Latest topics
» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:02 pm by tornpage

» 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


Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Page 1 of 10 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Wed Mar 07, 2012 3:50 pm

The following questions (just to keep it simple) are designed to tease out and reveal the understandings we have of certain basic fundamentals of the faith. I'm sure we'll find consensus on many points; those points on which we disagree can be the object of our discussion, and discussed in light of the things on which we agree. If there be any things which I assert to be true but on which others disagree, we can refer back to those truths on which we all agree and thus find if I be in contradiction to any of them. Likewise with those (other than me) who hold various beliefs as “de fide” which are not part of those beliefs on which we have unanimous consent.

I propose that the simplest format to achieve this is with basic questions to which a Yes or No answer can be given without compromise. A third possible answer (besides Yes or No) could be simply, “I don't know.”

Mike or anyone else who wishes can also provide questions of this nature.
I'm hoping by this means to expose errors (if there be any) in the positions I hold on various defined teachings of the faith with the promise to renounce those errors once exposed.
These first few questions are of great relevance to me personally, as from them I have derived my understanding of many other teachings of the faith that have followed from my understanding of these.


The traditional teaching of the Church (from my understanding) is that there is but One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of which its individual members exist in one of three possible subsets (so to speak) within this one Church. These being: the Church Militant, the Church Suffering, and the Church Triumphant.

First question:
Can it be considered that these three modes of existence within the Church define the boundaries of the Church with regards to who is in and who is outside the Church?

a) Yes.
b) No
c) I don't know

Second question:
Apart from these three modes of existence within the one Church, are there any other defined (de fide) modes of existence within the Church by which an individual can be considered as belonging to the Church?

a) Yes.
b) No.
c} I don't know.

Third question:
Has it been defined dogmatically that all those existing outside the Church cannot be saved?

a) Yes.
b) No.
c} I don't know.


My answers: a) Yes. b) No. c) Yes
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Jehanne on Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:23 pm

We're into "proving negatives" again, because I could always assert that someone like Osama bin Laden was sacramentally baptized during his infancy and received salutary repentance at his death. Asserting "extraordinary means" of salvation other than Baptism is a non sequitur, because such "avenues" may simply not exist. One could appeal to certain liturgical traditions within the history of the Church which suggest that there were individuals who died without Baptism, but one could easily appeal to those same traditions which told of people being raised from the dead so that they could receive Baptism. I see no reason to doubt St. Thomas' teaching that those who sincerely seeking the Truth will, eventually, find it, provided that, on their part, there is "no hindrance."

We all agree that it is better to die with Baptism than without it.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:49 pm

Jehanne,
I appreciate your comments. Would you be kind enough to answer the questions also so as to keep this thread on track.
Thanks.
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:49 pm

1. “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism” (Pope Pius XII, Allocution to mid wives).

a. True
b. False
c. I don’t know
d. Next question

2. Is the above teaching of Pope Pius XII part of the ordinary magisterial teachings of the Church, of which our Lord said “He who heareth you, heareth Me”?

a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know
d. Next question

3. Do baptism of blood and baptism of desire represent a “denial” of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and thus, a denial of the whole faith?

a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know
d. You’ve got to be kidding

4. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation to:

a. Each of the faithful
b. Theologians
c. The Teaching Authority of the Church
d. Columba
e. All of the above

5. An adult non-formally schismatic/heretical Orthodox visible member of a particular Eastern Church who is not in visible communion with the Catholic Church remains truly Catholic in both senses; externally and internally, while at the same time he is not an external member of the Catholic Church.

a. True
b. False
c. I don’t know
d. Say what?


Answer key (no cheating):
1. a
2. a
3. b or d
4. c
5. b or d
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:05 pm

I should have stipulated; before providing comments or proposing ones own set of questions, would everyone please answer the questions listed. This apllies to all posters questions. My apologies if I hadn't made that clear.

Mike I'll answer your questions when you answer mine.
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:16 pm

columba wrote:
The traditional teaching of the Church (from my understanding) is that there is but One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of which its individual members exist in one of three possible subsets (so to speak) within this one Church. These being: the Church Militant, the Church Suffering, and the Church Triumphant.

First question:
Can it be considered that these three modes of existence within the Church define the boundaries of the Church with regards to who is in and who is outside the Church?
a) Yes, while the Church also teaches through her authentic ordinary magisterium that one may be joined to the Church Militant through faith, charity and intention.

Second question:
Apart from these three modes of existence within the one Church, are there any other defined (de fide) modes of existence within the Church by which an individual can be considered as belonging to the Church?
Where has the Church defined “belonging to the Church”?

You need to define your terms. Do you mean visible membership, internal unity, or both? For example in her Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, the Church teaches:

Catechumens [those un-baptized] who, moved by the Holy Ghost, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own”. (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, Article 14).
Again, define your terms.

Third question:
Has it been defined dogmatically that all those existing outside the Church cannot be saved?
a) Yes, and all who are not finally joined to her will be lost.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Wed Mar 07, 2012 5:38 pm

Is MRyan the pope?

a. Well, duh
b. No
c. I don’t know
d. If not, he should be
e. Wash your mouth out

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Jehanne on Wed Mar 07, 2012 6:55 pm

My answers are: a) Yes, b) No, c) Yes.

Note I that I agree that an individual may have canonical standing within the Orthodox Church, and even be a "member" of that Church, yet still die within the "bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." I am not the "judge of men's souls," so it is Christ alone who judges someone to Hell, not me. Our job is simply to proclaim the truth of Unam Sanctam to everyone without exception, the Orthodox included; that is, that the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church are "one thing." If someone is linked to the One True Church only through the "bonds of faith and charity," wonderful; such does absolutely nothing to change our mission.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  George Brenner on Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:19 pm

Columba's
Questions ( "Just to keep it simple" ) Right?

The traditional teaching of the Church (from my understanding) is that there is but One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of which its individual members exist in one of three possible subsets (so to speak) within this one Church. These being: the Church Militant, the Church Suffering, and the Church Triumphant.

First question:
Can it be considered that these three modes of existence within the Church define the boundaries of the Church with regards to who is in and who is outside the Church?

a) Yes.
b) No
c) I don't know

Second question:
Apart from these three modes of existence within the one Church, are there any other defined (de fide) modes of existence within the Church by which an individual can be considered as belonging to the Church?

a) Yes.
b) No.
c} I don't know.

Third question:
Has it been defined dogmatically that all those existing outside the Church cannot be saved?

a) Yes.
b) No.
c} I don't know.


My answers: a) Yes. b) No. c) Yes

So , you answered every question with a yes, no , yes ?

Answer to Number 3 is.... Y E S
I think Question number three is the important one and once that is accepted as true and unchangeable everything else falls into place. Everyone who enters Heaven after Jesus founded the Catholic Church is Catholic . There is NO salvation outside the Catholic Church.

Questions 1 and 2 are too vague. 1, The Church Triumphant are Catholic Saints. All of them. The Church Suffering are Catholic Saints to be or in waiting being cleansed of their venial sins. All of them. The Church Militant are all Catholics on earth as defined by the teaching authority of the Church. What about Catechumens? , Martyrs etc ?

2, is way to vague and leaves out the will of God.


Question 77,

The only way to get to England from New York is by boat?

A. yes
B. No
c. I do not know

No comments, just answer the question

avatar
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:44 pm

MRyan wrote:
First question:
Can it be considered that these three modes of existence within the Church define the boundaries of the Church with regards to who is in and who is outside the Church?

a) Yes, while the Church also teaches through her authentic ordinary magisterium that one may be joined to the Church Militant through faith, charity and intention.

Can we stick with this point for a minute (which may take a couple of posts to clarify).
Could I ask you if those who possess faith, charity and intention, are to be considered as being part of the Church Militant?

a) Yes
b) No
c) I don't know


Second question:
Apart from these three modes of existence within the one Church, are there any other defined (de fide) modes of existence within the Church by which an individual can be considered as belonging to the Church?

Where has the Church defined “belonging to the Church”?

You need to define your terms. Do you mean visible membership, internal unity, or both?

I mean only that which the Church means and how she has defined "belonging to."

Is "belonging to" and "being a member of" two different things?
Can I be a member of the Church without belonging to the Church and vice versa?


MRyan wrote:
For example in her Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, the Church teaches:

Catechumens [those un-baptized] who, moved by the Holy Ghost, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicite 14).


Again, define your terms.

Has this definition (which isn't really a definition, as the meaning of the term, "joined with her" has not been defined in LG) ever been held before Vat II Council?
I ask this because the Council declared that it would define no new teachings and that all its teachings would be understood in light of all previously defined Church teachings.


avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:47 pm

MRyan wrote:Is MRyan the pope?

a. Well, duh
b. No
c. I don’t know
d. If not, he should be
e. Wash your mouth out


That's a trick question. There's no "Yes" option.
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:11 pm

Questions 1 and 2 are too vague. 1, The Church Triumphant are Catholic Saints. All of them. The Church Suffering are Catholic Saints to be or in waiting being cleansed of their venial sins. All of them. The Church Militant are all Catholics on earth as defined by the teaching authority of the Church. What about Catechumens? , Martyrs etc ?

George I don't accept the charge that those questions are too vague. They are simple and straight to the point with no slight-of-hand being employed.
As to the catechumens; they are not as yet baptized and therefore the Church does not include them as one of her members. Members in waiting, Yes, but if you are to include these catechumens as members, a fourth subset would have to be created. The Church has no such fourth subset defined anywhere.
It's worth mentioning here that a newly baptized catechumen is still considered a catechumen while he receives further instruction in the faith. Therefore, when a times the Church refers to "catechumens" she can also be referring to those already baptized and who are alreading existing members of the Church.

2, is way to vague and leaves out the will of God.

I'm not at all sure what you mean here George.
If you mean the word "belonging" is vague, then that's maybe where we have to go next. Define the word "belonging" and see if the Church ever meant anything other than membership when using that term.

Question 77,

The only way to get to England from New York is by boat?

A. yes
B. No
c. I do not know

No comments, just answer the question

I see you've placed me at an unfair disadvantage by refusing me a comment but in this case my answer doesn't require a comment. My only stipulation to others was that if they provide a comment they should first answer the questions, but all comments are welcome and helpful.

My answer then without comment. B. No

avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:57 pm

MRyan wrote:
1. “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism” (Pope Pius XII, Allocution to mid wives).

a. True
b. False
c. I don’t know
d. Next question

a. True (with the stipulation "perfect" act of love

But can an adult make a perfect act of love while still being held in bondage by the devil, as a yet unregenerated man, still requiring the laver of regeneration (i.e, the waters of Baptism) of which no other means is known to the Church by which he can be sanctified bar sacramental Baptism?

2. Is the above teaching of Pope Pius XII part of the ordinary magisterial teachings of the Church, of which our Lord said “He who heareth you, heareth Me”?

a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know
d. Next question

a. Yes
But are you saying that Pope Pius XII is declaring that such a transition from "natural man" to "Regenerated man" can be achieved without Baptism. I don't think he has said as much.

3. Do baptism of blood and baptism of desire represent a “denial” of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and thus, a denial of the whole faith?

a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know
d. You’ve got to be kidding

Trick question for real this time Mike. You've tried to palm off two questions under the guise of one here, so allow me to seperate them and answer each individually.

