Vatican II changes things?

[una_fides]

It may make more sense to you to leave it at the “hard” message, but apparently that’s not completely true. The God who is Truth revealed to us some exceptions. Take it up with Him.

I agree with the rest of your post though. A question i see now is whether a non-Christian commits as many mortal sins as a Catholic does. One criterion for a sin to be mortal is that the sinner has full knowledge that it is a sin.

Luke 12:47-48 (NAB)
47 “And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, 48 but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

True, to whom much is given much will be required. However, the Catechism teaches that no one is ignorant of the natural law. How many of us can keep the natural law? True we have more knowledge and with that comes more responsibility, but also with that comes more grace! We have the sacraments! We receive the Real Presence of almighty and all holy God into our physical bodies. We receive special graces in confession to sin no more. What about those who do not have such amazing well-springs of grace, those who do not have the fullness of the truth, those who accept teachings that when followed leave their souls void of grace? Yes, some may be invincibly ignorant, but most of those same follow the course that St. Paul explains in Romans 1, which is their understanding becomes darkened as a result of their sins.

I think initially popes had in mind with the “invincible ignorance” someone who was truly without any fault, humbly begged light from heaven, cooperated with the promptings of grace available to them, obeyed the natural law, were not guilty of any deliberate sins, and had perfect charity towards God. Yes, such people could possibly be saved. How? We don’t exactly know because they are outside the visible Church. Perhaps an angel would come to instruct such a person in the true faith or perhaps through a special revelation or perhaps they are already somehow a part of the “soul of the Church” though not completely a part of its body. That last one I find difficult to understand as how can a body be separate from a soul? (I know however that this idea of being united to the soul of the Church was included in Pope Pius X’s catechism.) Aren’t we all body and soul and when the soul departs from the body we cease to exist? Our human souls also do not exist outside of our bodies but are connected to them as a part of our being alive. If the Church is a living organism, how can her soul exist outside of her body? Perhaps through these “elements of salvation”?? Perhaps these “elements” are the operation of the soul of the Church outside of the Body? That seems quite strange to think about however… A soul operating outside of its body. That would also re-interpret all those previous infallible declarations to mean no salvation outside of the Church’s soul but not her body. And those statements are clearly referring to the Body and Soul of the Church when they say that outside the Church there is no salvation. If we understand them in the same sense as they have always been meant to mean, then we are still left with a dilemma. Are we not?

 

[una_fides]

Here is one infallible declaration that to me clearly seems to be referring to the visible Body of the Church when it declares that outside of her there is no salvation:

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.

Am I missing something here? Doesn’t this text seem to be referring to the visible Church and not merely to its soul?

Here is another Magisterial teaching:

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, June 29, 1943:
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MYSTI.HTM

Perhaps this one could shed some light:

CATECHISM OF POPE SAINT PIUS X
The Church in Particular
8 Q. What is the Catholic Church?
A. The Catholic Church is the Union or Congregation of all the baptised who, still living on earth, profess the same Faith and the same Law of Jesus Christ, participate in the same Sacraments, and obey their lawful Pastors, particularly the Roman Pontiff.
9 Q. State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church?
A. To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptised, to believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church.
21 Q. What is the constitution of the Church of Jesus Christ?
A. The Church of Jesus Christ has been constituted as a true and perfect Society; and in her we can distinguish a soul and a body.
22 Q. In what does the Soul of the Church consist?
A. The Soul of the Church consists in her internal and spiritual endowments, that is, faith, hope, charity, the gifts of grace and of the Holy Ghost, together with all the heavenly treasures which are hers through the merits of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, and of the Saints.
23 Q. In what does the Body of the Church consist?
A. The Body of the Church consists in her external and visible aspect, that is, in the association of her members, in her worship, in her teaching-power and in her external rule and government.
24 Q. To be saved, is it enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic Church?
A. No, to be saved it is not enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic Church; it is necessary to be a living member.
27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.
28 Q. How, then, were the Patriarchs of old, the Prophets, and the other just men of the Old Testament, saved?
A. The just of the Old Testament were saved in virtue of the faith they had in Christ to come, by means of which they spiritually belonged to the Church.
29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation
ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.htm

That last phrase–“the way of salvation”–would not exclude the person from gaining some revelation before death and joining the body of the Church through a conscious desire. If that’s the case, then such a person would not already be a member of the Church until they have that revelation of the truth of the Catholic faith and cooperate therewith.

