Another version of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

There is no doubt that “explicit" vs. "implicit" faith in our Lord is the stronger common tradition, but it is not the only tradition.

The Church recognizes both traditions, but refuses to censure the latter, and even promotes it through her official organs of the authentic Magisterium.

I can accept this, were it not for the fact that I don't see much evidence of an implicit faith "tradition." And then you factor in the big guns, St. Augustine and St. Thomas, holding to the necessity of "explicit faith" in this our Gospel age.

But, you know, we have the example of the Jesuit Molinists and the Dominican "Thomists" at hand. As Father GL notes, both views can't be right. Yet the Church allows both of them, and one of them is wrong.



Don't worry, I'm not going there: predestination.

If you can show me the "tradition" for implicit faith, maybe we got a Molinist/Thomist deal going - not that you're a Molinist.

I don't know what the hell you are, Mikey.

Not to back track on myself - you wouldn't know me to be one to do that - but the only problem with a "Molinist/Thomist" deal with regard to explicit/implicit faith is it appears the Church is backing the one, "implicit faith," and making a choice there.

This is disturbing to an explicit faith "Thomist" like me. Throw in the Novus Ordo . . .

Just when things are starting to look good, the old brain thinketh too much again.

But then again, there's not exactly a "tradition" for Molinism, either.

Uh oh . . . must put the old noodle to sleep. Perhaps a beer.

But she also allows and teaches that the necessity of an explicit belief in our Lord may, with the proper dispositions, be implicit in one’s explicit faith in the One True God; “Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him” (Trent, Sess. 6, Ch. 6).

Well, look at my sig line. The Rheims annotation.

Two beers. Have one on me.

Mike,

To Columba you said,

Columba, if you want to “know for certain what the Church's true position on” Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, by all means do not consult Dominus Iesus, Lumen gentium, Ut Unam Sint, the CCC or other magisterial documents which compliment and reaffirm the Church’s dogma (and, contrary to the sedespleenist and rad-trad mantra, do not change the dogma); no, you should consult a non-magisterial 1993 joint ecumenical policy recommendation that clearly seeks to promote theological dialogue between East and West by recognizing and moving past the mistakes and mutual anathemas of the past; with one such recommendation being a recasting of the Church’s oft-misunderstood exclusive claim to no salvation outside of her ecclesiastical structure in a more positive light.

So it comes as no surprise that you and others of the rigorist Feeneyite persuasion are shocked, shocked that the 1993 Balamand declaration is not exactly precise in its ecumenical language on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus when you reject the entire tradition and magisterial teachings of the Church on baptism of blood; you reject the Church’s teaching on internal and external unity with the Mystical Body; and, therefore, you reject both the Church’s magisterial authority, and her magisterial teaching on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

Speaking for myself, shocked that it was and is accepted by what is supposed to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, yes. You brush off as "not exactly precise", "poorly worded", "ecumenical language" what is actually, in the truly problematic parts, heresy at worst and treachery at best.

And yet you quote approvingly from a poster at "The Byzantine Forum":

Balamand became official policy of the Catholic Church when the Church began issuing instructions that referred to the Declaration or substantively moved to implement its provisions. Hence, the Catholic Church has repudiated any attempts at proselytization of Orthodox Christians, hence the Pope issued his Pastoral Letter Orientale Lumen (which draws heavily upon the Balamand Statement's approach to Uniatism and the future of the Eastern Catholic Churches), hence the pope's Encyclical Ut Unam Sint, which reiterates the points made by Balamand in regard to Catholic and Orthodox relations. Above all, we have the Liturgical Instruction issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches, which brings concrete expression within the Eastern Catholic Churches to the idea that the Eastern Catholic Churches have a particular mission to bear witness to the possibility of being truly Orthodox and truly Catholic at the same time.

But to Columba you say,

MRyan wrote:Balamand is too easy a target; let's see you go after the Church's true magisterial instruments for the transmission of the truth. That is much more entertaining.

And I'm told that I should,

MRyan wrote:Believe it.

Believe what? That the Church has abandoned it's mission? (Non-magisterially yet also officially, and worded in manner "not exactly precise", of course...)

Believe what? This?

22.) Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox. It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church. Within these perspectives, so that there will no longer be room for mistrust and suspicion, it is necessary that there be reciprocal exchanges of information about various pastoral projects and that thus cooperation between bishops and all those with responsibilities in our Churches can be set in motion and develop.

29.) Bishops and priests have the duty before God to respect the authority which the Holy Spirit has given to the bishops and priests of the other Church and for that reason to avoid interfering in the spiritual life of the faithful of that Church. When cooperation becomes necessary for the good of the faithful, it is then required that those responsible come to an agreement among themselves, establish for this mutual assistance clear principles which are known to all, and act subsequently with frankness, clarity, and with respect for the sacramental discipline of the other Church.

In this context, to avoid all misunderstanding and to develop confidence between the two Churches, it is necessary that Catholic and Orthodox bishops of the same territory consult with each other before establishing Catholic pastoral projects which imply the creation of new structures in regions which traditionally form part of the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church, in view to avoid parallel pastoral activities which would risk rapidly degenerating into rivalry or even conflicts.

30.) To pave the way for future relations between the two Churches, passing beyond the out-dated ecclesiology of return to the Catholic Church connected with the problem which is the object of this document, special attention will be given to the preparation of future priests and of all those who, in any way, are involved in an apostolic activity carried on in a place where the other Church traditionally has its roots. Their education should be objectively positive with respect to the other Church. First of all, everyone should be informed of the apostolic succession of the other Church and the authenticity of its sacramental life. One should also offer all a correct and comprehensive knowledge of history aiming at a historiography of the two Churches which is in agreement and even may be common. In this way, the dissipation of prejudices will be helped, and the use of history in a polemical manner will be avoided. This presentation will lead to an awareness that faults leading to separation belong to both sides, leaving deep wounds on each side.

This?

33.) It is necessary that the Churches come together in order to express gratitude and respect towards all, known and unknown, bishops, priests or faithful, Orthodox, Catholic whether Eastern or Latin—who suffered, confessed their faith, witnessed their fidelity to the Church, and, in general, towards all Christians, without discrimination, who underwent persecutions. Their sufferings call us to unity and, on our part, to give common witness in response to the prayer of Christ "that all may be one, so that the world may believe" (John 17:21).

Fidelity to what "Church"? (And has St. Josaphat RSVP'd?)

Or this?

35.) By excluding for the future all proselytism and all desire for expansion by Catholics at the expense of the Orthodox Church, the commission hopes that it has overcome the obstacles which impelled certain autocephalous Churches to suspend their participation in the theological dialogue and that the Orthodox Church will be able to find itself together again for continuing the theological work already so happily begun.

Actually, there is nothing wrong with the wording of any of this in my opinion; it's quite clear. (With the exception that, somewhere along the line, "proselytism" became exclusively a bad word.)

