Latest topics
» Magsiterial Heresy ?
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magisterium should apologise to the SSPX for the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:34 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Francis MICM made a mistake on Vatican Council II
Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Legion of Christ universities in Rome adapt to leftist laws
Fri May 22, 2015 7:53 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» CM, SSPX, MICM deny the Faith to please superiors
Thu May 21, 2015 4:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX and Church Militant are using the same liberal theology and are unaware of it
Wed May 20, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Michael Voris uses liberal theology and yet critcizes Michael Coren
Tue May 19, 2015 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fr.John Zuhlsdorf condones Mass for suicide
Tue May 19, 2015 9:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II is traditional or liberal depending on how you interpret the Letter of the Holy Office
Mon May 18, 2015 5:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Church Militant unable to answer questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Sun May 17, 2015 5:55 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Andre Marie MICM and Christine Niles approve liberal theology on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Christine Niles misses the elephant in the living room
Fri May 15, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Cardinal Pell recommends the Roman Forum and telling a lie
Wed May 13, 2015 9:43 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» GOOGLE CLOSES DOWN BLOG EUCHARIST AND MISSION
Tue May 12, 2015 9:23 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this
Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:25 am by George Brenner

» Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error
Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:27 pm by tornpage

» Fr.Robert Barron in Catholicism uses an irrational proposition to reach an irrational conclusion
Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:49 am by Lionel Andrades

» Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Mass
Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:25 am by Lionel Andrades

» Beautiful Gregorian Chant
Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:10 pm by tornpage

» Fr.Robert Barron in Catholicism uses an irrational proposition to reach an irrational conclusion
Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:47 am by Lionel Andrades


Problematic Quote in Ut Unum Sint

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Problematic Quote in Ut Unum Sint

Post  Guest on Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:56 am

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html

84. In a theocentric vision, we Christians already have a common Martyrology. This also includes the martyrs of our own century, more numerous than one might think, and it shows how, at a profound level, God preserves communion among the baptized in the supreme demand of faith, manifested in the sacrifice of life itself.138 The fact that one can die for the faith shows that other demands of the faith can also be met. I have already remarked, and with deep joy, how an imperfect but real communion is preserved and is growing at many levels of ecclesial life. I now add that this communion is already perfect in what we all consider the highest point of the life of grace, martyria unto death, the truest communion possible with Christ who shed his Blood, and by that sacrifice brings near those who once were far off (cf. Eph 2:13).

While for all Christian communities the martyrs are the proof of the power of grace, they are not the only ones to bear witness to that power. Albeit in an invisible way, the communion between our Communities, even if still incomplete, is truly and solidly grounded in the full communion of the Saints—those who, at the end of a life faithful to grace, are in communion with Christ in glory. These Saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities which gave them entrance into the communion of salvation.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_lt.html

84. Illo in rerum prospectu, cuius Deus medium occupat locum, nobis christianis iam commune est Martyrologium. Id nostri quoque saeculi martyres complectitur, plures sane quam quis suspicari potest, quod porro altis rationibus demonstrat quem ad modum Deus inter baptizatos communionem servet in suprema fidei necessitate, quam vitae sacrificio ostenderunt (Cfr. IOANNIS PAULI PP. II Tertio Millennio Adveniente, 37; EIUSDEM Veritatis Splendor, 93). Si autem possibile est pro fide mori, id ostendit metam attingi posse, cum de aliis eiusdem causae necessitatibus agitur. Animadvertimus iam, et laetanter quidem, communionem, imperfectam sed veram, servari in multis ecclesialis vitae gradibus et adolescere. Consummatam nunc esse ipsam arbitramur in eo quod omnes nos vitae christianae culmen existimamus, in martyria scilicet usque ad mortem, verissima cum Christo communio, qui sanguinem suum effundit et hoc in sacrificio proximos reddit eos qui quondam longinqui erant (Cfr. Eph. 2, 13).

