What must we do to be saved?

[EENS]

Stylite:

Vatican II is an Ecumenical Council.

John XXIII stated:
“Mother Church rejoices that, by the singular gift of Divine Providence, the longed-for day has
finally dawned when – under the auspices of the virgin Mother of God, whose maternal dignity is commemorated on this feast – the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council is being solemnly opened here beside St. Peter’s tomb…
The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that he sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more efficaciously. That doctrine embraces the whole of man, composed as he is of body and soul. And, since he is a pilgrim on this earth, it commands him to tend always toward heaven…
That being so, the Catholic Church, raising the torch of religious truth by means of this Ecumenical Council…
Venerable brothers, such is the aim of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council…”

Oh, I know is is an Ecumenical Council; however, what my point was is that it is a merely pastoral council that neither formulated nor defined any new Dogma. That is why both John XXIII and Paul VI stated that it was a fallible council. Anyone can see that it is not infallible that the vernacular MUST be used (or must be permitted to be used) at Mass, for it was not done for 1900 years. God bless.

 

[EENS]

Stylite:

Vatican II is an Ecumenical Council pt. II

Paul VI, who inherited the Council stated the following:
“The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, assembled in the Holy Spirit and under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom we have declared Mother of the Church, and of St. Joseph, her glorious spouse, and of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul, must be numbered without doubt among the greatest events of the Church. In fact it was the largest in the number of Fathers who came to the seat of Peter from every part of the world, even from those places where the hierarchy has been very recently established. It was the richest because of the questions which for four sessions have been discussed carefully and profoundly. And last of all it was the most opportune, because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all it sought to meet the pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family.
At last all which regards the holy ecumenical council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecumenical council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.”

Please note that both Popes state this council is Ecumenical.

Yes, I conceded that. You are right; of course it is Ecumenical. Nonetheless, “[Vatican II] must be numbered without doubt among the greatest events of the Church.” Everyone knows from its fruits that this is a false statement. Again, proving my point that it is merely pastoral: “above all it sought to meet the pastoral needs.”

God bless

 

[montanaman]

EENS,

I assume that since you believe nobody formally Catholic will make it to Heaven, the vast bulk of humanity is toast. If so, are you out there every day trying to bring as many people into the fold? And if you are, I pray you’re not beginning your evangelization with “If you’re not Catholic, you’re going to Hell.” I guarantee if E.E.N.S. is absolute, you’re convincing these lost souls that the Church is wrong.

 

[EENS]

montanaman:

Lol. Yes, that’s true. And I too am proud to be Catholic–I once went around to all the area Protestant churches and tacked up ten reasons why they should accept Mary as their “personal mother.” The local priest wasn’t happy…

But I don’t think you’re proud because you defend this doctrine so rigorously. I think you’re proud because of your unflinchingly narrow view of it. Nobody is saying there’s a loophole for people who reject the Church. What they ARE saying, or implying, is that the South Sea islander who’s never heard of the Church has as much right to God’s mercy as the rest of us. And in some way even the best psychologists will never be able to define, American Protestants may actually be ignorant, and therefore eligible, for Heaven. It’s not up to us to make that ultimate judgement.

1. If I am proud in teaching as the Church has always taught, then what were those who believe as you and the others believe now called when those who believe as I do did the same thing since the beginning of the Church until Modernism?
2. If the island-man is saved by his invicible ignorance, then why were the American Indians not? They are by far the most “invincibly ignorant” people we haev ever encountered. They had pagan human sacrifices, etc., yet the Church NEVER said these people are saved by their ignorance. Rather, She sent missionary after missionary to these people to convert them. Many were killed (most were killed). If they needed not to convert, why did the Church send so many people and why were so many holy men willing to die for no reason? In fact, if they were already saved through their ignorance, missionaries were making it WORSE, for once the missionaries had come and they had rejected them, then those who rejected the missionaries (almost all of them at first) would have been condemned to Hell. Also, the fact that so many converted proves that there was no “invincible” ignorance. God bless.

 

[EENS]

montanaman:

EENS,

I assume that since you believe nobody formally Catholic will make it to Heaven, the vast bulk of humanity is toast. If so, are you out there every day trying to bring as many people into the fold? And if you are, I pray you’re not beginning your evangelization with “If you’re not Catholic, you’re going to Hell.” I guarantee if E.E.N.S. is absolute, you’re convincing these lost souls that the Church is wrong.

Yes, “the vast bulk of humanity is toast.” Scripture, Our Lord Himself, the Saints, and history all prove this. “Enter ye at the narrow gate,” et al. I do defend EENS at every opportunity I have. No, I am not a missionary. I am not even yet a Priest (2 more years until seminary, God-willing). No, I wouldn’t start someone off with EENS. As you can see, many otherwise faithful Catholics here cannot even handle that. God bless.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

EENS,

I thought I made a response to that: his encyclical is not infallible… What I quoted IS infallible.

Yes. But your interpretation of this infallible dogma is neither infallible nor magisterial. Whereas, Pope Pius IX, et. al. interpreted this infallible dogma in it’s authentic meaning, as affirmed again by the Holy Office in 1949, contrary to Fr. Feeney’s non-magisterial opinion. In fact, no pope after Pius IX has contradicted his authentic interpretation of this infallible dogma. These popes were vested with the authentic magisterium, whereas Fr. Feeney and his disciples are NOT vested with the authentic magisterium.

So, a Catholic, if they are truly Catholic, ought to reject non-magisterial interpretations of this infallible dogma when it conflicts with magisterial interpretations. Neither Sacred Tradition nor Sacred Scripture are to be interpreted by one’s own private lights. The authentic interpretation belongs only to the magisterium.

Would you like to explain to me why a Catholic should take non-magisterial opinion over magisterial authority?

 

[montanaman]

Ugh. That’s just foul thinking.

Let me see if I’ve got this right:

American Indians were “supposedly” invincibly ignorant;

Missionaries risked life and limb to convert them;

Some converted, some didn’t;

Therefore they weren’t invincibly ignorant?

First of all, we’re talking about a huge group of people, and as far as I know there’s never been a real “hive mind” outside of Star Trek. That some converted probably shows that some saw the truth of the Church, (though who knows–evangelism has been, ah, “rigorous” in various places and times).

That some didn’t see the truth of the Church hardly disproves their invincible ignorance. It could have been the supposed treachery of the white man that turned them off, or it could have been a language problem–the point is, we don’t know.

The existence of invincible ignorance in no way excuses us from trying to convince others of the truth. Indeed, it’s always incumbent on us to spread the Word. But conversion isn’t as simple as presenting a flawless, cogent argument. There are so many barriers to faith, and we only see the superficial layers of it.

And did you concede that the South Sea islander WAS eligible for Heaven?

 

[Catholic29]

This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and since I am a Catholic(by Rome’s standards anyway), I am obliged to believe it.

CCC, 1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

 

[Chris_Burgwald]

Catholic29:

This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and since I am a Catholic(by Rome’s standards anyway), I am obliged to believe it.

CCC, 1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

Right on, Catholic29. But EENS is going to tell you that the Catechism isn’t infallible, and although he won’t say it, his position also requires that the Catechism (along with Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XII, Vatican II, Paul VI, JPII and a bunch of other folks) are not only not infallible where they teach on this, but wrong as well.

 

[EENS]

itsjustdave1988:

EENS,
Yes. But your interpretation of this infallible dogma is neither infallible nor magisterial. Whereas, Pope Pius IX, et. al. interpreted this infallible dogma in it’s authentic meaning, as affirmed again by the Holy Office in 1949, contrary to Fr. Feeney’s non-magisterial opinion. In fact, no pope after Pius IX has contradicted his authentic interpretation of this infallible dogma. These popes were vested with the authentic magisterium, whereas Fr. Feeney and his disciples are NOT vested with the authentic magisterium.

So, a Catholic, if they are truly Catholic, ought to reject non-magisterial interpretations of this infallible dogma when it conflicts with magisterial interpretations. Neither Sacred Tradition nor Sacred Scripture are to be interpreted by one’s own private lights. The authentic interpretation belongs only to the magisterium.

Would you like to explain to me why a Catholic should take non-magisterial opinion over magisterial authority?

Father Feeney was NOT condemned. It as rescinded with no recantation by Father. If you want to read more, find my previous post on this thread.

“Would you like to explain to me why a Catholic should take non-magisterial opinion over magisterial authority?”

The magisterial opinion is fallible. The non-magisterial opinion sees clearly what the Church teaches, as “no exception” means just that. God bless.

 

[Stylite]

I am glad you agree that VII is Ecumenical. Can you find me some magisterial texts which state that an Ecumenical council may not come under the protection of the Holy Spirit if it deals with mostly pastoral things?

I understand there are statements like this: Paul VI: General audience of Jan 12, 1966: “In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided us teaching with the authority of the ordinary Magisterium, which must be accepted with docility…”

and statements like this:
Pope Paul VI at the opening of the 3rd Session of VII. “It is proper for this solemn synod TO SETTLE CERTAIN LABORIOUS THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES about Shepherds of the Church, with the prerogatives which lawfully flow from the Episcopate, AND TO PRONOUNCE A STATEMENT ON THEM THAT IS CERTAIN. WE MUST DECLARE WHAT IS THE TRUE NOTION OF THE HIERARCHICAL ORDERS and to decide with authority AND WITH A CERTAINTY which it will not be legitimate to call into doubt.” (caps not in original)

And from the Ratzinger Report:
It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points . . .

Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous councils . . . It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism,’ also in its extreme forms. Every partisan choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church) which can exist only as an indivisible unity.

 

[EENS]

montanaman:

Ugh. That’s just foul thinking.

Let me see if I’ve got this right:

American Indians were “supposedly” invincibly ignorant;

Missionaries risked life and limb to convert them;

Some converted, some didn’t;

Therefore they weren’t invincibly ignorant?

First of all, we’re talking about a huge group of people, and as far as I know there’s never been a real “hive mind” outside of Star Trek. That some converted probably shows that some saw the truth of the Church, (though who knows–evangelism has been, ah, “rigorous” in various places and times).

That some didn’t see the truth of the Church hardly disproves their invincible ignorance. It could have been the supposed treachery of the white man that turned them off, or it could have been a language problem–the point is, we don’t know.

The existence of invincible ignorance in no way excuses us from trying to convince others of the truth. Indeed, it’s always incumbent on us to spread the Word. But conversion isn’t as simple as presenting a flawless, cogent argument. There are so many barriers to faith, and we only see the superficial layers of it.

And did you concede that the South Sea islander WAS eligible for Heaven?

No, I do not concede that he is eligible. My point goes beyond the fact that some converted and some didn’t. Why did the Church go to such lengths, with so many murderings of Priests, etc., etc. if they were already going to Heaven. Yes, that does not excuse from the requirement of evangleization (which isn’t a logical conclusion from “invincible ignorance”), but certainly undue evangelization like that would not be “required.” God bless.

 

[EENS]

Chris Burgwald:

Right on, Catholic29. But EENS is going to tell you that the Catechism isn’t infallible, and although he won’t say it, his position also requires that the Catechism (along with Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XII, Vatican II, Paul VI, JPII and a bunch of other folks) are not only not infallible where they teach on this, but wrong as well.

If the CCC was not wrong, why did the Pope make corrections?

 

[EENS]

Stylite:

I am glad you agree that VII is Ecumenical. Can you find me some magisterial texts which state that an Ecumenical council may not come under the protection of the Holy Spirit if it deals with mostly pastoral things?

I understand there are statements like this: Paul VI: General audience of Jan 12, 1966: “In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided us teaching with the authority of the ordinary Magisterium, which must be accepted with docility…”

and statements like this:
Pope Paul VI at the opening of the 3rd Session of VII. “It is proper for this solemn synod TO SETTLE CERTAIN LABORIOUS THEOLOGICAL CONTROVERSIES about Shepherds of the Church, with the prerogatives which lawfully flow from the Episcopate, AND TO PRONOUNCE A STATEMENT ON THEM THAT IS CERTAIN. WE MUST DECLARE WHAT IS THE TRUE NOTION OF THE HIERARCHICAL ORDERS and to decide with authority AND WITH A CERTAINTY which it will not be legitimate to call into doubt.” (caps not in original)

And from the Ratzinger Report:
It must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him, and that also with regard to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points . . .

Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous councils . . . It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism,’ also in its extreme forms. Every partisan choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church) which can exist only as an indivisible unity.

What more do you need other than the first quote from Paul VI? God bless.

 

[Stylite]

EENS, no.

Those things which are disciplinary in nature at an Ecumenical Council remain as such. However, the doctrinal statements at an Ecumenical Council, even if repeated statements, or not new statements, fall under Divine protection.
…
See quote in next post:

 

[Stylite]

Read this from the 1913 Cath. Encyclopedia:

An ecumenical or general, as distinguished from a particular or provincial council, is an assembly of bishops which juridically represents the universal Church as hierarchically constituted by Christ; and, since the primacy of Peter and of his successor, the pope, is an essential feature in the hierarchical constitution of the Church, it follows that there can be no such thing as an ecumenical council independent of, or in opposition to, the pope. No body can perform a strictly corporate function validly without the consent and co-operation of its head. Hence:

the right to summon an ecumenical council belongs properly to the pope alone, though by his express or presumed consent given ante or post factum, the summons may be issued, as in the case of most of the early councils, in the name of the civil authority. For ecumenicity in the adequate sense all the bishops of the world in communion with the Holy See should be summoned, but it is not required that all or even a majority should be present.
As regards the conduct of the deliberations, the right of presidency, of course, belongs to the pope or his representative; while as regards the decisions arrived at unanimity is not required.
Finally, papal approbation is required to give ecumenical value and authority to conciliar decrees, and this must be subsequent to conciliar action, unless the pope, by his personal presence and conscience, has already given his official ratification (for details see GENERAL COUNCILS).
2. That an ecumenical council which satisfies the conditions above stated is an organ of infallibility will not be denied by anyone who admits that the Church is endowed with infallible doctrinal authority. How, if not through such an organ, could infallible authority effectively express itself, unless indeed through the pope? If Christ promised to be present with even two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name (Matthew 18:20), a fortiori He will be present efficaciously in a representative assembly of His authorized teachers; and the Paraclete whom He promised will be present, so that whatever the council defines may be prefaced with the Apostolic formula, “it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.” And this is the view which the councils held regarding their own authority and upon which the defender of orthodoxy insisted. The councils insisted on their definitions being accepted under pain of anathema, while St. Athanasius, for example, says that “the word of the Lord pronounced by the ecumenical synod of Nicaea stands for ever” (Ep. ad Afros, n. 2) and St. Leo the Great proves the unchangeable character of definitive conciliar teaching on the ground that God has irrevocably confirmed its truth “universae fraternitatis irretractabili firmavit assensu” (Ep. 120, 1).

 

[Stylite]

Anyway,

Sorry for clogging the thread.

See y’all tomorrow,
-Stylite

 

[itsjustdave1988]

EENS,

The magisterial opinion is fallible. The non-magisterial opinion sees clearly what the Church teaches, as “no exception” means just that.

Which Pope or saint teaches as you just asserted, that the non-magisterial opinion is to be followed in contrast to magisterial opinion?

Here’s some good Catholic teaching you may benefit from:

From Pope St. Pius X:
**

**Q: What is the Catholic Church? **
A: The Catholic Church is the Union or Congregation of all the baptized who, still living on earth, profess the same Faith and the same Law of Jesus Christ, participate in the same Sacraments, ***AND obey their lawful Pastors, particularly the Roman Pontiff. ***

---

Q: Is there any distinction between the members of the Church?
A: There is a very notable distinction between the members of the Church; for there are some who rule and some who obey; some who teach and some who are taught.

Q: What do you call that part of the Church which teaches?
A: That part of the Church which teaches is called the Teaching Church.

**Q: What do you call that part of the Church which is taught? **
A: That part of the Church which is taught is called the Learning Church, or the Church Taught.

**Q: Of whom is the Teaching Church composed? **
***A: The Teaching Church is composed of all the Bishops, with the Roman Pontiff at their head, be they dispersed throughout the world or assembled together in Council. ***

Q: And the Church Taught, of whom is it composed?
A: The Church Taught is composed of all the faithful.

**Q: Are we obliged to hear the Teaching Church? **
***A: Yes, without doubt we are obliged under pain of eternal damnation to hear the Teaching Church; for Jesus Christ has said to the Pastors of His Church, in the persons of the Apostles: “He who hears you, hears Me, and he who despises you, despises Me.” ***

[Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, The Ninth Article of the Creed]
**
Tell me, is the non-magisterial opinion that you cling to part of the “Teaching Church” that Pope St. Pius X speaks of. As he puts it, the TEACHING CHURCH (magisterial) is that which Jesus Christ has said “He who hears you, hears Me, and he who despises you, despises Me.”

Do you agree with Pope St. Pius X? If so, why do you despise what the magisterium has clearly taught in contrast to clinging to non-magisterial opinion?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

EENS,

Tell me, is your non-magisterial opinion of Catholic tradition more trustworthy than those declared as “Doctors” of the Church?

For example, this is what St. Catherine of Sienna, Doctor of the Church asserted:

“He is insane who rises or acts contrary to this Vicar who holds the keys of the blood of Christ crucified. Even if he was a demon incarnate, I should not raise my head against him, but always grovel and ask for the blood out of mercy. And don’t pay attention to what the demon proposes to you and you propose under the color of virtue, that is to say to want to do justice against evil pastors regarding their fault. Don’t trust the demon: don’t try to do justice about what does not concern you. God wants neither you nor anyone else to set themselves up as a righter of the wrongs of His ministers. He reserves judgment to Himself, and He reserves it to His Vicar; and if the Vicar does not do justice, we should wait for the punishment and correction on the part of the sovereign judge, God Eternal.” (Letters, Vol. I. Letter No. 28).

Again from St. Catherine to Brother Antonio of Nizza:

“For divine obedience never prevents us from obedience to the Holy Father: nay, the more perfect the one, the more perfect is the other. And we ought always to be subject to his commands and obedient unto death. However indiscreet obedience to him might seem, and however it should deprive us of mental peace and consolation, we ought to obey; and I consider that to do the opposite is a great imperfection, and deceit of the devil.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Or how about Venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman or St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine? Are the non-magisterial opininons of Feeneyists more trustworthy than theirs?

I say with Cardinal Bellarmine whether the Pope be infallible or not in any pronouncement, anyhow he is to be obeyed. No good can come from disobedience. His facts and his warnings may be all wrong; his deliberations may have been biassed. He may have been misled. Imperiousness and craft, tyranny and cruelty, may be patent in the conduct of his advisers and instruments. But when he speaks formally and authoritatively he speaks as our Lord would have him speak, and all those imperfections and sins of individuals are overruled for that result which our Lord intends (just as the action of the wicked and of enemies to the Church are overruled) and therefore **the Pope’s word stands, and a blessing goes with obedience to it, and no blessing with disobedience.
**John Henry Newman “'The Oratory, Novr. 10, 1867”, The Genius of Newman (1914), by Wilfrid Ward, Vol II, Ch. 26, http://www.newmanreader.org/biography/ward/volume2/chapter26.html]