3. Do baptism of blood and baptism of desire represent a “denial” of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus,

a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know
d. You’ve got to be kidding


3a. Yes.


3b. Do baptism of blood and baptism of desire represent a denial of the whole faith?

a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know
d. You’ve got to be kidding


b. No. They represent a denial of the words of Christ who said, "Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." but not a denial of the whole faith which is termed "apostasy" but yes, it constitutes heresy.

4. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation to:

a. Each of the faithful
b. Theologians
c. The Teaching Authority of the Church
d. Columba
e. All of the above


c. The Teaching Authority of the Church.
who by divine providence has been granted the charism of infallibility when certain strict conditions are fulfilled.


5. An adult non-formally schismatic/heretical Orthodox visible member of a particular Eastern Church who is not in visible communion with the Catholic Church remains truly Catholic in both senses; externally and internally, while at the same time he is not an external member of the Catholic Church.

a. True
b. False
c. I don’t know
d. Say what?

Two questions again Mike both requiring two different answers.

5a. An adult non-formally schismatic/heretical Orthodox visible member of a particular Eastern Church who is not in visible communion with the Catholic Church remains truly Catholic in both senses; externally and internally,

a. True
b. False
c. I don’t know
d. Say what?


5a. True.
(while he has not rejected any known dogma of the faith).

5b. ..at the same time he is not an external member of the Catholic Church.

a. True
b. False
c. I don’t know
d. Say what?



b. False.
(he retains his external membership he received a Baptism while he has not knowingly rejected it through denial of Catholic dogma).

Answer key (no cheating):
1. a
2. a
3. b or d
4. c
5. b or d

Put on file: "Needs to be Revised."
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  George Brenner on Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:09 pm

Columba,

Fair enough, I may have been anticipating the next question, so I will keep this simple per your request.

1. Yes , of course by definition and I should not have jumped to who is in the Church Militant yet as that was not your question.

2. No , if belonging means in full communion with the Church. I had started to make a leap as to many who think they are in full communion but are not. Belonging seemed vague to me.

3. Yes, Emphatically

God Bless,

George
avatar
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Thu Mar 08, 2012 9:53 am

columba wrote
MRyan wrote
columba wrote
First question:
Can it be considered that these three modes of existence within the Church define the boundaries of the Church with regards to who is in and who is outside the Church?
a) Yes, while the Church also teaches through her authentic ordinary magisterium that one may be joined to the Church Militant through faith, charity and intention.

Can we stick with this point for a minute (which may take a couple of posts to clarify).
Could I ask you if those who possess faith, charity and intention, are to be considered as being part of the Church Militant?

a) Yes
b) No
c) I don't know
"Can we stick with this point"? Certainly, but there is another point; the point being you are not always defining your terms and your questions can be presumptuous; for example, the "boundaries" establishing how one may be "in" the Church have not all been formally defined, but they are authentic magisterial teachings nonetheless, and are essential to having a correct understanding of the Church's salvation dogmas and teachings on the Mystical Body.

To your question, the answer is “Yes”; good-faith Catechumens, for example, are considered already “joined with” (part of) the Church Militant, without being formal members.

columba wrote
MRyan wrote
columba wrote
Second question:
Apart from these three modes of existence within the one Church, are there any other defined (de fide) modes of existence within the Church by which an individual can be considered as belonging to the Church?
Where has the Church defined “belonging to the Church”?

You need to define your terms. Do you mean visible membership, internal unity, or both?
I mean only that which the Church means and how she has defined "belonging to."

Is "belonging to" and "being a member of" two different things?

Can I be a member of the Church without belonging to the Church and vice versa?
The Church has not “defined ‘belonging to’”; and yes, they are two different, but complimentary, things.

"Membership" refers only to material incorporation into the social Body of the Church Militant; while "belonging to" or "joined with" can also mean internal unity with Christ (and His Body) in the bonds of faith and charity, while belonging to the corporate Body in voto.

Some, like Cardinal Journet, use the term "member" interchangeably while recognizing the essential difference between internal and external (formal) membership, while others, like Fr. Fenton, refer to "membership" only in the more formal and definitive sense of visible membership in the social and corporate Body. As Cardinal Journet and Fr. Fenton recognize (with the Church), one may in fact be IN the Church without being a formal member.

Yes, one can belong to (joined with) the Church without being a formal member, but one cannot be a formal member without belonging to the Church; though one may be cut-off from her life of grace as a dead member.

columba wrote
MRyan wrote:
For example in her Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, the Church teaches:
Catechumens [those un-baptized] who, moved by the Holy Ghost, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicite 14).
Again, define your terms.
Has this definition (which isn't really a definition, as the meaning of the term, "joined with her" has not been defined in LG) ever been held before Vat II Council? I ask this because the Council declared that it would define no new teachings and that all its teachings would be understood in light of all previously defined Church teachings.
In Cantate Domino, Pope Eugene IV used the term “joined to” or “added to” in his dogmatic definition, so the term is not “new”; especially when we consider that baptism of blood, for example, is a universal teaching of the ordinary magisterium and the common universal teaching of the Doctors and theological schools.

So VCII did not propose anything “new” with respect to Catechumens, the teaching was already reflected in her 1917 Code of Canon Law on Christian burial and the teaching is most certainly understood in the light of all previously defined Church teachings and is understood in the exact same sense the Church has always held her dogmas – so VCI infallibly declares.

To hold or to consider a Catechumen already a part of the Church (affording him a Christian burial) is a policy (not a doctrine) directly related to and based on the common doctrine articulated by Pope Pius XII: “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism” (Allocution to mid wives).

Good faith, charity and proper intention are presumed, just as they are with the present day Orthodox; it does mean these dispositions are always present; just as some members of the Body may be dead members.

Good questions.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  George Brenner on Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:00 am


Spiritual Pause for Prayer and Reflection

Columba,

I am personally very thankful that you started this thread; a humble search for truth

Columba posted:Mike,

I'll begin a new thread which will hopefully deal in more detail with the things we're discussing. It will give you the opportunity to pin me down on specifics and bring my errors into the light thus exposing them for what they are in the clearest possible way.

I really don't mind if I be proved wrong but If so, I will repent in sackcloth and ashes

I have been thinking and praying about this thread off and on throughout the night. Columba, your reasons for starting this post reminded me of a younger day for George. It was in the mid to late 60's as the Mass was being changed over to the Novus Order. I had a sinking feeling for many years that the reverence or air was being slowly let out, just like a Holy balloon of the dignity and respect that is due to our Lord. It did not feel right physically or spiritually. I met my soon to be wife and we discussed the Catholic Faith at length. She was a protestant and came to embrace the Catholic faith as a convert. The lessons for her were probably 70% old school and 30 % new school. She was 20 and I was 21 at the time. We requested and received permission to have our wedding Mass said in Latin. Many of the people in attendance commented on how beautiful hearing the Latin again was, with the hymns and Father facing the crucifix. My library of religious books was greatly built from those books being discarded in the trash bins from Catholic Universities and local church's in the area. namely Notre Dame, Holy Cross and St Mary's. My center point in my home praying area is a large 7th Station of the Cross. I drove over to get the stations as they were being given away or discarded. My mom restored two of them. Many were beyond repair and in a big heap; so sad.
My somewhat empty feeling continued on the changes in the Mass and in my prayers for help and guidance, I was introduced to the writings of Father Feeney. I knew that I must meet Him. So my wife and I drove to Still River and spent two days with Father and the brothers and Sisters. This was in 1971. There was very little discussion about No Salvation outside the Catholic Church although I did discuss that for a period of time with one or two of the brothers. I can not remember the specifics but do remember that I was at peace. Father Feeney left a life long impression on me of gaining Salvation by living and loving our Catholic Faith. I believe Father is a Saint. I pray to him daily and believe that Church history will be very kind and loving to him.
I am amused by all the different expressions of types or categories of Catholics. I do not want to be considerd a Feeneynite, a Cushinite, a rad Trad,
or the numerous other labels. I want to live and die as a "Catholic"
In my open letter to God, posted on this forum, I mention that I believe all that the Church teaches as matters of faith and doctrine whether I understand them or even know about them. I along with all of us are limited by our frail levels of knowledge, with mine being the lowest on this forum. To paraphrase Pope Pius IX, we should not get puffed up on matters of the faith, less we fall. I do not think that I would have mentioned MRyan's name in my letter to God along with Father Michael's, if it were not meant to be so.
I will continue to post on this thread for much good or bad can come from it depending on the graces obtained from prayer or personally expressed short commings or private interpretations . I will not comment on what I can not grasp or understand and will not conjecture beyond my lowly talents so that I will fall or cause others to fall. I would ask that a choice 'D' be added as
I can not grasp or the humble exclusion clause as it were.
I pray for the day that many of us can post with this same intensity under the Crisis in the Church section, so that we can truly be part of the Cure. Our God deserves no less.

JMJ,

George









avatar
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Thu Mar 08, 2012 1:03 pm

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
1. “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism” (Pope Pius XII, Allocution to mid wives).

a. True
b. False
c. I don’t know
d. Next question
a. True (with the stipulation "perfect" act of love

But can an adult make a perfect act of love while still being held in bondage by the devil, as a yet unregenerated man, still requiring the laver of regeneration (i.e, the waters of Baptism) of which no other means is known to the Church by which he can be sanctified bar sacramental Baptism?
Can we stick to the point, please?

Pope Pius XII is teaching a true doctrine, or he isn’t. If he isn’t, then an act of love is not possible outside of actual water regeneration.

And it is false to say that the Church knows of no means other than water Baptism by which one may can be sanctified, she teaches that Baptism is the only means she knows of that can assure salvation; while for adults she is certain that baptism of blood and baptism of desire effect the same essential end as baptism, regeneration into Christ.

Obviously, this is not some novel teaching, it is the common universal teaching of the Church; so what is the point of your “stipulation” which is itself a novel private conjecture that questions the magisterial teaching authority of the Church on a common doctrine held by a universal moral consensus of Doctors and theologians?

Furthermore, your “stipulation” presupposes that one must first be in a state of sanctifying grace before one can make in act of love that is capable of obtaining (restored to) sanctifying grace, which would mean that no man in history was ever justified in grace without actual ablution in the Sacrament, which leaves the just of the Old Law up a sinful creek without a paddle, for their faith in the Redeemer to come was to no avail in making them justified friends of God – and leaving Pope Leo XIII looking rather foolish when he declared:

It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace, as we read in the Scriptures concerning the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna; so that on Pentecost the Holy Ghost did not communicate Himself in such a way "as then for the first time to begin to dwell in the saints, but by pouring Himself forth more abundantly; crowning, not beginning His gifts; not commencing a new work, but giving more abundantly" (St. Leo the Great, Hom. iii., de Pentec.)...

