BENEDICT XVI SAYS THAT PROTESTANTISM IS NOT HERESY

MRyan wrote:

I’ll make this simple: Please explain how this same child/adolescent is a “member” of the Roman Catholic Church when he is neither visibly nor juridically subject to the Roman Pontiff, and does not recognize the dogmas of Papal Primacy with a Catholic understanding?

Is this “membership by implicit desire”?

I look forward to your response.

I will let Pope Clement VI and Brother Peter Dimond explain it to you:

Brother Peter Dimond, Outside The Catholic Church There Is Absolutely No Salvation, Page 41, 42: The Church has always taught that infants baptized in heretical and schismatic churches are made Catholics, members of the Church and subjects of the Roman Pontiff, even if the people who baptized them are heretics who are outside the Catholic Church. This is because the infant, being below the age of reason, cannot be a heretic or schismatic. He cannot have an impediment which would prevent Baptism from making him a member of the Church.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 13 on the Sacrament of Baptism: “If anyone shall say that infants, because they have no actual faith, after having received baptism are not to be numbered among the faithful…. Let him be anathema.”

This means that all baptized infants wherever they are, even those baptized in heretical non-Catholic churches by heretical ministers, are made member of the Catholic Church. They are also made subject to the Roman Pontiff (if there is one), as we saw earlier in the teaching of Pope Leo XIII. So, at what one point does this baptized Catholic infant become a non-Catholic – severing his membership in the Church and subjection to the Roman Pontiff? After the baptized infant reaches the age of reason, he or she becomes a heretic or a schismatic and severs his membership in the Church and severs subjection to the Roman Pontiff when he or she obstinately rejects any teaching of the Catholic Church or loses Faith in the essential mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation.

Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “… We ask: In the first place whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, if they remain obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church. In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.”

So, one must be clear on these points: 1) The unbaptized (Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc.) must all join the Catholic Church by receiving Baptism and the Catholic Faith or they will all be lost. 2) Among those who are baptized as infants, they are made Catholics, members of the Church and subjects of the Roman Pontiff by Baptism. They only sever the membership (which they already possess) when they obstinately reject any Catholic dogma or believe something contrary to the essential mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. In the teaching of Pope Clement VI above, we see this second point clearly taught: all who receive the Catholic Faith in Baptism lose that Faith and become schismatic and heretical if they become “obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church.”

The fact is that all Protestants who reject the Catholic Church or its dogmas on the sacraments, the Papacy, etc. have obstinately separated from the Church of Christ. The same is true with the “Eastern Orthodox” who obstinately rejects dogmas on the Papacy and Papal Infallibility. They need to be converted to the Catholic Faith for salvation.

Since I answered the last couple of questions you gave me, at least have the decency to explain Benedict XVI “ecumenical language” in the following quote for me:

Benedict XVI, Joint Declaration with Schismatic Patriarch Bartholomew, Nov. 30, 2006: “This fraternal encounter which brings us together, Pope Benedict XVI of Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, is God's work, and in a certain sense his gift. We give thanks to the Author of all that is good, who allows us once again, in prayer and in dialogue, to express the joy we feel as brothers and to renew our commitment to move towards full communion. This commitment comes from the Lord's will and from our responsibility as Pastors in the Church of Christ… As far as relations between the Church of Rome and the Church of Constantinople are concerned, we cannot fail to recall the solemn ecclesial act effacing the memory of the ancient anathemas which for centuries had a negative effect on our Churches.”

Also, each time you call me foot, I get a laugh to myself; I like the humor! I could think of a few for you, but I think I’ll keep them to myself, I wouldn’t want you have to go crying to the forum genitor again and have me sacked.

Sorry, Ffot (my, aren’t we sensitive), but you haven’t answered the question except to repeat the answers I already provided and were affirmed by P. Dimond and the Church (e. g., Clement VI) which say:

“all who receive the Catholic Faith in Baptism lose that Faith and become schismatic and heretical if they become “obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church.”

Again, this truth has been codified into law; Canon 1325 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law stipulates:

“After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one] is a heretic.”

Again, please pay attention: Using the example of the dogma on the two wills of Christ [as with the dogma of Papal Primacy], Dimond says that an innocent error here serves as:

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

In other words, Ffot, you are trying to have it both ways. Let me explain:

You acknowledge the truth that a child born and raised in the Orthodox faith received, in his Baptism, the Faith of the Church. And, you maintain, upon reaching the age of reason when the same child professes the faith of his parents and of received tradition, he still remains a baptized MEMBER of the Catholic Church (subject to the Pope) until such time that he becomes “obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church” which is effected when and if he “pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one] is a heretic.”

And, as Peter Dimond affirms, the dogma of Papal Primacy is “an example of a dogma or a truth of faith or a dogmatic fact that doesn't have to be known positively by all in order to be saved” if “some people [are] innocently ignorant of it or confused about it”; meaning, of course, that the subject child who professes the Orthodox faith of his parents and received tradition (and the essential truths of the Catholic Faith) “is not bound to have a positive knowledge of all the teachings of the Church to be a Catholic” when inculpable ignorance or being “confused about it” excuses him from obstinate and pertinacious denial or doubt.

But, here is your problem, Ffot: You recognize only one means by which the “Catholic” Orthodox child above the age of reason who professes the faith of his parents can remain united ('joined to") the Catholic Church, and that is to be a visible MEMBER; and that is to at least externally practice and profess the true Catholic faith while remaining subject to the Roman Pontiff.

In other words, you hold that every baptized Catholic above the age of reason can remain a member of the Catholic Church (the Church Militant) ONLY by an external profession and practice of the true faith, while remaining subject to the Roman Pontiff; otherwise, he is NOT a member of the Catholic Church.

True or false?

This is where your rigorous Feeneyism comes back to haunt you, for you cannot have it both ways. So please answer the question of how a “Catholic” adolescent who professes the Orthodox faith of his parents and of his received tradition, but who remains “inculpably ignorant” or “confused” about the true dogma of Papal Primacy (for example), can be a “MEMBER” of the Roman Catholic Church when he does not make an external profession of the Catholic Faith (he professes only the essential or primary dogmas), he does not practice the Catholic Faith (while receiving the Sacraments of the Catholic Church), and he is NOT visibly united or subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Please answer the question.

In fact, Ffot, it is precisely because the Church does NOT recognize this same validly baptized Orthodox adolescent (or any adult who professes the Orthodox faith) as a visible “member” of the Church Militant that the Church works to restore that same unity and full communion that was maintained in the first millennium.

I might add that a notorious sede cult leader and former resident colleague of the Bro’s has accused them of formal heresy and has taken them to task for teaching such sentimentality that says baptized Protestants and the Orthodox cannot be considered as formal heretics and schismatics until such time that such a one becomes “obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church” which is effected ONLY when and if he “pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one] is a heretic.”

“RI” condemns the Brothers for heresy and holds that every single Eastern Orthodox who is above the age reason, and not otherwise mentally incapacitated, must be presumed to be a formal heretic and schismatic ... period. After all, they have NO excuse for not discovering the fulness of the truth – right, Ffot?

Uh-oh, division amongst the true Remnant of Feeneyite sede believers! Oh, look at the anathemas fly; the scandal!

Time to change your sede allegiances?

I will have the “decency” to answer your question about “how to explain Benedict XVI’s ‘ecumenical language’” in the referenced citation after you have answered my unanswered question (I will also respond in full to "Particular Churches"). For right now I want to know how you resolve what I see as a blatant contradiction to your own interpretation of dogma on Church membership and incorporation.

Besides, when in response to the “ecumenical language” explanation (forthcoming) of Pope BXVI you said, “don’t even go there. I knew I would never get an honest response from you, I must have been dreaming?”, are you dreaming again that I might give you an honest answer, or do you have another motive for seeking a response?

Be patient … I’ll answer all of your errors in good time.

Btw, I never went "crying to the forum genitor again and have [you] sacked". I said Rasha has been more than generous in allowing sede's (like you) who are openly hostile to the Pope, who uses the despicable hateful language of the D. Brothers to vilify him, and, who insults every single Catholic on this forum who remains in communion with the Pope.

Perhaps you missed the banner on this forum that says the owner remains loyal to the Roman Pontiff. As such, you should respect that and remove the incendiary and noxious language against the pope that permeates your copy and paste jobs. You have not descended to the level of "Bernadette", but you are awfully close.

Jehanne wrote:You're back to denying human free will again, Mike, and/or the Providence of the One and Triune God in bringing His Truth to each and every one of His Elect. However, let's contrast this with the SSPX? What dogmas do they/we deny? Are the SSPX schismatic? If so, why not the Orthodox? Is belief in Papal Primacy a "necessary article" of the Faith? If not, how about after we explain such to them? Are you saying that they are incapable of denying that Truth? By the way, what is the opposite of "membership by implicit desire"? Do you believe that it is possible for a confessing Catholic to be an "implicit Orthodox" by some implicit desire? Or, does implicit desire, faith, etc. only exist for "non-Catholics"? Say, for instance, that I am an "implicit Orthodox by some implicit desire"; how do I, as an act of my own conscious free will (assuming, of course, that I have free will -- do you believe in free will, by the way?) decide to become a Catholic?

Jehanne, have you yet to figure out what the words “obstinate” and “pertinacious” mean, or the Church's teaching on the same? Since you believe “inculpable ignorance” is a joke, why do you even bother?

What dogmas do the SSPX deny? None. Are they “schismatic”? Formally, absolutely not. If not, why are the Orthodox?

Is belief in Papal Primacy a "necessary article" of the Faith? Yes. Absolutely necessary for salvation? No. However, doubt or denial cannot be obstinate or pertinacious (culpable).

Yes, that’s a subjective slippery slope, but it is NOT ours to judge – we (most of us) have a living and authentic Magisterium.

