Latest topics
» Polish traditionalists handicapped : Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:20 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA when they interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Bishop Robert J.McManus and Brother Thomas Augustine MICM,Superior,St.Benedict Center,Still River,MA, interpret Vatican Council II with the 'possibilites are exceptions' error
Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:47 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX must be aware of the deception of Abp.Guido Pozzo and confront it
Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Two popes must ask all Catholics to affirm Vatican Council II (premise-free) as they do
Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:16 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Still River Ma., could lose canomical status because of Feeneyism
Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

»  Traditionalists oppose Pope Francis on morals but give him a pass on salvation
Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Someone needs to help Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Archbishop Pozzo and Archbishop Di Noia see how they use a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II
Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:53 pm by Lionel L. Andrades

» Robert Siscoe and John of St. Thomas Respond to Fr. Cekada
Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Still no denial from Abp.Guido Pozzo : SSPX must accept Vatican Council II with a false doctrine and the new theology based on an irrational premise Image result for Photo of Archbishop Guido Pozzo
Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:03 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Five Catholic academics accept the development of doctrine on salvation and Vatican Council II but reject it on morals and the death penalty
Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:32 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Dr.Robert Fastiggi wants Bishop Donald Sanborn and Chris Ferrara to affirm a magisterium in heresy and schism like him
Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» ]Christine Niles uses the false premise to interpret magisterial documents
Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX has a right to canonical status when they correct their doctrinal error in the 'chart'
Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No one shows Massimo Faggioli his precise theological and philosophical mistake
Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:07 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» 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


Gaudium et Spes

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  Jehanne on Sun Dec 30, 2012 10:31 am

MRyan wrote:Dr. Art Sippo agrees:

There was also a clear apology for the excesses of the Inquisition and a recognition that the moral order requires that States organize their laws recognizing the dignity of the human person. This was all new. (http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/appendixd.html)

Where??? Point it out in the document. DH "apologized" for the "excesses" of the various Inquisitions without ever mentioning the word "Inquisition"?! These interpretations of Dignitatis Humanae are enough to keep traditionalists "outside" of the Catholic Church. (By the way, there were some excesses; everyone agrees on that! One example is a French bishop who sent some 90 or so of his subjects to the stake, only later to be imprisoned by the Pope. I don't recall his name; would need to look it up.)

MRyan wrote:It’s time to put up or shut up.

I agree. If the Pope thinks that it was wrong for the Catholic Church to have burned heretics alive at the stake (for nearly 1,000 years), he should come out and say so! By the way, here's an excellent article on DH and its problems:

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-1115-salza-vaticansspx_discussion.htm
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  MRyan on Sun Dec 30, 2012 2:39 pm

RememberGethsemane wrote:
MRyan wrote:
RememberGethsemane wrote:Gee can't hear big boy Mike anymore. He was posting willy nilly on this topic for days then suddenly stopped. Let's hear the venom from him and accusations and bully tactics he uses when he comes back to defend the indefensible.
Surely, RG, you have something more constructive to add to this debate other than cheap shots and insults?

If my defense of the Church is so "indefensible", then it should be relatively easy to prove me wrong.

However, if you do not have anything to add except insults, then yes, by all means, stay out of the kitchen.

Mike, you are accusing me of being insulting, that is a case of the proverbial pot calling the cauldron black ass, go read some of your own put-downs sometime. In the case of 'defending the church' you are not defending the true church in my opinion but a 'church' the saints prophecised and warned us against. So that is why I say 'defending the indefensible'. I highly respect your intellect and fervour but I instinctively feel it is misplaced somethimes. If I start sending you links quotes and essays we will be on a continuous cycle of splitting hairs and analysis. To me, when a priest bishop or pope promulgates something that defies Christ's teaching it is indefensible. Happy new year to you!
RG, so you do not have any one exchange in mind when you say I am “defending the indefensible”, rather, you suggest that anyone who defends the visible hierarchical institution known as the Roman Catholic Church is "defending the indefensible".

You appear to be another victim of the heretical mind-set that (among other errors) places forced and false interpretations of the private revelation of certain saints over the infallible promises of our Lord and over the infallible and indefectible visible institution (willed by Christ) known as the one true Church of Christ.

Pope Leo XIII declares:

The Church Always Visible

If we consider the chief end of His Church and the proximate efficient causes of salvation, it is undoubtedly spiritual; but in regard to those who constitute it, and to the things which lead to these spiritual gifts, it is external and necessarily visible.[…] For this reason the Church is so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ - "Now you are the body of Christ" (I Cor. xii., 27)-and precisely because it is a body is the Church visible: … From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error: […]

As Christ, the Head and Exemplar, is not wholly in His visible human nature…; so the mystical body of Christ is the true Church, only because its visible parts draw life and power from the supernatural gifts and other things whence spring their very nature and essence. But since the Church is such by divine will and constitution, such it must uniformly remain to the end of time. If it did nor, then it would not have been founded as perpetual, and the end set before it would have been limited to some certain place and to some certain period of time; both of which are contrary to the truth. The union consequently of visible and invisible elements because it harmonizes with the natural order and by God's will belongs to the very essence of the Church, must necessarily remain so long as the Church itself shall endure. Wherefore Chrysostom writes: "Secede not from the Church: for nothing is stronger than the Church. Thy hope is the Church; thy salvation is the Church; thy refuge is the Church. It is higher than the heavens and wider than the earth. It never grows old, but is ever full of vigour. Wherefore Holy Writ pointing to its strength and stability calls it a mountain" (Hom. De capto Eutropio, n. 6).

The nature of this supreme authority, which all Christians are bound to obey, can be ascertained only by finding out what was the evident and positive will of Christ. Certainly Christ is a King for ever; and though invisible, He continues unto the end of time to govern and guard His church from Heaven. But since He willed that His kingdom should be visible He was obliged, when He ascended into Heaven, to designate a vice-regent on earth. […]"For the same reason, therefore, because He was about to withdraw His visible presence from the Church, it was necessary that He should appoint someone in His place, to have the charge of the Universal Church. Hence before His Ascension He said to Peter: 'Feed my sheep'" (St. Thomas, Contra Gentiles, lib. iv., cap. 76).
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 29 June 1943:

[color=orange]If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church. … If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity… But it is not enough that the Body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses. […]

As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. … They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.
VCI, Session 4: 18 July 1870, First dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ:

4. In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.

5. Upon the strength of this [visible] foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the Church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this [visible]foundation.

Chapter 2, On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

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 [46].

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.

4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head,

This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation.
Returning to Satis Cognitum:

13. It was necessary that a government of this kind, since it belongs to the constitution and formation of the Church, as its principal element that is as the principle of unity and the foundation of lasting stability - should in no wise come to an end with St. Peter, but should pass to his successors from one to another. "There remains, therefore, the ordinance of truth, and St. Peter, persevering in the strength of the rock which he had received, hath not abandoned the government of the Church which had been confided to him"(S. Leo M. sermo iii., cap. 3).

Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. […]But as this heavenly doctrine was never left to the arbitrary judgment of private individuals, but, in the beginning delivered by Jesus Christ, was afterwards committed by Him exclusively to the Magisterium already named, so the power of performing and administering the divine mysteries, together with the authority of ruling and governing, was not bestowed by God on all Christians indiscriminately, but on certain chosen persons.

And since all Christians must be closely united in the communion of one immutable faith, Christ the Lord, in virtue of His prayers, obtained for Peter that in the fulfilment of his office he should never fall away from the faith. "But I have asked for thee that thy faith fail not" (Luke xxii., 32), and He furthermore commanded him to impart light and strength to his brethren as often as the need should arise: "Confirm thy brethren" (Ibid.).

He willed then that he whom He had designated as the [visible] foundation of the Church should be the defence of its faith. "Could not Christ who confided to him the Kingdom by His own authority have strengthened the faith of one whom He designated a rock to show the foundation of the Church?"
(S. Ambrosius, De Fide, lib. iv., n. 56).
And against this infallible teaching you will bring what, the “prophesies” of saints and “links [to] quotes and essays”?

You are right to spare me the trouble, I’ve read it all, and am not impressed in the least.

Just a couple of questions, RG: Where is and how does one find the one visible Church instituted by Christ; and, similarly, where is the visible foundation of this one visible Church, the visible and firm foundation of which our Lord instituted (in Peter) the permanent principles of both essential unities (the true faith and communion)?

Something else to mull over:

Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious [and sede] societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church, which, from the days of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles has never ceased to exercise, by its lawful pastors, and still continues to exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord; cannot fail to satisfy himself that neither any one of these societies by itself, nor all of them together, can in any manner constitute and be that One Catholic Church which Christ our Lord built, and established, and willed should continue; and that they cannot in any way be said to be branches or parts of that Church, since they are visibly cut off from Catholic unity (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, 13 September 1868).
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  George Brenner on Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:22 pm

MRyan said:



Where is and how does one find the one visible Church instituted by Christ; and, similarly, where is the visible foundation of this one visible Church, the visible and firm foundation of which our Lord instituted (in Peter) the permanent principles of both essential unities (the true faith and communion)?


Excellent post, Mike.

How sad, lonely and desperate must it be to be inclined to disprove the legitimacy of VCII and question the very existence of our Catholic faith today. If our faith can not be found with Our Holy Father , Pope Benedict VI , the traditional Latin Mass, the Novus Ordo Mass and the very presence within Our Church of countless holy people whose names and numbers we will never know then the issue some have is probably not with the Church but with the Blessed Trinity themselves who promised our Catholic Church would Never fail. We can and I feel that we must fight against abuses and poor implementations in reverence and discipline in ways and means known to us but must never attack the Church itself; a sin of the highest magnitude. If Our Church can not be found throughout the world then I too would like to be enlightened as to exactly where Our Church is to be found so that I may see the light and spread the word to all that I know, love and come into contact with.


JMJ,

George
avatar
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  RememberGethsemane on Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:22 pm

Thanks Mike, but like I say I've no desire to go down and around the rabbit holes with you, other than to say the "visible" church I see today makes my jaw drop open in disbelief, has known masons and manifest heretics in its hierarchy and is the one that Our Blessed Mother, doctors of the church and cononised saints warned of.

RememberGethsemane

Posts : 86
Reputation : 92
Join date : 2012-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  MRyan on Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:58 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Dr. Art Sippo agrees:

There was also a clear apology for the excesses of the Inquisition and a recognition that the moral order requires that States organize their laws recognizing the dignity of the human person. This was all new. (http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/appendixd.html)
Where??? Point it out in the document. DH "apologized" for the "excesses" of the various Inquisitions without ever mentioning the word "Inquisition"?! These interpretations of Dignitatis Humanae are enough to keep traditionalists "outside" of the Catholic Church.
The only definition of “traditionalist” I know of (it is actually inherent in the name “Catholic”, in those who accept the entire patrimony, teachings and traditions of the Church as the true arbiter of tradition understands, promulgates and teaches them) is that which is defined by the editor of The Remnant, who, in stating that Fr. Harrison is NOT a “traditionalist”, thereby separates orthodox Catholics from those so-called “traditionalists” who are not in communion with Peter in all matters of doctrine and discipline, except for the nod of the head towards the picture of the pope which can sometimes can be found in “Independent” chapels. For example, anyone who would attend the Ordinary form of the Mass is NOT a “traditionalist” according to the self-proclaimed arbiters of tradition.

This begs the question, how can an “Independent” Catholic Church claim to represent “traditional Catholics” (“we are what you once were, blah, blah, blah”)?

So if that makes me a “non-traditionalist”, that’s OK; they can keep the meaningless and misappropriated title.

Dr. Sippo is referring to this:

In the life of the People of God, as it has made its pilgrim way through the vicissitudes of human history, there has at times appeared a way of acting that was hardly in accord with the spirit of the Gospel or even opposed to it. Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Church that no one is to be coerced into faith has always stood firm.(DH #12)
Sippo’s reference to the excesses of the inquisition (as "a way of acting that was hardly in accord with the spirit of the Gospel or even opposed to it") is quite obvious given Pope John Paul II’s explicit warning:

Yet the consideration of mitigating factors does not exonerate the Church from the obligation to express profound regret for the weaknesses of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face, preventing her from fully mirroring the image of her crucified Lord, the supreme witness of patient love and of humble meekness. From these painful moments of the past a lesson can be drawn for the future, leading all Christians to adhere fully to the sublime principle stated by the Council: “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with both gentleness and power.” (Pope John Paul II, Tertio Millennio Adveniente, no. 35, quoting Vatican II, Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae, no. 1.)
Pope John Paul II also said, “The Inquisition belongs to a tormented phase in the history of the Church, which . . . Christians [should] examine in a spirit of sincerity and open-mindedness.” (“Address to the International Symposium on the Inquisition,” October 31, 1998)

Quit splitting hairs, Jehanne, you know full well what Pope JPII is referring to in DH (all abuses in general, to include the excesses of the Inquisition), and that Dr. Sippo is right.

As James Hitchcock wrote: “The Second Vatican Council's decree Dignitatis Humanae once and for all put an end to the mode of thought which would revive the Inquisition, or see it as having eternal validity.” (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0007.html)

And from http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0029.html:

The principle upon which the Inquisition was built is entirely defensible; indeed, Catholics everywhere have the duty to defend it. The Church was given by Christ Himself the mission of safeguarding the deposit of faith from distortion or corruption (cf. Mt. 28:16-20; Mk. 16:14-20; Jn. 21:15-19; 1 Thess. 2:13; Jude 3; Catechism, nos. 84-90, 172-75, 813-16).

