Was Vatican II hijacked by the liberals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RSiscoe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
sweetchuck:
Ironically, in denying the validity of Vatican II, you commit a two-fold heresy.
1.) You deny a truth of a Church Council, truth which is part of the Catholic Church’s Magisterium.
2.) You deny a truth of the doctrine of the infalliability of the Magisterium, since your very denial alleges falliability.

reminder 1:
Can. 751: Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith

reminder 2:
Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication

Please, please, please, for your eternal sake, turn from your denials of revealed truths! I will pray for you.
Click to expand...
Ok. Please, please, please, list an article of the Divine and Catholic Faith that RSisco has denied via a quote from him on this thread. If he denied the Validity of VATII, where did he say so? It looked like he was objecting to the plans of the periti who would look to INTERPRET the Council. But then I may have overlooked the obvious.
Just post his words of denial. That will be sufficient. Then I’ll go after him for doing so. And maybe pray for him as well…maybe.
 
40.png
TNT:
Ok. Please, please, please, list an article of the Divine and Catholic Faith that RSisco has denied via a quote from him on this thread. If he denied the Validity of VATII, where did he say so? It looked like he was objecting to the plans of the periti who would look to INTERPRET the Council. But then I may have overlooked the obvious.
Just post his words of denial. That will be sufficient. Then I’ll go after him for doing so. And maybe pray for him as well…maybe.
Click to expand...
He promotes their denials in his posts. That in itself is sufficient. God’s judgment does not require hard evidence, the Lord knows a person’s intent.

What is yours?
 
40.png
sweetchuck:
He promotes their denials in his posts. That in itself is sufficient. God’s judgment does not require hard evidence, the Lord knows a person’s intent.

** What is yours?**
Click to expand...
Accuracy.
 
40.png
TNT:
Hi Sweetie!
Of course not.
Is there a difference between Universal salvation and some will be chosen thru Divine Providence to be saved? Of course there is!
We are to pass on, however, what the ApostolicTeaching is and has always been. What has Christ always told us? What has His historic Church always told us?
I’ve confided in you about my beloved niece who is Church-of-Christ as you once were. In fact, I’m taking her to dinner Monday on her birthday. If anyone is saved outside the Catholic Church, it has to be her. Now my emotions are stepping in.

Here is exactly what I believe about salvation ONLY to those truly ignorant of the True Faith:
God, acting in His perogative of Divine Providence, knows those who would embrace the Faith if ever given an honest chance to do so. Likewise, by Divine Providence he knows those who would NOT embrace the Faith if given an honest chance to do so, or would later trash it by heresy, apostasy, or unrepentent mortal sin.
So, those who, through no fault know not of the True Faith, are in the hands of DIvine Providence, and thankfully so.
Nevertheless, we are all obliged to use every opportunity to present the Faith and this is our cooperation with Divine Providence in helping those who would embrace the Faith if only we present it as Christlike as we are able.
In other words, we are obliged to spread the Faith to all whom God brings our way. Free will to convert then is not denied anyone who is given the opportunity to exercise it.
Now, those who God may save in their unfaulted ignorance is a SUBJECTIVE part of the Faith. It is NOT the OBJECTIVE part of the Faith. The Church Teaches OBJECTIVELY in Her infallible dogmas such as EENS, Baptism, etc.
We are not to preach the SUBJECTIVE as the RULE and by doing so make void or even diminish the OBJECTIVE dogmas.
However, it seems that the SUBJECTIVE is becoming a substitute for the OBJECTIVE dogmas, and thus, many are neglecting their obligation to try and convert those in their presence.
Universalism is the death nell to conversion into the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
40.png
nike248:
I think you and TNT are two monkeys scratching each other’s backs.
Click to expand...
TNT,

I need to scratch you back on that one. That was a very good post. BTW, maybe we can start another thread on EENS because I have been thinking of some things lately that, at least for me, really brings greater clarity to the matter, and absolutely refutes those, such as the Diamond Brothers, who say a person must be a visible member of the Church to be saved - no exceptions.

Well, I guess I’ll go ahead and mention it now.