Moreover, not only was their justice derived from the merits of Christ who was to come, but the communication of the Holy Ghost after Christ was much more abundant, just as the price surpasses in value the earnest and the reality excels the image. Wherefore St. John declares: "As yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" John vii., 39). So soon, therefore, as Christ, "ascending on high," entered into possession of the glory of His Kingdom which He had won with so much la our, He munificently opened out the treasures of the Holy Ghost: "He gave gifts to men" (Eph. iv., eight). For "that giving or sending forth of the Holy Ghost after Christ's glorification was to be such as had never been before; not that there had been none before, but it had not been of the same kind" (St. Aug., De Trin., 1. iv. c. 20).
What does that say about your “stipulation”?

Lastly, it is quite true that, unlike the Baptized, un-regenerated man can do nothing to merit justification; he can only cooperate with the graces God gives him that lead him towards a conversion of heart.

So an “act of love” in this sense is entirely grace-assisted (free) act of the will as our Lord operates on a soul from without to effect His desired end -- that the soul yearn for him in love and desire, all the while our Lord provides for him with the graces sufficient for his conversion.

And, when the soul turns towards our Lord in ardent charity, “yes Lord, I desire only Thee; I believe, help my unbelief”, our Lord cannot resist certain ardent entreaties of love; and will come to that soul and make His abode with him even before (or without) sacramental ablution.

And that is precisely what Pope Pius XII is teaching.

Under the old dispensation the Holy Ghost resided in the just by sanctifying grace, but not in the abiding and substantial habitation (uncreated grace) that is unique to the new law of grace.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
2. Is the above teaching of Pope Pius XII part of the ordinary magisterial teachings of the Church, of which our Lord said “He who heareth you, heareth Me”?

a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know
d. Next question
a. Yes
But are you saying that Pope Pius XII is declaring that such a transition from "natural man" to "Regenerated man" can be achieved without Baptism. I don't think he has said as much.
You don’t think he said as much?

Columba, this is actually very disturbing. Why would you suggest that the words of Pope Pius XII are meant to convey the very opposite of what they say? That is precisely what he is saying, that with an act of love, and adult may obtain sanctifying grace (regeneration into Christ) and to supply the lack of baptism.

Pope Pius XII did not say, “Some theologians say” or “Some believe”, he stated it as an objective fact, as if it were a common universal teaching of the Church – because that’s exactly what it is.

Furthermore, he first declared “Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible.” He immediately followed with “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”.

Are you now going to redefine “sanctifying grace” for us so that it does NOT refer to:

Justification itself … as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God … which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting (Trent Sess. 6, Chapters IV and VII)?
He did not declare that “such a transition from ‘natural man’ to ‘Regenerated man’ can be achieved without Baptism” by an act of love?

Good luck defending such blindness.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
3. Do baptism of blood and baptism of desire represent a “denial” of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and thus, a denial of the whole faith?

a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know
d. You’ve got to be kidding
Trick question for real this time Mike. You've tried to palm off two questions under the guise of one here, so allow me to seperate them and answer each individually.
No trick question, I am citing you verbatim – it is your exact accusation. A rejection of one dogma is at least a tacit rejection of the whole faith – which is quite true. If you want to walk the whole thing back with respect to he Church’s teaching on baptism of blood and baptism of desire, that’s fine – you should.

columba wrote:MRyan wrote:
3. Do baptism of blood and baptism of desire represent a “denial” of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus,

a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know
d. You’ve got to be kidding


3a. Yes.
And yet, baptism of blood and baptism of desire are taught with the authoritative teaching authority of the Church, and represent the universal common teachings of the Doctors and theologians.

Wow. A denial of a dogma is a denial of the whole faith (because it represents a denial of the One who reveals), so we are back to your original accusation.

columba wrote:MRyan wrote:
3b. Do baptism of blood and baptism of desire represent a denial of the whole faith?

a. Yes
b. No
c. I don’t know
d. You’ve got to be kidding


b. No. They represent a denial of the words of Christ who said, "Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." but not a denial of the whole faith which is termed "apostasy" but yes, it constitutes heresy.
So, the teaching of the ordinary magisterium of the Church on baptism of blood and baptism of desire is not apostasy, it is only heresy. Whew, now I can breathe a lot easier.

What constitutes “apostasy” is a deliberate and “total repudiation of the Christian faith”, but it is still true to say that “he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith”, for that is precisely what Pope Leo XII declared:

If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral delinquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. "Whosoever shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all" (Ep. James ii., 10). Nay, it applies with greater force to an erroneous opinion. For it can be said with less truth that every law is violated by one who commits a single sin, since it may be that he only virtually despises the majesty of God the Legislator. But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. (Satis Cognitum, #9)
So yes, let’s quibble over the difference between deliberate heresy and apostasy as you accuse the Church of teaching an objective heresy.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
4. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation to:

a. Each of the faithful
b. Theologians
c. The Teaching Authority of the Church
d. Columba
e. All of the above
c. The Teaching Authority of the Church.
who by divine providence has been granted the charism of infallibility when certain strict conditions are fulfilled.
That's an equivocation.

There you go with the “qualifications” again as if “what is expounded in Encyclical Letters” and “appertains to Catholic doctrine … does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority”.

After all, you suggest, “For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; BUT, as we see with the teaching of the same Pope in his Allocution noted above, his teaching “does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority” and he in fact teaches “heresy” in an official magisterial document of the Church, which you are trying to re-write so it says the opposite of its clear meaning.

Pretty bad.

I’ll address your visible adult member of the Orthodox Church who is NOT a member of the Catholic Church, while remaining an external and internal member of the Catholic Church schizophrenia in another post. I need a break from this.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Thu Mar 08, 2012 2:03 pm

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
5. An adult non-formally schismatic/heretical Orthodox visible member of a particular Eastern Church who is not in visible communion with the Catholic Church remains truly Catholic in both senses; externally and internally, while at the same time he is not an external member of the Catholic Church.

a. True
b. False
c. I don’t know
d. Say what?
Two questions again Mike both requiring two different answers.
No, there are not two different answers for defining external and visible membership in the ecclesiastical Body of the Church Militant, as you falsely allege. There is only one, but more than one means for being united to the Body when membership in re is not realized through no fault of one’s own.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
5a. An adult non-formally schismatic/heretical Orthodox visible member of a particular Eastern Church who is not in visible communion with the Catholic Church remains truly Catholic in both senses; externally and internally,

a. True
b. False
c. I don’t know
d. Say what?
5a. True.
(while he has not rejected any known dogma of the faith).
Nonsense, the sacrament of baptism does not make an adult member of an Orthodox Church “truly Catholic” in the external sense of external membership. That the laver of regeneration is “external” does not mean one’s visible membership in the social Body of the Church Militant is “external” (a baptized member of the visible society of believers united in faith and government to the Catholic Church, and of course, the Roman Pontiff).

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
5b. ..at the same time he is not an external member of the Catholic Church.

a. True
b. False
c. I don’t know
d. Say what?
b. False.
(he retains his external membership he received a Baptism while he has not knowingly rejected it through denial of Catholic dogma).
See above, this is nonsense. Retaining the seal and grace of Baptism does not a member of the visible communion of believers in the Church Militant make.

A professing adult member of a particular Orthodox Church is NOT in communion with the Roman Pontiff and he is NOT an external member of the visible society of the Church Militant ... period.

Let your speech be yes, yes; no, no -- and stop this double-talk.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Jehanne on Thu Mar 08, 2012 2:06 pm

Mike,

You're expressing a valid theological opinion, but as was pointed out to you long ago, the writings of certain "Feeneyites" have received an Imprimi potest:

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/laisneyism.html

To the extent that Columba is expressing the views of Father Feeney and his followers, he is orthodox. You are certainly free to disagree with him, however, if the Church has not condemned his views, why are you? Or, are you?
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:59 pm

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
Can we stick with this point for a minute (which may take a couple of posts to clarify).
Could I ask you if those who possess faith, charity and intention, are to be considered as being part of the Church Militant?

"Can we stick with this point"? Certainly, but there is another point; the point being you are not always defining your terms and your questions can be presumptuous; for example, the "boundaries" establishing how one may be "in" the Church have not all been formally defined, but they are authentic magisterial teachings nonetheless, and are essential to having a correct understanding of the Church's salvation dogmas and teachings on the Mystical Body.

It's not my terms that need defining, it is membership in the Church that needs defining for as you correctly say, "..the 'boundaries' establishing how one may be 'in' the Church have not all been formally defined..," that is why I am sticking to those boundaries that "have" been formally defined in the dogmatic declarations of Pope Boniface VIII and Pope Eugene IV.
By making it clear (by name) who is outside the Church -and hence outside the scope of salvation,- Pope Eugene IV has indicated by his words that the remainder are to be considered as those belonging to and inside the Church and hence within the scope of salvation.
If we are to extend those boundaries to include schismatic or heretical sects (which happen to be two of those groups named by Pope Eugene) then we have in one foul swoop, both denied a dogma of the faith and accused the Church of being misguided in her dogmatic definitions. I just can't see how anyone cannot see this problem. The minimum charge tha one could be making concerning the Chuirch, is that the Church, in her Holy Spirit guded definitions of the truth, when proclaimed as infallible teachings of the Church, to be held by every single member of that Church with Divine and Catholic faith, are rendered in such a way as to cause confussion among those to whom they are addressed.

If Fr. Feeney had made his stand on the dogma a hundred years prior to when he did, would you say Mike that he would have encounterd any resistance from within the Church? If you be honest I'm sure your answer will be the same as mine, therefore we can only conclude that the exceptons (those internally united members) are a very recent deviation to the dogma in relation to the 2000 year history of Church.

To your question, the answer is “Yes”; good-faith Catechumens, for example, are considered already “joined with” (part of) the Church Militant, without being formal members.

But you will agree that this was not always the case and in fact in Church history it is of very recent origin. Won't you?

I'll continue my response to your post very soon.
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:26 pm

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

You're expressing a valid theological opinion, but as was pointed out to you long ago, the writings of certain "Feeneyites" have received an Imprimi potest:

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/laisneyism.html

To the extent that Columba is expressing the views of Father Feeney and his followers, he is orthodox. You are certainly free to disagree with him, however, if the Church has not condemned his views, why are you? Or, are you?
Jehanne,

I can see you are not following this, but thanks for chiming in anyway.

The teaching of Pope Pius XII on an "act of love" is not just a "valid theological opinion", it is the authentic teaching of the ordinary magisterium pertaining to a universal doctrine of the Church on the correct understanding of the salvation dogma; and as such, it demands the religious asset of mind and will; for "He who hears you; hears Me".

You want to dispute that; fine, I don't care, but at least have the courtesy of explaining why it is not such an authentic teaching of the ordinary magisterium, when the Church clearly holds that it is.

Columba said such a teaching (baptism of blood/baptism of desire) is heresy ... and are you suggesting that Columba is articulating the teaching of Fr. Feeney? Columba will tell you straight out he is not a Feeneyite. And, neither Br. Sennott, Br. Thomas Mary nor Br. Andre agree with the "heresy" allegation; so what are you talking about?

Are you actually suggesting that it is a valid theological opinion to hold the Church's ordinary teaching on the universal doctrine of baptism of blood/baptism of desire as heresy?

In fact, columba and Fr. Feeney do not agree on the doctrine of justification, so why is any of this even relevant? What Br. Andre calls "orthodox", Columba calls heresy.