However, we must distinguish between this principle and the means by which the faith should be defended. The Church herself, as evidenced in the Catechism, does not defend the regrettable practices of the Inquisition:

In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors (no. 2298).

Furthermore, the Church does not proclaim that individuals in the Church, merely by being members of the Body of Christ, are infallibly Christ-like in all their actions. Rather,

the Church . . . clasping sinners to her bosom, at once holy and always in need of purification, follows constantly the path of penance and renewal.” All members of the Church, including her ministers, must acknowledge that they are sinners. In everyone, the weeds of sin will still be mixed with the good wheat of the Gospel until the end of time (Catechism, no. 827, quoting Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, no. eight).
We must not forget that Catharism (and the other heresies) were influential to the degree that the Church’s shepherds were failing to live up to the obligations proper to their offices. The proper response to the heresy of Catharism was not violent opposition but repentance, reform, and a more fervent embrace of poverty and holiness by those within the confines of orthodoxy, coupled with a zealous preaching of the true faith — the response of St. Francis and St. Dominic.
Continuing:

Jehanne wrote: By the way, there were some excesses; everyone agrees on that! One example is a French bishop who sent some 90 or so of his subjects to the stake, only later to be imprisoned by the Pope. I don't recall his name; would need to look it up.)
Yes, and I already provided one extreme example:

Some, however, like Robert le Bougre, a Bulgarian (Catharist) convert to Christianity and subsequently a Dominican, seem to have yielded to a blind fanaticism and deliberately to have provoked executions en masse. On 29 May, 1239, at Montwimer in Champagne, Robert consigned to the flames at one time about a hundred and eighty persons, whose trial had begun and ended within one week. Later, when Rome found that the complaints against him were justified, he was first deposed and then incarcerated for life. (CE)
Oh well, what’s a little “collateral damage”, there were probably some real heretics in the bunch.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:It’s time to put up or shut up.
I agree. If the Pope thinks that it was wrong for the Catholic Church to have burned heretics alive at the stake (for nearly 1,000 years), he should come out and say so!
He did “say so”, quit pretending he didn't as if he would exclude the excesses of the Inquisition from "a way of acting that was hardly in accord with the spirit of the Gospel or even opposed to it."

Jehanne wrote:By the way, here's an excellent article on DH and its problems:

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-1115-salza-vaticansspx_discussion.htm
Salza has his own problems – like stating that the “hope” of salvation for unbaptized infants is “heretical” - no thanks. In this instance (DH), I’ll stay with the approved theologians of the Church and Pope Benedict XVI.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  MRyan on Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:07 pm

RememberGethsemane wrote:Thanks Mike, but like I say I've no desire to go down and around the rabbit holes with you, other than to say the "visible" church I see today makes my jaw drop open in disbelief, has known masons and manifest heretics in its hierarchy and is the one that Our Blessed Mother, doctors of the church and cononised saints warned of.
I don't blame you, you might have to confront your own heresy.

If there are "manifest heretics" in the hierarchy, our Lord never promised that there would not be (but not as a body); but, if you are referring to the Vicar of Christ, shame on you.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  Jehanne on Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:29 pm

MRyan wrote:Dr. Sippo is referring to this:

(snip)

Yet the consideration of mitigating factors does not exonerate the Church from the obligation to express profound regret for the weaknesses of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face, preventing her from fully mirroring the image of her crucified Lord, the supreme witness of patient love and of humble meekness. From these painful moments of the past a lesson can be drawn for the future, leading all Christians to adhere fully to the sublime principle stated by the Council: “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with both gentleness and power.” (Pope John Paul II, Tertio Millennio Adveniente, no. 35, quoting Vatican II, Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae, no. 1.)

Okay, he does not mention the word "Inquisition" does he? (In your opinion, why not?) What, exactly, then, are Catholics supposed to now believe about the Inquisitions??? What, exactly, has the Magisterium defined about the Inquisitions? For instance, must we believe that Pope Clement VIII was in error for condemning Giordano Bruno to the stake? Or, must we believe that the Fourth Lateran Council, an ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, was in error for ordering "the extermination" of heretics? Are we heretics if we do not believe and profess such assertions?

MRyan wrote:Pope John Paul II also said, “The Inquisition belongs to a tormented phase in the history of the Church, which . . . Christians [should] examine in a spirit of sincerity and open-mindedness.” (“Address to the International Symposium on the Inquisition,” October 31, 1998)

It was (and is) a tormented period of history; in fact, every age of the Church has its own torments.

MRyan wrote:Quit splitting hairs, Jehanne, you know full well what Pope JPII is referring to in DH (all abuses in general, to include the excesses of the Inquisition), and that Dr. Sippo is right.

If I disagree, am I a heretic? Should I stop receiving Holy Communion at Indult Masses? What theological grade of error am I guilty of here?

MRyan wrote:As James Hitchcock wrote: “The Second Vatican Council's decree Dignitatis Humanae once and for all put an end to the mode of thought which would revive the Inquisition, or see it as having eternal validity.” (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0007.html)

I believe that the Inquisitions have eternal validity. Again, should I be denied Holy Communion for having this belief? The SSPX, by the way, defend the Inquisitions:

http://www.sspx.org/against_sound_bites/defense_of_the_inquisition.htm

Has Rome ordered them to "renounce" this error?

MRyan wrote:However, we must distinguish between this principle and the means by which the faith should be defended. The Church herself, as evidenced in the Catechism, does not defend the regrettable practices of the Inquisition:

In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors (no. 2298).

Nowhere does that paragraph in the CCC state that torture is "intrinsically evil" and/or "intrinsically immoral"? Is it immoral for the Triune God to torture souls in eternal Hell for all time and eternity?

MRyan wrote:
the Church . . . clasping sinners to her bosom, at once holy and always in need of purification, follows constantly the path of penance and renewal.” All members of the Church, including her ministers, must acknowledge that they are sinners. In everyone, the weeds of sin will still be mixed with the good wheat of the Gospel until the end of time (Catechism, no. 827, quoting Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, no. eight).

Yes, this is so true of the present, isn't it?!

MRyan wrote:We must not forget that Catharism (and the other heresies) were influential to the degree that the Church’s shepherds were failing to live up to the obligations proper to their offices. The proper response to the heresy of Catharism was not violent opposition but repentance, reform, and a more fervent embrace of poverty and holiness by those within the confines of orthodoxy, coupled with a zealous preaching of the true faith — the response of St. Francis and St. Dominic.

Yes, and some of these folks are canonized Saints of the Church, aren't they?!

MRyan wrote:Continuing:

Jehanne wrote: By the way, there were some excesses; everyone agrees on that! One example is a French bishop who sent some 90 or so of his subjects to the stake, only later to be imprisoned by the Pope. I don't recall his name; would need to look it up.)
Yes, and I already provided one extreme example:

Some, however, like Robert le Bougre, a Bulgarian (Catharist) convert to Christianity and subsequently a Dominican, seem to have yielded to a blind fanaticism and deliberately to have provoked executions en masse. On 29 May, 1239, at Montwimer in Champagne, Robert consigned to the flames at one time about a hundred and eighty persons, whose trial had begun and ended within one week. Later, when Rome found that the complaints against him were justified, he was first deposed and then incarcerated for life. (CE)
Oh well, what’s a little “collateral damage”, there were probably some real heretics in the bunch.

There probably were; in fact, this was likely the example which I had in mind.

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:It’s time to put up or shut up.
I agree. If the Pope thinks that it was wrong for the Catholic Church to have burned heretics alive at the stake (for nearly 1,000 years), he should come out and say so!
He did “say so”, quit pretending he didn't as if he would exclude the excesses of the Inquisition from "a way of acting that was hardly in accord with the spirit of the Gospel or even opposed to it."

Well, I think that you are "putting words into his mouth".

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:By the way, here's an excellent article on DH and its problems:

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-1115-salza-vaticansspx_discussion.htm
Salza has his own problems – like stating that the “hope” of salvation for unbaptized infants is “heretical” - no thanks. In this instance (DH), I’ll stay with the approved theologians of the Church and Pope Benedict XVI.

"Good Luck with that"! (Nice of you to actually address what Salza wrote.)
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  RememberGethsemane on Sun Dec 30, 2012 5:33 pm

MRyan wrote:
RememberGethsemane wrote:Thanks Mike, but like I say I've no desire to go down and around the rabbit holes with you, other than to say the "visible" church I see today makes my jaw drop open in disbelief, has known masons and manifest heretics in its hierarchy and is the one that Our Blessed Mother, doctors of the church and cononised saints warned of.
I don't blame you, you might have to confront your own heresy.

If there are "manifest heretics" in the hierarchy, our Lord never promised that there would not be (but not as a body); but, if you are referring to the Vicar of Christ, shame on you.

Gee funny I don't feel any shame on the matter though, but I used to for thinking such things. Shame on them for leading the church into darkness and confusion!

RememberGethsemane

Posts : 86
Reputation : 92
Join date : 2012-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  columba on Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:53 pm

Continued.


MRyan wrote:

89. Since, in virtue of her mission received from God, the Church preaches the Gospel to all men and dispenses the treasures of grace, she contributes to the ensuring of peace everywhere on earth and to the placing of the fraternal exchange between men on solid ground by imparting knowledge of the divine and natural law. Therefore, to encourage and stimulate cooperation among men, the Church must be clearly present in the midst of the community of nations both through her official channels and through the full and sincere collaboration of all Christiansa collaboration motivated solely by the desire to be of service to all. (Gaudium et Spes)

Mike, you are using examples from GS which actually support the contentions that many (including myself) have with the document and other VCII documents.

Point 1.
If, "in virtue of her mission received from God, the Church preaches the Gospel to all men," why now has she stopped doing it and excluded certain non-Christian sects from proselytization?

Point 2.
It's not clear from the above passage what the term "collaboration of all Christians" is referring too. Does it mean collaboration between Catholics and those who call themselves "Christian" but to whom the term doesn't properly apply since they reject the very Christ they say they are following by rejecting His authority in His establisment of One Church?

Point 3.
Can this "collaboration motivated solely by the desire to be of service to all.," be a genuine Christian motivation at all since the motivation excludes Christ since it is SOLELY motivated towards the service of man?

This will come about more effectively if the faithful themselves, conscious of their responsibility as men and as Christians will exert their influence in their own milieu to arouse a ready willingness to cooperate with the international community. Special care must be given, in both religious and civil education, to the formation of youth in this regard. (Gaudium et Spes)

Point 4.
Is this cooperation "with the international community" referring to the United Nations; "This Organization [which] represents the path that has to be taken for modern civilization and for world peace?" (Paul VI, Message to U.N., Oct. 4, 1970)
If so they can "include me out."
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  MRyan on Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:57 pm

RememberGethsemane wrote:
MRyan wrote:
RememberGethsemane wrote:Thanks Mike, but like I say I've no desire to go down and around the rabbit holes with you, other than to say the "visible" church I see today makes my jaw drop open in disbelief, has known masons and manifest heretics in its hierarchy and is the one that Our Blessed Mother, doctors of the church and cononised saints warned of.
I don't blame you, you might have to confront your own heresy.

If there are "manifest heretics" in the hierarchy, our Lord never promised that there would not be (but not as a body); but, if you are referring to the Vicar of Christ, shame on you.
Gee funny I don't feel any shame on the matter though, but I used to for thinking such things. Shame on them for leading the church into darkness and confusion!
So the “true church” has been led into darkness and confusion? What are you talking about?

And you used to “feel shame” for thinking that the Vicar of Christ has fallen into manifest heresy and you used to "feel shame" for thinking that the one true Church of Christ has been “eclipsed” by the false visible “church” known to the world as the Roman Catholic Church?

Is that right?

If so, let me suggest that your former “shame” was nothing less than your Catholic instincts kicking in which were screaming at your that these false delusions that you have succumbed to are flat out heresies, for our Lord CANNOT abandon His visible Church or His Vicar.

Unfortunately, having some experience with rationalization against right reason and truth through your previous addictions, you have rationalized your way right out of the one true Church of Christ.

Well, let me leave your well-formed conscience in peace, but only remind you of what Pope Pius IX stated in his Constitution “Quartus Supra,” quoting St. Jerome:

Every schism fabricates a heresy for itself to justify its withdrawal from the Church.
Yep, every single one of them.

And, as Pope Pius IX also said in the same Constitution:

In fact it is as contrary to the divine constitution of the Church as it is to perpetual and constant Tradition for anyone to attempt to prove the catholicity of his faith and truly call himself a Catholic when he fails in obedience to the Apostolic SeeA man … must cease absolutely to claim the name of Catholic as long as he fails to recognize and does not expressly revere that Pontiff’s power in its fullness.

Ah, but the sede will say the Apostolic See has ceased to exist (well, at least 'temporarily")! Now how is that for rationalization!
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  RememberGethsemane on Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:04 pm

Yeah Mike, I'll go to some his services then the next time he's in a synagogue or drinking piss from a witch doctor even though that is expressly forbidden too.