 

[ron77nyc]

I have no idea where you are trying to go with this statement. Could you explain? To say the Catholic Church “twisted” the gospel message sounds incredibly protestant to me…

The Church has added requirements to salvation that were not there in the beginning such as: submitting to the Pope, 2 infallible declarations about Mary. New converts must accept these and others additions to be Catholic while Catholics who were born into the faith don’t accept the resurrection of Jesus but they think they are saved because they have the other gospel which is: “Become a Catholic and you will be saved.” The apostles converted people to faith in Jesus. The goal of Christianity is to be united to Christ and to have Him live His life in you. The following is an excerpt from the Pope’s message at Vatican City on Nov. 19, 2008. Does he sound protestant also?
zenit.org/article-24302?l=english
“……it is Christ who unites us with and in the one God; it is Christ who guarantees our true identity in the diversity of cultures; and it is he who makes us just. To be just means simply to be with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Other observances are no longer necessary.”

This is the original gospel message.

1 Cor. 15:1-4,Now I make known to you brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures…"

Romans 10:9-10, “if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; 10 for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.”

 

[pnewton]

Here is one infallible declaration that to me clearly seems to be referring to the visible Body of the Church when it declares that outside of her there is no salvation:

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.

Am I missing something here? Doesn’t this text seem to be referring to the visible Church and not merely to its soul?

Yes. You are still missing the word “visible.” “Unity” does not imply, deny or touch on the possibilities raised in Trent or Vatican II. In any case, the point here is that this concept is not new with Vatican II.

“If anyone says that the baptism which is given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism, let him be anathema.”

Furthermore, if Florence is read in context, what we can say is that there can be no presumption that one can be saved through charitable acts alone, if they remains apart from the Sacraments.

But then we already no that because of the writings of St. Paul. I think we forget sometimes n all our posting of councils, bulls and the such, that our Canon of Scripture is still only 27 books long.

 

[pnewton]

“Become a Catholic and you will be saved.” The apostles converted people to faith in Jesus.”

You draw a dichotomy where none exists.

Acts 2:41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day…
Acts 2:46 Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and to breaking bread in their homes. They ate their meals with exultation and sincerity of heart, 47 praising God and enjoying favor with all the people. And every day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.

On the day the Church was born, and shortly following, those who were saved were added to the Church. One can not Jesus and** reject His Church. This is a Catholic teaching and has been from day one, as documented here. The fact that the Church knows more today than it did on that day is just a fulfillment of the promise of Jesus the week before he died to send us the Holy Spirit to help use continue. I notice you used two recent additions to the deposit of faith and did not use that to be saved one can not reject the deity of Christ, or His humanity. That too was understood post gospel writings.
Yet we see the principle was laid down early, as una fides quoted. These are things Vatican II did not change in the least.

 

[ron77nyc]

You draw a dichotomy where none exists.

On the day the Church was born, and shortly following, those who were saved were added to the Church. One can not Jesus and** reject His Church. This is a Catholic teaching and has been from day one, as documented here. The fact that the Church knows more today than it did on that day is just a fulfillment of the promise of Jesus the week before he died to send us the Holy Spirit to help use continue. I notice you used two recent additions to the deposit of faith and did not use that to be saved one can not reject the deity of Christ, or His humanity. That too was understood post gospel writings.
Yet we see the principle was laid down early, as una fides quoted. These are things Vatican II did not change in the least.

It is taken for granted that if you are Catholic you are a Christian but that’s not always true.
An issue is always made about those who accept Jesus and reject the Roman Catholic Church but an issue is never made about those who accept the Roman Catholic Church and reject Jesus. These people are never told belief in Jesus is necessary for salvation. It seems like not being Catholic is worse than rejecting Jesus. I agree. Vatican II did not change this attitude.

 

[kprobson]

I do believe that Vatican II changed Roman Catholicism drastically. The Church changed from teaching the rules such as what’s expected, how to behave, and the “truths” of the faith to, “Be a good person. You know who we are because you’re one of us.”

I wasn’t taught the lists of what’s in a moral sin, venial sin, grave sin, etc.
I wasn’t taught the Act of Contrition
I wasn’t taught all the required prayers for saying the Rosary.
I don’t know the order of Angels and Saints and Martyrs.
I didn’t know there are 21 tracts to the Mass until I attended a music course in a United Church of Christ college.
I wasn’t taught about the different kinds of priests, nuns, sisters, brothers, monks, etc.

AND no one was willing to teach it to me when I asked.

I’ve been reading the catechism book from Pope John Paul II that my dad gave me a few years back (hey, it’s a thick book) and even it doesn’t tell me all these things. There are other things I wasn’t taught about which you (all) have been speaking that has been news to me.

I attended Catholic school for 11 years. My kids attended Catholic school for 13 years (including kindergarten). They don’t know the Catholic rules or history either. They have no real faith because the parish wouldn’t help me teach the kids. They became arrogant when I asked them to teach specifics. (Maybe it’s because they didn’t want to admit that they, too, didn’t know this stuff). I even attended an RCIA class to try to get the information, but it was all fluff - generalities about why people wanted to join the Catholic Church, but no specific Roman Catholic stuff.

The thing that changed Vatican II was not necessarily the general principle of the faith. They just stopped teaching it. I’m not surprised there are less priests or nuns, as the Church failed us in becoming too generic for us to know about the specifics. It’s the old saying of, “How can I play the game if I don’t know the rules?”

I intend on continuing to read threads from this site because I’m finally getting a Catholic education at age 48. I am NOT what they call a “recovering Catholic” because I don’t know what one is in the first place. I just want to learn and try to do as best as I can.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I do believe that Vatican II changed Roman Catholicism drastically. The Church changed from teaching the rules such as what’s expected, how to behave, and the “truths” of the faith to, “Be a good person. You know who we are because you’re one of us.”

I wasn’t taught the lists of what’s in a moral sin, venial sin, grave sin, etc.
I wasn’t taught the Act of Contrition
I wasn’t taught all the required prayers for saying the Rosary.
I don’t know the order of Angels and Saints and Martyrs.
I didn’t know there are 21 tracts to the Mass until I attended a music course in a United Church of Christ college.
I wasn’t taught about the different kinds of priests, nuns, sisters, brothers, monks, etc.

AND no one was willing to teach it to me when I asked.

I’ve been reading the catechism book from Pope John Paul II that my dad gave me a few years back (hey, it’s a thick book) and even it doesn’t tell me all these things. There are other things I wasn’t taught about which you (all) have been speaking that has been news to me.

I attended Catholic school for 11 years. My kids attended Catholic school for 13 years (including kindergarten). They don’t know the Catholic rules or history either. They have no real faith because the parish wouldn’t help me teach the kids. They became arrogant when I asked them to teach specifics. (Maybe it’s because they didn’t want to admit that they, too, didn’t know this stuff). I even attended an RCIA class to try to get the information, but it was all fluff - generalities about why people wanted to join the Catholic Church, but no specific Roman Catholic stuff.

The thing that changed Vatican II was not necessarily the general principle of the faith. They just stopped teaching it. I’m not surprised there are less priests or nuns, as the Church failed us in becoming too generic for us to know about the specifics. It’s the old saying of, “How can I play the game if I don’t know the rules?”

I intend on continuing to read threads from this site because I’m finally getting a Catholic education at age 48. I am NOT what they call a “recovering Catholic” because I don’t know what one is in the first place. I just want to learn and try to do as best as I can.

God bless you. one thing i would like to see it done in the Church is for the priest to talk about the writings of the Pope. so Catholics know what the holy father is saying. but i have a feeling that some in the Church has no interest in give us what the pope is saying.

i got upset one time at the RCIA when i read the papers that the priest gave and on these papers had Martin luther and billy graham as example of great christians. why did he not instead mention teachings of the pope?

 

[Spirithound]

I think initially popes had in mind with the “invincible ignorance” someone who was truly without any fault, humbly begged light from heaven, cooperated with the promptings of grace available to them, obeyed the natural law, were not guilty of any deliberate sins, and had perfect charity towards God. Yes, such people could possibly be saved. How? We don’t exactly know because they are outside the visible Church. Perhaps an angel would come to instruct such a person in the true faith or perhaps through a special revelation or perhaps they are already somehow a part of the “soul of the Church” though not completely a part of its body.

These are exactly the same rules for Catholics to enter Heaven! We must be without fault, having humbly begged God, cooperated with His grace, obeyed the natural law, and be with perfect charity to God.

Regrettably, i don’t have any answers for your questions about the spiritual mechanics of their salvation, but I have faith that it can be accomplished.

