Fact number two: Vatican II and its documents have still not been clarified by the Church in many respects. The documents of Vatican II are in my opinion, and the opinion of many reputable orthodox theologians, the most ambiguous documents ever produced by the Church. In my opinion, the ambiguity and their “this but that” approach to explaining the faith have been, according to history thus far, a complete failure. Even our present Holy Father has a hard time trying to present this “hermeneutic of continuity” to the Church. Just the very fact that we need a "hermeneutic of continuity" scheme to be presented by the Holy Father should reveal to us that this is the case.
Friday, April 20, 2012
Recently from the Best Blog Refuting Roman Catholic Apologetics...
.....From the Roman Catholic blog that knows it's better to give than receive: Why The SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre Are Important to the Church. Great stuff. Once again, a well-deserved hat-tip to... the Catholic Champion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Kudos to the Catholic Champion! I will be delighted if one day he decides to cross the Tiber in the reverse direction.
It's certainly entertaining to watch the Catholic Champion sit in judgement of the documents of an Ecumenical Council and find them wanting. Like many "traditionalist" Catholics, the bone of contention for Matthew Bellasario is the lack of clarity regarding ecumenicism especially in reconciling V2 with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Where does he turn for a possible solution? Why, the SSPX.
Remember this the next time a Catholic apologist tells you that they have certainty.
Which can be added to this:
Vatican Two was described by Cardinal Suenens as "the French Revolution in the Church" and Y. Congar likened it to the October (1917) Revolution in Russia...
"The definitive texts are for the most part compromise texts. On far too many occasions they juxtapose opposing viewpoints without establishing any genuine internal link between them. Thus every affirmation of the power of bishops is accompanied in a manner which is almost tedious by the insistence upon the authority of the Pope...
Cardinal Willebrands, Paul VI's legate to the World Lutheran Assembly at Evian stated in July of 1970 that:
Has not the Second Vatican council itself welcomed certain demands which, among others, were expressed by Luther, and through which many aspects of the Christian faith are better expressed today than formerly? Luther gave his age a quite extraordinary lead in theology and the Christian life."
The much debated issue as to whether the Council is only an "excuse" or in fact the "source" of the "autodemolition" of the Church is entirely beside the point. Whatever the case may be, as the Abbe of Nantes has pointed out, "there is not a heresiarch today, not a single apostate who does not now appeal to the Council in carrying out his action in broad daylight with full impunity as recognized pastor and master" (CRC May 1980). Even the Council's apologist Michael Davies tells us that "no rational person can deny that up to the present Vatican II has produced no good fruit."
It is then the ambiguity of the Conciliar statements which allows for any interpretation one wishes. - http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html
BTW, can you tell me if the often quoted finding of Jean de Launoy,'s 1666 survey of the the Eastern and Western Fathers, who found the following: Forty-four who saw petra as Peter's confession; seventeen as Peter himself; sixteen as Christ; eight as all disciples, can be verified? Thanks
Long live the Catholic Champion blog!
I love that guy.
Rome really should be more sensitive when it changes idolatrous customs. The SSPX can only worship saints and angels according to their consciences. To worship as they did in Assisi takes some time to sink in.
EA: "Like many "traditionalist" Catholics, the bone of contention for Matthew Bellasario is the lack of clarity regarding ecumenicism especially in reconciling V2 with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus."
EA, have you read Cardinal Avery Dulles article on extra ecclesiam nulla salus? It's quite fascinating to see the modern Catholic take on EENS.
"EA, have you read Cardinal Avery Dulles article on extra ecclesiam nulla salus? It's quite fascinating to see the modern Catholic take on EENS."
No, I haven't. If possible ,could you provide a link?
That would be great!
Blessings.
Here it is:
Who Can Be Saved?
Concluding Paragraph (But Read it All):
"Who, then, can be saved?
Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God's promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God's saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. Much will be demanded of those to whom much is given."
Truth unites...and Divides,
Catholics saved if they believe and obey..Other Christians saved if they submit and join..Jews saved if they look and try..Adherents saved if they seek and strive..Atheists saved if they worship and place their lives
If you don't mind, I want to add the one group that has been persecuted by each of these.
The elect saved if God saves them. We don't hear very much about them from Rome these days.
Thanks,
Eric
Once again: the best blog refuting Romanism, hands down, is the Catholic Champion.
Disagree with me if you want, but there's certainly a different Roman Catholic view being put forth by herr Champion than the typical stuff that dribbles out of Catholic Answers or Biblical Evidence for Catholicism.
Kudos to the Catholic Champion!
James, i think this might fit under your blueprint for anarchy section.
Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments - though they may condemn Protestants, holding that Protestants can be saved in the sense that it is a means to the end, that of converting to Rome.
Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found - though they condemn Rome and see most Catholics as lost and in need of salvation.
Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God's promise has been fulfilled - though they reject the aforementioned parties, who hold they must convert to be saved.
Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will - though they deny Christ as the means of salvation and kill Christians.
Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice - though this reasoning means attacking Christians.
So we have Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam:
“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 (Promulgated November 18, 1302)
…that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style), proclaimed “ex cathedra” (infallible).
Then CCC 847:
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.
The "through no fault of their own" clause is what is debated among Catholics, as Rome has not definitively clarified her ambiguity as to whether it excludes such souls as Protestants who know of the claims of Rome but "through no fault of their own" believe such Catholic claims are unwarranted, yet these Protestants obey the light they have, or if it only refers to those who are ignorant of the claims of Rome, but obey the light they have.
In addition, even the second condition is open to interpretation as to whether it means that such will come to accept the Catholic church as a consequence of obeying the light they have, or whether those "through no fault of their own" who are ignorant of the Catholic church, or the gospel of salvation, can be saved.
The latter encounters a further problem in that Scripture indicates that outside souls who are not mature enough to make moral choices, (Is. 7:15,16) ignorance of truth is our fault, and that by obeying the truth we have then we will come to the Truth of salvation.(Mt. 13:11,12; Rm. 2:7; Acts 10)
In favor of Protestants being able to saved are the words of in Vatican Two. But which Traditional Catholics impugn or reject as being hijacked by liberals.
"The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (Cf. Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15-16 and 26) ..Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood." (without mentioning Rome shed some of it).
It goes on to affirm Allah is the God of Abraham, which is blasphemous, as they are manifestly not the same. Nor is this the case of worshiping an unknown God as in Acts 17:23, but is a case of "identity theft" by Islam.
Post a Comment