RememberGethsemane

Posts : 86
Reputation : 92
Join date : 2012-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  Jehanne on Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:19 pm

RememberGethsemane wrote:Yeah Mike, I'll go to some his services then the next time he's in a synagogue or drinking piss from a witch doctor even though that is expressly forbidden too.

Here's Traditio's list:

http://traditio.com/comment/com1301.htm

I'll "take my chances" with the Church's 260 or so other Popes, none of whom did any of the stuff in Traditio's list.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  RememberGethsemane on Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:31 pm

Jehanne wrote:
RememberGethsemane wrote:Yeah Mike, I'll go to some his services then the next time he's in a synagogue or drinking piss from a witch doctor even though that is expressly forbidden too.

Here's Traditio's list:

http://traditio.com/comment/com1301.htm

I'll "take my chances" with the Church's 260 or so other Popes, none of whom did any of the stuff in Traditio's list.

Thanks for this Jehanne, but I bet Mike can rationalize all this though and explain it away while making us feel ashamed of ourselves.

RememberGethsemane

Posts : 86
Reputation : 92
Join date : 2012-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  columba on Sun Dec 30, 2012 8:29 pm

George Brenner wrote:
I have fallen often due to my misplaced anger at the failure of many in the Church to correctly implement the teachings of VCII.

George, may I ask how your anger was misplaced? It seems to me that your anger was properly directed.

Columba but do you really believe that the the Blessed Trinity would or could allow the failure of Peter's faith over such a long period of time?

I don't know the answer to that George or rather, I don't know if it is dogma that Peter is personally protected from apostasy. I believe he is protected from proclaiming or binding the faithful to accepting error when he explicitly invokes his infaliblity; protected in such a way that if he tried to do so he could well be struck dead on the spot. If on the other hand he wished to teach error in a non-binding way, he could do so by lets say, writing a book or two (or three) in which he makes clear that he is not teaching as pope but as a private person with no authority at all.

If, on the other hand, his faith is divinely protected and he himself cannot lose it, we would have to conclude that if he did lose the faith he either was not a true pope in the first place or, on losing it he would also lose his office.

As to the Lord permitting such a situation over an extended time period, I don't know. It would probably depend on how angry He was with a certain generation.

George Brenner wrote:
What great burden of mind and soul would fall on those that must try to prove that 'this and that ' parts of VCII are either wrong or worst yet in heresy.

What great burden of mind and soul already has fallen on many who take their salvation seriously. The ones who escape this burden are those who will go along with anything even if it that means agreeing with a blessing from a Witch Doctor, kissing the Wailing Wall or some demonic book or other.

What good could Heaven deem appropriate from attacking Our Holy Father?

There is a difference between attacking and defending. An attacker is usually the aggressor but it is not unlawful to defend oneself, especially one's faith if it be attacked, even by a pope. Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine would agree with me on this. "Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, one who attempts to destroy the Church."

What does God think of such efforts to dismantle official Church teaching?

I don't thing God is very happy with the dismantling and the "Suicide in Altering the Faith in the Liturgy" (Pope Pius XII) or the eclipsing of His teaching via the tool of ambiguity.

to attack the Church itself is very dangerous

Who is attacking the Church George? Do you have a certain attacker in mind?

We can and must speak out against abuse

But that can be construed as an attack upon the Church if the abusers get beyond a certain rank can it not?

but let us be thankful for all the tremendous good and those people who are much more wise(MRyan) than us in the Church who should inspire us.

What inspires me George is the Church's perenial teachings and her dogmas in all their glorious simplicity, the martyrs who died defending and proclaiming them and all those who still hold and profess them.

It's tough times for everyone George and possibly even tougher for the next generation as there'll be many more running around believing they are Catholic while at the same time holding many heresies with no authoritve correction.

Little wonder Our Lord lamented, "When the Son of Man returns etc.."
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  columba on Sun Dec 30, 2012 8:58 pm

Jehanne wrote:
RememberGethsemane wrote:Yeah Mike, I'll go to some his services then the next time he's in a synagogue or drinking piss from a witch doctor even though that is expressly forbidden too.

Here's Traditio's list:

http://traditio.com/comment/com1301.htm

I'll "take my chances" with the Church's 260 or so other Popes, none of whom did any of the stuff in Traditio's list.

19. In 1995, he took part in the official Smoking Ceremony at Randwick Racecourse in Sydney, Australia.

Is this an annual event? Do you just turn up or must you apply? Anyone?
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  RememberGethsemane on Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:18 pm

columba wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
RememberGethsemane wrote:Yeah Mike, I'll go to some his services then the next time he's in a synagogue or drinking piss from a witch doctor even though that is expressly forbidden too.

Here's Traditio's list:

http://traditio.com/comment/com1301.htm

I'll "take my chances" with the Church's 260 or so other Popes, none of whom did any of the stuff in Traditio's list.

19. In 1995, he took part in the official Smoking Ceremony at Randwick Racecourse in Sydney, Australia.

Is this an annual event? Do you just turn up or must you apply? Anyone?

If only I'd known about this one in 1995 in my heyday, I had the same lifestyle as JPII then! LOL

RememberGethsemane

Posts : 86
Reputation : 92
Join date : 2012-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  MRyan on Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:18 pm

columba wrote:Continued.
MRyan wrote:

89. Since, in virtue of her mission received from God, the Church preaches the Gospel to all men and dispenses the treasures of grace, she contributes to the ensuring of peace everywhere on earth and to the placing of the fraternal exchange between men on solid ground by imparting knowledge of the divine and natural law. Therefore, to encourage and stimulate cooperation among men, the Church must be clearly present in the midst of the community of nations both through her official channels and through the full and sincere collaboration of all Christiansa collaboration motivated solely by the desire to be of service to all. (Gaudium et Spes)
Mike, you are using examples from GS which actually support the contentions that many (including myself) have with the document and other VCII documents.

Point 1.
If, "in virtue of her mission received from God, the Church preaches the Gospel to all men," why now has she stopped doing it and excluded certain non-Christian sects from proselytization?
She has NOT stopped preaching the Gospel to all men; it’s in her blood and in her Divine Constitution. If she ceased preaching the Gospel to all men, she would cease to be herself - which is impossible. She “preaches the Gospel” through many avenues, such as her official and unofficial teachings, her Encyclicals, the Ecumenical Councils, the Roman Catechism, Letters, Canon Law, through the specific functions of the various Vatican Congregations and the Holy Office (e.g., the CDF), and probably most effectively thorough the living witness she presents to the world through the lives of the faithful, each of whom is called to be a living witness to the Truth.

As one saint said, sometimes words are necessary.

But you would be correct if you suggested that the Church draws a distinction (that you do not accept) between preaching the Gospel to all men and proselytizing to specific groups, when she sees proselytization to certain established religions/sects (such as the Orthodox and Jews) as being counter-productive to effectively preaching the Gospel.

You are free to criticize, Columba, that such a change in tactics might tend to undermine the Gospel message, but you cannot say that the Church has failed to preach the Gospel and the truth of the one true Church, apart from which there is neither grace nor salvation. If we look at the number of converts from Orthodoxy and Jews prior to VCII, one cannot blame the Church for changing tactics - we were getting nowhere.

I'm not sure we're doing much better since the Council, but the Church probably sees this in another context, in that at least we are giving them a fighting chance by not having the sin of hatred on their souls - and facilitating the opening of the channels to grace and the light of truth. You simply cannot blame the Church for trying to open the channels which, through centuries of heated antagonistic division and rancor, seems to have been sealed shut. Yes, God can break through the seals, but He will do so only through the active facilitation of His Church.

Let's face some harsh reality here, Columba. I've been mulling this over as I type (and edit), and the truth is that historically, with the exception of a St. Vincent Ferrer and a few others (whose charisms were of Biblical stature and power - such as the Apostles had), the conversion of the Jews, Muslims and the Orthodox has been an abysmal failure.

Now, we can sit back and say, too bad, it's their fault for not being open to the truth "because they do not want to hear the truth", and leave it at that, even if some of this is might be true; but the Church has other ideas. For she is not satisfied until the sheep find their true home; and, if conversion to the visible institution of the Mystical Body is as remote as ever, no matter how hard she preaches, issues ultimatums and anathemas, and proselytizes, then the Church must break down the long-standing divisions that caused so much rancor and even hatred, and open the channels so that grace might flow, and give them a fighting chance to at least be united internally to the Mystical Body of Christ through supernatural faith and charity, provided they are actually of good will and open to the grace of God.

In other words, if the external road to unity is all but closed (but never completely – conversions, by the grace of God will still happen), then barriers to internal unity must be removed, and the most effective means for accomplishing this is to go back to basics, the basics of the Gospel, the Gospel of love, while never ceasing from preaching the Good News to all men.

And if even only one soul more is saved through this Gospel of love, can we not rejoice that one of the lost is found? If our Lord would ravage the world for one such as these, mustn’t the Church break down every traditional barrier to the channels of grace, without changing her very nature as the Mystical Body of Christ?

This might seem “heretical” to you, but the Popes take it very seriously in whose charge has been placed the handing on of the deposit of faith, and, “in virtue of her mission received from God, the Church preaches the Gospel to all men and dispenses the treasures of grace, she contributes to the ensuring of peace everywhere on earth and to the placing of the fraternal exchange between men on solid ground by imparting knowledge of the divine and natural law.”

Her message is no longer “convert or die”, but “hear the Gospel and live”. It’s just a matter of emphasis and tactics – without a change in doctrine or her divine mission.

columba wrote:Point 2.
It's not clear from the above passage what the term "collaboration of all Christians" is referring too. Does it mean collaboration between Catholics and those who call themselves "Christian" but to whom the term doesn't properly apply since they reject the very Christ they say they are following by rejecting His authority in His establisment of One Church?

“Collaboration” does not mean collaboration in preaching the Gospel to all men, but, in working together towards common objectives in the temporal realm in the service to humanity, where we have a common interest in promoting social justice, religious freedom, etc. These are not necessarily the objects of the Church’s preaching mission, but natural means to a supernatural end – for the Church puts herself, as Christ does, in the service to all men, especially to the poor.

You are reading GS through a narrow and biased prism, and you fail to hear the voice of Christ. To you, it’s all “babel”, and you would like to believe that it is babel to everyone else, when it is not. There are difficult passages, but, as I said, only because there has been a profound development in doctrine and a decided turn in orientation (how she approaches humanity), but her doctrines remain true - and even the developments have been there all along. As far as I am concerned, you simply will not listen to the ecclesia docens.

columba wrote:Point 3.
Can this "collaboration motivated solely by the desire to be of service to all.," be a genuine Christian motivation at all since the motivation excludes Christ since it is SOLELY motivated towards the service of man?
No, because the Church does not take on any endeavor or action without “a genuine Christian motivation”, which is to bring the light of Christ to the world. What you said about the Church's "sole" motivation is simply false, and only by yanking the sentence out of context can you state such a short-sighted and biased conclusion.

columba wrote:
This will come about more effectively if the faithful themselves, conscious of their responsibility as men and as Christians will exert their influence in their own milieu to arouse a ready willingness to cooperate with the international community. Special care must be given, in both religious and civil education, to the formation of youth in this regard. (Gaudium et Spes)
Point 4. Is this cooperation "with the international community" referring to the United Nations; "This Organization [which] represents the path that has to be taken for modern civilization and for world peace?" (Paul VI, Message to U.N., Oct. 4, 1970)
If so they can "include me out."
Columba, you are free to disagree. The popes work with what is, not what you would like it to be. The fact is that the UN has tremendous international clout in many areas where the Church has a vital interest, even if in some areas the UN works directly against the interests of the Church, and of humanity. The Church can be very effective in making her voice heard in some of these agencies and NGO’s, and is actively doing so, though it is a tough battle.

If the Church and the UN can work together in putting an end to these stinking wars of aggression, I am all for it.

Now, go have a cigarette.

Please, pray for our Holy Father, and pray for our Church.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  RememberGethsemane on Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:25 pm

I see your irish Columba, Im a scottish brit but spent most of my life in canada, back home in bonny scotland now. A great saint was Columba, I'm taking it thats ur screen name rather than your birth name. Any other Europeans in here you know about?

RememberGethsemane

Posts : 86
Reputation : 92
Join date : 2012-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  MRyan on Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:53 pm

The three sedevacantists (whether they admit it or not) can now commiserate, slap each other on the back and take great fun at mocking Pope John Paul II by citing “Traditio”, that bastion of “orthodoxy” which cannot post anything without insulting either the Pope, the Catholic Church or the SSPX.

The object of its derision is of course the “false” “Novus Ordo Church” with its “invalid Novus Ordo cookie”, invalid priests, an invalid episcopacy, and of course, the apostate heretical pseudo-“pope”.

And this is the “Church” the “Fathers” of Traditio are in communion with, but do not have the guts to declare their independence from. This is the two church dogma of the sede fence-sitter.

And this is the “Traditio” who refuses to provide proof of his ordination, which is probably schismatic.

And such as these are the Church’s worse enemies, for like the liberal modernists who refuse obedience to the Church’s authority and doctrines, they pretend to be loyal to the true Church while blasting away at her “heretical” Vicar, invalid priests and invalid sacraments.

The three Musketeers of this forum are showing their true colors – schismatics all.