MRyan wrote:So, of course, any “Declaration” produced by the “Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church” which aggressively sought to lessen well-entrenched historical tensions often marked by mutual acrimonious insults and the requisite anathema, was sure to get into trouble for recognizing past abuses (seems we are forever apologizing), by calling Orthodox churches “Sister Churches” instead of "Dissident Orientals", by condemning uniatism as a method of reunion, by lending some perspective to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus by downplaying the “negative” and by openly recognizing that elements of sanctification and truth exist outside of her visible structure (but never apart from her), and thus by affirming that particular Orthodox churches serve as means (conduits) of grace and salvation would be sure to solidify Pope JPII’s place in the ultramontane and rad-trad “JPII, we love you” fan club.

Actually, with regards to what I highlighted here, point 13 of the Balamand Declaration completely contradicts you:

13.) In fact, especially since the Pan-Orthodox Conferences and the Second Vatican Council, the rediscovery and the giving again of proper value to the Church as communion, both on the part of Orthodox and of Catholics, has radically altered perspectives and thus attitudes. On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to His Church—profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops—cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches. In this context it is clear that re-baptism must be avoided.

Ooops.

Believe it.

Other parts of the declaration (you are correct when you say it is "too easy a target") imply that "The Church of God" or "His Church" is something greater than the Roman Catholic Church (as in VII's "The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church."):

14.) It is in this perspective that the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity. According to the words of Pope John Paul II, the ecumenical endeavor of the Sister Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love (cf. Slavorum Apostoli, n. 27).

Odd that they would mention "fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity" without any recourse to Vatican One. Well, OK, it's not odd that the Orthodox would fail to mention it, but it is scandalous that the "Catholics" involved with it let it fly. But hey, believe it.

15.) While the inviolable freedom of persons and their obligation to follow the requirements of their conscience remains secure, in the search for re-establishing unity there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation. There is a question of achieving together the will of Christ for His own and the design of God for His Church by means of a common quest by the Churches for a full accord on the content of the faith and its implications. This effort is being carried on in the current theological dialogue. The present document is a necessary stage in this dialogue.

But, "apparently", this was all just a bad language day for our fearless ecumenical warriors; and merely a "recasting of the Church’s oft-misunderstood exclusive claim to no salvation outside of her ecclesiastical structure in a more positive light."

DeSelby wrote:Mike,

To Columba you said,

Columba, if you want to “know for certain what the Church's true position on” Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, by all means do not consult Dominus Iesus, Lumen gentium, Ut Unam Sint, the CCC or other magisterial documents which compliment and reaffirm the Church’s dogma (and, contrary to the sedespleenist and rad-trad mantra, do not change the dogma); no, you should consult a non-magisterial 1993 joint ecumenical policy recommendation that clearly seeks to promote theological dialogue between East and West by recognizing and moving past the mistakes and mutual anathemas of the past; with one such recommendation being a recasting of the Church’s oft-misunderstood exclusive claim to no salvation outside of her ecclesiastical structure in a more positive light.

So it comes as no surprise that you and others of the rigorist Feeneyite persuasion are shocked, shocked that the 1993 Balamand declaration is not exactly precise in its ecumenical language on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus when you reject the entire tradition and magisterial teachings of the Church on baptism of blood; you reject the Church’s teaching on internal and external unity with the Mystical Body; and, therefore, you reject both the Church’s magisterial authority, and her magisterial teaching on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

Speaking for myself, shocked that it was and is accepted by what is supposed to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, yes. You brush off as "not exactly precise", "poorly worded", "ecumenical language" what is actually, in the truly problematic parts, heresy at worst and treachery at best.

I suppose I should not be too surprised that you are “shocked”; for the shock for some folks just never ends. Its like a cottage industry for the gift that just keeps on giving; with the main gift-giver being the Roman Pontiff who can say and approve some of the most “shocking” things; at least for certain types in the East and the West who prefer the language of “return or be damned” over that of “restoring full communion” and (brace yourself) “Sister” and “Particular” Churches.

Its as if you are discovering these “shocking” revelations of “heresy at worst and treachery at best” for the first time since the release of the Balamand declaration almost 20 years ago, and the close of VCII some 47 years ago; the documents of which form the doctrinal basis for the joint theological commission and its rather bold policy initiative.

And of course, you misunderstood what I said, for my “not exactly precise” description of the “poorly worded ... ecumenical language” of the declaration was not a “brush off” at all, but a recognition that such imprecise language is almost always taken in the worst possible context by those predisposed to do so, rather than it being understood in the context of the magisterial documents (promulgated both before and after the declaration) which form the doctrinal basis for the official policy it represents.

In other words, those who find the declaration “shocking”, and are scandalized by the fact that the Pope approved it and encourages its implementation, seem to be totally unfamiliar with Ut Unaum Sint, Lumen Gentium, Unitatis Redintegratio, Dignitatis Humanae, the Apostolic Letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente, the CDF Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of the Catholic Church Understood as Communion, the Pastoral Letter Orientale Lumen, etc.

If those who are so easily “shocked” were familiar with these magisterial and pastoral documents, they would understand Balamand; and, though they might not agree with the official policy, they would have at least some basis for understanding the doctrine of “Sister Churches”, for example, and why the Church seeks full communion through means other than proselytization and the conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation.

Sede's like Foot cannot understand the true meaning of "Particular churches" (let alone understand canon law), for example, but the rank and file should have no problem with the doctrine once it is understood (and yes, it takes a diligent effort to understand it - but its worth the effort). And if they still don't understand, they should trust the Magisterium. (I will return to this important subject of Particular Churches shortly).

Yes, DeSelby, I also realize that the same people who find Balamand “shocking” and representing “heresy at worst and treachery at best”, typically find every single aforementioned magisterial and pastoral document just as shocking and just as heretical or treacherous. So their feigned shock of Balamand and the scandal taken from the Pope's commitment to its implementation seems rather contrived, don’t you think?

On the other hand, it can also be said, I guess, that those who are so easily "shocked" by the teachings and actions of our Popes have been in a state of perpetual shock since VCII.

Since you took the time to post one alleged “shocking” revelation after another found in the Balamand declaration, before I address these, let’s cut right to the chase and place all of it into context by citing from just two magisterial documents, Unitatis Redintegatio and Ut unam Sint:

DECREE ON ECUMENISM ~ UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO

3. … Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life-that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.

Ut Unum Sint

Sister Churches

55. In its historical survey the Council Decree Unitatis Redintegratio has in mind the unity which, in spite of everything, was experienced in the first millennium and in a certain sense now serves as a kind of model. "This most sacred Synod gladly reminds all ... that in the East there flourish many particular or local Churches; among them the Patriarchal Churches hold first place; and of these, many glory in taking their origin from the Apostles themselves". The Church's journey began in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost and its original expansion in the oikoumene of that time was centred around Peter and the Eleven (cf. Acts 2:14). 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.

