Vatican II changes things?

[Lisa44]

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,

Hi ncJohn
Forgive me, does that make sense. The church possesses the whole truth. But doesn’t understand what it possesses? You are saying that the Church has the whole truth, but at the same time doesn’t understand what it has?

Oh gobbly goop. I just think that is silly. I’m getting the impression of evolution right now. That there might be a subtle idea that the truth evolves here. The first Christians had the full truth, and understood the full truth, and so will the last, if they are also united with his Church and conformed to his will. We don’t depend on the church for new developments, as much as we depend on the church to fight off its enemies who are constantly trying to lead us away from the truth as per Satan’s plans.

 

[PJM]

=una fides;5176343]I agree that Vatican II requires religious submission. It was a pastoral council dealing with pastoral issues. It did contain a dogmatic constitution that did not have any definitive definitions but was just a summary of Church teachings. I’m NOT saying Vatican II was not infallible and therefore can be ignored or disobeyed. But what I am saying is that I do not believe it to be completely safeguarded against error. I am saying that because the wording is often vague and difficult to understand, as I’ve pointed out on here earlier. As with approaching Scripture, if I can’t understand how to verses may seem to correlate, then I seek to find an answer. In a similar way, I’m trying to reconcile pre and post Vatican II teachings on the matter of NSOC. So far, no one on here has provided me with an answer to how to understand the pre-Vatican II documents in the same sense that they had always been understood and then taking that understanding then applying it to the CCC passage and other such writings in question.

Dear friends in Christ,

**Perhaps what is being overlooked here is the fact that it is NOT ONLY “Infallible Teachings” that must be accepted, Obeyed and lived, all though some would have us believe such dribble.

The Code of Canon Law is the long held position of the Catholic Church on this isssue. It is exceedingly clear and to the point.**

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth./COLOR]

Does this clarify for you the debate at hand? God willing, it should.

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[ncjohn]

Hi Pat,

Una fides can certainly correct me if I’m wrong here, but I think his/her problem comes from these sections:

Dear friends in Christ,
§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

As I understand his/her dilemna, he/she has a hard time reconciling the different wording of statements made at different times in the Church’s history on this issue, feeling that they promote different degrees of restrictiveness as to how those outside the physical Church are to be handled. Or maybe a clearer way of saying it is that he/she senses a possibility of a change in position rather than a clarification of position.

I don’t sense an unwillingness to accept doctrine so much as a confusion as to what doctrine the Church actually IS proclaiming a need to be followed on this subject and whether there really has been a “change”, which of course would present a huge problem to the Church.

Though I personally came to acceptance that there is no change and that there is no problem with the current wording, I am at a loss on how to convey that in a manner better than what the Church and its theologians have done, which is why I withdrew from the discussion. I can certainly understand how one can read these different wordings of different people at different times addressing different audiences for different reasons, all using different language conventions, and have questions about where the consistent teaching really lies. And when they do arise, one just has to wrestle with them until they either come to an acceptable resolution or come to a conclusion that perhaps they are beyond the individual’s understanding and just have to be assented to in faith. Having gone through that uncomfortable process myself, I can also only add my prayers that God will provide the guidance necessary.

Peace,

 

[ron77nyc]

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!”

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!

Pope Eugene was talking about the whole world, not just protestants. In 1438 it included Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Eastern Catholics just to name a few.

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 - 1445): “[The most Holy 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.”

 

[PJM]

=ncjohn;5220166]Hi Pat,

Una fides can certainly correct me if I’m wrong here, but I think his/her problem comes from these sections:

As I understand his/her dilemna, he/she has a hard time reconciling the different wording of statements made at different times in the Church’s history on this issue, feeling that they promote different degrees of restrictiveness as to how those outside the physical Church are to be handled. Or maybe a clearer way of saying it is that he/she senses a possibility of a change in position rather than a clarification of position.

I don’t sense an unwillingness to accept doctrine so much as a confusion as to what doctrine the Church actually IS proclaiming a need to be followed on this subject and whether there really has been a “change”, which of course would present a huge problem to the Church.

Though I personally came to acceptance that there is no change and that there is no problem with the current wording, I am at a loss on how to convey that in a manner better than what the Church and its theologians have done, which is why I withdrew from the discussion. I can certainly understand how one can read these different wordings of different people at different times addressing different audiences for different reasons, all using different language conventions, and have questions about where the consistent teaching really lies. And when they do arise, one just has to wrestle with them until they either come to an acceptable resolution or come to a conclusion that perhaps they are beyond the individual’s understanding and just have to be assented to in faith. Having gone through that uncomfortable process myself, I can also only add my prayers that God will provide the guidance necessary.

Peace,

My friend you’re post is both correct and chairitable. Thanks.

I was simply trying to add proper perspective.

Sadly in our time, there are those who would make a claim that ONLY infallible teaching are “mandated” teachings. Such is not the case.

Infallible teachings are almost alway’s “Dogmatic” and clearly require acceptance. Less clear, and more “confusing” are “Doctrinal” teachings when relating to Faith and or Morals, which bear effectively, the same weight of authority.

These too require the same degree of acceptance and belief! And such has been the long history of our Chruch.

One can get “hung-up” on the issue of “infalliblility” and easly overlook what are common and normal obligations to other Church Teaching. One does so at great personal spiritual peril.

If the Church teaches on either matters of Faith and or Morals (only) these teaching are always to be accepted, obeyed, and lived out in the normal practice of our faith.

It is the Topical Nature of the teaching, combined with the Source; Pope, Magistrium, Bishops on **these issues **that cannot be questioned as to the requirement of assent and obedience. Such is to understood and assumed.

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[tina23]

****BECAUSE CATHOLIC’S MAKE RULES TO FIT THEM .WE AS CATHOLICS NEED TO STAND UP TO THE BISHOPS AND TELL THEM TO READ THE BIBLE ,AND JUST GO BY IT. NOT MAN MADE LAWS. GOD DIDN’T WRITE THE BIBLE JUST FOR FUN; HE WROTE IT FOR ALL OF US TO FOLLOW. JUST THINK, HE DIED FOR ALL OF US AND WE CAN’T EVEN GO BY HIS RULES. NO, WE GO BY MANS. SOME WHERE ALONG THE WAY AFTER THE APOSTLES ALL DIED, THE BISHOP STARTED TO MAKE THEIR OWN LAWS. REMEMBER, OUR LORD WAS JEWISH AND LOVED US ALL. JUST READ HIS WORDS AND WE CANT GO WRONG

 

[ron77nyc]

Walking with Jesus is simple. We don’t need the complicated religious interpretation of the law the way it is being presented here. Jesus’ biggest problems were with political and religious leaders. This is what He says in Matthew 11. I need to do what He says after reading all this religious mumbo jumbo.

28 “Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, 16 and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your selves.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.”

usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew11.htm
17 [29] In place of the yoke of the law, complicated by scribal interpretation, Jesus invites the burdened to take the yoke of obedience to his word, under which they will find rest;

 

[Spirithound]

Hi ncJohn
Forgive me, does that make sense. The church possesses the whole truth. But doesn’t understand what it possesses? You are saying that the Church has the whole truth, but at the same time doesn’t understand what it has?

Oh gobbly goop. I just think that is silly. I’m getting the impression of evolution right now. That there might be a subtle idea that the truth evolves here. The first Christians had the full truth, and understood the full truth, and so will the last, if they are also united with his Church and conformed to his will. We don’t depend on the church for new developments, as much as we depend on the church to fight off its enemies who are constantly trying to lead us away from the truth as per Satan’s plans.

Lisa, take for example the Biblical canon. It was debated until it was defined by various councils.

 

[AlwaysAsking]

Hello,

there are so many eloquent and well-informed replies, may I speak as a fool and an outsider?

The consequences of teaching salvation outside of the church, and forbidding catholics to proselytize, has had the following consequence at the everyday level:

Catholics discourage protestant seekers, believing that their faith is equivalent.