What are you today, Jehanne, sedevacantist, or other?
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  RememberGethsemane on Sun Dec 30, 2012 10:03 pm

Big hugs going out to my other devoted musketeers Athos and Porthos Laughing

RememberGethsemane

Posts : 86
Reputation : 92
Join date : 2012-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  Jehanne on Sun Dec 30, 2012 10:09 pm

MRyan wrote:What are you today, Jehanne, sedevacantist, or other?

As Columba says (in so many words), "Salute the position and not necessarily the person." Yeah, I think that JP II went too far, Pope Benedict XVI less so.

P.S. Traditio is a good source of news and their "laundry list" of JP II's acts is, as far as I can tell, historically accurate; just because I cite them does not imply that I agree with everything which they write.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  RememberGethsemane on Sun Dec 30, 2012 10:17 pm

Just for the record Mike, I am a returning catholic looking for my true home but I am finding it occupied by people I don't recognise that say and do very contrary confusing things, so I don't go sit in the livingroom there.

RememberGethsemane

Posts : 86
Reputation : 92
Join date : 2012-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  George Brenner on Sun Dec 30, 2012 10:30 pm

Columba,

I will reply to your latest post to me tomorrow, but I did want to post this exchange from the blogger Priest, Father Joe and one of the questions posed to him:


How can the “Vicar of Christ’s” actions be justified in kissing The Quran, Surah 4:157 it states:
YUSUFALI: That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”; but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.
He kissed a book that undermines all of Christianity. Without the Death and Resurrection of JESUS CHRIST there is no Christianity or Catholicism. Or for that matter no “Vicar of Christ.” And this was done by a man who claims to be infallible? And yes I do sound upset, because I was Catholic, I went through RCIA twice. Two times because I wanted to learn as much as I could before I agreed to accept the teachings of Catholicism. Given the history of the church, etc. there was a lot to accept. But John Paul II’s actions were…. I can understand him wanting to make peace with the Iraqi peoples, or stepping into a Mosque, even accepting a Quran. But kissing the Quran? No. And no I do not believe that he is Muslim, or accepted Islam. I believe he is Catholic. But he sinned. He went against GOD. The one question that I ask is WWJD?

FATHER JOE ( Reply )
It seems that upon this question I must continually return to cover old ground. No Christian contests that the Koran is a non-Christian book which speaks against many of the tenets of our faith. Not only does it deny the redemptive work of Christ but also his divinity. Further, despite an inconsistency in its remarks, there are sections which disparage Christians and admit violence against them for purposes of conversion. It is quite clear from the late Pope’s books, letters and talks that he believed and taught the Christian kerygma. That is why there is silliness to such debates as this. The question that anti-Catholic fundamentalists and sedevacantist traditionalists ignore is this: Given that the Pope is a Christian, why did he kiss the book? It was no action of apostasy. Rather, it was a gesture of respect and benignity to his visitors and world Islam. Any legitimate answer brings us back to the fact that the Pope is both a religious leader and a head of state. Christians must seek to live in peace with the world’s one billion plus Muslims. What would you have had the Pope do, throw the book back into the faces of his guests? Would you have preferred that he spat upon it? While it may not be our custom, gifts are traditionally kissed. Men even kiss men in parts of the Middle East and Orient. Place yourself for a moment into the cultural setting of the Islamic representatives. The Koran signified their greatest treasure. It stood for them and their identity as a people. The Pope’s gesture said to them, that despite our differences and difficult past history, we love you and want to live in peace with you. The tactics of the past meant both adversity and bloodshed. What would Jesus do? While we can argue prudential actions, I think he would seek the same aims as the Holy Father. The Pope is the visible head of the Church and Christ is the invisible head. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. What would Jesus do? I think that in the Pope we have already seen it. However, modern day Pharisees and scribes are aghast and filled with hypocritical rebuke and disdain. Just as Jesus was rejected by his own for association with tax collectors, sinners and gentiles; the Holy Father was slandered for reaching out to the great historical enemies of Christianity. As an aside, your comment confuses infallibility with impeccability. Within certain constraints, and regarding faith and morals, Popes are infallible but not necessarily sinless. The Popes even have priest confessors.


If you were a convert who has since left Catholicism, then you apparently could not think and believe with the mind of the Church on other matters, too. I will keep you in prayer that you might one day return to the safe harbor of faith… before it is too late. We know how you feel about the Koran, but I would urge you to read the writings of the late Pope and his successor. You might take special benefit from the Bible, particularly the Gospels, and the universal catechism. The latter work was promulgated under the pontificate of Pope John Paul II. Since you have spent time reading the Koran, you should at least spend a little time reading the Church’s books. It is funny in a way. You condemn the Pope for kissing the outside of a book while you evidently opened the Koran and read a portion of it. The latter was once an offense given that the Koran was on the Index of Forbidden Books. What would Jesus do? Jesus will never abandon (as you have) the Church that he founded.


Well said Father Joe. Let us all pray for Our Holy Father and for each other


JMJ,


George
avatar
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  MRyan on Sun Dec 30, 2012 10:38 pm

RememberGethsemane wrote:Just for the record Mike, I am a returning catholic looking for my true home but I am finding it occupied by people I don't recognise that say and do very contrary confusing things, so I don't go sit in the livingroom there.
I understand. I do.

If you are a returning Catholic, you are looking in all the wrong places.

Truly. Now, come home. She is scarred, she is haggard, she is attacked from all sides, but yet, there she is, dusting off the ashes as she remains resplendent in all her infallible glory, the spotless bride of Christ. She has not been "eclipsed", she stands "reeling, but erect" (GKC), and can only triumph, and triumph she will - its guaranteed by the One who guides her still.

The Pope and His Church need your prayers, and needs you. I need your prayers and am praying for you. Come, join the fight, it's actually quite invigorating knowing without a shadow of a doubt that you stand with truth, with Christ, with His Vicar, and with His Church - outside of which there is no salvation.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  MRyan on Sun Dec 30, 2012 10:45 pm

Columba wrote:

What inspires me George is the Church's perenial teachings and her dogmas in all their glorious simplicity, the martyrs who died defending and proclaiming them and all those who still hold and profess them.
Columba, what have you been smoking, some of RG’s wacky-weed? The only thing that inspires you (after a smoke) is your own private interpretation of dogma.

You cannot even “interpret” the dogma on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus correctly (while inserting dogmas into definitions that are neither dogmas, definitions nor definitive), as I have demonstrated time and again. Neither can you “interpret” Session Six, Chapter 4 of the Council of Trent, and just like with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, you dare to pit your pathetic, private and novel interpretations against that of the Church and that of the moral plurality of her scholastics, theologians, official Scripture commentaries, Catechisms, canon law (1917 and 1983), encyclicals, allocution, etc. etc. etc.

And what is the source of your private novel interpretations? Why, a couple of internet quacks whose doctorates in theology were earned when they found them in a Cracker-Jack box? No? Well your real source must be your private interpretation of the Church’s infallible teaching that says (somewhere) that we are to understand the Church's dogmatic definitions by the words alone, but not necessarily by how the Church says she had always understood these same words.

Yes, I kid you not, but I can never find this dogma on how we are to accept the Church’s dogmatic pronouncements through our own interpretation of the clear meaning of the words alone, rather, I keep running into the Church’s own very clear and infallible pronouncements that tell us that the Church has left such interpretations not to laymen, but only to the teaching magisterium!

Now, where does the Church come up with such nonsense? She obviously has never met Columba, the true arbiter of truth and tradition who does not need any stink’in “Magisterium” to interpret dogma, he can read the blasted passage and figure out its true meaning all by himself – by the words, just look at “the words”! Yes, and watch Columba make a spectacle of himself as he stands tall and alone against the entire army of the Church’s theologians and scholastics - and the Church herself!

And, if the Church cannot seem to get on the same page as Columba, too bad, for what “inspires” Columba “is the Church's perennial teachings and her dogmas in all their glorious simplicity”! I mean, some of them are so simple, even the Church gets them wrong.

Columba, you are too much, but very "inspiring".

Have another smoke!
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  MRyan on Sun Dec 30, 2012 10:54 pm

George Brenner wrote:
Well said Father Joe. Let us all pray for Our Holy Father and for each other

JMJ,

George
George,

Fr. Joe, no ordinary "Joe". Excellent, thanks for that.

IHM,

Mike
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  Jehanne on Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:34 pm

MRyan wrote:You cannot even “interpret” the dogma on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus correctly (while inserting dogmas into definitions that are neither dogmas, definitions nor definitive), as I have demonstrated time and again. Neither can you “interpret” Session Six, Chapter 4 of the Council of Trent, and just like with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, you dare to pit your pathetic, private and novel interpretations against that of the Church and that of the moral plurality of her scholastics, theologians, official Scripture commentaries, Catechisms, canon law (1917 and 1983), encyclicals, allocution, etc. etc. etc.

Oh, Mike, we've been down this road, what, a "billion" times. That there are followers of Father Feeney who are in full communion with Rome, their local bishop, receive the Sacrament of Confirmation, etc., etc. is proof that Columba is still "on the court," even if he is not (like me) "dribbling at center court." (Not the first time, by the way; even Saint Thomas, per you, got a number of things "wrong".) These folks are, of course, followers of the late Father Feeney:

http://www.saintbenedict.com/

I do not believe that they would consider your comments to be "charitable".

P.S. Even the members of the "Kennedy clan" still receive Masses of Christian Burial.


Last edited by Jehanne on Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  MRyan on Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:34 pm

RememberGethsemane wrote:
Yeah Mike, I'll go to some his services then the next time he's in a synagogue or drinking piss from a witch doctor even though that is expressly forbidden too.
That's twice now that you made the accusation against the Holy Father about the content of a drink he allegedly took from a witch doctor, and I expect, in all justice, that you will back-up the assertion with documented proof.

Also, please explain the nature of the sin when the Pope visits a synagogue, and be very specific.

If you can't back-up these accusations, an apology and spiritual restitution is in order, wouldn't you say?

Btw, I found this on a Pope-bashing sede site (like most of the early Protestants, many sede's spend most of their time "protesting" against and attacking the visible Catholic Church, especially the Pope. Its how they justify their schism):

On February 4th, while visiting Benin’s largest city, Cotonou, he [Pope JPII] warmly addressed a group of the pagans. Although it amounted to a mere “whistle-stop” along the way of his ten-day African itinerary, the event was widely reported by the news media around the world. USA Today summed up the meeting as follows:

Chanting young girls treated Pope John Paul II to a “trance-inducing” voodoo dance at an unusual encounter between the leader of the world’s Roman Catholics and Benin’s top voodoo doctors. The Pope told voodoo followers in the west African country, birthplace of the traditional religion, that they would not be betraying their ancestors if they became Roman Catholics. ([7 “Elsewhere in the world,” February 5, 1993, p. 4A.]
Say what? That sounds like “proselytization” to me!

avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  MRyan on Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:52 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:You cannot even “interpret” the dogma on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus correctly (while inserting dogmas into definitions that are neither dogmas, definitions nor definitive), as I have demonstrated time and again. Neither can you “interpret” Session Six, Chapter 4 of the Council of Trent, and just like with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, you dare to pit your pathetic, private and novel interpretations against that of the Church and that of the moral plurality of her scholastics, theologians, official Scripture commentaries, Catechisms, canon law (1917 and 1983), encyclicals, allocution, etc. etc. etc.

Oh, Mike, we've been down this road, what, a "billion" times. That there are followers of Father Feeney who are in full communion with Rome, their local bishop, receive the Sacrament of Confirmation, etc., etc. is proof that Columba is still "on the court," even if he is not (like me) "dribbling at center court." (Not the first time, by the way; even Saint Thomas, per you, got a number of things "wrong".) These folks are, of course, followers of the late Father Feeney:

http://www.saintbenedict.com/

I do not believe that they would consider your comments to be "charitable".
I don't care, I am not talking to the St. Benedict Center, I am talking to Columba.

We've been down this road "a billion times", and you still don't get it. Pay attention:

The St. Benedict Center does NOT interpret the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus to say as a defined dogma that martyrs who profess the true faith but are killed before they can be externally incorporated into the Church through water baptism cannot be saved by baptism of blood.

The St. Benedict Center leadership denies the efficacy of baptism of blood for salvation, but they do NOT consider the matter to be definitively settled, let alone defined as a dogma. HUGE difference.

Neither does the St. Benedict Center deny (they in fact affirm the truth) that Session Six, Ch. 4 infallibly teaches that one may be translated to a state of justification (a state of sanctifying grace) by water baptism or by the desire for baptism (faith, charity and the proper disposition), as Columba so denies.

Again, that they do not believe baptism of desire is efficacious for salvation is irrelevant, they do not deny the efficacy of baptism of desire to place one in a state of grace, as does Columba.

So you are wrong on both counts, and your spurious defense only proves my point.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  MRyan on Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:40 am

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Dr. Sippo is referring to this:

(snip)

Yet the consideration of mitigating factors does not exonerate the Church from the obligation to express profound regret for the weaknesses of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face, preventing her from fully mirroring the image of her crucified Lord, the supreme witness of patient love and of humble meekness. From these painful moments of the past a lesson can be drawn for the future, leading all Christians to adhere fully to the sublime principle stated by the Council: “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with both gentleness and power.” (Pope John Paul II, Tertio Millennio Adveniente, no. 35, quoting Vatican II, Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae, no. 1.)