Furthermore, why do you post a link to Sennott's "Is Laisneyism Catholic" as if it carries an Imprimi potest, it does not.

I'm suspect you are referring to Br. Sennott's book on Fr. Feeney and Orestes Brownson, "They Fought the Good Fight"; and guess what, Brownson taught baptism of blood and baptism of desire ... so I guess Fr. Feeney is in good company.

You will not find the accusation of heresy in that book.

But, really, thanks for weighing-in.




avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:41 pm

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
Can we stick with this point for a minute (which may take a couple of posts to clarify).
Could I ask you if those who possess faith, charity and intention, are to be considered as being part of the Church Militant?
"Can we stick with this point"? Certainly, but there is another point; the point being you are not always defining your terms and your questions can be presumptuous; for example, the "boundaries" establishing how one may be "in" the Church have not all been formally defined, but they are authentic magisterial teachings nonetheless, and are essential to having a correct understanding of the Church's salvation dogmas and teachings on the Mystical Body.
It's not my terms that need defining, it is membership in the Church that needs defining for as you correctly say, "..the 'boundaries' establishing how one may be 'in' the Church have not all been formally defined..," that is why I am sticking to those boundaries that "have" been formally defined in the dogmatic declarations of Pope Boniface VIII and Pope Eugene IV.
But Pope Eugene IV did not “define” the boundaries for Church membership, he defined that all of those, such as pagans, Jews and heretics/schismatics who are not finally joined to the Church are lost, and that is all he “defined”, contrary to your erroneous opinion to the contrary.

Neither did Pope Boniface VIII “define” membership in the Church; he “defined” that outside the Church there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, and “she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]” ... without for a minute suggesting, let alone “defining”, that the Holy Ghost (Who is one with the Body) is confined to operating within her visible structure only.

columba wrote: By making it clear (by name) who is outside the Church -and hence outside the scope of salvation,- Pope Eugene IV has indicated by his words that the remainder are to be considered as those belonging to and inside the Church and hence within the scope of salvation.
And yet, the same Pope does not use the word “membership” or “member” even once. It is quite clear that he is declaring that those of the baptized who left through heresy and schism are lost unless they return to the Church, and it is also clear that those, like pagans and Jews, who remain outside the Body will be lost unless they are joined to the Church before death.

But he says nothing (because it is not the topic or concern of the Bull) about Catechumens or martyrs who possess the true faith and die before they can be ontologically united to the corporal structure; and contrary to your fallacious opinion, he did not include them in the category of those who cannot be saved “unless he remains in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church … even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ”.

Never has the Church understood this non-defined part of the Bull and her own definition in such a rigorist manner, and you are not the authentic interpreter of dogmatic texts, the Church is. And please don't give me the “it needs no interpretation because the Church has always understood it to mean that the good-faith martyr cannot be saved without water baptism” -- when not only does the dogmatic text not say that (you said it “implies” it), you cannot produce a single authentic magisterial text to support such a rigorist “interpretation”; and I can supply plenty of consistent magisterial and theological texts that repeat the true understanding as the Church has always understood it.

The Church is not a liar, and she cannot authoritatively propose over such a long period of time and in her official magisterial texts, a false and heretical “understanding” of her own dogmas. But, the insults against the Church just never end.

columba wrote:If we are to extend those boundaries to include schismatic or heretical sects (which happen to be two of those groups named by Pope Eugene) then we have in one foul swoop, both denied a dogma of the faith and accused the Church of being misguided in her dogmatic definitions. I just can't see how anyone cannot see this problem.
So when did the Church ever proclaim that the Churh’s boundaries have been “extended … to include schismatic or heretical sects”? What complete and utter nonsense.

This is ridiculous.

columba wrote:The minimum charge tha one could be making concerning the Church, is that the Church, in her Holy Spirit guded definitions of the truth, when proclaimed as infallible teachings of the Church, to be held by every single member of that Church with Divine and Catholic faith, are rendered in such a way as to cause confussion among those to whom they are addressed.
The only ones who remain seriously confused are the rigorist Feeneyites and all of those who refuse to be moderated by the Church ... because they are smarter than the Church ... just ask them.

columba wrote:If Fr. Feeney had made his stand on the dogma a hundred years prior to when he did, would you say Mike that he would have encounterd any resistance from within the Church? If you be honest I'm sure your answer will be the same as mine, therefore we can only conclude that the exceptons (those internally united members) are a very recent deviation to the dogma in relation to the 2000 year history of Church.
You mean had he made his stand around the time of St. Tomas Aquinas, would he have run into any resistance? Yes, he certainly would have, and in any other age where he tried to suggest that the Church positively forbids a “virtual incorporation” through the bonds of faith and charity, or that the Church denies baptism of blood and baptism of desire.

You don’t make a good poster boy for Fr. Feeney, who was for baptism of blood and baptism of desire before he was against them.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
To your question, the answer is “Yes”; good-faith Catechumens, for example, are considered already “joined with” (part of) the Church Militant, without being formal members.
But you will agree that this was not always the case and in fact in Church history it is of very recent origin. Won't you?
Only in the sense, as I thought I made clear, that the consideration is a policy, not a doctrine; though it is substantially rooted in the ancient doctrine that was clearly articulated by Pope Pius XII in his Allocution. As such, it cannot be opposed to dogma, or give harm.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Jehanne on Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:53 pm

Mike,

Getting back to Brother Thomas Mary's article, are you saying that votum implicitum is a defined dogma of the Faith?
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:34 pm

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
Is "belonging to" and "being a member of" two different things?
Can I be a member of the Church without belonging to the Church and vice versa?

The Church has not “defined ‘belonging to’”; and yes, they are two different, but complimentary, things.

Mike, you are drawing the conclusion that they "are" two different things while still maintaining that the Church has not defined what she means by "belonging to.”
I have (absent any magisterial definition) concluded that what the Church means by "belonging to" is the same thing that Pope Boniface VIII meant by his words, "being subject to the Roman Pontiff." The meaning that you attribute is "not" a "complimentary thing" but rather a contradictory thing.

I know your point is that we must take that meaning which the teaching Magisterium of today takes, but when it is the case that the particular magisterium who first came up with the new teaching (while refusing to clearly define the new term) has assumed an understanding contrary to the traditional understanding, we have to ask the question, "which magisterium are we to listen to on this?"
I also know that you do not share my reservations concerning whether or not this magisteruim is "kosher" (unintentional pun there but I'll let it ride) but the resolving of the contradictions that exist between both teachings would relieve doubt.

Even though the modern-day magisteriam seem to be implying that meaning which you hold, I still maintain that they (the present magisterium) could be understood in the same way as I and the Church have always understood the term "belonging to." They (the present magisterium) and VatII Council have declared from the beginning that no new teachings would be given. They didn't however mention anything about "a new understanding of teachings" which for all practical purposes amount to one and the same thing. (My apologies: It had been stated in the CCC that the teachings therein contained, had no other weight than that which the Church had always attributed to them).

"Membership" refers only to material incorporation into the social Body of the Church Militant; while "belonging to" or "joined with" can also mean internal unity with Christ (and His Body) in the bonds of faith and charity, while belonging to the corporate Body in voto.

Well there ya go. We 'do' have a definition of "belonging to."
The problem with this definition is that, we now have souls belonging to the Church while not belonging to the Church and souls outside the Church who cannot be distinguised from those inside the Church, and, we also now have souls united to the Church who were dogmatically reassured that they 'were not' united to the Church.

Will continue later.
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:40 pm

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Getting back to Brother Thomas Mary's article, are you saying that votum implicitum is a defined dogma of the Faith?
What makes you think I might be saying that?

Why are you going back to the article of Bro. Sennott?

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:14 pm

MRyan wrote:
Yes, one can belong to (joined with) the Church without being a formal member, but one cannot be a formal member without belonging to the Church; though one may be cut-off from her life of grace as a dead member.

Mike, I do understand the distinction you're trying to draw and don't wish to waste your time by making you reopeat it by mistakenly thinking I don't understand. The problem is not that I don't understand what you mean, I just don't agree with your understanding.

In Cantate Domino, Pope Eugene IV used the term “joined to” or “added to” in his dogmatic definition, so the term is not “new”; especially when we consider that baptism of blood, for example, is a universal teaching of the ordinary magisterium and the common universal teaching of the Doctors and theological schools.


I don't agree. Baptism of blood is definately not a constant and universal teaching of the ordinary magisterium nor is it the constant and universal teaching of the Doctors and theological schools. A few quotes would suffice to prove this but don't want another one of those tit-for-tat quote marathons.

So VCII did not propose anything “new” with respect to Catechumens, the teaching was already reflected in her 1917 Code of Canon Law on Christian burial and the teaching is most certainly understood in the light of all previously defined Church teachings and is understood in the exact same sense the Church has always held her dogmas – so VCI infallibly declares.

I acknowledge that it was the 1917 code of canon law that first proposed that Christain burial should not be withheld from unbaptized catechumens.
This canon however is a departure from the previous 1,900 years of Church tradition and it can't be considered an infabllible teaching of the Church. This canon (1239) apparently gives no reference in its footnotes to the traditional roots from which this change of procedure is based. In fact there is no footnote at all concerning this canon, unlike nearly all of the other canons. The reason being is obvious. There are no traditional roots from whence this change can be based.
To say that it is based on traditional understanding is false.

To hold or to consider a Catechumen already a part of the Church (affording him a Christian burial) is a policy (not a doctrine) directly related to and based on the common doctrine articulated by Pope Pius XII: “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism” (Allocution to mid wives).

This allocution of Pope Pius XII is not based on any defined prior teaching or understanding. Considering an unbaptized catechumen as being part of the Church is itself then derived from an non-binding allocution directed soley at midwives.

Good faith, charity and proper intention are presumed, just as they are with the present day Orthodox; it does mean these dispositions are always present; just as some members of the Body may be dead members.

My objection is; even if these good dispositions are presumed, this in itself cannot detract from the pronouncemnet of Pope Bonifice VIII who declared dogmatically that they must (in order to obtain salvation) be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Tell me; Is a dogma something that is not just true at its time of proclamation, but rather, that which is, was, and always will be true?
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Thu Mar 08, 2012 10:21 pm

George wrote:
I will continue to post on this thread for much good or bad can come from it depending on the graces obtained from prayer or personally expressed short commings or private interpretations . I will not comment on what I can not grasp or understand and will not conjecture beyond my lowly talents so that I will fall or cause others to fall.

George I always welcome your contributions.