First time I encountered this, was after I ‘found God’ and suddenly had a strong desire to read the bible. So I needed a bible. Closest bible store was about 90% catholic materials. Clerk asks me if I need help and I said, I want a bible but what kind should I get?
Are you a christian?
Yeah, I guess so. I don’t know. I just kind of decided there’s a God and that I want to read the bible.
Well then you’d want this: NIV Life Application Study Bible.

I took her at her word. And joined a protestant church which wanted me.

Second instance, God calls me to convert to catholicism. I call the local church, get referred to the RCIA guy, he tells me that since I am a protestant and I should stay a protestant. He chides me for worrying about whether my children should get baptized. “Do you believe in a God who would send children to hell?”

Look, I completely respect that you’re researching texts. But look at the statistics… the catholic church is hemorraging people and why not, if they understand the church to be the equivalent of any other christian church?

Has the church’s efforts at ecumenism helped anyone? Please let me know.

 

[PJM]

=tina23;5220929]****BECAUSE CATHOLIC’S MAKE RULES TO FIT THEM .WE AS CATHOLICS NEED TO STAND UP TO THE BISHOPS AND TELL THEM TO READ THE BIBLE ,AND JUST GO BY IT. NOT MAN MADE LAWS. GOD DIDN’T WRITE THE BIBLE JUST FOR FUN; HE WROTE IT FOR ALL OF US TO FOLLOW. JUST THINK, HE DIED FOR ALL OF US AND WE CAN’T EVEN GO BY HIS RULES. NO, WE GO BY MANS. SOME WHERE ALONG THE WAY AFTER THE APOSTLES ALL DIED, THE BISHOP STARTED TO MAKE THEIR OWN LAWS. REMEMBER, OUR LORD WAS JEWISH AND LOVED US ALL. JUST READ HIS WORDS AND WE CANT GO WRONG

Dear friend of Christ,

You express a common understanding of Catholism. However it is only partially true.

Our Catholic Faith rest on three “legs” much like a tripod.

Leg number one is of course Holy Scripture, from which we need to understand at least two specific points.

Point 1 is **2 Tim.3:16 **“All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” The key WORD is All.

Point 2 is **John 21: 25 **“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” In other words not everything we need to know is actually in the Bible.

This takes us to “Leg two” Sacred Tradition

**2 Thess. 2: 13 "But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. 14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. **

The Third leg of the “tripod” is simple logic.

Luke Chapter 1: 26 "In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.” And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?”** And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. **

Logic:

Jesus is God

Mary is the Mother of Jesus

Therefore Mary is the “Mother of God.”

Friend we cannot restrict Catholism to only the confines of the Bible.

Welcome to the Forum!

 

[aicirt]

I was in high school in the 1960s. All we wanted then was a Sunday Mass said in English. I have never heard a Mass said in Latin since Vatican II. No one complained about not eating meat on Fridays, or fasting at midnight, or wearing head coverings. It wasn’t a problem.

I find it very insulting that the Tabernacle has been removed to a side altar, another section of the church or to a chapel. WHAT is with that? It makes no sense to me at all. If He is not in the main Tabernacle, why genuflect? Does God not deserve to be at the center of His Church? Why was this changed?

My present church has hymnals. I haven’t been able to find one old Catholic hymn in it. And I know we never sang these when I went to Catholic school for 12 years.

We’ve been invited as a Church to attend a Lutheran Church service for the Feast of the Ascension. That’s nice. But I don’t want to go because I don’t know what stand this Church takes on abortion, stem cell research, and gay marriage.

 

[una_fides]

Dear friends in Christ,

**Perhaps what is being overlooked here is the fact that it is NOT ONLY “Infallible Teachings” that must be accepted, Obeyed and lived, all though some would have us believe such dribble.

The Code of Canon Law is the long held position of the Catholic Church on this isssue. It is exceedingly clear and to the point.**

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.

§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.

§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth./COLOR]

Does this clarify for you the debate at hand? God willing, it should.