Si quidem cunctis christianis Communitatibus martyres virtutis gratiae sunt argumento, non tamen ipsi uni hanc virtutem testantur. Quamvis conspici non possit, haud plena adhuc nostrarum communitatum communio arte reapse coagmentatur in plena communione sanctorum, eorum scilicet qui, terreno vitae gratiae fideli expleto cursu, in communione sunt Christi gloriosi. Sancti hi ad omnes Ecclesias ecclesialesque Communitates pertinent, quae eis aditum ad salutis communionem reseraverunt.



Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Problematic Quote in Ut Unum Sint

Post  Forum Janitor on Sun Dec 19, 2010 1:57 am

Confiteor
Avatar / Picture

Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 997


03/19/10 at 10:55 PM Reply with quote #2
Indeed, that statement is very problematic. The Council of Florence clearly teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot be saved -- even if they shed their blood for Christ. Mark well that the Council of Florence acknowledges that heretics and schismatics can indeed bear witness to Christ by the shedding of their blood. However, in no way are we to believe that such martyrs "are in communion with Christ in glory" if they died outside the Catholic Church. Their martyrdom is essentially in vain.

It's the sort of thing that sedevacantists will eat up. I think that we must content ourselves with the knowledge that Venerable John Paul II did not present that dubious statement in a form that is binding on Catholics de fide.

__________________
Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, a sinner.

http://www.stgemmagalgani.com/
http://wheat4paradise.wordpress.com/

"My heart, is the victim of Love, and I shall soon die of love. These flames of love consume my body, as well as my heart, and I shall be reduced to ashes. Yesterday, as I drew near to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, I felt myself burning so violently, that I was obliged to move away. I was burning all over; it rose even to my face. Viva Gesu! How does it happen that so many who are standing so close to Jesus do not burn to ashes?” ~St Gemma Galgani
Loading...
View Member ProfileSend Private MessageFind Member's Threads Find Member's Posts
pax
Avatar / Picture

Registered: 01/04/10
Posts: 294


03/20/10 at 03:14 AM Reply with quote #3
A Protestant who, through no fault of his own, does not know Christ or His Church, but who tries as best he can to live a good life, with the help of God's grace, he too can be saved.



__________________
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
Loading...
View Member ProfileSend Private MessageFind Member's Threads Find Member's Posts
pax
Avatar / Picture

Registered: 01/04/10
Posts: 294


03/20/10 at 05:29 AM Reply with quote #4
First, he speaks of those who die for the faith -- something a Prot or an EO cannot do. Secondly, though he uses the word "Saints" he does not explicitly say they are actually candidates for canonization --as if the Bride of Christ could raise to Her Altars a whore or a concubine.

__________________
What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Forum Janitor
Admin

Posts : 235
Reputation : 565
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Forum Janitor

http://catholicforum.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Problematic Quote in Ut Unum Sint

Post  MRyan on Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:45 pm

Let’s try to understand one thing. Though it may be legitimate to seek a more complete understanding of these somewhat suggestive and ambiguous words, it may be all too easy too attribute to them some false understanding of EENS in the mind of JPII, who, as has already been pointed out, was speaking and speculating here in his capacity as a private theologian.*

[* Correction - The pope was teaching in his capacity here as universal teacher, not as a "private theologian"]

However, I am not suggesting that the Faith of Peter, even speaking as a private theologian, can fail, though he may indeed err on a particular point of doctrine. There is no error (as far as I can tell), let alone heresy (as sede's maintain), here. If we examine his words carefully, we can, and should, give him the benefit of the doubt (as I’m sure most do) that he is simply suggesting that this “imperfect communion” is made perfect, not only in the perfect charity of martyrdom (for those martyrs who confess our Lord before men), but, in the act of martyrdom, there is the infusion of the supernatural virtues by a singular grace of God, Who cannot fail to respond to the entreaty of faith and charity of the martyr; which response must necessarily include an infusion of the supernatural virtues, to include the theological virtue of the true faith.

Though it may not be visible to us, the martyr spoken of here, dies in the possession of the true Faith, and within the sacred bonds of Holy Mother Church. And I think that is all JPII was saying, as he said elsewhere as Supreme Pontiff.


