Vatican orders slight change in text for baptism
#51
(08-25-2013, 03:53 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote:
Quote:That you refuse to see it is sad, but perhaps you don't want to. Perhaps it would shake your faith. Who knows.
...If I seem to find a contradiction between the documents of Vatican II and earlier doctrinal teachings, it is a sign that I have erred and have missed the mark....

Not at all. It means the documents have failed to present the church teaching clearly. Don't be so hard on yourself. You don't have to pretend that naked emporer has fancy duds on. It's ok to be honest.

(08-25-2013, 03:53 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote: To do otherwise is to oppose the Church in Her constant teaching, for it is Her teaching that everything in V.II is to be interpreted with continuity with earlier teachings; thus, the older pronouncements are an invaluable guide in interpreting the more recent pronouncements.

And with V2 documents...it's absolutely mandatory that the reader be thoroughly  familiar with what "came before" because the V2 documents are written in the language style of the New Theology...an ecumentical style meant "not to offend non-catholics". It's a different animal, so to speak, then every council that came before it and has caused tremdous damage. One must be familiar with the infallible dogmas and traditional teachings of the Church in order not to let the weak V2 "pastoral" and "non-infallible" documents give you the wrong idea of the teachings of the Church. They simply are not clear on some key areas and deafeningly silent on others.

And you know...it is a Church Council's job to teach clearly. If it doesn't do that, it's ok to say so. It doesn't mean Christ has failed.
We've been down this road before ya know. It's getting old.

(08-25-2013, 03:53 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote: You have patently misrepresented the actual teaching of subsistence, insinuating that other Christian communities are the Church of Christ according to V.II (if you'd read Lumen Gentium you'd know that the opposite is taught). That is false, and moreover is a dangerous error.

To say the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church insinuates that the Church of Christ exists elsewhere. It sets up the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church as two different things. Its simply different language...not traditional...it hadn't been spoken of like this before. This is a novelty. If you want to stand on your head, as I said before, and claim it's "not explicitly heretical"...fine. Go ahead. That's not my argument. You battling windmills and strawmen while refusing to admit what is patently obvious....the subsists issue is an issue that caused tremendous damage, all that could have been avoided just by having the cojones to use the word IS.



(08-25-2013, 03:53 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote: First, nowhere in LG is subsistence used qua other Christian communities (which are the implied subject here - why do you keep bringing up false religions? We aren't discussing Nostra Aetate).

It's the problematic usage of subsists rather than is that can be interpreted to the possibility of the Church of Christ also subsists in other religions. Since there is one true religion (remember), those other religions are false. See above. If you don't agree that subsists can be interpreted EASILY this way, then I guess alot of ink has been wasted trying to explain it. If it didn't case confusion and problems...why all the explanations? Why are we even discussing it?

(08-25-2013, 03:53 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote: Second, nowhere is it taught that false religions are a means to salvation!

You've lost your marbles dude.

UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO Wrote:It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Go ahead...get in the position...stand on the head...squint the eyes....hold your breath to a count of 125...and poof! The above phrase is "not explicitly heretical". That's your style right?

And how could anyone possibly get that crazy mixed up idea that the Church changed it's teaching on EENS? Golly Beeve...I don't know....but that Emporer sure has on some spiffy duds.

DD

Reply
#52
(08-25-2013, 05:57 PM)2Vermont Wrote: And as for the other posts here, the defense continues......

Some people never give up! However, the mental gymnastics are more fun to watch than a lot of circus acts! :LOL:
Reply
#53
someone say circus ?   :LOL:


[Image: clown_zps842ae816.jpg]


If that clown isn't representative of a neo-cat, I dunno what is.

Reply
#54
(08-26-2013, 09:36 PM)DustinsDad Wrote:
(08-25-2013, 03:53 PM)Philosoraptor Wrote: Second, nowhere is it taught that false religions are a means to salvation!

You've lost your marbles dude.

UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO Wrote:It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Go ahead...get in the position...stand on the head...squint the eyes....hold your breath to a count of 125...and poof! The above phrase is "not explicitly heretical". That's your style right?

And how could anyone possibly get that crazy mixed up idea that the Church changed it's teaching on EENS? Golly Beeve...I don't know....but that Emporer sure has on some spiffy duds.

DD

Hit the nail on the head.  This is not just unclear, ambiguous language.  This is contradictory teaching.  Error.  The question is how do we deal with/respond to that?
Reply
#55
Regarding "subsistit in", the writer of Mystici Corporis, Sebastiaan Tromp, was also the father of "subsistit in" at the Council.  He introduced the phrase for the exact opposite reason some of you are now claiming--he wanted to strongly reaffirm the perduring identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, so that the affirmation of elements of the Church being found in separated communities did not lead to the conclusion that those communities were the Church of Christ.

Some of you seem to be saying "subsistit in" means the Catholic Church's identity as the Church of Christ is not unique and that the Church can have multiple subsistences or can subsist in communities other than the Catholic Church.  The Church, through the CDF, has said over and over that "subsistit in" means a unique, permanent, and perduring identity, not just a present identity and that the phrase cannot be applied to anything other than the Catholic Church. 

The Eastern Orthodox have made many of the arguments some of you have made concerning alleged Catholic corruptions of doctrine.  For example, they claim by changing the traditional Creed to include the Filioque, we are now teaching a double spiration or double principle--and on its face it can look like we are.  This would be heresy.  The Church, however, has said over and over that this is not implied by the Filioque and we do not believe in two principles and two spirations, but the EO keep saying we do and keep saying we have contradicted the Faith of the Fathers and past Councils. 

The same sarcastic comments and quick dismissals with cutting and pasting of sentences from different texts if applied to other periods, would lead us to reject, in addition to the Filioque, the Church’s historical anti-Jansenist condemnations as opposed to the early anti-Pelagianism condemnations, or the Anti-Nestorian teaching and condemnations with the anti-Monophysite dogmatic letters and condemnations, or the anti-Sabellian teachings, with the anti-Arian teachings.  This is why Luther declared that Popes and Councils have contradicted themselves, why the non-Chalcedonians anathematized St. Leo and the Council of Chalcedon, why others opposed the condemnation of the Three Chapters, why the First Vatican Council led to a schism, etc.  All of these require thoughtful, and nuanced arguments to defend. 

I have posted this a million time on this site, but Cardinal Manning had it right in the 19th century when addressing all these apparent contradiction in history, he said not all can look at old texts and properly understand, as words are often used differently in different contexts, the actual errors being opposed are difficult to understand, etc. 

Cardinal Manning Wrote:No critic except the living and lineal judge and discerner of truth, the only Church of God, can solve these inequalities and anomalies in the history of doctrine. To the Church the facts of antiquity are transparent in the light of its perpetual consciousness of the original revelation.

When we make ourselves that “one critic” we go the way of all those who have come before who have condemned the Church’s teaching.  It’s not a crowd we should want to be a member of.  Nothing can ever be lost by simply admitting one does not understand and to side with the Church—this was settled in the medieval period, if you get it wrong because you trusted the Church or the learned who spoke for the Church, the true faith of the Church covers you.  When you make yourself the judge, you’re on your own.
Reply
#56
To back up Philosoraptor, the Decree on Ecumenism specifically says it is not accusing those born into the separated groups of the sin of separation.  Everything else follows logically if you include that premise (I have posted many times on this site Cardinal Manning’s explanation as to why this premise can safely believed to be true).  Then, if you place the sentence in the context of the surrounding paragraphs, it is speaking about the means of salvation which only belong to the Catholic Church being communicated through the elements of sanctification (which properly belong to the Catholic Church) found in separated communities. For example, an Eastern Orthodox person in good faith may be sanctified by his particular Church's sacraments, which are by their nature communal (eg. the Holy Eucharist is consecrated by a priest, who was ordained by a bishop, etc.).  These sacraments, however, belong to the Catholic Church (as St. Ignatius said, where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church—Jesus Christ is in the Sacraments, therefore the Catholic Church is present and operative where they are administered).

The Decree doesn't say the communities themselves are a means of salvation apart from the Catholic Church, as if Christ founded more than one visible society, but precisely because of the elements of the Catholic Church they possess, where something of the nature of the Catholic Church is preserved and present. 

Back before Vatican II, Cardinal Journet wrote a famous and well received treatise on the Church which explains a lot of this. The whole thing is a good read and can be found here (it deals with the relationship of separated groups throughout):

http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/CHWORDIN.HTM

See especially here, beginning with the entire section (with its subsections) entitled: II. INDIRECT ACTION OF THE HIERARCHY IN THE WORLD and also the subsection titled: D. Whether The Notes Are To Be Found Imperfectly In The Dissident Churches

http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin3.htm#08

Also see the subsection titled: 4. The Just "Without" Belong To The Church By Desire, Not In Accomplished Act.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin1.htm#0

Also, the end notes are here (these can be important to look at as you read through)
http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin4.htm#11

(As an aside, Journet was praised by Lefebrve as a “great theologian” in his conference in Montreal in 1982.)

As Journet explains, the effects of those elements of truth are not just individually sanctifying, but they have an ecclesial dimension. For example, as Journet notes, baptism (and especially Holy Orders and the Eucharist), when received in good faith in the dissident Churches and communities, Christ uses them as a beginning, in a way, to form the Church and to collect His "other sheep" as in a flock (ie not just as individuals). This is so much so in the separated Greek Churches that the Catholic Church has historically considered them just that, particular Churches, whereas, now, historical, baptized Protestant groups are called "ecclesial" and other less organized groups or less Christian groups--where the Church can less be seen to be in formation--are merely called "sects". It is this ecclesial dimension that is being referenced.

The liturgical and ecclesial elements and actions of those groups are not in vain for those who participate in them in good faith and salvation can come by them. The reason for this, though, is because of the connection of these elements and actions to the Catholic Church.
Reply
#57
(08-27-2013, 12:29 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: To back up Philosoraptor, the Decree on Ecumenism specifically says it is not accusing those born into the separated groups of the sin of separation.  Everything else follows logically if you include that premise (I have posted many times on this site Cardinal Manning’s explanation as to why this premise can safely believed to be true).  Then, if you place the sentence in the context of the surrounding paragraphs, it is speaking about the means of salvation which only belong to the Catholic Church being communicated through the elements of sanctification (which properly belong to the Catholic Church) found in separated communities. For example, an Eastern Orthodox person in good faith may be sanctified by his particular Church's sacraments, which are by their nature communal (eg. the Holy Eucharist is consecrated by a priest, who was ordained by a bishop, etc.).  These sacraments, however, belong to the Catholic Church (as St. Ignatius said, where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church—Jesus Christ is in the Sacraments, therefore the Catholic Church is present and operative where they are administered).

Would you happen to know if the Decree on Ecumenism specifically states that the Sacraments belong to the Catholic Church? Because if it doesn't then there may be cause for confusion regarding  the separated communities.
Reply
#58
Not to be a smash and dash poster, as I have to get off to the office, but the very fact that the document UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO calls these sects "churchs" directly contradicts Leo XIII expressely stating that these cannot be called "churches". There is no such thing. God does not recognize them as such, as defined by Holy Mother Church.


The fact is this: the ordinary universal magisterium understood the VII documents as the teaching authority in such a way that is contrary to tradition. How? Look at how they follow the examples of Paul VI, JPII and BXVI. They pray with non Catholics in public for all the world to see. This was expressly forbidden by the constant magisterium of the Church.

The authorities of the Church such as Cardinal Kasper, and many others, say that the Church no longer seeks the conversion of those outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church, but seeks convergance. They point to VII as the touchstone for this. Is he and others wrong? If wrong, by what authority does anyone make this claim?

Finally, and most importantly, the universal ordinary magisterium embraced a Protestant-styled worship service that was created by men who thought and operated in contradiction to the traditional teachings and mind of the Church. The lay people did not read the VII documents, but they sure saw and see the non traditional Catholic worship forced upon them.

Reply
#59
Certainly those who had the True Faith and left it are objectively guilty of the sin of separation and are in a worse state than those who've never known it.
First Vatican Council Wrote:Consequently, the situation of those, who by the heavenly gift of faith have embraced the Catholic truth, is by no means the same as that of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion; for those who have accepted the faith under the guidance of the Church can never have any just cause for changing this faith or for calling it into question.


No one is saying otherwise, so I'm not sure the point of bringing it up yet again.

But simply because someone is not guilty of the sin of separating from the One True Church does not mean that they are saved...they are still separated from the One True Church and have a duty before God to seek it, find it and enter it. God gives souls the graces to do just that.

To say that the soul who was brought up Protestant gets a pass on the objective necessity to enter into the One Holy Catholic Church is contrary to the Faith.

First Vatican Council Wrote:8. Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.

9. Since, then, without faith it is impossible to please God [21] and reach the fellowship of his sons and daughters, it follows that no one can ever achieve justification without it, neither can anyone attain eternal life unless he or she perseveres in it to the end.

10. So that we could fulfill our duty of embracing the true faith and of persevering unwaveringly in it, God, through his only begotten Son, founded the Church, and he endowed his institution with clear notes to the end that she might be recognized by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm


First Vatican Council was held many generations after the Reformation btw. Even Trent was started about 25 year into the Reformation (if my math is right), enough time for the question to pop up as regards souls born and brought up in one of the protestant sects...yet the anathamas (infallible as they are) stood then and still hold today.

Something to think about.

DD
Reply
#60
(08-27-2013, 12:13 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: The Eastern Orthodox have made many of the arguments some of you have made concerning alleged Catholic corruptions of doctrine.  For example, they claim by changing the traditional Creed to include the Filioque, we are now teaching a double spiration or double principle--and on its face it can look like we are.  This would be heresy.  The Church, however, has said over and over that this is not implied by the Filioque and we do not believe in two principles and two spirations, but the EO keep saying we do and keep saying we have contradicted the Faith of the Fathers and past Councils. 

The same sarcastic comments and quick dismissals with cutting and pasting of sentences from different texts if applied to other periods, would lead us to reject, in addition to the Filioque, the Church’s historical anti-Jansenist condemnations as opposed to the early anti-Pelagianism condemnations, or the Anti-Nestorian teaching and condemnations with the anti-Monophysite dogmatic letters and condemnations, or the anti-Sabellian teachings, with the anti-Arian teachings.  This is why Luther declared that Popes and Councils have contradicted themselves, why the non-Chalcedonians anathematized St. Leo and the Council of Chalcedon, why others opposed the condemnation of the Three Chapters, why the First Vatican Council led to a schism, etc.  All of these require thoughtful, and nuanced arguments to defend. 

As for your EO example, I would say that the Church always taught the Filioque as part of the faith, but chose to add it to the Creed.  Since this is vastly different than creating a new teaching that contradicts a previous teaching, I would say that that example doesn't prove anything. 

However, I am willing to hear more about the other "contradictions" you mentioned here.  Can you show me what the groups said was contradicting previous teaching and what the Church's response was?  I am not aware of any group having an issue with Church teaching because it said it contradicted previous (aka traditional) teaching.  I always thought there was more to those stories.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)