In my case it was not the study of tradition that led me to discover that a crisis exists in the Church. It was the recognition of the crisis that led me to study tradition. I am still quite a novice compared to most members here and can without doubt state that Mike is light years ahead of me regarding the amount of extra years he has devoted to this and in materials he has read.
You would think then that I would be content to sit back and be taught by Mike. Under normal circumstances that indeed would be the case but there's much more at stake here than me being a docile pupil. I'll explain.
The first knowledge of the crisis did not come to me from watching the multitude around me losing thier faith; it was the sudden shock that I was losing my own faith that abruptly woke me up from what I now term "my Novus Ordo trance." and before ever lifting a religious book printed before 1969, I came to my own conclusion as to why I was having my own crisis of faith. It was the now well established belief in my mind that not only Catholics would be saved, but also anyone of any religion that tried there best to be good. Even then I would still make room for all the rest,..the invincibly ignorant class... who without any good intentions at all could still be saved.
I wasn't long in putting two and two together and realizing that all my efforts (which were many, within the NO structure) were to no avail. All I was really doing was trying to save those souls who were already saved and that also included my own. Laxity wasn't long in taking root and I stiil have some scars to prove it.
To cut the long story short, I read one small atricle on the topic of "No Salvation Ouside the Church" and instantly it was like all my early years of school catechesis came flooding back. It pulled me back from the brink of my own distruction. Relearning this timeless truth of the faith was to me a providential interception that opened before me once again the narrow gate of salvation, leading me off the wide road on which I was on that no doubt would have brought me eventually to perditon.

The clever manipulations that was employed in my denial of the dogma were those cunnigly specious arguments that pit God's love and mercy against His truth and justice and the presumption that these were somehow opposing attributes in the divine perfection when in reality they are one undivided whole in the utter simplicity of God.

Those same clever manipulations of words and meanings, new understandings and expressions, will have a hard time trapping me again, and, as I see Mike (from my own perspective) employing what looks to me like those very same tactics of which I now am perpetually on guard against, I resist them with quite some force. Call it over cautiousness if you will, but to me its life or death. Even risking throwing the baby out with the bath water seems not too extreme from my watch tower.
Like Jehanne said,

Our job is simply to proclaim the truth of Unam Sanctam to everyone without exception, the Orthodox included; that is, that the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church are "one thing." If someone is linked to the One True Church only through the "bonds of faith and charity," wonderful; such does absolutely nothing to change our mission.

Not only do I see benefit in taking this stance as a personal or optional thing, I see it as an absolute necessity if one is to combat ones own proneness to laxity in both the mission of saving other souls and in maintaining diligence in the protection of ones own soul. Plus, the refutation of all that seems contrary to this should be maintained (within the bounds of knowable and already defined truth of course) until such times as indisputable arguments are brought forward to the contrary.

So Mike, you know what your up against here, but if there's anyone who can bring those arguments on, then that I'll grant is you.



avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  George Brenner on Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:55 am

Columba said:

George I always welcome your contributions.

In my case it was not the study of tradition that led me to discover that a crisis exists in the Church. It was the recognition of the crisis that led me to study tradition. I am still quite a novice compared to most members here and can without doubt state that Mike is light years ahead of me regarding the amount of extra years he has devoted to this and in materials he has read.

For me too at a young age it was the recognition of the early stages of the crisis and then the full onslaught of the crisis into tragic results. I remember praying very hard and often and asking God , just let me find the truth. That prayer continues daily and we both along with others must constantly pray for help and truth. I never for a moment doubt your sincerity but feel that you are not a peace. Mike has a gift and that is why much is expected of him. He is demonstrating and explaining with the deepest love of our Catholic Faith how even in these last decades the Holy Spirit has kept the faith intact as promised for all time. Mike did not cause all the hoops that one has to go through in understanding to trying to grasp Our , One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church is a true now as it has been in the past or will be in the future.
Columba, do you not think that Father Michael Rodriquez is in the Church and fighting along with many others for the solution. The clarity will come one way or another. Yes it is a matter of spiritual life and death. Time on earth is precious. We must not run out of time on earth for eternity awaits us.
avatar
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:21 pm

George wrote:
Columba, do you not think that Father Michael Rodriquez is in the Church and fighting along with many others for the solution.

George, I recently posted a sermon by Father Michael Rodriquez. The very reason he stands out from the crowd is because of his adherence to the truths of the faith. I think you'll agree that this is also the reason for his persecution. It's worth taking note from which quarter within the Church this persecution orginates. Fr Rodriquez himself attempts no cover up with regards to this and if he keeps going in this direction he may well discover that those who are persecutuing him are doing no more than faithfully following the new theological directives of the post concilliar Church. It will all depend as to what stage on his journey he decides to put the blinkers on. If he remains consistant with the truth (which I believe he will) you may well find George that you have another candidate on your hands needing "proper" instruction from Mike.
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:07 pm

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
Is "belonging to" and "being a member of" two different things?
Can I be a member of the Church without belonging to the Church and vice versa?

The Church has not “defined ‘belonging to’”; and yes, they are two different, but complimentary, things.
Mike, you are drawing the conclusion that they "are" two different things while still maintaining that the Church has not defined what she means by "belonging to.”
I have (absent any magisterial definition) concluded that what the Church means by "belonging to" is the same thing that Pope Boniface VIII meant by his words, "being subject to the Roman Pontiff." The meaning that you attribute is "not" a "complimentary thing" but rather a contradictory thing.

I know your point is that we must take that meaning which the teaching Magisterium of today takes,
And therein is manifested one of the major problems with your thinking, for the Magisteium of today is the same Magisterium of yesterday – and it cannot be anything other than that divinely commissioned teaching authority that speaks the same truth in every age with one and the same voice, and cannot be opposed to itself. Remember, “We are the guarantor of this”.

And, as you know (though it does not appear to have registered), the Church has condemned anyone who attempts to pit the teaching authority of the Church is one age against that of another, such as appealing to the authority of another or future Council.

VCI:
Thus she can never cease from witnessing to the truth of God which heals all and from declaring it, for she knows that these words were directed to her: My spirit which is upon you, and my words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth from this time forth and for evermore.
Do you realize, Columba, for how long the Church’s theologians have been discussing and fleshing out precisely what is meant by the Mystical Body of Christ? The doctrine has been under development for centuries and it was only recently that Pope Pius XII and then VCII put some magisterial concreteness to this question (without a formal definition), and there are certain aspects that are still being developed.

In another example, with respect to the controversy surrounding “religious freedom”, it would appear that the rush to a heretical judgment was premature as the Church continues to flesh out this area of legitimate development which does not, contrary to certain opinions, represent a breech with tradition, but is only a different aspect of the same doctrine heretofore given little attention (for a variety of understandable reasons).

In fact, as a commentator on the illuminating work of Professor Thomas Pink noted, “For the liberal, conservative and traditionalist interpreters, the idea that Dignitatis Humanae is the rupture point in a long line of teaching on this issue goes largely undisputed … this understanding evinces near complete ignorance of Church teaching on these issues between Trent and the nineteenth century.” (See my thread Coercion and liberty: reframing the debate)

VCII also settled heretofore unresolved doctrines concerning the Diaconate and episcopal collegiality.

Again, when Pope Paul VI told AB Lefebvre “We are the guarantor of this”, he wasn’t joking – he was talking about the documents of VCII being harmonious with tradition.

I realize you might think it’s a joke, but it’s the absolute truth. The Church also has the authority to flesh out undeveloped areas of certain doctrines that might seem “new” precisely because their development is new or under appreciated.

The definition and relationship between the Universal and Particular Churches (complimentary elements of the one true Church of Christ), for example, tends to focus only on the negative of the formal separation when formal schism colors any other consideration of what particular churches actually represent; so accentuating the positive truths of the doctrine when schism is no longer considered operative seems “new” to those who tend to confuse discipline with doctrine.

“I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy” (Rom. 9:15) is also the prerogative of Peter towards our separated brethren; for only Peter speaks and acts for our Lord and His Church in the exercise of his supreme Primacy.

columba wrote:but when it is the case that the particular magisterium who first came up with the new teaching (while refusing to clearly define the new term) has assumed an understanding contrary to the traditional understanding, we have to ask the question, "which magisterium are we to listen to on this?"
Again, you present a false dilemma; there is only ONE magisterium which has more than one magisterial mode for transmitting the truth. If you have a problem with reconciliation, it is your problem ... even if at times it can appear the Church can inadvertently lend itself to being an instrumental cause of any confusion.

And what “new” teaching and what “new term”? And what do you mean it has “assumed an understanding contrary to the traditional understanding”. I don’t know what you are referring to – a doctrine or a discipline?

columba wrote:
I also know that you do not share my reservations concerning whether or not this magisteruim is "kosher" (unintentional pun there but I'll let it ride) but the resolving of the contradictions that exist between both teachings would relieve doubt.
What contradictions? Name one. The contradictions exist only in your flawed understanding.

columba wrote:Even though the modern-day magisteriam seem to be implying that meaning which you hold, I still maintain that they (the present magisterium) could be understood in the same way as I and the Church have always understood the term "belonging to." They (the present magisterium) and VatII Council have declared from the beginning that no new teachings would be given. They didn't however mention anything about "a new understanding of teachings" which for all practical purposes amount to one and the same thing. (My apologies: It had been stated in the CCC that the teachings therein contained, had no other weight than that which the Church had always attributed to them).
Again, it is difficult to address such misconceptions precisely because they are misconceptions. The fact that no new teachings were given is not the same as increasing one’s understanding of established doctrines through the development of certain points or “new” aspects of the doctrine.

When you say “They didn't however mention anything about ‘a new understanding of teachings’ which for all practical purposes amount to one and the same thing” is also a misconception for the Church has in fact declared “May understanding … increase”, with these very dogmatic words:

May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding (VCI, Pastor Aeternus)
So tell us, how can understanding increase without coming to a new understanding of a certain undeveloped aspect of a given doctrine?

Pope Pius XII, Humani generis:

For, together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.”
It is not the Magisterium of the Church that can “abandon” the true sense of her own doctrines, but only those who place private authority over the “divine magisterium of the Church and allow religious questions to be a matter for the judgment of each individual” (VCI).

As VCI also declared: “Led away by diverse and strange teachings and confusing nature and grace, human knowledge and divine faith, they are found to distort the genuine sense of the dogmas which Holy mother Church holds and teaches, and to endanger the integrity and genuineness of the faith.”

And “for those who have accepted the faith under the guidance of the Church can never have any just cause for changing this faith or for calling it into question.”

And, rather than looking in the mirror, you accuse the Church of this very thing … and even, to your own judgment, of heresy.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
"Membership" refers only to material incorporation into the social Body of the Church Militant; while "belonging to" or "joined with" can also mean internal unity with Christ (and His Body) in the bonds of faith and charity, while belonging to the corporate Body in voto.
Well there ya go. We 'do' have a definition of "belonging to."
The common understanding is not a formal “definition”, but a matter appertaining to Catholic doctrine; and “these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: ‘He who heareth you, heareth me’".

columba wrote:The problem with this definition is that, we now have souls belonging to the Church while not belonging to the Church and souls outside the Church who cannot be distinguised from those inside the Church, and, we also now have souls united to the Church who were dogmatically reassured that they 'were not' united to the Church.
No, we do not “have souls belonging to the Church while not belonging to the Church”, but souls who may be joined to the Church in the bonds of faith and charity, while belonging to the visible Body in re.

Yes, the Church has "dogmatically reassured" souls that they "were not" members of the the ecclesiastical society - the Church Militant, without water Baptism; but never has she "dogmatically reassured that they" could NOT be "united to the Church" through faith and the proper dispositions, precisely as the Catechism of Trent and the Church teaches; in other words, as the ONE Magisterium has always taught.

The manipulation of words to your own ends is most revealing.

And why does it bother you that you cannot “distinguish” one from the other when you can’t distinguish a living member from a dead member? That we can know and remain in communion with the members of the visible society of believers belonging to the one true Church of Christ is sufficient. Those who whom may belong to her without enjoying the external bonds of membership is not our concern, God will provide, and will sort the wheat from the chaff.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:51 pm

MRyan wrote:
No, we do not “have souls belonging to the Church while not belonging to the Church”, but souls who may be joined to the Church in the bonds of faith and charity, while belonging to the visible Body in re.
Sorry, I meant "... while belonging to the visible Body in voto."
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:15 pm

MRyan wrote:
Columba wrote:
Mike, you are drawing the conclusion that they "are" two different things while still maintaining that the Church has not defined what she means by "belonging to.”
I have (absent any magisterial definition) concluded that what the Church means by "belonging to" is the same thing that Pope Boniface VIII meant by his words, "being subject to the Roman Pontiff." The meaning that you attribute is "not" a "complimentary thing" but rather a contradictory thing.

I know your point is that we must take that meaning which the teaching Magisterium of today takes,


And therein is manifested one of the major problems with your thinking, for the Magisteium of today is the same Magisterium of yesterday – and it cannot be anything other than that divinely commissioned teaching authority that speaks the same truth in every age with one and the same voice, and cannot be opposed to itself. Remember, “We are the guarantor of this”.

Mike, This understanding you profess as being the correct understanding (that in every age the Church will speak with one and the same voice) is not necessarlly the correct understanding at all. In order to hold this view as being applicable to every point of time in Church history, you must deny at least one historical fact, and also, deny at least one doctrinal fact. The great Arian crisis being the historical fact with certain similarities with today's crisis (where St. Athanasius was forced to consecrated orthodox bishops outside his own diocese, acting out of necessity for the good of the
Church), and the doctrine being, that of the conditions that must prevail in order for any given Church teaching to be divinely guaranteed free from error.
You already understand this so no need for me to elaborate further (unless of course you challenge me on this).

And, as you know (though it does not appear to have registered), the Church has condemned anyone who attempts to pit the teaching authority of the Church is one age against that of another, such as appealing to the authority of another or future Council.

This works both ways Mike (though it does not appear to have registered).
The teaching authority of today must be understood in line with the teaching authority of yesterday. If there should be any ambiguity in the present, the ambiguous teaching must be understood in light of the clearer past teaching. To refuse to do this is to "pit the teaching authority of the Church is one age against that of another."
Thus far I have (with great difficulty) been able to do this even whilst the ambiguity be accepted almost universally in its non-traditional meaning.
If the non-traditional meaning be the only acceptable meaning, the church is not the Church.

Do you realize, Columba, for how long the Church’s theologians have been discussing and fleshing out precisely what is meant by the Mystical Body of Christ? The doctrine has been under development for centuries and it was only recently that Pope Pius XII and then VCII put some magisterial concreteness to this question (without a formal definition), and there are certain aspects that are still being developed.

The question has already been answered. The Mystical Body of Christ is the One, Holy, Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, and this One, Holy, Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. This definition needs no "fleshing out." In fact to attempt to flesh it out with implants from foreign bodies is nothing less than to corrupt the whole body.

In another example, with respect to the controversy surrounding “religious freedom”, it would appear that the rush to a heretical judgment was premature as the Church continues to flesh out this area of legitimate development which does not, contrary to certain opinions, represent a breech with tradition, but is only a different aspect of the same doctrine heretofore given little attention (for a variety of understandable reasons).

And again, the breech with tradition only happens when this "religious freedom" definition excludes the divinely appointed mission of the Church to preach the gospel to the whole world, baptize those who repent and believe, and thus have one fold under one shepherd. To do this while proselytization is forbidden does, contrary to certain opinions, render this divinely appointed mission of the Church disabled.

Again, when Pope Paul VI told AB Lefebvre “We are the guarantor of this”, he wasn’t joking – he was talking about the documents of VCII being harmonious with tradition.

Then this harmony should be observably apparent. The fact that they (the V2 documents) are neither clear in meaning or expression -to the extent that even those who say that they are in accord with tradition can't even agree among themselves as to what is being taught- should be enough in itself to prove that these documents present a grave danger to the faith.


More later.
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Jehanne on Fri Mar 09, 2012 4:24 pm

Mike,

Florence defined that there is no salvation "outside the Catholic Church..." If you want to say that the Orthodox are members of true particular churches, and are yet, at the same time, still "within the Catholic Church," great. Florence made it clear that "so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation..." End of story.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  George Brenner on Fri Mar 09, 2012 4:32 pm


As taken from Columba's last post:

From Mike:
Again, when Pope Paul VI told AB Lefebvre “We are the guarantor of this”, he wasn’t joking – he was talking about the documents of VCII being harmonious with tradition.

Columba's response to Mike,
Then this harmony should be observably apparent. The fact that they (the V2 documents) are neither clear in meaning or expression -to the extent that even those who say that they are in accord with tradition can't even agree among themselves as to what is being taught- should be enough in itself to prove that these documents present a grave danger to the faith.



The lack of clarity and complexity of language is the Crisis in the Church. The inability of most in the Hierarchy to teach and be on the same page is overwhelming. As I said in an earlier post, when I was on vacation two years ago, a priest? opened his homily by saying that the church erred in teaching there is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church. I said in a loud voice, heritic several times in the parking lot. I wrote a very strong letter. No, several people in our family and myself did not misunderstand him. He certainly is the exception. It as if many are embarrassed by NSOCC or want to reduce it to a meaningless formula or do not want to discuss, explain or defend NSOCC.
But Columba in your own words "danger to the faith" is not the same as loss of the faith, but a Church on Holy Spirit life support. There are many Priests and Bishops who are in the Church and part of the Cure. Many more are needed. Columba, you posted recently to Cardinal Eijk's cracking down on liturgical abuse:
" If every liturgical abuse that occurred in our diocese was complained about, it would take til judgement day to deal with them all. Where there's no discipline, there's no order. "
If you are part of the cure, why not make that judgement day minus one , then two etc. Do not be so pessimistic. If everyone took that attitude the crisis would gone on indefinitely or until Jesus Himself had to end it.
The Church remains intact and dogmatically perfect as Mike explains over and over and over again. If this were not so then where would the Church be? It is a shame that we have to go through the hoops of complexity when what we need is like one our forum members name is, Simple Faith.
Many in the Church have lamented over the last several decades that this has been an unfavorable time in Church history. I have managed many sports teams and although some teams had better results than others and some did not do so well and others were clearly overachievers or had some moral victories ( excuse the pun ) as it were, you better believe that I would never have wanted to be nominated or accept Manager of the year during the lean times. You can not cure a problem or sickness until you admit it and take humble ownership in the problem and work with help from others in the cure.
avatar
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:04 pm

George wrote:
The lack of clarity and complexity of language is the Crisis in the Church.

I say there would be no crisis at all if the lack of clarity of language didn't cause souls to doubt the dogmas of the faith. The fact that this amibiguous language has caused many souls to doubt the dogmas of the faith and to abandon the traditional understandings of such is the real crisis. When it happens that the hierarchy of the Church, up to the highest, have also abandoned the traditional understanding of infallibly proclaimed dogma, then we have the real crisis. If even recent and present pope[s] were to uphold and proclaim afresh the unalterable truths of the faith, the crisis -even though it may remain- would be but a minor crisis.

As I said in an earlier post, when I was on vacation two years ago, a priest? opened his homily by saying that the church erred in teaching there is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church. I said in a loud voice, heritic several times in the parking lot.

George there is no sarchasm present in what I'm about to say but do you not think you owe that priest an apology? He was merely restating the nuanced teaching of the Church and that of the pope.

Cardinal Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, pages 150-151: “…their [the Jews] No to Christ brings the Israelites into conflict with the subsequent acts of God, but at the same time we know that they are assured of the faithfulness of God. They are not excluded from salvation…” (Benedict XVI, God and the World, p. 209.)

Nor does the Benedict XVI require subjection to the Roman Pontiff as dogmatically proclaimed by Pope Boniface VIII.

Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 198-199: “… In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch], on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the ecclesial content of the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more.” (Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 198-199.)


Nor does Benedict XVI require those outside the Church to return to the one true Church of Christ;

Benedict XVI, Address to Protestants at World Youth Day, August 19, 2005: “And we now ask: What does it mean to restore the unity of all Christians?... 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!” (L’Osservatore Romano, August 24, 2005, p. 8.)


I could go on George with many more such quotes but these should suffice to show that the priest with whom you had words, was no more guilty of a crime against the faith than that which you regard the Pope to be.

If you are part of the cure, why not make that judgement day minus one , then two etc. Do not be so pessimistic.

George if I come across as pessimistic I can assure you that I am not. Smile
I know the Church will triumph. The only thing that counts is where each one of us will be at that time. Will we be with the Victor Jesus Christ or, will we be with the vanguished?
I have probably made more complaints to parish priests and bishop about liturgical abuse than most people on this forfum and all to no avail. There is only one possible means of retaining the true faith in a time of crisis in the Church; that is, to stick doggedly to the dogmas of the faith as they were once and always understood.
Pope St. Pius X and St. Athenasius agree.

The Church remains intact and dogmatically perfect as Mike explains over and over and over again.

I agree George. The Church will always remain dogmatically perfect despite her dogmas being twisted out of all recognition by those given charge of them. If they weren't twisting the dogmas then there would be no crisis.
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  George Brenner on Fri Mar 09, 2012 10:00 pm

Columba said:

If even recent and present pope[s] were to uphold and proclaim afresh the unalterable truths of the faith, the crisis -even though it may remain- would be but a minor crisis.

It seems like keep posting and posting the same remarks. I am sure this news release has been posted before:

7/10/2007
" LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy — Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.
Benedict approved a document from his old offices at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that restates church teaching on relations with other Christians. It was the second time in a week the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church.
On Saturday, Benedict revisited another key aspect of Vatican II by reviving the old Latin Mass . Traditional Catholics cheered the move, but more liberal ones called it a step back from Vatican II.
Benedict, who attended Vatican II as a young theologian, has long complained about what he considers the erroneous interpretation of the council by liberals, saying it was not a break from the past but rather a renewal of church tradition.
In the latest document — formulated as five questions and answers — The Vatican seeks to set the record straight on Vatican II’s ecumenical intent, saying some contemporary theological interpretation had been “erroneous or ambiguous” and had prompted confusion and doubt.
It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, “Dominus Iesus,” which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the “means of salvation.”
In the new document and an accompanying commentary, which were released as the pope vacations here in Italy’s Dolomite mountains, the Vatican repeated that position.
“Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one church,” the document said. The other communities “cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense” because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ’s original apostles.
‘Identity of the Catholic faith’
The Rev. Sara MacVane of the Anglican Centre in Rome, said there was nothing new in the document.
“I don’t know what motivated it at this time,” she said. “But it’s important always to point out that there’s the official position and there’s the huge amount of friendship and fellowship and worshipping together that goes on at all levels, certainly between Anglican and Catholics and all the other groups and Catholics.”
The document said Orthodox churches were indeed “churches” because they have apostolic succession and that they enjoyed “many elements of sanctification and of truth.” But it said they lack something because they do not recognize the primacy of the pope — a defect, or a “wound” that harmed them, it said.

