Honest heretics.

Jehanne Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:13 pm

http://www.womenpriests.org/traditio/biblical.asp#saved

Until at least 1854, the official teaching of the Church was that there was no salvation outside the Church. Here are some statements by the Magisterium:

Lesson: In the 19th century the Church began to modify its teaching, stating that one could belong to the Church also ‘in desire’ and that this sufficed for salvation. Vatican II completed this process by clearly stating that there is salvation for those outside the Church, ‘all those who seek God with a sincere heart’ (Lumen Gentium 15-17) and that their various religions are also, to some extent, means of salvation (Nostra Aetate, on Relation to non-Christian Religions.

Guest Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:49 pm

They are not honest. Lumen Gentium #16 is probably one of the most misread and cut up texts of the Second Vatican Council... it does not say there is salvation outside the Church: it says the good and truth found amongst those outside the Church is a preparation for the Gospel and says in order to procure their salvation the Church fosters the missions.

Jehanne Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:57 pm

The text does not demand the interpretation that you are giving it.

Guest Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:59 am

Interpretation? I'm reading it...

"Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel."
"Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature", the Church fosters the missions with care and attention."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Jehanne Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:18 am

MarianLibrarian wrote:Interpretation? I'm reading it...

"Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel."
"Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature", the Church fosters the missions with care and attention."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Here is what the chief theologian and peritus of the Second Vatican Council had to say:

“It was declared at the Second Vatican Council that atheists too are not excluded from this possibility of salvation… The only necessary condition which is recognized here is the necessity of faithfulness and obedience to the individual's own personal conscience. This optimism concerning salvation appears to me one of the most noteworthy results of the Second Vatican Council. For when we consider the officially received theology concerning these questions, which was more or less traditional right down to the Second Vatican Council, we can only wonder how few controversies arose during the Council with regard to these assertions of optimism concerning salvation, and wonder too at how little opposition the conservative wing of the Council brought to bear on this point, how all this took place without any setting of the stage or any great stir even though this doctrine marked a far more decisive phase in the development of the Church's conscious awareness of her Faith than, for instance, the doctrine of collegiality in the Church, the relationship between scripture and tradition, the acceptance of the new exegesis, etc." (Fr. Karl Raliner, S.J., "Problem of the 'Anonymous Christian'", Theological Investigations, Volume XVI, The Seabury Press, New York, 1976, pp.283, 284.)

So, one is no longer "justified by faith," but by being "faithful to one's conscience." Of course, if one is going to appeal to theologians of the past as to the "mind of the Church," then one can certainly do the same with theologians of the present.

MRyan Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:25 pm

MarianLibrarian wrote:Interpretation? I'm reading it...

"Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel."
"Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature", the Church fosters the missions with care and attention."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

And that is a perfectly orthodox "'sense" and interpretation of the doctrine.

But of course, there is the "Rahner" sense that Jehanne's like to peddle as "proof" of something; I'm not sure what. But even here the most liberal promoters of this "respectable" new attitude calls this "basic option" (salvation by sincerity) doctrine "perhaps disputable", and "may be, not much more than hinted at in the Council Acts."

In his "Grace Abounding - Ecumenism v Conversion" By Bishop Christopher Butler, the core of the "basic option" doctrine is presented in the following extracts:

There is also respectable though perhaps disputable theological justification for the new attitude. This theology is, it may be, not much more than hinted at in the Council Acts. But it was familiar enough to the theological architects of the aggiornamento. The argument runs as follows: God wills all men to be saved. Christ merited this universal salvation or redemption by his passion and God ratified it by Christ's resurrection. The only obstacle to the effectiveness of redemption is sin. Every human being who reaches moral adulthood has to opt between what his conscience judges to be right and what his conscience condemns as wrong. If he makes the basic option for the right as he apprehends the right, he is in fact (though he might deny it) opting for God; he is placing no obstacle to grace. Grace, then, finding no obstacle, takes possession, and the man is 'in Christ' (and Christ 'in him') even if his conscience has told him to reject the Christian preaching. Every man of good will is in grace, and is mystically united in Christ with all other men of good will. All together, they constitute the body of Christ in its mystical element, as distinct from its visible institutional aspect. So the Council found itself able to say 'In every age and in every nation anyone who fears God and does what is right is acceptable to him (cf. Acts x: 35).' And, if it is asked whether an atheist can be said to 'fear God,' the answer may be implied by another statement of the Council: 'Nor does divine Providence deny the necessary help to salvation to men who, through no fault of their own, have not yet reached an express acknowledgment of God, yet strive with the help of divine grace' - 'to attain an upright life.'

Thus, for the morally adult person, whether he has been brought up as a Catholic or not, everything depends on his basic option. And his basic option, while it cannot be good without the help of the grace which flows from our redemption by Christ, can always have that help - and will have it unless the man has deliberately rejected this help. No doctrine or sacrament can take the place of this basic option. Socrates and Herod the Great, no less truly than Paul and Augustine, were offered the graces necessary for salvation. To have lived and died before Christ makes no difference in this respect; the fact that our Lady was immaculately conceived ex praevisis meritis Christi shows that the redemptive efficacy of Christ had a backward as well as a forward influence. It is the will of God that all men should be saved. So runs the theological argument by which some would justify the Council's attitude.

There is much truth here (note in particular the reference to Aquinas' fundamental option (grace or mortal sin) for those "pagans" who reach the age of reason), followed by a lot of "disputable" theories only "hinted at" in the Council. See http://vatican2voice.org/6unity/ecum_conv.htm for the entire article.

This is what kept Fr. Feeney up at night. Shocked

Jehanne Wed Jun 22, 2011 1:43 pm

MRyan wrote:This is what kept Fr. Feeney up at night.

No, it didn't. It was infallibly and forever defined at the Council of Florence that all who attain eternal life must die within "bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." And per Vatican 1,

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, #14, ex cathedra: "Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 4, ex cathedra: "If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema."

we are only allowed to understand that dogma as it was defined by the Fathers at Florence. Besides, Father Feeney died in 1978, the year Rahner published his book.

MRyan Wed Jun 22, 2011 2:17 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:This is what kept Fr. Feeney up at night.

No, it didn't.

You really are a hoot! You didn't get it ... so what else is new?

Sponsored content

Honest heretics.

Honest heretics.

Re: Honest heretics.

Re: Honest heretics.

Re: Honest heretics.

Re: Honest heretics.

Re: Honest heretics.

Re: Honest heretics.

Re: Honest heretics.

Re: Honest heretics.