Vatican II changes things?

[Ocarm]

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.

Sorry to come in so late on such an interesting discussion, but:

You’re right, Pastor Aeternus, promulgated at Vatican I, defines the grounds for Papal infallibility. However, canons 747-756 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law summarise both Papal and Magisterial Infallibility. See;

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

Canon 749 §2 defines the means whereby an ecumenical council can achieve infallible status; it is clear within the text that to achieve infallibility, a church document must be promulgated openly as a dogmatic statement, and inasmuch as Vatican II produced two dogmatic constitutions - Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum - it seems inappropriate to state that the council was purely pastoral.

And yes, I know. There are a number of quotations doing the rounds that suggest this, and often from the lips of popes, but in context they are arguably less robust than they might first appear, with the holy father(s) perhaps not meaning what at first glance it appears that they mean. In any event, the use of the term ‘dogmatic constitution’ is unequivocal and unambiguous: they are required beliefs of the faithful.

By the way - the main source for canons 747-56 is Lumen Gentium §25. So just as Pastor Aeternus infallibly proclaimed the right of popes to proclaim infallibly, so Lumen Gentium infallibly proclaimed the right of councils to proclaim infallibly.

Just in case anyone is wondering, neither Lumen Gentium or Dei Verbum meet the criteria for *ex cathedra *or solely papal infallible status, meaning that the dogmatic nature of the two documents can only have come from their proclamation by the pope and bishops together at an ecumenical council. Even if they are seen as restatement of pre-existing dogma and not offering new dogma, their status as ‘dogmatic constitutions’ assures that they are the work of a council with infallible stature.

This doesn’t mean, however, that other documents of V2 are infallible - if they were, they would have to be stated to be such. But they are still binding, as any formal statement of the pope and bishops would be irrespective of their infallible status.

Don’t know if this helps the discussion or not.

 

[otjm]

this is a great article that i found by sungenis. liberals and conservationists. i love it.

catholicintl.com/catholicissues/ewtn.pdf

There is an old phrase in law: “False in part, suspect in all”. Since a good bit of what Ferrara nit picks about (and it is nit picking, not substantial), and Sungenis engages in also relates to nit picking, I would suggest that both need to be reviewed with a jaundiced eye. Just to mention one very minor point; on what appears to be page 17 of Sungenis’ critque, he states that the (far right) points to the loss of priests, and states that in 1965 we had 46,000 priests and in 2000, only 11,000.

I can’t distinguish from the comment whether he is stating that the (far right) is stating those as the numbers, or he is filling in the numbers for their statement of large loss.

That we have lost priests, and that we have had a hugh drop-off in the number being ordained (within the US) is true; however, the numbers from CARA are:

1965: 35,925 diocesan, 22,707 religious for a total of 58,632.

2000: 30,607 diocesan, 15,092 religious for a total of 45,699.

The difference: actual loss in that period of time is 22%. According to Sungenis (or the [far right] - it is not clear whose numbers these are), there was a 76% loss. A slight difference between one set of numbers and another.

As smart as Sungenis is, PhD and all, either he was playing fast and loose with the numbers, or he simply didn’t bother to check if someone else was. Either way, on a very minor item he was flat-out wrong. Leads one to wonder what else may have been less than accurate.

And as to Farrara, a masive case of “Don’t confuse me with the facts, as I already have my mind made up”.

Never argue in public with a fool; an observer may not be able to tell who is who.

 

[Ocarm]

The time of definition doesn’t matter.

I don’t think it’s quite that straightforward - a papal bull like Unam Sanctum doesn’t necessarily become infallible retrospectively because of the promulgation of Pastor Aeternus at the First Vatican Council. Ex cathedra statements (the only way by which a pope can unilaterally ‘make’ dogma, as I’m sure people know) must be clearly identified as such.

See Can. 749 §3 at:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

Pastor Aeternus can theoretically be applied retrospectively, but the document in question would have to rise to that stature. I know that in 1998 then-Cardinal Ratzinger issued a CDF commentary that lists documents considered to have been taught infallibly:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

Unam Sanctum doesn’t appear to have been included, although it is stated that the list wasn’t exhaustive.

