Pope Leo's clarification of Vatican 2 admits the Church changed its view of non-Catholics

Discussion · 10

Opinions are anonymous retellings of real comments from the original discussion. The same colour marks the same participant.

Log in Log in or sign up to join the discussion.

• − opinion#601 9 likes at the source

  Change in understanding doesn't equal change in doctrine. Do you think the understanding of the trinity stayed the same from the council of Acts to Constantinople III? Of course it developed, but that doesn't mean the doctrine changed, only the Church's understanding. Challenge: Orthodox reading comprehension (IMPOSSIBLE).

  • − opinion#604

    Vatican 2 is heretical. Even the FSSP rejects it.
• − opinion#600 2 likes at the source

  Can't get the Protestant out of the convert. New ecclesiology, same anti-Catholic obsession, same proof-texting, same refusal to read anything in context. He highlights 'companions on the journey' and 'pilgrim of truth' while conveniently ignoring that the same document explicitly affirms Christ as 'the Way, the Truth, and the Life' and says interreligious dialogue doesn't replace proclaiming the Gospel. And recognizing elements of truth among non-Christians isn't some Vatican II invention. St. Justin Martyr was writing about the seeds of the Logos among pagans in the second century. If his grand case against Rome only works by cropping the document, highlighting three phrases, and hoping nobody reads the surrounding paragraphs or the Fathers, maybe 'Cleave to Antiquity' should spend more time actually reading antiquity. For a Church you supposedly proved false, Rome sure takes up a lot of your content. 'Rent free' is an understatement. This is unpaid Vatican archival work for Catholics.
• − opinion#595

  The Orthodox are so scared of growing and learning as times change and understanding of the faith deepens that they're literally frozen in time. Or the opposite: they have no central doctrine on anything, so every church can say or do whatever, even barring a woman from communion while she's bleeding. Meanwhile the Catholic Church can grow as other branches of Christianity develop and our understanding of Protestantism grows. That's fine, and the great thing about belonging to the true Church is that it doesn't diminish Her Truth in Christ, and it doesn't mean we have to pack our bags and admit it was all a farce. We're secure and protected in Her, just as Christ promised.
• − opinion#596

  You think this is the first time the church has been attacked from within? The point is Christ said the gates of hell won't prevail over the catholic church, and they never will. And yes, Vatican II deserves scrutiny. Something that drove 90,000 nuns to abandon their vows can't be good.
• − opinion#597

  This seems to be the effect that will fully separate wheat from chaff. The problem with this terminology is that when you tell someone their worldview is false and possibly damnable, you become the bad guy who no longer sees them as a 'brother in the world fraternity' or 'fellow pilgrim of truth'. You come off as their enemy. In Orthodoxy there's a reason we stay stagnant on these issues while still loving those who lack truth: you can't trade away friendliness for the truth so many died for. And here it's obvious by now that the RC elders setting the standard aren't aligned with the laymen trying to cope with it. The laymen can see the nuance, which is good, but your own bishops and priests directly teach what we criticize in these documents. They're blatant ecumenists who say we don't need to convert these people, just be nice to them as brothers in humanity. You can't have it both ways. So it's a contradicting system defeater for Roman Catholicism.
• − opinion#598

  How can religious institutions that reject Christ or his divinity be called 'fellow pilgrims of truth' when their 'truth' is at its core opposed to the entire foundation of the Catholic Church? Sure, non-Catholics can uncover truth, but it makes no sense to placate groups that literally see you as the enemy.
• − opinion#599

  Yeah, this says the Church changed its understanding of non-Catholic groups to encourage dialogue and cooperation between communities so we can better figure out how to bring them to Christ. Why would that be a problem, unless I'm missing something? What's wrong with calling them companions on the journey? Are you saying Muslims or Jews can't come to Christ? Isn't the goal for everyone, including all of them, to come to Christ? Of course there's evil, but there's good in these communities too, and refusing to reach out is selfish, basically gatekeeping. Just my thoughts, I haven't done proper research!
• − opinion#602

  Not infallible, and it was written by Víctor Manuel Cardinal Fernández, Prefect Kurt Cardinal Koch, Prefect George Jacob Cardinal Koovakad, Prefect Msgr. Armando Matteo, Secretary Archbishop Flavio Pace, Secretary Msgr. Indunil Janakaratne Kodithuwakku Kankanamalage, Secretary. I disagree with the theological emphasis and give it due assent of will, but since no direct actions are advised, that's null. You act as if the Arian crisis never happened back when we were united, and that was a far worse heresy than this modernism. Let's try being generous instead of tearing things apart further, huh?
• − opinion#603

  I think, and I could be wrong, what the Vatican is saying/trying to do is give others a chance to turn to Christ's true church instead of automatically writing them off as a lost cause. Defend Christianity, stand your ground in your faith, but instead of just saying 'that guy is Jewish, he's a heretic and an enemy', have dialogue and bring them to Christ. The whole olive branch in one hand, sword in the other idea, more or less. Offer them the truth. It's up to them whether they accept it.