Okay, he does not mention the word "Inquisition" does he? (In your opinion, why not?) What, exactly, then, are Catholics supposed to now believe about the Inquisitions??? What, exactly, has the Magisterium defined about the Inquisitions? For instance, must we believe that Pope Clement VIII was in error for condemning Giordano Bruno to the stake? Or, must we believe that the Fourth Lateran Council, an ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, was in error for ordering "the extermination" of heretics? Are we heretics if we do not believe and profess such assertions?
Jehanne, I already told you “why”. DH is not a document that, in its brief section on the Church’s past, is going to focus on any one of those “painful moments” and “weaknesses of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face, preventing her from fully mirroring the image of her crucified Lord”.

This isn’t a treatise on the Inquisition; it is a major Conciliar document pertaining to "Religious Freedom ... On the Right of the Person and of Communities to Social and Civil Freedom in Matters Religious”. As such, as I already said, the Church is speaking only in general terms about the abuses of the past, but there is no doubt that the excesses of the Inquisition are included in those abuses, as the whole tenor of the document makes clear, and as Pope JPII said elsewhere. Again, James Hitchcock states the obvious:

The Second Vatican Council's decree Dignitatis Humanae once and for all put an end to the mode of thought which would revive the Inquisition, or see it as having eternal validity.

I don't know how you can ask such questions as “Are we heretics if we do not believe and profess such assertions” when you know perfectly well, as it has been stated and explained numerous times, that the methods of the Inquisition are prudential matters having no bearing on matters on defined or definitive truth, though they do touch on the morality of such actions, which, as the Church explains, militates against them.

In other words, if you believe that given a similar environment, the Church today would have every right to torture and to execute heretics, then yes, you would probably commit a sin against morals, but not against the faith, unless you maintain that the human person has no natural dignity that allows him to pursue the truth in religious matters without being tortured or executed for heresy. At the very least, for rejecting the teaching of the Council on religious freedom and natural dignity, you would probably sin against the teaching authority of the Church (the ordinary magisterium).

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Pope John Paul II also said, “The Inquisition belongs to a tormented phase in the history of the Church, which . . . Christians [should] examine in a spirit of sincerity and open-mindedness.” (“Address to the International Symposium on the Inquisition,” October 31, 1998)
It was (and is) a tormented period of history; in fact, every age of the Church has its own torments.
Do you have a point here? Are you trying to justify torture and “exterminations” for heresy?

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:Quit splitting hairs, Jehanne, you know full well what Pope JPII is referring to in DH (all abuses in general, to include the excesses of the Inquisition), and that Dr. Sippo is right.
If I disagree, am I a heretic? Should I stop receiving Holy Communion at Indult Masses? What theological grade of error am I guilty of here?
A “heretic”? No, only a bit foolish. The theological grade is Kindergarten 101, “torture and exterminations for heresy are not nice” and are opposed to the spirit of the Gospel. Do I look like your confessor?

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:As James Hitchcock wrote: “The Second Vatican Council's decree Dignitatis Humanae once and for all put an end to the mode of thought which would revive the Inquisition, or see it as having eternal validity.” (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0007.html)
I believe that the Inquisitions have eternal validity. Again, should I be denied Holy Communion for having this belief? The SSPX, by the way, defend the Inquisitions:
So now you change the subject and pretend that this “debate” has been all about the Inquisition in principle, which it never has been; this is only about the abuses of some of its methods - and the inherent dignity of the human person to “act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty”. In other words, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, summarizing current Catholic doctrine, explains: “The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error, but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities.”

John Courtney Murray … ended a lengthy article on the subject with the judgment: “The legitimate conclusion is that between Leo XIII and the Second Vatican Council there was an authentic development of doctrine in the sense of Vincent of Lerins, ‘an authentic progress, not a change of the faith.'”

The change in teaching might be called, in the language of John Paul II, a “necessary and prudent adaptation.” The Church has applied the unchanging principles of the right to religious freedom and the duty to uphold religious truth to the conditions of an individualist age, in which almost all societies are religiously pluralist. Under such circumstances the establishment of religion becomes the exception rather than the rule. But the principle of noncoercion of consciences in matters of faith remains constant. (Cardinal Avery Dulles, http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/development-or-reversal-37)
Btw, Jehanne, the linked article by Cardinal Dulles is excellent, you should read it.

Jehanne wrote: Has Rome ordered them to "renounce" this error?
Rome has not “ordered” them to do anything, but it has made it clear that if they want to attain full communion with the Church, they will have to respect the authority of the Magisterium over all such matters by recognizing the very simple divine concept of “We are the guarantor of this”:

You say that you are subject to the church and faithful to tradition by the sole fact that you obey certain norms of the past that were decreed by the predecessor of him to whom God has today conferred the powers given to Peter. That is to say, on this point also, the concept of "tradition" that you invoke is distorted.

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

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

With the special assistance of the Holy Spirit, the popes and the ecumenical councils have acted in this common way. And it is precisely this that the Second Vatican Council did. Nothing that was decreed in this Council, or in the reforms that we enacted in order to put the Council into effect, is opposed to what the 2,000-year-old tradition of the church considers as fundamental and immutable. We are the guarantor of this, not in virtue of Our personal qualities but in virtue of the charge which the Lord has conferred upon Us as legitimate successor of Peter, and in virtue of the special assistance that He has promised to Us as well as to Peter: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" (Lk. 22:32). The universal episcopate is guarantor with us of this.

Again, you cannot appeal to the distinction between what is dogmatic and what is pastoral to accept certain texts of this Council and to refuse others. [emphasis added]. Indeed, not everything in the Council requires an assent of the same nature: only what is affirmed by definitive acts as an object of faith or as a truth related to faith requires an assent of faith. But the rest also forms part of the solemn magisterium of the church to which each member of the faithful owes a confident acceptance and a sincere application.

3. Specifically, what do We ask of you?

A. - First and foremost, a declaration that will rectify matters for Ourself and also for the people of God who have a right to clarity and who can no longer bear without damage such equivocations.

This declaration will therefore have to affirm that you sincerely adhere to the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and to all its documents – sensu obvio - which were adopted by the Council fathers and approved and promulgated by Our authority. For such an adherence has always been the rule, in the church, since the beginning, in the matter of ecumenical councils.

It must be clear that you equally accept the decisions that We have made since the Council in order to put it into effect, with the help of the departments of the Holy See; among other things, you must explicitly recognize the legitimacy of the reformed liturgy, notably of the Ordo Missae, and our right to require its adoption by the entirety of the Christian people.

You must also admit the binding character of the rules of canon law now in force which, for the greater part, still correspond with the content of the Code of Canon Law of Benedict XV, without excepting the part which deals with canonical penalties.

As far as concerns Our person, you will make a point of desisting from and retracting the grave accusations or insinuations which you have publicly levelled against Us, against the orthodoxy of Our faith and Our fidelity to Our charge as the successor of Peter, and against Our immediate collaborators.

With regard to the bishops, you must recognize their authority in their respective dioceses by abstaining from preaching in those dioceses and administering the sacraments there: the eucharist, confirmation, holy orders, etc., when these bishops expressly object to your doing so. (Paul Paul VI’s Letter to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, September 11, 1976, http://jloughnan.tripod.com/pvi2lefebvre.htm)
Now, that's not too much to ask, is it?

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:However, we must distinguish between this principle and the means by which the faith should be defended. The Church herself, as evidenced in the Catechism, does not defend the regrettable practices of the Inquisition:

In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors (no. 2298).

Nowhere does that paragraph in the CCC state that torture is "intrinsically evil" and/or "intrinsically immoral"? Is it immoral for the Triune God to torture souls in eternal Hell for all time and eternity?
We are not to play God by assuming that we can impose torture and a taste of the eternal fires on those who do not denounce their manifest errors in doctrine.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
the Church . . . clasping sinners to her bosom, at once holy and always in need of purification, follows constantly the path of penance and renewal.” All members of the Church, including her ministers, must acknowledge that they are sinners. In everyone, the weeds of sin will still be mixed with the good wheat of the Gospel until the end of time (Catechism, no. 827, quoting Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, no. eight).

Yes, this is so true of the present, isn't it?!
Certainly.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:We must not forget that Catharism (and the other heresies) were influential to the degree that the Church’s shepherds were failing to live up to the obligations proper to their offices. The proper response to the heresy of Catharism was not violent opposition but repentance, reform, and a more fervent embrace of poverty and holiness by those within the confines of orthodoxy, coupled with a zealous preaching of the true faith — the response of St. Francis and St. Dominic.
Yes, and some of these folks are canonized Saints of the Church, aren't they?!
The Church recognizes that a prudential matter conditioned by the social/religious environment one lives is not a basis for detracting from the holiness of certain saints. Again, see the article by Cardinal Dulles.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:It’s time to put up or shut up.
I agree. If the Pope thinks that it was wrong for the Catholic Church to have burned heretics alive at the stake (for nearly 1,000 years), he should come out and say so!
He did “say so”, quit pretending he didn't as if he would exclude the excesses of the Inquisition from "a way of acting that was hardly in accord with the spirit of the Gospel or even opposed to it."
Well, I think that you are "putting words into his mouth".
How so? Why do you go on and on making the irrelevant point that the Council did not mention the Inquisition by name in its major document for the universal Church and the world, Dignitatis Humanae?

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:By the way, here's an excellent article on DH and its problems:

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-1115-salza-vaticansspx_discussion.htm
Salza has his own problems – like stating that the “hope” of salvation for unbaptized infants is “heretical” - no thanks. In this instance (DH), I’ll stay with the approved theologians of the Church and Pope Benedict XVI.

"Good Luck with that"! (Nice of you to actually address what Salza wrote.)
Jehanne, Salza’s article may very well be interesting, and I am certain I already read it some time ago, but why am I under some obligation to address his points when I have already went into great detail on the major points of DH (on the other thread) by referencing and citing numerous theologians and scholars who either enjoy official status as approved theologians of the Church, or are recognized as established, orthodox and credentialed theologians of high repute?

I provided a good mix of opinions demonstrating the complexity of the issue -– all of whom make some salient points. I have also demonstrated, however, that legitimate disagreements in some areas do not detract from their unanimous agreement that says DH is fully compatible with the Syllabus and tradition on the essentials.

Now, if you believe Mr. Salza brings a different or new perspective to the debate, fine, then try carrying the water for a change -- and make his case (on the other thread).
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  Jehanne on Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:59 am

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:Or, must we believe that the Fourth Lateran Council, an ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, was in error for ordering "the extermination" of heretics? Are we heretics if we do not believe and profess such assertions?
Jehanne, I already told you “why”. DH is not a document that, in its brief section on the Church’s past, is going to focus on any one of those “painful moments” and “weaknesses of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face, preventing her from fully mirroring the image of her crucified Lord”..

Address the Fourth Lateran Council, Mike; let's focus on that, because things are simply becoming too convoluted. In calling for the "extermination of heretics," per DH, is Vatican II teaching us that:

The Fourth Lateran Council, a recognized ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, taught error.

In other words, is the authentic Magisterium of Vatican II, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI obliging us to believe that the Fourth Lateran Council taught error? Is Vatican II teaching us that the Synod of Verona, held under the auspices of Pope Lucius III, which proscribed "death by burning" (sorry, but I cannot find those canons from that Council anywhere online) for the sin and crime of heresy was, in fact, promulgating a moral evil? Or, is Vatican II trying to teach us that something which was a "moral evil" in one age may not be a "moral evil" in another age? At the very least, is DH reformable at all, or is it now part of the Ordinary (hence, infallible) Magisterium?
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  columba on Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:31 pm

RememberGethsemane wrote:I see your irish Columba, Im a scottish brit but spent most of my life in canada, back home in bonny scotland now. A great saint was Columba, I'm taking it thats ur screen name rather than your birth name. Any other Europeans in here you know about?

There's one other European here who goes by the screen name Simplefaith but hasn't posted in a while. He's Irish too and lives about 6 miles from me.

Yep, Columba was a great saint and that's why I use him as my screen name. My avatar though is St. Vincent Ferrer who's another of my favorite saints. He preached here in Ireland 600 years ago and preached in England too. I don't know if he got as far as your neck o' the woods, Scotland.

Hope you have a good hogmanay RG. Keep the kilt below knee length.
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  MRyan on Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:35 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:Or, must we believe that the Fourth Lateran Council, an ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, was in error for ordering "the extermination" of heretics? Are we heretics if we do not believe and profess such assertions?
Jehanne, I already told you “why”. DH is not a document that, in its brief section on the Church’s past, is going to focus on any one of those “painful moments” and “weaknesses of so many of her sons and daughters who sullied her face, preventing her from fully mirroring the image of her crucified Lord”..
Address the Fourth Lateran Council, Mike; let's focus on that, because things are simply becoming too convoluted. In calling for the "extermination of heretics," per DH, is Vatican II teaching us that:

The Fourth Lateran Council, a recognized ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, taught error.
No, because you are the one “convoluting” the issue by suggesting that the Fourth Lateran Council taught “error”, by which you suggest an “error in doctrine” against the Catholic faith, and this is simply not the case. The “error” is one of excess and imprudence. There is no “intrinsic” error in advocating severe practices (torture and extermination) to protect the Faith in a Catholic confessional state, but there is an error in judgment and, with the doctrinal development on the dignity of the human person, it would be a sin against morals if such actions were taken today. That unfortunate era is over, and there will be no return.