 

[ron77nyc]

I do believe that Vatican II changed Roman Catholicism drastically. The Church changed from teaching the rules such as what’s expected, how to behave, and the “truths” of the faith to, “Be a good person. You know who we are because you’re one of us.”

I wasn’t taught the lists of what’s in a moral sin, venial sin, grave sin, etc.
I wasn’t taught the Act of Contrition
I wasn’t taught all the required prayers for saying the Rosary.
I don’t know the order of Angels and Saints and Martyrs.
I didn’t know there are 21 tracts to the Mass until I attended a music course in a United Church of Christ college.
I wasn’t taught about the different kinds of priests, nuns, sisters, brothers, monks, etc.

AND no one was willing to teach it to me when I asked.

I’ve been reading the catechism book from Pope John Paul II that my dad gave me a few years back (hey, it’s a thick book) and even it doesn’t tell me all these things. There are other things I wasn’t taught about which you (all) have been speaking that has been news to me.

I attended Catholic school for 11 years. My kids attended Catholic school for 13 years (including kindergarten). They don’t know the Catholic rules or history either. They have no real faith because the parish wouldn’t help me teach the kids. They became arrogant when I asked them to teach specifics. (Maybe it’s because they didn’t want to admit that they, too, didn’t know this stuff). I even attended an RCIA class to try to get the information, but it was all fluff - generalities about why people wanted to join the Catholic Church, but no specific Roman Catholic stuff.

The thing that changed Vatican II was not necessarily the general principle of the faith. They just stopped teaching it. I’m not surprised there are less priests or nuns, as the Church failed us in becoming too generic for us to know about the specifics. It’s the old saying of, “How can I play the game if I don’t know the rules?”

I intend on continuing to read threads from this site because I’m finally getting a Catholic education at age 48. I am NOT what they call a “recovering Catholic” because I don’t know what one is in the first place. I just want to learn and try to do as best as I can.

That’s OK because the early Christians didn’t know any of that stuff either. It didn’t exist in apostolic times. If you believe in the resurrection of Jesus, are baptized and repent from all known sin then you know what the first generation of Chrisians knew.

 

[nice2000]

How do I answer this?:

"Take your time and read it and look up any information on it. Don’t jump to conclusions by just the first few things but keep reading. I found it interesting, I’m sure you will too.
This is some information I found to be interesting, the RCC had a meeting from 62-65 called Vatican II. What is the Vatican II? My understanding is it took place in October of ‘62. There were 2,540 bishops and others of the RCC gathered in Rome for this session. This session was to make some innovations to the old laws that the RCC followed. They held the last session on December 8, 1965 and when they were finished meeting they basically announced that a lot in the RCC was changing. Changing? No, they don’t change. Let’s see if they do or not…

One thing that changed was the Language of the Mass. Which there wasn’t even Latin in the New Testament church. Latin didn’t even come about until the 6th century, but anyway, they changed their mass Language.

Fasting also changed at this meeting. Before all this fasting was anything after midnight before you could receive the Holy Communion. It was changed to from midnight for 3 hours. Then in 1964 it went from 3 hours to one hour at the decree of Pope Paul VI.
Then changed again in 1983, before you were not even aloud to drink water or medicine and then in 1983, you were aloud to take medicine before you received the Holy Communion. Which if I’m right, wasn’t it a mortal sin to take of the Holy Communion in a manner that wasn’t according to the RCC?

Eat Meat on Friday was another not aloud before this meeting atleast in the US. Other countries still follow the “Do not eat meat on Friday” rule and it even is part of their new Code of Canon Law, Canons.

Another change was Sunday Attendance at mass. Before Vatican II, Catholics were required and was considered a mortal sin if they didn’t attend Mass on Sundays. Now they have Saturday evening Mass to take the place of Sunday Mass which before the Vatican II was unheard of.

Before Vatican II, the Catechisms stood that you must go in a room and tell the priests your sin to obtain forgiveness of that sin. Since then there has been a Introduction to the New Order of Penance, something called “general absolution” The document states "Individual and integral confession and absolution remains the only ordinary way by which the faithful may be reconciled with God and with the Church, except when this is physically or morally impossible….without individual confession of sins.

Celibacy of the Priest is another one that changed.
Pope Paul VI on Priestly Celibacy: In virtue of the fundamental norm of the government of the Catholic Church, to which we alluded above, while on the one hand, the law requiring a freely chosen and perpetual celibacy of those who are admitted to the Holy Order remains unchanged, on the other hand, a study may be allowed of the particular circumstances of married sacred ministers of Churches or other Christian communities separated from the Catholic communion, and of the possibility of communion and to continue to exercise the sacred ministry. The circumstances must be such, however, as not to prejudice the existing discipline regarding celibacy (#42)
Recently, married Episcopal priests have been permitted to become Roman Catholic priest while remaining married. Changed? or not?