We never stop “explaining” to them, but the Church realizes that their own (the Orthodox) interpretation of the dogma has become so entrenched in their own religious cultural and ancient continuous tradition that the formal aspect of heresy cannot generally be applied.

They are not incapable of accepting this truth, no one is.

Since there is only one true Church of Christ and only one true Faith, it is not possible “for a confessing Catholic to be an ‘implicit Orthodox’ by some implicit desire”, because an implicit desire for a corrupted and deficient faith cannot be the object of one’s desire for the true faith. It may, however, be a stepping stone (a means by the Providence of God) in one’s journey to the true Faith.

Jehanne, your non-stop and nonsensical references to “fee will” are getting quite boring. I’ve answered this so many times, and have never received an intelligent response from you, that you really should cease and desist from such inanity.

Really.

Great. I am glad to hear that the SSPX are not schismatic. Why the all the dialogue, then? What's that about? However, first things first, let me get this straight:

1) A Catholic, by definition, cannot have an implicit desire to be in another religion, because he/she already has the true faith & religion.

2) A non-Catholic, by definition, can have an implicit desire to be in the True Religion, which is Roman Catholicism, because that person is in a false religion with false beliefs.

Is this correct? Doesn't sound very "ecumenical," by the way, but does that matter? No, of course not. Correct me if I am wrong on the above two points.

Jehanne wrote:
Great. I am glad to hear that the SSPX are not schismatic. Why the all the dialogue, then? What's that about?

I’m glad you’re glad to hear that the SPPX are not “schismatic”. Please note that what this means is that the canonical penalty of excommunication has been lifted on the SSPX Bishops (the disobedient act of illicit Consecrations was an act of schism, and implicitly heretical). I guess the more PC term would be to call their situation "irregular", but their situation is still objectively schismatic (but it is not "schism" since there is no canonical delict attached -- it is assumed that the separation is not intentional) in that that they lack full communion with the Church and, it is obvious, their Bishops and priests, since they lack ordinary jurisdiction, act illicitly.

The discussions are all about resolving the doctrinal issues raised by the SSPX so that full communion may be restored.

Jehanne wrote:
However, first things first, let me get this straight:

1) A Catholic, by definition, cannot have an implicit desire to be in another religion, because he/she already has the true faith & religion.

2) A non-Catholic, by definition, can have an implicit desire to be in the True Religion, which is Roman Catholicism, because that person is in a false religion with false beliefs.

Is this correct? Doesn't sound very "ecumenical," by the way, but does that matter? No, of course not. Correct me if I am wrong on the above two points.

It is correct. But please be careful with your take-aways, you have this proclivity for constructing logical fallacies based on one or more flawed premises.

I am going to repeat this when I discuss “Particular Churches”, but it helps to be reminded what true ecumenism is all about:

The structures of the Church in the East and in the West evolved in reference to that Apostolic heritage. Her unity during the first millennium was maintained within those same structures through the Bishops, Successors of the Apostles, in communion with the Bishop of Rome. If today at the end of the second millennium we are seeking to restore full communion, it is to that unity, thus structured, which we must look. (Pope John Paul II, Ut Unam Sint, II, 55.)

Amen to that.

So, just to be clear, you're saying that the Orthodox also "lack ordinary jurisdiction" and also "act illicitly"?

Jehanne wrote:So, just to be clear, you're saying that the Orthodox also "lack ordinary jurisdiction" and also "act illicitly"?

Yes to both.

...lack jurisdiction for what, Mike? I mean for what, marriage, confession?

Mryan wrote:

Sorry, Ffot (my, aren’t we sensitive)

I’m not sensitive Mryan, honestly, you just misunderstood me. I think Foot is funny, every time you write it I get a laugh!

When I wrote that you would probably go crying to the genitor again, if I gave you a nickname, I was referring to a few months ago when you told Rashalampa he should have me banned, I wasn’t speaking of recently.

Mryan wrote:

For right now I want to know how you resolve what I see as a blatant contradiction to your own interpretation of dogma on Church membership and incorporation.

If I contradict dogma on Church membership and incorporation, please correct me. Explain to me where I have gone wrong.

pascendi wrote:...lack jurisdiction for what, Mike? I mean for what, marriage, confession?

Paul, I mean the ordinary power of jurisdiction that flows from Christ and has been entrusted to Peter to “send” his ordained representatives to teach and to sanctify. I don’t think they need ordinary jurisdiction to minister marriages.

Supplied jurisdiction will cover where ordinary jurisdiction is required for validity (i.e., Penance). But now you’ve got me thinking.

Has the Church, heretofore, recognized the Episcopal jurisdiction of the Orthodox bishops, and that Orthodox priests thus have jurisdiction from their own bishops that has never been taken away by Rome? (I remember reading comments to that effect where Donald Atwater was referenced – A Catholic Dictionary?).

And now that the Orthodox are no longer considered formally schismatic or heretical (with the excommunications being lifted), I would still think that Orthodox jurisdictions would have to fall under the Pope's supreme authority in some sense.

I haven’t seen a lot of information on this – fascinating topic. Is there an Episcopal jurisdiction that flows directly from apostolic succession that does not require the universal and immediate jurisdiction of the Pope? It doesn't work for the SSPX, so I don't see how it can work for the Orthodox, though their situations are not identical. I may be missing something here.

Any insights?

I know jurisdiction is not necessary to the form of the sacraments of penance and matrimony for validity in the East like it is for Latins, and this includes the uniate churches. To put it loosely, jurisdiction as we Latins know it and observe it is somewhat of a "western thing". I don't know all the details plus it has been quite a while since I researched, but I do know that whatever I have learned of what is practiced and acceptable in the east, especially with the uniates and especially with regards to liturgy, helps tremendously in understanding our own issues in the west. Check it out for sure; the East is a forgotten goldmine.

And yet ... they still lack the power of “ordinary jurisdiction”. Meaning, they lack what they do not recognize in the first place ... so is it even relevant? Not to the Orthodox; and it is not a stumbling block for the Roman Church.

While ordinary jurisdiction is a western thing, when Orthodox clergy convert to the Catholic faith, it becomes their thing too; though I believe the Church recognizes and does not prohibit or change the existing territorial (jurisdiction) structure, if possible.

The East is a gold mine, liturgically and theologically; quite so.

Shifting gears, if we look at the intransigence that seems to be permanently entrenched within certain camps of the west and the east when it comes to one’s attitude towards the other (forget “ecumenism”!), there is a remarkable similarity. In the west we have the radical traditionalists who see in every step the Church takes to heal the wound a major betrayal to faith and tradition. For the rad-trads, the Eastern Orthodox are formal heretics and schismatics, end of story. It’s simple, convert or go to hell, what else is there to discuss?

And as far as far as the definition of heresy and culpability… obstinacy and pertinacity are presumed immediately upon the viewing of a single Dimond video, or upon reading of one of their infallible tracts!

For certain members of the Orthodox, the favor is returned, and though they are not as strong on the “conversion” part – their animosity towards the Roman Church can be palpable. And it is here that James Likoudis makes an interesting historical observation:

… Protestant polemical literature against the Catholic Church had an important influence on Greek and Russian theologians, inflaming an already existing animosity toward the Popes of Rome.

The rejection in 1485 by a Council of Constantinople of the Reunion Council of Florence witnessed a violent animus against the Popes and the hated Latins. Luther himself appealed to the separated Eastern churches in support of his rejection of Papal supremacy. The Lutheran scholar Ernst Benz even noted in his book "The Eastern Orthodox Church", that the abolishing of the patriarchate of Moscow by Peter the Great who set up a new synodal constitution for the Russian Church on the model of the German Protestant territorial churches, had been suggested by the German Lutheran Samuel von Pufendorf. He also wrote how "Both the Russian and the Greek Orthodox churches approached particularly close to German Protestantism during the heyday of Pietism."

After the Union of Brest-Litovsk (1596) which reconciled millions of Ukrainians and Ruthenians to the Holy See, "numerous young Orthodox theologians attended Protestant universities in Germany, Switzerland and England since there were no Orthodox academies in the Orthodox countries under Turkish rule." Other authors have noted the influence of Calvinist theology on 17th c. Greek "Orthodoxy" exemplified in the writings of the heretical Calvinist patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Lucaris. Such Calvinism with its militant anti-Roman spirit would persist after Lucaris' condemnation by a Synod of Constantinople (1638), the Synod of Jassy (1642), and a Synod of Jerusalem (1672). This Calvinist influence was to remain among Lucaris' disciples, Metrophanes Critopoulos, Zacharias Gerganos, Theophilos Corydalleus, Maximos Callipolita, and John Carophyllos.

It is not difficult to trace the origin of Orthodox polemics directed against Catholic teaching on original sin, mortal and venial sin, grace, purgatory, indulgences, and Transubstantiation to such influences. Sadly, such influences have continued to our day, as I pointed out with specific reference to the writings of Clark Carlton, an evangelical Protestant minister who became an Eastern Orthodox. Whatever the doctrinal and pedagogical opposition of the Catholic Church to Protestantism and the Byzantine Greco-Russian schism, the lasting bitterness and hatred jointly registered toward the Papacy and the Catholic Church by its avowed enemies, i.e., the most intransigent Protestant and Orthodox polemicists, remains an utterly extraordinary historical phenomenon.

And, in fact, he says:

Protestants are those who protest the Papal supremacy as instituted by Christ. Eastern Orthodox who engage in the same contestation and denial of a universal jurisdiction by the Pope over the entire Church betray the same "anti-Roman complex" which lies at the heart of all schism and heresy. If Protestants are "wayward children of Rome", as Mr. Suaiden admits, the Byzantine dissidents of the Eastern Orthodox churches who preceded Martin Luther by some centuries in their rejection of the Roman Primacy, must also be seen as "wayward children of Rome" for breaking communion with the See of Rome which St. Ignatius of Antioch as early as the 2nd century declared as "presiding in love", i.e., over the entire Church. That great Greek Father of the Church, St. Gregory Nazianzen echoed the same sentiments concerning the See of Rome in his 'Carmen de Vita Sua' (382 A.D.) where he wrote:

"Regarding the faith which they uphold, the ancient Rome has kept a straight course from of old, and still does so, uniting the whole West by sound teaching, as is just, since she presides over all and guards the universal divine harmony."( http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/eocritic.htm)

Fatima for our times wrote:

Mryan wrote:
For right now I want to know how you resolve what I see as a blatant contradiction to your own interpretation of dogma on Church membership and incorporation.

