[Matt1618]
Later statements: (1)Paul VI: General audience of Jan 12,1966: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided us teaching with THE AUTHORITY OF THE ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM, which must be accepted with docility...."
======================
Section X:
Ah, but something only qualifies, properly speaking, as an act/statement of the Ordinary Magisterium if it repeats what the Church has always taught and, AS VATICAN II ITSELF TEACHES, ALL THE BISHOPS in union with the Roman Pontiff MUST BE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE PARTICULAR TEACHING (on faith or morals) IS TO BE HELD DEFINITIVELY AND ABSOLUTELY AND MAKES IT CLEAR AS SUCH (LG #25).
But the Council Fathers did NOT make it “clear as such" for any teaching/document from the Council that what was taught was "to be held definitively and absolutely" as per the Council's own requirement.
Bingo!! By LG's own statement, MATT 16's support for the CCC and Vatican II statements in their entirety as representative of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium falls to pieces and has no Magisterial ground to stand upon. He is defeated by the very documents he wishes to use to support his position.
Besides, Pope John Paul II stated that Vatican II documents must be understood with reference to what has been infallibly defined before them. In other words, they must be seen in light of, and thus in submission to, Sacred Tradition. Pope John Paul II made this clear when he stated:
"Wherefore, the assent to be given to these documents of the Council, seen in light of Tradition and embodying the dogmatic formulae issued over a century ago by the First Vatican Council, will be to us pastors and to the faithful a decisive indication and a rousing stimulus, so that we may walk in the paths of life and of history." (First Speech to Cardinals, October 17, 1978)
Again, Matt.1618, has no Magisterial ground to stand on.
===========
[Matt1618]
We thus see that Vatican II is proclaiming the doctrine in Lumen Gentium to be binding on all believers. It is on the level of the ordinary magisterium as proclaimed by the Pope.
=======================
Section XI:
Sorry Matt.16, due to the fact just presented above, you have just been proven wrong -again.
There is also one more point which destroys Mat.1618's support for his position that Vatican II, or at least Lumen Gentium, is "binding on all believers."
In his opening speech, Pope John XXIII had specifically forbidden the Council Fathers from issuing any condemnations. Vatican II was to be a "positive" council. Hence, no canons, no anathemas. However, an essential part of any law, of any BINDING document/statement, is a censure against those who disobey or disregard it. But no condemnations means no censures, which in turns means it is non-binding (or no law). In other words, a document cannot be binding upon someone if no penalty is decreed by the authority which issued it. And we all know that there were no decrees of this kind were promulgated at Vatican II.
Mat.1618, once again, has no Magisterial "leg' to stand upon.
==========
[Matt1618]
Again, Vatican I had said "all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL magisterium". Those who stray from the doctrinal authority of this DOGMATIC constitution are thus at variance ith the church.
========================
Section XII:
Again, due to what was demonstrated in "Section X" above and due to his fundamental error upon which his entire argumentation rests (i.e. that, contrary to Vatican I and pope St. Pius X, dogmatic definitions need interpretation above and beyond what the words employed declare), this last sentence is false and without basis.
==========
[Matt1618]
Does Pope John Paul II downplay the doctrinal authority of the Catechism that he issued? On the contrary, he writes: "The Catechism of the Catholic Church, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to BE A SURE NORM FOR TEACHING THE FAITH and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!" Signed, John Paul II We see just at this level, then, before we even get to the specifics of the issue, the Feeneyites as departing from the authority of the church, while claiming themselves to hold to the truth.
==========================
Section XIII:
Again, due to what has been demonstrated above, Mat.1618's conclusion has no ground. However, a few more points must be made.
As to the doctrinal authority of the New Catechism: Let us examine carefully what the holy Father states.
Did you notice the nature and structure of the Holy Father's first statement? Read it again. The Holy Father says the CCC is attested to by three sources: Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church's Magisterium. Now, to be attested to by another source means, by definition, that that source is both DISTINCT AND SEPARATED from that to which it attests. Therefore, it necessarily follows that Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium itself are separate and distinct from the CCC. This can ONLY mean that the CCC itself is NOT a Magisterial document, since it is quite evident that it is neither Scripture or Tradition.
The Holy Father introduces the CCC with language which indicates that it is not infallible, nor absolutely binding:
a) "It CAN BE SAID that this catechism..." (p.4 top);
b) "the Successor of Peter WISHES to OFFER..." (p.5 bottom);
c) "I ASK... the Christian faithful to receive this catechism..." (p.5
bottom);
d)"The CCC, is OFFERED..."(p.5 bottom and p.6 top).
Any school boy knows that this is NOT binding language. And rightly so, for in the area of doctrine the Church would never bind us to that which is NOT infallible. And as mentioned in "Section I, The Church has never exercised her binding, let alone infallible, teaching authority by means of an "editorial committee" (p.3 bottom). Sorry, an "editorial committee is NOT the Magisterium of the Church.
So the proof of this point, that the CCC is not a binding Magisterial document of the Church is right here in the Pope's introduction of it. And thus, Mat.1618 dependence upon the CCC as being so provides ANOTHER factor which destroys the basis of his arguments
=================
[Matt1618]
Part 2.- CHURCH FATHERS
Some of those who follow Feeney believe that their interpretation must be believed because it is the one always believed everywhere by all.
However, even their own publication admits this: They list Church Fathers who disagree with their interpretation of these dogmas --- "Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Basil the Great, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Prosper of Auitaine, St. Fulgentius, St. Bede" [Bro. Robert Mary, M.I.C.M. Tert.; "Father Feeney and the Truth about Salvation", p.78 & 135 - A "From the Rooftops" Publication]
In this section, there will not be so much commentary, but statements from the doctors and fathers of the church, to show that the current understanding of Extra Ecclesiam is not a novel doctrine to be ignored. For me, the citations are self explanatory, that the Feeneyite position is not historically valid, and their citations of these very church Fathers are highly selective. I must admit that these citations are indeed selective as well, but the point here is to establish the fact that the Feeneyite view is not the one held by most Church Fathers.
[He provides Fr. Most's web site here for further study.]
Following are some church Fathers who either teach in some way either Baptism of Blood, Desire, and/or a broader, spiritual sense of the church, in addition to the visible church. These are often the very Church Fathers that Feeneyites love to quote. Many of these same Fathers will at the same time affirm the doctrine No Salvation outside the church. This shows that their understanding of this doctrine can not be reconciled with the Feeneyite view. These Fathers are cited chronologically.
==========================
Section XIV:
Here is where MATT 1618 completely ignores (or disregards) the Catholic principle of authority and intepretation. Therefore, NOT ONE of these quotes can be used against what the Church has infallibly defined, nor for MATT.16's position since the REAL issue is what the CHURCH (i.e. infallible Magisterium) teaches as necessary for attaining salvation. These quotes are ALL smoke screens (i.e. meant to divert us from real issue and to confuse).