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.

This, of course, is true. But people can’t have known with certainty it was dogmatically proclaimed until it was formally promulgated as such.

I think it’s this knowing beyond a shandow of a doubt that causes problems in terms of determining what has and has not been infallibly taught by the church - if the extraordinary magisterium has been invoked in ex cathedra teaching or via promulgation of a dogmatic constitution at an ecumenical council, that’s clear enough. But when, as is more usually the case, infallibility through the ordinary magisterium of sacred tradition is invoked, the arguments begin. Hence this thread, I believe.

I’m going to add, belatedly, that I don’t in any way consider myself to be an expert on papal and magisterial infallibility, just a humble student, and I’m entirely ready to be corrected by someone with appropriate authority and/or superior knowledge.

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

Of course not, which is why I never said such a thing.

 

[otjm]

Why is it that some people have such a hard time understanding what the Church teaches, and such a hard time when the Church, having taught something, explains it further in a more nuanced way?

The Church holds that all truth of faith in God, the Trinity, etc. resides in the Catholic Church. Short of those who choose to quibble over the meaning of the term “subsides”, I think we can all agree on that, no? And as to words, the Church is and always has been careful of choosing words; when it supplies the word and says what the definition of that word is, any further exchange is with someone who is unwilling to accept the definiton - which pretty much leaves them out of the conversation.

Other faith expressions - Protestant in its varying forms- have denied certain statements of truth which the Church holds. We can all agree that those denials are heretical.

That does not mean that those Protestant faith expressions are devoid of any truth.

And any truth they hold is held in common with the Catholic Church, from which that truth eminates.

Calling them heretical is going back to the “glass half empty”; once you start focusing on the negative, you soon start down the path of denying that there is anything in the glass.

The fact that there is something in the glass does not give them special status - the truth, as noted, eminates from the Church, not from them.

When they baptize with the Trinitarian formula, they confect the sacrament, and the Church recognizes that sacrament as valid - that is, whoever is baptized, is baptized into the Catholic Church, whether or not they understand that or acknowledge it.

Whether grace flows from that baptism or not is not for us to judge; it is for God to decide; and only a fool would argue otherwise, if the baptism is valid.

What grace they may obtain beyond that, from learning about and following Christ, is because they follow the truth about Christ, which subsides in and eminates from the Church. It is not the Protestant (or if you insist on using the term, the heretical groups) of themselves which provide the means to salvation, but the truth(s) about Christ, which eminate from the Church and which, in union with the Church they hold. The Church has said that it is harder to obtain salvation if one belongs to one of these groups; but that it is not impossible; and that salvation obtained is obtained through the Church, through the truth which subsides in and eminates from the Church.

I choose not to get into a wrangle about formal vs. material heresy, only to note that the Church understands that many if not most Protestants have heard one side of the story about the Church, one that is prejudiced and they believe it in good faith. That issue ultimately is decided by God at judgement time, not us in a discussion.

And none of that is in contradiction to the Church saying that salvation is through the Church. I seem to recall JP2 referring to their membership in the Church, but not fully. And that makes perfect sense too.

I will say it again: none of us get to heaven by our understanding of doctrine; we get there by following Christ. For those who want to harp about Protestants, I will grant that a doctrine wrongly understood could pose significant problems to salvation. But apply that to Catholics too; a whole lot know little about doctrine; if that is the test we should all fear. I know a significant number of Protestants who live exemplary lives, attemting to follow Christ, and I know all too many Catholics whose understanding of the faith is reduced pretty much to a legalistic, minimalistic, and negativistic approach that has a whole lot less to do with the question “How do I follow Christ with my whole mind, whole heart and whole soul” and has more to do with “what is the least I can do and not go to hell”.

We have spent a whole lot of time on an issue that I simply cannot see as necessary; it just is not that hard to reconcile prior statements with the statements of Vatican 2, particularly if we don’t start out with a mindset that says we strongly think they don’t. We have a bunch of people running around palying psuedo-theologians whose mindset is “Vatican 2 is heretical and you have to prove it isn’t.” That is just another variation on cafeteria Catholicism.