Last edited by MRyan on Mon Dec 20, 2010 6:21 pm; edited 1 time in total

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Problematic Quote in Ut Unum Sint

Post  Roguejim on Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:41 pm

MRyan wrote:Let’s try to understand one thing. Though it may be legitimate to seek a more complete understanding of these somewhat suggestive and ambiguous words, it may be all too easy too attribute to them some false understanding of EENS in the mind of JPII, who, as has already been pointed out, was speaking and speculating here in his capacity as a private theologian.

However, I am not suggesting that the Faith of Peter, even speaking as a private theologian, can fail, though he may indeed err on a particular point of doctrine. There is no error (as far as I can tell), let alone heresy (as sede's maintain), here. If we examine his words carefully, we can, and should, give him the benefit of the doubt (as I’m sure most do) that he is simply suggesting that this “imperfect communion” is made perfect, not only in the perfect charity of martyrdom (for those martyrs who confess our Lord before men), but, in the act of martyrdom, there is the infusion of the supernatural virtues by a singular grace of God, Who cannot fail to respond to the entreaty of faith and charity of the martyr; which response must necessarily include an infusion of the supernatural virtues, to include the theological virtue of the true faith.

Though it may not be visible to us, the martyr spoken of here, dies in the possession of the true Faith, and within the sacred bonds of Holy Mother Church. And I think that is all JPII was saying, as he said elsewhere as Supreme Pontiff.

Clarify for me. It seems that if, a priori, we admit that Peter's faith cannot fail, then any seemingly heretical presentation that he might make of Catholic doctrine is to be taken as "not what he really believes, but is simply a poor presentation..." Right?

As for JPII's quote, and your "benefit of the doubt granting analysis", clearly, he did not actually say what you attribute to him. Your "BOTDGA" is pure eisogesis, even if it is true. And this is the problem with much of what we hear from churchmen today who do not connect the dots. The whole condom conundrum is a case in point.

Roguejim

Posts : 211
Reputation : 315
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : southern Oregon

Back to top Go down

Re: Problematic Quote in Ut Unum Sint

Post  Guest on Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:30 pm

MRyan wrote:
However, I am not suggesting that the Faith of Peter, even speaking as a private theologian, can fail, though he may indeed err on a particular point of doctrine.

We are talking about an encyclical here though.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Problematic Quote in Ut Unum Sint

Post  MRyan on Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:21 pm

RashaLampa wrote:
MRyan wrote:
However, I am not suggesting that the Faith of Peter, even speaking as a private theologian, can fail, though he may indeed err on a particular point of doctrine.

We are talking about an encyclical here though.

Oops. Of course, Rasha, you are correct. I still had “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” on the brain from a previous discussion, and melded them together.

But the premise remains the same. While the pope enjoys the charism of a never-failing-faith, he is not protected from all possibilities of error in an encyclical; for that matter, he is not infallible in every word of a solemn declaration containing a dogmatic definition - but only in the definition proper. So at least in theory, he can err in his presentation of a point of doctrine in an encyclical.

Of course, I would challenge anyone to find an error in doctrine in any official magisterial document issued by a pope - ever. The absence of error does mean the pope is infallible whenever he presents doctrines to the faithful in his official capacity as teacher, it means that the divine assistance is never lacking, and it means his staff does a pretty darn good job of going over these official documents with a fine tooth comb.

I'm not sure who edits their books, but I suspect they submit them for a thorough doctrinal review before publication.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Problematic Quote in Ut Unum Sint

Post  MRyan on Sun Dec 19, 2010 11:54 pm

Roguejim wrote:
MRyan wrote:Let’s try to understand one thing. Though it may be legitimate to seek a more complete understanding of these somewhat suggestive and ambiguous words, it may be all too easy too attribute to them some false understanding of EENS in the mind of JPII, who, as has already been pointed out, was speaking and speculating here in his capacity as a private theologian.

However, I am not suggesting that the Faith of Peter, even speaking as a private theologian, can fail, though he may indeed err on a particular point of doctrine. There is no error (as far as I can tell), let alone heresy (as sede's maintain), here. If we examine his words carefully, we can, and should, give him the benefit of the doubt (as I’m sure most do) that he is simply suggesting that this “imperfect communion” is made perfect, not only in the perfect charity of martyrdom (for those martyrs who confess our Lord before men), but, in the act of martyrdom, there is the infusion of the supernatural virtues by a singular grace of God, Who cannot fail to respond to the entreaty of faith and charity of the martyr; which response must necessarily include an infusion of the supernatural virtues, to include the theological virtue of the true faith.