Despite the harsh tone of the document, it stresses that Benedict remains committed to ecumenical dialogue.“This is obviously not compatible with the doctrine of primacy which, according to the Catholic faith, is an ‘internal constitutive principle’ of the very existence of a particular church,” the commentary said.
“However, if such dialogue is to be truly constructive, it must involve not just the mutual openness of the participants but also fidelity to the identity of the Catholic faith,” the commentary said.
‘Not backtracking on ecumenical commitment’
The document, signed by the congregation prefect, U.S. Cardinal William Levada, was approved by Benedict on June 29, the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul — a major ecumenical feast day.
There was no indication about why the pope felt it necessary to release the document, particularly since his 2000 document summed up the same principles. Some analysts suggested it could be a question of internal church politics, or that it could simply be an indication of Benedict using his office as pope to again stress key doctrinal issues from his time at the congregation.
Father Augustine Di Noia, undersecretary for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said the document did not alter the commitment for ecumenical dialogue, but aimed to assert Catholic identity in those talks.
“The Church is not backtracking on ecumenical commitment,” Di Noia told Vatican radio.
“But, as you know, it is fundamental to any kind of dialogue that the participants are clear about their own identity. That is, dialogue cannot be an occasion to accommodate or soften what you actually understand yourself to be.”
END OF QUOTE

Columba said:




I agree George. The Church will always remain dogmatically perfect

So if you agree that the Church despite all its challenges and crisis encountered throughout history, before during and after Vatican II, has remained dogmatically perfect, why can't your discussions move over to Crisis in the Faith as we work together as Catholics subject to the Pope in being part of the solution?
avatar
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:12 am

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Florence defined that there is no salvation "outside the Catholic Church..." If you want to say that the Orthodox are members of true particular churches, and are yet, at the same time, still "within the Catholic Church," great. Florence made it clear that "so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation..." End of story.
Oh really, “End of story” without any qualifications with respect to those who do not visibly belong to “this ecclesiastical body", but, as you recognize, are still “within the Catholic Church” (if they have not fallen into obstinate heresy or schism) by way of possessing valid Catholic apostolic succession and valid sacraments of the Church; can they or can they not profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation?

So what, exactly, is your “End of story” point? Can the Orthodox profit by their valid Catholic Sacraments while not enjoying visible unity with the ecclesiastical body, or not?
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Jehanne on Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:20 am

I do not know; I am happy with the definitions that you gave. What I find impossible to believe is that someone, anyone, could have implicitum votum who, as an act of that individual's own free will, would explicitly deny having any such "implicit" desire, submission. etc. to the Roman Pontiff.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:33 am

columba wrote:
I have probably made more complaints to parish priests and bishop about liturgical abuse than most people on this forfum and all to no avail. There is only one possible means of retaining the true faith in a time of crisis in the Church; that is, to stick doggedly to the dogmas of the faith as they were once and always understood.
Pope St. Pius X and St. Athenasius agree.
No, you mean to say that you stick doggedly to your private interpretation of dogma. You’ve proven time and again that not only do not know the difference between a dogmatic definition and its supporting dogmatic text (while “interpreting” the latter with your own “implied” definitive spin as if it were an immutable definition), you constantly invoke some infused knowledge of its once declared meaning when the Church has never held that meaning, while she tells us precisely how she understands her own dogma – an understanding confirmed by the Doctors and theologians and oft repeated in her own magisterial instruments for conveying Catholic Truth.

Once again the “me and St. Athanasius against the world” silliness rears its ugly head as if to suggest that St. Athanasius broke communion with the exiled “heretical” pope, as if the latter fostered, abetted and implemented the Arian heresy; therefore, the modern day little "remnant of true believers" crowd (as opposed to the false believers of the "conciliar Church") falsely invokes the name of St. Athanasius to justify their rebellion against the Primacy of the pope, who columba seems to want to blame for the abuses in his parish.

And to drag Pope St. Pius X into this is laughable; as if the sainted Pontiff would approve of disobedience to the Holy See and his Supreme Primacy.

Columba obviously has never read the Catechism of Pope Pius X on baptism of blood and baptism of desire. Let’s see what conspiracy columba comes up with that renders the Catechism a work of fiction, or the private, fallible and erroneous “opinions” of the Pope.

No one said you have to put up with liturgical abuse; but, as usual, you confuse dogma with discipline.

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:47 am

Jehanne wrote:I do not know; I am happy with the definitions that you gave. What I find impossible to believe is that someone, anyone, could have implicitum votum who, as an act of that individual's own free will, would explicitly deny having any such "implicit" desire, submission. etc. to the Roman Pontiff.
You find it impossible to believe that someone who professes the Faith of the first seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church can have a defective understanding of a secondary dogma due to circumstances of time and place, and in particular, the circumstances of the received ancient traditions of one’s particular Church, while at the same time having the positive will to accept all that that God has revealed without compromise?

Really?
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:54 am

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Columba wrote:
Mike, you are drawing the conclusion that they "are" two different things while still maintaining that the Church has not defined what she means by "belonging to.”
I have (absent any magisterial definition) concluded that what the Church means by "belonging to" is the same thing that Pope Boniface VIII meant by his words, "being subject to the Roman Pontiff." The meaning that you attribute is "not" a "complimentary thing" but rather a contradictory thing.

I know your point is that we must take that meaning which the teaching Magisterium of today takes,
And therein is manifested one of the major problems with your thinking, for the Magisteium of today is the same Magisterium of yesterday – and it cannot be anything other than that divinely commissioned teaching authority that speaks the same truth in every age with one and the same voice, and cannot be opposed to itself. Remember, “We are the guarantor of this”.

Mike, This understanding you profess as being the correct understanding (that in every age the Church will speak with one and the same voice) is not necessarlly the correct understanding at all. In order to hold this view as being applicable to every point of time in Church history, you must deny at least one historical fact, and also, deny at least one doctrinal fact. The great Arian crisis being the historical fact with certain similarities with today's crisis (where St. Athanasius was forced to consecrated orthodox bishops outside his own diocese, acting out of necessity for the good of the Church), and the doctrine being, that of the conditions that must prevail in order for any given Church teaching to be divinely guaranteed free from error.

You already understand this so no need for me to elaborate further (unless of course you challenge me on this).
Columba,

I understand no such thing, and this just demonstrates your confusion.

In what possible way does the historical fact of the Arian heresy suggest that the Magisterium erred during this crisis?

That a majority of dissenting bishops were influenced more by the machinations of political power than by any true doctrinal consideration (even if many were in fact heretics, many more were confused semi-Arians who eventually accepted the true “consubstantial” doctrine), and who were not always in union with the pope does not a “Magisterium” make.

Without the official consent of the Roman Pontiff there is no Magisterium, and Pope Liberius never taught or sanctioned heresy in any official magisterial act.

If St. Athanasius was “forced” to consecrate bishops outside his own dioceses, he did so with the implied pontifical mandate of the Pope, who was in exile during the crisis. AB Lefebvre cannot say the same - he was subject to an actively governing pope who was not in exile and who absolutely forbade him from consecrating priests without his pontifical mandate.

Huge difference; the latter is a schismatic act.

And as far as your “doctrinal” understanding that is supposed to justify your erroneous contention that says the Magisterium can teach heresy on matters of faith and salvation when the teaching is not proposed as an infallible definitive act of the Supreme Magisterium, one need only cite the words of Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis with respect to his established teaching in his papal Allocution that declares an “act of love” serves as a means to sanctifying grace and as a replacement for baptism when necessity dictates:

19. It is true that Popes generally leave theologians free in those matters which are disputed in various ways by men of very high authority in this field; but history teaches that many matters that formerly were open to discussion, no longer now admit of discussion.

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
Here, once again is the magisterial teaching from his Allocution:

“In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”.
Pope Pius XII is expounding upon and inculcating on the matter of “supernatural life” (as he indicated in the preceding sentence) which obviously pertains to Catholic doctrine on a matter of salvation, both with respect to the dogma which declares that “the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible”; and, because he is speaking about infants, he immediately follows with the ordinary magisterial and universal teaching which holds:

“An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”; and “For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: ‘He who heareth you, heareth me’".

The fact of the matter is that the magisterial teaching of Pope Pius XII on an “act of love” is NOT “disputed in various ways by men of very high authority in this field”, and in fact, “history teaches that many matters that formerly were open to discussion, no longer now admit of discussion.”

If you think that a handful of lay rebellious nay-sayers constitutes a legitimate dispute "by men of very high authority in this field”, you have another thing coming; for not even Fr. Feeney disputed the doctrine that says an act of love may place one in a state of sanctifying grace – a doctrine you deny and have the temerity to call “heretical”.

You are kicking against the goad and kicking against received tradition and the teaching authority of the Church, “of which it is true to say: ‘He who heareth you, heareth me’".

One Magisterium, One True doctrine.


Last edited by MRyan on Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:57 am; edited 1 time in total
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Jehanne on Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:56 am

By that logic, there is no such as schism. But, to an extent, I agree with your point, and I find it both perplexing and amusing that you would excuse the Orthodox as "having the positive will to accept all that that God has revealed without compromise..." yet in almost the same breath you accuse the SSPX of "disobedience to the Holy See and his Supreme Primacy." "So long as Our Lord is served first," I do agree with, which means that we proclaim until our dying breath, "Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Let Jesus Christ, the Eternal Judge, "separate the wheat from the chafe."
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

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

Jehanne wrote:By that logic, there is no such as schism. But, to an extent, I agree with your point, and I find it both perplexing and amusing that you would excuse the Orthodox as "having the positive will to accept all that that God has revealed without compromise..." yet in almost the same breath you accuse the SSPX of "disobedience to the Holy See and his Supreme Primacy." "So long as Our Lord is served first," I do agree with, which means that we proclaim until our dying breath, "Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Let Jesus Christ, the Eternal Judge, "separate the wheat from the chafe."
Read and heed:

The situation of those who, by the heavenly gift of faith, have embraced the Catholic truth is by no means the same as that of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion; for those who have accepted the faith under the guidance of the Church can never have any just cause for changing this faith or for calling it into question. (VCI, Decree on the Catholic Faith 3)

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Sat Mar 10, 2012 12:08 pm

Jehanne wrote:By that logic, there is no such as schism.
No, Jehanne, that simply is not the case. The objective state of schism still exists, even if the Church no longer holds the Orthodox culpable for the separation.

Subjectively, the Orthodox are not excused from the dogma requiring subjection to the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff.

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Sat Mar 10, 2012 12:29 pm

George wrote:

columba wrote:
I agree George. The Church will always remain dogmatically perfect


So if you agree that the Church despite all its challenges and crisis encountered throughout history, before during and after Vatican II, has remained dogmatically perfect, why can't your discussions move over to Crisis in the Faith as we work together as Catholics subject to the Pope in being part of the solution?


Gerorge a big part of "being part of the solution" is, holding the faith in all its purity without receding one iota from any of its dogmas as once defined and proclaimed as being divinely revealed truths of the faith.

