Vatican II changes things?

[una_fides]

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

True, that is because the person is not invincibly ignorant, but would be considered culpably ignorant of not knowing the speed limit on the highway. Such culpable ignorance is sinful and can be mortally so in some instances.

In the parable of the sheep and goats, the goats are separated on the premise of the times they did NOT feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc, and sent to eternal damnation: sins of omission. Their first question is “When did we not do these things?”, making clear they failed to do them without realizing it. The simple point is that each of us is required to seek the will of God and then to act on it, because of the love He and mercy He has shown us. When we fail to do so, we are placing ourselves among those calling “Lord, Lord” to whom He then responds “I do not know you; begone you evildoers.”
As we grow in holiness we become more in tune with Him and we respond more as He would. And we sometimes fail to do the right thing without even realizing it. When that is the overall pattern of one’s life, I fear that one can become a goat because one has not ever formed a true desire for God and has hardened the heart. I would say that this is a true mortal sin, even if we are not aware of it at the time, because we should have been aware!

The goats didn’t know that it was Christ whom they did not feed, clothe, etc, not that they didn’t do those things to others. They certainly recognized the people whom they saw naked and did not clothe, etc, but they chose to walk aside. Let’s say for example, I’m walking down the road, and there’s a person dying on the other side of the road. I’m not doing anything reckless or sinful and just don’t happen to see him. Would it be my fault that I wasn’t able to offer him help? Of course not. That would not be a sin of omission because I had no willful choice in the matter. Sin is a result of a defect in free will. The definition of “missing the mark,” which comes from the Greek, is rightly understood as willfully doing so or by doing so through culpable ignorance. If one is invincibly ignorant, there is no guilt and no sin for that particular offense.

 

[una_fides]

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

Can you please tell me what I’ve taught or shared that the Magisterium has “rejected”? You claim to have such high knowledge of these things but refuse to engage in any dialogue whatsoever. Do you honestly think that I’m obstinately rejecting some “clear truth” here that you possess? I just want to know what the Church teaches. I’ve explained my process of figuring that out, which again is to start with the prior most authoritative teachings of the Church coming from General Councils and solemn papal pronouncements, then studying them in the context of the other Magisterial teachings of the times as well as reading Aquinas and other doctors of the Church on the subject, then applying that same sense and their understanding to what Vatican II is teaching. Did you come to your conclusions the same way by chance?

I have to come to the conclusion that you either haven’t read those, though they are numerous, or you have been formed to reject them.

Both of your conclusions couldn’t be farther from the truth. I have not “been formed” to reject anything. Again, I’m simply trying to reconcile the teachings, and yet you persist in making it seem as if I’m just following some Traditionalist arguments. Excuse me if my method of approach by starting with what the Church used to teach and then trying to conform that understanding to what she now teaches somehow is too traditional for your liking.

Either way, my limited abilities aren’t going to be enough to change your mind if they can’t and I have no desire or need to become just a target to sharpen the presentation skills for a viewpoint that the Catholic Church says is in error.

Can you please show me where “the Catholic Church says” that my understanding of NSOC is “in error.” I bet that if I were to quote from an infallible Church text that you were not already familiar with and pass it off as if I were saying it myself, that would would say that the Church says that teaching is in error too. I do hope your not in the camp of those who think the Church can change her teachings on this matter.
And I am truly sorry to hear that you have limited abilities. I did hope you would engage me in the specifics rather than continue to impugn my motives.

I clearly have no credibility with you and thus anything I say will be written off anyway and just affirm you in your position. Perhaps someone else is more up to the task or is still naive enough to think that minds will be changed but I’ve been through these discussions enough times now to realize that if even the Church can’t convince people I certainly won’t be able to. I do still take the time occasionally to enter the debate, but it isn’t with a view toward changing the minds of those making the assertions. It is instead for the lurkers so that those assertions are not left unchallenged.