Love and prayers,

Pat
I agree with what you wrote and quoted and in fact my opening statement that you replied to said that V2 requires religious submission. Nevertheless, the documents contain vague wording and are often difficult to understand and to reconcile with the constant past teachings of the Church that also require our religious submission as well as in some cases where more authoritative language is used they can require our full assent of faith. That’s what we’re discussing on this thread, the seemingly disconnect between past teachings and whether they can be reconciled and if so then how.

 

[una_fides]

BECAUSE CATHOLIC’S MAKE RULES TO FIT THEM .WE AS CATHOLICS NEED TO STAND UP TO THE BISHOPS AND TELL THEM TO READ THE BIBLE ,AND JUST GO BY IT. NOT MAN MADE LAWS. GOD DIDN’T WRITE THE BIBLE JUST FOR FUN; HE WROTE IT FOR ALL OF US TO FOLLOW. JUST THINK, HE DIED FOR ALL OF US AND WE CAN’T EVEN GO BY HIS RULES. NO, WE GO BY MANS. SOME WHERE ALONG THE WAY AFTER THE APOSTLES ALL DIED, THE BISHOP STARTED TO MAKE THEIR OWN LAWS. REMEMBER, OUR LORD WAS JEWISH AND LOVED US ALL. JUST READ HIS WORDS AND WE CANT GO WRONG

God did not write the Bible himself. He used the Church to write it and then over three centuries later compile those books into a unified canon. Without the Church, you do not even know what books should be in your Bible! The Bible is not a catechism. It is God’s Word, but it was given to the Church and that message was to be guarded by the bishops, as they have faithfully done

 

[diggerdomer]

I see the side you’re taking as soon as you say the CE is “significantly deficient” because it was written before Vatican II.

No, I’m saying that its date needs to be considered on a case by case basis depending on what topic is being investigated. In this case, there were significant developments regarding the Church’s teaching on infallibility following 1910 (or so). That’s all. I’m not taking a side.

una fides;5218572:

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

I never said such a thing.

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?

No I can’t. And I’m glad because I never claimed such and I disagree with your statement.

The Council was a pastoral and not a doctrinal council

!

The Church does not exclusively distinguish between “pastoral” or “doctrinal” or “pick your adjective” ecumenical Councils. Ecumenical councils, are, simply, ecumenical councils. They may be called for different reasons, have different purposes, etc…but they’re ecumenical councils. Unless you can show us where the Church categorizes some ecumenical councils as one type, some as another, and so on?

Whether VII taught anything new is, it seems, a matter of opinion. Regardless, its teachings are the highest form of teaching authority the Church has, just like any ecumenical council, and as such deserve the assent and obedience of Catholics. When an ecumenical Council promulgates a DOGMATIC Constitution…well that sure seems like dogma/doctrine to me.

The fact that you find anything prior to Vatican II as suspect makes m

That’s not a fact. I never said anything prior to Vatican II was suspect. Those are your words and your (mis)understanding.

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.

I’m starting with what the Church teaches now. That includes Vatican II as well as everything before. I am not going to ignore Vatican II (as you seem wont to do?) nor am I ignoring everything that happened before. I am considering them all. Your approach seems to be to bracket Vatican II, explore and understand Church teaching prior to Vatican II, then see how (or if) Vatican II fits. Is that right? My approach is to consider the entirety of Church teaching, I’m not setting aside Vatican II nor anything that came before it, I’m going on what the Church teaches, today, which of course necessarily incorporates the entire Tradition.

whereas the current catechism is part of the ordinary Magisterium and is non-infallible.

You seem to be saying that because “x” is taught by the Ordinary Magisterium, “x” is not taught infallibly. If that is what you’re saying, you disagree with the Church. Vatican II clearly teaches that the Ordinary Magisterium can teach infallibly.

 

[una_fides]

Walking with Jesus is simple. We don’t need the complicated religious interpretation of the law the way it is being presented here. Jesus’ biggest problems were with political and religious leaders. This is what He says in Matthew 11. I need to do what He says after reading all this religious mumbo jumbo.

28 “Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, 16 and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your selves.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.”

usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew11.htm
17 [29] In place of the yoke of the law, complicated by scribal interpretation, Jesus invites the burdened to take the yoke of obedience to his word, under which they will find rest;

Be careful that you don’t try to interpret the Scriptures on your own apart from Tradition. In all honesty, the things you are saying are the same arguments given by protestants, yet I’m confused because your profile says Catholic.
Here are the early Church fathers interpretations of those verses (take from the Catena Aurea):

AUG; Whence do we all thus labor, but that we are mortal men, bearing vessels of clay which cause us much difficulty. But if the vessels of flesh are straitened, the regions of love will be enlarged. To what end then does He say, Come to me, all you who labor, but that you should not labor?

HILARY; He calls to Him those that were laboring under the hardships of the Law, and those who are burdened with the sins of this world.

JEROME; That the burden of sin is heavy, the Prophet Zachariah bears witness, saying, that wickedness sits upon a talent of lead. And the Psalmist fills it up, your iniquities are grown heavy upon me.

RABAN; I will not only take from you your burden, but will satisfy you with inward refreshment.

RABAN; The yoke of Christ is Christ’s Gospel which joins and yokes together Jews and Gentiles in the unity of the faith. This we are commanded to take upon us that is, to have in honor; lest perchance setting it beneath us, that is wrongly despising it, we should trample upon it with the miry feet of unholiness; wherefore He adds, learn of me.

HILARY; And what is more pleasant than that yoke, what lighter than that burden? To be made better, to abstain from wickedness, to choose the good, and refuse the evil, to love all men, to hate none, to gain eternal things, not to be taken with things present, to be unwilling to do that to another which yourself would be pained to suffer.

RABAN; **But how is Christ’s yoke pleasant, seeing it was said man above, Narrow is the way which leads to life? That which yoke is entered upon by a narrow entrance is in process of time made broad by the unspeakable sweetness of love. **

JEROME; And how is the Gospel lighter than the Law, seeing in the Law murder and adultery, but under the Gospel anger and concupiscence also, are punished? Because by the Law many things are commanded which the Apostle fully teaches us cannot be fulfilled; by the Law works are required, by the Gospel the will is sought for, which even if it goes not into act, yet does not lose its reward. The Gospel commands what we can do, as that we lust not; this is in our own power; the Law punishes not the will but the act, as adultery Suppose a virgin to have been violated in time of persecution, as here was not the will she is held as a virgin under the Gospel; under the Law she is cast out as defiled.

AUG; So then the they who with an unfearing neck have submitted to the yoke of the Lord endure such hardships and dangers, that they seem beneath to be called not from labor to rest, but from rest to labor. But the Holy Spirit was there who, as the outward man decayed, renewed the inward man day by day, and giving a foretaste of spiritual rest in the rich pleasures of God in the hope of blessedness to come, smoothed all that seemed rough, lightened all that was heavy. Men suffer amputations and burning, that at the price of sharper pain they may be delivered from torments less but more lasting, as boils or swellings. What storms and dangers will not merchants undergo that they may acquire perishing riches? Even those who love not riches endure the same hardships; but those that love them endure the same, but to them they are not hardships. For love makes right easy, and almost nothing all things however dreadful and monstrous. How much more easily then does love do that for true happiness, which avarice does for misery as far as it can?

Your interpretation is misplaced. Can you show me where the Catholic Church you claim to belong to supports such an interpretation as you provided. If not, you are in the dangerous business of interpreting Scripture relying on your own authority rather than the Church. It is quite tempting, but pride often gets in the way, as is evidenced by the 20,000+ protestant sects today all containing individuals believing differently on every issue in the Book. That Bible you are reading came from the Catholic Church, and you only know her books because of her authoritative compiling thereof.

That said, I believe we are getting off topic here… Can we get back to reconciling V2 with pre V2 teachings?

 

[una_fides]

I was in high school in the 1960s. All we wanted then was a Sunday Mass said in English. I have never heard a Mass said in Latin since Vatican II. No one complained about not eating meat on Fridays, or fasting at midnight, or wearing head coverings. It wasn’t a problem.

I find it very insulting that the Tabernacle has been removed to a side altar, another section of the church or to a chapel. WHAT is with that? It makes no sense to me at all. If He is not in the main Tabernacle, why genuflect? Does God not deserve to be at the center of His Church? Why was this changed?

It changed with a change in the faith of modernist priests who invaded the Church after V2. I know as soon as I say that, some staunch defenders of V2 who have not studied modernism will start getting defensive and try to label me a “traditionalist,” which all Catholics should be traditionalists by following Tradition anyway, but honestly it’s true that so many people and even many priests and some bishops do not even believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist! Or they try to reinterpret what that means or say that Christ is also “really present” in his Word and therefore the Scriptures should have just as much reverence, etc. The Church in which I went through RCIA promulgated such views. The priest there also cast doubt on the bodily resurrection of Jesus in a Easter homily, told catechumens to not go to confession regularly because they could never commit a mortal sin, and decided that he did not agree with many of the Church’s words in Mass so he changed numerous passages, removed male references to God, changed Eucharistic prayers, etc. Yes, there are many of them out there.

My present church has hymnals. I haven’t been able to find one old Catholic hymn in it. And I know we never sang these when I went to Catholic school for 12 years.

We’ve been invited as a Church to attend a Lutheran Church service for the Feast of the Ascension. That’s nice. But I don’t want to go because I don’t know what stand this Church takes on abortion, stem cell research, and gay marriage.

My strong advice: do not attend the Lutheran church. Regarding the hymnals, modern ones have been filled with protestant songs to attract protestants to Mass and make it more protestant friendly in the name of ecumenism. We are living in difficult times in the Church today, but there is always hope.

 

[una_fides]

Hello,

there are so many eloquent and well-informed replies, may I speak as a fool and an outsider?

The consequences of teaching salvation outside of the church, and forbidding catholics to proselytize, has had the following consequence at the everyday level:

Catholics discourage protestant seekers, believing that their faith is equivalent.

First time I encountered this, was after I ‘found God’ and suddenly had a strong desire to read the bible. So I needed a bible. Closest bible store was about 90% catholic materials. Clerk asks me if I need help and I said, I want a bible but what kind should I get?
Are you a christian?
Yeah, I guess so. I don’t know. I just kind of decided there’s a God and that I want to read the bible.
Well then you’d want this: NIV Life Application Study Bible.

I took her at her word. And joined a protestant church which wanted me.

Second instance, God calls me to convert to catholicism. I call the local church, get referred to the RCIA guy, he tells me that since I am a protestant and I should stay a protestant. He chides me for worrying about whether my children should get baptized. “Do you believe in a God who would send children to hell?”

Look, I completely respect that you’re researching texts. But look at the statistics… the catholic church is hemorraging people and why not, if they understand the church to be the equivalent of any other christian church?

Has the church’s efforts at ecumenism helped anyone? Please let me know.

Great example of the misunderstandings the result from V2 and from modernist priests who teach such things such as that people do not need to convert to the Catholic faith. They could not be farther from the truth. In fact, if a person is convicted to join the Church and does not, then he is committing a mortal sin! Even V2 and the most recent Catechism explicitly and clearly teaches this!!

“Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

…"For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."268…
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
…
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know [have knowledge of] Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

The wording implored in the catechism passage above is quite vague, and is formulated in the most positive way possible almost to the exclusion of anything negative. As a result it easily can lead to opinions that differ from the Traditional and infallible teachings of the Church.

A few things must be clarified. First, those invincibly ignorant can only be saved through the Church, and before their death they must be placed within her through a desire motivated by perfect charity. Hence, they may seem to be outside the Church, but in reality, such people could be saved *within *the Church through their desire. Paragraph 848 is important because it states that God leads those invincibly ignorant to the faith that pleases him. This statement can be understood to mean that at some point before death such a person could cease to be invincibly ignorant and be saved as an implicit Catholic though not baptized with water yet truly baptized by desire. There is also the opinion that if they were not given some special revelation before death that such persons would have accepted the gospel message had it been made known to them because of their openness and cooperation with the available grace. In 847, the passage does not say such people will attain eternal salvation but that they may or in other words they could potentially be saved, but there is no guarantee that any will.

