Vatican II

[joedecarlo]

According to Pope John Paul II, we are to adhere to them:

“Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus”–“outside the Church there is no salvation”–stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition. It was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and the Council of Florence (Decretum pro Jacobitis, DS 1351)."
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19950531en.html

It also makes sense to define the terms above. The reference to heretics, etc. assumes pertinacity. St. Augustine explains:

“But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics.”
newadvent.org/fathers/1102043.htm

I can’t discern anything that John Paul has written on this subject. I understand the above doctrines that I posted, but not the usual mombo-jumbo from the mouth of John Paul. It is plain as day, that there is no salvation outside the Catholic church. What part don’t you understand? Accordingly, no protestant, Jew, or Muslim can be saved. period. John Paul had the audacity to allow other religions to worship at the altar of St. Francis Assisi. That is a sacreligous on his part. The present Pope has allowed other religions to worhip at the altar St. Paul church in Rome. They have a special for them. Another sacreligious

 

[Genesis315]

I can’t discern anything that John Paul has written on this subject. I understand the above doctrines that I posted, but not the usual mombo-jumbo from the mouth of John Paul. It is plain as day, that there is no salvation outside the Catholic church. What part don’t you understand? Accordingly, no protestant, Jew, or Muslim can be saved. period.

This isn’t really true as the passage I posted from St. Augustine showed–just because someone believes Protestant doctrines doesn’t necessarily make them a heretic. The definitions you posted presume pertinacity. Similarly, it is even possible for the unbaptized to come to salvation as another great doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Liguori, explains:

“Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means washing or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water, of spirit, and of blood. … But Baptism of spirit is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called ‘of spirit’ because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Spirit. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of spirit, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, ‘de presbytero non baptizato’ and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire.*” (*Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7)

Of course an implicit desire means one is ignorant of the need for baptism. It also bears pointing out that the canon from the acts of the Apostolic See (“de presbytero non batpitizo”) cited by St’ Alphonsus was promulgated by the same Pope, Innocent III, who promulgated the decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council that you cited.

John Paul had the audacity to allow other religions to worship at the altar of St. Francis Assisi. That is a sacreligous on his part. The present Pope has allowed other religions to worhip at the altar St. Paul church in Rome. They have a special for them. Another sacreligious

I’m not sure of the relevance of this comment in relation to the meaning of the three definitions. Assuming arguendo that what they did was sacrilegious, it just shows that Popes committed the sin of sacrilege. It doesn’t really show the meaning of the definitions you produced one way or the other.

 

[joedecarlo]

This isn’t really true as the passage I posted from St. Augustine showed–just because someone believes Protestant doctrines doesn’t necessarily make them a heretic. The definitions you posted presume pertinacity. Similarly, it is even possible for the unbaptized to come to salvation as another great doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Liguori, explains:

“Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means washing or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water, of spirit, and of blood. … But Baptism of spirit is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called ‘of spirit’ because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Spirit. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of spirit, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, ‘de presbytero non baptizato’ and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire.*” (*Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7)

Of course an implicit desire means one is ignorant of the need for baptism. It also bears pointing out that the canon from the acts of the Apostolic See (“de presbytero non batpitizo”) cited by St’ Alphonsus was promulgated by the same Pope, Innocent III, who promulgated the decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council that you cited.

I’m not sure of the relevance of this comment in relation to the meaning of the three definitions. Assuming arguendo that what they did was sacrilegious, it just shows that Popes committed the sin of sacrilege. It doesn’t really show the meaning of the definitions you produced one way or the other.

I heard Father Groeshal say that Outside the Catholic church is no longer adhered to. In fact, he dissed one of the popes, I forget which one, for one of the Bulls pertaining to it.

 

[joedecarlo]

Thanks! That’s what my pastor said, too.

There weren’t any infallible doctrines spoke Ex Cathedra at Vat. II.

 

[pnewton]

I can’t discern anything that John Paul has written on this subject. I understand the above doctrines that I posted, but not the usual mombo-jumbo from the mouth of John Paul.

You shouldn’t bad-mouthing your betters. That is the Venerable John Paul II to us faithful Catholics. Such nastiness toward a holy man is highly offensive.

Oh, and it’s mumbo- jumbo, not mombo.

 

[CWBetts]

There weren’t any infallible doctrines spoke Ex Cathedra at Vat. II.

Apparently you need to brush up on what makes an infallible statement. Infallibility is not limited to the Pope making an ex cathdera statement. It is also infallible when the college of bishops, in union with the Pope, are in agreement on anything that deals with faith and morals. Vatican II, being an ecumenical council, meets these criteria.

 

[Layman]

Well, can anyone summarise, please, simply, in bullet point format, what the infallible teachings of Vat. II were? I got some points off of Wikipedia once but can’t remember them.

 

[CWBetts]

Well, can anyone summarise, please, simply, in bullet point format, what the infallible teachings of Vat. II were? I got some points off of Wikipedia once but can’t remember them.

There were sixteen documents and you expect people to rattle them off like a grocery list???!?