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

I pray the same for you as well. You have as much credibility as anyone else on this forum until you start saying things that decrease it, such as that you think I’m blindly following Traditionalist teachings and your continued insistance in stepping in and making no comments at all that further the dialogue on the issue. I disagree that minds cannot be changed on this issue. Those who are obstinant and not open to the truth will not be changed. I approached Christianity humbly and begged God for light from heaven, and he rewarded me with the Catholic faith. I continue to seek God’s truth with an open mind, so your insisting that minds cannot be changed or that I’m obstinante miss the mark entirely. If you ever decide that us “lost causes” are worth your time, let me know. Until then, I wish you God’s grace in leading you to the fullness of understanding of the truth, just as I continue to pray for myself. God bless you in your efforts.

 

[una_fides]

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

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

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

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

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

I suspect that the teachings that you explained above were continual from the Church’s earliest days and that they were quite prevalent. The Church’s theologians, the most prominent of which is Aquinas, were quite clear in teaching that “outside the Church no one at all is saved.” How different of a sense do you get when the earlier statement is reformulated to say that those people who know the Church is true but refuse to enter cannot be saved? Quite a big difference. While the latter statement is true, the former more clearly teaches the salvific need and obligation for all people (every human creature) to become Catholic and submit to the pope. I believe that V2’s teachings can be reconciled with the prior, but I fear the positive wording can cause difficulties as it has and lead many people into thinking that “man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.” (That proposition was explicitly and solemnly condemned as heresy by Pope Pius IX, and he ruled that every Catholic was bound to hold this teaching. papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm)

We cannot create our own faith and expect to arrive at the truth. We are to accept the truth as infallibly defined and in the same sense the Church has always understood it, regardless of whether or not such is easy to accept. In John 6, the apostle records that most of Christ’s followers left him when they encountered a very difficult teaching to accept: that they must “eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood” or else they would have “no life” in them. Apart from Luther, virtually all protestant sects that broke away from the Church rejected this teaching of Christ’s. We must be careful that when we encounter a tough message revealed by Christ through his Church that we do not try to water it down or understand it differently to make it easier to accept. Our goal is to arrive at Christ’s truth, not what we want Christ’s truth to be.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

It seems to me that the difference in Vat II and the rest of the Church councils is in the fact that Vat II was concerned with the style of the Church and the rest of the councils were combating specific heresies. Vat II seems to go along with Jesus’ words to St. Faustina in her diary offering Divine Mercy to sinners in return for the humblest beginnings of contrition. Jesus said “I have eternity to punish sinners” and it seems that, in advance of His imminent return, He is offering a refuge to those sinners not “in the fold” as unless one eats the Flesh and drinks the Blood, you have no life in you. We are being like the “older brothers of the prodigal son” in complaining that the Church is merciful as Jesus is commanding us be. The Church’s teaching hasn’t changed, just the style in presenting those teachings and yes, it may lead some to accentuate mercy over doctrine but not in place of doctrine, as mercy is the doctrine because Jesus is mercy.

 

[una_fides]

It seems to me that the difference in Vat II and the rest of the Church councils is in the fact that Vat II was concerned with the style of the Church and the rest of the councils were combating specific heresies. Vat II seems to go along with Jesus’ words to St. Faustina in her diary offering Divine Mercy to sinners in return for the humblest beginnings of contrition. Jesus said “I have eternity to punish sinners” and it seems that, in advance of His imminent return, He is offering a refuge to those sinners not “in the fold” as unless one eats the Flesh and drinks the Blood, you have no life in you. We are being like the “older brothers of the prodigal son” in complaining that the Church is merciful as Jesus is commanding us be. The Church’s teaching hasn’t changed, just the style in presenting those teachings and yes, it may lead some to accentuate mercy over doctrine but not in place of doctrine, as mercy is the doctrine because Jesus is mercy.

