Author Topic: Vatican I on the object of supernatural faith (Read 9474 times)

bowler · « **Reply #135 on:** April 16, 2014, 08:16:58 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: bowler
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: SJB
No, Vatican II, in it's aftermath, has implied that nothing really matters except in agreeing that nothing matters. They don't merely teach a minority view, as you erroneously state.

You're always demanding proof but then completely make stuff up (like the above ludicrous statement). Ridiculous. Demonstrate where Vatican II teaches this.

Vatican II is a series of docuмents. I'm saying what was being taught by those who appear to be in positions of authority after Vatican II is something else.

That's right "your saying" what was being taught. We are not asking for what you are saying, but what Vatican II says about salvation by implicit faith that is different from what you are teaching here.

Catholics are not taught by reading Council docuмents. There are living breathing teachers instructing them (or failing to instruct them.)

So, you say that Vatican II taught error, but you don't know where because you've never read it, and you declare the living breathing teachers of the Church to be heretics and anti-popes cardinals bishops because you don't like what they do. Yeah, that makes sense. NOT!

That makes as much sense as the BODer belief that:

Quote

Nishant and ALL false BODers defend this directly contrary teaching. You "say" you believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously you teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):

I believe that to be saved, one must have at a minimum, explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.

I believe that one can also be saved who has no explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.

SJB · « **Reply #136 on:** April 16, 2014, 12:17:15 PM »

Quote from: idiot

So, you say that Vatican II taught error, but you don't know where because you've never read it, and you declare the living breathing teachers of the Church to be heretics and anti-popes cardinals bishops because you don't like what they do. Yeah, that makes sense. NOT!

I didn't say that at all, all I said was the aftermath of Vatican II, many errors were spread and taught. Btw, I have read the docuмents.

You actually spread one of those errors with your "dogmas only" approach to doctrine.

Nishant · « **Reply #137 on:** April 16, 2014, 12:41:12 PM »

Does Vatican II endorse the minority view? Clearly, it goes further than the Holy Office Letter.

Compare:

Quote from: Suprema Haec Sacra, Holy Office under Pius XII

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire ...

Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, Singulari quadam, in Denzinger, n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, Quanto conficiamur moerore, in Denzinger, n. 1677).

Quote from: CCC, John Paul II, citing Vatican II

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

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.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

336 LG 14; cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5.
337 LG 16; cf. DS 3866-3872.
338 AG 7; cf. Heb 11:6; 1 Cor 9:16.

SJB · « **Reply #138 on:** April 16, 2014, 01:16:45 PM »

I consider the CCC as part of the aftermath of the Council.

bowler · « **Reply #139 on:** April 16, 2014, 01:20:38 PM »

There's no difference between what is taught at Vatican II and what you BODers believe, along with SH and Garrigou-LaGrange and all the rest. All of you have not a leg to stand on in your hair splitting with the progressivist. In this subject you are no different than they, a progressivist, pluralist, double speak clone of them.

Quote

Nishant and ALL false BODers defend this directly contrary teaching. You "say" you believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously you teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):

I believe that to be saved, one must have at a minimum, explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.

I believe that one can also be saved who has no explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.

SJB · « **Reply #140 on:** April 16, 2014, 05:20:11 PM »

Quote from: bowler

There's no difference between what is taught at Vatican II and what you BODers believe, along with SH and Garrigou-LaGrange and all the rest. All of you have not a leg to stand on in your hair splitting with the progressivist. In this subject you are no different than they, a progressivist, pluralist, double speak clone of them.

Quote
Nishant and ALL false BODers defend this directly contrary teaching. You "say" you believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously you teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):

I believe that to be saved, one must have at a minimum, explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.

I believe that one can also be saved who has no explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.

But you believe that both Vatican II was a true Council AND true councils can teach errors of all sorts. Isn't that true, bowler?

bowler · « **Reply #141 on:** April 16, 2014, 08:21:17 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: bowler
There's no difference between what is taught at Vatican II and what you BODers believe, along with SH and Garrigou-LaGrange and all the rest. All of you have not a leg to stand on in your hair splitting with the progressivist. In this subject you are no different than they, a progressivist, pluralist, double speak clone of them.

Quote
Nishant and ALL false BODers defend this directly contrary teaching. You "say" you believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously you teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):

I believe that to be saved, one must have at a minimum, explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.

I believe that one can also be saved who has no explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.

But you believe that both Vatican II was a true Council AND true councils can teach errors of all sorts. Isn't that true, bowler?

All my proofs for EENS and John 3:5 as it is written, are dogmas from infallible councils read as they are written. If I thought that "councils teach error", I would do as you do, and ignore and deny all the clear dogmas and quote all theological speculations so as to conclude as you do that:

Quote

Nishant and ALL false BODers defend this directly contrary teaching. You "say" you believe the truth (1st proposition), while simultaneously you teach and defend the opposite of that truth (2nd proposition):

I believe that to be saved, one must have at a minimum, explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.

I believe that one can also be saved who has no explicit belief in the Christ and the Trinity.

I reject Vatican II precisely because it teaches what you believe. Though it never declared it infallible.