Ecumenicalism
Pre-Vatican II teaching on this subject was “All are obliged to belong to the Catholic church in order to be saved.” (129). This same doctrine was often expressed, Outside the church there is no Salvation." Since the Vatican II Catholic priest take part in ecumenical (the idea that all Christian churches are one) services and functions in various cities and at various times. Not all priests but some do.

Reminding you that most if not all of these were mortal sins. This is not just a statement but something that is wrong one day and not the next day. How can something be sin one day and not the next? "

Hi CanardMom,

You bring up some very good points.

It makes me wonder if Vatican II was a way of altering the liturgy of the church?

Vatican II tried very hard to make the modern world more acceptable of the Catholic Church.

My personal opinion, the results of Vatican II actually made it worse for the Church.

The Catholic Church is the “One True Church” and “One True Faith.”

We should not be altering our church to please modernization.

 

[diggerdomer]

You can’t say that someone is “missing out” on the fullness of truth if they do not accept modern teachings because to say so would also be to say that the Church prior to V2 was also missing out on something that V2 later brought to the Church.

No, of course I’m not saying simply that the Church prior to Vatican II was “missing out” by the simple fact that it was prior to Vatican II. I’m saying anyone TODAY who refuses to recognize or consider the teachings of Vatican II (and of course all the subsequent Magisterial teachings) are “missing out” because those teachings are (like it or not) part of the Church.

However, to say that Church changed the meanings or understandings of dogmas or changed dogmas themselves is to say that the Church has slipped into heresy, and I hope that you are not saying that.

Of course I’m not saying that, but I would disagree that it would be heretical – simply – for the Church to change meanings or understandings of dogmas. As Pope John XXIII said in convoking Vatican II:

What is needed is that this certain and immutable doctrine, to which the faithful owe obedience, be studied afresh and reformulated in contemporary terms. For this deposit of faith, or truths which are contained in our time-honored teaching is one thing; the manner in which these truths are set forth (with their meaning preserved intact) is something else.

It would only be heretical if the Church denied what the Church taught dogmatically.

If anything, I think IMHO that V2 has blurred the lines between truth and error with its many vague statements and those who held to the faith prior to V2 are in much better shape than those who try to rely in V2 isolated from the past Tradition of the Church, without which V2 is nothing.

We can disagree on our take on Vatican II, I definitely do not think that an ecumenical council of the Church blurred the lines between truth and error. I don’t know about the two categories you mention, I guess I’m in a third (along with everyone else I know) who accept and rely on everything before VII, during VII, and after VII.

that popes made infallible declarations and Councils have ruled infallibly that those outside the Church (heretics, schismatics, Jews, pagans, Muslims, etc) cannot inherit eternal life unless they come into full communion with the Catholic Church before death.

I disagree that such teachings were taught infallibly. I don’t think it’s clear to me that the Church considers them as having been taught infallibly. Regardless, to be properly understood requires reading them in light of the whole tradition of the Church (not just up until Vatican II) and of course in the context of their times.

The constant teaching of the Church to me seems quite clear on this matter. It seems, however, that the modern Church is trying to redefine these matters giving them a different sense than how the Church understood them previously. I am trying to reconcile the two, and so far, no one has come close to doing so on here.

It can be difficult to reconcile Church teaching through the ages. I agree it’s not always easy.

You are misunderstanding what I meant, and on second reading, I can see how you took it. I basically was attacking the approach that I’ve seen many do and which it seemed you were doing, which is to start with Vatican II and then approach pre-Vatican II teachings interpreting them with that mentality instead of the other way around. Your previous comments demonstrated that you were taking such an approach and that approach was what I was saying was not the correct one to take.

Perhaps both ways need to be considered. Maybe approaching it from only one angle isn’t sufficient. The Church is not perfect.

The Church cannot change her teachings. Do you think that the current Magisterium is trying to apply a different sense or understanding to her previous teachings on NSOC?