You have a choice. Vatican 2 documents are the product of the bishops in union with the Pope, teaching about the faith. That is a pretty good definiton (in action) of the Magisterium. Denying that is starting down the wrong path entirely. Start with that as given, and the issue becomes a whole lot less emotionally complex - and I would submit a whole lot of the fuss over Vatican 2 documents is emotionally based, and not, as protested, faith based.

 

[una_fides]

otjm,
Thank you for your last post. And just to clarify to you, I’m not one of those people who you seem to think I am who claims that Vatican II was heretical. As I’ve said many times on here, I’m just looking for how to reconcile what seems on its face to be contradiction. Here are some pre-Vatican II infallible teachings from the Church on the matter of no salvation outside the Church (and I also suggest reading how theologians at those times received these writings and whether they were ever speculating that there really was salvation outside the visible Church but just by the Church operating through some sort of outside “elements”):

The Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445) From Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV:
(Infallible General Council & Ex Cathedra papal declaration) ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM
The sacrosanct Roman Church…firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
[Note: the word “heretics” here is the typical word used to describe Protestants, as the Church had always prior to Vatican II. According to this dogmatic definition, a Jew, schismatic, or Protestant will go to hell unless before death he joins the Catholic Church and even if he sheds his blood in the name of Christ it will profit him nothing unless he is in the complete unity of the Church. That language is exceptionally strong to say that even if someone becomes a martyr for Christ it profits him *nothing outside the Church.]

Vatican I. Infallible Ecumenical Council:
… This true catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, is what I shall steadfastly maintain and confess, by the help of God, in all its completeness and purity until my dying breath, and I shall do my best to ensure [2] that all others do the same. This is what I, the same Pius, promise, vow and swear. So help me God and these holy gospels of God. piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm
[Do protestants keep “the true Catholic faith”? This passage says that outside of the true Catholic faith *“none” can be saved.]

IV Lateran Council 1215: “One indeed is the universal Church of the Faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved.” Pope Innocent III ex Cathedra. fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html
[Are protestants part of the “universal Church of the Faithful”? (Please note also that the Church clearly has taught that this title *only applies to the Catholic Church). Outside of this Catholic faith “no one at all is saved.” I’m pretty sure the words “no one” mean what they say. There are no exceptions given here.

The Athanasian Creed – One of the symbols of the Faith approved by the Church and given a place in her liturgy. This Creed included in Ecumenical & Infallible Council of Florence: ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM
“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. … Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. … This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm
[Again do Protestants, Jews, etc “hold the Catholic faith”? This infallible Creed states that “everyone” must keep “whole and undefiled” otherwise they will go to hell. Do protestants do this?]

Please note, that I believe that those invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith will not be found guilty for not joinging the Church. However, these passages still must apply to them that they will not find salvation unless they are completely united to the Church at some point before death. Correct?

If you want more magisterial context for these statements, see my compilcation with links to the full texts here. I’m still waiting for a sufficient explanation of these texts understood, as Vatican I said they must be, “in the same sense” as they have always been understood.

 

[wisdomseeker]

otjm,
Thank you for your last post. And just to clarify to you, I’m not one of those people who you seem to think I am who claims that Vatican II was heretical. As I’ve said many times on here, I’m just looking for how to reconcile what seems on its face to be contradiction. Here are some pre-Vatican II infallible teachings from the Church on the matter of no salvation outside the Church (and I also suggest reading how theologians at those times received these writings and whether they were ever speculating that there really was salvation outside the visible Church but just by the Church operating through some sort of outside “elements”):

The Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445) From Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV:
(Infallible General Council & Ex Cathedra papal declaration) ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM
The sacrosanct Roman Church…firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.Church.]

Vatican I. Infallible Ecumenical Council:
… This true catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, is what I shall steadfastly maintain and confess, by the help of God, in all its completeness and purity until my dying breath, and I shall do my best to ensure [2] that all others do the same. This is what I, the same Pius, promise, vow and swear. So help me God and these holy gospels of God. piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm
[Do protestants keep “the true Catholic faith”? This passage says that outside of the true Catholic faith *"none

" can be saved.]