I’ve heard that older brother argument brought up earlier on this thread, but I don’t see how it accurately applies here to the approach I’m proposing. I’m not saying that a repentant sinner should not be restored into full communion with the Church. I’m simply trying to examine and reiterate the Church’s constant teaching for 2000 years. I believe that certain of those invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith who humbly cooperate with the grace available to them can be given special graces and revelations to be saved by entering the Church. The point is however that they cannot be saved outside the Church. They must at least enter through desire. The deacon at a Church I’ve attended has taught in a meeting that Muslims will be saved as Muslims, Jews as Jews, etc, and that they do not need to enter the Church or be baptized in any way to be saved. He claims that as long as they follow their conscience they will be saved. That is heresy, but he claims it’s being taught by Vatican II.

 

[una_fides]

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

So instead you start with the most recent documents and work your way backwards, which is exactly what I’ve been saying is your approach. Btw, we are not “authoritatively interpreting old documents.” We are interpreting the definitions given by the Church, which are given as clarifications on issues. These documents are not Scripture, which was written to various audiences for various reasons and not to define dogmas. Just like when you look up a definition of a word in the dictionary, these dogmatic promulgations from the Magisterium are the definition. We absoultely can understand the faith of the Church past. We have 2000 years worth of documents full of her teachings. We are not protestants relying on sola Scriptura. We are following the clarifications of dogmas given by the Church continually and frequently throughout her history.

For instance, you have stated a couple times now that Innocent III proclaimed his statement ex cathedra. Since I’m pretty sure that term didn’t even exist until V1 and the necessary requirements for such a proclamation had not been defined, I don’t believe there is a way in the world that a statement made more than 600 years earlier could be determined to meet the criteria.

Just because the pope may not have known what “ex cathedra” meant doesn’t mean he did not make such a pronouncement. If he did what Vatican I said is needed to be done in order to define a dogma, which he did, then the dogma is defined. Why do you persist to try to argue that the dogma is not infallible? Perhaps because you disagree with its contents!

And if we make decisions that it did, then we get in a lot of other hot water over such things as the consistent teaching that the sun revolved around the earth, which was considered a matter of “faith” since it was thought to contradict scripture to believe otherwise. Having a Pope explicitly affirm that in affirming Galileo to be in heresy would then also seem to qualify as ex cathedra though I personally don’t accept it as meeting the requirements either because we can’t know that it was his intent to do so, which is a requirement.

First, can you please show me a quote where the Magisterium ruled authoritatively that the sun revolved around the earth and that such faith must be held by all the faithful? To answer my own question, you cannot because it does not exist. From what I’ve heard, Gallileo was excommunicated because he kept teaching that his matter was the only one to be correct at a time where the scientific consensus was contrary and after he had be warned and agreed to not do so several times. There were no dogmatic doctrinal pronouncements saying that all must believe concerning this matter of science. And your attempt to make the matter of the rotation of planets fall under the category of faith fails miserably. If the Church were to rule on an interpretation of a matter of science in Scripture–which in this case she did not do so diffinitively–then such teaching could never be infallible because it would always be an interpretation of a matter of science and not concerning faith or morals. If one said that the Scripture was in error on the matter, then that would be a matter of faith, but to say that a particular interpretation of a matter of science in Scripture falls under and infallible definition is not possible and is a feeble attempt at best to try to discredit the Magisterium of the Church and her teaching authority.

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

By “traditionalist interpretations” it seems more and more clear to me that you are referring to those who believe the Church’s teachings prior to Vatican I are infallible when they clearly meet the criteria. Regardless of whether they are infallible or not, you are making the arguments that we can’t know–when the Church has said we can–because it seems clear that you must reject them in favor of some other view. If you at least believe that dogmatic declarations from General Councils are infallible, then you would have to conclude that “outside the Church no one at all is saved” is an infallible teaching, and that we must then understand it as Vatican I said we must, which is in the same sense as the Church has always in the past understood it, and we understand how she understood it from other Magisterial teachings she has made. This approach is not “traditionalist;” it is Catholic and is the only logical way one can most accurately understand this dogma correctly.