The Church can change many teachings. But…anyway…I think the Magisterium is applying a fuller (and, I’d say, truer) understanding or sense to the oft-quoted “no salvation outside the Church.” This issue has been present through the centuries, not just with Vatican II. Cyprian was not talking about Catholics vs. non-Catholic Christians when he wrote it. Augustine (~150 years later) acknowledged that there are those outside the visible structure of the Church that could be saved, and likewise those within the visible structure who may not be (City of God). And so on. I think the current understanding is better reflective of the truth of God (see CCC 816 scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#819); which, I guess, could be seen as blurring the lines between truth and error (though I disagree with that) because it’s not so black and white. What does “subsists” in mean, anyway? Lots of opinions. How does one define the “Church Christ entrusted to Peter’s care?”

I think the Church “reformulates” this teaching better, e.g. as it says (CCC 846) scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#846

Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body

It’s easier for me to see the connections through the ages when I consider that formulation (no salvation outside Christ).

Thanks for the response(s)–appreciate your thoughtful replies.

 

[pnewton]

It is taken for granted that if you are Catholic you are a Christian but that’s not always true.

Only if you redefine being Christian to what is called by Fundamentalist as “being saved”. “Have you ever made a personal decision to accept Jesus as your Saviour”, etc.

 

[otjm]

I agree with everything you say but if prior to Vatican II, you or I or a priest or a bishop would have said what the catechism now says, we would be declared heretics. You had to be Catholic. Only Catholics were going to heaven. Everyone else was excluded.

Given that in 1949 the Pope made clear that this was not the stance of the Church, your church history is shown to be lacking. Go look up father Feeney if you don’t think this is true - and that was Pius 12th.

 

[otjm]

Again, as I’ve pointed out, rather than starting with recent teachings of the Magisterium, begin by examining the other infallible statements of the Church that explain what it means to “be subject to the Pope.” One simply needs to define the terms to understand the meaning, but also interpret it in light of other pre-Vatican II teachings on the matter as well. Have you read compilations of pre-V2 teachings on NSOC? Here’s the one I’ve linked to on here like 5 times already: Click here.

Also keep in mind the sense in which this dogma has always been understood cannot change (Vatican I). A “nuancing” of the definition would mean that the teaching has taken on a “subtle variation” in meaning. If such a “subtle variation” or “nuancing” results in any change in the sense in which the teaching has been understood then such would contradict Vatican I’s definition that dogmas cannot change or be understood in a different sense or take on a different meaning than understood and explained previously.

Lets try it one more time. I have yet to see (and perhaps you have given it and I overlooked it) a definition of what the term “subject to the Pope” means. If you ahve not given it, then I would suggest that part of the problem is that the definition has not been given in the way you seem to be taking it.

One can define the Church thus: those who have been bapitzed, received first Communion and Confirmation, and profess the Faith.

However, is that definition exclusive or not? You seem to be taking that (if we can for the moment agree as that being the definition) as being exclusive and totally encompassing. But where does it say that it is both totally encompassing and exclusive? The Church seems to be saying yes, that is the definition of the Church, but the foundation of the definition is Baptism; thsoe who have been baptized following the Trinitarian formula) have been baptized into the Church and are therefore members of the Church, but are incomplete members. Keep in mind that the Orthodox have valid sacraments including priesthood and Eucharist; but they are not full members of the Church.

So also, the Church is saying that “being subject to the Pope” is not defined in an absolute, exclusice and totally encompassing manner - does that mean an oath of loyalty? If so, I would have to question if I or anyone I know who professes to be a Catholic is actually a member, as none of us has taken such an oath.

If not an oath, then what? The Pope doesn’t have meaning without the foundation of baptism; that is, one has a meanignless statement by saying “pope” withoput reference to to foundational basis of it all - baptism. The whole definition of any and all parts of the Church start with that foundation.

So does "being subject to the Pope have an exclusive and totally encompassing definition? I have not seen one yet; but I would submit that “being subject to” demands as a base the sacrament of baptism; and if those baptized but not catechized as Catholics are members of the Church, but not fully, then by analogy, those baptized are “subject to the Pope” but not fully.

 

[ron77nyc]

It is taken for granted that if you are Catholic you are a Christian but that’s not always true.
An issue is always made about those who accept Jesus and reject the Roman Catholic Church but an issue is never made about those who accept the Roman Catholic Church and reject Jesus. These people are never told belief in Jesus is necessary for salvation. It seems like not being Catholic is worse than rejecting Jesus. I agree. Vatican II did not change this attitude.

Only if you redefine being Christian to what is called by Fundamentalist as “being saved”.