IV Lateran Council 1215: “One indeed is the universal Church of the Faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved.” Pope Innocent III ex Cathedra. fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html
[Are protestants part of the “universal Church of the Faithful”? (Please note also that the Church clearly has taught that this title *only applies to the Catholic Church). Outside of this Catholic faith “no one at all is saved.” I’m pretty sure the words “no one” mean what they say. There are no exceptions given here.

The Athanasian Creed – One of the symbols of the Faith approved by the Church and given a place in her liturgy. This Creed included in Ecumenical & Infallible Council of Florence: ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM
“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. … Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. … This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm
[Again do Protestants, Jews, etc “hold the Catholic faith”? This infallible Creed states that “everyone” must keep “whole and undefiled” otherwise they will go to hell. Do protestants do this?]

Please note, that I believe that those invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith will not be found guilty for not joinging the Church. However, these passages still must apply to them that they will not find salvation unless they are completely united to the Church at some point before death. Correct?

If you want more magisterial context for these statements, see my compilcation with links to the full texts here. I’m still waiting for a sufficient explanation of these texts understood, as Vatican I said they must be, “in the same sense” as they have always been understood.

i so agree with you. another thing bogus my mind is that statements were made about all other religions can obtain salvation without believing in Jesus, the Christ and the Church. i myself wish all men to be saved. but i am wondering if this kind of believe was also in the beginning of Christianity. was it excused made by the early Christians towards those who refused to believe what the Church tought about Christ? it seems today that it is possible that one could be saved even if he rejects Christ. it seems to me that today the preaching is: lets all make peace with one another and we all be fine.

But Jesus says: go and preach all i have tought you, if a town do not hear you, dust off the sand of your sandals. there will be great judgement to those who do not hear the Church… How is this fitting with the teachings of today that others can be saved without believing it. is it not the Church supposed to teach all men in all generations? so why is some people excused when they reject the Church?

 

[wisdomseeker]

There is an old phrase in law: “False in part, suspect in all”. Since a good bit of what Ferrara nit picks about (and it is nit picking, not substantial), and Sungenis engages in also relates to nit picking, I would suggest that both need to be reviewed with a jaundiced eye. Just to mention one very minor point; on what appears to be page 17 of Sungenis’ critque, he states that the (far right) points to the loss of priests, and states that in 1965 we had 46,000 priests and in 2000, only 11,000.

I can’t distinguish from the comment whether he is stating that the (far right) is stating those as the numbers, or he is filling in the numbers for their statement of large loss.

That we have lost priests, and that we have had a hugh drop-off in the number being ordained (within the US) is true; however, the numbers from CARA are:

1965: 35,925 diocesan, 22,707 religious for a total of 58,632.

2000: 30,607 diocesan, 15,092 religious for a total of 45,699.

The difference: actual loss in that period of time is 22%. According to Sungenis (or the [far right] - it is not clear whose numbers these are), there was a 76% loss. A slight difference between one set of numbers and another.

As smart as Sungenis is, PhD and all, either he was playing fast and loose with the numbers, or he simply didn’t bother to check if someone else was. Either way, on a very minor item he was flat-out wrong. Leads one to wonder what else may have been less than accurate.

And as to Farrara, a masive case of “Don’t confuse me with the facts, as I already have my mind made up”.

Never argue in public with a fool; an observer may not be able to tell who is who.

now you are also nit picking. the main point here is that is showing what is really going on inside the Church.
Sungenis is a watch dog. we need more of him in the Church.

i am no expert in the teachings of the Church. but the other day i heard father Groeschel saying: “whoever says that only priest can consegrate the Bread and Wine is a liar.”
now i heard many Catholic saying that only priests can do that.

there is no uniformity or consistency in what the Church really teaches. than we criticize others for getting away from the teachings of the Church because they are not sure what the Church really says, who is speaking the Truth.

anybody is allowed to teach whatever they please without any reprimand or retraction. no wonder why so many are confused.

 

[Spirithound]

but the other day i heard father Groeschel saying: “whoever says that only priest can consegrate the Bread and Wine is a liar.”