57. … For centuries we lived this life of 'Sister Churches', and together held Ecumenical Councils which guarded the deposit of faith against all corruption. And now, after a long period of division and mutual misunderstanding, the Lord is enabling us to discover ourselves as 'Sister Churches' once more, in spite of the obstacles which were once raised between us". If today, on the threshold of the third millennium, we are seeking the re-establishment of full communion, it is for the accomplishment of this reality that we must work and it is to this reality that we must refer.

59. Since its establishment in 1979, the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church has worked steadily, directing its study to areas decided upon by mutual agreement, with the purpose of re-establishing full communion between the two Churches. This communion which is founded on the unity of faith, following in the footsteps of the experience and tradition of the ancient Church, will find its fulfilment in the common celebration of the Holy Eucharist. ...

60. More recently, the Joint International Commission took a significant step forward with regard to the very sensitive question of the method to be followed in re-establishing full communion between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, an issue which has frequently embittered relations between Catholics and Orthodox. The Commission has laid the doctrinal foundations for a positive solution to this problem on the basis of the doctrine of Sister Churches. Here too it has become evident that the method to be followed towards full communion is the dialogue of truth, fostered and sustained by the dialogue of love. ..

86. The Constitution Lumen Gentium, in a fundamental affirmation echoed by the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio states that the one Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. The Decree on Ecumenism emphasizes the presence in her of the fullness (plenitude) of the means of salvation. Full unity will come about when all share in the fullness of the means of salvation entrusted by Christ to his Church.

87. …Based on the communion which already exists as a result of the ecclesial elements present in the Christian communities, this process will certainly be a force impelling towards full and visible communion, the desired goal of the journey we are making. Here we have the ecumenical expression of the Gospel law of sharing. This leads me to state once more: "We must take every care to meet the legitimate desires and expectations of our Christian brethren, coming to know their way of thinking and their sensibilities ... The talents of each must be developed for the utility and the advantage of all".

The communion of all particular Churches with the Church of Rome: a necessary condition for unity

97. The Catholic Church, both in her praxis and in her solemn documents, holds that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is—in God's plan—an essential requisite of full and visible communion. Indeed full communion, of which the Eucharist is the highest sacramental manifestation, needs to be visibly expressed in a ministry in which all the Bishops recognize that they are united in Christ and all the faithful find confirmation for their faith. The first part of the Acts of the Apostles presents Peter as the one who speaks in the name of the apostolic group and who serves the unity of the community—all the while respecting the authority of James, the head of the Church in Jerusalem. This function of Peter must continue in the Church so that under her sole Head, who is Jesus Christ, she may be visibly present in the world as the communion of all his disciples.

As James Likuois wrote:

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

As I said, Balamand is too easy a target; so “let's see you go after the Church's true magisterial instruments for the transmission of the truth”, with the Balamand declaration being but a reflection thereof.

That’s where the real issue and the point of contention lies, and we both know it.

I’ll address the remainder of your post in due time.

DeSelby wrote:
Speaking for myself, shocked that it was and is accepted by what is supposed to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, yes. You brush off as "not exactly precise", "poorly worded", "ecumenical language" what is actually, in the truly problematic parts, heresy at worst and treachery at best.

And yet you quote approvingly from a poster at "The Byzantine Forum":

Balamand became official policy of the Catholic Church when the Church began issuing instructions that referred to the Declaration or substantively moved to implement its provisions. Hence, the Catholic Church has repudiated any attempts at proselytization of Orthodox Christians, hence the Pope issued his Pastoral Letter Orientale Lumen (which draws heavily upon the Balamand Statement's approach to Uniatism and the future of the Eastern Catholic Churches), hence the pope's Encyclical Ut Unam Sint, which reiterates the points made by Balamand in regard to Catholic and Orthodox relations. Above all, we have the Liturgical Instruction issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches, which brings concrete expression within the Eastern Catholic Churches to the idea that the Eastern Catholic Churches have a particular mission to bear witness to the possibility of being truly Orthodox and truly Catholic at the same time.

But to Columba you say,

MRyan wrote:Balamand is too easy a target; let's see you go after the Church's true magisterial instruments for the transmission of the truth. That is much more entertaining.

And I'm told that I should,

MRyan wrote:Believe it.

Believe what? That the Church has abandoned it's mission? (Non-magisterially yet also officially, and worded in manner "not exactly precise", of course...)

Her Mission is the same; the only thing that has changed is her approach to the Orthodox, from one of “convert or be damned”, to one of restoring them to full communion by recognizing the Orthodox as true Particular and Sister churches.

DeSelby wrote:Believe what? This?

22.) Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox. It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church. Within these perspectives, so that there will no longer be room for mistrust and suspicion …

29.) Bishops and priests have the duty before God to respect the authority which the Holy Spirit has given to the bishops and priests of the other Church and for that reason to avoid interfering in the spiritual life of the faithful of that Church. … In this context, to avoid all misunderstanding and to develop confidence between the two Churches, … it is necessary that Catholic and Orthodox bishops of the same territory consult with each other before establishing Catholic pastoral projects which imply the creation of new structures in regions which traditionally form part of the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church, in view to avoid parallel pastoral activities which would risk rapidly degenerating into rivalry or even conflicts.

30.) To pave the way for future relations between the two Churches, passing beyond the out-dated ecclesiology of return to the Catholic Church…

Yes, that.

DeSelby wrote:This?

33.) It is necessary that the Churches come together in order to express gratitude and respect towards all, known and unknown, bishops, priests or faithful, Orthodox, Catholic whether Eastern or Latin—who suffered, confessed their faith, witnessed their fidelity to the Church, and, in general, towards all Christians, without discrimination, who underwent persecutions. Their sufferings call us to unity and, on our part, to give common witness in response to the prayer of Christ "that all may be one, so that the world may believe" (John 17:21).

Fidelity to what "Church"? (And has St. Josaphat RSVP'd?)

Fidelity to the one true Church of Christ, of which the Orthodox are true particular churches, even if they are not in full communion. Appeals to the “over my dead body” type of rapprochements typical of the saints of old (times change) cannot justify the condemnation of the Pope for spearheading the current initiatives to restore full communion.

DeSelby wrote:Or this?

35.) By excluding for the future all proselytism and all desire for expansion by Catholics at the expense of the Orthodox Church, the commission hopes that it has overcome the obstacles which impelled certain autocephalous Churches to suspend their participation in the theological dialogue and that the Orthodox Church will be able to find itself together again for continuing the theological work already so happily begun.

Actually, there is nothing wrong with the wording of any of this in my opinion; it's quite clear. (With the exception that, somewhere along the line, "proselytism" became exclusively a bad word.)

Nothing wrong; then what’s the complaint?