I’m not redefining Christian to what is called a Fundamentalist. I’m talking about the many baptized and confirmed Catholics who I know personally who don’t believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Is it possible to be a Christian and not believe in the resurrection of Jesus?

“Have you ever made a personal decision to accept Jesus as your Saviour”, etc.

Yes

 

[otjm]

What we seem to have is a series of quotes taken out of context to prove a point - the point being that the statements in the documents of Vatican 2 do not square with prior statements concerning membership in the Church. I would submit that we have just that - statements taken out of context, with a whole lot of discussion outside the stat3ments quoted, that together show that the definitions given are not as exclusive and limiting as they seem to be. Why else would Pope Pius 12th, prior to any thought of Vatican 2, take issue with an exclusive definiton of the prerequisties of salvation - membership in the Catholic Church as a professed Catholic?

 

[ron77nyc]

Given that in 1949 the Pope made clear that this was not the stance of the Church, your church history is shown to be lacking. Go look up father Feeney if you don’t think this is true - and that was Pius 12th.

This was discussed in post #136

Feeney was condemned because he did not recognize an explicit desire for baptism. Not for believing that there is no salvation outside the Church. Those with an explicit desire for baptism are truly united to the Church through their desire (in voto). Augustine, Aquinas, and other popes have clearly taught this fact. He was not condemned for believeing that there was absolutely no salvation outside the Church, just for his rigorist understanding of baptism only by water and not by desire or blood.

 

[pnewton]

. Is it possible to be a Christian and not believe in the resurrection of Jesus?

No. Such a person is also not Catholic though, as that would be a heresy that would separate them from the Catholic Church. Also, I did not ask you that question (hence the quotation marks) but was using an example of the phrases used by fundamentalists that do not have an exact fit in Catholic Christianity.

 

[una_fides]

I do believe that Vatican II changed Roman Catholicism drastically. The Church changed from teaching the rules such as what’s expected, how to behave, and the “truths” of the faith to, “Be a good person. You know who we are because you’re one of us.”

I wasn’t taught the lists of what’s in a moral sin, venial sin, grave sin, etc.
I wasn’t taught the Act of Contrition
I wasn’t taught all the required prayers for saying the Rosary.
I don’t know the order of Angels and Saints and Martyrs.
I didn’t know there are 21 tracts to the Mass until I attended a music course in a United Church of Christ college.
I wasn’t taught about the different kinds of priests, nuns, sisters, brothers, monks, etc.

AND no one was willing to teach it to me when I asked.

I’ve been reading the catechism book from Pope John Paul II that my dad gave me a few years back (hey, it’s a thick book) and even it doesn’t tell me all these things. There are other things I wasn’t taught about which you (all) have been speaking that has been news to me.

I attended Catholic school for 11 years. My kids attended Catholic school for 13 years (including kindergarten). They don’t know the Catholic rules or history either. They have no real faith because the parish wouldn’t help me teach the kids. They became arrogant when I asked them to teach specifics. (Maybe it’s because they didn’t want to admit that they, too, didn’t know this stuff). I even attended an RCIA class to try to get the information, but it was all fluff - generalities about why people wanted to join the Catholic Church, but no specific Roman Catholic stuff.

The thing that changed Vatican II was not necessarily the general principle of the faith. They just stopped teaching it. I’m not surprised there are less priests or nuns, as the Church failed us in becoming too generic for us to know about the specifics. It’s the old saying of, “How can I play the game if I don’t know the rules?”

I intend on continuing to read threads from this site because I’m finally getting a Catholic education at age 48. I am NOT what they call a “recovering Catholic” because I don’t know what one is in the first place. I just want to learn and try to do as best as I can.

God bless your intentions. If you humbly seek the truth, I believe God will lead you to it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of bad priests and even bishops out there today. They are watering down the faith and many of them received horrible teachings in seminary that would make some protestants blush. Modernism has invaded the Church in a very large scale, and we must be vigilant, persevere, keep the faith and quite importantly we must know it. I suggest reading infallible councils and catechisms to get a good grounding. You sound like you’re on the right track. I don’t know if I would necessarily blame the Council completely, but it definitely didn’t help things. Liberals have run wild since the Council, and the fruits speak for themselves. Nevertheless, despite these perilous times, I believe that the most important thing is to hold fast to Tradition as best as we can and do our best to fix things at least to the extent of influence we can have. God bless.