Another version of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

This Franciscan friar is explaining what is meant by no salvation outside the Catholic Church.
He defines who is and who is not outside the Church. The problem is, his definition is in contradiction to that of Pope Eugene IV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD7LGjDUhbw&lc=37i8EuhCVxLbGgp_X6tibg_8Tih2wdVeRK9I6njoiH8&context=G207d1f4FAAAAAAAAAAA&feature=g-all-c

Pope Eugene IV makes clear who those are who are outside the Church. The friar doesn't agree.

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

The Franciscan friar could have read the above words of Pope Eugene IV and left it at that. Why must they always explain them away?


Edited to provide link

columba wrote:This Franciscan friar is explaining what is meant by no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

He defines who is and who is not outside the Church. The problem is, his definition is in contradiction to that of Pope Eugene IV.

Pope Eugene IV makes clear who those are who are outside the Church. The friar doesn't agree.

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

The Franciscan friar could have read the above words of Pope Eugene IV and left it at that. Why must they always explain them away?


Edited to provide link

Your embedded link didn't work when I tried it; but we always come back to the same issue with you: Your “interpretation” of the “clear” words of Pope Eugene IV is opposed to that of the Church, to that of the Doctors and to that of tradition.

So, by what authority do you tell the Church and all of her theologians that they got it all wrong; that the Church does not even know how to interpret its own dogma "as it is written", when the Church clearly and magisterially teaches that the non-baptized zealous soul who professes his faith in Christ and who dies for Him in holy martyrdom is saved (regenerated in Christ) by that very fact … by that supreme act of charity; since he cannot be expected to have (heretofore) “remain[ed] within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church” (the ecclesiastical body of the Church Militant).

In fact, the martyr who dies under such circumstances most certainly IS “joined with Her … before death"; and “remain[s] within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church”.

You see, columba, the Mystical Body of Christ is not restricted to the visible ecclesiastical Church (and to the Church Militant), alone.

Don't you ever tire of telling the Church that she is so totally incompetent that she cannot ever (or even) be trusted to understand the meaning of her own salvation dogmas, let alone to propose this same "errant" meaning to the universal Church through her ordinary, authentic and living Magisterium?

Rhetorical question. Never mind.

Mike your argument is not with Columba; its with Pope Eugene IV.

I thought you of all people would bow to the authority of a Supreme Pontiff.

PS..

Apologies for the bad link. Try this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD7LGjDUhbw&lc=37i8EuhCVxLbGgp_X6tibg_8Tih2wdVeRK9I6njoiH8&context=G207d1f4FAAAAAAAAAAA&feature=g-all-c

The much larger problem in the Crisis of Faith is that in today's Catholic Church concerning, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is that it is all but impossible to hear these words taught , explained, defended or humble pride in the fact that We say at Mass," I believe in One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." and thank God for belonging to the Only True Church. Pope Eugene IV's Ex Cathedra pronouncement and the official teaching today of the Church on Salvation are absolutely safeguarded by Jesus Himself. The Holy Spirit would intervene if necessary to protect our Church from error in doctrine. Jesus rising from the dead fulfilled His suffering on earth for our sins. If Jesus did not rise from the dead we would not have a Catholic Church. So to it is with the Church being protected from error in official teachings that must be held by all Catholics as true. This does not mean we need to understand or comprehend everything, but sometimes be as a child.

I had a discussion with a Priest last year and told him that I had been to a Mass while on vacation and the Priest said that the Catholic Church erred in teaching that there was no Salvation outside the Catholic Church and basically went on to say that all religions were equally good and pleasing to God. Then Father said to me , I hope you do not believe that there is no Salvation Outside the Catholic Church. I answered by saying for me there is absolutely no chance of Salvation Outside the Catholic Church. I was ready to go on but the conversation stopped on a dime.

At least before Vatican II, the phrase , No salvation Outside the Catholic Church was taught in grade school, where I was at the time and almost all Catholics had a fervor and reverence for just how special and God given our Catholic Faith really was. We do not teach the faith with clarity as the Church officially understands it and too many souls have been lost due to liberal mush mouths or worse. God Bless the diligent and Holy Priests, Sisters, Brothers and layman that are helping prepare souls for eternity.

Do you know what I can’t understand Columba? Why would Pope Eugene IV define Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus from the chair of St. Peter, when, according to Mryan, there is salvation outside the Church?

Does Our Lord make things difficult for simple Catholics to understand? Would Our Lord ever explain something to us through a Pope, which we must believe infallibly, if He didn't really mean what He said? Absolutely not! But, according to Mr. Ryan, No Salvation Outside The Church, actually means there is salvation outside the Church!


According to him, black is white, yes means no, right is wrong. Crazy!

Foot wrote:
Do you know what I can’t understand Columba? Why would Pope Eugene IV define Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus from the chair of St. Peter, when, according to Mryan, there is salvation outside the Church?

And yet, MRyan believes that there is no salvation outside the Church; so why do you say, according to MRyan, there is salvation outside the Church when he says just the opposite?

What you really mean to say is that Pope Eugene IV allegedly defined that there is no salvation outside of formal baptismal MEMBERSHIP in the visible ecclesiastical church of the Church Militant, when he defined no such thing. Did Pope Eugene IV “define” that “those existing outside the Catholic Church … can have a share in life eternal ... unless before death they are joined with Her” by water baptism alone? He did not. Did he even mention water baptism? No.

Obviously, he means that “those existing outside the Catholic Church”, if they are to be saved, must be joined with her before the end of their lives, and that the ordinary means for being joined to the Church is through incorporation via water Baptism. And no, this way is not “optional” for the potential convert. But Pope Leo XIII provides the proper perspective when he declares “In the same way in man, nothing is more internal than heavenly grace which begets sanctity, but the ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace are external: that is to say, the sacraments which are administered by men specially chosen for that purpose, by means of certain ordinances.” (Satis Cognitum)

This clearly implies that if the “ordinary and chief means of obtaining grace are external” then there exists an internal means for obtaining grace (being joined to the Church); and what Pope Leo XIII clearly implied, Trent dogmatically affirmed and Pope Pius XII explicitly taught as an objective magisterial fact in his Allocution to midwives, October 29, 1951:

“Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.”

Pope Eugene IV did NOT “define” (in fact he “defined” nothing in this part of the Bull) or otherwise teach that those who shed their blood for Christ, but who have left the Church (meaning those who have not “remain[ed] within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church”) was intended for the good-faith convert and martyr whose blood is shed (or who suffers) for his faith in Christ without benefit of water baptism, for the simple reason that, unlike the baptized heretics and schismatics who left her (did not “remain within” her), the subject martyr was never a baptized member of the “ecclesiastical body” to begin with.

In other words, this way is left open to the good-faith martyr, but it is not left open to those who do not remain within the bosom of the Church ("no one", even if he shed his blood for Christ) and who have left the Church through formal heresy and schism. The words themselves, the context of the entire Bull, and the continuity of Church teaching, makes this absolutely clear.

In fact, when I asked columba to provide a proof text from a theologian, saint, Doctor or Pope since the Council of Trent (or the Council of Florence) who agreed with his rigorist Feeneyite interpretation on justification and baptism of blood, he cannot produce a single one; not one.

Come on Foot, maybe you can come through where columba has failed.

When Pope Eugene IV defined that “none of those existing outside the Catholic Church … can have a share in life eternal … unless before death they are joined with Her” he then speaks to the reason why “unity of this ecclesiastical body” is so “important”; and it is because “only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier.”

That is why those who do not remain in the Church and are severed from her by formal acts of heresy and schism cannot “profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation … even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ”.

And what has that to do with the good-faith non—Baptized martyr? Nothing, since upon his martyrdom he cannot, and has no need to “profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation”, for his salvation has already been “assured”, as the Church teaches, through his regeneration into Christ and unity with the Mystical Body. He is “joined” to the Church, and we are assured of this "authentic interpretation" by "the Teaching Authority of the Church.”

The “ecclesiastical body” is the institutional Church; but, as the Church clearly teaches, while the Mystical Body IS the Church, the Mystical Body is not confined to the visible “ecclesiastical body” alone. If formal membership in the ecclesiastical body is intrinsic to salvation, than the visible institutional Church (the ecclesiastical body) would exist in all eternity and would thus be intrinsically necessary in every age for salvation. Will the ecclesiastical body exist in the eschatological union of time and eternity? No, but the Church of the Mystical Body of Christ most certainly will:

Christians and non-Christians who died before, during or after the lifetime of Christ will recognize themselves as such and through the impact or contributions they made to the mystical body, the Church, which is an earthly reality yet against which the powers of death cannot prevail anymore. As the body of Christ’s eschatological union of time and eternity, the Church is already sharing in the eschatological union of time and eternity of Christ. (Tibor Horvath, SJ, Eternity and Eternal Life, 1927, p. 111).

This may help to explain why some folks seem to be confused about, or simply reject, the doctrine that says that regeneration into Christ has always been necessary for salvation, but the divinely instituted instrument for the conveyance of the grace of regeneration (ex opere operato) cannot be intrinsic to eternal life since it was not necessary in every age.

One of the most unorthodox assertions ever to come down the Feeneyite pike is the strange idea that our Lord cannot or does not ever act as the instrument for the transmission of the grace and merits of His own blood redemption. Equally unorthodox is the notion that one cannot be united to Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body, by the bonds of faith and charity without benefit of the sacrament of Baptism. Another version of this unorthodoxy is to posit that one may in fact be united to Christ in the bonds of faith and charity (in sanctifying grace), but that this unity and sanctification is not sufficient for salvation for anyone who dies in this state without water baptism.

Yes, indeed, the old “deficient form of sanctifying grace” theory.

It’s as if to say that when tradition and the Church teach that our Lord is not bound by His Sacraments to effect the same end, this is just one more silly throw-away “theological opinion” that is refuted by the Church's own dogmas. Sure.

And the “battle of competing magisteriums” rages on (sure sounds heretical to me).

Foot wrote:
According to him, black is white, yes means no, right is wrong. Crazy!

Crazy, he says. Here’s “crazy”:

We are told by columba and Foot that not only was poor Pope Pius XII not teaching Catholic truth (let alone through his papal ordinary magisterium; of which our Lord said “He who hears you, hears Me”); neither were the saints and theologians before Trent teaching Catholic truth (the common teaching); neither were all the theologians and Doctors since the Council of Trent; neither was the Catechism of Trent, neither was The Douay Catechism of 1649, neither was the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon Law; and neither was the Catechism of the Catholic Church, etc., etc. No, not a single one was speaking Catholic truth.

You see; when the testimony of the Doctors and tradition, canon law, papal Encyclicals and Allocutions, universal Catechisms, official theology manuals, official Commentaries on Holy Scripture, an Ecumenical Council, and even when all of the Bishops of the world in union with the Pope (and even those NOT in union with the Pope) speak the same doctrine with one univocal voice, this universal teaching may actually be a false doctrine on a matter of salvation that is in direct opposition to a defined dogma of the Catholic Church.

Seriously; just ask Foot and columba.

How does columba respond to this? By telling us that Pope Eugene IV forever and solemnly “corrected” the theological “opinion” on baptism of blood; and the fact that the entire Catholic Church got it wrong ever since the formal definition, and especially after Trent, is just an unfortunate fact of life. Welcome to the little "remnant".

I guess that’s what they would call the “invincible ignorance” of the Catholic Church. Well, at least the Church's heresy is only "material", and she is not obstinate and pertinacious in her "error"; though she has this funny habit of repeating the doctrine in every age as if she actually beleives it, and as if she has the authority to teach it to the universal Church -- and as if she actually expects Catholics to accept her teaching as true and authentic!

Silly Church.