DeSelby wrote:

MRyan wrote:So, of course, any “Declaration” produced by the “Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church” which aggressively sought to lessen well-entrenched historical tensions often marked by mutual acrimonious insults and the requisite anathema, was sure to get into trouble for recognizing past abuses (seems we are forever apologizing), by calling Orthodox churches “Sister Churches” instead of "Dissident Orientals", by condemning uniatism as a method of reunion, by lending some perspective to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus by downplaying the “negative” and by openly recognizing that elements of sanctification and truth exist outside of her visible structure (but never apart from her), and thus by affirming that particular Orthodox churches serve as means (conduits) of grace and salvation would be sure to solidify Pope JPII’s place in the ultramontane and rad-trad “JPII, we love you” fan club.

Actually, with regards to what I highlighted here, point 13 of the Balamand Declaration completely contradicts you:

13.) In fact, especially since the Pan-Orthodox Conferences and the Second Vatican Council, the rediscovery and the giving again of proper value to the Church as communion, both on the part of Orthodox and of Catholics, has radically altered perspectives and thus attitudes. On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to His Church—profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops—cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches. In this context it is clear that re-baptism must be avoided.

Ooops.

Believe it.

Sorry, DeSelby, but there is no contradiction; you have simply failed to recognize the proper distinctions:

9. In order to grasp the true meaning of the analogical application of the term communion to the particular Churches taken as a whole, one must bear in mind above all that the particular Churches, insofar as they are "part of the one Church of Christ"(38), have a special relationship of "mutual interiority"(39) with the whole, that is, with the universal Church, because in every particular Church "the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and active"(40). For this reason, "the universal Church cannot be conceived as the sum of the particular Churches, or as a federation of particular Churches"(41). It is not the result of the communion of the Churches, but, in its essential mystery, it is a reality ontologically and temporally prior to every individual particular Church.

This communion exists especially with the Eastern orthodox Churches, which, though separated from the See of Peter, remain united to the Catholic Church by means of very close bonds, such as the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, and therefore merit the title of particular Churches(74). Indeed, "through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature"(75), for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present(76) (CDF, LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON SOME ASPECTS OF THE CHURCH UNDERSTOOD AS COMMUNION, 1992)

(38) Decr. Christus Dominus, n. 6/c.
(39) JOHN PAUL II, Address to the Roman Curia, 20-XII-1990, n. 9: "L'Osservatore Romano", 21-XII-1990, p. 5.
(40) Decr. Christus Dominus, n. 11/a.
(41) JOHN PAUL II, Address to the Bishops of the United States of America, 16-IX-1987, n. 3: as quoted, p. 555.
(74) Cf. Decr. Unitatis redintegratio, nn. 14 and 15/c.
(75) Ibidem, n. 15/a.
(76) Cf. supra, nn. 5 and 14.

Are you beginning to believe?

Believe it.

DeSelby wrote:
Other parts of the declaration (you are correct when you say it is "too easy a target") imply that "The Church of God" or "His Church" is something greater than the Roman Catholic Church (as in VII's "The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church."):

14.) It is in this perspective that the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity. According to the words of Pope John Paul II, the ecumenical endeavor of the Sister Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love (cf. Slavorum Apostoli, n. 27).

Odd that they would mention "fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity" without any recourse to Vatican One. Well, OK, it's not odd that the Orthodox would fail to mention it, but it is scandalous that the "Catholics" involved with it let it fly. But hey, believe it.

It “implies” no such thing. Your understanding of subsist in is woefully deficient, especially after the Church has clarified its univocal meaning after persons such as yourself accused her of the same “implication”. Perhaps you didn’t get the official memo.

And, do you mean the same “involved with it” Pope JPII who confirmed VCI’s dogmatic prescription on the never-failing faith of Peter, and who also said in Ut Unam Sint:

The fundamental importance of doctrine

18. Taking up an idea expressed by Pope John XXIII at the opening of the Council, the Decree on Ecumenism mentions the way of formulating doctrine as one of the elements of a continuing reform. Here it is not a question of altering the deposit of faith, changing the meaning of dogmas, eliminating essential words from them, accommodating truth to the preferences of a particular age, or suppressing certain articles of the Creed under the false pretext that they are no longer understood today. The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth.

The ministry of unity of the Bishop of Rome

88. Among all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities, the Catholic Church is conscious that she has preserved the ministry of the Successor of the Apostle Peter, the Bishop of Rome, whom God established as her "perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity" and whom the Spirit sustains in order that he may enable all the others to share in this essential good. In the beautiful expression of Pope Saint Gregory the Great, my ministry is that of servus servorum Dei. This designation is the best possible safeguard against the risk of separating power (and in particular the primacy) from ministry. Such a separation would contradict the very meaning of power according to the Gospel: "I am among you as one who serves" (Lk 22:27), says our Lord Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church.

Christ’s Vicar is “involved with it”, all right.

DeSelby wrote:

15.) While the inviolable freedom of persons and their obligation to follow the requirements of their conscience remains secure, in the search for re-establishing unity there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation. There is a question of achieving together the will of Christ for His own and the design of God for His Church by means of a common quest by the Churches for a full accord on the content of the faith and its implications. This effort is being carried on in the current theological dialogue. The present document is a necessary stage in this dialogue.

But, "apparently", this was all just a bad language day for our fearless ecumenical warriors; and merely a "recasting of the Church’s oft-misunderstood exclusive claim to no salvation outside of her ecclesiastical structure in a more positive light."

No, not really; “apparently” was a fitting tongue-and-cheek response along the lines of “why bother”?

But I’m glad you appreciate the Roman Pontiff being a “fearless ecumenical warrior”, I rather think the shoe fits. He is fearless in face of the condemnations coming from inside and outside the Church.

Rather “shocking” and scandalous, that.

Ok, Mike, I have read your above two responses (thank you, by the way) a couple of times and now I'm going to sleep on it; I'll start to respond tomorrow. I also want to read/reread the magisterial documents you listed again so as to have them fresh in my memory.

I'll respond tomorrow when I get a chance. I look forward to it.




... Well ... OK, maybe there's one thing I could address really quick:

MRyan wrote:

DeSelby wrote:Or this?

35.) By excluding for the future all proselytism and all desire for expansion by Catholics at the expense of the Orthodox Church, the commission hopes that it has overcome the obstacles which impelled certain autocephalous Churches to suspend their participation in the theological dialogue and that the Orthodox Church will be able to find itself together again for continuing the theological work already so happily begun.

Actually, there is nothing wrong with the wording of any of this in my opinion; it's quite clear. (With the exception that, somewhere along the line, "proselytism" became exclusively a bad word.)

Nothing wrong; then what’s the complaint?

The complaint is with what it clearly says, in the part I highlighted; though you may think to tell me that I'm misunderstanding some particular nuance, and that's fine if you do.


But like I said, I'll start to respond tomorrow.

Thanks, DeSelby.

Looking forward to your response and a constructive exchange.

