|
|
 |
Michael
Fritts
wrote:
|
|
Hi, guys —
I have been a Catholic for about four years
and I love the Church. After fourteen years
of Charismatic churches I always knew there
was more, so I started my journey to the Church.
After watching EWTN and all the Masses, I stepped
into my local Catholic parish and attended
a Mass. I was a bit taken back. I could not
find the tabernacle and the statues of St.
Mary,
St. Joseph, and then I saw a statue titled: Touchdown Jesus. I had never seen
a statue called Touchdown Jesus before and was
sad. The Mass was liturgically sound as far
as I knew and the priest was a loving, caring
man that made up for the rest of the disappointment.
There are many things that bother me to various
degrees.
One is the teaching on No Salvation outside
the Church contrary to those who accept Jesus
Christ as their personal savior as St. Matthew
said in his Gospel.
- How can a Jew, Muslim, and Hindu, etc.
be saved when they deny Jesus who says if you deny me, I will deny you to my Father
in Heaven?
I know that if you do not know of Jesus you
will be judged according to your life.
- Another question is how can infallible
teaching be changed by another pope as
in the case
I just mentioned about salvation?
- Was not the Council of Florence clear
on salvation?
- Why did Vatican Council II disregard the
first infallible teaching?
These are most important questions:
- How can over 1,900 years of the Church
be changed so much to Her detriment?
- Why did Vatican II change the Church so
much that some aspects are unrecognizable?
I sometimes attend a Church downtown that
is beautiful: it has no bands, no dancers,
no people handling the Lord but the priest.
- I love the Church no matter what because I
know the gates of hell will not prevail against
it, but am curious as to why it is now a shadow
of its former self?
Thanks and God Bless you all.
Respectfully,
Mike Fritts
|
| {
Can you explain salvation, how infallible faith can change, and why Vatican II changed so much? }
|
|
Mary
Ann replied:
|
Hi, Mike —
You said:
I know that if
you do not know of Jesus you will
be judged according to your life.
Actually, those who do not know Jesus
will be judged according to their
lives. There are many who have heard
of Jesus and know of Him, who don't know Him; they don't know that He
is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
(John 14:6)
Only those who reject what they know
to be true are in danger of damnation.
The Church does not change, she develops.
The doctrine that outside the Church
there is no salvation is true, and
has always been true. It means that
without the Church, without the presence
of Christ in the world in sacrament
and Word, there is no salvation for
anyone.
The Church is the means of grace,
the means through which the Holy
Spirit normally acts, but even when
He acts outside the Church, He is
acting because He is the Life of
the Church, which is Christ's Mystical
Body.
Mary Ann
|
Mike
replied:
|
Hi, Mike —
Great to hear from you again.
RE: Salvation outside the Church.
On this issue, we have really given
some very good answers. If you wish
to read them all, just go to the
sub category below. There are about 30 web postings that address the issues
from various angles.
Questions
on the Catholic doctrine "Outside
the Church there is no Salvation"
On the apparent contradiction between
the council of Florence and Vatican
II, our colleagues over at Catholic
Answers had this answer:
Question:
I am confused about a statement
made by the ecumenical council
of Florence in 1442. In its Decree
for the Jacobites it stated that
no one, whatever almsgivings 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. Does this
mean we must have a rigorist view
on the subject of salvation outside
the Church?
Answer:
Florence's decree that no one
outside the Catholic Church is
saved is absolutely true in the
sense that those who lack any
and all connection to the Church
are damned. But it is possible
to have an invisible link to the
Church. Being in the Church does
not require full, formal communion.
This was the understanding of
St. Thomas Aquinas, who spoke
of being in the Church in voto (in
desire) rather than in re (in
reality), and of the Council of
Trent, which taught that we can
be justified and consequently
saved by water baptism or a
desire for it.
In the last few centuries has
come a refinement of the Church's
understanding of what constitutes
the votum (desire) needed
for in voto membership. An implicit
desire is sufficient. A person
who seeks and tries to conform
himself to the truth has an implicit
desire or votum for Christ
and for the Catholic faith because,
by seeking to conform himself
to the truth, he is seeking to
conform himself to Christ (who
calls Himself the Way, the
Truth, and the Life) and
his Church, even if he doesn't
know it.
Florence's statement concerning
the inefficacy outside the Church
of almsgiving and martyrdom is
thus to be understood to refer
to those who do these deeds in
an external fashion that lacks
the votum needed for in voto membership.
Imagine a Jehovah's Witness who
ostensibly sheds his blood for
Christ. His martyrdom would be
ineffective for salvation unless
he had the required votum (desire) and
thus the supernatural love needed
to make martyrdom effective for
salvation.
As Paul says,
3 If I give
away all I have, and if I deliver
my body to be burned, but have
not love, I gain nothing.
(1
Corinthians 13:3)
|
I would just add that the Lord doesn't
bring people into this life, just
to damn them. Our Blessed Lord is
the Lord of Mercy, Understanding,
and Love.
You said:
- How can over 1,900 years of the Church
be changed so much to Her detriment?
- Why did Vatican II change the Church so
much that some aspects are unrecognizable?
Here are four words to answer your
first question: That bastard the
devil.
Both the clergy and parishioners
allowing him to persuade us. Prayer
helps keep him away.
My understanding of the purpose of
Vatican II was to make the Church
more welcoming and participatory
for the parishioners. Many strived
to take Vatican II out of its original
intent, as you can see by the Touchdown Jesus statue — certainly
irreverent.
This was not the intent of Vatican Council
II.
Hope this helps,
Mike
|
Eric
replied:
|
Hi, Mike —
You said:
- How can over 1,900 years of the Church
be changed so much to Her detriment?
- Why did Vatican II change the Church so
much that some aspects are unrecognizable?
This betrays a misunderstanding of
the nature of the Church.
There is a myth that the Church in
1962 A.D. was the same as the Church
in 1517 A.D. was the same as the Church
in 1054 A.D. was the same as the Church
in 325 A.D. was the same as the Church
in 33 A.D.
I think you would be surprised if
you could go back into a time capsule
and see the Church at all of those
points, and how different they are.
Heck, you can even see how different
the Church is in its diversity. If
you were offended that the Mass was
changed at all, you should go to:
- a Maronite Catholic liturgy
- a Byzantine Catholic liturgy
- a Chaldean Catholic liturgy
- a Syro-Malabar Catholic liturgy
- a Syro-Malankara liturgy
- a Coptic Catholic liturgy, or
- an Armenian Catholic liturgy
all of which are part of the Catholic
Church and her patrimony and have
been celebrated in their present
forms pretty much for hundreds, if
not, well over a thousand years and
differ in very significant ways from
any liturgy celebrated in the Roman
part of the Catholic Church. The
Church doesn't demand uniformity
in all things, or a fixed, unchangeable
liturgy.
The faith does not change. The way
the faith is celebrated and lived
out does, however.
This is part of organic change in
the Church.
On the other hand, it is important
to acknowledge that there has been
a wholescale, falling away from orthodox
Catholicism in the last forty years.
- Part of this is the upheaval
that follows any council.
- Part of it is global secularization.
It is not to be attributed to Vatican
II itself.
I encourage you to read
the actual documents of Vatican
II. I think you'll be
surprised. It doesn't even call
for abandoning Latin.
Much of what is blamed on Vatican
II is foreign to it.
Eric
|
|
|
|