Jehanne wrote:
In other words, is the authentic Magisterium of Vatican II, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI obliging us to believe that the Fourth Lateran Council taught error?
No, they oblige you to accept the teaching of DH by virtue of her magisterial authority and “he who hears you, hears Me”.

Jehanne wrote:
Is Vatican II teaching us that the Synod of Verona, held under the auspices of Pope Lucius III, which proscribed "death by burning" (sorry, but I cannot find those canons from that Council anywhere online) for the sin and crime of heresy was, in fact, promulgating a moral evil? Or, is Vatican II trying to teach us that something which was a "moral evil" in one age may not be a "moral evil" in another age? At the very least, is DH reformable at all, or is it now part of the Ordinary (hence, infallible) Magisterium?
No, but today those same “promulgations” would be immoral. When the Church reforms a certain undeveloped aspect of a previous doctrine, she does not suggest that after doing so she can then change her mind and return to a previous undeveloped understanding. Do not confuse actual reformable prudential matters with doctrine – in this case her development on the dignity of the human person which now precludes any notion of religious coercion that involves torture or execution.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  Jehanne on Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:05 pm

MRyan wrote:There is no “intrinsic” error in advocating severe practices (torture and extermination) to protect the Faith in a Catholic confessional state, but there is an error in judgment and, with the doctrinal development on the dignity of the human person, it would be a sin against morals if such actions were taken today. That unfortunate era is over, and there will be no return.

I hope that you did not mean to suggest that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc., will, after the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, still be able to practice Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and/or profess atheism (or any non-Catholic faith) after our Lord establishes His eternal Kingdom in the New Heavens & Earth. In your opinion, will it be "unfortunate" that in Heaven individuals will only be able (and or allowed) to profess the One True Faith, which is, of course, the Roman Catholic faith?
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  MRyan on Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:55 pm

columba wrote:
I say not only did the Second Vatican Council demonstrably fail to make known anything that wasn't previously known but demonstrably confused even those things which were previously of common knowledge.

Columba, let's pretend that the Syllabus that was appended to Quanta Cura did not and does not continue to cause any confusion among laymen, clerics and theologians, and that each and every condemned proposition is univocal in its meaning, while affirming a specific infallible "ex cathedra" definition on a matter of infallible and binding faith or morals, even if many of the condemned propositions deal with reformable matters of Church/state relations.

Furthermore, let's pretend that Trent, Session Six, Ch. Four was so clearly written that it hasn't caused you to challenge and defy the unanimous consensus of theologians and the Church herself on its intended meaning.

Now, to the extent that certain doctrines were developed at the Council, confusion stems from the very nature of the complexity of the doctrines; and this is not only to be expected, it is the norm for every single general council. By way of example of the complexity we are dealing with:

Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli On Rupture Theology

The latest contribution is by Fr. Giovanni Cavolcoli O.P. and it addresses two critical distinctions that I have previously explored here and here [see original link]. Let's take a brief look at these.

The first point deals with the distinction between analogy and univocality. If one applies a univocal conception to theological and pastoral questions then every kind of development or reform will appear as a substantial rupture. On the other hand, the classical conception of analogy is proper to all vital phenomena - including the knowledge of metaphysical and spiritual realities (Cf. Thomistic theses IV, XX). This distinction highlights the contrast between Aristotle and Descartes.

The second point deals with the distinction between matters of Faith (per se) and practical-pastoral dispositions. Often times both elements are comingled and it is necessary to properly distinguish one from the other. With respect to matters of Faith, and in consequence of the promise of Our Lord, "we can suppose a priori that the Council cannot teach us something that is false or contrary to what the Church taught before." Therefore, in the field of dogma, there is never a question of rupture but only (organic) development in continuity. With respect to practical-pastoral directives, there can and ought to be discontinuity periodically as a consequence of legitimate reform. It is important to note the possibility of error in this field (practical prudential order). While changed circumstances may dictate reform it could also happen that reform is undertaken to correct mistaken practical-prudential decisions of the past. (http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2011/05/fr-giovanni-cavalcoli-on-rupture.html)

Jehanne, I posted that for your benefit as well.

It is not as easy as you make it out to be, Columba, for these are difficult distinctions that a Vatican Council does not necessarily take the time to flesh-out in all its details; for she leaves that to theologians and to the latter explanations of the Pope and his various Congregations.

And, in point of fact, there were many “things which were previously of common knowledge” which were in fact corrected or settled by the Council. These, for example, were held prior to the Council as "common knowledge", or at least remained in dispute:

- the “non-infalliblity” of the episcopacy

- the non-“collegiate character and structure of the episcopal order”

- the non-sacramentality of the episcopate

- that the sacrament of Order includes the sub-diaconite

- that man, created in the image of God and as a member of Christ (in a non-salvific way) by virtue of the Incarnation, has no inherent dignity that should be recognized and protected as a natural right

- that non-revealed doctrines remain fallible even if proclaimed by a non-defining but definitive act

- that dogmatic facts are not necessarily infallible

- that “the intention of the ordinary and universal magisterium to set forth a doctrine as definitive is … linked to technical formulations of particular solemnity”

- that the Council that Trent was unambiguous in its teaching on the relationship between Scripture and Tradition and that “Tradition is more essential to the Church than is Sacred Scripture… Consequently, the principle source of Revelation is Tradition” (A. Tanquerey, "Manual of Dogmatic Theology", Vol. I - pg. 173, c. 1959)

I could go on and on, but the point is, if anyone still holds to any one of these “things which were previously of common knowledge” before the Council, they would be wrong, for the Church has settled these matters, sometimes definitively, but in every case with her infallible teaching authority.

The mind of Pope Paul VI was clearly manifested, for example, in the following pronouncement about what the Third Session of the Council would be completing with regards to doctrine:

In this way the doctrine which the Ecumenical Council Vatican I had intended will be completed.... It is proper for this solemn Synod to settle certain laborious theological controversies about the shepherds of the Church, with the prerogatives which lawfully flow from the episcopate, and to pronounce a statement on them that is certain. We must declare what is the true notion of the hierarchical orders and to decide with authority and with a certainty which it will not be legitimate to call into doubt. (see http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise7.html)
Speaking of the infallibility of a General Vatican Council, the Catholic Encyclopedia emphasizes this crucial point:

All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope. For conciliary decisions are the ripe fruit of the total life-energy of the teaching Church actuated and directed by the Holy Ghost. Such was the mind of the Apostles when, at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts, xv, 28), they put the seal of supreme authority on their decisions in attributing them to the joint action of the Spirit of God and of themselves: Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis (It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us). This formula and the dogma it enshrines stand out brightly in the deposit of faith and have been carefully guarded throughout the many storms raised in councils by the play of the human element. From the earliest times they who rejected the decisions of councils were themselves rejected by the Church...The infallibility of the council is intrinsic, i.e. springs from its nature. Christ promised to be in the midst of two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name; now an Ecumenical council is, in fact or in law, a gathering of all Christ's co-workers for the salvation of man through true faith and holy conduct; He is therefore in their midst, fulfilling His promises and leading them into the truth for which they are striving. His presence, by cementing the unity of the assembly into one body -- His own mystical body -- gives it the necessary completeness, and makes up for any defect possibly arising from the physical absence of a certain number of bishops. The same presence strengthens the action of the pope, so that, as mouthpiece of the council, he can say in truth, "it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us", and consequently can, and does, put the seal of infallibility on the conciliar decree irrespective of his own personal infallibility. (Catholic Encyclopedia: From the article"Dogmatic Theology" c. 1913, http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/treatise6.html)
Finally, Columba, this is what you are up against, and why every one of your rocks disintegrates upon contact with the rock of truth:

It must be stated that] Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him… That also with regards to its contents, Vatican II is in the strictest continuity with both previous councils and incorporates their texts word for word in decisive points.

It is impossible for a Catholic to take a position for or against Trent or Vatican I. Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly the two previous councils…

It is likewise impossible to decide in favour of Trent and Vatican I but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upheld the other councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called "traditionalism", also in its extreme forms…Every partisan choice destroys the whole (the very history of the Church) which can only exist as an indivisible unity. (he Ratzinger Report: An Exclusive Interview on the State of the Church by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (translated by Vittorio Messori); Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1985 pgs. 28-9)


avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  MRyan on Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:03 pm

Jehanne wrote:I hope that you did not mean to suggest that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc., will, after the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, still be able to practice Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and/or profess atheism (or any non-Catholic faith) after our Lord establishes His eternal Kingdom in the New Heavens & Earth. In your opinion, will it be "unfortunate" that in Heaven individuals will only be able (and or allowed) to profess the One True Faith, which is, of course, the Roman Catholic faith?
Seriously, "after the Second Coming"?

I guess you've finally run out of steam.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  Jehanne on Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:19 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:I hope that you did not mean to suggest that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc., will, after the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, still be able to practice Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and/or profess atheism (or any non-Catholic faith) after our Lord establishes His eternal Kingdom in the New Heavens & Earth. In your opinion, will it be "unfortunate" that in Heaven individuals will only be able (and or allowed) to profess the One True Faith, which is, of course, the Roman Catholic faith?
Seriously, "after the Second Coming"?

I guess you've finally run out of steam.

It was a honest question; I am sorry that you are not able (or willing) to answer it. Perhaps some more "development in doctrine" is needed here?
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  MRyan on Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:49 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:I hope that you did not mean to suggest that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc., will, after the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, still be able to practice Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and/or profess atheism (or any non-Catholic faith) after our Lord establishes His eternal Kingdom in the New Heavens & Earth. In your opinion, will it be "unfortunate" that in Heaven individuals will only be able (and or allowed) to profess the One True Faith, which is, of course, the Roman Catholic faith?
Seriously, "after the Second Coming"?

I guess you've finally run out of steam.
It was a honest question; I am sorry that you are not able (or willing) to answer it. Perhaps some more "development in doctrine" is needed here?
I took at as a rhetorical question, especially given the snarky rejoinder at the end. You were baiting me - as you often do.

The answer is inferred by the question. Please don't ask me to spell it out, you already know the answer.

Let me give you a clue: Invincible/inculpable ignorance ends after the Second Coming. Hmmm.
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  columba on Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:02 pm

MRyan wrote:
You cannot even “interpret” the dogma on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus correctly (while inserting dogmas into definitions that are neither dogmas, definitions nor definitive), as I have demonstrated time and again.

Mike, everything you have demonstrated thus far has been amply refuted by a) The law of noncontradiction, b) Common sense, c) Proir Magisterial teaching, and e) Pre-VC2 valid theological opinion.

Let me now try once more to "interpret" that which needs no interpretation; i,e. a dogmatic definition; in this case Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

Here's my interpretation:

The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and
preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not
only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics,
can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the
"eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew
25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so
important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those
remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church
unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for
their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and
the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as
great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of
Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of
the Catholic Church.

Mike do you have any problem with my private interpretation? If so, can you quote the part where you feel I've erred?

MRyan wrote:
Neither can you “interpret” Session Six, Chapter 4 of the Council of Trent,

Yes I can.
Here's my private interpretation:

The Lord said that, "Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God," and so, the Church -to this present day- knows of no other means apart from the sacrament of Baptism by which a person can be saved.

If I'm wrong will you kindly point out to me where I'm wrong?

MRyan wrote:
you dare to pit your pathetic, private and novel interpretations against
that of the Church and that of the moral plurality of her scholastics,
theologians, official Scripture commentaries, Catechisms, canon law
(1917 and 1983), encyclicals, allocution, etc. etc. etc.

In my above private interpretations can you point out to me which scholastics,
theologians, official Scripture commentaries, Catechisms, canon law
(1917 and 1983), encyclicals, allocution, etc. etc. etc I have contradicted? You made the charge so now stand by it.

MRyan wrote:
And what is the source of your private novel interpretations?
Why, a couple of internet quacks whose doctorates in theology were
earned when they found them in a Cracker-Jack box? No? Well your real
source must be your private interpretation of the Church’s infallible
teaching that says (somewhere) that we are to understand the Church's
dogmatic definitions by the words alone, but not necessarily by how the
Church says she had always understood these same words.

If a couple of internet quacks agree with my interpretations then I'm very happy for them.
You have to show of course where I'm in error in my above interpretations.
As an old debating partner of mine would say, "Good luck with that."

Yes, I kid you not, but I can never find this dogma on how we are to
accept the Church’s dogmatic pronouncements through our own
interpretation of the clear meaning of the words alone, rather, I keep
running into the Church’s own very clear and infallible pronouncements
that tell us that the Church has left such interpretations not to
laymen, but only to the teaching magisterium!

Mike this is all getting very confusing. Are you saying that the dogmatic proclamations aren't clear and that they don't define anything? If so, how can you be sure that the consequencial interpretations of the unclear dogmas are themselves not flawed and in need of interpretaion ad infinitum?

Now, where does the Church come up with such nonsense? She obviously has
never met Columba, the true arbiter of truth and tradition who does not
need any stink’in “Magisterium” to interpret dogma, he can read the
blasted passage and figure out its true meaning all by himself – by the
words, just look at “the words”! Yes, and watch Columba make a spectacle
of himself as he stands tall and alone against the entire army of the
Church’s theologians and scholastics - and the Church herself!