 

[Lisa44]

… This approach is not “traditionalist;” it is Catholic…

 

[ncjohn]

So instead you start with the most recent documents and work your way backwards, which is exactly what I’ve been saying is your approach.

No, I specifically did not. Yes, I had read the Vatican II documents first because I wanted to know what was in them when I returned to the Church. Quite frankly though, before I joined this forum 4 years ago, I had never heard of a traditionalist movement. It was in reading here that I became aware that there were questions in some people’s minds about consistency of teaching. At that point I went back to the old documents to see what they said and started doing comparisons, read the traditionist interpretations, read the later interpretations, read the Pope’s and magisterial statements, and came to the conclusion that the inconsistencies are not there but are a matter of individual interpretations going awry. I will fully and readily admit however that the final piece in the puzzle to me is the consistent and traditional teaching that the Church is the sole authority on its teachings and that I am required to submit to them. I may not always fully understand and may mumble under my breath, but I have to just pray for further understanding and the ability to accept even what I may not fully understand.

That being said, I apologize for what may well have come across as frustration on my part or “writing you off” as being obstinate. As I’ve said previously, I truly do believe you are sincere in your search. I also think you have a cross to bear in it because of your own predispositions though I certainly don’t think you are one who is just blindly following propaganda. I will repeat though that I am not the one to engage your doubts. I have watched through this thread, on which you have more than a third of all the posts, and the points I can make are pretty well covered in there already. Additionally, while you may say I have as much credibility as anyone else, that clearly does not seem to be the case.

We also have foundational disagreements that I don’t have an idea how to overcome. You state that you can authoritatively interpret old documents because of information given by the Church through the years. Yet we have the problem that individuals doing so are coming to different conclusions than the Church, who is the only authoritative interpreter. The fact that you think you can understand a “definition” does not in fact mean that you can.

You tell us that there has been a clear and consistent teaching through the years that essentially mirrors the Council of Florence teaching. You also interpret that Council of Florence teaching, at least as best I can see, as being Feeney-esque and ultimately restrictive, though the Church before Vatican II rejected that interpretation. You seem to write off statements by those who held less restrictive views however, such as Augustine and even Pius IX. You quote Aquainas on one hand taking the very restrictive view while on another quoting his speculation about angels possibly being the mechanism to overcome that view. Yet any other speculation, or just willingness to believe that God will figure out how to deal with those in ignorance, isn’t enough.

I cannot begin to agree that you can apply an *ex cathedra *definition to those old documents, nor have I ever seen the Church indicate this to be possible, no matter how clear it might seem to you to meet the requirements. And by the way, I think you need to look much closer at the Galileo thing. The premise of “heresy”, is that one is opposing a required teaching on faith and morals and such a charge could not be brought if there was not a doctrinal basis to be opposed to. Having put quite a bit of study into the matter, it is clear that it was a consistent teaching based on the scriptural reference. That is all well off-topic though so I’ll leave it at that.

I also reject the idea that the Syllabus of Errors can be considered as infallible as the Church again has never proclaimed it so and every theologian I have read denies such a status. There are clearly statements in it that are peculiar to specific time frames and circumstances, as well as statements that are not really doctrinal or faith and morals at all. It is interesting though that you quote it as infallible while simultaneously saying that Pius IX’s statement on invincible ignorance isn’t adequate or seems to be contradictory to Florence.

As to me thinking that what Florence said is not infallible, I said no such thing. I just don’t agree that it necessarily says what you think it says or that it is inconsistent in its overall meaning with anything said later, either pre- or post-Vatican II, nor do I necessarily accept your belief that it is ex cathedra.

In the end, I believe that no one is saved except through the Church, through Christ. As to being saved “outside” of it, I will leave it up to God as to how He defines that and how He deals with those who seek Him without “knowing” the Catholic faith. From everything I have read, that is the essential of what the Church is teaching. I don’t take any issue with others being used as “instruments” in that salvation any more than I would take issue with God using the King of Persia, a pagan, in the restoration of the Jewish people after the exile, or the Samaritan as the better example of who was “neighbor”. God uses who He will and if we really think we can confine Him we tread on dangerous ground.