In the best of times and in the worst of times The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is protected perfectly and for all time by the promise of Jesus and the Holy Spirit concerning matters of Faith and morals that must be believed by all Catholics. This is all we need to know and embrace as true yesterday, today and tomorrow. One could come close or actually commit the never forgiven sin of speaking against the Holy Spirit if this promise is challenged, denied or not totally accepted as eternally true. Asking questions, seeking knowledge and understanding are all good in the pursuit of living, loving and defending our faith but NEVER at the expense personal deviation from official Church teaching. As example if what I post here is in any way incorrect, I will immediately and humbly admit my error and confess it if sin is involved.


" Can. 750 §1. “A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.”
Teachings under the Universal Magisterium require the full assent of faith no less so than teachings under Papal Infallibility or Conciliar Infallibility. The obstinate rejection or obstinate doubt of any such teaching is the sin of heresy. And if any set of infallible teachings necessarily implies that any assertion on any matter of faith or morals is false, the faithful are obliged to reject that false assertion. For whenever any assertion or theological proposition is incompatible with any infallible teaching, the adherence to that assertion is also the sin of heresy. The sin of heresy can be committed directly, by the denial or refusal to believe an infallible teachings, or it can be committed indirectly, by the adherence to an assertion that is fundamentally incompatible with any infallible teaching or set of infallible teachings.

In addition, everything taught by Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture is per se an infallible teaching of Divine Revelation (material dogma). Therefore, the moral law requires the faithful to adhere to all such teachings, which are clear and definitive, even if not yet taught infallibly by the Magisterium. The early Church fathers all argued against the heresies and heretics of their day, even though most of these heresies did not contradict any particular infallible magisterial pronouncement.

The infallible teachings of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium are never open questions."

Jesus did not leave His people vulnerable to the doctrinal whims of competing leaders. Rather, He built the Church on the solid foundation of the apostles (cf. Eph. 2:19-20). He gave the Church His Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, to enable her to be "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). Despite the cultural winds that have blown through the ages, the faithful have always had a visible, easily identifiable magisterial "rock" on which they could safely stand in all seasons. As the Catechism provides, quoting Vatican II:

"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ" [Dei Verbum, no. 10]. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

Jesus declared that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church (cf. Mt. 16:18-19). This protection from evil includes protecting the Magisterium from teaching error. Regardless of who the Pope and bishops in union with him may be at a particular time in Church history, the faithful have Christ's Word that the Holy Spirit will guide His Magisterium in preserving and teaching the truth.



Matthew 12:31-32, Jesus says to the Pharisees,
"Therefore I say to you, every sin andblasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come"

Just a couple of points:

George wrote:
The sin of heresy can be committed directly, by the denial or refusal to believe an infallible teachings, or it can be committed indirectly, by the adherence to an assertion that is fundamentally incompatible with any infallible teaching or set of infallible teachings.

How can the sin of heresy be committed “indirectly”? If “the adherence to an assertion that is fundamentally incompatible with any infallible teaching” is obstinate, than it is heresy. If the adherence is not obstinate, then it is not the sin of heresy.

George wrote:
In addition, everything taught by Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture is per se an infallible teaching of Divine Revelation (material dogma). Therefore, the moral law requires the faithful to adhere to all such teachings, which are clear and definitive, even if not yet taught infallibly by the Magisterium. The early Church fathers all argued against the heresies and heretics of their day, even though most of these heresies did not contradict any particular infallible magisterial pronouncement.

If a doctrine is "not yet taught infallibly by the Magisterium", then it is not “definitive”, and does not require the adherence of Divine and Catholic Faith, but religious submission of the mind and will.

That's an excellent observation about the early Fathers, though I would add that the early Church was concerned almost exclusively with combating the heresies related to the secondary, and often not-yet defined, dogmas on the nature(s) and will(s) of our Lord which are directly related to the primary dogmas on our Lord (the Son of God) and His Incarnation/Redemption.

Thank you Mike,

Your posts are always much appreciated,

Just one example of what I thought might be indirect Heresy, would be the denial of a Canonized Saint for whatever reason. Whether one personally thought that person did not deserve to be a Saint or for whatever reason they might have, I know such people.


In the second case , I thought that ongoing Sacred Tradition must be believed whether taught infallibly or not. I do not understand what you mean by:

"and does not require the adherence of Divine and Catholic Faith, but religious submission of the mind and will."

MRyan wrote:I suppose I should not be too surprised that you are “shocked”; for the shock for some folks just never ends. Its like a cottage industry for the gift that just keeps on giving; with the main gift-giver being the Roman Pontiff who can say and approve some of the most “shocking” things; at least for certain types in the East and the West who prefer the language of “return or be damned” over that of “restoring full communion” and (brace yourself) “Sister” and “Particular” Churches.

Let me attempt to clear something up at the start; I'm not averse in the least to genuine ecumenism (and by that I mean an ecumenism "of the return"), or even the use of a certain amount of more, let's say, "diplomatic" language. So, it's not a question of preferring “return or be damned” to “restoring full communion” in discussions with, in this instance, the Orthodox; it's a question of maintaing dogmatic truth in those discussions. Caritas in Veritate.

MRyan wrote:Its as if you are discovering these “shocking” revelations of “heresy at worst and treachery at best” for the first time since the release of the Balamand declaration almost 20 years ago, and the close of VCII some 47 years ago; the documents of which form the doctrinal basis for the joint theological commission and its rather bold policy initiative.

It's as if I'm discovering it for the first time because, frankly, I am, with regard to Balamand. When Balamand was released, and climbing the Hit Parade, it wasn't on my radar. Certainly, for some years now, I've known of its existence and what it contained, in general; but it always seemed like something best left ignored, like those "romance novels" you find in grocery stores.

MRyan wrote:And of course, you misunderstood what I said, for my “not exactly precise” description of the “poorly worded ... ecumenical language” of the declaration was not a “brush off” at all, but a recognition that such imprecise language is almost always taken in the worst possible context by those predisposed to do so, rather than it being understood in the context of the magisterial documents (promulgated both before and after the declaration) which form the doctrinal basis for the official policy it represents.

Alright, but for better or worse I can think of one reason some people are predisposed to take it in a poor context in the first place: that being, the actions of those in authority. This can be gone into latter.

MRyan wrote:In other words, those who find the declaration “shocking”, and are scandalized by the fact that the Pope approved it and encourages its implementation, seem to be totally unfamiliar with Ut Unaum Sint, Lumen Gentium, Unitatis Redintegratio, Dignitatis Humanae, the Apostolic Letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente, the CDF Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of the Catholic Church Understood as Communion, the Pastoral Letter Orientale Lumen, etc.

If those who are so easily “shocked” were familiar with these magisterial and pastoral documents, they would understand Balamand; and, though they might not agree with the official policy, they would have at least some basis for understanding the doctrine of “Sister Churches”, for example, and why the Church seeks full communion through means other than proselytization and the conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation.