If I contradict dogma on Church membership and incorporation, please correct me. Explain to me where I have gone wrong.

I don't know how to make my question and challenge any clearer. I repeated it at least three or four times, and in a couple of different ways.

Seriously.

Anyway, maybe I'll return to this tomorrow if you haven't figured it out by then.

MRyan wrote:

Fatima for our times wrote:

Mryan wrote:
For right now I want to know how you resolve what I see as a blatant contradiction to your own interpretation of dogma on Church membership and incorporation.

If I contradict dogma on Church membership and incorporation, please correct me. Explain to me where I have gone wrong.

I don't know how to make my question and challenge any clearer. I repeated it at least three or four times, and in a couple of different ways.

Seriously.

Anyway, maybe I'll return to this tomorrow if you haven't figured it out by then.

Fatima for our times,

Since I referenced your contradiction (my perception thereof) on another thread, I'll see if I can spell it out here.

You hold, Foot, two conflicting doctrines.

The first doctrine you hold says that a member of an Eastern Orthodox church who professes the Orthodox faith, is a formal heretic and schismatic who cannot profit by the Sacraments of the true Church and cannot be saved (even if he were to shed his blood for Christ) without finally entering the Catholic Church by an external profession of the true faith and by being in visible unity with, and subject to, the Roman Pontiff.

The second doctrine you hold says that this same member of the Orthodox Church is not really a member of the Orthodox Church, but remains a Roman Catholic by virtue of his Baptism and the true faith he received therein; provided that upon reaching the age of reason, he is in inculpable ignorant or is confused about any or all of the secondary dogmas, such as the dogma of Papal Primacy.

Please explain, Foot, how a baptized member of the Faithful who reaches the ages of reason and, by a conscious act of faith does NOT profess the Catholic Faith "whole and inviolate", but professes the Orthodox faith of his parents and that of his faith tradition; who worships God in the Orthodox Liturgy, and who is NOT in visible union with the Pope, can remain a baptized member of the Catholic Church ... and in organic unity with the visible true Church of Christ?

Please explain, in other words, how your "Roman Catholic" member of an Eastern Orthodox church who does not profess the true Faith whole and inviolate and who is not in visible union with the Pope and is not an external member of the visible Catholic Church, can at the same time remain a member of the Roman Catholic Church, and meet the definition of "membership" as defined by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi:

22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] 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.[18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered—so the Lord commands—as a heathen and a publican.[19] It follows that those 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.

I hope you can see the contradiction to your own understanding of the dogma on Church membership and incorporation.

MRyan wrote:
Fatima for our times,

You hold, Foot, two conflicting doctrines.

Please explain, Foot, how a baptized member of the Faithful who reaches the ages of reason and, by a conscious act of faith does NOT profess the Catholic Faith "whole and inviolate", but professes the Orthodox faith of his parents and that of his faith tradition; who worships God in the Orthodox Liturgy, and who is NOT in visible union with the Pope, can remain a baptized member of the Catholic Church ... and in organic unity with the visible true Church of Christ?

Please explain, in other words, how your "Roman Catholic" member of an Eastern Orthodox church who does not profess the true Faith whole and inviolate and who is not in visible union with the Pope and is not an external member of the visible Catholic Church, can at the same time remain a member of the Roman Catholic Church, and meet the definition of "membership" as defined by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi:

22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] 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.[18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered—so the Lord commands—as a heathen and a publican.[19] It follows that those 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.

I hope you can see the contradiction to your own understanding of the dogma on Church membership and incorporation.

Fatima for our times,

Since my challenge to you has gone unanswered, I will assume that you simply cannot respond to the inherent contradiction of your own position. In truth, the only way to resolve this contradiction is to admit that one may in fact be internally united to the one true Church of Christ without necessarily being a “member” of the same Catholic Church, as it was defined by Pope Pius XII.

And whether you admit it or not, your flawed ecclesiology and errant rigorous understanding of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (positing that there is neither sanctification nor salvation outside of external {material} membership in the Mystical Body) is manifestly exposed for the corruption that it is, and has come crashing down. See, the authoritative, ordinary, authentic and living Magisterium, along with the common testimony of her saints, theologians and Doctors, had it right all along.

It’s no wonder you’ve been silent.

Now that we’ve settled that, it’s time we move on to exposing your glaring errors and unjust accusation against Pope Benedict XVI on the definition of “particular churches” and the false conclusions you draw thereby. You should know better than to cite canon law against the Holy Father, you will lose every time, as we shall see.

Stay tuned.

Yeah, sure, if the Pope told us tomorrow that "division by zero" was valid and 7 / 0 is equal to 21 on Tuesdays but equal to 42 on Thursdays and 55 on every other day of the week, we ought to believe that, too, right? After all, it's coming from the Pope?!

Problem with your position is that it makes no sense -- it's saying that someone is culpable if he/she was raised in a Catholic home but is not culpable if raised elsewhere, like everyone starts out in some de facto state of salvation, which is theirs to lose, not gain. Little wonder that the modernists in Rome have to open-up the gates of Heaven to infants who die without Baptism; after all, if we are not to exclude adults, why exclude children?

Problem is that your position just contradicts what the Church taught & believed for centuries on end; the modernists are at least willing to admit that when they refer to an "outdated ecclesiology" when it comes to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and infant baptism. Besides, even if "implicit desire" could even exist in an individual to the point that it was salvific, how could you or anyone else ever know that? How could the individual in question ever know that? It is superfluous, which means that it is irrelevant, after all, "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." Implicit or not, that's where a person needs to be.

If an Orthodox or Protestant ever came to this board, I would tell that person plainly:

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins...that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

End of story. If that person has genuine implicit faith, desire, etc., then I will have wasted a few strokes at the keyboard. So what? On the other hand, if their implicit faith is not genuine and they are in a state of mortal sin, then I am obligated, if only for the salvation of my own immortal soul, to have at least typed what I just typed.

If the modern Church's tact is some sort of "Good Cop/Bad Cop," great! I am okay with that, but I will never stop proclaiming the three infallible declarations until my dying breadth, at least in print on the Internet.

"Yeah, sure".

My position contradicts none of which you say and you have nothing to prove otherwise except your unaccountable error-filled screeds.

So why do you even bother to insult me with these simplistic logical fallacies and meaningless sound-bites that do not even begin to address the subject at hand, but only serve to feed your own agenda – whatever that may be?

Can’t you just stay on your blog where you can bloviate to your heart’s content with factual and doctrinal errors, logical fallacies and a silly “null set” theology while being accountable to no one?

Yes, your irrelevant rant was a total waste of strokes at the keyboard.

Sadly, I've come to expect nothing less.

Stop wasting my time - please.

I previously wrote:

Pope Benedict XVI … is saying ‘that the Eastern [Orthodox] Churches are genuine particular churches’ by virtue of their having valid apostolic succession and valid Sacraments (which is why the Protestants do not have genuine particular churches, and nowhere has any of our popes ever suggested that they do, contrary to the lies of Foot).

However, being a genuine particular church does not mean they are in communion with the Pope, and Pope BXVI confirms that the Orthodox churches are NOT in communion with him (or the Church). All he is saying is that what is constitutive for making a church "particular" (i.e., a Church with valid apostolic succession and Sacraments) does not necessitate maintaining communion with the Pope.

And nowhere does Pope Benedict XVI say that the Eastern Orthodox particular churches are "part" of the Catholic Church in the sense that they enjoy visible communion with the Pope and thus, visible unity with the Church. They do not, as he makes abundantly clear.”

Foot wrote:

Ratzinger … uses the words “particular church” to mean as is defined in the new code of canon law, as a true local segment or a diocese of the universal Church.

And, Foot cites the following “responses” of Pope Benedict XVI as the “heretical” smoking gun:

BENEDICT XVI’S NEW VATICAN DOCUMENT ON THE CHURCH, “RESPONSES…”:

FOURTH QUESTION

Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term “Church” in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?

RESPONSE

The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. “Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds”, they merit the title of “particular or local Churches”, and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches.

“It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”. However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches.

On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history.

Foot’s response:

“Responses” here addresses the issue of the schismatic Eastern churches, such as the “Orthodox.” It affirms that they are “true particular churches.” Again, a true particular church means a diocese of the true Church. The Diocese of Philadelphia, for instance, would be a true particular church. This passage, therefore, constitutes a bold statement that schismatic sects are parts of the true Church. People cannot underestimate how heretical this is. Think about it; allow it to sink in. It means that you can join your local “Orthodox” church and be part of the true Church. It is to trash the dogma upon which the Church was built (Mt. 16), which has been repeated by pope after pope: namely, that the Papacy is the principle of unity in the Church and that if you refuse communion with the pope or the Papacy you are outside the Church.

And now for Foot’s canonical “proof”:

See the following where the new code of canon law defines “particular church” as a local church or a diocese of the Universal Church; therefore there is no doubt that when Benedict XVI teaches that the schismatic “orthodox” are “true particular churches” he is teaching that churches and bishops who reject Vatican I and the papacy are true local segments of the Universal Church:

PARTICULAR CHURCHES AND THE AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED IN THEM (Cann. 368)

CHAPTER I.

PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Can. 368 Particular churches, in which and from which the one and only Catholic Church exists, are first of all dioceses, to which, unless it is otherwise evident, are likened a territorial prelature and territorial abbacy, an apostolic vicariate and an apostolic prefecture, and an apostolic administration erected in a stable manner.