Source please.

 

[Spirithound]

…but it cannot change and it must be understood in the same sense as always.

Why is this the case? Doesn’t the Pope sometimes give Authentic Interpretations of Church teaching? it would seem then that while a particular statement may be indeed infallible, there is no similar guarantee that it will be understood correctly.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Source please.

did you read what i said? i was watching him on EWTN when he said that. i heard him saying. i am the source because i heard him saying on live tv.

 

[una_fides]

Why is this the case? Doesn’t the Pope sometimes give Authentic Interpretations of Church teaching? it would seem then that while a particular statement may be indeed infallible, there is no similar guarantee that it will be understood correctly.

It is the case to understand dogma in the same sense as the Church has always understood it because Vatican I infallibly said so. If you would like me to post again the quotes from Vatican I on that subject, let me know.
There is no guarantee that people will understand the teaching correctly, as you pointed out, and the only understanding that ultimately matters is that of the Church (not “church” as in the people, but Church as in those in union with the decisions of the hierarchy). When it comes to defining dogmas, the opinion of the laity ultimately does not determine anything unless the laity can bring something to the attention of those in authority. That said, prior to Vatican II, the Church actually censured those who wrongfully understood her teachings. As a result, the Church’s theologians back then were not like today in that they were given Church approval to teach what they were. Whereas today the Church basically is just allowing everyone to teach whatever it seems with virtually no censures being issued.

Also it must be kept in mind that the statements by the Magisterium are meant to be clear. They are the dogmatic definition and clarification of the issue. The Church’s dogmatic pronouncements are not written like Scripture, which can be easily misunderstood and misinterpreted for various reasons, most important of which is that Scripture was not meant to be a dogmatic pronouncement or definition of faith but it is rather a compilation of various books written for various reasons to various audiences. These infallible definitions are written to the Church for the purpose of clearly communicating to the faithful what they are to believe. So when popes infallible tell all Catholics in simple terms that there is no salvation outside the Church, how is the Church meaning for those statements to be understood and interpreted by the audience?

Pope Boniface declares in Unam Sanctam, “We believe in [the Catholic Church] firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins…”
The words “with simplicity” have an importance. He is clarifying the way that we are to understand that there is no salvation outside the Church. And I believe that the pope was saying what he meant and meant what he said. Even if someone tries to argue that the closing declaration in this encyclical is not infallible (which as I pointed out it does meet the qualifications for papal infallibility), it would at least demonstrate the sense that the Church understood the dogma of NSOC: that is in an absolute sense and “with simplicitly.”

 

[Spirithound]

did you read what i said? i was watching him on EWTN when he said that. i heard him saying. i am the source because i heard him saying on live tv.

Date, time, name of the program? I understand many EWTN programs can be viewed again online.

 

[Spirithound]

I would appreciate seeing the quotes from Vatican I again, thank you.

I’m not sure that Magesterial statements are meant to be clear. Their purpose is to define doctrine, and most definitely, clarity is highly desired, but the questions are prompted then, how clear does it have to be? How clear is God allowing it to be at that time? If, perhaps just as a thought experiment, we were to say that Vatican II did not contradict previous doctrine, sure, it would mean that the doctrine previously understood was not clear, but that’s God’s prerogative and it trumps my demands for knowledge and clarity.

I would like to comment on your comments of Pope Boniface’s document after seeing again the Vatican I quotes.

Peace!

It is the case to understand dogma in the same sense as the Church has always understood it because Vatican I infallibly said so. If you would like me to post again the quotes from Vatican I on that subject, let me know.
There is no guarantee that people will understand the teaching correctly, as you pointed out, and the only understanding that ultimately matters is that of the Church.

Also it must be kept in mind that the statements by the Magisterium are meant to be clear. They are the dogmatic definition and clarification of the issue. The Church’s dogmatic pronouncements are not written like Scripture, which can be easily misunderstood and misinterpreted for various reasons, most important of which is that Scripture was not meant to be a dogmatic pronouncement or definition of faith but it is rather a compilation of various books written for various reasons to various audiences. These infallible definitions are written to the Church for the purpose of clearly communicating to the faithful what they are to believe. So when popes infallible tell all Catholics in simple terms that there is no salvation outside the Church, how is the Church meaning for those statements to be understood and interpreted by the audience?