But here we also come to the problem of simply defining "proselytization." I'm assuming it's used here in a negative sense to mean something along the lines of "forced conversion." But when has "forced conversion" ever been the official policy of the Church? And proselytization can also just mean, in fact its primary meaning, "to seek conversion". Why shouldn't we do that?

You have to wonder if all the parties involved are working from the same definition.

Interestingly, from Wikipedia, I found this under "proselytism":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytism

Some Christians define "proselytism" more narrowly as the attempt to convert people from one Christian tradition to another; those who use the term in this way generally view the practice as illegitimate and in contrast to evangelism, which is converting non-Christians to Christianity. An Eastern Orthodox writer, Stephen Methodius Hayes has written: "If people talk about the need for evangelism, they meet with the response, 'the Orthodox church does not proselytize' as if evangelizing and proselytism were the same thing." However the boundary varies from group to group. For instance the Moscow Patriarchate has repeatedly strongly condemned what it describes as Catholic proselytism of Orthodox Christians within Russia and has therefore opposed a Catholic construction project in an area of Russia where the Catholic community is small. The Catholic Church claims that it is supporting the existing Catholic community within Russia and is not proselytizing.[5][6][7] Recently, the Balamand declaration on proselytism was released between the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches.

And then in a link to one of the citations [5], Catholic Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz says,
http://www.zenit.org/article-3698?l=english

For our part, over the last eleven years we have repeatedly asked the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church to bring to confrontation concrete facts and begin at last to evaluate concrete facts of Catholic proselytism in Russia. We want to know where, when, under which circumstances and who has engaged or is engaging in activity of proselytism. Unfortunately as yet we have received no information whatever in this regard, just as we have received no reply to our invitation to sit around a table and define the significance of the term "proselytism."

So, it's not just me. But then again, he seems awfully concerned that there may be proselytism going on. But what is proselytism?

MRyan wrote:Sede's like Foot cannot understand the true meaning of "Particular churches" (let alone understand canon law), for example, but the rank and file should have no problem with the doctrine once it is understood (and yes, it takes a diligent effort to understand it - but its worth the effort). And if they still don't understand, they should trust the Magisterium. (I will return to this important subject of Particular Churches shortly).

Yes, DeSelby, I also realize that the same people who find Balamand “shocking” and representing “heresy at worst and treachery at best”, typically find every single aforementioned magisterial and pastoral document just as shocking and just as heretical or treacherous. So their feigned shock of Balamand and the scandal taken from the Pope's commitment to its implementation seems rather contrived, don’t you think?

Depends. I wasn't feigning anything. But, your point is taken.

MRyan wrote:On the other hand, it can also be said, I guess, that those who are so easily "shocked" by the teachings and actions of our Popes have been in a state of perpetual shock since VCII.

I'm just trying to put the pieces together with what came before; that's all.

I'll get to the remainder of your first post, and then to your second post as soon as I am able to. At least this is a start.

If what Mike said to me in his little rant in the other post, currently second on the ticker to the left, he has absolutely no problem with us telling the Orthodox the following:

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...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.'...that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

If such is, indeed, the case, then "what's the argument here?" If the Orthodox have true implicit faith/submission in the Papacy & Primacy, great! If not, then let us at least save our own immortal souls. Agreed?

January 19, 2012

Pope says Uniting Christians requires Conversion... Link Below



http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7txqPT5PizIAFVpXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0ajQzN2E2BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMwRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1JDRjAyOV84NA--/SIG=139snbrmn/EXP=1329507818/**http%3a//www.cathnewsusa.com/2012/01/pope-says-uniting-christianity-requires-conversion

Many Saints died and became Saints because of their efforts in the Conversion of Sinners , not in spite of them. Of course, Conversion can not be arrogant or mean spirited and must display intense love and charity but can and should at at times have zeal and fervor. It is not as if we should be wimps and reduce the fullness of faith we possess to a watered down passive retreat into implied false compromise of our very essence.

DeSelby wrote:

MRyan wrote:I suppose I should not be too surprised that you are “shocked”; for the shock for some folks just never ends. Its like a cottage industry for the gift that just keeps on giving; with the main gift-giver being the Roman Pontiff who can say and approve some of the most “shocking” things; at least for certain types in the East and the West who prefer the language of “return or be damned” over that of “restoring full communion” and (brace yourself) “Sister” and “Particular” Churches.

Let me attempt to clear something up at the start; I'm not averse in the least to genuine ecumenism (and by that I mean an ecumenism "of the return"), or even the use of a certain amount of more, let's say, "diplomatic" language. So, it's not a question of preferring “return or be damned” to “restoring full communion” in discussions with, in this instance, the Orthodox; it's a question of maintaing dogmatic truth in those discussions. Caritas in Veritate.

Btw, you can read Caritas in Veritate, the Encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI, here:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

Furthermore, Pope JPII specifically said that there can be NO ecumenical “compromise” when it comes to dogmatic truth, so I’m not sure where you are going with this.

But why do think the current ecumenism is averse to an ecumenism "of the return", when it has been made manifestly clear that the goal of ecumenism is a return to the full communion of the first millennium; and when it has also been made clear that “The communion of all particular Churches with the Church of Rome” IS “a necessary condition for unity”? In other words, there can be no unity without a “return” to full communion.

Of course, your definition of “return” is where you part company with the Church which does not see a “return” to full communion in terms of “conversion” from a false religion to the true religion, or from the Orthodox Church to the Roman Catholic Church. Under your “conversion” playbook, ecumenism “of the return” appears to be nothing less than repudiation and then an “absorption” or “fusion” of the Orthodox Church (and its individual members) into the Roman Catholic Church.

If, as Pope Benedict XVI teaches, the Eastern Orthodox churches are genuine “particular Churches, insofar as they are ’part of the one Church of Christ’, [and] have a special relationship of ‘mutual interiority’ with the whole, that is, with the universal Church, because in every particular Church ‘the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and active’", then a return to full communion does not demand a “conversion” in the sense of a repudiation of the Orthodox faith and an absorption into the Roman Catholic Church (though material error must be corrected), but it does demand an “interior conversion” that eventually heals the open public wound of their existence; that wound being the lack of one of the necessary “internal constituents” of a particular church, which is “communion with the universal Church, represented by Peter's Successor”.

The problem, the way I see it, is the reluctance (or refusal) by some to accept what the Church teaches with respect to the status of the Eastern Orthodox as genuine particular churches, as well as the reluctance or refusal to acknowledge the lifting of the excommunications, with the Church coming to view the historical problems with the secondary dogmas such as papal primacy as non-obstinate (good-faith) error.

In other words, DeSelby, so long as one clings to the “tradition” which sees the Orthodox as formal heretics and schismatics (and thus, the requirement for “conversion” to the RCC), then there will never be progress in this discussion. This does not mean that the historical condemnations and “ecumenism of the return” were wrong, but only that the Church, as is her divine prerogative, has decided that this approach has outlived its usefulness and that its time for a change, both on the pastoral and doctrinal levels. By “doctrine” I mean an emphasis on the doctrine as set forth by Pope JPII on “Sister Churches”, which of course includes the doctrine of Particular Churches.