Here is the on-line presentation of the same canon (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P1B.HTM):

Can. 368 Particular Churches, in which and from which the one and only catholic Church exists, are principally dioceses. Unless the contrary is clear, the following are equivalent to a diocese: a territorial prelature, a territorial abbacy, a vicariate apostolic, a prefecture apostolic and a permanently established apostolic administration.

“Canon law” did NOT “define ‘particular churches’ as a local church or a diocese of the Universal Church”, it says they are “principally” or “first of all dioceses”, but not necessarily diocese in the strict sense since they may also be “a territorial prelature and territorial abbacy, an apostolic vicariate and an apostolic prefecture, and an apostolic administration erected in a stable manner”.

Can. 369 then defines when a diocese constitutes a particular Church:

A diocese is a portion of the people of God, which is entrusted to a Bishop to be nurtured by him, with the cooperation of the presbyterium, in such a way that, remaining close to its pastor and gathered by him through the Gospel and the Eucharist in the Holy Spirit, it constitutes a particular Church. In this Church, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ truly exists and functions.

Btw, “Presbyterium”:

is a modern term used in the Catholic Church and Eastern Catholic Churches after the Second Vatican Council in reference to a college of priests, in active ministry, of an individual particular church such as a diocese or eparchy. The body, in union with their bishop as a collective, is a symbol of the collaborative and collegial nature of their sacerdotal ministry as inspired by the reforms made during the Second Vatican Council.” (Wikipedia)

And from the Catholic Encyclopedia, “Eparchy”:

The original ecclesiastical eparchies then were provinces, each under a metropolitan. The First Council of Nicaea (325) accepts this arrangement and orders that: "the authority [of appointing bishops] shall belong to the metropolitan in each eparchy" (can. iv). That is to say that in each such civil eparchy there shall be a metropolitan bishop who shall have authority over the others. This is the origin of our provinces. Later in Eastern Christendom the use of the word was gradually modified and now it means generally the diocese of a simple bishop. The name Eparchy is, however, not commonly used except in Russia. There it is the usual one for a diocese. The Russian Church now counts eighty-six eparchies, of which three (Kiev, Moscow, and St. Petersburg) are ruled by bishops who always bear the title "Metropolitan", and fourteen others are under archbishops.”

Finally, Can. 372 §1 makes it clear that the particular Church and the diocese are not necessarily identical:

372 §1 As a rule, that portion of the people of God which constitutes a diocese or other particular Church is to have a defined territory, so that it comprises all the faithful who live in that territory.

Tying all of this together, Eugenio Corecco, Bishop of Lugano (d. 1995), in his CANON LAW AND COMMUNIO, Writings on the Constitutional Law of the Church, The Particular Church (First published: “Chiesa particolare,” in: Digesto4 - Discipline Pubblicistiche III, Turin 1989, pp. 17-20), writes:

This doctrine underlies the Code, although in a very condensed way, due above all to the reception, in can. 368, of the conciliar formula “in quibus et ex quibus,” partially taken up in can. 369 (cf. CD 11, 1). Instead of defining the particular Church, the Code, following Vatican II, has formulated a legal definition of the diocese (can. 369), provoking in this way an overlapping of the notion of the diocese and that of the particular Church. The diocese is only one of the possible juridical forms of the particular Church, even if it is the most structured and complete form from the institutional point of view.

Actually, the particular Church and the diocese are not identical, as is clearly indicated by can. 372 § 1. According to the norm of can. 369, the constitutive institutional elements of the particular Church are: the existence of a portion of the People of God, a bishop, and a presbyterium. These three elements can also be realized in other juridical figures, as in territorial prelatures and abbacies, or in apostolic administrations when their ordinaries enjoy the episcopal dignity. These figures are enumerated and defined (tautologically), together with those of the vicariates and apostolic prefectures, in can. 370-371. When these circumscriptions are headed by a bishop, the clergy present in them is ontologically constituted as part of a presbyterium, of which the bishop is head.

These specifications are fundamental to understand the profound implications of the nature of the particular Church, which, contrary to every other juridical reality or figure, is the Church in the proper sense of the term, due to the fact that in it, and in it alone, the one Church of Christ is realized with her entire universal dimension.

See (http://www.eugeniocorecco.ch/scritti/canon%20law%20and%20communio/canon%20law%20and%20communio_the%20particular%20church.html) for the entire article.

And with that, Foot’s argument and accusation of "heresy" is thoroughly demolished, and Pope Benedict XI is, of course, vindicated (or as someone recently said, “duh”):

“[color=cyan]… what I defended was the heritage of the Second Vatican Council and of the entire history of the Church. The passage [from Dominus Iesus] means that the Eastern Churches [i.e., the “Orthodox”] are genuine particular churches, although they are not in communion with the Pope. In this sense, unity with the Pope is not constitutive for the particular church.”

This is what happens when unschooled arrogant laymen take on the Catholic Church and the Vicar of Christ.

Have the decency, Fatima for our times, to admit your egregious error.

You're "pounding on open doors." Even you have admitted that when an Orthodox child, when baptized in his/her infancy, is fully Catholic, however, when that child embraces the Orthodox faith of his/her parents, that young person becomes fully Orthodox and is, therefore, no longer a formal member of the Catholic Church, but is a member of the Orthodox Church. What Foot is saying is this:

Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' (Unam Sanctam)

It's that simple. The Orthodox child, when he/she embraces the schism of the Orthodox church and becomes a full-fledged member of it, has, at that very moment, left the Church of Christ which is the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved.

Jehanne,

Did you have something to add or take exception to in my post on particular Churches and Foot’s egregious error?

No? Then what are you doing regurgitating these same stale contradictions and errors of yours (and Foot’s) on the Orthodox member who of his own free will (he is above the age of reason) professes the Orthodox faith, who is not in communion with the pope and will tell you so; and, of his own free will, does NOT accept the dogma of papal primacy except as it is understood by his faith tradition (but who is not obstinate in his doubt or denial).

You and Foot are telling us that this same visible member of the Orthodox Church is in fact “fully Catholic” and a MEMBER in good standing with the visible one true Church of Christ and will remain so until he falls into obstinate heresy.

And with that, you deny the very definition of membership defined by Pope Pius XII as you make a mockery of the old rigorist Feeneyite bromide that says there is absolutely no sanctification or salvation outside of external MEMBERSHIP in the Mystical Body – no exceptions.

You have not and/or cannot respond to this blatant contradiction, except to redefine "membership" in the Church to water baptism only; but that never slowed you down in the past since truth, as we know from experience, is whatever you say it is.

Do you have any phrase in your vocabulary other than "pounding on open doors"? Yes, I guess you do: “Null set”; and “heretical and absurd” ... that’s about it.

Seriously, thanks for your contribution; I can't think of a better way to help prove my arguments then to just let you go on and on.

To quote my patron Saint, Jehanne la Pucelle, ""About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they're just one thing, and we shouldn't complicate the matter." (CCC, #795)

As for our Orthodox individual, he/she is either in the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ or is not, at least in the sense that individual will spend eternity in either Heaven or in Hell, but not both. When he/she becomes a full-fledged member of the Orthodox Church and embraces its schisms and heresies, they commit a sin, whether such be venial or mortal, I cannot say and do not know. All that I do know is that:

Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' (Unam Sanctam)

Jehanne wrote:
To quote my patron Saint, Jehanne la Pucelle, ""About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they're just one thing, and we shouldn't complicate the matter." (CCC, #795)

Then you need to stop interrupting these discussions if you have nothing to add to the specific arguments. If you think that accusing Pope Benedict XVI of apostasy and heresy is some trifling matter that shouldn’t “complicate” your life, fine, but stop imposing your “let’s not complicate things” philosophy on us. I’ve set out to refute Foot’s egregious accusations against the Holy Father one error at a time, and that’s exactly what I have done - the count is 2 and 0; and I’m far from finished.

I just hope and pray he is open to the truth.

Jehanne wrote:
As for our Orthodox individual, he/she is either in the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ or is not, at least in the sense that individual will spend eternity in either Heaven or in Hell, but not both. When he/she becomes a full-fledged member of the Orthodox Church and embraces its schisms and heresies, they commit a sin, whether such be venial or mortal, I cannot say and do not know.

In other words, you can’t respond to your own contradiction except to add another which says that when the baptized “fully Catholic” adult (above the age of reason) member of both the Catholic and Orthodox churches becomes “a full-fledged member of the Orthodox Church” when he professes the faith of his received tradition and “embraces its schisms and heresies, [he] commits a sin, whether such be venial or mortal”; you seem to finally admit that that the so-called “fully Catholic” member of the Catholic Church is in actuality an external visible member of the Orthodox Church who may in fact be innocent of the errors he has unwittingly embraced.

So just admit you were wrong and get over it, and stop with the obfuscation and irrelevant detours. The fact of the matter is that this same good-faith member of the Orthodox Church is NOT a member of the Catholic Church; but, as a member of a genuine particular Church, he is still united to Christ and to His Body in the bonds of One Baptism, the common profession of the essential dogmas of faith, the common Sacraments, and Charity. However, as we also know, it is essential that the open wound of membership in the Orthodox Church be healed through a return to full communion with the one true Church of Christ.

Jehanne wrote:
All that I do know is that:
Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' (Unam Sanctam)

The year is 2012, not 1302, and this non-defining section of Unam Sanctum reflects the reality of a still fresh schism and excommunication, as everyone under this severe penalty “must confess not being the sheep of Christ”. Today, even with the sting of formal heresy and schism being removed, the Orthodox cannot be said to belong fully to the sheep of Christ.

If you have a problem with that, that’s your problem.