But, we should trust columba and Foot, for they obviously speak for the Supreme Magisterium (one must know his hierarchy of magisteriums) and know with infallible certitude that Pope Eugene IV did in fact “define” that the holy martyrs venerated by the Church who died “while still a catechumen” or who died in a last minute-conversion for Christ, or anyone else for that matter, cannot share in eternal life without being joined to the Church [in water baptism]. And the fact that nowhere did Pope Eugene IV actually define this does not phase them in the least. They know how to "interpret" his “clear words … as it is written”, while the saints, the Doctors, Popes and the Church’s authentic Magisterium obviously do not.

As I said once before, I'll leave the twins with some more meaningless and fallible Magisterial citations, this time from Pope Pius XII, Humani generis, Aug. 12, 1950:

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine...

21. .. For, together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.”

Notice he did not say: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of [columba and Foot]”.

But he should have, for we know it’s true. Just ask them.

Mike,

Excluding the sarcasm, which by the way I think is a lost art , but does hurt people( I should know, I used to be the King of Sarcasm) your post explaining No Salvation Outside The Catholic Church is well done and very much appreciated. Thanks for taking the time to do this. If it is read and re read it reinforces why Our Church is a Church for all ages. I will take one for the team since I need the following request for my conversations with people in my daily life. Would you be so kind, Mike as to explain this one more time as if you were teaching this to a 6th to 8th grader. This will have a big impact on the times we live in.


JMJ,

Your Friend,

George

Mike,

Just out of curiosity -- what differences do you see between "Feeneyites," Protestants, and the Orthodox? Do you think that the Orthodox are closer to Catholic Truth than Father Feeney was?

As for Pope Eugene IV, let's look at the Council of Florence's words closely:

No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.

Okay, note the part of the text that I highlighted in red and note the text that I highlighted in blue. No one can be saved unless that person remains in the "bosom and unity" of the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, we can imagine many people who are in the bosom of the Church who are yet outside of her canonical boundaries:

1) Infants who have been validly baptized by Protestants, Orthodox, and as "anyone whatsoever" can baptize, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, etc., parents. Again, we're back to trying to "prove a negative" in saying that any particular individual was not baptized.

2) Catholics who get some doctrine wrong but still submit their beliefs to the Supreme & Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, which even the present Popes (real or imagined) claim not to have "changed" (as if such was even possible.)

3) Baptized children who are born to non-Catholics who have not reached the Age of Reason, or having reached that time in their life, have not yet obstinately denied a dogma of the Catholic Faith. Of course, per Saint Thomas, when such children embrace, profess, and/or practice a false belief, they sin mortally.

Question is, "Do you think that it is at least possible for individuals in Category 3 to ever be guilty of formal heresy and/or schism?" If you answer, "Yes," then you have no argument with "Feeneyism," for we would agree that not every baptized individual who is outside the canonical boundaries of the Church is guilty of heresy and/or schism, only that they, having free will, are at least capable (and hence, culpable) of being guilty of formal heresy and/or schism.

The presumption that you and/or the Church would make about the state of their souls is irrelevant -- either they are in a state of mortal sin or not. So, let me offer you this "Pascal's Wager":

A) Virtually all Protestants and Orthodox at or beyond the age of 14 are guilty of formal heresy schism; hence, they are in a state of mortal sin.

B) Virtually few Protestants and Orthodox at or beyond the age of 14 are guilty of formal heresy and schism; hence, they are in a state of grace.

Now, if we assume that 'A' is correct and preach the Truth to the Protestants & Orthodox, what will we have lost if 'B' turns out to be correct?

On the other hand, if we assume that 'B' is correct and have "cookies & Cool-Aide" with our "separated brethren" and a good time here on Earth, but 'A' turns out to be correct, what will we have lost?

So, which "option" do you think that we ought to pursue?

As for being in the "bosom and the unity" of the Church, what do you think that means? In choosing the word "bosom," do you think that the Council of Florence meant "breasts"? And, if you accept that analogy, don't you think that the Council meant to convey the idea of having "one's head" against the breasts of a woman, either as a child or as a husband? And, what does it mean to have one's head against the breasts of a woman? Does not such an analogy mean that she has her arms around you, while she cradles your head against her breasts? Is not this the image that is being portrayed here? And, if you have your head against the breasts of a woman, say, your wife, is not such a tender moment the result of your own human free will? Do not you choose to have your head in that position?

Of course, could such an analogy ever apply to Protestants, Orthodox, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. who have reached the age of 14, and who, by their own free will, reject Catholic dogma? Could such a person said to be in the "bosom and unity" of the Church?

I think not.

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Just out of curiosity -- what differences do you see between "Feeneyites," Protestants, and the Orthodox? Do you think that the Orthodox are closer to Catholic Truth than Father Feeney was?

What differences are there? Come on, Jehanne, I think I'll pass on satisfying your curiosity. And, Fr. Feeney was not “close” to being a Catholic; he was a Roman Catholic and professed the Catholic Truth, end of story.

Jehanne wrote:As for Pope Eugene IV, let's look at the Council of Florence's words closely:

No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he REMAIN within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.

Okay, note the part of the text that I highlighted in red and note the text that I highlighted in blue. No one can be saved unless that person remains in the "bosom and unity" of the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, we can imagine many people who are in the bosom of the Church who are yet outside of her canonical boundaries:

First of all, you are on record as saying that the Church’s doctrine on baptism of blood is almost certainly a revealed Truth, while at the same time treating this same established doctrine as if it is opposed to the Church’s dogma on water Baptism, and treating baptism of blood as if it is insufficient for salvation (as Br. Andre says, it is “non-salvific”). Baptism of blood is a true doctrine of the Church, or it isn’t; you can’t have it both ways.

And appealing to the “Providence” of God as if God is obligated to provide (predestine) the Sacrament cannot change the truth of the doctrine itself; meaning that baptism of blood, if it is a true doctrine of the Church (which of course it is), is not only sufficient, it also assures salvation.

Yours, I’m afraid, is a study in contradiction.

I capitalized REMAIN in the cited Bull to once again make the point that only those who have left the Church through formal heresy and schism (the very subject and context of the Bull) can be said to have not REMAINED in the Church, which by logical necessity presumes Pope Eugene IV is addressing the case of a baptized Catholic under the Church’s jurisdiction who was already IN the Church before having been severed by formal heresy and/or schism (the very subject of the Bull).

In other words, “only those REMAINING within this unity” of the Church “can profit by the sacraments” and “can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier.” Pope Eugene IV immediately follows this with “NO ONE, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he REMAIN within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

So the last sentence is not only NOT a formal definition, it does not stand alone as a universal prescription and must be read not only in the subject context of the Bull, but in the context of the text which immediately precedes it.

Furthermore, the actual formal definition at the beginning of the subject text declares that all of those who are outside the Church must be “joined with her” before death overtakes them. That the pope then speaks of the importance of the “unity of this ecclesiastical body” (the visible institutional Church) is such that “only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments and by works of charity, does NOT mean that he is positively precluding anyone from the possibility of being “joined with her” through the bonds of faith and charity, the very bonds that the Church assures us unite one to Christ, the head of the Mystical Body (as in baptism of desire and baptism of blood), for he is not addressing or concerning himself with such eventualities in the Bull – he is focused on those who profess a false religion who have not joined the Church, and the heretics and schismatics who have left her.

So to actually argue that the Pope formally or infallibly defined that “no one” can be saved by baptism of blood, when the Bull does NOT say this, when Church has NEVER taught this, and in fact has affirmed the doctrine of baptism of blood over and over again, is to make the Church either a terrible liar, or so incompetent that she can never be trusted to confirm the brethren in the Truth.

Jehanne wrote:
1) Infants who have been validly baptized by Protestants, Orthodox, and as "anyone whatsoever" can baptize, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, etc., parents. Again, we're back to trying to "prove a negative" in saying that any particular individual was not baptized.

Who is trying to “prove a negative”? You are stating a simple fact: Not every validly baptized infant falls under the canonical jurisdiction of the Church. Leave it there.

Jehanne wrote:
2) Catholics who get some doctrine wrong but still submit their beliefs to the Supreme & Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, which even the present Popes (real or imagined) claim not to have "changed" (as if such was even possible.)

No, it is not possible, and our Popes are not “imagined”. Furthermore, innocent error does not place a Catholic outside the canonical jurisdiction of the Church, so your example is false.

Jehanne wrote:
3) Baptized children who are born to non-Catholics who have not reached the Age of Reason, or having reached that time in their life, have not yet obstinately denied a dogma of the Catholic Faith. Of course, per Saint Thomas, when such children embrace, profess, and/or practice a false belief, they sin mortally.

When you start paraphrasing Aquinas, I get nervous. As in the case with heresy, for an act of sin to be mortal, culpability (a deliberate intention of the will) must be present.

Jehanne wrote:
Question is, "Do you think that it is at least possible for individuals in Category 3 to ever be guilty of formal heresy and/or schism?" If you answer, "Yes," then you have no argument with "Feeneyism," for we would agree that not every baptized individual who is outside the canonical boundaries of the Church is guilty of heresy and/or schism, only that they, having free will, are at least capable (and hence, culpable) of being guilty of formal heresy and/or schism.

I’ve explained more than once that everyone above the age of reason is capable of formal (obstinate and pertinacious) heresy. What, do you think I deny free will?

And by lifting the excommunications and recognizing today that the Eastern Orthodox (in general) are not culpable for the sin of separation does not mean that individual Orthodox cannot be guilty of heresy and schism. How many times must we go over this? If you actually read the reasons for the Church’s change in its approach to the Orthodox, you might even understand it.

Did you know, Jehanne, that when the Church did consider the Eastern Orthodox in general to be guilty of formal heresy and schism that this did not mean that every adult Orthodox member was necessarily guilty of obstinate heresy and schism? The delict for excommunication does not automatically render one culpable before God.

In point of fact:

“The Catholic Church has always acknowledged that the separated Eastern churches have, by the Providence of God, retained almost the entire orthodox faith in its integrity (whatever the negations of individual theologians or local Councils and Synods), but it has also professed that the fullness of orthodoxy is to be found only where the indefectible faith of Peter is safeguarded by the See of Peter.” (James Likoudis, Reply to a Lapsed Catholic, now Eastern Orthodox)

And what has any of this have to do with “Feeneyism”? You cannot speak for all Feeneyites, you can’t speak for Br. Andre and the St. Benedict Center, and you can’t speak for the Feeneyites on this forum. Feeneyites are all over the map, and that is a simple fact. I know some radical Feeneyites who hold that the Eastern Orthodox are, by the very fact of formal affiliation, formal heretics and schismatics, end of story. In fact, that’s the whole reason for this debate – to prove them wrong.

Jehanne wrote:
The presumption that you and/or the Church would make about the state of their souls is irrelevant -- either they are in a state of mortal sin or not. So, let me offer you this "Pascal's Wager":

No, you’re only half right and fail to make the proper distinctions. Subjectively, the state of anyone’s soul can be known only by God. Objectively, it is most certainly the Church’s business to render judgments that effect one’s relationship and unity with the Church.

Jehanne wrote:
A) Virtually all Protestants and Orthodox at or beyond the age of 14 are guilty of formal heresy schism; hence, they are in a state of mortal sin.

B) Virtually few Protestants and Orthodox at or beyond the age of 14 are guilty of formal heresy and schism; hence, they are in a state of grace.

Now, if we assume that 'A' is correct and preach the Truth to the Protestants & Orthodox, what will we have lost if 'B' turns out to be correct?

On the other hand, if we assume that 'B' is correct and have "cookies & Cool-Aide" with our "separated brethren" and a good time here on Earth, but 'A' turns out to be correct, what will we have lost?

So, which "option" do you think that we ought to pursue?

None of the above. One would have to be daft to pursue any of those “options” for they are not valid (they are entirely subjective and presumptuous). We preach the truth to everyone and let God sort out the wheat from the chaff. That “formal heresy and schism” is not presumed to be present does not mean that the state of sanctifying grace IS present, but only that the means to grace by way of valid sacraments is available.

The Church does not play this “virtually all” game with those who are not considered to be formally excommunicated for heresy and schism, and neither should we.

If would be better to frame the "options" in the context of how best to approach an objective state of separation from the one true Church of Christ that must be fully restored. In that context, the Church's approach should be what it always has been, to restore the Orthodox to full communion, and that is exactly the mission of the Church; and she is knocking down the barriers that only the Father of the Prodigal Son has the authority to knock down.

Do not doubt her intentions, or her resolve, Jehanne.

Jehanne wrote:
As for being in the "bosom and the unity" of the Church, what do you think that means? In choosing the word "bosom," do you think that the Council of Florence meant "breasts"? And, if you accept that analogy, don't you think that the Council meant to convey the idea of having "one's head" against the breasts of a woman, either as a child or as a husband? And, what does it mean to have one's head against the breasts of a woman? Does not such an analogy mean that she has her arms around you, while she cradles your head against her breasts? Is not this the image that is being portrayed here? And, if you have your head against the breasts of a woman, say, your wife, is not such a tender moment the result of your own human free will? Do not you choose to have your head in that position?

I’ve articulated my position on what it means to be united to Christ in His Mystical Body so many times; I can’t understand why you’re even asking me the question. As far as the rest, your analogy is; well, a bit out there … so let’s not go there.

Jehanne wrote:
Of course, could such an analogy ever apply to Protestants, Orthodox, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. who have reached the age of 14, and who, by their own free will, reject Catholic dogma? Could such a person said to be in the "bosom and unity" of the Church?

I think not.

Anyone who rejects Catholic dogma, especially the essential articles of Faith, of their own free will is NOT in the "bosom and unity" of the Church, and must be “joined with her” before death if they are to be saved; though it is not ours to determine culpability in such matters. Objectively, as long as they remain outside the Church, we never presume otherwise. However, as Pope Pius IX taught, if they are seeking the truth in good will and place no obstacles in the way, God will lead them to the divine light and grace of truth where they will be "joined with her", outside of which there is no salvation.

Mike,

You misread my Example #2. I do not believe in "non-Catholic Christians," only "Catholic Christians." So, what I was trying to convey in my second example was not a canonical Catholic but someone like an "Orthodox" Christian who does not obstinately deny (or doubt -- see below) a dogma of the Faith. (In such a case, that person would still be a true Catholic, even though he/she does not have "canonical" status within the Church -- See my blog on Canon 844 for an example of this.) By definition, to be a true Orthodox is to be a true schismatic and to be a true Protestant is to be a true heretic. Your understanding of the Church's immemorial teaching on heresy is simply incomplete. Here's the definition from the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

To be a heretic is, therefore, not just to "obstinately deny" a dogma of the Faith, as you would have us believe, but to obstinately doubt that same article of the Faith would place any baptized individual in a state of heresy. Agreed?

Now, back to breasts. You do not want to talk about them, but the language from Florence is clearly there. As I state above when describing Example #2, an Orthodox does not, by definition, believe in Papal Infallibility (as is the case with most canonical "Catholics"); the same is true of a Protestant. If you do not believe me, just ask one. They will, with very few exceptions, tell you that they do not believe in Papal Infallibility or many other dogmas of the Catholic Church.

So, I will ask you again -- "Can such an individual be said to be in the bosom and unity of the Church while denying and/or doubting her dogmas?"

We do not change the Message....... The Message changes us

Dogmatic Theology Volume II: Christ's Church, Van Noort, p. 241-242

b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. "For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy" (MCC 30; italics ours).

By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary's Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the "Catholic Church"? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.

It may be possible for someone to be joined to the Body without baptism or the external profession of the necessary faith, as in the case of a conversion just before death.

Yet, how can someone be joined to the Body outside of which there is no salvation if they externally (publicly) deny a dogma of the faith and publicly proclaim a different faith? Why reach this issue of pertinacity, willfulness, ignorance, etc. in such a case?

In other words, while some may be joined to the Church in some cases without their being an external expression of the faith, how can anyone be joined to the Church if they publicly and externally deny a dogma of the faith of the Church?

It remains that one is either inside or outside, right?

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

You misread my Example #2. I do not believe in "non-Catholic Christians," only "Catholic Christians." So, what I was trying to convey in my second example was not a canonical Catholic but someone like an "Orthodox" Christian who does not obstinately deny (or doubt -- see below) a dogma of the Faith. (In such a case, that person would still be a true Catholic, even though he/she does not have "canonical" status within the Church -- See my blog on Canon 844 for an example of this.) By definition, to be a true Orthodox is to be a true schismatic and to be a true Protestant is to be a true heretic. Your understanding of the Church's immemorial teaching on heresy is simply incomplete.

I may have misread your intentions, but I have NOT misread your actual words, which say:

2) Catholics who get some doctrine wrong but still submit their beliefs to the Supreme & Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, which even the present Popes (real or imagined) claim not to have "changed" (as if such was even possible.)

The Church does not consider Orthodox Christians as “Catholic” Christians, for the Orthodox do NOT “submit their beliefs to the Supreme & Ordinary Magisterium of the Church”, they do NOT profess the Catholic Faith “whole and inviolate”, they are NOT in communion with the Pope, and they are not MEMBERS of the visible ecclesiastical Church of Christ.

Jehanne, Orthodox Christians are NOT “true Catholics” if one measures “Catholicity” by the measure of one’s external profession of the faith and by one’s union with the visible true Church -- and the pope. We are not speaking of infants here. If the Orthodox were “true Catholics”, the Church would not be trying to restore them to full communion with the true Church.

But thank you for making my point. For it is precisely here where Fatima for our times says the same thing as you and holds (by following the Dimond doctrine) that the Orthodox child (or any adult) who is above the age of reason and is not guilty of an obstinate heresy (OR obstinate DOUBT) of a secondary dogma of Faith, that this person is still a true Roman Catholic, and is subject to the Pope, while in actuality the Orthodox Christian makes an external profession of faith in the Orthodox faith of his parents and of received tradition, and is most certainly not in visible communion with the Catholic Church!

And Ffot does NOT understand why this is NOT a contradiction to his own interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus where he says NO ONE can be sanctified or saved without MEMBERSHIP in the visible ecclesiastical Church of Christ.

I’ve asked Ffot to explain this; but he either can’t, or is not even sure of his own stated beliefs.

I believe what you are really trying to say, Jehanne, is that the Orthodox Christian who has not fallen into formal/obstinate heresy, still maintains an essential bond with the one true Church of Christ by virtue of his valid Baptism, by virtue his Church’s possession of valid apostolic succession which guarantees him access to the Catholic Sacraments (and access to the divine life of grace), and by virtue of his profession of the essential or primary dogmas of the Catholic Faith.

That does not make him a “true Catholic”, it makes him a faithful Orthodox Christian who maintains an essential bond with the true Church of Christ. But he still does not enjoy full communion with the true Church of Christ so long as he remains separated from its visible ecclesiastical structure.

Jehanne wrote:
Here's the definition from the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

To be a heretic is, therefore, not just to "obstinately deny" a dogma of the Faith, as you would have us believe, but to obstinately doubt that same article of the Faith would place any baptized individual in a state of heresy. Agreed?

Jehanne, not only have I have provided this same citation and several others containing the same definition for heresy, I also made it quite clear in my explanations that “obstinate doubt” is included in the definition. If I do not repeat the entire “obstinate denial and obstinate doubt” definition every time, you’ll have to trust that I always include “doubt” when I say “denial”, and that I would NOT have you believe otherwise. I have also said numerous times that a “doubtful Sacrament” is NO Sacrament.

You are arguing about nothing.

Jehanne wrote:
Now, back to breasts. You do not want to talk about them, but the language from Florence is clearly there.

Really? And they were all over the Vatican grounds in the form of statuary. Breasts are a good thing.

Jehanne wrote:
As I state above when describing Example #2, an Orthodox does not, by definition, believe in Papal Infallibility (as is the case with most canonical "Catholics"); the same is true of a Protestant. If you do not believe me, just ask one. They will, with very few exceptions, tell you that they do not believe in Papal Infallibility or many other dogmas of the Catholic Church.

So, I will ask you again -- "Can such an individual be said to be in the bosom and unity of the Church while denying and/or doubting her dogmas?"

And I will answer you again. He cannot be in the “bosom and unity of the ecclesiastical Church”, but he may be “joined with” the Mystical Body of Christ through the bonds of faith and charity, provided the aforementioned usual conditions are met. Please don’t make me go through this again. (Ha!)

Rasha cited Brownson as to the Russian Orthodox and heresy, and I think it's relevant here:

When I speak of heresies that crept into the Russian
Church, I must not be understood to mean that these heresies,
borrowed from Protestantism, ever found admission into the
official teaching of the Russian Church. They were entertained
not by the Church, but by individual churchmen. As
a church the Russian Church claims to be and always to have
been orthodox, and since the reunion of the East and the
West in the Council of Florence already referred to, I am
aware of no official act.of the supreme Ecclesiastical authority
pronouncing it, as a church, either heretical or schismatical,
consequently the sin of heresy or schism does not, unless I
am in error, attach to the communion, but solely to the
individuals who personally and voluntarily make.themselves
heretics or schismatics. In this respect there is a marked
difference between the Russian Church, and the several
Protestant Churches so-called, and which are simply establishments
and no Churches at all. In the case of these the sect
or establishment is under anathema; with the Russian Church,
the communion, as far as I am aware, is not under anathema,
IX
but only the individuals in that communion, as elsewhere,
who make themselves guilty of heresy and schism, by refusing
due obedience to the supreme authority of the Catholic
Church

Are the Protestant churches no longer under anathema? Do Prots now stand on the same footing as Orthodox regarding their being "joined" to the Catholic Church or not? Is it the same analysis now as to "pertinacious denial or doubt" for both?

tornpage wrote:
It may be possible for someone to be joined to the Body without baptism or the external profession of the necessary faith, as in the case of a conversion just before death.

Yet, how can someone be joined to the Body outside of which there is no salvation if they externally (publicly) deny a dogma of the faith and publicly proclaim a different faith? Why reach this issue of pertinacity, willfulness, ignorance, etc. in such a case?

In other words, while some may be joined to the Church in some cases without their being an external expression of the faith, how can anyone be joined to the Church if they publicly and externally deny a dogma of the faith of the Church?

It remains that one is either inside or outside, right?

Can one remain outside the ecclesiastical body (the visible institutional Church), while being joined by the invisible bonds of faith and charity to Christ, the Head of the Mystical Body? This assumes that a public doubt or denial is not obstinate and the good-faith error inculpable.

If so, then the visible objective separation may only be apparent. The obligation remains to join the Church … but God takes care of the rest, and never apart from or outside His Body.

Is that too simple an explanation?

Mike,

It's not the simplicity that is the problem.

Dogmatic Theology Volume II: Christ's Church, Van Noort, p. 241-242

b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. "For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy" (MCC 30; italics ours).

By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary's Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the "Catholic Church"? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.

The necessity of being "joined" by the bonds of "faith" and charity remain. The problem I am having is how can one be "joined" and severed or separated at the same time? And how can there be a bond of "faith" when the faiths are different.

This is the problem.

tornpage wrote:Rasha cited Brownson as to the Russian Orthodox and heresy, and I think it's relevant here:

... In this respect there is a marked difference between the Russian Church, and the several Protestant Churches so-called, and which are simply establishments and no Churches at all. In the case of these the sector establishment is under anathema; with the Russian Church,the communion, as far as I am aware, is not under anathema, IX,but only the individuals in that communion, as elsewhere, who make themselves guilty of heresy and schism, by refusing due obedience to the supreme authority of the CatholicChurch

Are the Protestant churches no longer under anathema? Do Prots now stand on the same footing as Orthodox regarding their being "joined" to the Catholic Church or not? Is it the same analysis now as to "pertinacious denial or doubt" for both?

I think the point is that the Protestant Churches "which are simply establishments and no Churches at all" cannot, for that reason, be under "anathema", but only "the [Protestant] sector establishment is under anathema".

They are not on equal footing with the Orthodox when it comes to unity with the one true Church of Christ. If the Orthodox are one step removed, the Protestants are at least three steps removed.

Is it an oversimplification to say the following.........


Everyone who died and went to Heaven after Jesus founded the Catholic church is a de facto Catholic or by the grace, mercy and will of God is Catholic now in Heaven.

George,

Everyone who died and went to Heaven after Jesus founded the Catholic church is a de facto Catholic or by the grace, mercy and will of God is Catholic now in Heaven.

I don't know if it's too simple, but I agree with it. But I wouldn't say "de facto."

This problem rears its head in many of these discussions. The problem I refer to is that of rendering almost every theological term meaningless; creating categories that almost no one can fit. For example, take this quote from Mike,

"I think the point is that the Protestant Churches "which are simply establishments and no Churches at all" cannot, for that reason, be under "anathema", but only "the [Protestant] sector establishment is under anathema".

This makes it almost impossible for anyone to be a heretic and the only vunerable set (if there be one) would be that of lapsed Cathoilcs.

It's a bit like the Baltimore Catechism definition of mortal sin; a serious matter, full knowledge that it is a serious matter and full consent. Depending on ones understanding of the word "full" and how far one can stretch the meaning, it would be legitimate to say that no one can actually commit a mortal sin. I have heard several priests make such a claim to large congregations.

The other instance of like matter is that of the word "necessity" or "necessary." I am aware that there are indeed different types of necessity (theologically) but when the manner of necessity required is not stipulated, would it not be natural to assume that it is the primary meaning (that of means) which is being referred to, otherwise, the capacity for rendering the word meaningless is huge.

Now, to get back to the word "heretic;" I would have it also that no one would fit that group but, it would seem by divine revelation that the majority of mankind will actually be part of that group. While attempts are being made to exclude, the reality is, the set containing those of the true faith is quite possibly miniscule; three or four grapes on the end of a twig in a huge vineyard.

The truth won't change just because the creature finds it hard to accept.

tornpage wrote:Mike,

It's not the simplicity that is the problem.

Dogmatic Theology Volume II: Christ's Church, Van Noort, p. 241-242

b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. "For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy" (MCC 30; italics ours).

By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary's Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from the Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the "Catholic Church"? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.

The necessity of being "joined" by the bonds of "faith" and charity remain. The problem I am having is how can one be "joined" and severed or separated at the same time? And how can there be a bond of "faith" when the faiths are different.

This is the problem.

Tornpage, please note Van Noort’s constant reference to what is required for “membership in the Church”.

Also, it is no longer the “common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership” (I'm not sure it ever was), for “material heresy” is not heresy, but an innocent error. The visibility and unity of Christ's Church is NOT going to perish because there are “material heretics” within the Body of believers … good grief.

Yes, a willful and guilty (formal) heretic is severed from the life of grace in the Church (ipso facto excommunication), but not one of the Baptized is ever completely severed from the Church until the Church makes it official.

That old Baptismal seal cannot be severed – it takes an official act of the Church before a baptized Catholic, no matter how notorious his heresy, can say that his name is no longer “Catholic” - and he has to request his desire to permanently abandon the Catholic faith in writing.

Are the Orthodox considered “willful and guiltily formal heretics”? No.

But neither are they actual MEMBERS of the Catholic Church. A lack of external membership in the visible ecclesiastical Body does not preclude an internal unity with the Body by faith and charity.

columba wrote:This problem rears its head in many of these discussions. The problem I refer to is that of rendering almost every theological term meaningless; creating categories that almost no one can fit. For example, take this quote from Mike,

"I think the point is that the Protestant Churches "which are simply establishments and no Churches at all" cannot, for that reason, be under "anathema", but only "the [Protestant] sector establishment is under anathema".

This makes it almost impossible for anyone to be a heretic and the only vunerable set (if there be one) would be that of lapsed Catholics.

Nonsense. A Church that does not exist cannot be under anathema. But the "sect" of Protestant establishments certainly can be.

And when one stands before God, He is not going to judge the "establishment", but the individual; and no one said that individual Protestants and Orthodox cannot be guilty of willful (formal) heresy.

But the fact is that the Orthodox Churches are true particular churches, and I can't help but think that you a have a real problem with that.

Am I wrong?

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

You misread my Example #2. I do not believe in "non-Catholic Christians," only "Catholic Christians." So, what I was trying to convey in my second example was not a canonical Catholic but someone like an "Orthodox" Christian who does not obstinately deny (or doubt -- see below) a dogma of the Faith. (In such a case, that person would still be a true Catholic, even though he/she does not have "canonical" status within the Church -- See my blog on Canon 844 for an example of this.) By definition, to be a true Orthodox is to be a true schismatic and to be a true Protestant is to be a true heretic. Your understanding of the Church's immemorial teaching on heresy is simply incomplete.

I may have misread your intentions, but I have NOT misread your actual words, which say:

2) Catholics who get some doctrine wrong but still submit their beliefs to the Supreme & Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, which even the present Popes (real or imagined) claim not to have "changed" (as if such was even possible.)

The Church does not consider Orthodox Christians as “Catholic” Christians, for the Orthodox do NOT “submit their beliefs to the Supreme & Ordinary Magisterium of the Church”, they do NOT profess the Catholic Faith “whole and inviolate”, they are NOT in communion with the Pope, and they are not MEMBERS of the visible ecclesiastical Church of Christ.

I agree except for the "Christian" part; they're schismatics, however, if you read my blog post on "Canon 844," it's easy to image an "Orthodox" who professes all that the Church professes but who simply lacks canonical standing within her:

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/canon-844-betrayal-of-catholic-faith.html

I am not saying that this is common, only that it is possible.

MRyan wrote:Jehanne, Orthodox Christians are NOT “true Catholics” if one measures “Catholicity” by the measure of one’s external profession of the faith and by one’s union with the visible true Church -- and the pope. We are not speaking of infants here. If the Orthodox were “true Catholics”, the Church would not be trying to restore them to full communion with the true Church.

Well, I hope that you agree that infants baptized by Orthodox parents are fully Catholic.

MRyan wrote:But thank you for making my point. For it is precisely here where Fatima for our times says the same thing as you and holds (by following the Dimond doctrine) that the Orthodox child (or any adult) who is above the age of reason and is not guilty of an obstinate heresy (OR obstinate DOUBT) of a secondary dogma of Faith, that this person is still a true Roman Catholic, and is subject to the Pope, while in actuality the Orthodox Christian makes an external profession of faith in the Orthodox faith of his parents and of received tradition, and is most certainly not in visible communion with the Catholic Church!

Question is, of course, "When does this Orthodox child fall into a state of mortal sin?" Here's that quote from Saint Thomas:

"All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally." (Summa Theologica, Ia IIae, q.103, a.4)

MRyan wrote:And Ffot does NOT understand why this is NOT a contradiction to his own interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus where he says NO ONE can be sanctified or saved without MEMBERSHIP in the visible ecclesiastical Church of Christ.

I’ve asked Ffot to explain this; but he either can’t, or is not even sure of his own stated beliefs.

I believe what you are really trying to say, Jehanne, is that the Orthodox Christian who has not fallen into formal/obstinate heresy, still maintains an essential bond with the one true Church of Christ by virtue of his valid Baptism, by virtue his Church’s possession of valid apostolic succession which guarantees him access to the Catholic Sacraments (and access to the divine life of grace), and by virtue of his profession of the essential or primary dogmas of the Catholic Faith.

Absolutely.

MRyan wrote:That does not make him a “true Catholic”,

I disagree. He's a "true Catholic" every bit as validly baptized infants are, even if they lack "canonical standing." What else could they be?

MRyan wrote:it makes him a faithful Orthodox Christian who maintains an essential bond with the true Church of Christ. But he still does not enjoy full communion with the true Church of Christ so long as he remains separated from its visible ecclesiastical structure.

Also disagree. Once he embraces the Orthodox faith and rejects, of his own free will, a dogma of the Catholic faith, then he becomes a heretic. If not, explain how he could ever be guilty of heresy and/or schism?

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:
Here's the definition from the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

To be a heretic is, therefore, not just to "obstinately deny" a dogma of the Faith, as you would have us believe, but to obstinately doubt that same article of the Faith would place any baptized individual in a state of heresy. Agreed?

Jehanne, not only have I have provided this same citation and several others containing the same definition for heresy, I also made it quite clear in my explanations that “obstinate doubt” is included in the definition. If I do not repeat the entire “obstinate denial and obstinate doubt” definition every time, you’ll have to trust that I always include “doubt” when I say “denial”, and that I would NOT have you believe otherwise. I have also said numerous times that a “doubtful Sacrament” is NO Sacrament.

You are arguing about nothing.

Hardly. If the Othodox are human beings, then they have free will, no? And if they have free will, then they are capable of heresy and/or schism. I know that you do not disagree with this.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:
Now, back to breasts. You do not want to talk about them, but the language from Florence is clearly there.

Really? And they were all over the Vatican grounds in the form of statuary. Breasts are a good thing.

Jehanne wrote:
As I state above when describing Example #2, an Orthodox does not, by definition, believe in Papal Infallibility (as is the case with most canonical "Catholics"); the same is true of a Protestant. If you do not believe me, just ask one. They will, with very few exceptions, tell you that they do not believe in Papal Infallibility or many other dogmas of the Catholic Church.

So, I will ask you again -- "Can such an individual be said to be in the bosom and unity of the Church while denying and/or doubting her dogmas?"

And I will answer you again. He cannot be in the “bosom and unity of the ecclesiastical Church”, but he may be “joined with” the Mystical Body of Christ through the bonds of faith and charity, provided the aforementioned usual conditions are met. Please don’t make me go through this again. (Ha!)

So, someone can be "'joined with' the Mystical Body of Christ through the bonds of faith and charity" while obstinately denying and/or doubting an article of the Catholic faith, as virtually all Orthodox & Protestants (as well as most "canonical Catholics"), by their own admission, freely choose to profess??

MRyan wrote:
A Church that does not exist cannot be under anathema.But the "sect" of Protestant establishments certainly can be.

But are they?
I say of course they are whether declared so or not. Where heresy is involved it's not the declaration as such which causes the seperation from the Mystical Body; it merely gives public notice of the fact, a fact that would remain a fact even without a declaration. (Probably what St Belarmine had in mind when referring to the loss of office of a heretical Pope but that's besides the point).

According to Pope Eugene IV this also applies to schismatics so I can't see how the Orthodox churches can be excluded and, if not excluded then they can't be true particular Churches. It's more like logic than theology.

We probably all have had discussions over the years with non Catholics. Let me share a real world discussion with just one of many of these I have had for over 20 years with one person.

Profile: Grew up as Catholic, divorced, remarried Protestant.

So much discussed that I could fill a binder. Please find below some highlights as accurately as I can recall them.

Question: Were you not taught about No Salvation when you were a Catholic?
answer: Yes, I think but that is all kind of hazy, no real strong feelings one way or the other.
Question: Did you think you could divorce and remarry?
answer: yes
Question: Do you think the Catholic faith is the one true Faith?
answer: no, just one of the many paths
Question: How are your sins forgiven?
answer: I go straight to God/Jesus
Question? Do you really believe that Jesus is present in your Communion?
answer: For most of the years, the answer was no that it is a representation of Jesus, but most recently believes that Jesus now is present in the partaking of bread?
Question? Do you believe that if the Formula and teaching of the Catholic Faith is that it is the Only True Church and only within the Catholic Church can you benefit from the Sacraments?
answer: We have our ways to worship which are spiritually very satisfying?
Question: Have you ever seen where a great number of church members in your Church get dissatisfied and want to go a different or modified direction?
answer: yes we just went through a major brew-ha-ha lately and had to change some things.
Question: What do think of Mary the Mother of Jesus.
answer: She is special but we do not put her up on a pedestal like you do
Question: Have you done much research on Martin Luther or John Calvin or a whole host of others like______ _______ _________ etc etc
Answer: things have come a long way since then{ Hmmmm, maybe what Our Pope said makes more sense to me as I post this answer}
Question: Since we have been talking about this for countless hours over the years, why will you not return to the Catholic Church outside of which there is no Salvation?
Answer: Nobody talks like you do, if the Church really thought this, wouldn't I have been hearing this from someone besides you?
Question: Are you upset we me?
answer: no, you have strong convictions but I do not agree with many of them
Question: Does not your conscience bother you as to whether your way is the right way? In my telling you that the Catholic Church is the One True Church , you can not say that you do not know that the Catholic Church is the way of Salvation but can as you do disagree as to the accuracy of this statement.
Answer: I am fine where I am at in my spiritual life


Question asked of Me?

Do you think that I am going to Hell?

My answer: I would never judge anyone and in fact in many ways, I consider you a much better person than me, that I look up to. Judgement is reserved for God/Jesus alone. I will judge no one. But, since you were once a Catholic and with our many years of discussion, I care very much about you and your eternal soul.

Current status: Unresolved

George wrote:
Question asked of Me?

Do you think that I am going to Hell?

My answer: I would never judge anyone and in fact in many ways, I consider you a much better person than me, that I look up to. Judgement is reserved for God/Jesus alone. I will judge no one. But, since you were once a Catholic and with our many years of discussion, I care very much about you and your eternal soul.

Current status: Unresolved

George it's a hard thing to do but I had a similar question asked of me from a close relative (she doesn't believe that Jesus is God) and I had to tell her yes, you are on the road to hell and if you don't find the right road before death then you will end up in hell for all eternity. It shook her up a bit but IMO it was better than saying, "I don't know."
I think I was the first person she enountered in a long long time who actually believed in hell. I also told her that if I can help it she won't end up there and I''ll pray for her every day (which I do, and hope to save my own sorry soul in he process).

Jehanne,

Let’s begin with the last part first:

Jehanne wrote:
So, someone can be "'joined with' the Mystical Body of Christ through the bonds of faith and charity" while obstinately denying and/or doubting an article of the Catholic faith, as virtually all Orthodox & Protestants (as well as most "canonical Catholics"), by their own admission, freely choose to profess??

Please note what is being alleged:

That I am saying that “someone can be joined with the Mystical Body of Christ through the bonds of faith and charity’ while obstinately denying and/or doubting an article of the Catholic faith”. I have said no such thing and said just the opposite, to wit: Obstinate doubt or obstinate denial of a dogma of faith makes one a formal heretic and severs one from the Catholic Church.

And, just to be clear, to be "obstinate" in one's doubt or denial means to have a pertinacious resistance to authority and/or the truth; a stubborn or perversely persistent rebelliousness.

Jehanne has me saying the opposite of what I have repeatedly said by employing a logical fallacy that goes like this:

- Formal heresy is defined as obstinate doubt or denial of an article of Catholic faith
- By their own free admission, virtually all Orthodox doubt or deny the dogma of Papal Primacy
- Therefore, virtually all Orthodox are obstinate heretics

Since Ffot and a few others appear to hold to the same (Dimond) flawed understanding (logical fallacy) that says that if someone brought up in the Orthodox faith “knows” what the Catholic Church teaches with respect to the pope’s universal primacy of jurisdiction (for example), but doubts or denies his universal primacy because his ancient faith tradition tells him that the Bishop of Rome holds a primacy of honor, but not one of universal jurisdiction; nonetheless, the Eastern Orthodox member is ipso facto guilty of being obstinate and pertinacious in his doubt or denial of a Catholic dogma.

So, never mind what the Catholic Church teaches:

"However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church." (CCC 818)

Forever correcting the error-prone Catholic Church, Jehanne and others will have us believe that the “true teaching” holds that if someone simply “knows” of a dogma, then that knowledge ipso facto makes one's doubt or denial “obstinate” if the dogma is not accepted and professed upon hearing it; which is rather odd when one of the Dimond ringleaders for such a flawed rigorous interpretation also states:

“an example of a dogma or a truth of faith or a dogmatic fact that doesn't have to be known positively by all in order to be saved. It can never be rejected [Me: Not with obstinacy and pertinacity], but some people could be innocently ignorant of it or confused about it until the Church's teaching is pointed out to them or explained to them, because a Catholic is not bound to have a positive knowledge of all the teachings of the Church to be a Catholic. I hope that the reader is following me so far.”

There you go. An Orthodox Christian above the age of reason may be “confused” about the dogma of papal primacy when he does not even realize he is confused; especially when he receives and holds with his Church the faith tradition that says that the Bishop of Rome holds a primacy of honor and not one of universal jurisdiction.

No matter, if, after hearing the true doctrine he doubts or denies it, he is by that very fact considered an obstinate heretic who demonstrates a "pertinacious resistance to authority and/or the truth; a stubborn or perversely persistent rebelliousness."

And remember, this is an “obstinate heretic” who professes the same Faith as it was infallibly declared in the first seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church; the same Faith he professes today that he believes and “knows” to be the true Faith.

But, to Jehanne, Ffot and the Dimonds, he is an obstinate heretic ... end of “debate”.

Actually, the Church does in fact affirm that “they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." (CCC 846)

However, one can “know” of a teaching, while not being culpable for not “knowing” that the teaching is true and necessary for salvation. The Church teaches those who are born into separated particular churches and ecclesial communities are not ipso facto guilty of formal heresy and the sin of separation (i.e. formal schism) because they did not choose to separate from the Catholic Church, and they do not "know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ", as the CCC (847), teaches.

Once again we are left with the choice between trusting the teaching authority of the Church, versus the flawed understanding of a small number of radical “traditionalists”.

Jehanne, you took St. Thomas Aquinas completely out of context when he taught: “if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally”; and I will address this and your other responses in a subsequent post(s). Also, I went ahead and read your blog essay on “Canon 844, a betrayal of the Catholic Faith?” … which, I’m afraid, is fraught with error. I’ll get to that as well.

Tornpage, please note Van Noort’s constant reference to what is required for “membership in the Church”.

Also, it is no longer the “common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership” (I'm not sure it ever was), for “material heresy” is not heresy, but an innocent error. The visibility and unity of Christ's Church is NOT going to perish because there are “material heretics” within the Body of believers … good grief.

I understand that, Mike. But to me the point (and hurdle) remains: if one who is a joined as a member can be separated or severed by material heresy, how can one be in the state of being joined who is in a state (material heresy) that is such that it severs or separates an already "joined" member?

The only way I can reconcile this is if, in fact, Van Nort is wrong here. It seems to me that he has to be wrong if non-Catholic material heretics of good will are to be capable of being saved as part of the Body which is a necessity of means of salvation. Is he - first, as to the "common opinion"? If not, then the "common opinion" must have been rejected. Possible, but it's a relevant something I'd like to know.

Mike,

You've painted for us a picture of an Orthodox individual who is supposedly not guilty of heresy, but is just "confused" about the Truth. Since you have spent a great deal of time discussing inculpable ignorance on the part of an Orthodox individual, I am curious to know if you could describe a situation where an Orthodox person would be culpable for his/her ignorance. Under what circumstances could such culpability occur, if ever? Do you think that it would be possible for the Church to ever determine (i.e. judge) that an Orthodox individual was ever guilty of heresy and/or schism? Do you think that if the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared before an Orthodox individual and told that person to convert to the One True Faith & Church and he/she refused to do so, would that person then be culpable? Do you think that it is even possible for the One and Triune God, the Holy Spirit, to present an Orthodox individual with enough evidence and revelation for that person to ever be culpable for his/her unbelief?

I look forward to your other "critiques," but please, if you would, answer the above questions first.

columba wrote:Mike your argument is not with Columba; its with Pope Eugene IV.

I thought you of all people would bow to the authority of a Supreme Pontiff.

As you know, Columba, I am not averse to a healthy dose of sarcasm. It has its rightful place ... and I use it often.

But this type of sarcasm only demonstrates the extreme paucity of your own thinking, for in truth, I have absolutely no argument with Pope Eugene IV for I actually know how to read his words in the clear context of his Bull. In other words, I understand his words "as they are written", and as they are and always have been understood by the Church; and I have the magisterial authority of the Church behind me to confirm this truth.

I also know the difference between a solemn dogmatic definition and the accompanying contingent words providing context and further explanation; you obviously do not.

I also know what Pope Eugene IV meant with respect to those who are outside the Church who profess a false faith and who must be "joined with" Christ and His Body before death, and I know the importance of participating in the divine sacramental life of the Church and why those who do not "remain" and are severed from her through formal heresy and schism cannot take part in divine life, no matter how pious their works of charity appear, and no matter how loudly they profess their faith in Christ in shedding their blood for Him.

I also know, as the Church teaches and constant tradition affirms, that Pope Eugene IV had no intention of including in his solemn prescription the faith-filled martyr who sheds his blood for Christ without benefit of water Baptism, because not only is this not the subject or context of the Bull, a martyr who professes his faith in our Lord and desires to do His will in all things is NOT a self-professed Pagan, Jew or a Muslim, and neither is he a formal heretic or schismatic who does not "remain" in, and has been severed from, the Church. In fact, neither does the faith-filled martyr, who is IS in fact “joined with" Christ and "with Her … before death", and “remain[s] within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church” required to participate in the sacramental life of the ecclesiastical Church - he's already met his reward and is united to the Source of divine life and the Mystical Body in heaven.

I have absolutely no fear of being in "error" on this, because the Church alone is the authentic interpreter of the deposit of faith, and not you. As I asked you more than once, please provide just one approved theologian, a saint, a Doctor or pope, who, since the Council of Trent, agrees with your rigorous out-of-context interpretation that has Pope Eugene IV solemnly "rejecting" the Church's and tradition's teaching on baptism of blood, and/or who agrees with your rigorous and errant interpretation of Sess. 6, Ch. 4, which has Trent allegedly "rejecting" any notion of sanctification without the Sacrament of baptism.

Crickets ... do you hear them? It's getting rather deafening.

You cannot affirm what I affirm, and neither can you be assured that your position is true; because yours represents a constant battle of demonic confusion which sees the error-prone Catholic Church (on a matter of salvation, no less) engaged in an epic never-ending battle with herself where "competing magisteriums" fight it out over conflicting versions of Catholic doctrine; and, you would have us believe, she has been fighting with herself, with her saints, with her Doctors and with her theologians for going on two millennium.

You want sarcasm? Don't tempt me.

Mike,

I can only speak for myself, but I profess a divine and Catholic Faith in the truth that a martyr who dies for Christ within the "bosom and unity" of the Catholic Church would go straight to Paradise, even if that individual died without Baptism. So, what's your point? Again, I only speak for myself here.

However, earlier you said this:

And I will answer you again. He cannot be in the “bosom and unity of the ecclesiastical Church”, but he may be “joined with” the Mystical Body of Christ through the bonds of faith and charity, provided the aforementioned usual conditions are met. Please don’t make me go through this again. (Ha!)

Evidently, you believe that an individual can be in "the Mystical Body of Christ" while at the same time not be in the "bosom and unity of the ecclesiastical Church." Is this correct? If so, you seem to be contradicting what Pope Eugene IV declared:

"No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

You've painted for us a picture of an Orthodox individual who is supposedly not guilty of heresy, but is just "confused" about the Truth. Since you have spent a great deal of time discussing inculpable ignorance on the part of an Orthodox individual, I am curious to know if you could describe a situation where an Orthodox person would be culpable for his/her ignorance. Under what circumstances could such culpability occur, if ever? Do you think that it would be possible for the Church to ever determine (i.e. judge) that an Orthodox individual was ever guilty of heresy and/or schism?

Jehanne, I've already stated that on matters of secondary dogmas, the Orthodox individual can be guilty of formal heresy and schism before God. The Church has chosen not to render such a judgment ... as is her prerogative.

If I knew Orthodox individuals who addressed the Holy Father with the same shrill and foul accusations of heresy, apostasy and schism that we see amongst certain of the shameless sede contingent, I would have no problem in suspecting them of being formal heretics and schismatics, and would treat them accordingly, without usurping the authority of the Church in all such matters.

Jehanne wrote:
Do you think that if the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared before an Orthodox individual and told that person to convert to the One True Faith & Church and he/she refused to do so, would that person then be culpable?

Absolutely, if it were a true apparition. But, if he had any doubt whatsoever about its authenticity, private revelation is binding on no one.

Jehanne wrote:
Do you think that it is even possible for the One and Triune God, the Holy Spirit, to present an Orthodox individual with enough evidence and revelation for that person to ever be culpable for his/her unbelief?

If our Lord directly and explicitly reveals the secondary truths, and the fullness of the faith, there are no excuses. Of course, as an internal inspiration, especially at the point of death, we may never know of such a revelation.

I believe God does in fact reveal the fullness of the truth to each of His elect before one's particular judgment.

Jehanne,

Does the following from Father Hardon help at all or has this been reviewed before?

Teaching of the Church

Following the tradition of the Fathers, the doctrine of “no salvation outside the Church” was first repeated in the current papal documentation and finally, as occasion arose, solemnly defined by the Church’s magisterium.

Already in the fifth century, the Athanasian Creed or Quicumque was authorized for the sacred liturgy as a preparation for baptism. “Whoever wishes to be saved,” the Creed begins, “must, above all, keep the Catholic faith. For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire he will undoubtedly be lost forever.” [9] Curiously, the Church of England has retained the Quicumque in the Book of Common Prayer and one of the thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican communion prescribes its recitation. In America, the more liberal and logical Episcopalian Church has dropped the Athanasian Creed.

Unchallenged during the early Middle-Ages the necessity of the Church was defined by the Fourth Lateran (twelfth ecumenical) Council in 1215 A.D. While directly concerned with the Albigensian heresy, the council also formulated a profession of faith which began with the declaration, “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved and in which the priest himself, Jesus Christ, is the victim, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the appearances of bread and wine.” [10]

Early in the next century, Boniface VIII issued what is probably the most controverted document in papal history, the Bull Unam Santam. Issued to meet the caesaro-papalism of Philip IV, King of France, the bull so aroused the monarch that he ordered the pope’s residence to be broken into and the pontiff abused and taken captive. Boniface died shortly after being delivered by the townspeople of Anagni where he had fled from his enemies. Whatever controversy was provoked by the pope’s assertion of his right to depose erring kings, he made very sure that one of his statements would be expressed in the fullness of apostolic power. “We declare,” he concluded, “say, define and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.” [11] Taken in conjunction with an opening sentence of the bull, “Outside this Church thee is no salvation and no remission of sins,” the meaning of the definition cannot be misunderstood.

The last of a triad of definitions was made at the Council of Florence in 1442, where, after a breach of four centuries, the Eastern and Western Churches were temporarily reunited. On February 4 of that year, Pope Eugenius IV published a profession of Catholic belief to which the oriental dissidents (specifically the Jacobites) were required to subscribe. It is doubtful if a more uncompromising document has ever been issued by the Holy See.

“The holy Roman Church believes, professes and preaches that no one remaining outside the Catholic Church, not just pagans, but also Jews or heretics or schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life; but they will go to the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before the end of life they are joined to the Church. For union with the body of the Church is of such importance that the sacraments of the Church are helpful to salvation only for those remaining in it; and fasts, almsgiving, other works of piety, and the exercise of Christian warfare bear eternal rewards for them alone. And no one can be saved, no matter how much alms he has given, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” [12]
Even a cursory reading of this profession of faith will confirm the opinion that it is “the ne plus ultra of Catholic intransigence” and a most unequivocal statement of the Church’s indispensability.

Quote from Fr Hardon as posted by George:

“We declare,” he concluded, “say, define and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.” [11] Taken in conjunction with an opening sentence of the bull, “Outside this Church thee is no salvation and no remission of sins,” the meaning of the definition cannot be misunderstood.

Hmm... Are you quite sure about that father?

vis-à-vis the Orthodox, I thought the following news article concerning a statement by Metropolitan Kirill from 2009 was interesting:

Moscow, January 21, Interfax - There can be no room for any compromises on belief-preaching issues in the dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, Metropolitan Kirill, the Moscow Patriarchate Locum Tenens, said in an interview published in the Argumenty i Fakty weekly on Wednesday.

"The Roman Catholic Church's position on many issues of social life is closer to the Orthodox point of view [than that of the Protestants]. Anyway, we bear in mind a whole range of differences in the belief-preaching and practice of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. No compromises can be made in this area," he said.

As for the Russian Church's relations with foreign faiths, "all parties are aware of all existing fundamental differences," Metropolitan Kirill said. "And the very fact of our dialogue does not mean that we seek to become a single entity," he said.

"For instance, Russia maintains relations with the U.S., but it by no means seeks to become one of the American states," he added.

Differences in the belief-preaching and religious practice of the Orthodox Church and foreign faiths "are now growing," Metropolitan Kirill said. "Relations have completely been severed" with some of the Protestant communities - the Lutheran Church of Sweden and the U.S. Episcopal Church - "because of their official approval of homosexuals," he said.

The Orthodox Church is "that One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church through which God opens the road toward eternal life," he said.

I take it Kirill hasn't heard about the new and improved "Church of Christ" ecclesiastical model.

And then a week later,

Benedict XVI, General Audience, Wednesday, 28 January 2009:

Before greeting the Italian pilgrims, I have three more announcements to make.

The first: I have received with joy the news of the election of Metropolitan Kirill as the new Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. I invoke the light of the Holy Spirit upon him for a generous service to the Russian Orthodox Church, entrusting him to the special protection of the Mother of God.

The second: in the Homily pronounced on the occasion of the solemn inauguration of my Pontificate, I said that an "explicit" duty of the Pastor is the "call to unity", and commenting on the Gospel passage about the miraculous catch, I said: "although the fish were so many, the net was not torn". I then followed with these Gospel words: "Alas, beloved Lord, with sorrow we must now acknowledge that it has been torn!". I continued, "But no we must not be sad! Let us rejoice because of your promise, which does not disappoint, and let us do all we can to pursue the path towards the unity you have promised.... Do not allow your net to be torn, and help us to be servants of unity!" (Installation Mass, 24 April 2005).

Actually, check the lines, the net must still be intact; it's just that it's been cast aside, and a flayed, moth-eaten Nouvelle model put in it's place.

Also, when he said,

I then followed with these Gospel words: "Alas, beloved Lord, with sorrow we must now acknowledge that it has been torn!".

... he wasn't quoting the Gospel, but himself.

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

I can only speak for myself, but I profess a divine and Catholic Faith in the truth that a martyr who dies for Christ within the "bosom and unity" of the Catholic Church would go straight to Paradise, even if that individual died without Baptism. So, what's your point? Again, I only speak for myself here.

My point is, I was addressing columba.

However, if you insist, I also remember asking you that if you truly believed this doctrine, especially as a matter of "divine and Catholic Faith", why do you always seem to be arguing against it by suggesting that it is somehow opposed to the dogma on water Baptism? After all, as you are always telling us, baptism of blood (a matter of "divine and Catholic Faith") is an irrelevant null-set theory that absolutely never happens because Divine Providence will ensure that the precept of Baptism, the "perfection" of God's glory, is fulfilled - AS IF it "must be fulfilled" if God is to remain true to His promise; and AS IF baptism of blood is not actually salvific in its own right.

Is baptism of blood, in and of itself, salvific ... or isn't it? You must believe it is (its a matter of "divine and Catholic Faith"), yet it does not appear that you actually believe it - for you are forever arguing against it as if it is a meaningless throw-away "dogma" that for some reason NEVER happens, and AS IF it were insufficient for salvation, and all of those teachings and the tradition that suggest that it actually does happen are NOT to be taken seriously.

Very odd, that. Anyway, I shudder at the prospect of getting bogged down in that discussion again.

Jehanne wrote:However, earlier you said this:

And I will answer you again. He cannot be in the “bosom and unity of the ecclesiastical Church”, but he may be “joined with” the Mystical Body of Christ through the bonds of faith and charity, provided the aforementioned usual conditions are met. Please don’t make me go through this again. (Ha!)

Evidently, you believe that an individual can be in "the Mystical Body of Christ" while at the same time not be in the "bosom and unity of the ecclesiastical Church." Is this correct? If so, you seem to be contradicting what Pope Eugene IV declared:

"No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

OK, this can get confusing, and my statement was a bit misleading, so let's try it again. Short answer to your claim of contradiction: No, that is not correct. The key section of the first part of my statement is "ecclesiastical Church"; meaning, of course the visible institutional Church, and also meaning that one may not be in the "bosom and unity" of this same corporate body as an external and formal "member"; but, when joined to Christ as His member, one must also be within the "bosom and unity" of the ecclesiastical Church, at least internally, and externally -- in voto.

There is only one Church of Christ and there is only one Mystical Body. The visible ecclesiastical Church on earth (the Church Militant) IS the Mystical Body, but the Mystical Body is NOT confined to external membership in the ecclesiastical Church, since there are those who are united to Christ and His Church who are not external "members" of the ecclesiastical Body.

Again, whoever is united to Christ as His member, is united to His Body, but not always as a visible member.

Perhaps it will help if we look at the definition of the Council of Florence:

"Holy baptism holds the first place among all the sacraments, for it is the gate of the spiritual life; through it we become members of Christ and of the body of the church."

By becoming members of Christ, we become members of the Church, but, to use the example of the non-baptized martyr, to become a member of Christ does not necessitate external membership with the ecclesiastical body, but it does necessitate being "joined with" (at least internally) the ecclesiastical Body, which also means membership in voto; or, as St. Thomas Aquinas put it, virtual or "mental incorporation."

It is faith, but most of all charity that unites a soul to Christ, the head of the Mystical Body, as a living member; and in fact, as at least one Pope proclaimed, no other bond is necessary for salvation for someone already united to Christ in Charity.

Unitatis Redintegratio teaches the same dogma (of course), as Florence, though the English translation presented here is misleading:

... all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church. (Unitatis Redintegratio, 3)

As Brian Cross says:

"First, the translation is misleading. The Latin does not say "are members of Christ's body." It reads, "Christo incorporantur," i.e. are incorporated into Christ. ... The Council of Florence is only teaching that baptism makes one a member of the Body of Christ. It is not teaching that baptized persons who deny some article of the Catholic faith, or who are in a state of excommunication or are in schism from the Church, are members of the Church. The meaning of this phrase "Christo incorporantur" in Unitatis Redintegratio (3) in reference to Protestants is specified earlier in that same paragraph, which explains, "For men who believe in Christ had have been properly baptized are brought into a certain, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Undoubtedly, the differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church -- whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church -- do indeed create many and sometimes serious obstacles to full ecclesiastical communion." As soon as a baptized person denies some article of the Catholic faith, or separates himself from the visible unity of the Catholic Church, then he is no longer a member in the proper sense defined by Mystici Corporis Christi, even though he is imperfectly joined to the Church through baptism. (http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/search/label/Schism)

OK, Jehanne, my turn.

"No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

Can you explain, if baptism of blood is an article of divine and Catholic Faith, how the un-Baptized martyr is joined with the ecclesiastical Church, the Mystical Body of Christ?

Should be easy!

MRyan wrote:

"No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

Can you explain, if baptism of blood is an article of divine and Catholic Faith, how the un-Baptized martyr is joined with the ecclesiastical Church, the Mystical Body of Christ?

Should be easy!

It is -- From my blog (sorry, it's just easier to "copy and paste"):

At the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517) Pope Leo X reaffirmed the teaching of Boniface VIII: “Where the necessity of salvation is concerned all the faithful of Christ must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, as we are taught by Holy Scripture, the testimony of the holy fathers, and by that constitution of our predecessor of happy memory, Boniface VIII, which begins Unam Sanctam.”

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/right-wing-liberals-and-unam-sanctam.html

Even if someone is martyred for Christ, that individual is still "subject to the Roman Pontiff," which places him/her inside the Church. (We both agree, of course, that martyrdom outside the Church would not avail someone to everlasting life.) Note that Pope Leo X did not say "all the baptized..." but "all the faithful..."

So, even if there are unbaptized martyrs in Paradise (however, we're back to "proving negatives again," especially, if angels truly do exist and can sacramentally baptize), a necessary but not sufficient condition would still be submission to the Roman Pontiff.

That there could be unbaptized individuals in Heaven has always been a "side issue" for me and is completely irrelevant to my "Feeneyism." (Of course, I cannot and do not speak for other individuals, just myself.)

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:

"No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

Can you explain, if baptism of blood is an article of divine and Catholic Faith, how the un-Baptized martyr is joined with the ecclesiastical Church, the Mystical Body of Christ?

Should be easy!

It is -- From my blog (sorry, it's just easier to "copy and paste"):

At the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517) Pope Leo X reaffirmed the teaching of Boniface VIII: “Where the necessity of salvation is concerned all the faithful of Christ must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, as we are taught by Holy Scripture, the testimony of the holy fathers, and by that constitution of our predecessor of happy memory, Boniface VIII, which begins Unam Sanctam.”

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/04/right-wing-liberals-and-unam-sanctam.html

Even if someone is martyred for Christ, that individual is still "subject to the Roman Pontiff," which places him/her inside the Church. (We both agree, of course, that martyrdom outside the Church would not avail someone to everlasting life.) Note that Pope Leo X did not say "all the baptized..." but "all the faithful..."

So, even if there are unbaptized martyrs in Paradise (however, we're back to "proving negatives again," especially, if angels truly do exist and can sacramentally baptize), a necessary but not sufficient condition would still be submission to the Roman Pontiff.

That there could be unbaptized individuals in Heaven has always been a "side issue" for me and is completely irrelevant to my "Feeneyism." (Of course, I cannot and do not speak for other individuals, just myself.)

Jehanne, you are explicitly contradicting yourself.

You are actually suggesting in your referenced blog entry (as an infallible article of Faith) that the last minute convert to the true faith who sheds his blood for Christ (for example), must have an "explicit faith in the Supremacy of the Roman Church (hence, explicit submission to the Roman Pontiff)", and you cite the following as "proof":

7) The Council of Constance infallibly declared the need for explicit faith in the Supremacy of the Roman Church (hence, explicit submission to the Roman Pontiff):

Condemned Error 41: It is not necessary for salvation to believe that the Roman church is supreme among the other churches. (Council of Constance)

Actually, the Council of Constance did NOT infallibly declare that it is necessary for salvation to have an explicit faith in the Supremacy of the Roman Church (hence, explicit submission to the Roman Pontiff)", it declared that it is necessary to believe that the Roman Church (as the one true Church of Christ) is supreme among the other churches. And it mentions nothing of an "explicit submission" to the Roman Pontiff, that is the flawed conclusion of your flawed syllogism that goes something like this:

1. It is necessary for salvation "to believe that that the Roman church is supreme among the other churches"
2. "To believe" suggests that it is necessary to have an explicit faith in the Supremacy of the Roman Church
3. Since the Pope is he head of the Church, it it is necessary, therefore, to have an "explicit submission to the Roman Pontiff"

Both the second premise and, therefore, your conclusion, are flawed. They are assumptions on your part that do not necessarily flow from the infallible premise; as such, your syllogism is a logical fallacy.

On a historical note, "Condemned Error 41", as the Council affirmed, is the condemned error of "that pseudo-Christian John Wyclif" who "stubbornly asserted and taught many articles against the Christian religion and the Catholic faith while he was alive."

And, as we know, Wyclif is considered a precursor of the Protestant Reformation. He was a philosophical Realist, a strong predestinarian, and an opponent of monasticism and the doctrine of transubstantiation.

In condemning this specific error of Wyclif, the Council was NOT condemning the doctrine that recognizes that under certain circumstances one may have an implicit belief in the supremacy of the true Church of Christ, while possessing a supernatural faith in the essential mysteries.

You really should correct your blog.

tornpage wrote:
It may be possible for someone to be joined to the Body without baptism or the external profession of the necessary faith, as in the case of a conversion just before death.

Yet, how can someone be joined to the Body outside of which there is no salvation if they externally (publicly) deny a dogma of the faith and publicly proclaim a different faith? Why reach this issue of pertinacity, willfulness, ignorance, etc. in such a case?

In other words, while some may be joined to the Church in some cases without their being an external expression of the faith, how can anyone be joined to the Church if they publicly and externally deny a dogma of the faith of the Church?

It remains that one is either inside or outside, right?

Yes, but it comes down to whether one may be in good-faith error on a secondary dogma while holding right belief in the primary (essential) dogmas.

With respect to the case of the Eastern Orthodox child who reaches the age of reason and was taught, and now affirms the papal primacy of honor doctrine that is the received tradition of his faith; are you saying that our Faith suggests that this child (or adult) cannot be internally united to the Church by the bonds of faith and charity, while having the implicit desire to be united to the visible ecclesiastical Church (the desire to do the will of God) while being in material error on a secondary dogma?

Think of it this way, the Foot and Columba "doctrine" holds that this same Baptized child (who has reached the age of reason), even if he were to shed his blood for Christ, could NOT be saved because he had not been externally joined to the ecclesiastical Body, which means that neither could he be internally joined to the Church through the bonds of faith and charity. They also hold that this same baptized child is a formal heretic and schismatic who cannot profit by the Sacraments of the Church.

Of course, Foot will also affirm that this same child (above the age of reason), who is NOT a "member" of the Catholic Church because he does NOT profess the Catholic faith whole and inviolate, and he is NOT in union with or subject to the Pope. If, however, he is in invincible ignorance or confused about papal primacy (and not otherwise guilty of obstinate heresy), then, Foot believes, he is STILL a Roman Catholic (a baptized member of the Faithful) by virtue of his Baptism and the true Faith thus received, but a Faith he does not now profess whole and inviolate. And, he is STILL in union with the Pope even though he is not in visible union with him, and does not recognize his universal Primacy.

And Foot doesn't see his contradiction. What can I tell you?

It remains that one is either inside or outside, right? Right. And one can be joined internally (inside) without being joined externally as a "member".

MRyan wrote:You really should correct your blog.

Perhaps you need to read more of it. I do not, for a minute, deny that genuine implicit faith can exist in the all the articles of the Catholic Faith. Neither does the St. Benedict Center, however, of course, I am just speaking for myself here, and not them. True implicit faith in all the articles of the Catholic Church is always, however, encapsulated within the realm of genuine explicit faith, or at the very least, genuine implicit faith (for the sake of argument, I will grant you "that one.") True implicit faith can never hold a contrary position, at least an obstinate one, to genuine explicit faith or explicit submission to the Roman Pontiff or any article of the Catholic Faith. To claim otherwise is to deny human free will and/or the Providence of the One and Triune God.

So, let's take this one:

There can be no room for any compromises on belief-preaching issues in the dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, Metropolitan Kirill, the Moscow Patriarchate Locum Tenens, said in an interview published in the Argumenty i Fakty weekly on Wednesday...The Orthodox Church is "that One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church through which God opens the road toward eternal life," he said.

Now, you can say that Patriarchate Locum Tenens labors in "invincible ignorance" of the Truth or that Christ will, at Tenens' death, reveal to him the fullness of Truth. However, to say that Tenens' accepts, at this very moment (unless his dead, of course), Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam is just plain false. He doesn't accept it; in fact, he rejects it, by his own words. If you asked him personally, he would tell you this. In fact, he would agree with me that he rejects Papal Primacy and many, but not all, of the dogmas of the Catholic Faith, and that he would even (no doubt proudly) admit that he does so in an "obstinate manner." He would agree with me that he has free will, and that it is an insult to his person hood and humanity for you or anyone else to tell him that he believes in things which he explicit says that he does not believe in. He would probably tell you to stop saying that he believes, even implicitly, in things that he does not believe in. He may even sue you over that, for libel and slander.

You've also admitted to me that our Lord Jesus Christ is at least capable of revealing His Truth to individuals such Tenens, and that our Lord could do so in such a way that would make Tenens fully culpable for his unbelief. If so, I am completely satisfied with that. Tenens is a heretic, whether it be material or formal is irrelevant; our Lord knows this, not me, and perhaps He will forgive Tenens; I hope that He does, as I hope that He forgives me. But, until then, Tenens is still a heretic and I will not pray, commune, etc. with him until he renounces all of his errors and fully professes publicly Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam, and by that, I mean all of that which is declared and taught in Pope Boniface VIII's Papal bull.

Mike,
to give credit where credit's due, I commend your new approach in sticking more to the arguments and concentrating less on the personalities. I for one can comprehend your points more clearly when not getting side-tracked by ad hominen. However, understanding your points more clearly doesn't equal agreement with them but does help in responding to them.

For example:

MRyan wrote:
Think of it this way, the Foot and Columba "doctrine" holds that this same Baptized child (who has reached the age of reason), even if he were to shed his blood for Christ, could NOT be saved because he had not been externally joined to the ecclesiastical Body, which means that neither could he be internally joined to the Church through the bonds of faith and charity. They also hold that this same baptized child is a formal heretic and schismatic who cannot profit by the Sacraments of the Church.

Speaking for myself I refute your assessment of the "Columba doctrine" as an over-simplification of my position. IMO this over-simplifying -or the disuniting of one truth from another- allows for such faith-dismantling practices as Assisi and the Catholic/Lutheran agreement on Justification.

I've never held to the principle that there can be no hope of salvation for a validly baptized Christian of any sect or creed. The search for truth -being a process- dependant on good will on the part of the seeker and the help of grace on God's part, -could in theory- take one right to the deathbed and even to the final breath. The unfortunate thing is, in recent times no distinction has been made beween the individual and the sect itself. When Benedict XVI commended the "great religion of Islam," he was referiing to the sect itself as distinct from its individual members, a sect ( not the individuals) that should be despised and utterly anathematized by all right-thinking Catholics. Unfortunately for those individual members (as opposed to those in Christian sects), none are baptized -save but a few who have been converts from Christianity- and thus none of them have hope of salvation without the laver of regeneration.

How those such as the Othodox -who are "merely" schismatic and have valid but illicitly ministered sacraments that are not efficacious outside the unity of the Holy Roman Catholic Church- are to receive benefits to salvation I do not know; what I do know is that those who seek God with a sincere heart will convert and become Catholic before death.

As for the child who reaches the age of reason and believes -via his parents- that the bishop of Rome holds only a position of primacy of honor, he is still being conned so to speak by a lie. Now as all lies originate from the father of lies, his parents are being instruments of the devil (even if it be on their part unwittingly so) and all who believe the lie (as Our Lord says) do not have God as their Father.
Popes throughout the centuries have preached the truth to those in schism and anathematized them for their stubborness in persisting in their error. If this stubborness has ramifications concerning the faith of their offspring then this is through no fault of the Church and certainly through no injustice on God's part. If it were the case that believing lies had no negative bearing on ones hope of salvation then why bother preaching the truth in the first place.

The fact that the anathema's have gone, so too has the hope of combating (never mind defeating) the error gone with them.

Excellent points Jehanne.

Columba said:

Hmm... Are you quite sure about that father?( Father Hardon )

In my way of thinking, some of the discussions posted are over my head. That is why I profess to believe all that the Catholic Church teaches as Truth to be believed in regards to Faith and Doctrine, whether I can fully grasp it or not.. I personally think Father Hardon along with many other Catholics, whether it was when I was a child or Novus Order or the Latin Mass (1962) which I would prefer we would go back to entirely to resolve the Crisis in Faith. During the time of the exclusive Latin Mass, the Catholic Faith was taught more specifically with clarity and almost all Catholics being on the same page of what must be believed along with strong examples for family Catholic life. If we only point out the faults and abuses we dwell on the negative which can only lead to bitterness and a hardened heart. Yes , I believe that we must defend the faith, for silence is approval.
But to lump everyone together is misuse of Charity and leads one down a dead end road. We can never compromise our Faiths teachings but too judge wrongly is a serious sin for which we are accountable before God.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:You really should correct your blog.

Perhaps you need to read more of it. I do not, for a minute, deny that genuine implicit faith can exist in the all the articles of the Catholic Faith. Neither does the St. Benedict Center, however, of course, I am just speaking for myself here, and not them. True implicit faith in all the articles of the Catholic Church is always, however, encapsulated within the realm of genuine explicit faith, or at the very least, genuine implicit faith (for the sake of argument, I will grant you "that one.") True implicit faith can never hold a contrary position, at least an obstinate one, to genuine explicit faith or explicit submission to the Roman Pontiff or any article of the Catholic Faith. To claim otherwise is to deny human free will and/or the Providence of the One and Triune God.

Jehanne, there is no need to go further until you resolve your contradictory and errant reading of "Condemned Error 41".

You are simply talking right past the real issue and going on and on about "implicit faith" being encapsulated within the realm of genuine explicit faith, as if this is the issue - it is NOT. You said quite explicitly (and erroneously) that "The Council of Constance infallibly declared the need ["necessary for salvation"] for explicit faith in the Supremacy of the Roman Church (hence, explicit submission to the Roman Pontiff)".

Nowhere in your essay do you qualify this by saying that the "need" for an explicit faith in the supremacy of the Church (and hence, explicit submission to the Roman Pontiff) may be satisfied by an implicit faith/submission (with respect to its necessity for salvation). And, given your track record in saying that an implicit desire for baptism and to become a member of the Church must become explicit before death, it's no wonder.

In fact, in your essay "Implicit submission, another absurdity", you say:

As the ex cathedra pronouncement by Pope Boniface VIII states, "it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." As with implicit faith, the modernistic response to this infallible declaration is to say that non-Catholics can have implicit submission to the Pope. As my posts on implicit faith demonstrate, such an idea is manifestly absurd.

It is manifestly absurd to say you "do not, for a minute, deny that genuine implicit faith can exist in the all the articles of the Catholic Faith" and to then call it manifestly absurd to hold that one may have an implicit faith in the secondary dogma on papal primacy through one's explicit faith in the primary dogmas.

This is simply a blatant contradiction.

From your same essay:

What about the Orthodox?

If someone of the Orthodox Church denies the Primacy of the Pope, Vicar of God, or any other Catholic dogma, then that individual has fallen from grace and is in a state of mortal sin.

To try and use the Argument from Geography that an individual who was baptized and raised as Orthodox cannot be guilty of schism is to say that someone who is raised in Russia cannot be guilty of espionage. This logic is absurd, and constitutes a denial of human free will and/or alleges the "insufficiency" of the One and Triune God's Revelation to His Creation.

Yes, this straw-man is absurd: The "Orthodox cannot be guilty of schism". The Church has NEVER taught that, and neither have I. Neither is there any qualification with respect to the Orthodox and the Church's teaching on formal heresy; another distinction you can't seem to be bothered with. Anyone who doubts or "denies the Primacy of the Pope" has no excuse, ergo, ipso facto he is guilty of formal heresy and schism. So elegant in its simplicity; and so wrong.

On this issue of the Supremacy of the Church (and submission to the Roman Pontiff), however, that you "do not, for a minute, deny that genuine implicit faith can exist in all the articles of the Catholic Faith", is completely irrelevant, for we are not talking about implicit faith, but your erroneous assertion that says the Council of Constance infallibly declared that an "explicit faith in the Supremacy of the Roman Church", and "hence, "an explicit submission to the Roman Pontiff" is necessary for salvation.

Forgetting for a minute your totally incoherent statement that has "True implicit faith ... encapsulated within ... genuine implicit faith"; neither can you count on St. Thomas Aquinas to bail you out by appealing to his teaching that says an explicit faith in Christ was at all times necessary for salvation (but not at all time to everyone), for his argument was based on his belief that "the object of faith includes, properly and directly, that thing through which man obtains beatitude. Now the mystery of Christ's Incarnation and Passion is the way by which men obtain beatitude"; and, "submission to the Roman Pontiff" is NOT "the object of faith", for it does not "include that thing through which man obtains beatitude".

I do not need to read more of your blog (unfortunately, it is filled with like errors), I was hoping you would start to pay attention to what you are writing, and to correct your errant and contradictory statements.

Seriously, if you are going to write a Catholic blog, you need to shake the cobwebs and go back to the drawing board from time to time ... there's nothing wrong with admitting error.

Mike,

Here is the statement from the Council of Constance:

The Council of Constance infallibly declared the need for explicit faith in the Supremacy of the Roman Church (hence, explicit submission to the Roman Pontiff):

Condemned Error 41: It is not necessary for salvation to believe that the Roman church is supreme among the other churches. (Council of Constance)

Just as the opposite of "not guilty" in American Law is not necessarily "innocent" (the third, implicit, category exists of "not proved"), so, too, several possibilities exist with respect to belief in Papal Primacy and/or any other dogma of the Catholic faith on the part of any baptized individual:

1) As an act of that person's own free will, an individual affirms that the dogma of Papal Infallibility & Primacy is true, a divinely revealed Truth from the One and Triune God.

2) As an act of that person's own free will, an individual affirms, as a denial, that the dogma of Papal Infallibility & Primacy is false, and is not a divinely revealed Truth from the One and Triune God.

3) Perhaps willfully or not, as a result of having free will or lacking it, in whole or in part, (such as in the case of a baptized infant, someone mentally retarded, etc.), an individual neither affirms, either positively or negatively, the truth or falsity of the dogma of Papal Infallibility & Primacy.

Saint Thomas made it clear that all teachings of the Catholic Faith are to be accepted:

"After grace had been revealed, both learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above ( Question 1, Article 8 ). As to other minute points in reference to the articles of the Incarnation, men have been bound to believe them more or less explicitly according to each one's state and office." (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, q.2, a.7)

All the baptized, without exception, are bound to profess "divine & Catholic faith" in both Papal Infallibility & Primacy, being dogmas of the Catholic faith and divinely revealed truths. One can never, as an act of his or her own free will, choose not to believe. I know that you do not disagree with this.

What, apparently, you do not agree with is that virtually all Orthodox & Protestant individuals beyond the age of 14 will happily admit to being in Category #2. If you do not believe this, just ask them. Virtually all will happily profess that, "It is not necessary for salvation to believe that the Roman church is supreme among the other churches." What is absurd is the fact that you and many other modernists within the Church would have us believe that there are large segments of individuals who are visibly outside of her canonical bounds who have "implicit faith" in Catholic dogmas which they, by their own admission & testimony, explicitly deny, such as the aforementioned truth of the Roman Church's supremacy.

As for my blog, I am satisfied with it, and not planning on any major revisions. I do have some minor edits to make and some additional material to include at a later date.

George Brenner wrote: Mike,

Excluding the sarcasm, which by the way I think is a lost art , but does hurt people( I should know, I used to be the King of Sarcasm) your post explaining No Salvation Outside The Catholic Church is well done and very much appreciated. Thanks for taking the time to do this. If it is read and re read it reinforces why Our Church is a Church for all ages. I will take one for the team since I need the following request for my conversations with people in my daily life. Would you be so kind, Mike as to explain this one more time as if you were teaching this to a 6th to 8th grader. This will have a big impact on the times we live in.

JMJ,

Your Friend,

George,

I've made a concerted effort to knock down the sarcasm a notch or two, but its in my blood and it will always come out, even if I tone it down.

Besides, Columba loves a good thrashing with the sarcasm wet noodle; he just won't admit it.

But seriously, have you read some of the stuff on this forum? See, there I go again!

Thanks for the kind words, but I'm not sure I have the stamina or wherewithal to "explain this one more time as if you were teaching this to a 6th to 8th grader." I think you give me too much credit.

Why don't you ask me for some clarification on a specific point, as needed?

I hope that's agreeable.

You know, Tornpage is the "deep" one; I understand very little of what he actually says ... I just fake it. Sometimes I think he's on to me. He starts quoting the master theologians from some obscure book I never heard of; or gets in one of his predestinarian moods, and my eyes glaze over.

Jehanne,

Never mind.

Mike,

You get a line and I'll get a pole ,Mickey
You get a line and I'll get a pole Bubba
You get Brew , I'll get some jerky and we'll meet at the old fishing hole
Where we can discuss the Catholic faith all night long

.....all invited

columba wrote:
Mike your argument is not with Columba; its with Pope Eugene IV.

I thought you of all people would bow to the authority of a Supreme Pontiff.

As you know, Columba, I am not averse to a healthy dose of sarcasm. It has its rightful place ... and I use it often.

But this type of sarcasm only demonstrates the extreme paucity of your own thinking, for in truth, I have absolutely no argument with Pope Eugene IV for I actually know how to read his words in the clear context of his Bull. In other words, I understand his words "as they are written", and as they are and always have been understood by the Church; and I have the magisterial authority of the Church behind me to confirm this truth.

Ok Mike; minus the sarcasm (intended to highlight what I perceive to be double standards in your argument) I feel justified in drawing the fire away from myself and focussing your grievence at the author of the text in question, namely: Pope Eugene IV.
If my thinking is deficient "in the extreme" then I can only answer that I've read the same text as you. You claim too have read it in context but in my view haven't done so in the even wider context of tradition where it is plain to see that the Church (from its very foundation by Christ, handed on by the apostles) has always been considered (as prefigured by the Ark), the only vessal by which one can be saved. Either one is in the vessal or one is not. As I have already said, your mode of thinking renders it impossible -this side of the grave- to determine who is and who is not a member of the Church and actually defeats your own argument you use against the sedevacantist concerning the visibility of the Church.

Mike, I have more to say but someone has just called so please excuse. Be back soon.