 

[Layman]

Since they seem to a source of such contention, I’d have thought, in 40 years, someone would have made a summary. I got this far before: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=459112&page=2

Don’t tell me people keep referencing and arguing about ‘The Second Vatican Council’ without there being a simple summary of the key points, somewhere?

 

[pnewton]

Well, can anyone summarise, please, simply, in bullet point format, what the infallible teachings of Vat. II were? I got some points off of Wikipedia once but can’t remember them.

As there is no bullet list of all the previous infallible statements of the last two thousand years, I think your request is unrealistic. If the absence of such a list proves anything, then it proves too much and there is nothing infallible ever in the Catholic Church.

For me, I take the two Constitutions which are defined as Dogmatic in the title by the Catholic Church meeting as a whole in Council as being, well, dogmatic. Those that are listed as pastoral constitutions are pastoral. Decrees and declariations do not evoke infallibility, but as the doctrine taught is still the doctrine of the Catholic Church, dissent from them should be taken with the same seriousness as any dissent from Catholic teaching. Namely, that we have humility about the possibility that we could be wrong and try to understand the mind of the Church. However, until we understand the Church’s teachings, or we die, there is no sin of heresy involved.

 

[Vince1022]

There weren’t any infallible doctrines spoke Ex Cathedra at Vat. II.

Yes, I know. Thanks anyway. But just because there weren’t any teachings taught infallibly does not diminish the authority of the Council. It’s still and ecumenical Council (as the Catholic Church understands it). Every such Ecumenical Council taught things that were not considered infallibly taught. That doesn’t mean Catholics could treat them as optional opinions.

 

[Ockham]

But doesn’t the Church approve it? Every parish I’ve been to, in the U.S., it’s fine to receive either in the hand or on the tongue. Isn’t that what the Church teaches?

Yes, CITH is approved by indult. The Church does not teach it unless you can show me documents or anything other than a third century quote about making your palm a throne. There was a lot of acquiesence post V2 and the Church stopped enforcing its authority.

Mark, ‘hate’ is a severe word that I would appreciate you not using on my behalf. I don’t practice nor approve of CITH as centuries of tradition support.

There are other threads on CITH. Could you both please post any defences there and help keep this thread on topic?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Since they seem to a source of such contention, I’d have thought, in 40 years, someone would have made a summary. I got this far before: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=459112&page=2

Don’t tell me people keep referencing and arguing about ‘The Second Vatican Council’ without there being a simple summary of the key points, somewhere?

Layman,

I too would like to know what all the arguments are about, and wouldn’t mind putting a little effort into constructing such a list. If you would like to help me do that, I would be happy to post it on my web site so we’d all have this in a “permanent” place – all organized and stuff. If you’re interested, PM me about it and we’ll hook it up.

Alan

 

[Layman]

Ta for the offer, Alan, but I’m sure something must exist on the wild and wide plains of the internet e.g. like this: therealpresence.org/eucharst/vat/clrp_vii.htm I just cant think of the search terms to find it at the moment. Also, I’m terribly lazy.

It’d be funny if the proponents of ‘Vat. II as a super Council’ can’t actually point to something which summarises what the documents say.

 

[CWBetts]

Ta for the offer, Alan, but I’m sure something must exist on the wild and wide plains of the internet e.g. like this: therealpresence.org/eucharst/vat/clrp_vii.htm I just cant think of the search terms to find it at the moment. Also, I’m terribly lazy.

It’d be funny if the proponents of ‘Vat. II as a super Council’ can’t actually point to something which summarises what the documents say.

No one views Vatican 2 as a “Super Council” (they way Rad Trads view Trent). We do, however recognize it as a valid council that must be adhered to.

 

[Ockham]

What specifically must we adhere to?

BTW, terms like “rad trads” are not allowed.

 

[joedecarlo]

You shouldn’t bad-mouthing your betters. That is the Venerable John Paul II to us faithful Catholics. Such nastiness toward a holy man is highly offensive.

Oh, and it’s mumbo- jumbo, not mombo.

Pope John Paul II was a disaster for the Catholic Church. During his reign, most of Western Europe lost its Catholicity. Allowing other religions to worship at the Altar of St. Francis of Assisi is a sacreligious. Pope Benedict allowing other religions to use the Altar at St Paul in Rome is a sacreligious. Sometimes the truth hurts.

That for the correction. I must had been thinking of the dance, mombo.

 

[joedecarlo]

Apparently you need to brush up on what makes an infallible statement. Infallibility is not limited to the Pope making an ex cathdera statement. It is also infallible when the college of bishops, in union with the Pope, are in agreement on anything that deals with faith and morals. Vatican II, being an ecumenical council, meets these criteria.

According to Fr. Groeshal there were no infallible doctrines established at Vat.II.

 

[CWBetts]

According to Fr. Groeshal there were no infallible doctrines established at Vat.II.

With all due respect, his background is in psychology, not theology. Vatican II, as an ecumenical council was infallible. And even if it was not, you cannot simply choose to ignore it.

 

[Layman]

With all due respect, his background is in psychology, not theology. Vatican II, as an ecumenical council was infallible. And even if it was not, you cannot simply choose to ignore it.

The two statements are not incompatible. An infallible ecumenical council may, if it wishes, pronounce no infallible doctrine, perhaps?