Pages

Monday, May 02, 2005

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.

5 comments:

  1. Q:In what sense is Vatican II different from Vatican I on this point?

    A:Simple, you have a point blank contradiction. Just compare the two statements.

    Really? Let's see. But first, it seems a little shallow to believe that the Church would contradict itself, as you say, so blatantly.

    VI:
    [quote]“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.”[/quote]

    VII:
    [quote]“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.”[/quote]

    This tradition. What tradition? Are dogmatic constitutions considered tradition, or are they based on an understanding of tradition? I would say the latter.

    The teaching of VII can be found in the writings of Augustine, so that not only does VII not deny VI, but can be shown to be ancient.

    Steve:
    [quote]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.[/quote]

    You are of course correct. There is nothing wrong with posting what is said. Yet it is not without opinion. The context in which you posted was opinionated, maybe not a full explanation, but you set the stage. Just read the title to this blog entry, are you not trying to sway ones opinion?

    You assert:
    [quote]According to Florence, anyone who is circumcised during the church age is damned. In addition, all pagans and Jews, heretics and schismatics are damned.[/quote]

    Does Florence really teach this? Short answer: No.

    Sure, it uses some of the same words you use, yet with, for example, circumcision, the Church was not saying that all those who are circumcised are damned, but all those who are religiously circumcised, for salvations sake.

    Your reasoning seems to me to be no different then those who charge the bible with contradictions. Put two verses side by side and let the chips fall where they may.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I admire the satire, but being a veteran of sorts of many different internet forums (of all different types) I have to say that using another person's name like that needs to be (has to be) frowned upon to a strong degree. Just imagine it happening to you and the havoc it can cause.

    I've had my main email spoofed before too (same type of thing, really), and if anything feels like a real crime that does... (The person who spoofed my email got access to one of my forums and sent a virus-laden attachment to about 70 people in my name.)

    It's not good using other people's names on the internet, even when you are engaging in obvious satire...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Frogg said:"Does Florence really teach this? Short answer: No.

    Sure, it uses some of the same words you use, yet with, for example, circumcision, the Church was not saying that all those who are circumcised are damned, but all those who are religiously circumcised, for salvations sake."

    EWTN - Council of Florence

    Session 11
    "Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation."

    Frogg is employing a typical Catholic dodge of claimimg that a particular Council's pronouncements do not mean what they say.

    Whether or not the participants place their hope in it, it results in loss of salvation. Get it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Relevant to this discussion are Steve Hays' critique of Philip Blosser's critique of sola scriptura, "By Scripture Alone," and Blosser's rebuttal, "Sola Scriptura revisited: a reply to Steve Hays (in 95 antitheses)."

    ReplyDelete