You sound just like the modernists who, like you, will say, "Yeah, this is the 21st-century and not the 1st." I believe that all of Unam Sanctam is infallible, per both the Ordinary & Supreme Magisterium of the Church, and that's the problem. As for our hypothetical Orthodox young adult who embraces his parents' false and heretical beliefs, he places himself outside the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, which is the Catholic Church, and that's his problem. I believe that he can be forgiven if he, before the end of his life, dies in the bosom and unity of the One True Church, the Catholic Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved. I am, however, not the judge of his soul, and I commit no such judgment when I tell him that his faith is false and will lead him to everlasting Hell, except for the mercies of Jesus Christ which flow from His One True Church which He founded solely upon Peter and his successors.

Jehanne wrote: As for our hypothetical Orthodox young adult who embraces his parents' false and heretical beliefs, he places himself outside the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, which is the Catholic Church, and that's his problem.

If he is simply embracing his parent's beliefs, however heretical they may be, how can this constitute a pertinacious or obstinate attachment to heresy - the conditions necessary to be guilty of formal heresy?

Most Orthodox I know, when pushed, admit that they do acknowledge the primacy of the bishop of Rome - they just believe the Popes have fallen into heresy. This is one of the reasons why it has been impossible for them to call a pan-Orthodox synod since the schism - they don't believe that "Black-Bart" of Constantinople has the authority to convene one. In some respects their position is not that dissimilar to that of the SSPX.

Deacon Augustine wrote:

Jehanne wrote: As for our hypothetical Orthodox young adult who embraces his parents' false and heretical beliefs, he places himself outside the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, which is the Catholic Church, and that's his problem.

If he is simply embracing his parent's beliefs, however heretical they may be, how can this constitute a pertinacious or obstinate attachment to heresy - the conditions necessary to be guilty of formal heresy?

Most Orthodox I know, when pushed, admit that they do acknowledge the primacy of the bishop of Rome - they just believe the Popes have fallen into heresy. This is one of the reasons why it has been impossible for them to call a pan-Orthodox synod since the schism - they don't believe that "Black-Bart" of Constantinople has the authority to convene one. In some respects their position is not that dissimilar to that of the SSPX.

What, are you saying that his parents "brainwashed" him? That he no longer has any free will and cannot, therefore, think for himself? This is the old, tiresome "My parents made me do it"-type defense. While such a defense can mitigate the punishment for a crime (typically, in a death-penalty case), it never absolves the defendant of wrongdoing. No one thinks this way, except, of course, atheistic materialists who are of the opinion that "My neurons made me do it," in which case, none of us has any free will, and hence, none of us is responsible for anything that we say and/or do. If an Orthodox (or Catholic) individual robbed you at gunpoint, you would not be using this type of "reasoning" as to why the individual in question deserved absolutely no punishment whatsoever. Where there is denial of divine truth, there must be at least some sin.

Whether such sin is mortal or venial, I cannot say. Is the former absolutely impossible? If not, then we owe all the Orthodox the Truth, all of it without any reservations whatsoever. If they reject that Truth, so be it; let Christ the King judge their interior dispositions. I do not have that ability and neither do you.

Faith Of Our Fathers Hymn

Faith of our fathers, living still,
In spite of dungeon, fire and sword;
O how our hearts beat high with joy
Whenever we hear that glorious Word!

Refrain

Faith of our fathers, holy faith!
We will be true to thee till death.

Faith of our fathers, we will strive
To win all nations unto Thee;
And through the truth that comes from God,
We all shall then be truly free.

Refrain

Faith of our fathers, we will love
Both friend and foe in all our strife;
And preach Thee, too, as love knows how
By kindly words and virtuous life.

Jehanne wrote:What, are you saying that his parents "brainwashed" him? That he no longer has any free will and cannot, therefore, think for himself?

No - now you are just being silly. What I am saying is that if the only faith he and his parents have ever known is the Orthodox faith - with all the errors inherent in that - then they cannot be accused of pertinaciously rejecting the true faith because they have never heard it in the first place. Consequently they would be material heretics rather than formal heretics and their culpability for their sin is thereby mitigated. Their error is objectively sinful, but their subjective state is not necessarily so.

While all men have "free will" and can think "for themselves" we should never disregard the impact of concupiscence on the ability to exercise the will and intellect freely - only grace can overcome our inabilities and I have yet to meet anybody (myself included) who consistently cooperates with grace in every aspect of their lives.

Of course we owe the Orthodox the fullness of the truth - as we owe it to everybody without exception. But there are ways of presenting the truth which help the receiver to receive it, and there are ways which are likely to make him simply reject it. As our first priority is the salvation of souls, then it incumbent upon us, who are charged to love even our enemies with the unconditional love of Christ, to present the truth to them in a manner which makes it most likely to be received in love. I have yet to convert anybody by standing on a soap-box and hurling epithets at them (yes, I have been naive enough to try it, and no, it doesn't achieve much in my experience), but as St. Francis de Sales' maxim dictates: "A spoonful of honey can catch more flies than a barrelful of vinegar."

I think the approach that the Pope is taking in the article cited at the top of this thread is simply the attempt to reach out to the lost sheep in love rather than trying to beat them over the head with the Summa. Obviously this approach has its dangers as well, in that the opportunity for error and confusion to creep into one's words - especially when thinking on the spot with journalists - is always present. And I think some of the things the Pope has said are unwise, inopportune, unclear, misleading and occasionally downright erroneous. But, hey, he's only human after all - it's not like Catholics believe the Pope is some kind of demigod who can't put a foot wrong, is it? He's only a sinner like the rest of us, but who in very limited circumstances can be prevented from uttering error by the Holy Ghost.

Maybe we should try to walk in his shoes once in a while and ask ourselves how we would obey Christ's charge to feed His sheep - including the strayed ones - and be the locus of earthly unity for His Church. If we had to give an account to Christ at the last judgment of the efforts we had taken to unite His Church, retrieve the lost sheep and restore the fallen to grace - to be accountable for the fate of every single soul in our charge - might we not occasionally risk too much to do His will? Would we get it right every time?

George Brenner wrote:
Faith Of Our Fathers Hymn

Faith of our fathers, living still,
In spite of dungeon, fire and sword;
O how our hearts beat high with joy
Whenever we hear that glorious Word!

Refrain

Faith of our fathers, holy faith!
We will be true to thee till death.

Faith of our fathers, we will strive
To win all nations unto Thee;
And through the truth that comes from God,
We all shall then be truly free.

Refrain

Faith of our fathers, we will love
Both friend and foe in all our strife;
And preach Thee, too, as love knows how
By kindly words and virtuous life.

Hey, George, I think you might have posted the version of the hymn that Faber wrote when he was a Presbyterian. The emphasis changed somewhat when he converted. The version we sing in England has an extra verse at verse 2:

Our fathers, chained in prisons dark,
Were still in heart and conscience free:
how sweet would be their children's fate,
if they like them, could die for thee!

and verse 3 was Catholicised a little:

Faith of our fathers, Mary's prayers
shall win our country back to thee;
and through the truth that comes from God
this land shall then indeed be free.

Deacon,

Re: Your response to Jehanne -- what a wonderful post.

I hope you'll stick around.

Jehanne wrote:You sound just like the modernists who, like you, will say, "Yeah, this is the 21st-century and not the 1st." I believe that all of Unam Sanctam is infallible, per both the Ordinary & Supreme Magisterium of the Church, and that's the problem.

You can’t seem to grasp the Church’s teaching on papal infallibility which says that only the definition itself, and not every attendant description, rescript and explanation meets the criteria for an infallible ex cathedra papal act under the supreme teaching authority of the pope.

Excommunications are not “infallible", let alone "infallible dogmatic definitions”; if they were, they could never be lifted. And as far as the “infallible ordinary magisterium”, infallibility pertains to the general infallibility of the Church, which means that an excommunication for a specific crime (such as schism) cannot be opposed to a doctrine of the Church or give harm (in and of itself); but this does NOT mean that the judgment of excommunication is “infallible” or necessarily just, prudent or binding on the pope’s successors.

What is not open to debate is the Church’s authority to inflict such penalties, and to remove the same when she determines, as in the case of the Eastern Orthodox, that it no longer serves a useful purpose or may be detrimental to restoring the Orthodox to full communion. Btw, should the Patriarch of Moscow, for example, insult the pope or slap aside his generous ecumenical outreach, he will answer to God for his actions.

Again, the Bull says “if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ”, it suggests that the Greeks and others had no excuse for refusing to submit to papal authority. In other words, “they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” (CCC 846) Case closed … for the moment.

Almost eight centuries later, without for a minute suggesting that the Eastern Orthodox are in communion with Peter, the Church would determine that time and other exculpatory factors served to mitigate the guilt of deliberate schism, and she thus made a prudential decision to lessen the tensions and open the way to full communion by lifting the excommunications. Again, this does not mean that individual Orthodox members cannot be in an obstinate state of heresy or schism, but only that the Church will not treat their particular Churches or its members as such.

Additionally, when Boniface declared “if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors”, he follows with an explanation of exactly what he means by “confided to Peter”; and addresses a real sore spot with the Greeks (with no relief) when he says: “the temporal sword is in the power of Peter” and that “Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest."

So tell us, Jehanne, is it an “infallible” doctrine of the Church that “the temporal sword is [always] in the power of Peter” and that the temporal power of kings (governments) and soldiers (to wage war) is [always] administered by the Church “at the will and sufferance of the priest”? Is it also an “infallible” doctrine or discipline of the Church that temporal authority has no judicial authority over priests?

It is not to “sound just like a modernist” when I highlight these little facts that provide some context to the Papal Bull. In fact, Pope Benedict XVI would agree that the Eastern Orthodox, because of the objective reality of their “not [being] confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ” to the extent that they are not in full communion with the Church of Christ.

Jehanne wrote:
As for our hypothetical Orthodox young adult who embraces his parents' false and heretical beliefs, he places himself outside the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, which is the Catholic Church, and that's his problem.