OK, we know that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. That is a de fide dogma that we cannot deny. However, it seems to me that there are certainly two levels to the Church - the visible and invisible. The heretics of the 16th century admitted one, yet rejected the other - just as they admitted faith, yet rejected works, and admitted the Bible yet rejected Tradition.

continue…
 
continuation of last post

Now, it is absolutely certain that the invisible Church can, in some partcular circumstances, extend beyond the boundaries of the visible Church; and likewise, it is possible for a person who is a member of the visible Church to not be a member of the invisible Church. Let me give a few example to try to clarify that:

Let’s say that a person was baptized Catholic. Every week they attended Mass, gave money to the parish, went on “pro-life” rallies, and even tried to bring others into the Church, yet knowingly rejected a dogma of the faith, such as transubstantiation, or papal infallibility. Now, such a person would not be a Catholic. They would appear to be Catholic, but in reality - on the “invisible level” - they would not be Catholic, but a heretic. They may be a member of the visible Church, and may certainly appear to be Catholic, but they would not be. Now, most likely, only God would know that because “man seeth the things that appear, but God beholds the heart”.

On the other hand, let’s say that a child of 5 was validly baptized by a heretical minister of a Protestant denomination. Even if that child had never stepped foot into a Catholic Church, they would be just as Catholic as any other Catholic Child. They would be a member of the invisible Church, but not the visible Church, since they had never stepped foot into a Catholic Church and were not registered as a member of the true Church. Such a person is a member of the invisible Church.

Now, let’s take another example - one step further: let’s say that an adult went through a conversion. They believe explicitly in the Trinity and Incarnation (which most theologians, such as St. Thomas, say is necessary for salvation), and, although they may not explicitly believe any other dogma (since they are “invincibly ignorant” of them), they also do not reject any dogmas, which means they are not actual heretics, but at most only a “material heretic”. Now, if such a person was baptized, they too would become a member of the invisible Church, but since they were baptized outside of the visible Church (by a heretical sect), they would not be a visible member of the Church.

We can see from these examples that, although the Church consists of both the visible and invisible, it can and does happen that a person may not be a member of the visible Church, yet nevertheless be a member of the invisible Church, just as a person may be a member of the visible Church, yet not be a member of the invisible Church.

Although this distinction between the visible and invisible Church may confuse some, since most today focus on the subjective exception, rather than the objective rule, it does help in dealing with those who allow no exception to the doctrine of EENS, which they interpret as meaning that a person must be a member of the visible Church to be saved, and allow absolutely no exceptions.

Of course, only God knows “whether, or which human beings” 🙂 belong to the invisible Church and not the visible Church, for “man seeth the things that appear, but God beholds the heart”.

What are your thoughts on that?
 
Reply to RSiscoe:
“not knowing”, “not accepting”, he is in a state of ignorance.
Click to expand...
I will re-phrase:

The person is in a state of ignorance about Jesus Christ, the Church (therefore he is not in a position to accept Jesus Christ or the Church through a) lack of knowledge and/or b) not having been evangelized.)

However, he believs in the existence of God and His rewarding Providence. He follows his conscience.

Is Salvation possible to this person?
 
Sean O L:
Reply to RSiscoe:

I will re-phrase:

The person is in a state of ignorance about Jesus Christ, the Church (therefore he is not in a position to accept Jesus Christ or the Church through a) lack of knowledge and/or b) not having been evangelized.)

However, he believs in the existence of God and His rewarding Providence. He follows his conscience.

Is Salvation possible to this person?
Click to expand...
According to St. Thomas, and St. Augustine, the answer is no. They both taught that explicit faith in the Trinity and Incarnation was necessary for salvation. They taught that invincible ignorance was a punishment for some sin the person had committed, and that they would be eternally lost, not because of their ignorance, which was not their fault, but because of some other sin they committed. That is what St. Thomas teaches in the Summa and he quotes St. Augustine as saying the same thing.

St. Thomas Aquinas: “There are many things which a man is obliged to do, but which he cannot do without the help of divine grace: as, for instance, to love God and his neighbor, and to believe the articles of faith; but he can do all this with the help of grace; and *'to whomsoever God gives His grace He gives it out of Divine Mercy: and to whomsoever He does not give it, He refuses it out of divine justice, *in punishment of sin committed, or at least in punishment of original sin,” as St. Augustine says. (Lib. de correptione et gratia, c. 5 et 6; Sum. 22. q. ii art. v.) “And the ignorance of these things of salvation, the knowledge of which men did not care to have, is, without doubt, a sin for them; but for those who were not able to acquire such knowledge, the want of it is a punishment for their sins”, says St. Augustine; hence both are justly condemned, and neither the one nor the other has a just excuse for being lost." (Epist. ad Sixtum, Edit. Maur. 194, cap. vi., n. 27.)

However, there are others, such as St. Alphonsus who teach that it is possible for a person to be saved if they are invincibly ignorant of even the Trinity and Incarnation, as long as they have “implicit faith”, which means they are so disposed that theyw ould believe the truth if it was presented to them (of course only God knows that).

Many believe that if a person had implicit faith - that is, was so disposed that they would believe the truth if it was presented to them - that God will either send a missionary to convert them, or enlighten them internally.

People often use the example of the invincibly ignorant saint who lives on a desert island and has never heard the truth. But has such a person ever existed? Even with the help of the sacraments it is difficult to live rightly; how much more so without the sacraments. But, if there ever was a person who lived a perfect life on a desert island, I certainly believe God would bring them into the Church. IF explicit faith in the Trinity is necessary for salvation, as St. Thomas and St. Augustine taught, then God would either send them a missionary or enlighten them internally.

St. Thomas Aquinas: “Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic Faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance.”

The following is a good article on the subject that has many good quotes. It was written over 100 years ago by a priest.

64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:m3GB4ZAJ9zAJ:www.oltyn.com/invig.htm+St.+Thomas+invincible+ignorance&hl=en
 
Dr. Bombay:
I think Pope John Paul II had, for lack of a better term, a very florid way of expressing his ideas. Some might even say opaque, especially for someone like me with very little education and no theological or philosophical training.

In other words, I don’t know what to make of it, particularly without knowing the context in which those statements were made.
Click to expand...
I know things can become very confusing today. So many people are saying so many different things that some are not sure what to believe. I think that some of the things TNT and myself said to you actually made a lot of sense, but you are just not sure who or what to believe.

This is what I would suggest: Since you admit that the writings of John Paul II are sometime hard to comprehend (and I agree) simply read writings that more clearly express the Catholic faith.

For this, I would suggest the Baltimore Catechism, which is very easy to understand and is available free online. It would be best to purchase an actual catechism to study, but if you don’t want to do that, simply study one online. You can locate it by typing “Baltimore” Catechism into a search engine.

In my opinion, the New Catechism is also not always real clear. Some parts are good, but other parts are vague and even misleading (in my opinion). The Baltimore catechims or any Catechism prior to 1960 will express the faith very clearly, and you will know exactly what to beleive

If you become a little confused by what you hear today (and who wouldn’t when so many people are arguing with one another), simply read an older Catechism and you will know exactly what to believe.

God does not require that we laymen become theologicans. A basic understanding of the faith is all God asks of us.

I would suggest that you do not let all of the disagreement trouble you, or confuse you; simply read an older Catechism and allow it to form your faith.

If you would like to study the faith a little further, I would suggest the following encyclicals, which can all be located by typing the name into a search engine.

1.) Satis Cognitum, by Leo XIII (kind of long but good)

2.) Mirari Vos, Pope Gregory XVI (on liberalism)

3.) Mortalium Animos, by Pius XI (on Christian unity)

4.) Libertas Praestantissimum (the nature of true liberty - very good but not realy easy reading)

5.) Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII (on certain false opinions).

Good luck and God Bless,
 
Sean O L:
Reply to RSiscoe:

I will re-phrase:

The person is in a state of ignorance about Jesus Christ, the Church (therefore he is not in a position to accept Jesus Christ or the Church through a) lack of knowledge and/or b) not having been evangelized.)

However, he believs in the existence of God and His rewarding Providence. He follows his conscience.

** Is Salvation possible to this person?**
Click to expand...
Only if he is living in the OutBack! But not those in the Hill Country or Palo duro Canyon of Texas. Those are already saved by evidence of their heavenly location.
 
40.png
TNT:
Very well. Please UNTWIST the meaning of:
From MESSAGE OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE ABBESS GENERAL OF THE ORDER
OF THE MOST HOLY SAVIOUR OF ST BRIDGET
Sept 2002:
“Going back in mind and heart to hermystical experience that was completely focused on the Redeemer’s Passion, you are dedicated to discerning on the face of the Church reflections of the holiness of Christ, Redeemer of man, now for ever “clad in a robe dipped in blood” (Apoc, 19,13), the everlasting, invincible guarantee of universal salvation.”
Click to expand...
The passage you cite describes Christ as “the everlasting, invincible guarantee of universal salvation.” It means that it’s because Christ redeemed everyone and nothing can ever undo the redemption He won for us, which makes it everlasting and invincible. That doesn’t mean everyone will take advantage of said redemption, of course. But I digress. Anyway, Christ died to save all people (although not everyone will take advantage of that), so in that sense His salvation is universal. He offers the gift of salvation to everyone without exception. It’s up to us if we want to accept it or not, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top