I’ll leave it there for now, except to comment on this:

DeSelby wrote:
But here we also come to the problem of simply defining "proselytization." I'm assuming it's used here in a negative sense to mean something along the lines of "forced conversion." But when has "forced conversion" ever been the official policy of the Church? And proselytization can also just mean, in fact its primary meaning, "to seek conversion". Why shouldn't we do that?

We should do that, as the Church teaches. There will never be full communion with the one true Church of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation, without interior conversion.

George Brenner wrote:
Just one example of what I thought might be indirect Heresy, would be the denial of a Canonized Saint for whatever reason. Whether one personally thought that person did not deserve to be a Saint or for whatever reason they might have, I know such people.

Quite so, but please keep in mind that only recently (1998) did the Church "settle" this matter by affirming that the "canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts)" belongs to "those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed" (CDF, "Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei").

In other words, until 1998, theologians were free to speculate on whether the traditional teaching on the infallibility of canonizations is a "dogmatic fact", and thus, that it must be held definitively. Some malcontent die-hards still argue that the CDF, pope approval or not, is not "infallible", so they are free to dissent from this teaching, and dissent they do.

Technically, they cannot be accused of formal heresy for this dissent, though they can certainly be suspected of heresy.

George Brenner wrote:
In the second case , I thought that ongoing Sacred Tradition must be believed whether taught infallibly or not. I do not understand what you mean by:

"and does not require the adherence of Divine and Catholic Faith, but religious submission of the mind and will."

Yes, but the necessity of belief in revealed truth, or in "those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity" which are to be held "definitively", is not the same belief (Divine and Catholic Faith), which is adherence:

with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act." To this paragraph belong all those teachings ­ on faith and morals - presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. Such teachings are, however, an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect. They are set forth in order to arrive at a deeper understanding of revelation, or to recall the conformity of a teaching with the truths of faith, or lastly to warn against ideas incompatible with these truths or against dangerous opinions that can lead to error.

A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore "tuto doceri non potest". (Ibid)

OK?

George, as a point of clarification let me add that:

8. With regard to the nature of the assent owed to the truths set forth by the Church as divinely revealed (those of the first paragraph) or to be held definitively (those of the second paragraph [defining or non-defining]), it is important to emphasize that there is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable character of the assent which is owed to these teachings. The difference concerns the supernatural virtue of faith: in the case of truths of the first paragraph, the assent is based directly on faith in the authority of the Word of God (doctrines de fide credenda); in the case of the truths of the second paragraph, the assent is based on faith in the Holy Spirit's assistance to the Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium (doctrines de fide tenenda).

And, with regard to:

doctrines belonging to the third paragraph [i.e., all those teachings on faith and morals - presented as true or at least as sure, even if they have not been defined with a solemn judgment or proposed as definitive by the ordinary and universal Magisterium] ... Such teachings are … an authentic expression of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops and therefore require religious submission of will and intellect, one can point in general to teachings set forth by the authentic ordinary Magisterium in a non-definitive way, which require degrees of adherence differentiated according to the mind and the will manifested; this is shown especially by the nature of the documents, by the frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or by the tenor of the verbal expression.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm

God Bless you, Mike


Your last two posts to me helped very much.

You da Man !!!

In addition, Mike the link you provided for me in your last post,
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm

also provides much insight into the inner workings of the Holy Spirit in Our Catholic Faith and begs that no one enter into the dangers of private interpretations.

MRyan wrote:

DeSelby wrote:This?

33.) It is necessary that the Churches come together in order to express gratitude and respect towards all, known and unknown, bishops, priests or faithful, Orthodox, Catholic whether Eastern or Latin—who suffered, confessed their faith, witnessed their fidelity to the Church, and, in general, towards all Christians, without discrimination, who underwent persecutions. Their sufferings call us to unity and, on our part, to give common witness in response to the prayer of Christ "that all may be one, so that the world may believe" (John 17:21).

Fidelity to what "Church"? (And has St. Josaphat RSVP'd?)

Fidelity to the one true Church of Christ, of which the Orthodox are true particular churches, even if they are not in full communion. Appeals to the “over my dead body” type of rapprochements typical of the saints of old (times change) cannot justify the condemnation of the Pope for spearheading the current initiatives to restore full communion.

Mike, is "The Church Christ" the same thing as the "Catholic Church," or is it ("The Church of Christ") a broader entity?

I'm more than willing to pour over voluminous citations from you (and I appreciate the effort it must take on your part), but it can sometimes become a tangled affair. So to help move forward, I would be very much obliged if you at first attempt to answer this question with as few words as possible (before quoting documents). I hope you that you are not offended by my asking of you this favor.

BTW, I've read the documents you've provided about "particular Churches;" I just want to make sure we're not talking past one another.

MRyan wrote:

DeSelby wrote:

MRyan wrote:So, of course, any “Declaration” produced by the “Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church” which aggressively sought to lessen well-entrenched historical tensions often marked by mutual acrimonious insults and the requisite anathema, was sure to get into trouble for recognizing past abuses (seems we are forever apologizing), by calling Orthodox churches “Sister Churches” instead of "Dissident Orientals", by condemning uniatism as a method of reunion, by lending some perspective to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus by downplaying the “negative” and by openly recognizing that elements of sanctification and truth exist outside of her visible structure (but never apart from her), and thus by affirming that particular Orthodox churches serve as means (conduits) of grace and salvation would be sure to solidify Pope JPII’s place in the ultramontane and rad-trad “JPII, we love you” fan club.

Actually, with regards to what I highlighted here, point 13 of the Balamand Declaration completely contradicts you:

13.) In fact, especially since the Pan-Orthodox Conferences and the Second Vatican Council, the rediscovery and the giving again of proper value to the Church as communion, both on the part of Orthodox and of Catholics, has radically altered perspectives and thus attitudes. On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to His Church—profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops—cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches. In this context it is clear that re-baptism must be avoided.

Ooops.

Believe it.

Sorry, DeSelby, but there is no contradiction; you have simply failed to recognize the proper distinctions:

9. In order to grasp the true meaning of the analogical application of the term communion to the particular Churches taken as a whole, one must bear in mind above all that the particular Churches, insofar as they are "part of the one Church of Christ"(38), have a special relationship of "mutual interiority"(39) with the whole, that is, with the universal Church, because in every particular Church "the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and active"(40). For this reason, "the universal Church cannot be conceived as the sum of the particular Churches, or as a federation of particular Churches"(41). It is not the result of the communion of the Churches, but, in its essential mystery, it is a reality ontologically and temporally prior to every individual particular Church.