I'm sorry, Jehanne, but you can't have it both ways. Our hypothetical friend was never a "member" of the Mystical Body as it is defined by Pope Pius XII. He was Baptized into the Church; but subjectively, he belonged to the Orthodox Church while retaining the essential bonds of his incorporation.

When he became of age, his profession of the Orthodox Faith only confirmed his external status as a member of the Orthodox Church, but (if inculpable) it did not sever the essential bonds of internal unity with the Mystical Body.

I don't know why you are having such a problem with this.

Welcome to Deacon Augustine

It is great to have your thoughts, insights and love of the Catholic Church for all to read.

JMJ,


George

Hello, Deacon Augustine, I have always enjoyed reading your posts it is good to "see" you!

Deacon Augustine wrote:
Maybe we should try to walk in his shoes once in a while and ask ourselves how we would obey Christ's charge to feed His sheep - including the strayed ones - and be the locus of earthly unity for His Church. If we had to give an account to Christ at the last judgment of the efforts we had taken to unite His Church, retrieve the lost sheep and restore the fallen to grace - to be accountable for the fate of every single soul in our charge - might we not occasionally risk too much to do His will? Would we get it right every time?

This is such a good point and so important to remember. None of us can possibly know the crushing weight that is upon our Holy Father's shoulders and the account he will have to give of his efforts. Thank God I am not in his shoes- I would crumble under the weight.

I hope that those on here and throughout the world who use such effort to point out any of his perceived, or real, mis-steps or errors make an even greater effort to pray and make sacrifices for him every day.

I have a special place in my heart and prayers for Sedevacanist. I must admit that many moons ago that I was tempted to go that direction. After much prayer and getting kicked in the head by my guardian Angel Louie, I stayed firmly in the Faith that I love. Perhaps this time in my life fell under the 'and lead us not into temptation' part of the Our Father. After anger, throwing the dishes, pouting and dismay I came to understand that intense love and charity comes with risks in the pursuit of souls. I am not privy to any special revelation, but my prayers still parallel mother Angelica who said regarding the Third secret of Fatima that " I do not think that we got the whole thing". After doing my own research and praying about it, I believe that since several Popes read and re read the third secret that it may have a direct connection to Vatican II. The one statement that seems to be positively verified by many is that at least three popes and maybe more, said that the secret is not for my time. I believe that their words are true for I will never question a Popes truthfulness. That is not my station in life. However my prayers and reflection do tell me that the message was one of monumental significance. If the third secret for example said that a Pope would be mortally or terribly attacked and or murdered as some have said, then by definition this type of message could have been for any Pope at any time and therefore would have been for any Pope who read it.. On the other hand if the message did warn of a terrible attack on the Catholic Church perhaps even within the very essence and center of Our faith, then that type of message could have scared anyone, especially a Pope to do whatever was possible to teach, help and embrace with intense love and Charity the people of the world and maybe just maybe the impetus for Vatican II which changed the direction in conversion modus operandi.
Never the less, I beg all sedevacanist to be subject to and pray and love Our Pope with all of your abilities.We need each other to fight the forces of evil. Listen to the patience and words of MRyan and Deacon Augustine in their love and understanding of Our Faith. Be part of the Solution. Light a Candle. Do not curse the darkness. There are so many scared and confused religious. There are many dedicated and Holy religious that are trying and succeeding to do the will of God, whether it be the Novus Order or the Latin Mass. It is not prudent to only look for scandal or abuse and not be thankful and encourage those who have great responsibility in leading us hopefully to our eternal reward in Heaven. This is a matter if spiritual life and death.

MRyan wrote:I'm sorry, Jehanne, but you can't have it both ways. Our hypothetical friend was never a "member" of the Mystical Body as it is defined by Pope Pius XII. He was Baptized into the Church; but subjectively, he belonged to the Orthodox Church while retaining the essential bonds of his incorporation.

When he became of age, his profession of the Orthodox Faith only confirmed his external status as a member of the Orthodox Church, but (if inculpable) it did not sever the essential bonds of internal unity with the Mystical Body.

I don't know why you are having such a problem with this.

You've certainly "changed your tune," because you already admitted to me earlier in this thread that a child born to Orthodox parents who, when he was validly baptized, would become fully Catholic. So, are you now saying that a child born to Jewish parents who is validly baptized "subjectively" belongs to Judaism, or for a Muslim child, to Islam? Is that what you are saying??

Earlier you quoted Vatican II, but this quote from the Council does not get as much "air time":

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. (LG, #16)

Of course, one could only wonder how one could ever know that he "do (does) not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church," or if such is even possible, how one could know in "one's not knowing" that such an absence of knowledge was something that was "through no fault of their (his) own..." I think that it is just presumptuous arrogance to assume that such a group of individuals even exists, for if they do exist and we tell them the Truth, how could we possibly be doing any harm to them?

I assume that you have no problem whatsoever with an Orthodox individual, of his/her own free will, converting to Roman Catholicism, that is, coming into "full communion" with the One True Church and professing faith in such dogmas such as the Primacy of the Pope. I also assume that once such a conversion had taken place that you would not find it to be without sin if that person left the Catholic Church to return to his Orthodox Church.

Please correct me if I am wrong on this.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:I'm sorry, Jehanne, but you can't have it both ways. Our hypothetical friend was never a "member" of the Mystical Body as it is defined by Pope Pius XII. He was Baptized into the Church; but subjectively, he belonged to the Orthodox Church while retaining the essential bonds of his incorporation.

When he became of age, his profession of the Orthodox Faith only confirmed his external status as a member of the Orthodox Church, but (if inculpable) it did not sever the essential bonds of internal unity with the Mystical Body.

I don't know why you are having such a problem with this.

You've certainly "changed your tune," because you already admitted to me earlier in this thread that a child born to Orthodox parents who, when he was validly baptized, would become fully Catholic. So, are you now saying that a child born to Jewish parents who is validly baptized "subjectively" belongs to Judaism, or for a Muslim child, to Islam? Is that what you are saying??

Jehanne, in the context of the question and for the sake of argument (so we could move on to the real issue of free will and external membership), yes, I agreed that the subject baptized infant is “fully Catholic” because he has in fact been incorporated into the Church and his act of faith is provided by the same Church.

Whether or not his parents are Orthodox, Jewish or Muslim, or Catholics who have rejected the Faith, is irrelevant to the validly baptized child’s state of grace and his unity with the Mystical Body. Neither is it relevant to this same incorporation that he is not entirely “subject” to the Holy Father; for, once again, being “subject” implies a free act (intent) of the will.

But, there is a reason the Church does not classify this child born to Orthodox parents as a “Catholic-Christian”, and it has to do with the reality of his visible membership in the particular Orthodox church to which his parents belong. His membership (incorporation) in the Mystical Body is internal (though external "Catholic" bonds are evident) ... but his unity with the Church and the Faithful is just as real and just as sufficient for his salvation.

So to maintain that this same child, upon reaching the age of reason when he is responsible for making his own act of faith and (in good faith) professes the faith of his received tradition, is still “fully Catholic” as a baptized “member” of the Mystical Body as Pope Pius XII defined it, and as rigorist Feeneyites define there is no salvation outside this same external membership (as you say, an “implicit desire” to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is heretical and absurd), is a complete contradiction and sheer hypocrisy.

It is having it both ways while refusing to acknowledge (and calling it “heretical and absurd”) that one may in fact be “mentally incorporated” into the Church when the external bonds of unity cannot be realized through no fault of the good-faith penitent.

Jehanne wrote:
Earlier you quoted Vatican II, but this quote from the Council does not get as much "air time":

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. (LG, #16)

Of course, one could only wonder how one could ever know that he "do (does) not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church," or if such is even possible, how one could know in "one's not knowing" that such an absence of knowledge was something that was "through no fault of their (his) own..." I think that it is just presumptuous arrogance to assume that such a group of individuals even exists, for if they do exist and we tell them the Truth, how could we possibly be doing any harm to them?

As you know, Jehanne, LG 16 can be read in an entirely orthodox sense that even a Feeneyite could agree to, but I’m sure you’re objecting to the fact that the Church teaches that in certain circumstances one may attain salvation with only a supernatural and explicit Faith in the One True God, with one’s explicit faith in Christ being implicit therein.

It’s funny that you always bring out these quotes that you say do not receive much “air time”, when we’ve discussed this at great length.

Jehanne wrote:
I assume that you have no problem whatsoever with an Orthodox individual, of his/her own free will, converting to Roman Catholicism, that is, coming into "full communion" with the One True Church and professing faith in such dogmas such as the Primacy of the Pope. I also assume that once such a conversion had taken place that you would not find it to be without sin if that person left the Catholic Church to return to his Orthodox Church.

Please correct me if I am wrong on this.

The first part goes without saying; but, to the latter, of course you are wrong, and I can only marvel at how you can arrive at such “assumptions”. This is the same logical fallacy of the type that says if today’s member of the Orthodox Church can be absolved from culpable fault in his material error, then he “cannot” become a formal heretical or schismatic.

At least you're consistent.

How so? Do you object to an Orthodox individual converting to the One True Faith and professing faith in the Primacy of the Pope? How about, if later on, this same individual decides, as an act of his own free will, to return to the Orthodox Church. Would such an act be one of formal schism?

I read this today and think it relevant to the citations of the Council of Florence (I think they were discussed somewhere in this thread). It's from the original Rheims New Testament, a note on 1 Corinthians 13:

3. Deliver my body. ] Believe (saith St. Augustine) assuredly and hold for certain, that no Heretic and Schismatic that uniteth not himself to the Catholic Church again, how great alms so ever he give, yea or shed his blood for Christ's name, can possibly be saved. For, many Heretics by the cloak of Christ's cause, deceiving the simple suffer much. But where true faith is not, there is no justice, because the just liveth by faith. So it is also of Schismatics, because where charity is not, justice can there be none: which if they had, they would never pluck in pieces the body of Christ which is the Church. Aus. seu. Fulg. de fid. ad Pet. c. 39. So saith St. Augustine in diverse places, not only of Heretics that died directly for defense of their heresy, as the Anabaptists and Calvinists now a days do (for that it is more damnable:) but of some Heretics and Schismatics that may die among the Heathen or Turks for defense of truth or some Article of Christ's religion. Aug. de verb. Do. sr. 50 c. 2. & in Psal. 34 conc. 2 prope finem.; Cypr. de unit. Ec. nu. 8.

