Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Interpretation of Vatican II  (Read 169 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Interpretation of Vatican II
« Reply #5 on: Today at 01:05:51 AM »
There are over 200 heresies in Vatican 2 ...

What?  Really?

Online Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Interpretation of Vatican II
« Reply #6 on: Today at 01:10:29 AM »
So, clearly the core heresy of Vatican II is the new ecclesiology, and it's quite obvious.  Rahner pointed this out as well.

Sadly, however, this core heresy is simply the logical consequence of an ecclesiology that, contrary to defined dogma, allows for the salvation of non-Catholics.

If non-Catholics can be saved, as most Trads hold, especially the clergy, then ... since it's defined dogma that there's no salvation outside the Church ... non-Catholics can be in the Church SOMEHOW.

What does that do to ecclesiology where "Church" now subsists in a core of actual Catholics, there are also loosely-realted peripheral parts of this "Church of Christ", somehow formally united to and within the Church, despite being materially outside.  That's Vatican II ecclesiology in a nutshell.  No one has ever refuted this point.

If I believed that non-Catholics could be saved, then I would be forced to drop all objection to Vatican II ... though of course one would have to draw conclusions about the Mass, and the ramifications of a Protestant service having replaced the actual Mass in the public worship of the Church.


Online Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Interpretation of Vatican II
« Reply #7 on: Today at 01:18:38 AM »
Now, the parts about there being elements of salvation outside the Church ... I could actually come up with a Catholic understanding of the concept that would not be heretical.

Now, Trent teaches that the Sacraments cannot benefit THOSE outside the Church (dogmatic teaching of Florence that most Anti-Feeneyite Trads ignore), BUT the fact that there are elements of salvation outside the Church, that's clearly true.

If the Orthodox baptize an infant and the infant dies ... that Orthodox Baptism is an element of salvation that's outside the Church.  If I'm a Catholic, I can go to an Orthodox priests for confession if I'm in danger of death, and the absolution he gives would be an element of salvation.

In both cases, the one benefitting from these elements of salvation is a Catholic (though I know of one opinion holidng that an infant baptized by the Orthodox is not in the Church and not a Catholic) ... but at least in the second case it's true.  St. Pius X gave permission for Catholics in Orthodox territories, where there were no Catholics churches to be found in many areas and across wide expanses, to receive the Sacraments from the Orthodox, and for those Catholics there, those were elements of salvation.

Now, what Vatican II clearly implies is that these elements of salvation outside the Church actually BENEFIT THOSE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, and not just that they happen to be there, but then can benefit only Catholics.  Yet it doesn't say that outright, so that's were struggling with an ambiguity becomes a problem.