Though it may not be visible to us, the martyr spoken of here, dies in the possession of the true Faith, and within the sacred bonds of Holy Mother Church. And I think that is all JPII was saying, as he said elsewhere as Supreme Pontiff.

Clarify for me. It seems that if, a priori, we admit that Peter's faith cannot fail, then any seemingly heretical presentation that he might make of Catholic doctrine is to be taken as "not what he really believes, but is simply a poor presentation..." Right?

Not quite. As a private theologian, he can make a heretical presentation; and, he can even err on a point of doctrine in an encyclical or other magisterial document, or in any other forum where he is not “defining”. But an objectively heretical presentation is not the same as obstinate heresy; and if it were truly heretical, he would be obliged to make a correction after the error was pointed out to him. He might say, “No, that is exactly what I meant to say, but you have misunderstood me”; and then, hopefully, he clarifies what he said.

So, yes, I do accept, a priori, that Peter’s faith cannot fail (he cannot become a notorious or manifest heretic). But, since I also acknowledge that a pope may err, and may in fact "fail" in the sense of committing an objectively heretical act (in word or deed); at least (or only) materially, I would approach the specific allegation against the pope with both principles in mind, and begin with the question, “OK, show me the heresy.”

Does that help?

With respect to VCII, I tend to dismiss a priori any accusations of heresy and errors in doctrine. This does not mean that non-revealed doctrines, or the explication of certain doctrines, are not reformable, or cannot be ambiguous and misleading; but only that, in the sense that they reflect the mind and will of Supreme Teacher as Christ's true Vicar (and the mind and will of the Bishops united with him), the Holy See is without blemish or error.

Roguejim wrote:As for JPII's quote, and your "benefit of the doubt granting analysis", clearly, he did not actually say what you attribute to him. Your "BOTDGA" is pure eisogesis, even if it is true. And this is the problem with much of what we hear from churchmen today who do not connect the dots. The whole condom conundrum is a case in point.

And neither did he actually teach in Ut Unam Sint (or anywhere else for that matter) what those (who are predisposed to accuse him of heresy and/or error) attribute to him on the dogma of EENS (or any other doctrine). But my understanding of Ut Unam Sint is perfectly consistent with what he said elsewhere, and what he taught in his official teaching capacity. And, I believe I can prove it.

The whole “condom conundrum” only serves to validate my point. Did you notice how the respective sede/trad/conservative/liberal camps ran with this story, and how each construed the words of BXVI? Is it possible that BXVI could have made a “heretical presentation” in this interview? Of course, but, did he? The only “case in point” is whether BXVI can be criticized for being a papal “conversationalist”, when we would prefer that he refrain from talking to the secular press on all such matters. Funny thing is, I believe the pope knew what he was doing. If nothing else, we witnessed a robust Catholic discussion on a complicated point of moral theology, and on certain distinctions that Catholics may not have understood without this little, and alleged, faux pas. An education, perhaps?

Btw, what’s an “eisogesis”? Is that a theological term, or did you just sneeze?




MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Problematic Quote in Ut Unum Sint

Post  DeSelby on Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:15 pm

MRyan wrote:
Btw, what’s an “eisogesis”? Is that a theological term, or did you just sneeze?



I believe Rogue means "eisegesis." Reading into rather than out of.



DeSelby

Posts : 211
Reputation : 231
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Problematic Quote in Ut Unum Sint

Post  MRyan on Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:33 pm

DeSelby wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Btw, what’s an “eisogesis”? Is that a theological term, or did you just sneeze?



I believe Rogue means "eisegesis." Reading into rather than out of.


Of course; and I was just pulling his leg, as I am wont to do. And he wouldn’t have it any other way Very Happy

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Problematic Quote in Ut Unum Sint

Post  DeSelby on Mon Dec 20, 2010 4:03 pm

Ah, I see.





