In reciting the Nicene and Apostles Creeds, and in light of the changes resulting from Vatican II, one may rightly ask: what is meant by "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?" Clearly, something different entirely was envisioned by Progressivists. These individuals developed the New Theology, managed to entirely prevail at and after the Second Vatican Council and succeeded in completely redefining the concept of the "Church of Christ."
Prior to the Second Vatican Council, traditional Catholic teaching held that the Roman Catholic Church was identical to the Church of Christ. Post Vatican II, the Church of Christ according to Conciliar documents only "subsists in" that is; exists in the Roman Catholic Church and is no longer identical with it. The Church of Christ is said to exist in other entities as well some of which in the past were termed schismatic or apostate such as the Greek Orthodox Church and the various Protestant sects.
Moreover,in light of Vatican II eclesiology even non-Christian sects such as Judaism and Islam can be considered in some sense part of the Church of Christ albeit to lesser degrees than the Roman Catholic Church or those who have "separated" themselves from it. In other words, an entity larger and more encompassing than the Roman Catholic Church is now said to define the "Church of Christ" even though the so-called fullest manifestation of it is apparently to be found in the Roman Catholic Church. This represents a profound alteration in Catholic teaching and from a philosophical perspective appears to violate the law of non-contradiction. It is not logically possible for the Church of Christ to be identical with the Roman Catholic Church and yet not be identical to it at the same time. Clearly the new view contradicts that which was held for almost 2000 years if words are to have any meaning.
What progressivists have done it seems is to create a kind of sliding scale for Christianity where some sects apparently possess more truth than others and presumably more fully reflect the intentions of Jesus Christ at least as the progressivists conceive of it. In light of Conciliar teaching, it would seem not to matter any longer what actual religion one professes so long as it is a sincerely held belief system. How this does not amount to the Indifferentism which the pre-Conciliar popes anathematized is beyond comprehension. What logically seems to emanate from the New Theology is the creation of a kind of pan-religious ecumenism in which doctrine/dogma has become for all intents and purposes meaningless. It is not suprising that the progressivists found it necessary to abandon the precsision of the Thomistic (Scholastic) system in order to promulgate their heterodox creation. For those Catholics whe try to make sense of Vatican II teahing in this area it is a profound understatement to say that it is extremely frustrating. The fact that no one in the Vatican has been able to adequately address the issue is cause for even more alarm.
HOW CAN THE CRISIS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BE ACCOUNTED FOR?
Sunday, May 11, 2008
One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in Light of Vatican II
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What/Where is the Roman Catholic Church?
In light of Traditional Catholic dogma/doctrine, how should the Second Vatican Council be viewed ? Is it consistent with Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and prior Magisterial teaching?
What explains the tremendous amount of "bad fruit" which has been forthcoming since the close of the Council in 1965? “By their fruits you shall know them” (Matt. 7:16)
This site explores these questions and more in an attempt to place the Second Vatican Council in proper perspective.
What explains the tremendous amount of "bad fruit" which has been forthcoming since the close of the Council in 1965? “By their fruits you shall know them” (Matt. 7:16)
This site explores these questions and more in an attempt to place the Second Vatican Council in proper perspective.
No comments:
Post a Comment