Pope Boniface declares in Unam Sanctam, “We believe in [the Catholic Church] firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins…”
The words “with simplicity” have an importance. He is clarifying the way that we are to understand that there is no salvation outside the Church. And I believe that the pope was saying what he meant and meant what he said. Even if someone tries to argue that the closing declaration in this encyclical is not infallible (which as I pointed out it does meet the qualifications for papal infallibility), it would at least demonstrate the sense that the Church understood the dogma of NSOC: that is in an absolute sense and “with simplicitly.”

 

[Spirithound]

I came across this post again as I was looking for the Vatican I canons, and I wanted to comment a little more.

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.

I agree perfect contrition is rare, but it is an empirical question. We think that it is rare, particularly with those Catholics who happen to answer surveys about their beliefs, but what about the faithful Catholics? Sure, rare, but it happens. I’m not arguing for a massive Protestant parade into Heaven, but i see rather a few of them who are really excited for God, and their love is palpable. Might your observations be a case of more being demanded of those who have 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.

The example you cited is a sin of presumption, which many of us Catholics also deal with. On a semi-related note, are there actually some Protestants who believe they don’t even have to be sorry for their 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

 

[una_fides]

I would appreciate seeing the quotes from Vatican I again, thank you. …
I would like to comment on your comments of Pope Boniface’s document after seeing again the Vatican I quotes.

Vatican I – Infallible
Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.
3. If anyone says that
• it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands:
let him be anathema.
piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#4.%20On%20faith%20and%20reason

The following should also be helpful:

Pope St. Pius X, Oath Against Modernism:
To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.
“I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.” …
“The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. “
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm

 

[wisdomseeker]

Date, time, name of the program? I understand many EWTN programs can be viewed again online.

i cannot remember the date. it was a while back. i cannot even remember the topic. i will try to search. the day is on sundays, whatever time he comes on on sundays.

 

[diggerdomer]

Vatican I – Infallible
Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.
3. If anyone says that
• it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands:
let him be anathema.
piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#4.%20On%20faith%20and%20reason

The following should also be helpful:

Pope St. Pius X, Oath Against Modernism:
To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.
“I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.” …
“The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. “
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm

Sorry, I’m not clear what you’re trying to claim by the quotations. Can you clarify?

Thanks.

 

[una_fides]

Sorry, I’m not clear what you’re trying to claim by the quotations. Can you clarify?

Thanks.

Let me try to sum it up for you.

1. Dogmas cannot change their meaning
2. They must be interpreted in the same sense as they have always been understood
3. No salvation outside the Church is a Catholic dogma
   Ergo
4. This teaching must be understood in the same sense as it has always been understood.
   The way the Church has understood this statement throughout her history cannot change.

So let’s say I was to tell you the following:
If anyone is going to be saved before all things it is necessary for him to hold to the Catholic faith, which unless one keeps completely, he cannot be saved and will perish everlastingly. It is absolutely necessary for every human creature to be subject to the authority of the Pope. The Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches that those not living within her, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot inherit eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before the end of life they enter into the unity of the Catholic Church that is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and that no one, regardless of what good works he has performed or even if he sheds his blood in the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the unity of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is neither salvation nor remission of sins.

First, would you agree with the statement?
Second, would you think that people outside the Catholic Church could be saved?
Third, would you accept these statements if God guaranteed that they were declared infallibly?

If you’ve been paying attention in the thread thus far, you would realize that I was virtually quoting from infallible declarations of the Church. These statements must be understood in the same sense that the Church has always understood them. Thus, the more we read of how the Church has always interpreted and understood these passages, the more we will understand the correct sense that these dogmas mean to communicate. These declarations must have the exact same meaning in the exact same sense as they have had before, as Vatican I infallibly proclaimed.