DeSelby

Posts : 211
Reputation : 231
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Problematic Quote in Ut Unum Sint

Post  DeSelby on Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:46 pm

MRyan wrote:If we examine his words carefully, we can, and should, give him the benefit of the doubt (as I’m sure most do) that he is simply suggesting that this “imperfect communion” is made perfect, not only in the perfect charity of martyrdom (for those martyrs who confess our Lord before men), but, in the act of martyrdom, there is the infusion of the supernatural virtues by a singular grace of God, Who cannot fail to respond to the entreaty of faith and charity of the martyr; which response must necessarily include an infusion of the supernatural virtues, to include the theological virtue of the true faith.


But how would this interpretation mesh with Cantate Domino? If, supposing that in the act of martyrdom a heretic or schismatic is infused with the supernatural virtues, including true faith, infallibly defining that a heretic or schismatic cannot be saved even if he pours out his blood in the name of Christ becomes rather toothless, or so it would seem.


MRyan wrote:Though it may not be visible to us, the martyr spoken of here, dies in the possession of the true Faith, and within the sacred bonds of Holy Mother Church. And I think that is all JPII was saying, as he said elsewhere as Supreme Pontiff.


"While for all Christian communities the martyrs are the proof of the power of grace, they are not the only ones to bear witness to that power. Albeit in an invisible way, the communion between our Communities, even if still incomplete, is truly and solidly grounded in the full communion of the Saints—those who, at the end of a life faithful to grace, are in communion with Christ in glory. These Saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities which gave them entrance into the communion of salvation."

Here he just says it's the Churches and Ecclesial Communities which gave them entrance into the communion of salvation; no mention of a last minute infusion of the Catholic faith, or even that they were always somehow Catholic. scratch

DeSelby

Posts : 211
Reputation : 231
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Problematic Quote in Ut Unum Sint

Post  Roguejim on Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:54 am

DeSelby wrote:
MRyan wrote:If we examine his words carefully, we can, and should, give him the benefit of the doubt (as I’m sure most do) that he is simply suggesting that this “imperfect communion” is made perfect, not only in the perfect charity of martyrdom (for those martyrs who confess our Lord before men), but, in the act of martyrdom, there is the infusion of the supernatural virtues by a singular grace of God, Who cannot fail to respond to the entreaty of faith and charity of the martyr; which response must necessarily include an infusion of the supernatural virtues, to include the theological virtue of the true faith.


But how would this interpretation mesh with Cantate Domino? If, supposing that in the act of martyrdom a heretic or schismatic is infused with the supernatural virtues, including true faith, infallibly defining that a heretic or schismatic cannot be saved even if he pours out his blood in the name of Christ becomes rather toothless, or so it would seem.


MRyan wrote:Though it may not be visible to us, the martyr spoken of here, dies in the possession of the true Faith, and within the sacred bonds of Holy Mother Church. And I think that is all JPII was saying, as he said elsewhere as Supreme Pontiff.


"While for all Christian communities the martyrs are the proof of the power of grace, they are not the only ones to bear witness to that power. Albeit in an invisible way, the communion between our Communities, even if still incomplete, is truly and solidly grounded in the full communion of the Saints—those who, at the end of a life faithful to grace, are in communion with Christ in glory. These Saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities which gave them entrance into the communion of salvation."

Here he just says it's the Churches and Ecclesial Communities which gave them entrance into the communion of salvation; no mention of a last minute infusion of the Catholic faith, or even that they were always somehow Catholic. scratch

Hence, the "benefit of the doubt granting eisegesis".

Roguejim

Posts : 211
Reputation : 315
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : southern Oregon

Back to top Go down

Re: Problematic Quote in Ut Unum Sint

Post  Roguejim on Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:11 am

MRyan wrote:
Roguejim wrote:
MRyan wrote:Let’s try to understand one thing. Though it may be legitimate to seek a more complete understanding of these somewhat suggestive and ambiguous words, it may be all too easy too attribute to them some false understanding of EENS in the mind of JPII, who, as has already been pointed out, was speaking and speculating here in his capacity as a private theologian.

