “infallible” to presume that when the Pope - here, John Paul 2 speaks, and here, Vatican 2 - the perfect example of the action of the Magisterium of the Church with the bishops teaching in unison with the Pope - when it teaches on salvation, to presume that the Pope or the council has to say something “de fide” when he or it speaks about doctrinal issues. The Pope and the bishops in union with him have spoken and said that all who are saved, are saved through Christ and his Church; that salvation may come without explicitly acknowledged membership in the Catholic Church (that is, a Protestant can get in), and that we are not particularly privy to all the details. It has also said that it is more difficult to obtain salvation outside explicitly acknowledged membership.
There is a history of 2000 years, of people being very trained in theology, and going off the “beaten path” - the teaching of the Magisterium. It may be that you have not had enough formal (if any) training in theology. It may be that you have had it, and like others in history past, do not or cannot find a way to accept what the Church teaches at any given moment in time. Or it may be that the issue is sophisticated and complicated enough that you do not grasp it. I do not say that as a put-down. I took the LSAT and scored in the top 3% of those taking the test; when I got to law school, I found several concepts difficult to wrap my mind around.
I do not presume, without a PhD in Theology, to be able to understand clearly some of the things the Church teaches. What I do then is accept that the church, when it teaches that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and protects it from error when formulating or expounding on a doctrinal issue, that the Church teaches the truth (that is, that the Holy Spirit really does do that). There is not a clearer example of the action of the Magisterium (the bishops teaching in unison and union with the Pope) than Vatican 2.
And I am constantly astounded by people who profess to be good, solid Catholics who don’t seem to get that point, and constantly pick at the documents of Vatican 2. If we don’t understand something, and it appears to contradict prior statements, then it is not necessarily for us to try and reason out the difference; it is for the Church to explain it. And when it does, if we don’t get it, then it is for us to shut up and accept what we may not understand. Christ did not grant perfect understanding, and the Church does not profess to grant it either.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I might differ on whether or how this has been taught infallibly, but I think I agree with this statement as I understand it (without quibbling about the difference between “develop” and “change”).
I’m sorry, I don’t understand, can you clarify? What/where did Vatican I teach what you’re referring to, and how/where was this teaching understood to be done so infallibly? Thanks for any help, sorry again, I just am not clear what you’re saying.
I agree the Church does not create something new in defining a dogma, but I completely believe that to many people at the time such a definition seems entirely new. Otherwise we would not have had the numerous schisms following practically every dogmatic teaching the Church has put forth in ecumenical councils (at least the earliest ones).
Also, I think it’s not a good idea to say that the Church reaches into what was handed down before the death of the last Apostle, simply, IF such a phrasing is understood to say that such-and-such a teaching was fully and explicitly understood at that time. Obviously, dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception and Assumption were not…but they are still true and certainly part of divine revelation as the Catholic Church teaches.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I don’t read them that way.
God (Christ) can bring salvation to those people; not the heretical communities.
And, to be precise, I don’t think the Church teaches anywhere that “heretical communities” can bring salvation. I sense that’s your interpretation/phrasing. If you disagree, can you please cite some reference? Thanks.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
What part, or all, of this are you claiming is taught infallibly?
What’s the basis for claiming this is taught infallibly?
Thanks.
D
dnar
Guest
Good post :clapping:
U
una_fides
Guest
otjm,
Thank you for your comments.
The thief had perfect contrition and an implicit desire for baptism, as I stated. He witnessed the crucifixion of God, the Son, and in the process he was converted completely to Christ, and Christ knew his heart, soul, and intentions.
Thank you for your comments.
A denial of so much as one tenant of the faith makes someone a heretic. Yes there are a lot of things that unite us, and yes when you are trying to attract protestants to the Catholic faith and to lower the walls of hatred towards Catholicism and Catholics, then that can certainly be a good thing to emphasize. Nevertheless, sharing some things in common does not put someone into a state of sanctifying grace.
Luke 23:39 “And one of those robbers who were hanged blasphemed him, saying: If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40 But the other answering, rebuked him, saying: Neither dost thou fear God, seeing; thou art under the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly: for we receive the due reward of our deeds. But this man hath done no evil. 42 And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee: This day thou shalt be with me in paradise.”
The thief had perfect contrition and an implicit desire for baptism, as I stated. He witnessed the crucifixion of God, the Son, and in the process he was converted completely to Christ, and Christ knew his heart, soul, and intentions.
I would definitely agree with this statement.
Sounds like you believe that you possess some superior knowledge of the subject. Can I ask you, have you read all the pre-Vatican II declarations on the matter, particularly the dogmatic infallible definitions? These same definitions, the Church has infallibly declared in Vatican I, must be understood in eodem sensu (in the same sense) as they always have been understood. So when popes infallibly and emphatically declare that “there is no salvation outside the Church” and that Jews, Heretics, etc will go to hell if they do not become Catholic before they die, what sense do they mean by these dogmatic clarifications? To me, it seems dishonest to try to read modern Church teachings into the old if the old ones don’t say the same things or if they were understood in a different sense. The purpose of the Church in her dogmatic definitions is to clarify dogmas, and we cannot presume some greater future knowledge can thereby change the sense of what the original dogmatic defintions meant. I suggest reading Vatican I on this issue.
