Vatican II

[gorman64]

I think you’re missing the big point here. You’re right, he can’tdo it. It would be spiritually impossible for him to do so.

Dear Bear06:

The real question is whether anything has been established or omitted that would be contrary to divine law.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[gorman64]

Canons are in general, disciplinary in nature, and are therefore generally not immutable. Some (but not all) canons, by their very nature, also are attested to in papal magisterial and councilar acts as being de fide tenenda or de fide credenda, which are non-immutable infallible dogmas. For example, Canon 1024, “Only a baptised man can validly receive sacred ordination.” The mere fact of an ecclesial canon does not makes this binding, but not necessarily definitive and immutable. However, by virtue of the authority of the other teachings of the universal ordinary magisterium, this is indeed an infallible and immutable dogma (cf. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) which the pope does not have authority to dispense nor abrogate.

So the doctrinal portion of this rule is infallible. Or the rule expresses an infallible doctrine.

 

[bear06]

Dear Bear06:

The real question is whether anything has been established or omitted that would be contrary to divine law.

Yours,

Gorman

I’m starting to feel like the Warner Bros. chipmunks. No, no, no you’re missing the point. The point is that nothing can be established or ommitted that would be contrary to divine law. See this article under INDEFECTIBILITY OF THE CHURCH

newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

• It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals*; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men.

And a little further down

The gift of indefectibility plainly does not guarantee each several part of the Church against heresy or apostasy. The promise is made to the corporate body. Individual Churches may become corrupt in morals, may fall into heresy, may even apostatize. Thus at the time of the Mohammedan conquests, whole populations renounced their faith; and the Church suffered similar losses in the sixteenth century. But the defection of isolated branches does not alter the character of the main stem. The society of Jesus Christ remains endowed with all the prerogatives bestowed on it by its Founder. **Only to One particular Church is indefectibility assured, viz. to the See of Rome. **

There’s a lot more worth reading in this article.

 

[gorman64]

I’m starting to feel like the Warner Bros. chipmunks. No, no, no you’re missing the point.

Well, Bear, you’re not the only one who feels that way.

I do have much better sources than the CE for the indefectibility of the Church. The CE is alright, I quote it often; but it is not necessarily the best source.

I understand indefectibility. Really.

In Christ,

Gorman

 

[itsjustdave1988]

In what context is this virtuous continence? Here is some context from Casti Connubii:

**BobP123 **said that in Progressio Populorum ,Paul VI “encouraged those who favored using the then newly-introduced birth control pills.” I disagree. There is absolutely no evidence in the document he cites for drawing such a conclusion.

Distinct from that discussion, I understand the context of Casti Connubii’s use of “virtuous continence” to be that continence in conformity to Divine and Ecclesiastical Law, which includes the command to “be fruitful and multiply.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

No, not at all. St. Robert Bellarmine thought it impossible that a pope could ever lose the faith and hence the papacy, he considered this opinion not theologically certain. This is why he went on to examine the question of what would happen were a pope to become a heretic.

Do YOU agree with the “most common and probable” opinion expressed by St. Robert that the pope cannot pertinaciously teach contrary to the faith?

I do.

The only question left in assessing sedevacantism is whether or not the claimant to the papacy, the person notoriously known as the Roman Pontiff throughout the world, duly elected or not.

If Cardinal Roncalli taught material heresy prior to his election, what’s the evidence? Even if if there is such evidence (dubious at best), what certainty do we have that this was taught “pertinaciously,” in the canonical sense? *“In doubt as to whether one is a formal or a material heretic, then he is presumed to be a material heretic.” *[Prümmer, Dominic M., O.P., *Manuale Theologiae Moralis. Barcelona: Herder, 1961 (vol. 1, p. 365)].

Even if a heresy was once pertinaciously taught (dubious at best) by Cardinal Roncalli, thereby excommunicating him from the Church, the canonical norms for electing the pope promulgated by Pius XII affirmed that the penalty of excommunication was lifted for the purposes of the election, which means he could indeed be validly elected in accord with the approved ecclesiastical disciplinary norms of the Catholic Church, which can never be “harmful” or “dangerous” to the faith (cf. Pius VI, Auctroem Fidei, 78).

 

[bear06]

Well, I think your point is that he can’t be the pope because he’s been contrary in his teaching. But again, this is where I think the “corporate body” part comes in. What you’d have to be saying is that the whole “corporate body” is corrupt but it cannot be.

Another good part of this article is the visibility of the Church section. We don’t have some invisible “real” Church.

 

[gorman64]

The only question left in assessing sedevacantism is whether or not the claimant to the papacy, the person notoriously known as the Roman Pontiff throughout the world, duly elected or not.

Dave:

That’s why I asked you if St. Robert Bellarmine was saying that a non-Catholic can be validly elected pope?

Do you think the alterations to the ecclesiastical law by St. Pius X and Pius XII allowed this?

Yours,

Gorman

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dave:

That’s why I asked you if St. Robert Bellarmine was saying that a non-Catholic can be validly elected pope?

Do you think the alterations to the ecclesiastical law by St. Pius X and Pius XII allowed this?

Yours,

Gorman

Still waiting for you to answer this question:

Do YOU agree with the “most common and probable” opinion expressed by St. Robert that the pope cannot pertinaciously teach contrary to the faith?

Then we can discuss the validity of the election of Cardinal Roncalli to the papacy.

 

[gorman64]

Dave:

Did you see post #179? The answer to your question was yes.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dave:

Did you see post #179? The answer to your question was yes.

Yours,

Gorman

Thanks. In post 179, I saw that you agreed what Bellarmine’s opinion was, but I wasn’t sure if you agreed with Bellarmine.

I agree that this opinion is not considered “theologically certain.” However, I’m curious as to your understanding of what constitutes something as “theologically certain” (how do we know what is theologically certain) and what level of assent is required toward that which is considered theologically certain.

Secondly, would you classify the following as a “dogmatic fact” which is theologically certain: “Pius XII was really and truly duly elected and recognized by the Universal Church as Roman Pontiff.” If so, why is this theologically certain?

 

[Papal_Follower_1]

I agree Vatican two was legitamite but the content in my eyes is too modernistic and secular, Mainly because in the councils eyes non-catholics and no-christians can be saved, and becuase of this new so called Social Justice and the Vatican’s anti war stance.

 

[MTD]

I agree Vatican two was legitamite but the content in my eyes is too modernistic and secular, Mainly because in the councils eyes non-catholics and no-christians can be saved, and becuase of this new so called Social Justice and the Vatican’s anti war stance.

From the Baltimore Catechism:

167.What do we mean when we say, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”?
When we say, “Outside the Church there is no salvation,” we mean that Christ made the Catholic Church a necessary means of salvation and commanded all to enter it, so that a person must be connected with the Church in some way to be saved.

168.How can persons who are not members of the Catholic Church be saved?
Persons who are not members of the Catholic Church can be saved if, through no fault of their own they do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, but they love God and try to do His will, for in this way they are connected with the Church by desire.

Maria

 

[Papal_Follower_1]

The Catechism is not an infalible descision and may be changed from time to time, ie after Vatican 2. In the intreoduction of the Catechism it says that it is merely an interpretation.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Papal_Follower,

The absurdity is that you seem to blame Vatican II for a teaching which clearly preceded Vatican II.

Blessed Pope Pius IX (1836):

"It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of Divine light and grace, attain eternal life" [Denz 1677]

All those who attain eternal life are saved by grace, through faith, at least implicit, in Jesus Christ.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The Catechism is not an infalible descision and may be changed from time to time, ie after Vatican 2. In the intreoduction of the Catechism it says that it is merely an interpretation.

You are correct. However the Baltimore Catechism PRECEDED Vatican II, which is the point that seems to have zoomed right past you.

 

[gorman64]

Papal_Follower,

The absurdity is that you seem to blame Vatican II for a teaching which clearly preceded Vatican II.

Blessed Pope Pius IX (1836):

All those who attain eternal life are saved by grace, through faith, at least implicit, in Jesus Christ.

Dave:

You must have been listening to the crickets when you wrote this…that is not Denz. 1677…only a part of it.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[gorman64]

Thanks. In post 179, I saw that you agreed what Bellarmine’s opinion was, but I wasn’t sure if you agreed with Bellarmine.

Dave:

I don’t desire to hold a position that is contrary to the mind of a Doctor of the Universal Church…so I do not believe that a true pope can ever become a heretic. This is however, as we know, not certain but it is contrary to the mind of a great Doctor of the Church.

I agree that this opinion is not considered “theologically certain.” However, I’m curious as to your understanding of what constitutes something as “theologically certain” (how do we know what is theologically certain) and what level of assent is required toward that which is considered theologically certain.

The theologians tell us what doctrine is theologically certain. As I understand it, the moral unanimity of theologians is not in itself granted the charism of “infallibility” but rather they are witnesses to the preaching of the Church, which means that if they all agree they cannot be wrong - not because they have some special charism but rather because, like the “Church Believing” or the “Taught Church”, if they could all be mistaken then that would mean that the magisterium had been mistaken…any other position is a denial of reason.

Theologically certain propositions are conclusions strictly deduced from one revealed premise and one rational premise…assent deserved is that of certitude…opposite censure of error or temerity.

Yours,

Gorman

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dave:

You must have been listening to the crickets when you wrote this…that is not Denz. 1677…only a part of it.

Yours,

Gorman

Yes, and when I quote from the Bible I don’t quote all of the Bible, but only part of it. Likewise, here’s a quote from Pope St. Pius X’s *Catechism, *but be forewarned, this is only an excerpt, not to be misunderstood as his entire Catechism

St. Pius X:

29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?

A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation

 

[itsjustdave1988]

You see, this was the claim of Papal_Follower…

in the councils eyes non-catholics and[non]-christians can be saved

Of course. Is there a sinner out there that can’t be saved?

However, what many people seem to think is that Vatican II taught that without Divine grace, without being joined at least in soul to the Catholic Church, without theological faith and love, one can be saved. That’s not what Vatican II taught, however.

Lumen Gentium par. 16 taught that all are “related” to the Church in various ways. Some seem to misunderstand what this means. However, Lumen Gentium references two sources in that paragraph for the precise purpose of clarifying exactly what they mean. Most are simply too lazy to read those references, preferring instead to read into that document whatever fanciful meaning that pops into their head.

Observe:

Lumen Gentium:

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.

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 the Lumen Gentium means by the relation of non-Christians to the Church, some being only related potentially, which may never be reduced to act, and thus not attain to eternal life.