However, I am not suggesting that the Faith of Peter, even speaking as a private theologian, can fail, though he may indeed err on a particular point of doctrine. There is no error (as far as I can tell), let alone heresy (as sede's maintain), here. If we examine his words carefully, we can, and should, give him the benefit of the doubt (as I’m sure most do) that he is simply suggesting that this “imperfect communion” is made perfect, not only in the perfect charity of martyrdom (for those martyrs who confess our Lord before men), but, in the act of martyrdom, there is the infusion of the supernatural virtues by a singular grace of God, Who cannot fail to respond to the entreaty of faith and charity of the martyr; which response must necessarily include an infusion of the supernatural virtues, to include the theological virtue of the true faith.

Though it may not be visible to us, the martyr spoken of here, dies in the possession of the true Faith, and within the sacred bonds of Holy Mother Church. And I think that is all JPII was saying, as he said elsewhere as Supreme Pontiff.

Clarify for me. It seems that if, a priori, we admit that Peter's faith cannot fail, then any seemingly heretical presentation that he might make of Catholic doctrine is to be taken as "not what he really believes, but is simply a poor presentation..." Right?

Not quite. As a private theologian, he can make a heretical presentation; and, he can even err on a point of doctrine in an encyclical or other magisterial document, or in any other forum where he is not “defining”. But an objectively heretical presentation is not the same as obstinate heresy; and if it were truly heretical, he would be obliged to make a correction after the error was pointed out to him. He might say, “No, that is exactly what I meant to say, but you have misunderstood me”; and then, hopefully, he clarifies what he said.

So, yes, I do accept, a priori, that Peter’s faith cannot fail (he cannot become a notorious or manifest heretic). But, since I also acknowledge that a pope may err, and may in fact "fail" in the sense of committing an objectively heretical act (in word or deed); at least (or only) materially, I would approach the specific allegation against the pope with both principles in mind, and begin with the question, “OK, show me the heresy.”

Does that help?

With respect to VCII, I tend to dismiss a priori any accusations of heresy and errors in doctrine. This does not mean that non-revealed doctrines, or the explication of certain doctrines, are not reformable, or cannot be ambiguous and misleading; but only that, in the sense that they reflect the mind and will of Supreme Teacher as Christ's true Vicar (and the mind and will of the Bishops united with him), the Holy See is without blemish or error.

Roguejim wrote:As for JPII's quote, and your "benefit of the doubt granting analysis", clearly, he did not actually say what you attribute to him. Your "BOTDGA" is pure eisogesis, even if it is true. And this is the problem with much of what we hear from churchmen today who do not connect the dots. The whole condom conundrum is a case in point.

And neither did he actually teach in Ut Unam Sint (or anywhere else for that matter) what those (who are predisposed to accuse him of heresy and/or error) attribute to him on the dogma of EENS (or any other doctrine). But my understanding of Ut Unam Sint is perfectly consistent with what he said elsewhere, and what he taught in his official teaching capacity. And, I believe I can prove it.

The whole “condom conundrum” only serves to validate my point. Did you notice how the respective sede/trad/conservative/liberal camps ran with this story, and how each construed the words of BXVI? Is it possible that BXVI could have made a “heretical presentation” in this interview? Of course, but, did he? The only “case in point” is whether BXVI can be criticized for being a papal “conversationalist”, when we would prefer that he refrain from talking to the secular press on all such matters. Funny thing is, I believe the pope knew what he was doing. If nothing else, we witnessed a robust Catholic discussion on a complicated point of moral theology, and on certain distinctions that Catholics may not have understood without this little, and alleged, faux pas. An education, perhaps?

Btw, what’s an “eisogesis”? Is that a theological term, or did you just sneeze?




The whole "condom conundrum" actually serves my point that if the Pope doesn't connect the dots clearly, you end up with...well, Sandro Magister's blog illustrates my point, I think.

As for the Pope knowing what he was doing, what exactly was he doing, in your mind? Providing an education? What?? It won't be an education until he clarifies what he plainly meant. If the theologians and philosophers in Rome and elsewhere are at odds over this, how can you seriously suggest that Catholics, in general, now understand these "certain distinctions"? An education indeed. It reminds me of the "educational tool" where the class teaches itself, i.e., the teacher proposes some provocative question, and lets the class discuss it amongst themselves.