Regarding 819 and the phrase “means of salvation,” this statement can only be understood that the way these “ecclesial communities” are “means of salvation” is by bringing people to the Catholic Church. Hence the phrase that they are “calls to unity” or stated elsewhere they “impel towards Catholic unity” is significant in that they bring salvation to people by placing them inside the Catholic Church through water baptism, which infuses into the soul the life of faith, hope, and charity. For those who continue in those seperated faiths and through absolutely no fault of their own are not Catholic (meaning no reasons of pride, obstinacy, etc), then they could potentially be saved.

I believe that these statements are thus reconcilable with prior teachings, but that they are not necessarily the complete message. I believe that such people who at no time were at fault for not joining the Church *and *who live a life of grace and have perfect charity for God and perfect contrition for any sins committed, and who are open to God and the leading of his grace, would still at some point be made known of the Church before death and have a chance to enter it at least through desire. Those conditions I believe seem to reconcile well with Traditional Catholic dogmas and her infallible teachings.

I now stand ready for cross examination.

What an excellent summary!

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

I have just finished reading this entire thread. Conclusions:

• Una Fides is doing a wonderful job of outlining the Church’s constant teaching on the possibility of salvation outside the Catholic Church. He’s also demonstrating a formidable amount of patience and charity in the face of some nonsense and personal attack. (Not that all those debating him are being nonsensical, or those who have been nonsensical have been constantly nonsensical.)
• It is most blatantly obvious that the Vatican II documents address this question in a different light and with different language. Anyone who can claim with a straight face that “outside the Catholic Church no one can be saved” and “these communities contain elements of salvation” are giving essentially the same message -
• Incidentally, the infiltration of Protestant thinking into the mind of the average Catholic has certainly been made apparent in this thread alone. Hardly surprising.

Una Fides, please keep at it! Like many, I find this question intensely interesting both because of my unending desire to know truth and because I have many people close to me decidedly outside the visible Church (and proud of it).

If, as some are arguing, the basic message about salvation outside the Church hasn’t changed at all, why exactly is it that probably 90% of Catholics today (that’s a guess) would probably say it was not only wrong, but crazy, to believe that only Catholics are saved? Salvation for Catholics only is definitely what was always taught prior.

Now, if you said this was because the false ‘spirit of Vatican II’ corrupted the minds of many and lead to beliefs not supported by the council documents, you’d have an excellent point! But there is more to it than that: and anyone who has actually studied what went on at the council knows that the ambiguity in the documents was intentional and admitted to by the liberal element!

The Council, of course, was valid. All its teachings are valid and infallible and all can be reconciled with infallible Church teaching. I commend Una Fides for doing so.

But it’s obviously a complex issue. As was pointed out, the charism of infallibility is negative. Those documents do not contradict prior teaching - when read properly - but they do not teach anything substantially new, either. (Which is not to say they’re without value - they aren’t.)

 

[una_fides]

You seem to be saying that because “x” is taught by the Ordinary Magisterium, “x” is not taught infallibly. If that is what you’re saying, you disagree with the Church. Vatican II clearly teaches that the Ordinary Magisterium can teach infallibly.

“x” could potentially be infallible, but it is not infallible in any way you could know or determine unless it was defined as infallible by the Church. Vatican II does not teach that the ordinary Magisterium is infallible.
Vatican II, Lumen Gentium #25:
“individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility”

We only know if something is infallible if it is defined as such; otherwise, you cannot know that the ordinary Magisterium is teaching fallibly or infallibly. We give the ordinary Magisterium religious submission but we give the infallible teachings our full and total faith. What happens when the prior ordinary Magisterium said something contrary to the current? or at least seemed to be? And what happens if the infallible Magisterium defined a dogma and the ordinary Magisterium seems to be teaching contrary to that dogma? That is what we are trying to figure out right now and how the statements fit together.

Since you said your approach is to take V2 with the same as preV2 teachings, what do you make of the Church’s teaching on NSOC? How do you understand it? Do you believe that there is salvation outside the Church or that outside the Church certain people can be saved?