And with that I’ll again sincerely bid you well in your search. I’m sure God will lead you. I don’t pretend to a full understanding, only the peace of having come to acceptance, at least on this issue.

 

[diggerdomer]

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

I apologize if I’ve missed something, I do not recall where you have demonstrated that the Church teaches that teachings from centuries ago were taught infallibly. If you have the time and patience to re-instruct me I would appreciate it. Thanks.

Also, it’s really not helpful imho to cite only the online Catholic Encyclopedia. It’s from 1910 or so, and in this case regarding infallibility significantly deficient because it does not (cannot) account for the continued teaching of the Church especially in Vatican II which continued and furthered the work of Vatican I (which was, of course, halted due to geopolitical events out of the Church’s control and not because all the work had been done).

I have read the documents of Vatican I and Vatican II. I see nowhere that they taught that anything from earlier centuries had specifically been taught infallibly. I tried my best. If you can help I would appreciate it.

 

[diggerdomer]

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

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

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

Hope this helps.

Ok, so you agree with me and the only way I can understand the Catechism then that God can “save” those who are not explicit, public members of the historical and time bound institution of the Catholic Church?

 

[diggerdomer]

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

Hope this helps.

Sorry, didn’t help. From what I saw this is another outdated source (still worthwhile of course…just not helpful for current meaning unless this is a purely historical dialogue about what people thought and taught a century ago without any concern or reference to the Church today). When was it written? Does it take into account the teachings of Pius XII, John XIII, Paul VI, Vatican II, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and so on? Anything from after the first decade of the 20th century?

Thanks for any help.

 

[PJM]

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.

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

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,

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.

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.

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?

My dear friend in Christ,

As one who is not endeared to the Second VAtican Council for many reasons, I find it necessary to defend what you are trying to understand.

Catholic Doctrine and Catholic Dogma “can never change!”

Having shared that we must understand that our Church is a “Living and vibrant” Church.

So how does one reconcile these seemingly different views?

The answer lies in recogonizing that at base, neither Doctrine or Dogma, can (or do) change. What does change is our understanding of these important elements.

Is this simply dancing around the issue of “change?” No it is not.

The RCC continues to teach today what for example the Council of Trent (my favorite Church Council) taught on this issue. “all salvation is through the Catholic Church.”

What has changed is that when this was declared there was only two signifiant Christian Churches (soon to be many more, but not anticipated), The Catholic Church and Luthers Revoluationary church. John Calvin soon expaned the nimer then it was off to the races, with some 30,000+ worldwide sects today. This is essential in understanding the broadened understanding. NOT changed, only broadened!

What we understand, having had some 2000 years to study, refelect and at least attempt to understand the Nature of God, which is absolutely essential to this debate, is that God is “all and everything Good-Perfectly!.”

Key elements of Gods “Goodness” are God’s necessary and always present “Fairness and Justice.” Without which God would cease being God.

The further one gets from the point of the Protestant Revolutation, the less cupable are those associated with it today. Luthern’s, Baptist, Methodist now have hundreds of consecutive years of continued existence, and teaching and holding to the same basic beliefs. They think they are right, becasue that is what they have been taught, what their family practiced, Ect. God Judges HEARTS!

True one will also be judged on what one shouls know and has had the opportunity to know, but we must leave that to God to sort out. Chrsitians such as the Grahams and Dr. Dobson, have brought many, many souls to Christ! Can God in fairness and juctice condem them? I don’t see how.

**Isaiah 55 **tells us clearly that God’s way’s are not like ours, nor is His thinking like ours. Mark 9: 38-40 has Jesus Himself telling us whoever is with us cannot be against us.

What the Catholic Church now teaches that for many reasons “all Salvation continues to be Mysteriously connected to the Catholic Church.”

Among the reasons given are:

Christ only founded and still desires to have ONE CHURCH. Mt. 16; 18-20

The “keys to the (singular Kingdom of heaven”) reside exactly where they were palced by Christ Himself, in the hands of “Peter!”

All (as in every single one) fullness of the singular truth on Matters of Faith and or Morals continues to reside within the Catholic Church.

The Seven Sacraments, external signs of inward graces, founded by Christ to aid our personal Salvation reside ONLY in His Catholic Church.

Christ continues in His Church even today. In His Sacraments, especially Eucharist which is Christ, and Confession where it is God Himself who forgives sins. One can say that it would be a physical, a moral, a theological impossibility to seperate Christ from His Catholic Church. Such assurance cannot not be found in other sects.

Because Chrsit did in fact Redeem all, and desires Salvation for all, God know’s that is not going to happen. Thus we are required to: Mt. 28: 19-20 “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you;”

Ecc. 3: 17 I said in my heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked, for he has appointed a time for every matter, and for every work."

Exacly how God does this, and why God accepts this in God’s perview, God’s Divine Providence, God’s Fairness and Justice.

But in the end, all salvation is connected to, and therefore through the Catholic Church, as has always been our position. Amen!

 

[una_fides]

Ok, so you agree with me and the only way I can understand the Catechism then that God can “save” those who are not explicit, public members of the historical and time bound institution of the Catholic Church?

I agree because of your adjectives “explicit” and “public.” As also taught by Aquinas (etc), one can be a member of the Church through a desire even if the desire has not yet been made explicit (meaning the person has publicly proclaimed it). Nevertheless, one can only be saved through and IN the Catholic Church. If outside of her there is no salvation, then one must be within in order to be saved.

 

[una_fides]

My dear friend in Christ,

As one who is not endeared to the Second VAtican Council for many reasons, I find it necessary to defend what you are trying to understand.

Catholic Doctrine and Catholic Dogma “can never change!”

Having shared that we must understand that our Church is a “Living and vibrant” Church.

So how does one reconcile these seemingly different views?

The answer lies in recogonizing that at base, neither Doctrine or Dogma, can (or do) change. What does change is our understanding of these important elements.
…

Vatican I infallibly defined that dogmas can and must only be understood in the same sense with the same meaning as they have always been understood. piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm

Is this simply dancing around the issue of “change?” No it is not.

The RCC continues to teach today what for example the Council of Trent (my favorite Church Council) taught on this issue. “all salvation is through the Catholic Church.”

She also taught that all salvation is only IN the Catholic Church.

What has changed is that when this was declared there was only two signifiant Christian Churches (soon to be many more, but not anticipated), The Catholic Church and Luthers Revoluationary church. John Calvin soon expaned the nimer then it was off to the races, with some 30,000+ worldwide sects today. This is essential in understanding the broadened understanding. NOT changed, only broadened!
…
The further one gets from the point of the Protestant Revolutation, the less cupable are those associated with it today. Luthern’s, Baptist, Methodist now have hundreds of consecutive years of continued existence, and teaching and holding to the same basic beliefs. They think they are right, becasue that is what they have been taught, what their family practiced, Ect.

The Church reacted to protestant movements by anathematizing them at Trent. Since then, there have been very many dogmatic declarations on the issue of protestants. While there are those invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith who are legitimately baptized, there are also very many within these various sects who reject Catholic dogmas willfully due to pride in assuming their own positions to be correct. Pope Pius XI said that if they would humbly beg for light from heaven then there could be no doubt they would join the Catholic Church. How many sin by omitting such openness to God’s grace and truth. I know many protestants who are not Catholic simply because they fear leaving their social groups they belong to. Truth and God’s will is not most important but instead is secondary to friendships, so they deceive themselves and ignore the truth with which they’ve been presented and fall back into line with their friends & family. Christ said that whoever loves his father and mother more than Him is not worthy of Him and will not find eternal life (Mat 10:34-40). He also said whoever does not hate his father and mother cannot be his disciple (Luk 14:26). He obviously didn’t mean that one must literally hate them, but if one loves them more than Christ, they cannot be considered a follower of Christ.

 

[una_fides]

True one will also be judged on what one should know and has had the opportunity to know, but we must leave that to God to sort out. Chrsitians such as the Grahams and Dr. Dobson, have brought many, many souls to Christ! Can God in fairness and juctice condem them? I don’t see how.

They can do all the good works in the world, commit one mortal sin, and would be justly condemned to an eternity in hell.

St. Alphonsus Ligouri, On the Vice of Impurity
Mortal sin is so great an evil, that if all the angels and all the saints, the apostles, martyrs, and even the Mother of God, offered all their merits to atone for a single mortal sin, the oblation would not be sufficient. No, for that atonement or satisfaction would be finite; but the debt contracted by mortal sin is infinite, on account of the infinite majesty of God, which has been offended. The hatred which God bears to sins against purity is great beyond measure. If a lady find her plate soiled, she is disgusted, and cannot eat. Now with what disgust and indignation must God, Who is purity itself, behold the filthy impurities by which His law is violated? He loves purity with an infinite love; and consequently He has an infinite hatred for the sensuality which the lewd, voluptuous man calls a small evil. catholicapologetics.info/catholicteaching/vice/impurity.htm
We must view sin as God views it.

Regarding those who do good works in the name of Christ:
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

Christ speaking to his apostles and their successors:
Luk 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
Matt. 12:30 He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.

From Pope Leo XII’s encyclical Ubi Primum 1823-1829:
14. Certainly many remarkable authors, adherents of the true philosophy, have taken pains to attack and crush this strange view. But the matter is so self-evident that it is superfluous to give additional arguments. It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members. For we have a surer word of the prophet, and in writing to you We speak wisdom among the perfect; not the wisdom of this world but the wisdom of God in a mystery. By it we are taught, and by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.
[21] He who hears you, hears me; and he who despises you, despises me; and the Church is the pillar and firmament of truth, as the apostle Paul teaches.[22] In reference to these words St. Augustine says: “Whoever is without the Church will not be reckoned among the sons, and whoever does not want to have the Church as mother will not have God as father.”[23] papalencyclicals.net/Leo12/l12ubipr.htm

You can argue that this teaching does not fall under the category of infallibility until you’re blue in the face, and I’ll agree with you; however, who said that you only follow infallible teachings? This text shows us the teaching of the Church and how she understood the teaching of NSOC. That is enough in and of itself for dogmas cannot take on a different meaning or be understood in a different sense as Vatican I infallibly taught. Those people who are part of those heretical groups must become Catholic either through publicly entering into her visible flock or entering into her through at least a perfect desire, for there is no salvation outside the Church.

 

[una_fides]

I apologize if I’ve missed something, I do not recall where you have demonstrated that the Church teaches that teachings from centuries ago were taught infallibly. If you have the time and patience to re-instruct me I would appreciate it. Thanks.

Also, it’s really not helpful imho to cite only the online Catholic Encyclopedia. It’s from 1910 or so, and in this case regarding infallibility significantly deficient because it does not (cannot) account for the continued teaching of the Church especially in Vatican II which continued and furthered the work of Vatican I (which was, of course, halted due to geopolitical events out of the Church’s control and not because all the work had been done).

I have read the documents of Vatican I and Vatican II. I see nowhere that they taught that anything from earlier centuries had specifically been taught infallibly. I tried my best. If you can help I would appreciate it.