Then you seem to be implying that all magisterial statements are infallible since they are guided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot guide the Church to teach error can He? But if something that the Church is teaching is non-infallible, then it is not safeguarded from error and could be wrong, could it not? I’m also not saying that the post-Vatican II statements are error. I’m just saying that I’m having difficulty reconciling them when reading the other prior* infallible* definitions of the Church and trying to understand them in their contexts and how anyone would interpret such statements.
Is it wrong to ask for a clarification and to seek to find and answer? That’s what I’m trying to do here, and I’m expressing what is difficult. Rather than people providing answers, I’m getting personal attacks and just people trying to explain how the Church interprets things now. I would prefer we start with discussing what the common understanding and teaching on this matter was prior to Vatican II and then try to see how what is being taught since then matches up. There is a plethora of Magisterial documents on this issue, and I have compiled as many prevatican II ones that I could find, all with hyperlinks to the full texts on this blog.
U
una_fides
Guest
Here is what Vatican I infallibly taught concerning papal infallibility:
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
- when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
- that is, when,
- **in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, **
- **in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, **
- **he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, **
- he possesses,
- by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
- that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
- Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” %between%
The pope in this statement from this papal bull (a document as a whole of greater authority than an encyclical) is meeting the three criteria above. The strong introductory words demonstrate the definitive nature of the statement, and notice the introductory wording is even more strong than Vatican I’s infallible definition on papal infallibility. The quote’s application for “every human creature” makes it universal in its scope. Furthermore, the Ecumenical 5th Lateran Council adopted this definition in its pronouncements as well. You can find the Catholic Encyclopedia article on *Unam Sanctam *here.
U
una_fides
Guest
Please see the previous posts that quote the conciliar documents. They say that these heretical sects (which they refer to as “separated communities”) are “means of salvation.” One text says “instruments” rather than “means.” It seems as if the documents are saying that these sects bring salvation to the members through teaching things that the Church teaches and through engaging in things the Church engages in (such as baptism). If that is the case, then isn’t it saying that there is salvation outside the Church, and that these heretical groups are gaining their power from the Catholic Church? That’s what the language seems to be saying, and I’m finding that interpretation very difficult to reconcile with pre-Vatican II teachings.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Wait…Vatican I defined PAPAL infallibility, right?
It said nothing about how an Ecumenical Council might teach infallibly…right?
So…I don’t think this answered by question.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I must have missed where the Church equates “heretical sects” (your term) with “separated communities.”
Can you please show me where the Church equates the two?
thanks.
U
una_fides
Guest
You simply asked me why the papal writing in Unam Sanctam was infallible. I explained why. The dogmas pertaining to faith and morals that are defined in an extraordinary manner in General Councils are what are infallible and thereby unchangeable, whereas General Councils also contain elements of non-dogmatic charicter pertaining to changing in customs and practices, which obviously would not be infallible.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
But if Papal infallibility was not defined until the 19th century, by Vatican I, how can you claim “Unam Sanctam” (in the what…12th or 14th century?) was taught infallibly?
And I still, sincerely, think there’s not a clear understanding in our Church about the teachings of an Ecumenical Council vis-a-vis “infallibility” and so on. Do we need everything of every Ecumenical Council to be taught infallibly? If no, then how do we know what to “really” believe and adhere to?
D
dnar
Guest
With Unam Sanctam in mind, wouldn’t this also apply to Vatican II?
Isn’t every creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff…
Was John XXIII and Paul VI a Roman Pontiff?
Are we not required to be subject to their teachings as well?
Over 2000 bishops plus the Holy Fathers teachings…I say, we are to be subject to these as well.
F
franklinf
Guest
The time of definition doesn’t matter. Divine truth isn’t created when something is defined. Rather, dogmatic definitions are the explicit saying of always existing divine truth.
For example, the assumption of Mary wasn’t dogmatically defined until the 20th Century. Does that mean she wasn’t assumed before that because it wasn’t dogmatically defined? Of course not.
U
una_fides
Guest
I agree that Vatican II requires religious submission. It was a pastoral council dealing with pastoral issues. It did contain a dogmatic constitution that did not have any definitive definitions but was just a summary of Church teachings. I’m NOT saying Vatican II was not infallible and therefore can be ignored or disobeyed. But what I am saying is that I do not believe it to be completely safeguarded against error. I am saying that because the wording is often vague and difficult to understand, as I’ve pointed out on here earlier. As with approaching Scripture, if I can’t understand how to verses may seem to correlate, then I seek to find an answer. In a similar way, I’m trying to reconcile pre and post Vatican II teachings on the matter of NSOC. So far, no one on here has provided me with an answer to how to understand the pre-Vatican II documents in the same sense that they had always been understood and then taking that understanding then applying it to the CCC passage and other such writings in question.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
this is a great article that i found by sungenis. liberals and conservationists. i love it.
catholicintl.com/catholicissues/ewtn.pdf
- Status