Roguejim

Posts : 211
Reputation : 315
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : southern Oregon

Back to top Go down

Re: Problematic Quote in Ut Unum Sint

Post  MRyan on Wed Dec 22, 2010 6:01 pm

DeSelby wrote:
MRyan wrote:If we examine his words carefully, we can, and should, give him the benefit of the doubt (as I’m sure most do) that he is simply suggesting that this “imperfect communion” is made perfect, not only in the perfect charity of martyrdom (for those martyrs who confess our Lord before men), but, in the act of martyrdom, there is the infusion of the supernatural virtues by a singular grace of God, Who cannot fail to respond to the entreaty of faith and charity of the martyr; which response must necessarily include an infusion of the supernatural virtues, to include the theological virtue of the true faith.

But how would this interpretation mesh with Cantate Domino? If, supposing that in the act of martyrdom a heretic or schismatic is infused with the supernatural virtues, including true faith, infallibly defining that a heretic or schismatic cannot be saved even if he pours out his blood in the name of Christ becomes rather toothless, or so it would seem.


MRyan wrote:Though it may not be visible to us, the martyr spoken of here, dies in the possession of the true Faith, and within the sacred bonds of Holy Mother Church. And I think that is all JPII was saying, as he said elsewhere as Supreme Pontiff.


"While for all Christian communities the martyrs are the proof of the power of grace, they are not the only ones to bear witness to that power. Albeit in an invisible way, the communion between our Communities, even if still incomplete, is truly and solidly grounded in the full communion of the Saints—those who, at the end of a life faithful to grace, are in communion with Christ in glory. These Saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities which gave them entrance into the communion of salvation."

Here he just says it's the Churches and Ecclesial Communities which gave them entrance into the communion of salvation; no mention of a last minute infusion of the Catholic faith, or even that they were always somehow Catholic. scratch

Sorry, DeSelby, I kind of lost track of this thread; perhaps because I find it difficult to give it much attention.

But yes, it is problematic if one assumes that every soul who pours his blood in the name of Christ possesses not only a perfect charity (not every soul who says “Lord, Lord”, will see the Kingdom of God), but it is also problematic if one assumes that this same act of apparent charity always vivifies what may in fact be a less than resolute faith, particularly with respect to a soul who may also be lacking in the desire and intention to enter the Church, even implicitly. JPII seemed to believe that perfect charity and a resolute faith/intention were more the norm than the exception in these partiuclar acts (he might be right). But he can no more know that any particular soul who appeared to die outside the Church in "martyrdom" is in heaven, than we can know if an unbaptized soul received the grace of justification and salvation.

But, I believe Cantate Domino was addressing the objective reality of heresy and schism, and of remaining outside the Church; meaning, no one can be saved who remains in such a state, and if no evidence is given to suggest contrition/conversion, we generally accept that people die as they lived. Of course, that has little to do with what may transpire between God and a dying soul (due perhaps to the steady petitions of pious soul for the conversion and salvation of a particular heretic), but that is not what the Bull is addressing - and rightly so. Besides, I happen to believe that God enjoys manifesting His power in these late conversions in a rather dramatic fashion - He loves to show off.

And this is also the context of the Bull on those who remain outside the Church and shed, ostensibly, their blood for Christ. But, did he mean to suggest that the catechumen or the on-the-spot convert (even Protestants) - who profess the true faith - cannot be saved in martyrdom unless they persevered in the bosom of the Church, whose visible structure they were never joined to?

Not quite. He would leave it to future Pontiffs to deal with the subjective.

Let’s face it, JPII had a very liberal outlook with respect to EENS - but he cannot be accused of heresy and he believed with divine and Catholic faith in every single doctrine of the Church; after all, our Lord made him the foundation upon whom our own faith was secured.

John Paul II:

Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus"--"outside the Church there is no salvation"--stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition. It was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and the Council of Florence (Decretum pro Jacobitis, DS 1351).

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Problematic Quote in Ut Unum Sint

Post  Sponsored content Today at 9:18 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum