VII and Roman Catholic Apologetics?

[RamistThomist]

My friends and I have been in debate with a lot of "old school" catholics. We point out that Vatican II contradicts their worldview. We point out that creeds like the Athanaisian Creed is contradictory with VII's statements that Muslims go to heaven (since they deny the trinity, which Athanasian creed kind of mandates that one mediate on the trinity to go to heaven). they say that VII doesn't count. How accurate is that?

They say that we Protestants are going to hell (that really doesn't bother me, coming from them) but I point out that VII says Muslims go to heaven. Who is interpreting councils correctly?

 

[Me Died Blue]

Good questions - I would also be particularly interested at this time to see what people know on the matter.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Good questions - I would also be particularly interested at this time to see what people know on the matter.

Here is what they have thrown at me and my friend:
VII is only pastoral in nature, whereas the others are "dogmatic." Whatever.
Then they will say that only what the pope declares to be binding is binding, or something like that. This way they try to get out of the impossible dilemma of having an infallible system but yet having huge gaping holes in it. If a system claims to be perfect and ultimate then among other things it can't have any errors. But(!) Rome has made theological (this council overturned that council), scientific, and other forms of errors. It is as Van Til noted: autonomy with a vengeance.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Good questions - I would also be particularly interested at this time to see what people know on the matter.

Here is what they have thrown at me and my friend:
VII is only pastoral in nature, whereas the others are "dogmatic."

Dang, that's clever and convenient!

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
My friends and I have been in debate with a lot of "old school" catholics. We point out that Vatican II contradicts their worldview. We point out that creeds like the Athanaisian Creed is contradictory with VII's statements that Muslims go to heaven (since they deny the trinity, which Athanasian creed kind of mandates that one mediate on the trinity to go to heaven). they say that VII doesn't count. How accurate is that?

They say that we Protestants are going to hell (that really doesn't bother me, coming from them) but I point out that VII says Muslims go to heaven. Who is interpreting councils correctly?

You are correct. At Vatican II, Romanism succumbed to modernism; they were only a few decades behind the Protestant liberals. It's no accident that when cornered they try to hammer away at abortion and contraception since those are about the only issues on which they haven't capitulated.

About the only Romanists who publicly say Protestants are going to hell anymore are sedevacantists (i.e. that the post Vatican II popes are actually antipopes who have departed from church teachings), but I guess these boys ain't that. When I had more time on my hands I attempted to debate an aspiring RC apologist last year. He didn't say that Protestants were going to hell but insisted that Rome hadn't changed her teaching on this or anything else. I think your sparring partners are at least somewhat more intellectually honest and in keeping with Rome's historical teaching.

Does V II clearly say Muslims go to heaven? (I'm not that familiar with all it's particulars although I do know it calls Protestants "separated brethren") Or are you perhaps thinking of the latest Catechism which basically says that?

 

[Scott]

Jacob:

There are different strains of thought within Catholicism about VII. Nearly everybody, including the papacy, accepts it as binding and not mere guideance. It does contradict allot of older Catholic doctrine. It also says that protestants are true christians. Consider this excerpt from the VII document, Decree on Ecumenism - (UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO).

Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,[19] which the Apostle strongly condemned.[20] But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.

The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church- whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church--do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,[21] and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.[22]

So per VII protestants, like Muslims, can go to heaven. Most American Catholics accept this without question. And that is not b/c they accept the authority of the church, so much as it is consistent with the relativism that most have adopted.

There are a minority of dissenters. They come in two main groups: (1) conservatives and (2) traditionalists. Conservatives will generally accept VII as being authoritative but lament its effects. They typically say that VII is fine as written, but it has been abused by liberals in application. Reformed minister convert Scott Hahn is a conservative Catholic.

Traditionalists hold that VII does not apply at all. They will often have a variety of excuses about why VII does not apply. This include some far-fetched conspiracy theories about the real pope being abducted, etc. Some appeal to end-times prophecy, including post-biblical prophecy. Another reformed (PCA - yikes!) minister who converted to Catholicism, Gerry Matatics, has gone down this path. Traditionalists are largely ostracized by other Catholics. They think only the Latin Mass is correct, among many other things.