So read the infallible pronouncements and read the rest of the context in which they were made so that you can understand what the popes and Councils were communicating. Their statements also can be understood by the theologians whom the Church endorsed especially around the times of those pronouncements. St. Thomas Aquinas has gained more Magisterial support as a theologian than any other theologian in the 2000 year history of the Church. In fact, popes have said that if you stick with his teachings you will never depart from the path to the truth. You can see what St. Thomas said on the matter, but I would suggest doing so only after reading the Magisterial pronouncements on the matter in their full contexts.

How is one to find these pronouncements and in their full contexts you might ask… All you have to do is Click Here. (Yes, I’ve made it that easy for you. You can thank me later.)

 

[diggerdomer]

Let me try to sum it up for you.

1. Dogmas cannot change their meaning
2. They must be interpreted in the same sense as they have always been understood
3. No salvation outside the Church is a Catholic dogma
   Ergo
4. This teaching must be understood in the same sense as it has always been understood.
   The way the Church has understood this statement throughout her history cannot change.

So let’s say I was to tell you the following:
If anyone is going to be saved before all things it is necessary for him to hold to the Catholic faith, which unless one keeps completely, he cannot be saved and will perish everlastingly.

I’d say before all things it is necessary for him or her to hold to God/Christ.

It is absolutely necessary for every human creature to be subject to the authority of the Pope.

I’d say it’s absolutely necessary for every human creature to be subject to the authority of God. It’s necessary for Catholics to be subject to the authority of the Pope.

The Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches that those not living within her, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot inherit eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before the end of life they enter into the unity of the Catholic Church that is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and that no one, regardless of what good works he has performed or even if he sheds his blood in the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the unity of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is neither salvation nor remission of sins.

I’d say, as the Catholic Church says, that “Christ himself is the mystery of salvation”–see Catechism para 772 ff. and 813 ff. Where do your thoughts come from?

If you’ve been paying attention in the thread thus far, you would realize that I was virtually quoting from infallible declarations of the Church.

I have been paying attention. I am not at all clear that you’ve been quoting from infallible declarations (although, “virtually” you may have been doing anything, I’m not sure what you mean by “virtually”). Given that “infallibility” was not defined until Vatican I in the late 19th century, what quotations have you cited that you claim have indisputably been taught infallibly and understood by the Church as such (again, given that the doctrine of infallibility was only begun to be explicitly clarified at Vatican I)?

These declarations must have the exact same meaning in the exact same sense as they have had before, as Vatican I infallibly proclaimed.

Yes of course to the first (I’m still confused on how you can claim Vatican I infallibly proclaimed something, since Vatican I only defined how the Pope teaches infallibly, not how an ecumenical council teaches infallibly).

Still, this in no way limits the Church from further clarifying and expanding on Her continued and growing understanding of the mystery of revelation, in any contemporary age, language, culture, etc. Just because Vatican I (or any Council or dogmatic formulation) declares something “such and such” does not in any way mean we, the Church, have no more to learn. We can always learn more and go deeper into our understanding and appropriation of the mystery of God and God’s revelation.

In fact, popes have said that if you stick with his teachings you will never depart from the path to the truth. You can see what St. Thomas said on the matter, but I would suggest doing so only after reading the Magisterial pronouncements on the matter in their full contexts.

Well of course, St. Thomas and any other Doctor of the Church are excellent guides (though not superior to the Magisterium)…but “not departing from” the truth is not the same as “fully understanding” the truth. The Church will never depart from the truth, ultimately, we are taught/believe…but the Church in history will never also fully understand and express, fully and explicitly, the mystery of God.

All you have to do is Click Here. (Yes, I’ve made it that easy for you. You can thank me later.)

I’ll thank you now for making it easy, though I expect my thanks are not what you expect. This link you provided is of course not from the Magisterium, and is a series of quotations taken out of context and strung together and ALL from pre-Vatican II sources, and so are deficient if one is seriously interested in exploring the totality of the Catholic faith. Any such pretended synthesis that ignores an ecumenical Council like Vatican II, or the revised Code of Canon Law promulgated by John Paul II (1983) or the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church (also John Paul II, 1992) is …well…severely lacking.

Thank you.