Catholicism: now & then

Frogg,

In what sense is Vatican II different from Vatican I on this point? Simple, you have a point blank contradiction. Just compare the two statements. According to Vatican I:

“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.”

According to Vatican II:

“This tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit.[5] For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down…For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.”

Vatican I expressly denies what Vatican II expressly affirms. The simple reason is that Vatican I reaffirms the old Tridentine view of tradition, while Vatican II canonizes the Newmanesque version, which had not taken hold at the time Vatican I was convoked. But that does nothing to harmonize them.

You then say,

<< Besides posting what you believe contradicts a teaching maybe it would be better to try and understand the times and people, cicumstances, etc. that these statements regard. This statement could be made today with the same effect, because truly the Church understands more today than it did then, but it still understands. The disease is the same, yet the remedy is applied differntly. Just like modern medicine very rarely amputates a limb, when a couple hundred years ago, it would be more necesarry. >>

I don’t know quite where you’re going with this statement.

i) If what you said is true, then it falsifies the statement of Vatican I.

ii) As to trying to understand the period, people and circumstances, the first step in understanding what they said is to know what they said. So, at the very least, posting what they actually said is a necessary preliminary to understanding what they said.

iii) In addition, I see nothing wrong with my posting what they said, without my offering a running commentary. I’m giving readers a chance to compare and contrast the statements for themselves and draw their own conclusions. Certainly I have my own opinion about all this, but to lay out the raw documentation lays the foundation. Guys like Dave Armstrong would like to keep the debate totally abstract, fact-free, and personal. I prefer to spread the facts out on the table so that we all know exactly what we’re talking about. No room here for fuzzy generalities.

iv) Speaking of which, your statement is so vague that it could be true or false depending on the particulars of the case.

v) To begin with, I limited myself to statements of the extraordinary magisterium. Up to a point, you might like to make allowance for changing times and circumstances, but statements of ecumenical councils are supposed to be immune to the culture-bound vicissitudes which would falsify them over time. If you don’t believe that much, then you’ve abandoned the principle of a divine teaching office, in which case you’ve abandoned a primary pillar of the RCC.

vi) And the other pillar of the RCC is the principle of sacramental grace. Where is salvation to be found? In the valid means of grace, channeled through the sacraments. That’s the traditional view.

Now just compare the very exclusionary statements of Florence and Lateran IV with the very inclusionary statements of Vatican II.

According to Lateran IV, no one who denies such articles of the faith as the Trinity, Incarnation, perpetual virginity of Mary, Crucifixion, descent into hell, Resurrection, Ascension, and return of Christ can be saved.

According to Florence, anyone who is circumcised during the church age is damned. In addition, all pagans and Jews, heretics and schismatics are damned.

Recasting this in modern terms and applying it to our own times, anyone who is not an observant Catholic is damned. Hindus are damned. Buddhists are damned. Jews are damned. Muslims are damned. Evangelicals are damned. No exceptions. No "anonymous" Christians. Even all circumcised Catholics are damned, which I imagine would come as rather alarming news to most Catholic men in North America and Europe--especially since, in a case like that, it is easier to take away than to put back.

Just compare this with Vatican II, where an indefinite number of individuals classified as beyond the pale of salvation according to Florence and Lateran are now brought within the sphere of saving grace.

This is not a natural evolution in the understanding of the RCC. No, this is a complete reversal of policy on the fundamental question of who can be saved. Florence and Lateran expressly deny what Vatican II expressly affirms.

This is not a question of which is right and which is wrong. The immediate point, rather, is that they can’t both be right. And if they can’t both be right, then the RCC has no divine teaching office to its credit.