I insist on asking again; which part of my private interpretation (as given above) conflicts with the Church's understanding. If a particular Magisterium (stink'in or not) is in disagreement with my understnding then I can only say that it ain't just me they're contradicting.

MRyan wrote:
And, if the Church cannot seem to get on the same page as Columba, too
bad, for what “inspires” Columba “is the Church's perennial teachings
and her dogmas in all their glorious simplicity”! I mean, some of them
are so simple, even the Church gets them wrong.

Does the Church's perennial teaching not inspire you Mike? And does not the simple, clear language of her dogmatic proclamations reassure you that truth is comprehensible?

As for the Church getting them wrong; on the contrary, I'm so thankful that the Church can state them the way Our Lord taught her. Yes Yes and No No.

Columba, you are too much, but very "inspiring".

Have another smoke!

Shisssh, your embarrassing me. Embarassed

Just lighting up.

A very Happy New Year to you Mike and all your loved ones.

And to all of you out there the same.
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  Jehanne on Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:52 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:I hope that you did not mean to suggest that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, etc., will, after the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, still be able to practice Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and/or profess atheism (or any non-Catholic faith) after our Lord establishes His eternal Kingdom in the New Heavens & Earth. In your opinion, will it be "unfortunate" that in Heaven individuals will only be able (and or allowed) to profess the One True Faith, which is, of course, the Roman Catholic faith?
Seriously, "after the Second Coming"?

I guess you've finally run out of steam.
It was a honest question; I am sorry that you are not able (or willing) to answer it. Perhaps some more "development in doctrine" is needed here?
I took at as a rhetorical question, especially given the snarky rejoinder at the end. You were baiting me - as you often do.

The answer is inferred by the question. Please don't ask me to spell it out, you already know the answer.

Let me give you a clue: Invincible/inculpable ignorance ends after the Second Coming. Hmmm.

Mike,

It was a honest question; believe me, I was not trying to "bait you". Of course, if "invincible/inculpable ignorance ends after the Second Coming," then there is no reason to suppose that it is at least possible for such ignorance to end prior to the Second Coming. This, by the way, is why trials before the Inquisitions were so very long (in Giordano Bruno's case, some seven years, which really only ended upon Bruno's insistence of his own martyrdom), because, the Catholic Church, the sole guardian of the Truth, was trying to work to deliver heretics from their "invincible ignorance." It didn't work with Bruno (or Hus), but they both know the Truth now, as do many of the individuals whom they led astray with their errors and heresies. In this sense, the Inquisitions respected a person's "inherent dignity" and "natural rights."
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 50
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  MRyan on Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:06 pm

Columba,

Oh-oh, here we go again!

Tell you what, let's wait for the New Year, which for you, has already arrived!

Jehanne, honestly, I thought the question was rhetorical. I'll get back to you with my simple answer after a brief respite.

To everyone, a blessed and happy New Year!

avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  George Brenner on Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:49 pm

Columba,

There continues to be no doubt in my mind that you are working your way through trying to be a good Catholic in doing the will of God. It is a work in progress for all in praying for the wisdom in our thought process in living our faith and sharing it with others. We are accountable for the influence we have on those lives we touch. I know that I fall and fail and pray that my interaction with anyone will not cause ill effects on their souls. Being as vocal as I can be I never want to mislead or be responsible for a negative effect on one's soul. I wish no harm while at the same time not compromising the truth of our one true faith. We must fight for our Faith. As Father Frederick Faber says, our Church deserves not our loyality but a supernatural loyality. Fathers comments on giving and taking scandal along with pride certainly deserve a review again by all of us. In fact it would be wise for those interested to re read the thread>
http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t604-the-precious-blood-by-father-frederick-faber-dd?highlight=faber ..... on this forum. Those who are much wiser than me may choose to comment. We must be defenders of the faith while at all costs avoid being attackers of the faith. Our love and prayers for our Holy Father is a necessity for Salvation. I think that we must defer to Holy Mother Church and God for discernment on any issue that might even remotely be over our lowly abilities to grasp or understand.

JMJ,

George
avatar
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  MRyan on Wed Jan 02, 2013 2:59 pm

Columba, before addressing Cantate Domino, let’s take your passage from Trent, Session Six, Ch. 4, and your private interpretation of John 3:5.

Columba wrote:

Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God," and so, the Church -to this present day- knows of no other means apart from the sacrament of Baptism by which a person can be saved.
If I'm wrong will you kindly point out to me where I'm wrong?
No, you are absolutely correct, and the living, authentic Magisterium of the Church understands and expresses the same dogma like this:

CCC, 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. (Cf. Jn 3:5) He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.(61) Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. (Cf. Mk 16:16) The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

At the same time, the living, authentic and universal Magisterium of the Church, in its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on November 2, 1964, declares:

14. ... Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, 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.
The CCC also confirms the same truth of the last paragraph of LG14, while stipulating the conditions necessary for salvation should some obstacle prevent the reception of the sacrament of Baptism:

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
And, as you know, “The Church”, as the CCC also teaches in 1258,

has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
As you also know, the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches the same doctrine:

… should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.
The 1917 Code of Canon Law “codifies” the same doctrine as the Church understands it and has always understood it:

Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.” (Canon 737)
Finally, the same doctrine is infallibly and dogmatically proclaimed at the The Council of Trent (1547) over 400 years before Vatican II:

This translation [to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without [except through] the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. [John 3:5.]
So, when you say “the Church -to this present day- knows of no other means apart from the sacrament of Baptism by which a person can be saved”, you are correct. But, when you “interpret” this to mean that no one can be justified or saved without actual sacramental ablution in water, you are in error, for the Church does not understand it in that sense. Rather, she teaches through her continuous, living and authentic Magisterium that no one can be regenerated into the life of Christ without the laver of regeneration, or the desire for it, by which she means no one can be regenerated into Christ apart from the sacrament of baptism, at least in desire (through the fruits of the sacrament).

columba wrote:
In my above private interpretations can you point out to me which scholastics, theologians, official Scripture commentaries, Catechisms, canon law (1917 and 1983), encyclicals, allocution, etc. etc. etc I have contradicted? You made the charge so now stand by it.
When your private interpretation is the very opposite of the interpretation of “scholastics, theologians, official Scripture commentaries, Catechisms, canon law (1917 and 1983), encyclicals, allocution,” the Magisterium, “etc. etc.”, that is called a contradiction.

columba wrote:
You have to show of course where I'm in error in my above interpretations. As an old debating partner of mine would say, "Good luck with that."
Do you or do you not deny that a soul may be justified and saved by the fruit of the sacrament of baptism (sanctifying grace), “should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters”?

You are on record as denying it, so I do not need any “luck” in demonstrating your contradictory private interpretation, it is an established fact.

columba wrote:
I insist on asking again; which part of my private interpretation (as given above) conflicts with the Church's understanding. If a particular Magisterium … is in disagreement with my understnding then I can only say that it ain't just me they're contradicting.
There is no “IF” about your blatant conflict with the Magisterium, and there is no such thing as a “particular Magisterium”, there is only ONE Magisterium.

Your egregious error is clearly manifested when you say “If a particular Magisterium … is in disagreement with my understanding then I can only say that it ain't just me they're contradicting”, thereby suggesting that not only is the unanimous moral consensus of the "scholastics, theologians, official Scripture commentaries, Catechisms, canon law (1917 and 1983), encyclicals, allocution”, and the living authentic Magisterium of the Church in contradiction to your private interpretation, but so too is the one, living, authentic and infallible Magisterium of VCII in stated and heretical opposition to the one, living, authentic and infallible Magisterium of the Council of Trent.

And this is the same Council of Trent which, in its fourth session, declared the following:

Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers.
In other words, when the Council of Trent dogmatically declared that “This translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without [except through] the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written”, she was dogmatically affirming the same sense and the same meaning as the Church has always understood it, and understands it still -- as she herself Magisterially, and infallibly, proclaims.

Otherwise, the Church and our Lord are liars, for he who hears the infallible teaching of the Church on a universal doctrine of faith pertaining to the correct understanding of the sacrament of baptism and its saving grace, does not hear our Lord, if your “private interpretation” is correct, which of course, it isn't.

Here (from a previous thread), Columba, is your egregious error, in full:

Columba wrote:
It is you MR who are consistantly proposing an interpretation the Church herself has never proposed …, by your piling up a whole host of one or two-liners from Church docments, doctors and saints in suport of your position without subjecting them to the True dogmas, you enevitably "do" construct a straw man without the glue of dogma to hold the pieces together.
So the Church has never proposed, let alone consistently proposed, the same doctrine as that reflected in the “one or two-liners from Church documents, doctors and saints” that we can cite without end which clearly reflect the same mind of the Church when she teaches, for example, “should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness”; and when she teaches some 400 plus years later, “For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.”?

Columba wrote:
I don't possess any authority to subject "clear Church teaching" to my own private interpretation, and neither do you. That is why I stick solely to Her clear, already interpreted, infallible pronouncements. These require no further interpretation as they represent the Churches final word on the matter for all time.
This is a study in blatant contradiction, and pure hubris. Any interpretation, you allege, by the Church of her own once defined dogma that is at odds with your understanding of that same dogma, is false, for you do NOT need the Church to tell us what her own understanding is and always has been when, allegedly, the Church’s understanding of her once defined dogma is “already interpreted” as the Church’s “final word on the matter for all time”, precisely as you understand it.

Amazing.

Columba wrote:
Any further elucidations which procede from the infallible declarations can never contradict them.
So true, and it is also true that there is only one divinely established authority responsible for proposing “further elucidations which proceed from the infallible declarations”, and that is the same divinely established authority that defined the dogma in the first place, “to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation" as the Church "has" always "held and holds”, and never “contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers.”

Seriously, Columba, what part of this do you no understand?

Columba wrote:
Therefore the "necessity of water baptism for every soul" cannot be interpreted to mean, "a necessity for the majority of souls."
No, Columba, speaking strictly about adults, you simply impose your own deficient (and false) understanding of the Church’s understanding of “necessity”, and conflate the absolute necessity and divine/ecclesiastical precept that commands that every soul without exception is required to seek Baptism and to be Baptized once he knows of its requirement, and the necessity of Baptism for salvation for every man as a necessity of means, at least in desire.

You objection, in other words, presupposes that “necessity” can only can mean “absolute requirement,” such that if a single person receives salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, then Baptism is not a necessary requirement for salvation since it is not "a necessity for the majority of souls." But it IS a necessity for EVERY soul, for there is no soul since the promulgation of the Gospel who is NOT bound by the divine and ecclesiastical precept to be Baptized, as this same “necessity” is understood by the Church.

Columba wrote:
I counter that it is you who do not realize the madness of what you are proposing, and although I refrain from labeling you an outright heretic (bacause I don't believe you are), I merely believe you are mistaken and you put a tremendous amount of effort into promoting your mistake.
I have no problem stating that your position is absolutely heretical in that it accuses a “certain Magisterium” of being in contradiction to “a previous Magisterium” on a matter of faith proposed to the universal Church.

Shame on you.

avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  MRyan on Wed Jan 02, 2013 3:42 pm

Dear Columba,

“Wth the special assistance of the Holy Spirit, the popes and the ecumenical councils have acted in this common way. And it is precisely this that the Second Vatican Council did. Nothing that was decreed in this Council, or in the reforms that we enacted in order to put the Council into effect, is opposed to what the 2,000-year-old tradition of the church considers as fundamental and immutable. We are the guarantor of this, not in virtue of Our personal qualities but in virtue of the charge which the Lord has conferred upon Us as legitimate successor of Peter, and in virtue of the special assistance that He has promised to Us as well as to Peter: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" (Lk. 22:32). The universal episcopate is guarantor with us of this.

Again, you cannot appeal to the distinction between what is dogmatic and what is pastoral to accept certain texts of this Council and to refuse others. Indeed, not everything in the Council requires an assent of the same nature: only what is affirmed by definitive acts as an object of faith or as a truth related to faith requires an assent of faith. But the rest also forms part of the solemn magisterium of the church to which each member of the faithful owes a confident acceptance and a sincere application.

‘Sacred tradition, sacred scripture and the magisterium of the church . . . are so linked and joined together that one of these realities cannot exist without the others, and that all of them together, each in its own way, effectively contribute under the action of the Holy Spirit to the salvation of souls.’ (Constitution Dei Verbum, 10).”

Signed, Paul Paul VI, September 11, 1976

(Letter to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, http://jloughnan.tripod.com/pvi2lefebvre.htm)
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  columba on Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:43 pm

Mike, I will deal with a section of your post just for now (the rest a little later) and hope you will be able to explain those anomalies which defy the law of noncontraction.

Concerning my private interpretation of Trent 6: 4 you said,
No, you are absolutely correct..,

I note the use of the word "absolutely" therefore continuing to dispute my private interpretation is a contradiction. The same type of contradictory language can also be found in the quoted passage (below) from the CCC.

CCC, 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. (Cf. Jn 3:5) He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.(61) Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. (Cf. Mk 16:16) The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

I will first requote the passage minus the contradiction.

CCC, 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. (Cf. Jn 3:5) He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. (omitted contradiction here) The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

The contradiction consists in the words, "Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament."

This contradicts the assertion, "The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation." and, "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude."