At the time of the Arian crisis, where did the dogmatic perfection of the Church reside? Was it with the pope, cardinals and bishops? No. It was with St. Athenasius and a handful of faithful Catholics. That's what I mean by the Church always remaining dogmatically perfect. There will always be -by the providence and promise of Almighty God- the true faith existing on earth in all times., even if it be existing only in a handful of banished outcasts. The same Athenasius, if he were on earth today, would no doubt be considered a troublesome dissident such as was AB Lefebvre and Fr. Feeney.

George wrote:
why can't your discussions move over to Crisis in the Faith as we work together as Catholics subject to the Pope in being part of the solution?

George, no one more than I regognizes a Crisis in the Faith; I differ from you only in where I see the crisis originating. Because I don't exclude the pope and recent popes from being contributors to the crisis, you presume somehow that I am not in good standing within the Church and operating as one outside the Church. If you could provide me with some eveidence that this be the case, I will look at it.
I can provide you with some evidence that I am hiolding a legmate position.
Taken from his treatises on canon law and dogmatic theology, F.X. Wernz, P. Vidaly said,
“Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicum, 7:398, 1943)

I consider myself to be one such. I do not assert that everyone else is bound to hold my opinion on this matter but for me it's the safest bet at this time.


avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Jehanne on Sat Mar 10, 2012 1:48 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:By that logic, there is no such as schism.
No, Jehanne, that simply is not the case. The objective state of schism still exists, even if the Church no longer holds the Orthodox culpable for the separation.

Subjectively, the Orthodox are not excused from the dogma requiring subjection to the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff.


Just so we're clear, an Orthodox, as long as he/she thinks that he is "serving God," is free to reject Papal Primacy, but by that logic, they're not really "rejecting" that "secondary dogma"? In other words, they can "believe" in the dogma even if they explicitly and consciously reject it? As another example, was an individual raised in Nazi Germany who was taught that the Jews were an "inferior race" have any culpability if he/she participated in the Holocaust? If so, why? How about a doctor who performs abortions but who does not believe that human beings have immortal souls. Is that individual guilty of murder? If so, why?
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:53 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:By that logic, there is no such as schism.
No, Jehanne, that simply is not the case. The objective state of schism still exists, even if the Church no longer holds the Orthodox culpable for the separation.

Subjectively, the Orthodox are not excused from the dogma requiring subjection to the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff.


Just so we're clear, an Orthodox, as long as he/she thinks that he is "serving God," is free to reject Papal Primacy, but by that logic, they're not really "rejecting" that "secondary dogma"? In other words, they can "believe" in the dogma even if they explicitly and consciously reject it? As another example, was an individual raised in Nazi Germany who was taught that the Jews were an "inferior race" have any culpability if he/she participated in the Holocaust? If so, why? How about a doctor who performs abortions but who does not believe that human beings have immortal souls. Is that individual guilty of murder? If so, why?
Error has no rights and no one is "free to reject" any dogma; however, just as some errors are tolerated for the greater good, so too can the Orthodox be considered inculpable in the external forum for their false understanding.

Where do you come up with these distorted characterizations?

And it doesn’t matter if the abortion doctor believes in immortal souls or not; the natural law is written into every man’s heart, the revealed secondary dogma of papal primacy is not.

Not to get too sideways, but I think it was the paleo-con Catholic Thomas Fleming (whom I otherwise admire) who rejected (to my disappointment) the idea of the natural law (concerning abortion) being written into every man's heart, for the simple reason that the esteemed Greek philosopher pagans didn't seem to understand that abortion, infanticide, pedophilia and homosexuality are intrinsically disordered and evil acts.

Sounds like a bit of a logical fallacy to me. Disordered "reason" can obscure even the natural law.

Anyway, why you seem to want to insist that every single adult member of the orthodox Church should be held culpable for not believing in the dogma of papal primacy as the Church defines it -- is puzzling.



avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  MRyan on Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:37 pm

columba wrote:
At the time of the Arian crisis, where did the dogmatic perfection of the Church reside? Was it with the pope, cardinals and bishops? No. It was with St. Athenasius and a handful of faithful Catholics. That's what I mean by the Church always remaining dogmatically perfect.
Baloney.

The "dogmatic perfection" of the one true Faith resides at all times in the deposit of faith, which "has always been preserved unblemished" by "the Apostolic See" (VCI).

6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter ... that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time.

2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood.

3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received. (VCI)
When Pope Liberius was in exile and the political power of those who stood with the Arians was at is strongest, it was Athanasius and others who were called upon to defend the true Faith, and your suggestion that the "dogmatic perfection" of the faith resided in St. Athanasius and not in Peter (Liberius) is just one more gross distortion of the truth.

Why do dissenting rad-trads have such a serious aversion to the infallible dogmatic prescriptions of VCI and treat them in the same way residents of Napoli treat stop signs, as "suggestions"?


avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  George Brenner on Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:26 pm


Columba said:
George, no one more than I regognizes a Crisis in the Faith; I differ from you only in where I see the crisis originating. Because I don't exclude the pope and recent popes from being contributors to the crisis, you presume somehow that I am not in good standing within the Church and operating as one outside the Church. If you could provide me with some eveidence that this be the case, I will look at it.
I can provide you with some evidence that I am hiolding a legmate position.
Taken from his treatises on canon law and dogmatic theology, F.X. Wernz, P. Vidaly said,
“Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicum, 7:398, 1943)


I consider myself to be one such. I do not assert that everyone else is bound to hold my opinion on this matter but for me it's the safest bet at this time.


The Crisis in the Church is a result of many , certainly not all of the following:
1. Those in teaching authority not teaching the basics and beliefs of Our faith.
2. Those in teaching authority allowing abuses in the liturgy without stopping them in there tracks and punish the abusers when necessary.
3. Those in teaching authority asking what do you think rather than we are here to teach the Faith.
4. Those in teaching authority not acting with resolve to stop abuses and/or cover them up.
5. Those in teaching authority not giving strong specific Catholic homilies.
6. Those in teaching authority turning a blind eye or condoning those in public office who call themselves Catholic and yet violate Church teaching.
7 Those in teaching authority not monitoring the Universities and schools for being within safe Catholic bounds in their teachings..... Accountability
8. Those in teaching authority not listening to so many concerns and heartfelt imploring and prayers of the faithful over many years.
9. Those in authority not making the Mass as reverent as possible each and every time the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is said.
10. Those in teaching authority not being humble and truthful enough with themselves and us to have recognized the storm we have been in for so many years.
ETC, ETC + JMJ= Crisis solved; News flash Ark will be in calm seas again !

God and Holy Mother Church will judge the above, not you and I
One of us is wrong, Columba, and one of us is right. Pope John XXXIII, did not start Vatican II with the knowledge or intent to harm the Church. When he opened the windows the devil and many evil spirits entered to do great harm if possible to Our, One , Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. And great harm and confusion and complexity has been the aftermath. But do not think for one second that the keys of the kingdom of Heaven are not on Pope Benedict XVI's tool belt. It is our duty and obligation to to be loyal, submissive, love and pray for Our Holy Father. It is better that we do this because we want to not because we have to. Columba, if you had to make a short list of the reasons why as you say that "you do not exclude the recent Popes as being contributors to the crisis", I think that you would find you would have to take the same stance against many other Popes in history that you now seem to think are the ' Good Shepherds. ' Pope Benedict XVI is the Vicar of Christ with or without your approval or ' safe bet land ' where you think that you reside now.

THE
(SCIENTIFIC) DEATH OF JESUS

At the age of 33,
Jesus was condemned to the death .

At the time
Crucifixion was the "worst" death. Only the worst
Criminals were condemned to be crucified. Yet it was
Even more dreadful for Jesus, unlike
Other criminals condemned to death by
Crucifixion Jesus was to be nailed to the
Cross by His hands and feet.


Each nail
Was 6 to 8 inches long.


The nails
Were driven into His wrist. Not
Into His palms as is commonly
Portrayed. There's a tendon in the wrist that
Extends to the shoulder. The Roman guards knew
That when the nails were being hammered into the
Wrist that tendon would tear and
Break, forcing Jesus to use His back
Muscles to support himself so that He could
Breath.


Both of His feet
Were nailed together. Thus He was forced to
Support Himself on the single nail that
Impaled His feet to the cross. Jesus could
Not support himself with His legs because of the pain
So He was forced to alternate between arching His
Back then using his legs just to continue to
Breath. Imagine the struggle, the pain, the
Suffering, the courage.


Jesus endured this
Reality for over 3 hours.

Yes,
Over 3 hours! Can you imagine this kind of
Suffering? A few minutes before He died,
Jesus stopped bleeding. He was simply pouring water
From his wounds.

From common images
We see wounds to His hands and feet and even the spear wound
To His side... But do we realize His wounds
Were actually made in his body. A hammer
Driving large nails through the wrist, the feet overlapped
And an even large nail hammered through the arches, then a
Roman guard piercing His side with a spear. But
Before the nails and the spear Jesus was whipped and
Beaten. The whipping was so severe that it tore the
Flesh from His body. The beating so horrific that His
Face was torn and his beard ripped from His face. The
Crown of thorns cut deeply into His scalp. Most men
Would not have survived this torture.



He had no more blood
To bleed out, only water poured from His
Wounds.
The human adult body contains about 3.5 liters
(just less than a gallon) of blood.

Jesus poured all 3.5
Liters of his blood; He had three nails hammered into His
Members; a crown of thorns on His head and, beyond
That, a Roman soldier who stabbed a spear into His
Chest..


All these without
Mentioning the humiliation He suffered after carrying His own
Cross for almost 2 kilometers, while the crowd spat in his
Face and threw stones (the cross was almost 30 kg of weight,
Only for its higher part, where His hands were
Nailed).


Jesus had
To endure this experience, to open the
Gates of Heaven

and so we pray.......



avatar
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  columba on Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:11 pm

Mike,

6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter ... that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

I have never disputed this, but are you saying that this promise would apply in the case of an invalidly elected or heretical pope?

1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time.

Do you say that this promise would be rendered “a false promise,” "if ever it should appear that someone who was elected Roman Pontiff had before hand deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into any heresy?"
Do you agree that his election, “even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals would be null, legally invalid and void” and that “all the subsequent acts, laws and appointments of such an invalidly elected pope, would be lacking in force, and would grant no stability and legal power to anyone whatsoever?” and do you agree that, “Moreover, all those who would be appointed to ecclesiastical offices by such a pope would, by that very fact and without the need to make any further declaration, be deprived of any dignity, position, honor, title, authority, office and power?”


2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood.

Do you believe that an invalidly elected pope or heretical pope would hold those keys and validly exercise judgment over the bishops of the Holy Roman Church?

3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received. (VCI)

Would an invalidly elected or heretical pope obtain by the institution of Christ himself, this primacy of Peter over the whole Church?
Do you believe that a scenario such as this, where the Church could have an invalidly elected or heretical pope sitting in the chair of Peter is an impossible scenario, and if so, can you prove it beyond opinion?

N.B. I haven't specifically got Vat II popes in mind when asking these questions; I'm speaking of those promises applying to any such time in Church history, past, present or future.

avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Questions Concerning Fundamentals of Catholicism.

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 10 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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