Hahn and Matatics were good friend from seminary.

I found this book a useful overview of these different groups: The Smoke of Satan : Conservative and Traditionalist Dissent in Contemporary American Catholicism .

 

[Scott]

BTW, on Muslims and non-Christians, this is the relevant excerpt from the VII document LUMEN GENTIUM (The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church).

16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. 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",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

 

[DTK]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
Here is what they have thrown at me and my friend:
VII is only pastoral in nature, whereas the others are "dogmatic." Whatever.
Then they will say that only what the pope declares to be binding is binding, or something like that. This way they try to get out of the impossible dilemma of having an infallible system but yet having huge gaping holes in it. If a system claims to be perfect and ultimate then among other things it can't have any errors. But(!) Rome has made theological (this council overturned that council), scientific, and other forms of errors. It is as Van Til noted: autonomy with a vengeance.

It is true that your Roman apologists who are traditionalists or sedevacantists, or both, never tire of pointing out that the "charisma of infallibility" was never invoked for Vatican II. They do not like where their church finds itself today. But I suggest that you drill it home to these Roman types that their often cited quotation of Jesus in Matthew 16, which without any proof but their own claim they apply to Rome, "the gates of hell" have de facto prevailed against their claims otherwise in view of the fact that the present day church has departed from their traditionalist views, and that fact alone makes it utterly irrelevant whether their present day communion (council or pope) ever invokes the "charisma of infallibility." The traditionalists all like to cite the Council of Florence, which was an "infallible" council.

The Council of Florence (1441) declared in the Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino: It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and 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. See Henry Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, trans. Roy J. Deferrari, Thirtieth Ed. (Powers Lake: Marian House, published in 1954 by Herder & Co., Freiburg), #714, p. 230.

But the words of Pope John Paul II, which prior to his death he uttered on Wednesday, September 9, 1998 to a general audience in St. Peter´s Square on The Spirit of God and the "˜Seeds of Truth´ in non-Christian Religions is a clear contradition of Florence, and therefore proves that the "gates of hell" have prevailed against their communion...

Pope John Paul II: Every true prayer is inspired by the Holy Spirit, Who is mysteriously present in the heart of every person. Through the practice of what is good in their own religious traditions, and following the dictates of their consciences, members of other religions positively respond to God's invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even though they may not recognize Him as their Savior. The attitude of the Church and of individual Christians with regard to other religions is characterized by sincere respect, deep kindness, and also, where it is possible and appropriate, cordial collaboration. This does not mean forgetting that Jesus Christ is the only Mediator and Savior of the human race. Nor does it imply lessening the missionary effort to which we have an obligation, in obedience to the command of the Risen Lord: "˜Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.´ These words appeared on the official Vatican web site, http://www.vatican.va.

Vatican II had previously stated:

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place among these there are the Moslems, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God Himself far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and every other gift (cf. Acts 17:25"“28), and who as Savior wills that all men be saved (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4). Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. See The Documents of Vatican II, Walter Abbott, General Editor (Chicago: Follett, 1966), Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium II:16, p. 35.

The traditionalists and/or the sedevacantists can't have it both ways. Either the present day communion of Rome contradicts its previous dogmatic ("infallible") decrees, regardless of whether or not the "charisma of infallibility" has been invoked, or the "gates of hell" have prevailed against their communion. Their sophistry has run into a brick wall. The "gates of hell shall not prevail" contention that they make, for the words of Jesus on behalf of their communion, depends the theory that there will always be a successor on the seat of Peter, and the sedevacantist suffers from that incoherent claim to logic when he assumes, for the sake of his argument against his present day communion, that the chair of Peter is empty or has been vacanted.

DTK

 

[RamistThomist]

That's awesome, Pastor David. Thanks!

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
That's awesome, Pastor David. Thanks!