Vatican II deliberately ambigious?

[GoodNews]

Was Vatican II deliberately ambigious? It just seems to me that Vatican II and the Catechism seem very ambigious (not saying in error of course!) I was wondering if this was done deliberately. For example, the Catechism says of Muslims ‘The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.’. Now I remember somebody here saying this means Muslims can be saved. However that is clearly against the Catholic and Christian faith. There is no salvation outside the Church. I would interpret the Catechism to say that Muslims follow Islam which teaches God exists and some Christian teachings. Therefore this could lead to a person becoming Catholic (they have already accepted God and therefore just have to change they view Him). It does not mean that Muslims will be saved for being Muslim (they could be saved by desire if they had never heard of Catholicism or had absolutely no chance to hear of it but they would be Catholic without knowing it). But that is my interpretation. If the Catholic Church is supposed to possess and hand down truthfull doctrine then why is anything open to such a large interpretation? And how do you think this problem can be solved?

 

[steveandersen]

I’m not sure if it is a problem.
The Church can only make doctrine based on revelation and Tradition. If those are open to a variety of interpretations then we’re kind of stuck with it.

The power to lose and bind in heaven and earth is a profound one and not one to be used lightly. While the Church does recognize certain people as definitely being saved (i.e. Saints) She has always been reluctant to pronounce on those who definitively are not. Something like that is best left to God.

 

[mosher]

I don’t find it ambiguous at all. It is definitely in a more complected language than what many had been accustomed to in the past. However that does not make it ambiguous. The effect is that the average lay person cannot read them and grasp the full meaning but rather since it uses very technical theological and philosophical language it is necessary to have that formal background to grasp the totality of what is being said.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Was Vatican II deliberately ambigious?

The revelation of God, generally speaking, is ambiguous, no?

For example, the Catechism says of Muslims ‘The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.’.

Yes. And that paragraph (CCC 842) of the Catechism is quoting from Lumen Gentium 16, as is shown by the footnote reference. Thus, to properly understand what this Catechism is teaching, you ought to understand what Lumen Gentium is teaching. A Catechism, afterall, is a summary of teaching, giving references for further study.

Vatican II affirmed, in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium (Light of Nations):

Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) … Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely ***seek God **and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19) (Lumen Gentium, 16)

[Footnotes:]
(18) Cfr. S. Thomas, Summa Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3, ad 1.
(19) Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72.

Vatican II purposefully included footnotes 18 & 19 within Lumen Gentium so this teaching would be more clearly understood in the authentic sense intended by the council. What is that intended sense?

With regard to the non-Catholic religions which are “related in various ways to the people of God,” does this mean they are all therefore saved by their own non-Catholic religion? Certainly not. Observe…

Footnote 18 explicitly cites the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, which states,

“Those who are unbaptized, though not actually in the Church, are in the Church potentially. And this potentiality is rooted in two things–first and principally, in the power of Christ, which is sufficient for the salvation of the whole human race; secondly, in free-will.” (Summa Theologica, III, 8, 3)

Does this teaching therefore mean that all sincere Muslims or other non-Catholics are saved, whatever their faith or lack of it? Such an interpretation of Catholic doctrine is untenable, given the context of St. Thomas’ teaching regarding what “in the Church potentially” means.

St. Thomas, in the same article of the Summa explains the various ways people are related to the Church:

We must therefore consider the members of the mystical body not only as they are in act, but as they are in potentiality. Nevertheless, some are in potentiality who will never be reduced to act, and some are reduced at some time to act…Christ is the Head of all men, but diversely. For, first and principally, He is the Head of such as are united to Him by glory; secondly, of those who are actually united to Him by charity; thirdly, of those who are actually united to Him by faith; fourthly, of those who are united to Him merely in potentiality, which is not yet reduced to act, yet will be reduced to act according to Divine predestination; fifthly, of those who are united to Him in potentiality, which will never be reduced to act; such are those men existing in the world, who are not predestined, who, however, on their departure from this world, wholly cease to be members of Christ
(ibid.)

This is what Catholicism means by the relation of non-Christians to the Church, some being only related potentially, which will never be reduced to act, and thus not attain to eternal life.

why is anything open to such a large interpretation? And how do you think this problem can be solved?

Firstly, teach people to read the footnotes.

Secondly, don’t presume that Catholicism is a self-study course. If you approach the documents of the Church as though a Protestant approaches the Bible, then you will run into problems. We have a living magisterium. We do not rely upon sola Catechism, sola Tradition, or sola Scritpura. None of these written documents can say, “Wait! You have misunderstood me!”

Yet, when Catholics have some question regarding Christian doctrine, we can simply ask the living magisterium. You see, with the living magisterium we have two-way communication. If you don’t understand what Vatican II is teaching, speak to your pastor. If you still have difficulty, you can also speak to your bishop or even, if you think it necessary, write the Holy See.