So which is it Mike? The Church does know of another means besides Baptism. or, the Church does not know of any other means? It obviously can't be both.
Remember, if you say that another means exists for those to whom the gospel has not been preached or for those who had no chance of asking for Baptism then you must confess that the CCC got it wrong when it said the "Church knows of no other means."

If she does know of another means then the assertion, "The Church does not know of another means.." is false. I hope we have agreement on this. I'll leave it there for now as we seriously need to deal with this before going any further.

Quick note:
The last sentence in the paragraph states that, "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism," so what on earth has the statement, "but he himself is not bound by his sacraments," got to do with Baptism when they have already affirmed the truth that, "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism?"

If there be no contradictions in the above quote, we must either declare that language (as we know it) is now an obsolete means of communication, or, that truth is inapprehensible.
avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  George Brenner on Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:44 pm

Columba,


My understanding of the absolute necessity of needing Baptism of water as the ONLY means that can assure Salvation is as follows. Mike, please correct me if I am wrong. Also as an aside, Baptism of water must be accompanied by dying in the state of grace free from mortal sin. The necessity of needing Baptism of water is the exclusive and singular mandate that Jesus instructed the apostles as the teaching mission of the Church and there are no exceptions. The Church would or should never teach to Catholics, non Catholics or any and all possible or potential converts that Baptism of water is not absolutely necessary for Salvation. Baptism of Desire and Blood are simply recognized as definite and very unique possibilities that can and do in the course of history fall under the mercies of God for determination and judgement as being worthy to enter Heaven. Since, God is not bound by His Sacraments, our Almighty and all knowing God will act as He wills in these potential situations and this is not for us to question, deny or modify against Church teaching on baptism of desire and baptism of blood throughout the ages that must be believed. We on earth are most definitely bound by the Sacraments. The problem today is that like many teachings in the Church ( No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church etc. etc....) which are correctly "on the Books as accurate and not to be questioned or denied as it were" as protected by the Holy Ghost are not explained with clarity or at least enough clarity for many let alone all to understand and comprehend. This is a tragedy. There most certainly is accountability but it is not for me to determine or interpret Church teaching to my own satisfaction or worst my eternal damnation.


JMJ,

George
avatar
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  MRyan on Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:53 pm

columba wrote:Mike, I will deal with a section of your post just for now (the rest a little later) and hope you will be able to explain those anomalies.

Concerning my private interpretation of Trent 6: 4 you said,
No, you are absolutely correct..,
I note the use of the word "absolutely" therefore continuing to dispute my private interpretation is a contradiction. The same type of contradictory language can also be found in the quoted passage (below) from the CCC.

CCC, 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. (Cf. Jn 3:5) He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.(61) Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. (Cf. Mk 16:16) The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
I will first requote the passage minus the contradiction.

CCC, 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. (Cf. Jn 3:5) He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. (omitted contradiction here) The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

The contradiction consists in the words, "Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament."

No, there is no contradiction, and not only because the Church cannot contradict herself, or tradition (e.g., the universal moral consensus of theologians) on a matter of faith she proposes for the universal Church. This is either true, or it is false, and this is what you are going to have to come face-to-face-with; its just a matter of time - you can ignore it only for so long.

According to the "Profession of Faith" (CDF), we are required to:

adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act. (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19880701_professio-fidei_en.html)

But, there is no contradiction because, as explained already, a universal and absolute “necessity” that applies to all men without exception (regeneration into Christ) is distinguished from the universal necessity and obligation of all men to be Baptized (to seek what is required for salvation and to be Baptized once one knows of its necessity), the universal precept of which may be excused if some object prevents its fulfillment.

That latter is what the Church is talking about in this particular passage, which is why the Church (to include Trent) "has always held the firm conviction" that the former may be fulfilled with the proper dispositions (faith, charity, intention). Please note, however, that while the precept of water Baptism may be excused in cases of necessity, the absolute necessity of being regenerated into Christ remains, since it is intrinsic to man’s salvation, as is faith and charity, without which sanctification (regeneration) is impossible. This is why Lumen Gentium 14 teaches:

He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart."

Its amazing to me that these theological distinctions that St. Thomas so eloquently explained, and no theologian that I know of has ever disputed, and have been held by a unanimous consensus of theologians since the Council of Trent, seem so foreign to you when the Church has recognized these distinctions and incorporated them into her teaching for a proper understanding of her dogmas and doctrines since the early centuries of the Church.

Either that, or the Church has done a very poor job of stamping out the heresy of St. Thomas Aquinas and his teaching that is reflected in the Church’s Roman Catechisms, approved theology manuals, canon law, an allocution, etc., if what you say is true, no?

columba wrote:
This contradicts the assertion, "The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation." and, "The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude."

So which is it Mike? The Church does know of another means besides Baptism. or, the Church does not know of any other means? It obviously can't be both.

There is no “contradiction”, both propositions are true. It means that God has bound all men to the sacrament of Baptism as the ordinary means of salvation, and that no one, knowing of its necessity, is excused from fulfilling this divine precept. But, it also means that no one is excused from the absolute necessity of being regenerated by the Laver of Regeneration, or the desire thereof, resulting, with the proper dispositions, in the fruit or Grace of Baptism (justification); and thus, He is not bound by the sacraments to effect the same end.

I didn’t make this up, that’s what the Church teaches.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia explains:

Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti. This doctrine is rounded on the words of Christ. In John 3, He declares: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." Christ makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently not merely a necessity of precept but also a necessity of means.

This is the sense in which it has always been understood by the Church, and the Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that justification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto). In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation. We have rendered votum by "desire" for want of a better word. The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means by votum an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism.

Therefore,

CCC, 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. (Cf. Jn 3:5) He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.(61) Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. (Cf. Mk 16:16) The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
Simple, no? Oh, and is there anyone besides those below the age of reason who can have the "assurance" of salvation after they receive the sacrament?

You know the answer to that, so already we must make certain distinctions if we are to have a proper understanding of the doctrine. More on that in a second.

columba wrote:
Remember, if you say that another means exists for those to whom the gospel has not been preached or for those who had no chance of asking for Baptism then you must confess that the CCC got it wrong when it said the "Church knows of no other means."
The Church, in saying that she does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude, tells us what she means when she follows with “this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are 'reborn of water and the Spirit.'"

In other words, in the case of adults, all of those who “can” be baptized presupposes that they know of its requirement, and, since Baptism works “by the work performed”, when the work cannot be performed (sacramental ablution) the Church cannot “assure” that such persons have “perfect charity”, though she may assume that Catechumens, for example, are already joined by intention to the Church. In other words, even someone who professes the faith and asks for the sacrament on his deathbed with an imperfect attrition is assured of his salvation once the sacrament is conferred (and he dies without falling into mortal sin), while no such assurance can be given to this same soul if he does not receive the Sacrament.

And of course, that does double for those who remain ignorant of its obligation.

In other words, the sacrament works infallibly ex opera operanto, but our fallen natures do not, which is why our Lord instituted the sacrament of Baptism as the ordinary means of salvation. By “ordinary means”, we do not mean to say that there are other "extraordinary means" available to the Church, but only that God, with the Holy Ghost acting as the instrumental means, may choose to sanctify a soul extra-sacramentally (extra-ordinarily), but never apart from or outside His own Mystical Body, the Church.

In Stl, III, Q.66, A.11, Reply to Objections 1 and 2, the Angelic Doctor provides further clarification:

The other two Baptisms [though “they are not sacraments”] are included in the Baptism of Water [they “are like the Baptism of Water … in the baptismal effect”], which derives its efficacy, both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed.
Again, Columba, this is why the Church distinguishes between the necessity of precept, or the law of baptism, from the intrinsic necessity of baptismal regeneration, which may be effected by the Laver of Regeneration (in re), or its desire (in votum).

In this sense, the universal and absolute necessity of baptism is fulfilled, without destroying the “unity of baptism”, or its "necessity".

Again, the efficacy of baptism is not derived from the ordinary instrumental means of conveyance (instituted by our Lord); it is derived “both from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost”.

The Holy Office of 1949 did an excellent job of summing up this teaching in its Letter to the Archbishop of Boston, which reads in part:

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church. [Hmmm ... where have we heard that before?]

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.
Btw, the infallible Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium (16), references this same Letter: "9) Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston: Denz. 3869-72."

And to think, Columba, that you hold that Florence and Trent overturned and rejected all of this, and declared once and for all that no one can be justified or saved without actual sacramental water ablution; and that the universal moral consensus of theologians, as well as the Church and her not-so infallible Magisterium, even the supreme infallibility of a universal consensus of Bishops (to include the Bishop of Rome) assembled at a General Council, have been getting it dead-wrong ever since.

Wow!
avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  MRyan on Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:21 pm

George,

Well said; I would only add a brief clarification to this:

The necessity of needing Baptism of water is the exclusive and singular mandate that Jesus instructed the apostles as the teaching mission of the Church and there are no exceptions.
This is true, everyone is in need of the sacrament of baptism, no exceptions, for the law of baptism extends to all and is “optional” for no one. It is necessary as both a necessity of means and of precept.

When it comes to its fulfillment, however, it is also true that the law (as a necessity of means) and the primary effect of the sacrament (regeneration/sanctification) may be fulfilled/realized by faith and an act of perfect charity when an obstacle frustrates its material fulfillment.

Subjectively, there is the “hope” of salvation in all such cases, but never the assurance of salvation. Objectively, every soul who attains a state of grace through baptism of blood or baptism of desire (and perseveres) is assured of his salvation.

Thanks.

avatar
MRyan

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  George Brenner on Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:39 pm

Thank you, Mike


And in theses cases as you noted everything ties together in Supernatural happiness. I can find no logical reason why anyone would want to dispute or limit God's mercy. We are probably judged in many ways by the way in which we ourselves judge others.


JMJ,


George
avatar
George Brenner

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  columba on Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:06 am

MRyan wrote:
No, there is no contradiction, and not only because the Church cannot contradict herself, or tradition (e.g., the universal moral consensus of theologians) on a matter of faith she proposes . This is either true, or it is false, and this is what you are going to have to come face-to-face-with; its just a matter of time - you can ignore it only for so long.

Mike, what do you think I've been facing up to this past couple years? I'm not avoiding the issue; I'm highlighting it. I know the Church cannot contradict herself on matters of faith proposed for the universal Church; ergo, if there be found contradictions then serious implications arise as to the authenticity of what now is being called "the Church."

We can look at it three ways. Either there is no error being taught and that which is being described as error is merely a result of a poor but harmless ambiguous communication of the faith, or, the Lord has allowed ambiguious instruction (per Robert Sungenis' theory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzGzIposjY0 ) so that those who prefer the erroneous interpretation are left free to follow it to their own perdition, or, there actually is error being taught which of course would mean that the body teaching such error is not the Catholic Church.

The CCC passage under discussion is merely one example of where those three possibilities can be investigated.

The reason I described the passage as erroneous rather than merely ambiguous is due to my substantiated claim that ambiguity itself is an error. I could however read the passage as wholey orthodox if I use the principle of a teaching being reformable in a positive way which would reconcile the offending sentence with an orthodox meaning:

"Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament."

In the same way that "No salvation outside the Church" can be reformed to "Inside the Church salvation can be found" (which IMO is a distortion), we could say (regarding the above extract from the CCC) that the requirement of sacramental Baptism for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament, does not mean that those to whom the Gospel has not been preached and who had not the possibility of asking for Baptism, are exempt from the absolute requirment of the sacrament of Baptism for their salvation.

In other words; to state that those who know of the necessity of Baptism must actually receive it does not automatically exclude those who don't know from this same obligation. Admittedly the implication is that the latter group are exempt but this is not stated explicitly, ergo, we can still take from the sentence that it does not explicitly exempt anyone from the necessity of Baptism for their salvation. In doing so we would be reading it in conformity with the explicit statemants in the rest of the passage.

MRyan wrote:
But, there is no contradiction because, as explained already, a universal and absolute “necessity” that applies to all men without exception (regeneration into Christ) is distinguished from the universal necessity and obligation of all men to be Baptized (to seek what is required for salvation and to be Baptized once one knows of its necessity), the universal precept of which may be excused if some object prevents its fulfillment.

You see Mike, this too is all contradictory.
How can one "universal necessity" be cancelled out by another "universal necessity?"
The one being cancelled out could not have been a "universal necessity" in the first place. Likewise, if one is excused from a universally binding precept -for whatever reason- the universally binding precept was not universally binding in the first place.

MRyan wrote:
That latter is what the Church is talking about in this particular passage, which is why the Church (to include Trent) "has always held the firm conviction" that the former may be fulfilled with the proper dispositions (faith, charity, intention). Please note, however, that while the precept of water Baptism may be excused in cases of necessity, the absolute necessity of being regenerated into Christ remains, since it is intrinsic to man’s salvation, as is faith and charity, without which sanctification (regeneration) is impossible. This is why Lumen Gentium 14 teaches:

Mike, again, I'm not nitpicking here, but hasn't it been dogmatically stated that Baptism (the sacrament) is that very process by which a soul is regenerated into Christ and actually receives the supernatural virtue of Faith without which one cannot have true supernatural Charity? And, haven't you quoted earlier (in a previous post) that Baptism is a necessity of both means and precept?

I have to leave it here for the time being but I want to return to your St. Thomas quote further down in your post.

avatar
columba

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Gaudium et Spes

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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