Jehanne wrote:How so? Do you object to an Orthodox individual converting to the One True Faith and professing faith in the Primacy of the Pope?

Why in blue blazes would I “object”? Sure, Jehanne, (sarcasm alert) I would “object” to an Orthodox individual being restored to full communion with the Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

Jehanne wrote:
How about, if later on, this same individual decides, as an act of his own free will, to return to the Orthodox Church. Would such an act be one of formal schism?

That wasn’t your question. You stated it as such:

“I also assume that once such a conversion had taken place that you would not find it to be without sin if that person left the Catholic Church to return to his Orthodox Church.”

Of course it’s a sin, and the fact that the Catholic convert received and professed the Catholic Faith, and then rejected it, would render him all the more culpable.

Whether his sin constitutes formal schism would depend on whether his rejection was obstinate and pertinacious, which for us would be an entirely subjective judgment of fallible moral certainty; with the Church having the final say in all such matters.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:How so? Do you object to an Orthodox individual converting to the One True Faith and professing faith in the Primacy of the Pope?

Why in blue blazes would I “object”? Sure, Jehanne, (sarcasm alert) I would “object” to an Orthodox individual being restored to full communion with the Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

The SSPX claims that some converts from the Orthodox Church have been "refused admission" by some Novus Ordo priests and have had to come into the Church via the SSPX. So, my question to you is completely legitimate.

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:
How about, if later on, this same individual decides, as an act of his own free will, to return to the Orthodox Church. Would such an act be one of formal schism?

That wasn’t your question. You stated it as such:

“I also assume that once such a conversion had taken place that you would not find it to be without sin if that person left the Catholic Church to return to his Orthodox Church.”

Of course it’s a sin, and the fact that the Catholic convert received and professed the Catholic Faith, and then rejected it, would render him all the more culpable.

Whether his sin constitutes formal schism would depend on whether his rejection was obstinate and pertinacious, which for us would be an entirely subjective judgment of fallible moral certainty; with the Church having the final say in all such matters.

Read my sentence again. Does it make sense now?

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:How so? Do you object to an Orthodox individual converting to the One True Faith and professing faith in the Primacy of the Pope?

Why in blue blazes would I “object”? Sure, Jehanne, (sarcasm alert) I would “object” to an Orthodox individual being restored to full communion with the Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

The SSPX claims that some converts from the Orthodox Church have been "refused admission" by some Novus Ordo priests and have had to come into the Church via the SSPX. So, my question to you is completely legitimate.

I don't see what that has to do with me.

I remember reading a similar account written by an Eastern Orthodox priest who was frustrated by Vatican prelates for wanting to “convert” and become a priest of the Roman Rite. In other words, he wanted to be “Romanized” and “Latinized” rather than follow the natural progression of his own tradition by joining one of the Eastern particular Churches in communion with the pope.

Not saying that the road blocks were warranted, but only that there may be some perspective we’re missing since we’re hearing only one side of the story (as far as I know).

Here's another story of obstruction from the late 19th century:

While the schism of 1054 remains one of major consequence for the Universal Church, later schisms illustrate the continuing discomfort of the Roman Church with other Apostolic Churches of different liturgical and ecclesial traditions. In 1878 a Ruthenian (eastern Slavs akin to Ukrainians) named Alexis Toth married and was thereafter ordained a priest of the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church in Slovakia whose bishops were in communion with the Roman See. In 1889 his bishop sent him to America to minister to Ruthenian Greek Catholics in Minneapolis, MN. Because the Ruthenian Greek Catholics had no hierarchy in America, Fr. Toth sought faculties to serve the Greek Catholic community from the Roman Catholic Archbishop, John Ireland, of Minneapolis. Archbishop Ireland rejected and refused to receive the widowed priest as a bona fide Catholic and priest and denied his request for faculties. In defiance the Archbishop Fr. Toth began serving the Greek Catholic community. Within a year he and his parishioners transferred themselves to the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Bishop of Alaska, resident in San Francisco. Thereafter Fr. Toth traveled among the Greek Catholic parishes in the Northeast and induced many of them to sever their ties with the Roman Church. The schism authored by Archbishop Ireland persists to this day. (http://www.newbyzantines.net/byzcathculture/schism.html)

The Irish prelates could be petty and stubborn ... just ask the Germans who wanted to retain their own traditions.

Jehanne wrote:

MRyan wrote:

Jehanne wrote:
How about, if later on, this same individual decides, as an act of his own free will, to return to the Orthodox Church. Would such an act be one of formal schism?

That wasn’t your question. You stated it as such:

“I also assume that once such a conversion had taken place that you would not find it to be without sin if that person left the Catholic Church to return to his Orthodox Church.”

Of course it’s a sin, and the fact that the Catholic convert received and professed the Catholic Faith, and then rejected it, would render him all the more culpable.

Whether his sin constitutes formal schism would depend on whether his rejection was obstinate and pertinacious, which for us would be an entirely subjective judgment of fallible moral certainty; with the Church having the final say in all such matters.

Read my sentence again. Does it make sense now?

Yes, I misread it the first time around. He would not be without sin, and my response to your question about whether "such an act [is] one of formal schism?" is also true.

tornpage wrote:I read this today and think it relevant to the citations of the Council of Florence (I think they were discussed somewhere in this thread). It's from the original Rheims New Testament, a note on 1 Corinthians 13:

3. Deliver my body. ] Believe (saith St. Augustine) assuredly and hold for certain, that no Heretic and Schismatic that uniteth not himself to the Catholic Church again, how great alms so ever he give, yea or shed his blood for Christ's name, can possibly be saved. For, many Heretics by the cloak of Christ's cause, deceiving the simple suffer much. But where true faith is not, there is no justice, because the just liveth by faith. So it is also of Schismatics, because where charity is not, justice can there be none: which if they had, they would never pluck in pieces the body of Christ which is the Church. Aus. seu. Fulg. de fid. ad Pet. c. 39. So saith St. Augustine in diverse places, not only of Heretics that died directly for defense of their heresy, as the Anabaptists and Calvinists now a days do (for that it is more damnable:) but of some Heretics and Schismatics that may die among the Heathen or Turks for defense of truth or some Article of Christ's religion. Aug. de verb. Do. sr. 50 c. 2. & in Psal. 34 conc. 2 prope finem.; Cypr. de unit. Ec. nu. 8.

Thanks, Tornpage, context is a wonderful thing.

Note too the reference to St. Fulgentius of Ruspe’s “De Fide ad Petrum” (To Peter on the Faith); the same work from which Pope Eugene IV would formulate the dogma on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Cantate Domino) by citing St. Fulgentius almost word for word:

Saint Fulgentius (A. D. 533): “Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only all pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.” (To Peter on the Faith)

This is the same Saint Fulgentius who taught:

From that time at which our Savior said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5], no one can, without the sacrament of baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal" (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524]).

And yet, some (hello columba!) would have us believe that Pope Eugene IV cited St. Fulgentius in order to refute the Saint’s understanding of his own doctrine!

Ah-ha.

MRyan wrote:
This is the same Saint Fulgentius who taught:

From that time at which our Savior said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5], no one can, without the sacrament of baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal" (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524]).

And yet, some (hello columba!) would have us believe that Pope Eugene IV cited St. Fulgentius in order to refute the Saint’s understanding of his own doctrine!

Ah-ha.

Ah ha !..
That (to the untrained eye) would seem like game over for me But, do you not wonder why Mike, that Pope Eugene IV did not include this caveat in his pronuncement? In fact he goes out of his way to make it clear that the shedding of blood for Chrst outside the Church is to no avail.

Hi Deacon Agustine.

Always liked your posts and hope you call by more often.

Deacon Agustine wrote:
And I think some of the things the Pope has said are unwise, inopportune, unclear, misleading and occasionally downright erroneous.

Glad it was you who said that DA and not me. I've said similar before but Mike didn't take kindly but to see him now agree, well, what can I say?

Maybe Mike you could give a few examples from the quoted categories especially the last one; "erroneous." It seems to be the case that one can get away with generalities but if something specific be quoted, all hell breaks loose with much verbositatem being deployed to bring what was once in the "erroneous" category to the "acceptable."

It would go a long way in reconciling extremes if ackowledgement was given that not all papal statements are in accord with revealed truth.

George Brenner wrote:I have a special place in my heart and prayers for Sedevacanist. I must admit that many moons ago that I was tempted to go that direction. After much prayer and getting kicked in the head by my guardian Angel Louie, I stayed firmly in the Faith that I love. Perhaps this time in my life fell under the 'and lead us not into temptation' part of the Our Father. After anger, throwing the dishes, pouting and dismay I came to understand that intense love and charity comes with risks in the pursuit of souls. I am not privy to any special revelation, but my prayers still parallel mother Angelica who said regarding the Third secret of Fatima that " I do not think that we got the whole thing". After doing my own research and praying about it, I believe that since several Popes read and re read the third secret that it may have a direct connection to Vatican II. The one statement that seems to be positively verified by many is that at least three popes and maybe more, said that the secret is not for my time. I believe that their words are true for I will never question a Popes truthfulness. That is not my station in life. However my prayers and reflection do tell me that the message was one of monumental significance. If the third secret for example said that a Pope would be mortally or terribly attacked and or murdered as some have said, then by definition this type of message could have been for any Pope at any time and therefore would have been for any Pope who read it.. On the other hand if the message did warn of a terrible attack on the Catholic Church perhaps even within the very essence and center of Our faith, then that type of message could have scared anyone, especially a Pope to do whatever was possible to teach, help and embrace with intense love and Charity the people of the world and maybe just maybe the impetus for Vatican II which changed the direction in conversion modus operandi.
Never the less, I beg all sedevacanist to be subject to and pray and love Our Pope with all of your abilities.We need each other to fight the forces of evil. Listen to the patience and words of MRyan and Deacon Augustine in their love and understanding of Our Faith. Be part of the Solution. Light a Candle. Do not curse the darkness. There are so many scared and confused religious. There are many dedicated and Holy religious that are trying and succeeding to do the will of God, whether it be the Novus Order or the Latin Mass. It is not prudent to only look for scandal or abuse and not be thankful and encourage those who have great responsibility in leading us hopefully to our eternal reward in Heaven. This is a matter if spiritual life and death.

George, I acknowledge your sincerity and have no doubt that you, along with everyone on the forum are in the same place as Deacon Agustine and Mike regarding love of the faith. We do however differ in our understanding and hence the usefulness of this forum.
It is -as you said- "a matter of spiritual life and death," that we keep ouirselves on the narrow path and not be led astray by all manner of nuances and our own salvation cannot be apart from concern for the salvaton of others. That is why -in my understanding of the necessity of the Church- it is important to inform (as an act of charity and in charity), those who are outside. This I have done with some Protestant colleaques and lapsed Catholics and quoted verbatum Pope Eugenes IV declaration on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. I can't claim any conversions but in most cases it was received with the intention it was given and I know from further encounters that it certainly left food for thought.

If I were to accept that most of these souls were somehow attached to the Church already and could find salvation in their current state then I would have no zeal at all for these encounters. Anyway, my point is, sometimes lack of charity can be dressed to look like charity but is in reality a refusal to do ones Christian duty for the sake of a temporal peace. I'm guilty of that more times than enough and it doesn't sit easy on the conscience. If it is absolutely necessary that one be a member of the Church for salvation then why take a chance with the purely subjective category, i,e. implicit membership that in truth (if there be such souls) they can only be known to God.

BTW George.
There's a sermon on Audio Sancto (which I'll PM you when I find it again) where the priest talks about the danger in naming our guardian angels. To summarize what he said, the only angels we should invoke by name are those named in scripture (excluding of course the fallen angel) and all other names can't be relied upon to be good and therefore potentially spiritually dangerous. He backs up his teaching with references.

It was news to me too.

God bless.

Hi Columba,

Thanks much for sharing your love of our Faith and the insight about guardian Angels. Interesting! The use of a name by me was done out of pure love and my deepest humble gratitude and yet here is some information as you have mentioned:


http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7hDnpUFPgDgAqLVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0ZTkzZ25nBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1JDRjAyOV84NA--/SIG=13oev48gb/EXP=1329731175/**http%3a//www.marcomenterprises.com/index.php%3foption=com_content%26view=article%26id=244%26Itemid=250

Imho, when approaching the matter of understanding Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus better, people need to treat the Orthodox with extreme care. Extreme care; it requires a genuine knowledge and understanding of the East, a study that will only enrich one's own Catholicism. I wouldn't spend the time necessary to argue the case, but I'll just spit it out: lots of those people are arguably very much in the Church, very much right with God.

As I posted in the prayers section of this forum, my first cousin Lori died just over two weeks ago, in her very own home, the victim of a freak propane explosion at the tender age of 31. She was sick that Friday night and had gone to bed early, and that's where she died when the roof above collapsed upon her. Her two children were home at the time, as was her husband, who pulled her lifeless body from the rubble. She was pronounced dead at the scene by the paramedics minutes after the accident.

Her funeral was this past Monday. She was a Lutheran. I had no intent of seeing her body, as I thought that she would be disfigured, but when I arrived at her church, there she was in her casket. I had no choice but to see her, but that gave me the opportunity to gently stroke her hair and kiss her goodbye upon her forehead. It was the first time that I had seen her in several years. To the best of my knowledge (I haven't asked), she was cremated later that evening, another repulsive aspect of the modern age which the Church has capitulated to.

Her funeral was a typical Protestant service that I remember from my youth as an evangelical, but more "Catholic," but less so than most Novus Ordo masses that I have been to. I was somewhat taken aback, upon the recitation of the Apostle's Creed (which, of course, I know by heart), when the minister and congregation said, "One Holy Christian Church." Um, ya.. Her funeral was short with very little, if any, crying (none of it openly); my family stayed to eat in the basement, and I decided to leave after expressing my final condolences to her family.

On the hour long drive to Lori's funeral and the hour back, I prayed 20 decades of the Rosary for her, including, the Luminous mysteries, and I asked the brothers of the St. Benedict Center to pray for her, also, a request that I made of all of you. Even though she died as a Protestant (how serious she was in her faith, I do not know) without any opportunity whatsoever for the Final Sacraments, I truly hope that she is not in Hell. Everyone, at her funeral, of course, "just assumed" that she was in Heaven (I even got an "angel bracelet" with Lori's name on it); my mother did not even bother asking me about this. She knew what I would said to her -- Lori is almost certainly not in Paradise; question is, "Is she in Hell or in Purgatory?" I certainly hope for the latter; in fact, I had prayed for Lori, as well as all of my family, most of whom are non-Catholic and others who are only "cultural" (and who also practice contraception and sterilization) for many years. Still, even though I am a "Feeneyite," I still pray for them.

The big problem that I have with modernistic Catholic theology is its over-optimism with respect to the afterlife. The question is no longer, "How does one go to Heaven?", but rather, "How could one go to Hell, even if one choose to go there?", assuming, of course, that Hell even exists (per the modernists, of course)? My wife was watching a TV show here recently on the afterlife, and the "experts" were discussing NDEs ("Near-death experiences"), all of which were positive. Of course, we all know better, don't we? Some people do die and go to Hell, but "live" to tell about. Those NDEs do not, however, help a show's rating, do they?

The idea of "salutary repentance" has been around for a long time. After all, if the One and Triune God can raise someone from the dead, then He can certainly grant "final repentance" to a soul who is in a state of mortal sin at the point of death. The same idea is behind conditional Baptism for dead infants. And this is another reason why heretics were burned as opposed to being being beheaded, hung, etc., to the individual as much time as possible for repentance.

I certainly do not have any problems with this notion, and I believe it to be wholly orthodox. What I do have a major problem with is the assumption that virtually all Catholics make in that such repentance either always happens and/or is always irrelevant. In their view, Hell is something that one must explicitly and even obstinately choose, and even then, it is not at all certain that you will end up, unless, you murder a dozen or more individuals in some act of despicable carnage, and even then, it is just assumed that "God will find a way." I believe that this is a dangerous assumption, and perhaps for many, an eternally fatal one.

As for Lori, I will pray for her every single day for the rest of my life. I hope that she is at least on the path to Paradise, for I am virtually certainly that she is not there.

Jehanne,

I am very sorry about your family's loss. I will pray for your cousin, Lori, as well.

God bless you,
Allie

Columba,


Although Our Ark, Our One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church may be listing to the Starboard in the current rough seas , you can rest assured that Our Popes are helped and aided by the Holy Spirit beyond our earthly knowledge or capacity to understand to remain pure and intact on matters of Faith and morals, which must be accepted by the faithful. Do not abandon the Pope. Do not loose Faith. Do not doubt that there are many in the Church who will preserve the faith according to the will of God..

Trust in MRyan. He goes to great length as a defender of the Faith in explaining the teachings in the time we now live. The Deposit of faith remains for all eternity intact and pure. This confusion of what to believe is so tragically sad. Our faith has become way too complex but simplicity will return. You certainly must know that in your heart. If and/or when the Ark were to crash into the rocks, Heaven will give us a very clear warning for those of good will to know.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
This is the same Saint Fulgentius who taught:

From that time at which our Savior said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3], no one can, without the sacrament of baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal" (The Rule of Faith 43 [A.D. 524]).

And yet, some (hello columba!) would have us believe that Pope Eugene IV cited St. Fulgentius in order to refute the Saint’s understanding of his own doctrine!
Ah-ha.

Ah ha !..
That (to the untrained eye) would seem like game over for me But, do you not wonder why Mike, that Pope Eugene IV did not include this caveat in his pronuncement? In fact he goes out of his way to make it clear that the shedding of blood for Chrst outside the Church is to no avail.

I do not wonder why; for, as I already told you, Pope Eugene IV was not addressing, and had no intention of:

including in his solemn prescription the faith-filled martyr who sheds his blood for Christ without benefit of water Baptism, because not only is this not the subject or context of the Bull, a martyr who professes his faith in our Lord and desires to do His will in all things is NOT a self-professed Pagan, Jew or a Muslim, and neither is he a formal heretic or schismatic who does not "remain" in, and has been severed from, the Church. In fact, neither does the faith-filled martyr, who is IS in fact “joined with" Christ and "with Her … before death", and “remain[s] within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church” required to participate in the sacramental life of the ecclesiastical Church - he's already met his reward and is united to the Source of divine life and the Mystical Body in heaven.

As a matter of fact, columba, Pope Eugene IV did include in his solemn prescription "those who, in the Catholic Church, without baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, [and] receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal" for the obvious stated reason (articulated here by St. Fulgentius), as the Church teaches still today, that such souls are already IN the Catholic Church by virtue of their being incorporated into Christ by the bonds of faith and charity.

In other words, Pope Eugene IV had no intention of rescinding from the following rule of faith he approved in the same extended Council, from Session 22 of Basel:

By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools.

If ever there was a doctrine that the Church has always embraced "according to [its] true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools", it is baptism of blood; which, as the CCC assures us:

The Church 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.

Yes, its "game over", even or an unschooled eye like yours.