D
DustinsDad
Guest
Perhaps I’m splitting hairs, but I tend to look at it as the Holy Spirit protected the Council from officially teaching error in faith and morals at Vatican II. It’s a subtle distinction, but it would explain the reality that not every reccomendation on prudential and practical matter addressed in the Council documents were Divinely Inspired. I mean, it’s not like every word of the Council Documetents were Divinely Inspired by the Holy Spirit - there’s alot of ambiguities in there (that sort of separate VII documents from the canons and explicit teachings of other Councils)
Here’s where I think it is most evident that Vatican II is unique among the Church Councils. Go back to Trent or Vatican II or Florence (or any other council for that matter). Have heretics or liberals ever used the teachings of a Church Council to promote their erroneous beliefs by claiming the teachings to be their own? I mean, could Luther claim Trent taught Protestantism? Could the Arians claim Nicea taught Arianism?
I am of the opinion that the documents themselves need further clarification from the top - of the old-style clear unambiguous nature. So far, I think even the further clarifications that have been issued from the top need further clarifications because the Church hasn’t been able to tear itself away from the amiguous style language (read unnoffensive) incorperated in Vatican II. Being ambiguous means precisely that they can be interpreted in more than one way.
Dominus Iesus attempted to clarify some things on the nature of the Church for example, and yet another attempt at further clarification was needed and attempted with the recent release from the CDF on the “is” vs. “subsists” question - and yet there are still questions out there on this teaching. While both “clarifications” speak of the Church having the “fullness of Truth” (itself a rather recent concept - this truth in degrees thing), they still speak glowingly of the “elements of truth” outside Holy Mother Church. Neither clarifiction addresses the flip side - the eternal consequenses holding to the errors taught in those groups outside Holy Mother Church - errors that damn souls to Hell. And the clarifying documents don’t address what use these elements of truth and sancitfication are to those who reject the other truths of the Catholic faith while holding to the condemened errors. Just how much of Christ can we culpably reject and still enter into heaven? Crucial questions.
Regarding ecumenism, it would be as simple as saying authentic ecumenism means preaching the truth in charity - and this includes specifically and clearly calling those outside the visible bonds of Holy Mother Church to conversion to Holy Mother Church for the salvation of their eternal souls.
Regarding relgious liberty, it would be as simple as saying religous liberty means:
*]Each individual has the God given right and resonsibility to profess the One True Religion established by Christ for the salavation of their eternal soul
*]Got gave each individual free will, so each individual can reject the One True Religion established by Christ, but at the price of their immortal soul
*]No one has a God given right to promote errors and false doctrine that leads other souls to Hell.
*]The Church does not believe in forced conversions.
And being brutally honest - lets admit that lot of the “liberals” we are talking about here are actually within the Church Herself - even in the upper echalons of the hierarchy. So as always - the situation requires much prayer - and probably not a little fasting as well.
That’s all…sort of written on the fly so I hope it makes sense.
Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad
