Latest topics
» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Yesterday at 4:34 pm by MRyan

» Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:24 pm by MRyan

» Revisiting Diocese/Parish Screening Policy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:03 pm by MRyan

» When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:08 pm by MRyan

» Doctrinal talks were conducted with Fr.Gleize on 'the other side'
Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:08 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Pope Benedict permitted Fr. Jean Marie Gleize to lead in doctrinal talks since he was a liberal ?
Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:59 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Padre Pio told Fr.Gabriel Amorth," It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church" -Bishop Richard Williamson
Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Mons. Brunero Gherardini misled the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and many traditionalists
Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Official statement from SSPX awaited : Fr.Gleize and other theologians have got it wrong
Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Andre Marie MICM too is teaching error : Bishop Sanborn cannot report at the Chancery office
Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:50 am by Lionel L. Andrades

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  tornpage on Mon Feb 27, 2012 2:44 pm

Mike,

Yes, that was a good discussion, and I do not want to derail the thread.

I'll close by taking the liberty of quoting here the following from Cardinal Dulles regarding Father Harrison (very nice; as you note, it's positive):

Brian Harrison is a very acute reader of magisterial documents. He is correct, I believe, in saying that Vatican II does not reject the positions I have ascribed to Thomas Aquinas. His use of Dominus Iesus is ingenious. His supposition of a final illumination, although it lacks direct support from Scripture and tradition, in no way contradicts them and relieves his theory of the harshness that might otherwise be found in it. Harrison's minority position is internally consistent and fully orthodox. Its principal weakness is its reliance on the dubious hypothesis of large-scale end-of-life conversions.

Of course, the position Cardinal Dulles ascribes to St. Thomas is: "whenever the Angelic Doctor speaks of the faith required for salvation under the new law, he always requires explicit belief in the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation."

I don't understand the statement that Father Harrison's "supposition of a final illumination" contradicts tradition, since St. Thomas himself believed that those in lands beyond the reach of the Gospel who were to attain the beatific vision would either have such an illumination or have an earthly or heavenly minister of the Gospel come to them. And I don't think Father Harrison believes that such illuminations will be "large-scale" - in fact, I think he references the fewness of the elect or those who will be saved, but I could be wrong there.

I think I have come to the point where I accept that the opposition between those holding to explicit faith and those allowing an implicit faith is sanctioned by the Church. As I noted, it's like the dispute between the Dominican Thomists and the Jesuit Molinists as to grace: the Church permits both views.

As long as Father Harrison's (and my) view remains at least a "minority position . . . fully orthodox," I'm good.

Cardinal Dulles also notes that that view is "internally consistent." No kidding. I don't need no Cardinal . . .

Never mind. Smile
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  tornpage on Mon Feb 27, 2012 2:52 pm

Let me amend. Cardinal Dulles says that Father Harrison's view of a final illumination "lacks direct support" in Scripture or Tradition. I say St. Thomas spoke of such an illumination, and that St. Thomas was speaking from Tradition in doing so. I believe the view can be traced back about another thousand years to St. Augustine.

That would be direct support in Tradition.
avatar
tornpage

Posts : 856
Reputation : 919
Join date : 2010-12-31

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  George Brenner on Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:21 pm



One can only wander how simply the Saint, Father Damien would answer these questions........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=y_eR87PnCr8#t=190s...



avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  MRyan on Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:40 pm

George Brenner wrote:

One can only wander how simply the Saint, Father Damien would answer these questions........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=y_eR87PnCr8#t=190s...
He would say, "Where Peter is, there is the Church!"

I'm sure of it.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  George Brenner on Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:53 pm

Ah yes,

I mean to be able to ask one of our most recent Saints, the very question(s) on this forum would have been a blessing.. I am sure that Saints walk among us and influence us when we least expect it.
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  columba on Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:56 pm

Mike, I don't know if you are deliberately extracting a contrary meaning from what I've said but what you are arguing against in my post is all straw man stuff.
It looks like that in order to find a way to oppose what I say you must invent apparent contradictions that in reality do not exist.

Here goes again.

columba wrote:
And, is one not an external member who, having been validly baptized, rejects no known dogma of the Catholic Faith?

Yes, so long as he is in visible communion with the Catholic Church (external unity with the one Body).

This is what I mean by inventing contradictions. You have agreed with this but still insisted in inserting a caveat as if I have rejected what your caveat implies. For instance, how could he not be in external communion if he has not rejected any dogma of the faith. When he rejects the dogma not only does he cease to be an external member but also ceases to be and internal member by his internal submission to a false belief of his sect.

columba wrote:
The irony here is; if what you are saying is true you are in agreement with me, that one cannot be an external member of the Church who internally professes a faith other than that of the Catholic faith.

There is no irony, for I am not in agreement with you, and you are not paying attention. One CAN in fact be an external member when only making the appearance of holding or professing the true faith, while internally holding a false faith. This is known as “occult” or secret heresy, which makes any of the Baptized a dead internal member of the Church, while remaining an external member of the Church Militant.

You also erroneously said that no one can be an external member without being an internal member (and vice versa).

No Mike, it is you who are not paying attention.
What I said regarding this was that the external membership avails him nothing once he has internally rejected the faith. It's reality that counts, not theological conjecture. In real terms it matters not that he be called and external member, his fate remains that of the Pagan or Jew unless before death he renounce his error.

You also erroneously defined “External Church membership” as having “to do with ones internal spiritual disposition in regards to the Church, i.e, ones adherence to those things essential for salvation.”

Again, in real terms, his nominal external membership is useless to him for achieving salvation.
His spiritual disposition in reality IS important. Calling one a member does not give membership rewards unless the disposition is correct.
This is the whole point I've been pushing in regards to the Church's new theology on membership. Assuming internal membership does not equal actual internal membership. Actually the reverse is the case. Non-external membership assumes non-internal membership. Even the full faith-professing Catholic who has never rejected any dogma of the faith, while not having been officially indoctrinated into the Catholic Church must be assumed to be internally -and thus externally- seperated, even if in reality he is neither.

In other words, as you continue down this same errant path (one error begets another), you next equate external Church membership with “the catholicity of a soul”, as in “What does determine the catholicity of a soul is his holding the faith, whole and entire”; meaning, membership in the Church is determined by an internal and external unity in faith (the body must profess the same faith as the soul).

As I've said above, when dealing in reality, the body must profess the same faith as the soul in order to benefit from its external membership. And, as the Church declares, an non-external member must become an internal member else even his own sacraments celebrated outside the visible unity avail him nothing.
Was the Church here making a disciplinary ruling or stating a fact. I propose that in view of the dogmatic tone of the pronouncement she was stating a truth of the faith.

He remains truly Catholic in both senses; externally and internally”, while at the same time “‘he is not an external member’ … of the Catholic Church”.

Now your adding your own words and in the process changing the meaning of mine.
This is to be expected when ones back is against the wall.

So please don’t insult me by telling me that we are in agreement, and that no real difference stands between us since we are essentially saying the same thing.

No, to both.

Your inculpable ignorance time is just about up.

I don't really mind whether are not we have agreement on this as long as I know I am in agreement with the dogmatic declarations of the Church.
I shall have to stand then with Pope Boniface VIII on the day of judgement and declare with him,
"We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her' (Canticle of Canticles 6:Cool; which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noah, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed… We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

while making the plea of inculpable ignorance on behalf of the many who couldn't understand his precise, unadulterated words.
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  MRyan on Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:58 pm

columba wrote:
As an "ex"-Catholic Irish comedian once said, "Once you're a Catholic it's impossible to be considered as anything else other than a Catholic. Even if you become a Hindu people still say, "He's a bad Catholic."

The point being; external membership is no guarantee of salvation if one is not also internally united. Likewise, one who declines external membership must be presumed to lack internal membership. In reality you can't have one without the other. When the Church says that schismatics are anathema, she is not imposing a sentance, she is merely confirming an existing fact.
Isn’t every Catholic in Ireland a comedian?

The point being; as St. Augustine said, it’s what is in the heart that matters, and just as external membership is no guarantee of salvation if one is not also internally united, so too do the grace-aided internal dispositions and virtues regulating a fervent faith and true charity guarantee salvation should any of the external requirements for membership in the Church Militant be lacking though no fault of one’s own.

When the Church imposes the severe corrective mercy of excommunication for schism, she is responding to the fact of an objective disorder, but she is not making a subjective judgment of souls, who may or may not be culpable before God for schism. She is making a prudential judgment in the external forum to hold the excommunicated culpable for the objective and sinful disorder (and what is bound on earth … ).

And, when the Church lifts the excommunications in order to attempt to correct the same objective disorder by another means, she is not making a subjective judgment of souls, who may or may not be culpable before God for the objective disorder of schism, she is making a prudential judgment in the external forum to hold them inculpable for the sins of their fathers; and, (what is bound on earth … ).

So you are once again off the mark when you say "she is not imposing a sentence, she is merely confirming an existing fact" of an external and internal disunity; for she is in fact imposing a sentence which corresponds only to the objective and external (dis)order.

It is the very same Church and the very same Magisterium, columba; and woe to those who pit the Church against herself with their false and scandalous accusations of heresy and a refusal to submit to her supreme authority in all such matters.

Tradition is not a rigid and dead notion, a fact of a certain static sort which at a given moment of history blocks the life of this active organism which is the church, that is, the mystical body of Christ. It is up to the Pope and to councils to exercise judgment in order to discern in the traditions of the church that which cannot be renounced without infidelity to the Lord and to the Holy Spirit - the deposit of faith - and that which, on the contrary, can and must be adapted to facilitate the prayer and the mission of the church throughout a variety of times and places, in order better to translate the divine message into the language of today and better to communicate it, without an unwarranted surrender of principles.

Hence tradition is inseparable from the living magisterium of the church, just as it is inseparable from sacred scripture. "Sacred tradition, sacred scripture and the magisterium of the church . . . are so linked and joined together that one of these realities cannot exist without the others, and that all of them together, each in its own way, effectively contribute under the action of the Holy Spirit to the salvation of souls" (Constitution Dei Verbum, 10). (Letter from Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre, 1976)

Listen to the Church, columba.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  MRyan on Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:31 pm

columba wrote:Mike, I don't know if you are deliberately extracting a contrary meaning from what I've said but what you are arguing against in my post is all straw man stuff.
It looks like that in order to find a way to oppose what I say you must invent apparent contradictions that in reality do not exist.

Here goes again.

columba wrote:
And, is one not an external member who, having been validly baptized, rejects no known dogma of the Catholic Faith?

Yes, so long as he is in visible communion with the Catholic Church (external unity with the one Body).

This is what I mean by inventing contradictions. You have agreed with this but still insisted in inserting a caveat as if I have rejected what your caveat implies. For instance, how could he not be in external communion if he has not rejected any dogma of the faith. When he rejects the dogma not only does he cease to be an external member but also ceases to be and internal member by his internal submission to a false belief of his sect.
I feel like I am talking to a wall.

I’ve invented nothing; your own words convict you.

My patience is beginning to run thin. Columba, you have no right, let alone the wherewithal to determine that an external doubt or denial of a secondary dogma renders the soul ipso facto guilty before God for an internal rejection of the Catholic faith (an obstinate and pertinacious doubt or denial is present in the will).

You once again tie an external profession to an internal disposition of faith, as if an Orthodox adult cannot be confused about the dogma once he knows the Church’s teaching. Culpability in this matter is for the Church to decide, not you; and even when she does act with excommunication, she judges only the external disorder, and not subjective dispositions. She presumes that there is no excuse, though there may very well be a very valid excuse that will place the soul in good standing before God (and internally united with the Church), even with the sentence of excommunication (note we're not talking about individual judgements, but a mass "excommunication").

Its obvious to me you’ve never read St. Bellarmine on this, for you simply twist that which I’ve presented to you thus far to say the very opposite of what he taught; as you continue to march on with blinders saying “what contradiction”, as if your two opposing precepts (proposed by your own hand) can both be true.

Honestly, I’ve never seen anything quite this bad.


avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  columba on Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:44 pm

Tradition is not a rigid and dead notion, a fact of a certain static sort which at a given moment of history blocks the life of this active organism which is the church, that is, the mystical body of Christ. It is up to the Pope and to councils to exercise judgment in order to discern in the traditions of the church that which cannot be renounced without infidelity to the Lord and to the Holy Spirit - the deposit of faith - and that which, on the contrary, can and must be adapted to facilitate the prayer and the mission of the church throughout a variety of times and places, in order better to translate the divine message into the language of today and better to communicate it, without an unwarranted surrender of principles.

Hence tradition is inseparable from the living magisterium of the church, just as it is inseparable from sacred scripture. "Sacred tradition, sacred scripture and the magisterium of the church . . . are so linked and joined together that one of these realities cannot exist without the others, and that all of them together, each in its own way, effectively contribute under the action of the Holy Spirit to the salvation of souls" (Constitution Dei Verbum, 10). (Letter from Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre, 1976)


If Paul IV had sat beside me and said those words, I would have had the opportunity to ask him to explain what is meant by "..without an unwarranted surrender of principles."
Does it mean that if a surrender of principles is warranted or expedient in any given situation then by all means surrender them?

As to the cyan highlighted text; It reminds me of the inseparable bond between water and regeneration.
It also worries me that in speaking of the existance of the inseparable bond between tradition and the magisterium, we now see this bond denied or disregarded in practice which of course begs the ovbvious question that is usually dealt bwith in the appropriate sub forum.
Does this bond with tradition hold good for the sacraments, especially the holy sacrifice of the Mass?

avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  MRyan on Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:44 pm

columba wrote:
As I've said above, when dealing in reality, the body must profess the same faith as the soul in order to benefit from its external membership. And, as the Church declares, an non-external member must become an internal member else even his own sacraments celebrated outside the visible unity avail him nothing.
You are not dealing in reality, but with your own distortion of reality. Benefiting from one’s external membership has NOTHING to do with the Church’s definition of who is and who is not a member of the Church Militant. Will you stop it!
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  columba on Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:49 pm

MRyan wrote:
columba wrote:
As I've said above, when dealing in reality, the body must profess the same faith as the soul in order to benefit from its external membership. And, as the Church declares, an non-external member must become an internal member else even his own sacraments celebrated outside the visible unity avail him nothing.
You are not dealing in reality, but with your own distortion of reality. Benefiting from one’s external membership has NOTHING to do with the Church’s definition of who is and who is not a member of the Church Militant. Will you stop it!

The Church has already defined dogmatically who is, and who is not a member.
How did you miss it?
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  MRyan on Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:30 pm

columba wrote:
Tradition is not a rigid and dead notion, a fact of a certain static sort which at a given moment of history blocks the life of this active organism which is the church, that is, the mystical body of Christ. It is up to the Pope and to councils to exercise judgment in order to discern in the traditions of the church that which cannot be renounced without infidelity to the Lord and to the Holy Spirit - the deposit of faith - and that which, on the contrary, can and must be adapted to facilitate the prayer and the mission of the church throughout a variety of times and places, in order better to translate the divine message into the language of today and better to communicate it, without an unwarranted surrender of principles.

Hence tradition is inseparable from the living magisterium of the church, just as it is inseparable from sacred scripture. "Sacred tradition, sacred scripture and the magisterium of the church . . . are so linked and joined together that one of these realities cannot exist without the others, and that all of them together, each in its own way, effectively contribute under the action of the Holy Spirit to the salvation of souls" (Constitution Dei Verbum, 10). (Letter from Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre, 1976)
If Paul IV had sat beside me and said those words, I would have had the opportunity to ask him to explain what is meant by "..without an unwarranted surrender of principles."

Does it mean that if a surrender of principles is warranted or expedient in any given situation then by all means surrender them?
And if St. Thomas was present when our Lord first appeared to the Apostles after the Resurrection, he wouldn’t have doubted.

What Pope Paul VI said about an “unwarranted surrender of principles” means exactly what it says; that there is no situation where “the Pope and … councils … exercise judgment in order to discern in the traditions of the church … in order better to translate the divine message into the language of today and better to communicate it” that would warrant the surrendering of established principles. He is saying that those principles and the Church’s judgment cannot be opposed.

columba wrote:
As to the cyan highlighted text; It reminds me of the inseparable bond between water and regeneration.
In every baptism, the bond of water and regeneration is inseparable, but it does not follow (as the Church teaches) that the grace of baptismal regeneration is restricted to the instrument of water baptism alone; for God is not confined to His own Sacraments to effect the same end.

However, in every material and spiritual regeneration, there is the inseparable bond of the Spirit, water and blood, for each bears witness to one and the same truth -- our Lord’s humanity, from whence our salvation comes:

there are three that give testimony on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one. … these three are one, the sense is, that they witness one and the same truth. (Witham) … so the spirit, which he yielded up, crying out with a loud voice upon the cross, and the water and blood that issued from his side, bear witness to his humanity, and are one; that is, all agree in one testimony. (Challoner) (Haydock Bible Commentary, 1859)
So it is no wonder that “it reminds [you] of the inseparable bond between water and regeneration.”

columba wrote:
It also worries me that in speaking of the existance of the inseparable bond between tradition and the magisterium, we now see this bond denied or disregarded in practice which of course begs the ovbvious question that is usually dealt bwith in the appropriate sub forum.
What is gratuitously asserted is gratuitously denied.

columba wrote:
Does this bond with tradition hold good for the sacraments, especially the holy sacrifice of the Mass?
Of course.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  MRyan on Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:46 pm

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
columba wrote:
As I've said above, when dealing in reality, the body must profess the same faith as the soul in order to benefit from its external membership. And, as the Church declares, an non-external member must become an internal member else even his own sacraments celebrated outside the visible unity avail him nothing.
You are not dealing in reality, but with your own distortion of reality. Benefiting from one’s external membership has NOTHING to do with the Church’s definition of who is and who is not a member of the Church Militant. Will you stop it!
The Church has already defined dogmatically who is, and who is not a member.
How did you miss it?
The Irish comedian.

And, once again, what have the internal dispositions that give one the ability to benefit from the Sacraments have to do with the Church’s definition of Church membership?

Here’s a hint: Nothing.

Please show me where the Church has ever taught “that one cannot be an external member of the Church who internally professes a faith other than that of the Catholic faith”.

Please show me where “in the case of an Orthodox adolescent who professes the faith of his received tradition and is NOT in external communion with, or externally subject to, the Roman Pontiff”, the Church has ever taught what you suggest, that:

“He remains truly Catholic in both senses; externally and internally”, while at the same time “‘he is not an external member’ … of the Catholic Church”.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  columba on Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:46 pm

MRyan wrote:
My patience is beginning to run thin. Columba, you have no right, let alone the wherewithal to determine that an external doubt or denial of a secondary dogma renders the soul ipso facto guilty before God for an internal rejection of the Catholic faith (an obstinate and pertinacious doubt or denial is present in the will).

And my patience is also being tested by your misrepresentation of what I've written.
I have claimed no such thing comcerning secondary dogmas rendering the soul ipso facto guilty before God for an internal rejection of the Catholic faith.
What I HAVE claimed is that, the Church dogmatically teaches that it is abolutely necessary for salvation that every creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. The Church herself would not hang the fate of any soul on a secondary dogma. By proclaiming the above to be an infallible teaching of the Church, the Church has by doing so made this article of faith much much more than a secondary dogma. It is now one of those truths that must be believed with Divine and Catholic faith in order for one to remain Catholic, no less than that of the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption.

So you tell me Mike; is it or is it not ABSOLUTEY NECESSARY for the salvation of every creature that they be subject to the Roman Pontff? There can only be two possible answers; "Yes" or "No."
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  columba on Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:54 pm

The Irish comedian.

And, once again, what have the internal dispositions that give one the ability to benefit from the Sacraments have to do with the Church’s definition of Church membership?

Here’s a hint: Nothing.

You can be my warm up act.

avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  MRyan on Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:42 pm

tornpage wrote:
I think I have come to the point where I accept that the opposition between those holding to explicit faith and those allowing an implicit faith is sanctioned by the Church. As I noted, it's like the dispute between the Dominican Thomists and the Jesuit Molinists as to grace: the Church permits both views.

As long as Father Harrison's (and my) view remains at least a "minority position . . . fully orthodox," I'm good.

Me too!

I thought you would appreciate the exchanges. Good discussion.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  MRyan on Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:58 am

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
columba wrote:
And, is one not an external member who, having been validly baptized, rejects no known dogma of the Catholic Faith?

Yes, so long as he is in visible communion with the Catholic Church (external unity with the one Body).
This is what I mean by inventing contradictions. You have agreed with this but still insisted in inserting a caveat as if I have rejected what your caveat implies. For instance, how could he not be in external communion if he has not rejected any dogma of the faith? When he rejects the dogma not only does he cease to be an external member but also ceases to be and internal member by his internal submission to a false belief of his sect.
As we (you) seem to be in a rut, let’s return once again to just who is inventing contradictions. Both of your premises are false, or at least severely flawed.

For instance, “how could he not be in external communion if he has not rejected any dogma of the faith”? It is quite simple; and again, if he (an adult) does not obstinately doubt or deny any dogma of the faith, he is STILL not in visible communion with the Catholic Church, but only enjoys partial communion.

For a baptized adult member of a particular Orthodox church, external membership in the one true Church is not by default (by virtue of one’s Baptism), it is not by having the proper internal dispositions and internal faith; nether is it realized by having one or two of the three essential external elements of membership (which can be reduced to two elements: profession of the same faith and visible communion with the faithful, which includes communion with the pope and participation in the same Sacraments, realized or not); all of the essential elements must be fulfilled or one is not a visible member of the Catholic Church, as defined by Pope Pius XII.

In other words, external membership is based on objective conditions and objective reality, not on subjective dispositions, intentions or on one’s internal “Catholicity”. Neither, as you falsely suggest, does it depend on realizing the benefits of one's internal faith through external practices, for even an "occult heretic" can remain a member of the Church so long as he retains the appearance of external communion.

Your second false or flawed premise says that “When he rejects the dogma not only does he cease to be an external member but also ceases to be and internal member by his internal submission to a false belief of his sect.”

This is true ONLY if his doubt or denial is obstinate and pertinacious, rendering one a formal heretic and/or schismatic. Once again, you think you can “presume” culpability because the Church formerly presumed culpability.

That she lifted the excommunications and no longer presumes culpability is for you the “unforgivable” sin of the Roman Pontiff. The arrogance of a layman to dictate to the Church how she should approach and treat the Orthodox; even going so far as to accuse the Roman Pontiff of heresy because you haven’t the foggiest idea of the Church’s true teaching on particular Churches, is all we need to know about your so-called catholic “position”.

And, as we also know, your accusation of heresy (until proven otherwise) is based on your specious private understanding of Paul IV’s Auctorem Fidei (Condemning the Errors of the Synod of Pistoia).

And now you stamp your feet in protest because I said:

Columba, you have no right, let alone the wherewithal to determine that an external doubt or denial of a secondary dogma renders the soul ipso facto guilty before God for an internal rejection of the Catholic faith (an obstinate and pertinacious doubt or denial is present in the will).
What I mean, columba, is that you have no right to impose your “opinion” of a presumed ipso facto obstinate guilt for a “rejection” of papal primacy when in fact the Church no longer makes such a presumption.

Your appeal to tradition on this is a false appeal and, as POPE Paul VI admonishes, it is a distorted view of tradition, for there is only one arbiter of tradition and only one arbiter of what is in the best interests of the Church for the salvation of souls in order to fulfill her divine mission to have them saved by bringing them into her bosom and full communion, and it is NOT you.

“Unforgivable”; indeed.

I’ll address, once again, your confusion over the “absolute” necessity of being subject to the Roman Pontiff in another post.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  columba on Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:54 pm

Mike, you have an uncanny knack for making your oponent look stupid which has worked well in scaring off some of the more sensitive folk but alas, it don't work on the Irish. You see, we already know that we're stupid, dumb and ignorant and so have an inbuilt advantage in the battle against supersensitivity. We are at heart quite simple and practical folk and take most things at face value, hence our belief in fairies, leprechauns, banshees and such. (They really do exist. Ask Simple Faith. He has a fairy ring at the bottom of his garden and won't chop it down for love nor money lest he offend the fairy king and be beaten to death with a shillelagh. BTW. He, like me is also quite stupid and he won't mind me saying so. In fact, if stupidity were a virtue they'd be already selling his clothes for relics).

Anyway, what were we discussing. Ah yes! Membership of the Church.

MRyan wrote:
For a baptized adult member of a particular Orthodox church, external membership in the one true Church is not by default (by virtue of one’s Baptism), it is not by having the proper internal dispositions and internal faith; nether is it realized by having one or two of the three essential external elements of membership (which can be reduced to two elements: profession of the same faith and visible communion with the faithful, which includes communion with the pope and participation in the same Sacraments, realized or not); all of the essential elements must be fulfilled or one is not a visible member of the Catholic Church, as defined by Pope Pius XII.

Ooh dear! I've been much too merciful. I was giving the benefit of external membership to those baptized who had not culpably rejected any primary dogma of the faith which allowed me to hold out hope for their salvation without having them visibly (to the physical eye) enter a catholic church. I see now that their external membership never really existed and they were Baptized as Orthodox, Protestant or what have you but not as Catholic. (Five Baptisms and counting). However I'm still reluctant to relinguish my claim that they are still wholly, Roman Catholic, external members of the Church while they have not willfully rejected any known dogma of the faith. Why? Because if they are not they will not be saved. How do I know that?
Before answering let me say this:

Mike I honestly did not intentionally set a trap for you. I merely tried to expose the trap you were heading towards but you went ahead and blundered on into it anyway.

Pope Eugene IV made the following dogmatic pronouncement,
"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"

Now as well as stating an infallible Catholic truth, he was also issuing the warning to those outside visible, external communion that they would lose their souls if they did not convert. How do we know he was speaking of external communion? Because he could not have been speaking of anything else. If there were such a thing as internal communion without external membership then his words would be utterly meaningless. Why? Because internal communion would be known only to God and he wasn't addressing God. In Fact through him God was addressing the Church and the world at large. Surely there'd be no schismatic saying, "This pronouncement doesn't include me because I'm already an internal member of the One true Church. If he were such an internal member he would immediately make sure he became an external member. If he didn't, he would only be proving that he wasn't the internal member he was claiming to be in the first place.

When Pope Boniface VIII said, We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

was he speaking of internal subjection or external. It was obviously external. Why, Because if he was speaking of internal subjection (which could never be defined) his words would be utterly meaningless and, for the same reasons above.
And, was he not simply repeating the words of Pope Boniface I who in his Epistle (14.1)
declared;
"It is clear that this Roman Church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship."


And was Pope Benedict XV speaking here of a non-external membership? Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum: "Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved."

Mike it is obvious -is it not- that external membership is the only membership by which a soul can be internally united to the Church. That's why I maintain that the Baptized, inculpable, material hereitic still retains that external unity that was his when he was baptized in the one Baptism of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. If he does not, then he is lost; not according to me, but accirding to the infallible word of God as proclaimed by his vicar/s on earth.


avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  MRyan on Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:39 pm

Columba,

I’ll ignore you’re self-inflicted “I am stupid” humble remarks and how I make you look stupid. Stupid is as stupid does; and I just had to say that.

I don’t mean to scare people away, honest.

But seriously, you should stay away from commenting on the SSPX excommunications, not because you are stupid, you’re not; but because you are factually incorrect in at least two of your three assertions, and have definitely been led astray with the first allegation.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
columba wrote:
Anyway, what were we discussing. Ah yes! Membership of the Church.
For a baptized adult member of a particular Orthodox church, external membership in the one true Church is not by default (by virtue of one’s Baptism), it is not by having the proper internal dispositions and internal faith; nether is it realized by having one or two of the three essential external elements of membership (which can be reduced to two elements: profession of the same faith and visible communion with the faithful, which includes communion with the pope and participation in the same Sacraments, realized or not); all of the essential elements must be fulfilled or one is not a visible member of the Catholic Church, as defined by Pope Pius XII.

Ooh dear! I've been much too merciful. I was giving the benefit of external membership to those baptized who had not culpably rejected any primary dogma of the faith which allowed me to hold out hope for their salvation without having them visibly (to the physical eye) enter a catholic church. I see now that their external membership never really existed and they were Baptized as Orthodox, Protestant or what have you but not as Catholic. (Five Baptisms and counting). However I'm still reluctant to relinguish my claim that they are still wholly, Roman Catholic, external members of the Church while they have not willfully rejected any known dogma of the faith. Why? Because if they are not they will not be saved. How do I know that?

Before answering let me say this:

Mike I honestly did not intentionally set a trap for you. I merely tried to expose the trap you were heading towards but you went ahead and blundered on into it anyway.
Well, it’s nice to see the comic Irish routine is alive and well. But just imagine setting a "trap" for someone like me who actually believes that there is salvation in the Church by way of internal unity when external unity cannot be realized in re, but only in voto.

It is also quite amazing to me that you do not seem to understand the difference between being baptized a Catholic (there is no other) and being an external member of the Catholic Church.

Even with infants baptized into Eastern Orthodox churches, it matters not if external membership is technically lacking, we know they are true Catholics incorporated into the Church and that they have received the gift of habitual faith, with the act of faith (and subjection to the pope) supplied by the church until such time they can make an act of faith of their own volition.

And it is also true that (as "adults") should they profess the Orthodox faith of their received tradition and are inculpable for their understanding of papal primacy, for example, they remain internally united to the Church, but they are NOT external members of the same Body, except in voto (explicit or implicit desire).

You said something about a “trap”? Golly, columba, you're still digging a hole, and its getting deeper. But don't worry, I won't fall in - I'm still trying to throw you a life-line.

There is a story I remember (I may be a little vague on some details – but not the essentials) told by one of our esteemed Pontiffs who wrote about a lad between eight to 12 years (and above the age of reason) who was raised by his Eastern parents in the Orthodox faith, and who chose at a very early age to profess the Catholic faith, whole and inviolate. How he came to be exposed to the Catholic faith, I do not remember, but it was by no means “miraculous”.

The moral of the story is this; the youngster remained under the authority of his parents, attended his particular Eastern Orthodox Church, and received the Sacraments from Orthodox ministers, but was very much a Catholic in spiritual communion with the Church and the Roman Pontiff. He died soon thereafter in that same state of a tragic accident or illness, and, as the Pope assured us, he is among the blessed in heaven.

Now, you had a question about subjection to and unity with the Roman Pontiff?

columba wrote:
When Pope Boniface VIII said, We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." was he speaking of internal subjection or external. It was obviously external. Why, Because if he was speaking of internal subjection (which could never be defined) his words would be utterly meaningless and, for the same reasons above.
Yes, he was speaking about external subjection in general, but that does not mean he was ruling out the same external subjection in voto, as the Church clearly teaches. Technically, our Catholic Orthodox lad above was NOT subject to the Roman Pontiff (except in desire) because he was not in visible communion with the Catholic faithful or with the pope; but he was certainly internally united with him and desired with all of his being to be visibly united with the true Church.

It is the same with the "definition" of membership in the Mystical Body (which is clearly a visible communion), but this does not mean that unity with the Body cannot be achieved internally when impediments stand in the way of external unity in re, as Pope Pius XII, the same pope who defined Church membership, clearly taught in his official Allocution you seem desperate to explain away as being of no consequence (what did you call this, the "local" magisterium?).

Do you really believe Pope Pius XII was so confused about this, as was St. Bellarmine and the rest of the Doctors, saints and theologians, that he would commit such a glaring "error"? What do they understand that you don't, columba? Or should we ask, what do you understand that the rest of the Church does not?

Seriously?

You cannot change the definition of external Church membership (by rendering it meaningless), columba, so as to force it into your flawed and rigorist interpretation of dogma.

columba wrote:
Mike it is obvious -is it not- that external membership is the only membership by which a soul can be internally united to the Church. That's why I maintain that the Baptized, inculpable, material hereitic still retains that external unity that was his when he was baptized in the one Baptism of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. If he does not, then he is lost; not according to me, but according to the infallible word of God as proclaimed by his vicar/s on earth.
A thousand times no; as you even said, what makes a soul truly Catholic (his “Catholicity”) is his internal faith which is manifested in his profession of the same faith and by his external unity with the Church. But the latter is not always possible.

However, a soul can reject the faith internally while only appearing to be in visible communion with the Church; and yet, he remains a visible (but dead) member of the Catholic Church. This is an obvious fact, do you deny it?

Again, it is also true that one can remain a Catholic by faith while remaining only internally united to the Church because of circumstances of birth or other impediments beyond one’s control. This includes being inculpable in the ignorance of secondary dogmas.

Why are you making this so hard?

Well, I know why, because once the blinders come off and you recognize the truth, you’re entire ecclesiology/theology would require a major overhaul.

That would be good thing!
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  George Brenner on Tue Feb 28, 2012 6:38 pm

MRyan wrote:


There is a story I remember (I may be a little vague on some details – but not the essentials) told by one of our esteemed Pontiffs who wrote about a lad between eight to 12 years (and above the age of reason) who was raised by his Eastern parents in the Orthodox faith, and who chose at a very early age to profess the Catholic faith, whole and inviolate. How he came to be exposed to the Catholic faith, I do not remember, but it was by no means “miraculous”.

The moral of the story is this; the youngster remained under the authority of his parents, attended his particular Eastern Orthodox Church, and received the Sacraments from Orthodox ministers, but was very much a Catholic in spiritual communion with the Church and the Roman Pontiff. He died soon thereafter in that same state of a tragic accident or illness, and, as the Pope assured us, he is among the blessed in heaven.

Question for you Mike. I really do not know the answer to this one. I am in situations with people, as noted above that are beyond the age of reason not necessarily weekly but for sure monthly where family or even Clergy will say that the just deceased loved one is now with God in Heaven. I have probably said that myself many times. I know the comforting aspect of the comments and love attached to such thoughts. But after reading so many books on Purgatory and Our Blessed Mothers own words to Sister Lucy on the status of her loved ones souls, why would a Pope assure us that a person that just died is among the blessed in Heaven, when even declared Saints must go through the meticulous process of Sainthood. Purgatory will lead to Heaven for sure but as Lucy inquired about one relative, Blessed Mother told Lucy that she would be in Purgatory for a very long time.
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  George Brenner on Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:18 am


After further prayer, probably the best and most comforting thing to say to family, friends, or any recent death situation is that the person is now in the loving hands of Our Father and Saviour.
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  MRyan on Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:41 am

George,

Point well taken.

Based on the heroic sanctity of the subject youth, I think it was more in the order of an implied assumption, than a positive affirmation, let alone a “dogmatic fact”. We’ve all heard of those (Catholics) whose lives are living testaments to virtue and to God’s grace, and who die in the “odor of sanctity”.

I read about this a few years back and as I said I’m still a bit fuzzy on the details (so I’m aloud a bit of discretionary embellishment); for example, rather than a pope telling the story, I think it is more accurate to say it was one of the saints who told of the pope who took a strong interest in the Orthodox youth who was in fact a Catholic under obedience to his Orthodox parents and attended the Orthodox Mass.

George wrote:
After further prayer, probably the best and most comforting thing to say to family, friends, or any recent death situation is that the person is now in the loving hands of Our Father and Saviour.
Very good.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  George Brenner on Wed Feb 29, 2012 10:10 am


Thank you Mike,

A thoughtful response as always. As they say one door opens another. I get the goose bumps as I was re reading the following for the umpteenth time. The Fatima Crusader, by Father Gruner , which received the Apostolic Blessing from Pope John Paul II and of course the Church has been confirmed repeatedly that the messages of Fatima are worthy of Catholic belief. I take great comfort in the following simple exchange and what this tells us about Our Blessed Mother.

From the transcripts:

Lucy asks Blessed Mother, " Where is your Grace from? Blessed Mother answers, "I AM OF HEAVEN"

Lucy asks," Shall I go to Heaven too?" Blessed Mother answers, "YES YOU WILL"

Lucy asks, " and Jacinta?" Blessed Mother answers, "ALSO"

Lucy asks , and Francisco? Blessed Mother answers, "ALSO, BUT HE WILL HAVE TO SAY MANY ROSARIES"

avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  MRyan on Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:43 am

George,

When I said, "I’m aloud a bit of discretionary embellishment", I did not mean to suggest that I am "loud", though others could not have failed to have noted, and agreed with, the Freudian type slip.

I had the good fortune of having visited Fatima a few years back and while there I picked-up a copy of "FATIMA in Lucia's own words" by Fr. Kondor, SVD.

Sr. Lucia tells a riveting account of the heroic sanctity and of the constant prayers/penances of Blessed Jacinta and Francisco that I never fully realized or appreciated.

The vision of hell, where poor sinners go, was one of those life-changing moments.

The death of little Jacinta, who died all alone in a hospital far from home, as our Blessed Mother told her she would (though she had all the company she needed), will bring tears of sadness and of a profound humble Catholic joy to anyone who reads the account of her brief heroic life and holy death.

Lucia, Francisco and Jacinta, pray for us, and pray for our Holy Father.



avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  columba on Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:19 pm

Mike. you said to Fatima for Our Times, that yours truly (me) was buried in contradiction.

Can I suggest we adopt another approach in our discussion. The approach I have in mind is one that Pascendi once said he didn't favor, but I feel we've come to the point where it may be the only fruitful way to procede. I notice sometimes when you reply to certain posts, you home in on particular points but leave the most relevent piont of the poster unanswered. I probably do this too and it could be all just mere oversight on everyones part. So that this can be avoided in future, will you agree to do a simple, "one qusetion, one answer" at a time? You know like the old catechisms used to do?
I propose we deal with the foundatioal stuff; that stuff from which all our secondary beliefs are derived, and maybe by putting the stability of those fouindations to the test, we can then solve problems that have arisen from building on these foundations if they indeed prove to be unstable.

Point by point then, and if you don't mind, I'll go first.

Question; If an unbaptzed infant (lets say in a state orphanage) was in danger of death and a member of staff -who happened to be a Hindu- and had information that led him to believe that the child's natural mother was a Christian, proceded to baptise the child using valid matter (water) and valid form ("I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost) and intended to do what the Church does; would the chlld now be an exernal member of the Catholic Church, subject to the Roman Pontiff, or, would the child have been baptized into the hindu religion?
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  MRyan on Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:04 pm

columba wrote:
Mike. you said to Fatima for Our Times, that yours truly (me) was buried in contradiction.

Can I suggest we adopt another approach in our discussion. The approach I have in mind is one that Pascendi once said he didn't favor, but I feel we've come to the point where it may be the only fruitful way to procede. I notice sometimes when you reply to certain posts, you home in on particular points but leave the most relevent piont of the poster unanswered. I probably do this too and it could be all just mere oversight on everyones part. So that this can be avoided in future, will you agree to do a simple, "one qusetion, one answer" at a time? You know like the old catechisms used to do?

I propose we deal with the foundational stuff; that stuff from which all our secondary beliefs are derived, and maybe by putting the stability of those fouindations to the test, we can then solve problems that have arisen from building on these foundations if they indeed prove to be unstable.
Sorry, Columba, but I do not understand what you are saying. We are already dealing with the “foundational stuff”, the very stuff you chose to discuss dealing directly with the definition of Church membership and the status of the Eastern Orthodox relative to this.

Though relevant with respect to unity, the SSPX "stuff" can serve as a distraction, but you are so clearly in error that I felt obligated to respond to your false allegations.

You are buried in contradictions, and I think you know it. This is not a dispute between allowable “opinions”; this concerns the very definition of Church membership as it was defined by St. Bellarmine and Pope Pius XII. THAT is the issue.

Both of the aforementioned, as you know, also taught the universal doctrine on the possibility of internal unity by faith/charity, with the obligation of external unity in re being satisfied (when necessary) in voto, for we are justified and translated into Christ by faith, and not always directly by the divinely instituted instruments of grace and salvation, but never apart from them.

And I object to your claim that I “home in on particular points but leave the most relevant point of the poster unanswered”; for I cannot tell you how many times I’ve replied in full to every objection or assertion, only to have it completely ignored as my protagonist proceeds with his own agenda. In fact, you are doing this as we speak. You continue to raise the same objections without answering my very specific responses and questions.

I am ignoring the superfluous stuff of your private opinions (for now) on how the Orthodox should be treated (as "heretics and schismatics") because your "opinion" has NOTHING to do with the definition of Church membership and the status of the Eastern Orthodox relative to their membership in the one true Church. You are the one who wanted to go down this path, so I’m just holding your feet to the fire by keeping you focused on the topic at hand -- and trying to get you to confront your blatant contradictions.

It is obvious to me that you are trying to change the definition (irony of ironies) of Church membership so that internal unity actually means visible external communion with the faithful and the Roman Pontiff, when it means no such thing; especially when the very opposite is the case with those of the Eastern Orthodox who have not obstinately doubted or denied an article of faith, and who are clearly in visible communion with their particular Orthodox Church and with the baptized members who are in visible communion with the same.

But if we must return to infants, no problem; but I hope we can soon graduate to adults.

columba wrote:
Question; If an unbaptzed infant (lets say in a state orphanage) was in danger of death and a member of staff -who happened to be a Hindu- and had information that led him to believe that the child's natural mother was a Christian, proceded to baptise the child using valid matter (water) and valid form ("I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost) and intended to do what the Church does; would the chlld now be an exernal member of the Catholic Church, subject to the Roman Pontiff, or, would the child have been baptized into the hindu religion?
My answer is “who cares?"

And are you actually suggesting that I am suggesting that someone can be baptized into a "religion" other than the Catholic "religion"? Don't be misled, when I say that an infant is Baptized into a particular Eastern Church, for example, this does not change the objective fact of his Baptism into the one true Church of Christ, even though he will not be raised in visible communion with the Catholic Church. The latter is the only thing I am referring to, the fact of his visible communion with the particular Eastern Orthodox Church in which he is raised by his Orthodox parents.

Prior to his Baptism, the subject orphan and infant was not in “visible communion” with any sect or Church, and even if he was, it is irrelevant. In this case, he was simply an infant in the state of original sin. The Baptized infant is a Catholic fully incorporated into Christ and the Mystical Body, and there is NO obligation for a Baptized infant to be in “external communion” with the Church when this obligation is already satisfied by the Church with every valid infant Baptism.

Now tell me what that has to do with the adult who has not fallen into obstinate doubt or denial, who in visible communion with a particular Orthodox Church and its baptized members, who is NOT in visible communion with the Catholic faithful or subject to the Roman Pontiff, and is NOT in visible communion with the pope except objectively by way of his participation in every propitiatory Sacrifice (there is no such thing as an “Orthodox” Eucharist, only the name of the particular rite changes), and in his explicit or implicit desire.

Let's be adult about it and focus on this essential question. It is actually quite fundamental and foundational to your original request to go down this specific path.

I'm just honoring your request.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  MRyan on Wed Feb 29, 2012 7:00 pm

columba wrote:
I notice sometimes when you reply to certain posts, you home in on particular points but leave the most relevent piont of the poster unanswered.
Tell you what, columba, why don’t you give me a recent example in this exchange where I left “the most relevant point of the poster unanswered”, and, after confirming or denying, I’ll show you my relevant responses which have gone unanswered.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  columba on Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:31 pm

MRyan wrote:
Sorry, Columba, but I do not understand what you are saying. We are already dealing with the “foundational stuff”, the very stuff you chose to discuss dealing directly with the definition of Church membership and the status of the Eastern Orthodox relative to this.

Yes I know, but what could be more foundamental than starting with Baptism and seeing if we are in agreement with what it establishes in regards to Church membership for the newly baptized.

Though relevant with respect to unity, the SSPX "stuff" can serve as a distraction, but you are so clearly in error that I felt obligated to respond to your false allegations.

We can return to that on the other thread later if you wish.

You are buried in contradictions, and I think you know it.

I don't know it and don't see it. I'm seeing contradictions in your assertions and you see them in mine. that's why I feel the one step at a time approach can help sort these differences out.

This is not a dispute between allowable “opinions”; this concerns the very definition of Church membership as it was defined by St. Bellarmine and Pope Pius XII. THAT is the issue.

Without minimising the importance of the writings of St Bellarmine, it can sometimes be confusing when quoting Doctors who seem to agree with our own position in one area and contradict it in another, such as in the case of a pope falling ipso facto from office if he were to become a heretic as St Bellarmine claimed; But please, don't let this throw us off topic. I'm only using it as an example.
I'm more interested on how Church membership is/was defined by the teaching authority of the Church in her infallible capacity.

Both of the aforementioned, as you know, also taught the universal doctrine on the possibility of internal unity by faith/charity, with the obligation of external unity in re being satisfied (when necessary) in voto, for we are justified and translated into Christ by faith, and not always directly by the divinely instituted instruments of grace and salvation, but never apart from them.

This can be determined somewhere along the line when we have progressed through the basics, I'm not saying you are definately wrong in your interpretation of what they both mean by those words but please -for my sake, if I be in error- bear with me on the simple road.

And I object to your claim that I “home in on particular points but leave the most relevant point of the poster unanswered”; for I cannot tell you how many times I’ve replied in full to every objection or assertion, only to have it completely ignored as my protagonist proceeds with his own agenda.


Yes. We all do it, and often are oblivous to it in our attempts to make our own pionts.
I include myself of course.


In fact, you are doing this as we speak. You continue to raise the same objections without answering my very specific responses and questions.

Hence this new approach. Not only will I be unable to accuse you of doing it, I won't get away with doing it myself. We'll both be winners. (at least that's the theory).

I am ignoring the superfluous stuff of your private opinions (for now) on how the Orthodox should be treated (as "heretics and schismatics") because your "opinion" has NOTHING to do with the definition of Church membership and the status of the Eastern Orthodox relative to their membership in the one true Church. You are the one who wanted to go down this path, so I’m just holding your feet to the fire by keeping you focused on the topic at hand -- and trying to get you to confront your blatant contradictions.

Great. That's exactly what I'm hoping to get away from, "private opinions".
The privileges granted through Baptism I believe are very relevent to this topic. If they aren't, we'll discover that when we've beaten the topic to death.

It is obvious to me that you are trying to change the definition (irony of ironies) of Church membership so that internal unity actually means visible external communion with the faithful and the Roman Pontiff, when it means no such thing; especially when the very opposite is the case with those of the Eastern Orthodox who have not obstinately doubted or denied an article of faith, and who are clearly in visible communion with their particular Orthodox Church and with the baptized members who are in visible communion with the same.

Mike your jumping the gun again. What you assert here is that which we're striving to conclude as being either true or false. You have concluded that it's true, I have concluded that it's false. Both of us can't be right. You of course claim it's you who are right. Let's find out then where and if I've gone off course.

But if we must return to infants, no problem; but I hope we can soon graduate to adults.

Excellent! We're on course then.

columba wrote:
Question; If an unbaptzed infant (lets say in a state orphanage) was in danger of death and a member of staff -who happened to be a Hindu- and had information that led him to believe that the child's natural mother was a Christian, proceded to baptise the child using valid matter (water) and valid form ("I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost) and intended to do what the Church does; would the chlld now be an exernal member of the Catholic Church, subject to the Roman Pontiff, or, would the child have been baptized into the hindu religion?

My answer is “who cares?"

WoW!!! I weren't expecting that.

And are you actually suggesting that I am suggesting that someone can be baptized into a "religion" other than the Catholic "religion"?

Yes. Kind of. By excluding the baptized Catholic from that which he aquires ipso fact at baptism. I.e, External mebership.

Don't be misled, when I say that an infant is Baptized into a particular Eastern Church, for example, this does not change the objective fact of his Baptism into the one true Church of Christ

So the child could subjectively be said to be Orthodox while the objective truth is, he is in fact fully Catholic?
Good start.

even though he will not be raised in visible communion with the Catholic Church. The latter is the only thing I am referring to, the fact of his visible communion with the particular Eastern Orthodox Church in which he is raised by his Orthodox parents.

Still talkling of the child in the orphange; lets say he was fostered out to parents who were Orthodox; is that the piont where he relinguishes his subjection to the Romn Pontiff, bearing in mind that up to that point he retained it?

Prior to his Baptism, the subject orphan and infant was not in “visible communion” with any sect or Church, and even if he was, it is irrelevant. In this case, he was simply an infant in the state of original sin. The Baptized infant is a Catholic fully incorporated into Christ and the Mystical Body, and there is NO obligation for a Baptized infant to be in “external communion” with the Church when this obligation is already satisfied by the Church with every valid infant Baptism.

There is no obligation for two reasons. 1. he already has external membership and 2. He's incapable of fulfilling any obligation. Is this correct?

Now tell me what that has to do with the adult who has not fallen into obstinate doubt or denial, who in visible communion with a particular Orthodox Church and its baptized members, who is NOT in visible communion with the Catholic faithful or subject to the Roman Pontiff, and is NOT in visible communion with the pope except objectively by way of his participation in every propitiatory Sacrifice (there is no such thing as an “Orthodox” Eucharist, only the name of the particular rite changes), and in his explicit or implicit desire.

Mike, your jumping three steps ahead again. At this point your right; it has nothing to do with it.

Let's be adult about it and focus on this essential question. It is actually quite fundamental and foundational to your original request to go down this specific path.

I'm just honoring your request.

Thank you for honoring my request. Please bear with me on this Baptism issue and tell me -if thus far- I have stated anything you disagree with.
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  MRyan on Thu Mar 01, 2012 2:43 pm

Columba,

I am going to take a brief respite from "square one", so to speak, and highlight a little known (or discussed) footnote in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, pertaining to what the Church means by “membership” in the Mystical Body in the true sense of the word, that being a visible communion where actual members are only those who are incorporated into the visible society of the Church, where it says:

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. (LG 14*)
"Fully incorporated" means that both internal and external unity have been realized in those of the baptized faithful who "accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops."

The Church also makes the distinction between "living" and "dead" members of the Church, as well as between actual members and those who may be invisibly united to her in the bonds of faith, charity and desire (intention), but who do not enjoy "in a visible way" the bonds of "the profession of faith [whole and inviolate], the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion."

This really is not that difficult.

However, I wish to highlight Supplementary Note 14*, which is a reference to Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, “The Reunion of Christendom”, the Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII, 1894, since it is relevant to this discussion and the subject of this thread. Here is an excerpt:

Therefore, do We most earnestly offer thanks in the first place to the goodness of God, by whose help and bounty We have been preserved to attain Our great age; and then, next, to all the Princes and Rulers, to the Bishops and Clergy, and to as many as have co-operated by such repeated tokens of Piety and Reverence to Honor Our Character and Office, while affording Us personally such seasonable consolation.

A great deal, however, has been wanting to the entire fullness of that consolation. Amidst these very manifestations of public joy and Reverence Our thoughts went out towards the immense multitude of those who are strangers to the gladness that filled all Catholic hearts: some because they lie in absolute ignorance of the Gospel; others because they dissent from the Catholic belief, though they bear the name of Christians.

This thought has been, and is, a source of deep concern to Us; for it is impossible to think of such a large portion of mankind deviating, as it were, from the right path, as they move away from Us, and not experience a sentiment of innermost grief.

First of all, then, We cast an affectionate look upon the East, from whence in the beginning came forth the salvation of the world. Yes, and the yearning desire of Our heart bids us conceive and hope that the day is not far distant when the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in their ancient faith and glorious past, will return to the fold they have abandoned. We hope it all the more, that the distance separating them from Us is not so great: nay, with some few exceptions, we agree so entirely on other heads that, in defense of the Catholic Faith, we often have recourse to reasons and testimony borrowed from the teaching, the Rites, and Customs of the East.

[…] Therefore, Our mouth is open to you, to you all of Greek or other Oriental Rites who are separated from the Catholic Church, We earnestly desire that each and every one of you should meditate upon the words, so full of gravity and love, addressed by Bessarion to your forefathers: "What answer shall we give to God when He comes to ask why we have separated from our Brethren: to Him Who, to unite us and bring us into One Fold, came down from Heaven, was Incarnate, and was Crucified? What will our defense be in the eyes of posterity? Oh, my Venerable Fathers, we must not suffer this to be, we must not entertain this thought, we must not thus so ill provide for ourselves and for our Brethren."

Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request. It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love. The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government.

Nor is there any reason for you to fear on that account that We or any of Our Successors will ever diminish your rights, the privileges of your Patriarchs, or the established Ritual of any one of your Churches. It has been and always will be the intent and Tradition of the Apostolic See, to make a large allowance, in all that is right and good, for the primitive Traditions and special customs of every nation. On the contrary, if you re-establish Union with Us, you will see how, by God's bounty, the glory and dignity of your Churches will be remarkably increased. May God, then, in His goodness, hear the Prayer that you yourselves address to Him: "Make the schisms of the Churches cease," and "Assemble those who are dispersed, bring back those who err, and unite them to Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." May you thus return to that one Holy Faith which has been handed down both to Us and to you from time immemorial; which your forefathers preserved untainted, and which was enhanced by the rival splendor of the Virtues, the great genius, and the sublime learning of St. Athanasius and St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzum and St. John Chrysostom, the two Saints who bore the name of Cyril, and so many other great men whose glory belongs as a common inheritance to the East and to the West.

Suffer that We should address you more particularly, nations of the Slavonic race, you whose glorious name and deeds are attested by many an ancient record. You know full well how much the Slavs are indebted to the merits of St. Cyril and St. Methodius, to whose memory We Ourselves have rendered due honor only a few years ago. Their virtues and their labors were to great numbers of your race the source of civilization and salvation. And hence the admirable interchange, which existed for so long between the Slavonic nations and the Pontiffs of Rome, of favors on the one side and of filial devotion on the other. If in unhappy times many of your forefathers were separated from the Faith of Rome, consider now what priceless benefits a return of Unity would bring to you. The Church is anxious to welcome you also to her arms, that she may give you manifold aids to salvation, prosperity, and grandeur.
What’s that grinding sound? It’s the rad-trad and sede gnashing of teeth.

Imagine in the rad-trad/sede mind the thought of a pope (one the majority of sede's consider, out of the pure benevolence of their charitable hearts, a “true” successor to Peter), who looks with “affection” upon the Eastern Orthodox and refers to them as “separated Brethren” and “Christians”; who says “the distance separating them from Us is not so great” and who seeks a “True Union between Christians” and to fulfill our Lord’s prayer that would “unite us and bring us into One Fold”.

He sounds so, well, ecumenical, and this was when the excommunications were still in force.

To the question “Are you in full communion with the Roman Pontiff, and subject to his Apostolic power in all matters under his supreme authority such as universal laws, liturgy, disciplines and doctrines?” … columba, the arbiter of tradition, replied:

In so far as he is in full communion with, and in subjection to, the dogmas of the Catholic Faith.
And columba will determine when the Vicar of Christ is actually in full communion with, in subjection to, the dogmas of the Catholic Faith, and when he is not; just ask him and his fellow traveling rad-trad/sede brethren.

This is nothing more than "conditional" subjection to the universal Primacy of Peter as the "arbiters of tradition" determine when the Vicar of Christ is worthy enough of being subject to, and when his Supreme primacy and authority can be tossed aside in favor of "tradition".

Who, except for the schismatics, ever heard of such a thing? But this non-Catholic attitude is entirely consistent with its core doctrine of "I will not serve, except on my terms"; which terms, unlike, they would have us believe, the official and authoritative acts emanating from the full and universal Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, are always coterminous with "tradition"; for, "We are the guarantor of this", and not those "modernist" popes.

I just read your response on the SSPX excommunications, columba, and your schismatic attitude and appalling ecclesiology were on full display.

I suppose, at times, I am absolutely sickened and furious by the arrogance of layman who have the audacity to dictate to the Pope the terms under which his Supreme Petrine authority, in this case over excommunications (that are reserved only to himself alone) for the blatantly schismatic act against his supreme Primacy, are "valid" and "just".

These are the same rad-trads who complain bitterly because the pope does not exercise his supreme powers in governing the Church often enough; but when he does finally exercise his supreme authority to reign in and punish error, and had the supreme audacity to discipline the SSPX bishops for a schismatic act, they scream "foul", and look for every excuse in the book to render his supreme authority null and void, and subject to their "interpretation" of the law and to what is "just".

Sorry for the regression, but I will respond to this on the other thread -- after I count to ten (or more).










avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  MRyan on Thu Mar 01, 2012 3:22 pm

Keeping this as “foundational" as I can; two points:

columba wrote:
The Church has already defined dogmatically who is, and who is not a member.
How did you miss it?
Show me the dogmatic definition of who is, and who is not a member.

This is important.

columba wrote:
Mryan wrote:
Prior to his Baptism, the subject orphan and infant was not in “visible communion” with any sect or Church, and even if he was, it is irrelevant. In this case, he was simply an infant in the state of original sin. The Baptized infant is a Catholic fully incorporated into Christ and the Mystical Body, and there is NO obligation for a Baptized infant to be in “external communion” with the Church when this obligation is already satisfied by the Church with every valid infant Baptism.
There is no obligation for two reasons. 1. he already has external membership and 2. He's incapable of fulfilling any obligation. Is this correct?
No, that is only partially correct.

He is incapable of fulfilling the requirement of visible unity with the faithful, so the Church provides for what is lacking. In other words, his ability to profess the true faith and to be in visible communion with the society of Catholics who are in visible unity with the Roman Pontiff (and to be subject to the same) is irrelevant to his true incorporation into Christ, and His Body, the Church.

However, saying that the Church satisfies (internally) for what is lacking towards visible communion does not make his communion with the baptized faithful visible; meaning, “external membership” cannot be realized until he is in visible communion with the Church.

"External membership" means "visible communion", it does not mean the "visible sacrament of Baptism".
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  columba on Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:01 pm

Quoted by MRYAN:

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. (LG 14*)

And the point is?
Your quoting something I agree with. I take it your point is that because the conditions for visible incorpation are explained, by implication there is also such a thing as invisible incorporation, which will only take us back to;
Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that they be entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.

The Church also makes the distinction between "living" and "dead" members of the Church, as well as between actual members and those who may be invisibly united to her in the bonds of faith, charity and desire (intention), but who do not enjoy "in a visible way" the bonds of "the profession of faith [whole and inviolate], the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion."

This really is not that difficult.

You obviously don't see the difficulty. You quote from “The Reunion of Christendom”, the Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII, 1894, (which I will repost shortly) without realizing that the meaning you are attributig to the highlighted words above are in clear contradiction to the later encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum of 1896 and unless you are proposing that he has contradicted himself two years later, the meaning you take from his apostolic letter from 1894 is false. I'll highlight the relevent words that contradict what you say above.

From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error: as also are those who regard the Church as a human institution which claims a certain obedience in discipline and external duties, but which is without the perennial communication of the gifts of divine grace, and without all that which testifies by constant and undoubted signs to the existence of that life which is drawn from God. It is assuredly as impossible that the Church of Jesus Christ can be the one or the other, as that man should be a body alone or a soul alone. The connection and union of both elements is as absolutely necessary to the true Church as the intimate union of the soul and body is to human nature. The Church is not something dead: it is the body of Christ endowed with supernatural life.

The Reunion of Christendom”, the Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII, 1894. as quoted by MRyan;

Therefore, do We most earnestly offer thanks in the first place to the goodness of God, by whose help and bounty We have been preserved to attain Our great age; and then, next, to all the Princes and Rulers, to the Bishops and Clergy, and to as many as have co-operated by such repeated tokens of Piety and Reverence to Honor Our Character and Office, while affording Us personally such seasonable consolation.

A great deal, however, has been wanting to the entire fullness of that consolation. Amidst these very manifestations of public joy and Reverence Our thoughts went out towards the immense multitude of those who are strangers to the gladness that filled all Catholic hearts: some because they lie in absolute ignorance of the Gospel; others because they dissent from the Catholic belief, though they bear the name of Christians.

This thought has been, and is, a source of deep concern to Us; for it is impossible to think of such a large portion of mankind deviating, as it were, from the right path, as they move away from Us, and not experience a sentiment of innermost grief.

First of all, then, We cast an affectionate look upon the East, from whence in the beginning came forth the salvation of the world. Yes, and the yearning desire of Our heart bids us conceive and hope that the day is not far distant when the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in their ancient faith and glorious past, will return to the fold they have abandoned. We hope it all the more, that the distance separating them from Us is not so great: nay, with some few exceptions, we agree so entirely on other heads that, in defense of the Catholic Faith, we often have recourse to reasons and testimony borrowed from the teaching, the Rites, and Customs of the East.

[…] Therefore, Our mouth is open to you, to you all of Greek or other Oriental Rites who are separated from the Catholic Church, We earnestly desire that each and every one of you should meditate upon the words, so full of gravity and love, addressed by Bessarion to your forefathers: "What answer shall we give to God when He comes to ask why we have separated from our Brethren: to Him Who, to unite us and bring us into One Fold, came down from Heaven, was Incarnate, and was Crucified? What will our defense be in the eyes of posterity? Oh, my Venerable Fathers, we must not suffer this to be, we must not entertain this thought, we must not thus so ill provide for ourselves and for our Brethren."

Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request. It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love. The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government.

Nor is there any reason for you to fear on that account that We or any of Our Successors will ever diminish your rights, the privileges of your Patriarchs, or the established Ritual of any one of your Churches. It has been and always will be the intent and Tradition of the Apostolic See, to make a large allowance, in all that is right and good, for the primitive Traditions and special customs of every nation. On the contrary, if you re-establish Union with Us, you will see how, by God's bounty, the glory and dignity of your Churches will be remarkably increased. May God, then, in His goodness, hear the Prayer that you yourselves address to Him: "Make the schisms of the Churches cease," and "Assemble those who are dispersed, bring back those who err, and unite them to Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." May you thus return to that one Holy Faith which has been handed down both to Us and to you from time immemorial; which your forefathers preserved untainted, and which was enhanced by the rival splendor of the Virtues, the great genius, and the sublime learning of St. Athanasius and St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzum and St. John Chrysostom, the two Saints who bore the name of Cyril, and so many other great men whose glory belongs as a common inheritance to the East and to the West.

Suffer that We should address you more particularly, nations of the Slavonic race, you whose glorious name and deeds are attested by many an ancient record. You know full well how much the Slavs are indebted to the merits of St. Cyril and St. Methodius, to whose memory We Ourselves have rendered due honor only a few years ago. Their virtues and their labors were to great numbers of your race the source of civilization and salvation. And hence the admirable interchange, which existed for so long between the Slavonic nations and the Pontiffs of Rome, of favors on the one side and of filial devotion on the other. If in unhappy times many of your forefathers were separated from the Faith of Rome, consider now what priceless benefits a return of Unity would bring to you. The Church is anxious to welcome you also to her arms, that she may give you manifold aids to salvation, prosperity, and grandeur.

Obviously Pope Leo's language here is less restrained when his words are addressed to those outside the Church. That he calls them back to unity is in relation to the fact that they were in fact once united but nowhere could you take from his words that he is saying they are already united in any way other than the 2+2=5 way. To say that they are not far seperated is true; not as far seperated as the Protestant sects fior example. Just as someone in England is not as far seperated from me as someone in America. But seperated we are in completely different lands. Read again what he says in Satis Cognitum.

What’s that grinding sound? It’s the rad-trad and sede gnashing of teeth.

I can't here it. I hear only the sound of the patchwork pack busily sewning patches on a garment that isn't torn.

Imagine in the rad-trad/sede mind the thought of a pope (one the majority of sede's consider, out of the pure benevolence of their charitable hearts, a “true” successor to Peter), who looks with “affection” upon the Eastern Orthodox and refers to them as “separated Brethren” and “Christians”; who says “the distance separating them from Us is not so great” and who seeks a “True Union between Christians” and to fulfill our Lord’s prayer that would “unite us and bring us into One Fold”.

I couldn't have put it better myself. That's my goal too; the reunification of all who call themselves Christian. I go furrther even and wish the coversion of all religions to the one true Church of Christ, but we won't get it by telling them they are already united and signing pacts of no proselytization.

And columba will determine when the Vicar of Christ is actually in full communion with, in subjection to, the dogmas of the Catholic Faith, and when he is not; just ask him and his fellow traveling rad-trad/sede brethren.

Columba will determine no such thing. The dogmatic truths of the faith determine who is and who is not in full communion whether it be you, me, bishops or the pope.

This is nothing more than "conditional" subjection to the universal Primacy of Peter as the "arbiters of tradition" determine when the Vicar of Christ is worthy enough of being subject to, and when his Supreme primacy and authority can be tossed aside in favor of "tradition".

Tradition being of course one of the disposable elements of the faith. Just ask the Protestants about this.

Who, except for the schismatics, ever heard of such a thing? But this non-Catholic attitude is entirely consistent with its core doctrine of "I will not serve, except on my terms"; which terms, unlike, they would have us believe, the official and authoritative acts emanating from the full and universal Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, are always coterminous with "tradition"; for, "We are the guarantor of this", and not those "modernist" popes.

Ya know Mike. I would love it if you were correct. It would make life so much more convenient. The home comfort advantages would be inestimable. I could be at the NO Mass every evening for less than a 3 min journey if only you could convince me that the irreverent disrespect for Christ and His holy Body that I become party to by my presence, were all just a big figment of my imagination. That the Protestant church down the road was full of those all happily on the way to heaven. Yes, life would be great. The disadvantages (hardly worth mentioning) would be a total lack of orientation; a permanent, gormless grin on my face like that of those brainless humaniods while getting the mercury filled swine flu jab to prevent them getting the non-existant swine flu, smile likem cheshire cats, while believing the good old government is only trying to help them. and then after my happy-go-lucky life on earth, end up in hell for all eternity for denying the known dogmas of the faith. Sounds great. Cue the Barney song.

suppose, at times, I am absolutely sickened and furious by the arrogance of layman who have the audacity to dictate to the Pope the terms under which his Supreme Petrine authority, in this case over excommunications (that are reserved only to himself alone) for the blatantly schismatic act against his supreme Primacy, are "valid" and "just".

I know Mike, those schismatics are all doomed. Oh sorry I forgot, they're not.
So then why are they excommunicating them in the first place?

These are the same rad-trads who complain bitterly because the pope does not exercise his supreme powers in governing the Church often enough;

I think you'll find their complaints are more to do with the fact that all the recently excommunicated were those who held to the 2000 yr traditiions of the Catholic Church. I think that might have something to do with it. It's possible.

Sorry for the regression, but I will respond to this on the other thread -- after I count to ten (or more).

No problem Mike. Apology accepted. Ever try trancendental meditation? Just cross your legs and say "UUUMM." The Buddhists swear by it.
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  George Brenner on Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:57 am

Columba said:



Ya know Mike. I would love it if you were correct. It would make life so much more convenient. The home comfort advantages would be inestimable. I could be at the NO Mass every evening for less than a 3 min journey if only you could convince me that the irreverent disrespect for Christ and His holy Body that I become party to by my presence, were all just a big figment of my imagination. That the Protestant church down the road was full of those all happily on the way to heaven. Yes, life would be great. The disadvantages (hardly worth mentioning) would be a total lack of orientation; a permanent, gormless grin on my face like that of those brainless humaniods while getting the mercury filled swine flu jab to prevent them getting the non-existant swine flu, smile likem cheshire cats, while believing the good old government is only trying to help them. and then after my happy-go-lucky life on earth, end up in hell for all eternity for denying the known dogmas of the faith. Sounds great. Cue the Barney song.


Nothing like jumping in on middle of a conversation, but I reserved this spot today, some time ago.

Columba, you have a way with words. You got all the basic food groups covered in this paragraph along with some nice sarcasms and mental pictures that Norman Rockwell would be jealous of. I used to believe that a day without sarcasm was a day without sunshine. Did you ever ask Doctors and/or Nurses if they personally take the flu shot. Try it sometime. That is really a simple question. With Barney singing in the background I am almost loosing my train of thought. So let me get serious as follows.

I think that we can agree ( dangerous words, sounds like a setup....but no ) that the current crisis in the Church will be resolved, either from within with the solution unknown to me for example, intense prayer and living and teaching the Faith, a Saint, a present day Elijah,The Pope, A council, etc or by Jesus himself. I mean look at the lawn signs saying ' Catholics come home' and now there is advertising on TV. We can only pray that this will have a positive result. We should pray very hard for true vocations. I am afraid that if all we do is embrace the newcomers or returnees with love and charity that does not include truth and teaching the Faith we will do further harm to the Church.

By you leaping to the conclusion that the Novus Order is not valid and/or sinful is a grave error. Yes, I do pray constantly that the ' NO ' be completely abandoned and that if the vernacular is said. it is said in the same way as the Latin Mass with its beautiful liturgy. altar boys, priest facing the Crucifix and kneeling for Communion. But make no mistake , the Novus Order Mass is completely valid. Even at a Clown Mass , which are rare when the words THIS IS MY BODY AND THIS IS MY BLOOD are said by even the most irreverent celebrant, the miracle of transsubstantiation takes place. There can be major differences from one parish to the next, from one city to the next, from one country to the next in the dignity and praise given Our Lord and Saviour. This is so obvious to me in my travels and cries out for accepting the reality instead of fifty years of denial. Make no mistake, there are many dedicated Holy priest and to generalize that the abuses are everywhere is a fatal mistake. Where is the uniformity and why has it not been enforced. A direct attack on the Novus Order is an attack on all who have lived and died in these unfortunate times, many unknown to us who have gained their salvation by merit. Can we not learn from Jesus. There was never an ad, now accepting applications for new apostles. Job requires loyality, no betrayl, no doubting and abilty to stay and support me in time of need. Stay in the Church!!!!!!!!
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  MRyan on Fri Mar 02, 2012 11:32 am

columba wrote:Quoted by MRYAN:

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. (LG 14*)
And the point is?
The point is only those who are in visible communion with the visible bodily structure (the society of believers – the communion of the faithful) through the “bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way [which] are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion” can be said to be “members” of the Church Militant; God’s visible Church on earth – the Mystical Body of Christ.

The point is that only those “who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure” can be said to be “fully incorporated in the society of the Church”.

The point is, members of the particular Eastern Orthodox churches are NOT “members” of the visible Church Militant, that visible society of the Church whose members are in visible communion with each other and are not divided in “faith, ecclesiastical government and communion”.

The point is neither are members of the particular Eastern Orthodox churches, not even those who have not obstinately doubted or denied a Catholic secondary dogma, “fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ.”

columba wrote:Your quoting something I agree with.
Outstanding; progress at last; however fleeting it may be.

columba wrote:I take it your point is that because the conditions for visible incorpation are explained, by implication there is also such a thing as invisible incorporation, which will only take us back to;

Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that they be entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Hypocrisy, pure an simple. You have utterly failed in demonstrating how a visible adult member of a particular Eastern Orthodox church who has not fallen into formal heresy or schism, but, who professes the faith of his received tradition; a tradition which does not recognize the universal primacy of the Pope, and a tradition and church whose members are NOT in visible communion with the faithful (to include the Roman Pontiff), and whose members do NOT recognize being subject to the universal primacy of the pope (but grant him a primacy of honor over that of their respective Patriarchs), can be “entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff”.

What is your definition of “entirely” if not a visible voluntary communion with the society of the faithful (who are in communion with the Pope), and a voluntary consent of the will to be subject to the universal Primacy of the pope?

I take it your point is that so long as the adult member of a particular Orthodox church does not fall into formal heresy regarding the primacy of the pope, he remains "truly Catholic", both externally and internally, and thus, “entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff”, though in reality he is not in visible communion with the Catholic Church and he is not “entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff”.

Is this the “anonymous visible but not visible member of the Roman Catholic Church” doctrine? I think it goes something like this:

He remains truly Catholic in both senses; externally and internally”, while at the same time “‘he is not an external member’ … of the Catholic Church”.

So, the visible adult Orthodox faith professing member of a particular Eastern Orthodox Church who has not fallen into formal heresy or schism "remains truly Catholic in both senses; externally and internally”; but, at the same time "he is not an 'external member’ … of the Catholic Church” ... but is in fact "entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff”, even if he is not in visible communion with the Catholic Church and even if he doesn't know of or acknowledge his being entirely subject to the pope, and who would say to that "say what?"

Good luck defending that schizophrenic nonsense.

To be continued.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  MRyan on Fri Mar 02, 2012 1:50 pm

columba wrote:
Quoted by MRYAN:
The Church also makes the distinction between "living" and "dead" members of the Church, as well as between actual members and those who may be invisibly united to her in the bonds of faith, charity and desire (intention), but who do not enjoy "in a visible way" the bonds of "the profession of faith [whole and inviolate], the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion."
This really is not that difficult.
You obviously don't see the difficulty.
That’s because there is no difficulty.

columba wrote:You quote from “The Reunion of Christendom”, the Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII, 1894, (which I will repost shortly) without realizing that the meaning you are attributig to the highlighted words above are in clear contradiction to the later encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum of 1896 and unless you are proposing that he has contradicted himself two years later, the meaning you take from his apostolic letter from 1894 is false. I'll highlight the relevent words that contradict what you say above.
This is, of course, complete nonsense, for there is absolutely no contradiction. Once again, columba, your egregious errors in interpretation will shine through as your hole just continues to get deeper.

columba wrote:Citing Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error: as also are those who regard the Church as a human institution which claims a certain obedience in discipline and external duties, but which is without the perennial communication of the gifts of divine grace, and without all that which testifies by constant and undoubted signs to the existence of that life which is drawn from God. It is assuredly as impossible that the Church of Jesus Christ can be the one or the other, as that man should be a body alone or a soul alone. The connection and union of both elements is as absolutely necessary to the true Church as the intimate union of the soul and body is to human nature. The Church is not something dead: it is the body of Christ endowed with supernatural life.
Columba, internal unity with the visible Church of Christ while being united to her visible body [in voto] does not in any way “conjure up and picture … a hidden and invisible Church”, and neither does it "contradict" or deny "the intimate union of the soul and body" of the same Mystical Body. Do you not see the fallacy of such a deeply flawed proposition that has absolutely no truth in it?

In fact, it is much more accurate to say that it is “the Church is in eclipse” rad-trads who actually “arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible [‘true’] Church” to which their little “remnant” of believers belong, and who also “conjure up” a “Novus Ordo” … “human institution which claims a certain obedience in discipline and external duties, but which is without the perennial communication of the gifts of divine grace, and without all that which testifies by constant and undoubted signs to the existence of that life which is drawn from God.”.

Goodness, hoisted by your own petard. This is one of those enlightening and defining “existential” moments, don’t you think? Break the captive's fetters!

Thanks for the citation, its perfect.

columba wrote:
The Reunion of Christendom”, the Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII, 1894. as quoted by MRyan;

Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request. It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love. The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government.

Nor is there any reason for you to fear on that account that We or any of Our Successors will ever diminish your rights, the privileges of your Patriarchs, or the established Ritual of any one of your Churches. It has been and always will be the intent and Tradition of the Apostolic See, to make a large allowance, in all that is right and good, for the primitive Traditions and special customs of every nation. On the contrary, if you re-establish Union with Us, you will see how, by God's bounty, the glory and dignity of your Churches will be remarkably increased. May God, then, in His goodness, hear the Prayer that you yourselves address to Him: "Make the schisms of the Churches cease," and "Assemble those who are dispersed, bring back those who err, and unite them to Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." ...
Obviously Pope Leo's language here is less restrained when his words are addressed to those outside the Church. That he calls them back to unity is in relation to the fact that they were in fact once united but nowhere could you take from his words that he is saying they are already united in any way other than the 2+2=5 way. To say that they are not far seperated is true; not as far seperated as the Protestant sects fior example. Just as someone in England is not as far seperated from me as someone in America. But seperated we are in completely different lands. Read again what he says in Satis Cognitum.
That was a pitiful analogy. I wasn’t aware that the Protestants accept the first seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church, that they are in possession of a valid apostolic succession and episcopacy, and that they have a valid Mass and valid Sacraments.

So the Eastern Orthodox are not “united in any way other than 2=2=5”, meaning that their valid apostolic episcopacy, valid Mass, valid Eucharist and Sacraments are not in any way actually “Catholic”, for they do not unite the Orthodox in any way to the one true Church of Christ.

Let's put it like this, when Pope Leo XIII declared that "if you re-establish Union with Us, you will see how, by God's bounty, the glory and dignity of your Churches will be remarkably increased", he did not in any way mean to suggest that there must already exist some foundational measure of a "glory and dignity" that is capable of increase; the foundations of which are derived from the imperfect unity of a valid apostolic episcopacy and valid sacraments; for these Catholic elements of unity are, according to columba, nothing more than a unity of 2+2=5.

columba wrote:
Mryan wrote:
And columba will determine when the Vicar of Christ is actually in full communion with, in subjection to, the dogmas of the Catholic Faith, and when he is not; just ask him and his fellow traveling rad-trad/sede brethren.
Columba will determine no such thing. The dogmatic truths of the faith determine who is and who is not in full communion whether it be you, me, bishops or the pope.
Your denial is a joke, for that is exactly what you are determining when you say “‘In so far as he is in full communion with, and in subjection to, the dogmas of the Catholic Faith’ I “will be in full communion with the Roman Pontiff, and subject to his Apostolic power in all matters under his supreme authority such as universal laws, liturgy, disciplines and doctrines”.

You will determine, in other words, when the pope is and when he isn’t “in full communion with, and in subjection to, the dogmas of the Catholic Faith”.

In fact, your entire premise is based upon your perceived right as a Catholic to judge the Pope in his supreme Primacy and authority when he exercises that Primacy over those matters even reserved to him alone, and determine for yourself if he is worthy of your subjection and full communion; which presupposes that the Roman Pontiff’s Primacy over the universal Church is all matters of discipline and governance is conditioned upon whether the pope can passes your litmus test for how a pope is supposed to carry out his supreme duties.

You’re not fooling anyone with your double-talk.

columba wrote:
Mryan wrote:
This is nothing more than "conditional" subjection to the universal Primacy of Peter as the "arbiters of tradition" determine when the Vicar of Christ is worthy enough of being subject to, and when his Supreme primacy and authority can be tossed aside in favor of "tradition".

Tradition being of course one of the disposable elements of the faith. Just ask the Protestants about this.
Exactly, you just proved my point by accusing the Vicar of Christ with disposing of Tradition; therefore, you will determine on your own authority when you will remain in full communion with the pope, and when you will not; after all, according to you, the pope has disposed of Tradition, a “disposable element of faith”. And this pertains even to the pope’s Supreme authority over excommunications, Ecumenical Councils, Liturgies and his Ordinary Magisterial authority over the Church’s doctrines.

As the arbiter of tradition and the arbiter of the true interpretation of dogma, there is no limit to your savant-type discernment of, and judgmental authority over, the Petrine Primacy of the Vicar of Christ.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  MRyan on Fri Mar 02, 2012 2:04 pm

columba wrote:
The Reunion of Christendom”, the Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII, 1894. as quoted by MRyan;
Obviously Pope Leo's language here is less restrained when his words are addressed to those outside the Church.
Just for the record, the pope's words are addressed to:

"... Our Venerable Brethren, all Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops and Bishops of the Catholic World In Grace and Communion with the Apostolic See".
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  columba on Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:37 pm

George wrote:
Nothing like jumping in on middle of a conversation, but I reserved this spot today, some time ago.

George your input is always welcome. As for as I know each forum is open to all the members and no one is excluded from contributing to any thread. The more the merrier.

Columba, you have a way with words. You got all the basic food groups covered in this paragraph along with some nice sarcasms and mental pictures that Norman Rockwell would be jealous of.

Hmm.. Do I take that as a compliment or a Rockwellian type rebuff?
These guys earn more money after they die. Wasn't one of his works on the news a few years ago for selling in the double figure millions?
I happen to have a Rockwell piece at home along with a Stradivarius. Unfortunately Rockwell was a useless violin maker and Stradivarius an even worse painter. Smile

I used to believe that a day without sarcasm was a day without sunshine. Did you ever ask Doctors and/or Nurses if they personally take the flu shot. Try it sometime. That is really a simple question.


A very simple queston indeed Goege. I wish Mike would follow your example.
In answer. No.
The doctors and nurses simply do as they're told by the government and major pharmaceutical companies without questioning anything. I read a book authored by a once member of a major pharmaceutical company and he confirmed this to be fact. A doctor wouldn't last long in his profession if he were to challenge the pharmaceutical lords and likewise a nurse if she were to challenge the doctors.

I think that we can agree ( dangerous words, sounds like a setup....but no ) that the current crisis in the Church will be resolved, either from within with the solution unknown to me for example, intense prayer and living and teaching the Faith, a Saint, a present day Elijah,The Pope, A council, etc or by Jesus himself.


I agree George and more inclined to believe it will take the direct intervention of God to put things right.

I mean look at the lawn signs saying ' Catholics come home' and now there is advertising on TV. We can only pray that this will have a positive result.

Doomed to failure George; doomed to failure. It's only when people throw out their TV's that there can be any hope of a spiritual awakening. As for the lawn signs; Come home to what? Diabolic disorientation?

We should pray very hard for true vocations. I am afraid that if all we do is embrace the newcomers or returnees with love and charity that does not include truth and teaching the Faith we will do further harm to the Church.

Yes, the blind can't lead the blind without both falling into the pit. People need to relearn the fundamental dogmatic truths of the faith before they become guides themselves.

By you leaping to the conclusion that the Novus Order is not valid and/or sinful is a grave error.

I haven't leapt to that conclussion at all George. I say the Novus Ordo is of doubtful validity and hence (per St. Thomas Aquinas) a doubtful sacrament is no sacrament at all and must be avoided. Be that as it may, if it is indeed valid (which I believe it is with the new wording -or rather the old wording- of consecration being reintroduced) then it's an even worse sacrilege that such abominable practices of irreverence are carried out before the real presence of Our Lord Himself in the Holy Eucharist.

Yes, I do pray constantly that the ' NO ' be completely abandoned

Me too George. And while I pray for it's complete abandonment I'm hardly gonna attend that which I wish would be wiped off the face of the earth for good. My contribution to this along with my prayers is my non-attendance. If everyone refused to attend, then it couldn't survive. Unfortunately the majority haven't got the foggiest notion what the Holy Mass really is (as don't many priests) and therefore it's up to the minority who have at least a basic understanding to make the stand.

But make no mistake , the Novus Order Mass is completely valid.


Many theologians cannot state this with any degree of certainty.
The Church's charism of infallibilty extends to those things concerning faith and morals, promulgated universally (i.e, to the whole Church throughtout the whole world) that are to be held by all as incontestably true. Those things thast are promulgarted with referrence to only one part of this universal Church, have not been guaranteed the same absolute, incontestable infallibilty. The Novus Order belongs to the latter category as it excludes the eastern Catholic churches.

Even at a Clown Mass , which are rare when the words THIS IS MY BODY AND THIS IS MY BLOOD are said by even the most irreverent celebrant, the miracle of transsubstantiation takes place.


And all the worse for those who sit through it and don't show their disgust by physically removing themselves from it.

There can be major differences from one parish to the next, from one city to the next, from one country to the next in the dignity and praise given Our Lord and Saviour.

Or the lack thereoff.
And this is at the heart of the problem. There are no hard and fast rubrics governing the practices within the NO and what little there may be, are beyond any governance by the magisterium as they have already conceded too many powers of alteration to the individual priest. Thus, the Mass is not protected from abuse; thus, Our Lord is not protected from the same in His voluntary subjection to the reverence or irreverence of man in His Eucharistic presence on earth. Those whom He appointed to be the guardians of this have abandoned their duty. Thus, the faithful should abandon that which has no inbuilt provision for the due care and attention proper to the Eucharist and the unquestionable reverence due to the Savior of the world.

to generalize that the abuses are everywhere is a fatal mistake.


There is nothing in place preventing the abuses from becomming generalized.


Where is the uniformity and why has it not been enforced. A direct attack on the Novus Order is an attack on all who have lived and died in these unfortunate times,


Ones very preferrence for the TLM is already an attack on the NO. the fact that one prays for it's abolishment and it's replacement with the Mass of all time is itself an attack on the NO with the added plea that Christ Himself will lead that attack.

Stay in the Church!!!!!!!!

We must first defend the Church, her dogmas, sacraments and liturgies in order that we actually have a Church that we can stay in. It is however the case -thanks be to God- that the Church will always be here even if one has to search a little to find it.


avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  George Brenner on Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:22 pm

Columba Said:

Hmm.. Do I take that as a compliment or a Rockwellian type rebuff?

Compliment

Columba said:The doctors and nurses simply do as they're told by the government and major pharmaceutical companies without questioning anything. I read a book authored by a once member of a major pharmaceutical company and he confirmed this to be fact. A doctor wouldn't last long in his profession if he were to challenge the pharmaceutical lords and likewise a nurse if she were to challenge the doctors.


My experience has been that the majority do not take the flu shot.
Check this ABC News Link out; one of many:

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7iJNclFPUgYAqVZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1bHJiMXQ4BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA01TWTEwMV8yMDc-/SIG=12rff3ojs/EXP=1330766541/**http%3a//abcnews.go.com/Health/ColdandFluNews/story%3fid=6418974%26page=1



Columba said in regards to the Clown Mass and other blatant abuses:
And all the worse for those who sit through it and don't show their disgust by physically removing themselves from it.

If only the Bishops had taken action immediately to stop these abuses as they took place. Either they did not know which is difficult to believe or they condoned it or they had no spiritual backbone. This was not the intent of Vatican II but so much open experimentation and liberties were taken and allowed that it spiraled out of control into the full fledged crisis in the Church. The mark of the Catholic Church before Vatican II was that you could worship anywhere in the world and basically have the same reverent experience. The priest was never the center of attraction; Jesus was the reason we went to Mass. The Mass After Vatican II , depending on where you attended could be as different as night and day. You could experience everything from reverent to theatre in the round. The Church has paid dearly for this lack of discipline, There is accountability. I have spoken up.

Columba said:Or the lack thereoff.
And this is at the heart of the problem. There are no hard and fast rubrics governing the practices within the NO and what little there may be, are beyond any governance by the magisterium as they have already conceded too many powers of alteration to the individual priest. Thus, the Mass is not protected from abuse; thus, Our Lord is not protected from the same in His voluntary subjection to the reverence or irreverence of man in His Eucharistic presence on earth. Those whom He appointed to be the guardians of this have abandoned their duty. Thus, the faithful should abandon that which has no inbuilt provision for the due care and attention proper to the Eucharist and the unquestionable reverence due to the Savior of the world.

No the faithful should not abandon the Church. I will not abandon. There are many good and Holy priests, sisters, laity and Church militant in the Church. For the sake of 10 the fight to restore must and will go forward. You should not abandon either and stay and be part of the cure in the Ark of Salvation. I know that you are not afraid of rough seas.





Columba said:
There is nothing in place preventing the abuses from becomming generalized.

Not just yet, but they will be prevented and stopped by those who care and love the Church enough to stop them from within the Church. Do not loose faith.

avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  MRyan on Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:54 am

The mark of the Catholic Church before Vatican II was that you could worship anywhere in the world and basically have the same reverent experience.

Yes, one could, but that did not stop the mass exodus from the Church and the almost complete acceptance of the drastic changes soon after VCII; for brewing just underneath the surface were an “Americanism” and a cultural/societal sea change hankering to burst loose. VCII saw it coming, and, unfortunately, in trying to deal with it, its loose interpretation and implementation helped unleash a tidal wave of abuses and scandals that only a liberal could love. The true reformers were overrun; and yes, the popes let it get out of control, however well-intentioned their actions and motives.

Your remarks also suggest that one cannot have a reverent experience with the Novus Ordo, and, though I know you didn’t mean it in that sense, columba certainly seems to; the same columba who makes the heretical charge against the Supreme Primacy of Peter which says the pope promulgated a doubtful universal Rite in the form of a doubtful Sacrament, which means the Church has failed in its indefectible divine mission to provide for the sanctification of the Faithful.

Once again, columba can appeal to her favorite “expert” to dissent from infallible Church teaching.

There is no turning back the clock. The extraordinary form will never again be the ordinary form. I believe Pope BXVI is actually on the right track with the talk we are hearing of a “reform of the reform”. I don’t believe the Church should have “competing” forms of the same Mass, though I would have no problem with both a vernacular and a Latin form of the same Mass based on a true organic development.

I don’t want the Novus Ordo is its present form, and I don’t want the extraordinary form if that means a universal return to the Low Mass (with its attendant abuses traddies don’t like to acknowledge). I don’t think it was ever intended that the Low Mass would become the “ordinary” Sunday Mass, but that’s just what happened; with the beautiful High Mass (some more beautiful than others) being celebrated but rarely (perhaps once a month).

The reformed Low Mass (yes, I think it should be reformed – gasp!) should be a private or daily Mass (though it should be more active in participation with lay responses); but Sundays should be reserved for the dignity it deserves, to include the choir, chants, smells, bells and active participation and responses of the laity in a Mass worthy of worship and Glory of God.

Just one man’s opinion. Nostalgia needs to go (always more optimistic of the ‘good-old-days” than reality), and reality needs to set in. Let’s take the cards we’ve been dealt, and reform from there. The Pope has the lead – let’s hope and pray we see more positive results.

Here’s a bit of history (that led to reform) that I would not classify as "nostalgia":

[On not performing spectacles in churches]

In some churches, during certain celebrations of the year, there are carried on various scandalous practices. Some people with mitre, crozier and pontifical vestments give blessings after the manner of bishops. Others are robed like kings and dukes; in some regions this is called the feast of fools or innocents, or of children. Some put on masked and theatrical comedies, others organize dances for men and women, attracting people to amusement and buffoonery. Others prepare meals and banquets there. This holy synod detests these abuses. It forbids ordinaries as well as deans and rectors of churches, under pain of being deprived of all ecclesiastical revenues for three months, to allow these and similar frivolities, or even markets and fairs, in churches, which ought to be houses of prayer, or even in cemeteries. They are to punish transgressors by ecclesiastical censures and other remedies of the law. The holy synod decrees that all customs, statutes and privileges which do not accord with these decrees, unless they add greater penalties, are null. (The Ecumenical Council of Florence, Session 21 [Basel] —9 June 1435)
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  George Brenner on Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:48 pm

Just to re quote. my own quote from my last post:

" The Mass After Vatican II , depending on where you attended could be as different as night and day. You could experience everything from REVERENT to theatre in the round. The Church has paid dearly for this lack of discipline, There is accountability. I have spoken up."


The Novus Mass that I attend is very reverent, as are many throughout the world. I have posted on this often. This is reason for great hope for the future.

I love your last paragraph, Mike on expected Church Discipline. Lets get it done!

Mike, in my humble opinion, you provide an incredible service on this forum in explaining centuries of Church teaching and just how truly miraculous the very essence and teaching of our faith is protected by the Holy Spirit. Much is expected of you; sorry about the undue pressure.


God Bless you,

JMJ,

George
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  Guest on Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:04 pm

I hope I am not interrupting...(just add my 2 cents Embarassed ) but I tried reading a lot of the thread and may have missed a few points. So Let me ask is the question who is a member of the Church in the Christian (Trinitarian-beliving) groups? --Protestants, Orthodox and Catholic?



Mike was the youth St. Josaphat?
Pope Pius XI, Ecclesiam Dei, Encyclical on St. Josaphat, Nov. 12, 1923:
“Our Saint [Josaphat] was born of schismatic parents but was validly baptized and received the name of John. From his earliest years he lived a saintly life. Although he was much impressed by the splendors of the Slavic liturgy, he always sought therein first and foremost the truth and glory of God. Because of this, and not because he was impressed by arguments, even as a child he turned towards communion with the Ecumenical, that is, the Catholic Church. Of this Church he always considered himself a member because of the valid baptism which he had received. What is more, he felt himself called by a special Providence to re-establish everywhere the holy unity of the Church.”

This is a little confusing because the Church is "one," so it seems just like the pope is using "to re-establish everywhere the holy unity of the Church.” in a colloquial sense. Unless you are a sede and say Pius XI lost his office by this heresy Laughing

Anyway the Church hasn't made a clearly infallible pronouncement on who is a member, in so many words, but we need to piece it together for now.

We know
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302,: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation NOR REMISSION OF SIN…”


So there is no remission of sins outside membership in the Church and to be a membership seems to need 2 things Sacramental Baptism and true Faith
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (# 22), June 29, 1943:
“Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the [1.] laver of regeneration and [2.] profess the true faith.”

If we confine ourselves to those validly Sacramentally Baptized the question is what is "true faith"? and who has it?

Those of good will would seem to have it "implicitly"
Those of bad will don't have it at all.

Who has bad will and who has good will? hmmm...I would say only God can say for sure.
But to be outside of official structure of the Church either as Orthodox or Protestant seems to be in a precarious position because Pius IX said in his syllabus of errors :
"18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true
Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the
Catholic Church."-condemned

I would say that those who do not put an obstacle to the grace of Faith receive it. Like saint Josaphat above God will inspire their way back. All it takes is on one's deathbed one would make an act of contrition of all the sins that have offended God--which would include heresy and schism --de facto.

Unfortunately many Protestants are trained not to seek an act of contrition because they are already saved. Orthodox on the other hand, it looks better for them. But outside the Official structures, they are sheep with no Shepherd and a likely to fall into sins,e.g. contraception, divorce and remarriage... Even if they may not be guilty of sinning subjectively, there must be other negative effects besides sin that are detrimental to them keeping true Faith? Moral perversions have great sway and a hold on many people's acceptance and rejection of doctrine.

I believe those who seek find; those who knock it is opened to them.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  MRyan on Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:15 pm

George Brenner wrote:
The Novus Mass that I attend is very reverent, as are many throughout the world. I have posted on this often. This is reason for great hope for the future.
But, George, how can you attend the Novus Ordo (after all these years), while managing to have kept the Catholic Faith -- and even to have grown in faith and devotion?

I mean you don't even accuse the pope of heresy (until proven otherwise) for his doctrinal teaching on the Universal Church and Particular Churches, so what's up with that?

A "true believer" (you know, the little "remnant") has no problem making such an accusation, and the only way to be a true believer is to reject the Novus Ordo and the "conciliar Church", and to suggest or accuse the Pontiff of promulgating a "doubtful" Mass (Sacrament) ... and to become the true arbiter of tradition in all matters of faith and discipline.

That's how one keeps the Catholic faith, or haven't you heard?

Sometimes, George, sarcasm gets the point across better than being blunt; so I hope you don't mind.






avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  columba on Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:24 pm

Your remarks also suggest that one cannot have a reverent experience with the Novus Ordo, and, though I know you didn’t mean it in that sense, columba certainly seems to; the same columba who makes the heretical charge against the Supreme Primacy of Peter which says the pope promulgated a doubtful universal Rite in the form of a doubtful Sacrament, which means the Church has failed in its indefectible divine mission to provide for the sanctification of the Faithful.

One cannot be guaranteed a reverent experience with the Novus Ordo. That is the point but not the main point. The main point is that reverential experiences are just that; experiences, which themselves are subjective. Because one has a reverential experience doesn't follow that God is being given due reverence. If the external signs of reverence are lacking (use of the vernacular even in the canon, the priest facing West while the congregation faces liturgical East, reception of Holy Communion in whichever style one prefers so on and so on) then one can be pretty sure that internal reverence has also gone. "Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi."

Columba did not say, "..the pope promulgated a doubtful universal Rite.." Columba said that the rite was not promulgated universally. There's a difference Mike. To be precise, it is not classed as a "rite" but as one form of "the rite." Thankfully the Church has not failed "in its indefectible divine mission to provide for the sanctification of the Faithful." because the true Mass was never abrogated and always remained in existance in at least several parts of the universal Church. The Church leadership did indeed fail to provide for the sanctification of the Faithful in the western world by permitting a liturgy that was conducive to the loss of faith. These are demonstrable facts, not accusations.

Once again, columba can appeal to her favorite “expert” to dissent from infallible Church teaching.

Columba didn't get a sex change operation; he still remains a "he." Smile

MRyan wrote:
I don’t want the Novus Ordo is its present form, and I don’t want the extraordinary form if that means a universal return to the Low Mass (with its attendant abuses traddies don’t like to acknowledge). I don’t think it was ever intended that the Low Mass would become the “ordinary” Sunday Mass, but that’s just what happened; with the beautiful High Mass (some more beautiful than others) being celebrated but rarely (perhaps once a month).

The reformed Low Mass (yes, I think it should be reformed – gasp!) should be a private or daily Mass (though it should be more active in participation with lay responses); but Sundays should be reserved for the dignity it deserves, to include the choir, chants, smells, bells and active participation and responses of the laity in a Mass worthy of worship and Glory of God.


I agree with some of this, i.e, the Low Mass not being the ordinary Sunday Mass.

[On not performing spectacles in churches]

In some churches, during certain celebrations of the year, there are carried on various scandalous practices. Some people with mitre, crozier and pontifical vestments give blessings after the manner of bishops. Others are robed like kings and dukes; in some regions this is called the feast of fools or innocents, or of children. Some put on masked and theatrical comedies, others organize dances for men and women, attracting people to amusement and buffoonery. Others prepare meals and banquets there. This holy synod detests these abuses. It forbids ordinaries as well as deans and rectors of churches, under pain of being deprived of all ecclesiastical revenues for three months, to allow these and similar frivolities, or even markets and fairs, in churches, which ought to be houses of prayer, or even in cemeteries. They are to punish transgressors by ecclesiastical censures and other remedies of the law. The holy synod decrees that all customs, statutes and privileges which do not accord with these decrees, unless they add greater penalties, are null. (The Ecumenical Council of Florence, Session 21 [Basel] —9 June 1435)

The interesting thing about this is that it was because of these many varying practices that Pope Pius V standardized the Holy Mass. His aim was to stamp out every irreverency and abuse that could possibly be inserted and place "in stone" for all time, a form of Mass that was excellent in all its components and be as excempt from abuse as was humanly possible to make it. We now rue the day this was tampererd with and have incurred the wrath of Almighty God, and the holy apostles Peter and Paul.

avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  MRyan on Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:18 pm

duckbill wrote:I hope I am not interrupting...(just add my 2 cents Embarassed ) but I tried reading a lot of the thread and may have missed a few points. So Let me ask is the question who is a member of the Church in the Christian (Trinitarian-beliving) groups? --Protestants, Orthodox and Catholic?

Mike was the youth St. Josaphat?

Pope Pius XI, Ecclesiam Dei, Encyclical on St. Josaphat, Nov. 12, 1923:

“Our Saint [Josaphat] was born of schismatic parents but was validly baptized and received the name of John. From his earliest years he lived a saintly life. Although he was much impressed by the splendors of the Slavic liturgy, he always sought therein first and foremost the truth and glory of God. Because of this, and not because he was impressed by arguments, even as a child he turned towards communion with the Ecumenical, that is, the Catholic Church. Of this Church he always considered himself a member because of the valid baptism which he had received. What is more, he felt himself called by a special Providence to re-establish everywhere the holy unity of the Church.”
This is a little confusing because the Church is "one," so it seems just like the pope is using "to re-establish everywhere the holy unity of the Church.” in a colloquial sense. Unless you are a sede and say Pius XI lost his office by this heresy Laughing

Duckbill,

Nice to hear from you again!

Yes, it may have been St. Josephat I was referring to; though I thought he may have been killed in his youth (he died as an Archbishop from violence at the age of 33). But everything else seems to have fallen into place, even the fact that he is indeed among the “blessed” in heaven (canonized by Pope Pius IX in 1867).

The point I was making was this: St. Josephat was born (about 1580) of schismatic Orthodox parents and attended the Orthodox Slavonic Liturgy. With the Union of Brest (1596), a small faction of the Slavs were reunited with Rome (the “Uniates”); however (if the historical account I am reading is correct), Josephat was not introduced to Catholicism until 1599 (he was 19), and after five years of study he became a priest. He became a bishop in 1617 and was made Archbishop of Polotsk in 1618, where he continued his fight for the faith against the schismatic Orthodox, with the outrage of the townspeople culminating in his violent death (by ax and two bullets). (Ewa Slojka, Holy People of the World)

The piety of the young saint would have stood out, “For the Ruthenian Church, it was a gloomy period of ignorance, demoralization, divisions and intolerance”, especially after the Union of Brest, which “left the schismatic Orthodox clergy hostile and full of hatred towards the proponents of reconciliation with Rome.” (Ibid)

In the true sense of the common definition of “membership” in the Mystical Body, as it was declared by Pope Pius XII, prior to 1599 Josephat was not a visible member of the Catholic Church.

Keep in mind that Pope Pius IX did not say that the Church always considered Josephat a “member” of the Church, but that Josephat “always considered himself a member because of the valid baptism which he had received”.

I think it is safe to say that Josephat was probably always a Catholic at heart, with his visible separation being one of circumstance only; and this is what Pope Pius IX probably meant when he said: “even as a child he [in his heart] turned towards communion with the Ecumenical, that is, the Catholic Church”.

Now, as far as “he felt himself called by a special Providence to re-establish everywhere the holy unity of the Church”, I’m don’t know why anyone would think that the pope said this only in a “colloquial” sense, but also in a very real sense because of their status as authentic particular churches, but whose separation from the one Body cannot be repaired until full communion is restored.

He is talking in the sense of making licit those Catholic elements retained by the Orthodox that can only become licit by restoring full communion. In the sense that the Church is already One, and does not need the Orthodox to add to its “Oneness”, what you say is absolutely true; it is the Orthodox who suffer the defect, not the Church. But, the obvious sense that Pope Pius IX means it is the same sense articulated by Pope Leo XIII, who said:

We hope it all the more, that the distance separating them from Us is not so great: nay, with some few exceptions, we agree so entirely on other heads that, in defense of the Catholic Faith, we often have recourse to reasons and testimony borrowed from the teaching, the Rites, and Customs of the East.

What answer shall we give to God when He comes to ask why we have separated from our Brethren: to Him Who, to unite us and bring us into One Fold, came down from Heaven, was Incarnate, and was Crucified? … The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government.

It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love.

… if you re-establish Union with Us, you will see how, by God's bounty, the glory and dignity of your Churches will be remarkably increased.

If in unhappy times many of your forefathers were separated from the Faith of Rome, consider now what priceless benefits a return of Unity would bring to you. The Church is anxious to welcome you also to her arms, that she may give you manifold aids to salvation, prosperity, and grandeur. (The Reunion of Christendom”, the Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII, 1894)
I’ll leave it there for now, and will respond to the rest when I can.

Thanks for our comments.

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  MRyan on Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:04 pm

columba wrote:
Columba did not say, "..the pope promulgated a doubtful universal Rite.." Columba said that the rite was not promulgated universally. There's a difference Mike. To be precise, it is not classed as a "rite" but as one form of "the rite."
It does not matter that it is one “form of the rite”, and it certainly was promulgated "universally". What made the promulgation of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite “universal” was the fact that:

Finally, the Church of Christ is sacramentally present in the Universal or Catholic Church spread over the entire world. It is identified by the sign of Christ our Rock, the Bishop of Rome, Successor of St. Peter (Mt. 16:18). To be Catholic particular Churches and ritual Churches must be in communion with this Head, just as the other apostles, and the Churches they founded, were in communion with Peter (Gal. 1:18). Through this communion with Peter and his successors the Church becomes a universal sacrament of salvation in all times and places, even to the end of the age (Mt. 28:20). (http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm)
And this fits in with the topic of the thread (The Universal Church and Particular Churches), not that it would have resonated -- you have already accused the Pope of teaching a heretical doctrine (until proven otherwise).

Furthemore, Summorum Pontificum, in describing the Old and New Masses, says:

"The Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI and the last edition prepared under Pope John XXIII, are two forms of the Roman Liturgy, defined respectively as ordinaria and extraordinaria: they are two usages of the one Roman Rite, one alongside the other. Both are the expression of the same lex orandi ['rule of prayer'] of the Church."
And, Universae Ecclesiae makes this point clear by quoting Pope Benedict in Summorum Pontificum:

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the Liturgy growth and progress are found, but not a rupture. What was sacred for prior generations, remains sacred and great for us as well, and cannot be suddenly prohibited altogether or even judged harmful.
But then again, I almost forgot who I was talking to, the "arbiter of tradition" who decides when the Pope deserves filial obedience and subjection, and when he does not.

Let's see if I have this straight; when he fails to adhere to the Catholic Faith in his Supreme Pontifical acts of Primacy over the universal Church, his cardboard cut-out can be put back into the corner until he regains the true faith. Other than that, it is probably safe to be subject to the Roman Pontiff ... maybe ... but the true arbiters of tradition are keeping an eye on him.

Got it.

columba wrote;
Thankfully the Church has not failed "in its indefectible divine mission to provide for the sanctification of the Faithful." because the true Mass was never abrogated and always remained in existence in at least several parts of the universal Church. The Church leadership did indeed fail to provide for the sanctification of the Faithful in the western world by permitting a liturgy that was conducive to the loss of faith. These are demonstrable facts, not accusations.
That is not a demonstrable fact, but an explicit heresy loaded with unsubstantiated accusations based on a pile of conjecture. You can no more prove that the TLM would have curtailed the cultural revolution and the ensuing “loss of faith”, than you can prove that the New Mass “was conducive to the loss of faith”. All you can do is produce statistics and draw “factual” conclusions based on logical fallacies.

By stating that the Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI is of dubious validity because of its “doubtful” Sacrament, you have heretically accused the Church of failing in its divine mission. Specifically, you have accused the Pope in his Supreme Primacy of changing that which she cannot be changed, the very essence of a Sacrament -- matter, form and intention, rendering the Sacrament "doubtful".

This is heresy.

If you wish to argue that the Ordinary form is more susceptible to abuse, you will get no argument from me; but that did not prevent there being a fair share of sloppy, hurried, mumbled and almost irreverent Low Masses prior to VCII.

No "guarantee" of reverence there either.



avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  Guest on Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:28 pm

Columba,
I think you are being distracted by the problems of the mass and you have already found the main problem--who is a member of the Church? and is there salvation outside of it?

Yes there have been problems with the Novus Ordo but I don't see that as the major problem. My close relative grew-up in the Traditional Latin Mass and said in his day most week day masses were a "mass pill" meaning the speed the priest would say the mass. Weekday masses could be done in 15 minutes or less! The TLM is usually today said reverently because those seeking its renewal are reverent.

Now we have other problems in the Novus Ordo but it is true I have been to many reverent NO masses. And while some actions can be assumed to be irreverent often many aren't that according to some tastes are. I don't like communion in the hand and I think it was gotten by diabolical means,...but since it is approved of, I must bear the burden of it.

I think the devil is testing our Faith. Like Job, the Church - pope, clergy, and laity- are being tested. There has been allowed a change in accidentals and important things and so many it is disorientating, but it is still the essences of the Faith and sacraments, we must hold on to. Like Job it is way above my pay-grade to explain why. Are we being punished for sins of the Church? I don't know. Like Job the Church has its accusers, the Sedes, the SSPX, Liberals,....me Embarassed

But all we can do is be Faithful to the Faith and the sacraments. This isn't to say we should remain passive. The good changes to the NO happened because trads didn't leave the Church and worked for change by challenging the status quo.

I think the Church really has to clarify who is and isn't a member. While I think this is the main problem of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, there is more to do to reform the Church than just than that.


Thanks for the welcome Mike...I hope I don't over stay my welcome and you all want to kick me out Shocked Laughing

I think it is an interesting quote from Leo XIII but he didn't use the same terminology of Pius XI---(BTW you wrote Pius IX, when I think you meant Pius XI) but that isn't important. But what is curious is people in the Vatican have said we don't seek unity of all Christians by a "ecumenicism of the return"

In fact, Cardinal Kasper is on record as seemingly against the traditional Catholic teaching on seeking Christian Unity. He said in 2001, “Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would 'be converted' and return to being 'Catholics.' This was expressly abandoned at Vatican II.”

Pope Benedict XVI’s in Cologne, 2005 said,

“... this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not! It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline. Unity in multiplicity, and multiplicity in unity.... To this end, dialogue has its own contribution to make”. Apostolic Journey to Cologne, On the Occasion of the
XX World Youth Day.


Some have disparaged B16 for his comment and equated it with Kasper's but I think there is a difference and B16 is trying to "spin" Kasper's comment to mean "return" to the Latin Rite, but I doubt that was Kasper's meaning, but I believe there was and is a power struggle going on in the Vatican and Kasper made the comment while JPII was very sick and weak. I think B16 thinks it better to 'bend' the terminology of others than to have a retraction. You could call it a "diplomatic jujitsu". I don't think this is prudent but I am not the pope nor privy to the whole situation of the Church.

But Kasper's sentiments of "not seeking a return" is what one gets from local clergy and bishops. Why? Because Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is in practical terms denied. There is no need for a return because they can be saved in their ignorance/obstinance or they are considered members of the Church and a "Mere Christianity" is sufficient.

I find it ironic that the most sympathetic Catholics to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in my experience has been Charismatics. While they won't think Protestants or Orthodox are outside the Church, they at least agree belief in Jesus as Lord and Savior is necessary, which is more than SSPX --LOL

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  MRyan on Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:12 pm

Duckbill wrote:
Anyway the Church hasn't made a clearly infallible pronouncement on who is a member, in so many words, but we need to piece it together for now.
Actually, Columba said “The Church has already defined dogmatically who is, and who is not a member. How did you miss it?”

So, Duckbill, how did you miss it? Apparently, I missed it as well.

But of course, the Church has infallibly established (but has not “defined dogmatically”) the minimum essential for Church membership, as Pope Pius XII declared:

only those are actually to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith and have not unhappily withdrawn from Body-unity, or for grave faults been excluded by legitimate authority. For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one Body.

But nowhere has she infallibly declared that this visible external membership (i.e., “Body-unity”) in the Church Militant is necessary (for salvation) for those who can be united to the visible Body only in voto; in fact, she teaches just as infallibly (cannot be opposed to dogma) that an internal unity is possible through faith and charity, with one’s desire for visible “Body-unity” (visible communion with the faithful) being fulfilled by the desire for it.

Duckbill wrote:
We know:

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302,: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation NOR REMISSION OF SIN…”
So there is no remission of sins outside membership in the Church and to be a membership seems to need 2 things Sacramental Baptism and true Faith
Oops.

Duckbill, so how does one go from “we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation NOR REMISSION OF SIN…” to “So there is no remission of sins outside membership in the Church”?

Are you not embellishing the solemn words of Pope Boniface with your private interpretation? Cannot one be “joined to” or “united with” the Church through the bonds of faith and charity, as the Church teaches?
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2259
Reputation : 2431
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  columba on Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:56 pm

Duckbill, welcome back. It's good to hear from you again. Hope you intend sticking around a while. Hopefully, without me sounding like a fanatical member of the opposing fan club, You're a great asset to have on the forum.

I agree that the problems with the NO Mass can cause one to over react regarding other serious issues within the Church. I believe in my own case I'm more inclined to under react and in maintaining this level of moderation I'm forced to look at one issue as being disconnected from the other, (i.e, refrain from joining any dots), but in doing so I risk losing sight of the overall picture and could equally be charged with falsely minimizing the true extent of the crisis.

I do believe however, that the denial of the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus dogma is at the heart of every single problem within todays Church. The denial in all it's forms, from baptism of blood extending to embrace baptism of desire, baptism of desire extending to embrace Invincible Ignorance, Invincible Ignorance extending to embrace all false religions, and all ending in universal salvationism, the denial of the necessity of Baptism and all the sacraments and uktimately, the denial of Christ as Savoir and Redeemer of the world.

If I probe a little deeper and try to pinpoint who the promoters of this new theology are.
Well,, What can I conclude? All I know is, that if one denies even one dogma of the faith, he denies the whole faith. What each one concludes from that is between their own conscience and God. Needless to say, I believe Fr Feeney was right, and was one of those many prophets who Christ complained would be (and were) dragged before courts, ridiculed and condemned.
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  columba on Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:12 pm

Mike the Church has clearly defined who is NOT a member and done so with all the dogmatic authority she could muster. Those outside the visible ecclesiastical body are Not members and cannot be saved. Jews, Pagans, heretics, apostates and schismatics.
Are you shocked at that? So shocked that you refuse to believe it?
Pope Eugene IV was not pampering to emotionalism when he proclaimed this dogma. He was stating the absolute, unadulerated, unapologetic, divinely revealed truth. End of story.
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  George Brenner on Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:57 pm

Welcome back, Duckbill. Your post are very important to the discussions.


Mike, thanks for blowing my cover. I really do miss sarcasm. I mean just when more and more people are seeing the importance and power of confession and more and more priests are getting a fire for teaching the faith, and more and more Catholics are speaking up, and more and more Catholics really want to please and show love for our Saviour , and more and more Catholics real want to learn the faith, I totally forgot that we really should be cheering for the crisis of faith to grow and prosper in the Church and not its return to calmer seas.
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  Guest on Sun Mar 04, 2012 10:37 am

Mike wrote:
Oops.

Duckbill, so how does one go from “we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation NOR REMISSION OF SIN…” to “So there is no remission of sins outside membership in the Church”?

Are
you not embellishing the solemn words of Pope Boniface with your
private interpretation? Cannot one be “joined to” or “united with” the
Church through the bonds of faith and charity, as the Church teaches?

Are you saying the pope here is not speaking about persons?"outside of which there is no salvation NOR REMISSION OF SIN…”

If a person is not a member can he be inside the Church?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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