Dissent In The Church

[Anna]

The pope at the second Vatican said that the definition of Catholic church was interpreted wrong by everyone back in the day.

I must have missed that...

In which Vatican II document does the Holy Father say this?

Me thinks you are a tad confused. -_-

Pax Christi. <><

[Anna]

Oh my goodness Mateo el Guapo, great minds must think alike!

I had not read your post before submitting my own. Ooops.

^_^

Pax Christi. <><

[megamattman1]

interesting

Edited February 22, 2004 by megamattman1

[dairygirl4u2c]

I can't believe that I have to show this to "great minds". I thought it was a given that the Second Vatican clarified that those outside of the official Church could be saved.

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day. Nor is God remote from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, since he gives to all men life and breath and all things (cf. Acts 17:25-28), and since the Savior wills all men to be saved (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4). Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience--those too may achieve eternal salvation.[19]

Vatican II even wrote (LG # 49): "All who belong to Christ, having His Spirit, coalesce into one Church."

And now some history of the church's teaching:

"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved" (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council).

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam).

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgiving, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church" (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino).

The position taken by the Catholic church historically and that taken after Vatican II are irreconcilable and contradictory. You will find it impossible to admit that the Church was mistaken; with such an acknowledgement the whole structure of infallibility falls like a house of cards. But I think that deep down you can feel the tension.

Or since I am willing to play on your level, now back to where we should be: arguing that I should do whatever the heirarchy tells me regardless of its lack of full truth. Because that is, you would argue, itself the truth.

Or perhaps this website is misled. Maybe Mel Gibson is right.. the Pope is not really Catholic in the full sense of the word. How do you know he's wrong? Situations like this have happened in the past ya know. And now you can't simply point to what your Church teaches you and say that's final truth since the true church is itself in question. You have to have the gumption to be your own woman and figure it out for yourself.

Edited February 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Dave]

Dairygirl, have you read the article I posted in this thread? Hmmmmmm?

[the_rev]

Aren't catholics that don't agree with some doctrines but agree with others called SuperMarket Catholics?

[Anna]

No, Dave.

Doubtful that she read it.

She's in denial that Jesus Christ established a Church on earth, appointed a vicar to stand in the place of authority, ordained priests to offer the Sacrifice of His Body and Blood to the Father in atonement for the sins of men, gave His priests the ability to forgive men's sins in His name, and sent His Holy Spirit upon His Church to guide it infallibly until the end of time.

In fact, I really don't know what she's doing here, except spinning her wheels. -_-

Pax Christi. <><

[Dave]

Aren't catholics that don't agree with some doctrines but agree with others called SuperMarket Catholics?

Well, supermarket Catholics is an appropriate name, but cafeteria Catholics is the phrase that's most commonly used.

[the_rev]

I can't recall what is the defination of Cafeteria Catholics again?

[Dave]

I can't recall what is the defination of Cafeteria Catholics again?

A Catholic who picks and chooses which doctrines to believe and obey and ignoring the rest, much like they're in a cafeteria.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Dairygirl, have you read the article I posted in this thread? Hmmmmmm?

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/eens.html

I assume you meant that one. No I didn't read it, but I did skim it for main point. It's a little extensive. That's usually what I do since many times people throw lots of text at me that don't really answer my question.

I assume you will say that they taught that only Catholics may be saved but never really said that non-Catholics will not. Somewhere along the lines of it isn't really contradiction. But the fact remains that that logic could be applied to any issue.

I'm sorry I admit I'm not super smart. But if you could tell me in simple words what that site says, and/or the answer to my question, I'd be much obliged.

Edited February 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Dave]

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/eens.html

I assume you meant that one. No I didn't read it, but I did skim it for main point. It's a little extensive. That's usually what I do since many times people throw lots of text at me that don't really answer my question.

I assume you will say that they taught that only Catholics may be saved but never really said that non-Catholics will not. Somewhere along the lines of it isn't really contradiction. But the fact remains that that logic could be applied to any issue.

I'm sorry I admit I'm not super smart. But if you could tell me in simple words what that site says, and/or the answer to my question, I'd be much obliged.

To keep it simple, the Church has NEVER taught that ONLY Catholics may go to heaven.

[Mateo el Feo]

I can't believe that I have to show this to "great minds". I thought it was a given that the Second Vatican clarified that those outside of the official Church could be saved.

The following quote is part of the Catholic Encyclopaedia, written around 1908 (with Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat), about 50 years before the Vatican II Council documents were written:

This doctrine of the absolute necessity of union with the Church was taught in explicit terms by Christ. Baptism, the act of incorporation among her members, He affirmed to be essential to salvation. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark, xvi, 16). Any disciple who shall throw off obedience to the Church is to be reckoned as one of the heathen: he has no part in the Kingdom of God (Matt., xviii, 17). St. Paul is equally explicit. "A man that is a heretic", he writes to Titus, "after the first and second admonition avoid, knowing that he that is such a one is . . . condemned by his own judgment" (Tit., iii, 10 sq.). The doctrine is summed up in the phrase, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. This saying has been the occasion of so many objections that some consideration of its meaning seems desirable. It certainly does not mean that none can be saved except those who are in visible communion with the Church. The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven. It is true such acts could not possibly be elicited by one who was aware that God has commanded all to join the Church, and who nevertheless should willfully remain outside her fold. For love of God carries with it the practical desire to fulfill His commandments. But of those who die without visible communion with the Church, not all are guilty of willful disobedience to God's commands. Many are kept from the Church by Ignorance. Such may be the case of numbers among those who have been brought up in heresy. To others the external means of grace may be unattainable. Thus an excommunicated person may have no opportunity of seeking reconciliation at the last, and yet may repair his faults by inward acts of contrition and charity.

[Catholic Encyclopaedia source of text]

I think the arguments for the possibility of salvation outside the Church is roughly the same as the arguments for salvation without the sacrament of baptism. While Our Lord is a merciful God, He desires all mankind to be brought into His mystical body, the Church (entering through the sacrament of Baptism and being nourished by the graces provided though the other sacraments).

I suppose we should start with this. Would you accept the statement that I underlined as true, or do you believe yourself to be more informed than the Catholic Encyclopaedia (written almost 100 years ago) regarding the consistant meaning of Catholic teachings?

Just as the Holy Bible is misunderstood by protestants, Church documents have often been misunderstood by protestants. I pray that the Holy Spirit continues to lead you to inquire about the teachings of Christ's Church.

God bless,

Mateo

[dairygirl4u2c]

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam).

Are you saying this quote doesn't allude to people who aren't subject to the Roman Pontiff?

I've talked to seminarians who have said that the Pope has redfined the full term Catholic because people back in the day believed it was strictly church going Catholics. The seminarians said even the Pope that made those quotes didn't have the concept that others could be saved.

But they said that the Pope was right really even if he didn't realize it because PJP2 redefined what "catholic" meant.

So the point is, something else Catholics believe could be not defined correct. And my question was, would it be wrong to think and act as if you knew the correct definition. I get some people who say yes. Some like Ironmonk who doesn't even understand my question. And some who contest my very premise. I think the fact that some say yes... including those seminarians... leads me to want to stop arguing about whether or not it was taught and talk about my question and point.

[Aloysius]

i'm gonna get some saint quotes that proove to you it's not a new thing to accept heretitical Christians as partial members of the True Catholic Church... i just gotta look for em, that should settle the question of whether or not it was possible that ppl back then knew this. in times in the Church the common belief was that only those strictly within the Catholic Church go to heaven, but this was never specifically taught by the Magisterium and in fact there are people throughout history who have believed in the partial membership to the Church that seperated Christians have.

.... gotta go to work now. when i get home i'll look those quotes i promised you up for ya. :shield:

[dairygirl4u2c]

Thanks Al. I think we'll conclude that the term Catholic was never really defined to begin with officially so it was officially defined by JP2.

But even if this is the case, that is a cop out because the original pope didn't have this in mind.

Unless you have something that says he did.

That would imply the seminarians don't necessarily know what they're takling about though cuz they think the original Pope didn't have it in mind. But since it's a technicality he was right without realizing it. (which if this is the case, that's a cop out)

But I'll let ya search. Thanks!

[phatcatholic]

how can we really know what Pope Boniface "had in mind" when he wrote that? also, i don't see how any of this is a "cop out." doctrines are allowed to develop overtime as our understanding of them increases, and as long as they do not change in their fundamental nature. Pope Boniface is correct. Pope John Paul II is correct. their is no fundamental difficulty here. the only difference is that one has a greater understanding than the other. what is wrong w/ that? why must this be a cop out?

this article, on the development of doctrine, is probably the easiest one out there to read and understand. please read it. i think it will answer alot of your questions. if after reading it, u still have questions, please let us know. here's that article:

--Can Dogma Develop?

Good Luck w/ this and May God Bless You,

phatcatholic

Edited February 25, 2004 by phatcatholic

[Hananiah]

It is a bit of a cop-out to claim that Boniface didn't really know what he was saying and that no one, not even he, knew the correct meaning of his words until recently. Also note that he specifically excluded Greek Orthodox from membership in the Catholic Church.

"If, then, the Greeks or others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they necessarily confess that they are not of the sheep of Christ; for the Lord says, in John, that there is one fold, one shepherd, and one only. This authority, moreover, even though it is given to man and exercised through man, is not human but rather divine, being given by divine lips to Peter and founded on a rock for him and his successors through Christ Himself whom He has confessed; the Lord Himself saying to Peter: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind," etc. Whoever, therefore, resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordination of God, unless he makes believe, like the Manichean, that there are two beginnings." Pope Boniface, Unam Sanctam

Everyone who is baptized is baptized into the Catholic Church. However, once one explicitly and consciously rejects the authority of the successor of Peter, one excludes oneself from the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

[Aloysius]

well said hannaniah.

hmm... i shall search for those quotes i promised you now, cuz it is not only in this time that the Church interprets it the way it does, she has always interpreted it the way Hananiah just explained it :cool:

[Mateo el Feo]

Dairy Girl,

You really seem to be a skeptic's skeptic. I would like to refer you to the Holy Bible, but I wonder if you treat the Word of God with the same skepticism that you treat the words of Church documents. I don't know if you believe that the Holy Bible is the inspired word of God. I want to assume that you are some flavor of protestant because you posted a proselytizing website on another thread

If you do believe the Holy Bible is the inspired Word of God, I would like you to re-read the discussions of Baptism and the Eucharist. If you don't know where to look, I can give you chapter and verse. There are absolute statements made in it regarding both baptism and the Eucharist.

St. Thomas Aquinas discusses these issues (in the Summa) and acknowledges extra-ordinary situations can allow for salvation for those who weren't baptised in water or who didn't receive the Eucharist. If you're going aim your skepticism on Church documents, it's just not intellectually honest to give the Holy Bible a pass when it makes equally un-ambiguous statements (compared to the Unam Sanctam quote) about the necessity of Baptism and the Eucharist.

Yet, protestant theology (I'm still assuming you are protestant) is all over the place regarding baptism. As I understand it, many protestant sects view baptism as a mere symbol (though not necessarily efficacious or necessary). The evangelicals have their own new formula for salvation: incantation of the phrase: "I accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior." Apparently, you are immediately saved (a la OSAS) and your sins are forgiven--their version of a new baptism, I guess.

Regarding you're argumentation. I did reject your argument regarding Vatican II. The point of Vatican II--contrary to what you posted--was not to say, "whoops, Catholics were wrong." Your exact words were, "The pope at the second Vatican said that the definition of Catholic church was interpreted wrong by everyone back in the day." Such a claim is unsupportable--I've already shown that the proper understanding of Vatican II is to see it in harmony with both Holy Scripture and Tradition.

Maybe I'm wrong about you being a protestant. Maybe you're agnostic...or an atheist. I suspect this because I have yet to see you show Christian charity towards people who are themselves Christian. Maybe you are skeptical of all religion? I don't know. I just get a vibe that you've got a pretty big chip on your shoulder. If you've introduced yourself to the Phatmass gang, just give me a link. It would help me (and others) to understand where you're coming from. With 100 posts in less than a month, it's seems like God is leading you to learn more about His Church.

God bless!

Edited February 25, 2004 by Mateo el Feo