I see the side you’re taking as soon as you say the CE is “significantly deficient” because it was written before Vatican II. Your notion that Vatican II somehow completed something lacking in the Church for 2000 years is itself deficient. Can you please show me where the Church teaches that prior to Vatican II, the Church was in error and Vatican II illuminated and filled in the missing information? The Council was a pastoral and not a doctrinal council! It did not teach anything new but rather simply tried to reformulate past teachings in a more positive light. The Church’s teachings before Vatican II were not complete and in many respects they were much more clear and to me seem much more consistent in their wording. The fact that you find anything prior to Vatican II as suspect makes me suspect the conclusions you are coming to are by putting your understanding of Vatican II on a pedestal and then are trying to figure out how everything prior to the Council fits in with that fullness of teaching that you believe was “lacking” prior. I will not cease to harp on this approach because it is extremely detrimental to your outcome at arriving at the truth. If you do not start by understanding what the Catholic faith was prior to Vatican II, then you will not be able to understand the Vatican II faith correctly. Pope Benedict himself has reaffirmed this when he explains that Vatican II must be read and interpreted in light of the past and constant prior teachings of the Church. Furthermore, the Church made solemn dogmatic definitions prior to Vatican II that carry more authority than the current catechism you are reading possesses. True they both come from the same Church, but the prior teachings bear the charism of infallibility whereas the current catechism is part of the ordinary Magisterium and is non-infallible. You are rejecting the CE, you are rejecting pre-Vatican II theologians, and it seems to me you are attempting to reject the understanding of the pre-Vatican II Church in order to start with your “complete” teachings that you think to have correctly interpreted from this pastoral council. Ok, that said… when you read the documents from Vatican I and II on infallibiliy, you’ll clearly see that they refer to past declarations as being understood as being able to meet the criteria for infallibilty that they are explaining. I would gladly repost the texts and highlight the relevant parts, but I’m running low on time with all this posting I’ve been doing. Could you perhaps read/ re-read the relevant parts of Vatican I and II keeping in mind their references to the continuation of teachings and the infallibility from the beginning that the Church has possessed, etc, and let me know your thoughts at that point? God bless.

 

[Spirithound]

Your notion that Vatican II somehow completed something lacking in the Church for 2000 years is itself deficient.

Doesn’t every council add something to the Church? Not change, but development ? Even now, do we know all truth? We are certainly lacking some understanding even to this day.

 

[una_fides]

Doesn’t every council add something to the Church? Not change, but development ? Even now, do we know all truth? We are certainly lacking some understanding even to this day.

No every council does not develop doctrines. Read through the decrees from all the Church Councils particularly the early ones. And by “Church Council” I’m assuming you mean General Councils. There have been a couple Church councils that did not have the pope’s stamp of approval that came to heretical conclusions. We do lack a complete understanding of the mysteries of the faith and always will. However, we cannot dare say that prior teachings of the Church were “defective,” etc. Development is simply the refining and more specifically explaining of dogmas, such as the Church’s use of the word “consubstantial” in clarifying the relationship between the Father and the Son. The Church always believed that the Son was consubstantial, but this specific relationship had never been definitively clarified with such precision prior to Nicea.

 

[Lisa44]

Doesn’t every council add something to the Church? Not change, but development ? Even now, do we know all truth? We are certainly lacking some understanding even to this day.

Hi
No, that might even be a heresy, that the Catholic Church does not possess the full truth.

The Catholic Church is the guardian of the truth. It doesn’t so much add truth as say what is NOT truth, or heresy. (as each new generation invents new ideas that they try and ‘add’ to Jesus’s gospel).

This is why the confusion exists in my mind, is because the Church has shyed away from declaring heresies and people have misunderstood their tolerance of other beliefs to be condoning them.

 

[ncjohn]

Hi
No, that might even be a heresy, that the Catholic Church does not possess the full truth.

Actually there was no statement about the Church possessing the whole truth. The question was whether even to this day the Church understands the whole truth, pointing out that we are constantly learning and coming to clearer understanding. There is absolutely nothing heretical about that.

As to the other part of the poster’s question, whether each Council doesn’t “add” something to the Church, I would think that indeed that is the case. It may not be a development or clarification of doctrine, though pretty much every Council I can think of has done that, but it may also be–as in the case of Vatican II–an addition to the way the Church sees itself and its role in the world, or the role of the laity in the world. If there wasn’t something to be “added” in our understanding or our “evangelization toolbox” there would be no purpose to a Council.

Peace,