This communion exists especially with the Eastern orthodox Churches, which, though separated from the See of Peter, remain united to the Catholic Church by means of very close bonds, such as the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, and therefore merit the title of particular Churches(74). Indeed, "through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature"(75), for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present(76) (CDF, LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON SOME ASPECTS OF THE CHURCH UNDERSTOOD AS COMMUNION, 1992)

(38) Decr. Christus Dominus, n. 6/c.
(39) JOHN PAUL II, Address to the Roman Curia, 20-XII-1990, n. 9: "L'Osservatore Romano", 21-XII-1990, p. 5.
(40) Decr. Christus Dominus, n. 11/a.
(41) JOHN PAUL II, Address to the Bishops of the United States of America, 16-IX-1987, n. 3: as quoted, p. 555.
(74) Cf. Decr. Unitatis redintegratio, nn. 14 and 15/c.
(75) Ibidem, n. 15/a.
(76) Cf. supra, nn. 5 and 14.

Are you beginning to believe?

Believe it.

Continuing, Balamand says (section 13):

On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to His Church—profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops—cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches.

Is this because it properly belongs to the "Church of Christ", as opposed to the Catholic Church, or the "Orthodox Church"?

What is the distinction I am missing?

MRyan wrote:As I said, Balamand is too easy a target; so “let's see you go after the Church's true magisterial instruments for the transmission of the truth”, with the Balamand declaration being but a reflection thereof.

That’s where the real issue and the point of contention lies, and we both know it.

If the Balamand Declaration is a "reflection of Church's true magisterial instruments for the transmission of the truth," then it should, I would expect, contain nothing that is not irreconcilable with the latter.

That being the case, why do you call it "too easy a target"?

DeSelby,

Thank you for those thoughtful responses and questions.

If you don't mind, I'm taking a Sunday break from the subject, and will return to it tomorrow (I hope).

I appreciate your patience.

MRyan wrote:DeSelby,

Thank you for those thoughtful responses and questions.

If you don't mind, I'm taking a Sunday break from the subject, and will return to it tomorrow (I hope).

I appreciate your patience.

Not at all; enjoy your Sunday rest. Take as long as you need.

Columba wrote:
Ok Mike; minus the sarcasm (intended to highlight what I perceive to be double standards in your argument) I feel justified in drawing the fire away from myself and focussing your grievence at the author of the text in question, namely: Pope Eugene IV.

MRyan wrote:
Your sarcasm (about my alleged “grievance”) once again only redounds to your discredit by farcically and scandalously placing the entire Catholic Church and its universal teaching and tradition on baptism of blood in blatant HERETICAL opposition to your erroneous understanding of Pope Eugene IV’s definition.

Mike it wasn't my intenetion to get into a baptism of blood/baptism of desire debate; it was rather my intention to start at the beginning by determining what the Church infallibly teaches concerning her membership, who is and who is not recognized as a member. Belief (or not) in baptism of desire and baptism of blood follows from ones understanding of what actually constitutes Church membership. As we already know, no one ouside this Church can be saved and our problem now is determning (by means of the Church's own teaching) who in fact is inside and who is outside.

We have at the very least, 3 infallible pronouncements on the matter and as you have already acknowledged that the definitions themselves (and not the attendant descriptions) have the guarantee of infallibility, we should be able to determine from those pronouncements what in fact the Church is teaching as an infallible truth.
Your quote to Jehanne: "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."

The attendant descriptions surrounding the dogma "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" do not then supercede the actually dogmatic definiion, the very purpose of which was define clearly in word (not just to bishops and priests but to the whole Church throughout the world) what is being proposed for belief.

It is clear from the earliest times (long before any dogmatic declarations) that the absolute necessity of incorporation into the Mystical Body of Christ (by Baptism) was held as de fide and contained within the deposit of faith and in accord with sacred scripture and tradition. We know from the earliest times who was, and who was not, considered as belonging to the Church and this excluded from membership not only the obvious candidates but also catechumens who were refused Christain burial. From this we can deduce what the mind of the Church was concerning membership and since then we've had several dogmatic affirmations upholding this traditional definition. Therfore it could never be possible that a definitve (infallible) statement could be issued to the contrary; i.e, that non-corporal members of the Church exist. We can have speculation, we can have boudary pushing or (misplaced) hope, but we can never have a dogmatic declaration affirming that which does not belong to the deposit of faith.

MRyan wrote:
Will you deny that “the Church accepts and embraces” baptism of blood “as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools”?

Of course I accept that the Church embraces these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools as do I and all who consider themselves Cathoilc. To date though, there haven't been any canonized martyrs who have been definitively found to have died without Baptism.

1) Pagans, Jews and all heretics and schismatics must be “joined with her” (the Church) before death overtakes them if they are to be saved.

Question: Is the non-baptized Catholic convert and martyr who sheds his blood while professing his faith in Jesus Christ one of the “pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics” referred to by Pope Eugene IV?

He happens to be one of those the Church considers outside the fold and holds no jurisdiction over, thus, it is even permissible that he be Baptized at the hands of one of those pagans, Jews, heretics or schismatics; so yes, Pope Eugene IV while making it clear that there can be no excuse of invincible ignorance or hope of baptism of desire for all the above mentioned, makes no exceptions either for those as yet not on the barque.

Question: Given that only those who have been Baptized into the Church can become formal heretics or schismatics, is the non-baptized Catholic convert and martyr who sheds his blood for Christ one of the “heretics and schismatics” who leaves the Church, and thus, does not “remain” in the ecclesiastical body”?

I refer the right honourable gentleman to my previous reply. Not only has he not left the Church via heresy, schism or apostacy, he hasn't even entered in.

Question: Since one must be Baptized before one “can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation”, isn’t it clear that Pope Eugene is referring to “pagans and Jews” as well as the “Arians, Manichaeans, Monophystes” and all of those he identifies by name as heretics and schismatics immediately prior to his solemn prescription, who (the latter of which) have not remained within the bosom and unity of the Church, and who partake of the Sacraments in their false sects?

It is indeed clear who is being referred to and likewise the unbaptized catechumen cannot profit by receiving the sacraments as cannot the Orthodox. What say you?

Question: Did Pope Eugene “define” that it is necessary for salvation that the non-baptized, non-heretic, non-schismatic, non-pagan, non-Jew, Catholic convert and martyr who sheds his blood while professing his faith in Jesus Christ must first “remain” in the “ecclesiastical body” by first being joined with her in Baptism so that he may receive an eternal recompense for his heroic act of charity in shedding his blood for our Lord in his new found Faith?

Where?

Where did he say it is not necessary?

If so, why did he solemnly affirm the decree of Basel and that of the Council of Constance which condemned the scandalous and erroneous assertion that holds “To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity, some other union is needed”?

No other union is needed save that of supernatural charity which flows from supernatural faith received at Baptism. The unbaptized do not posses supernatural virtue
One can forfiet ones reward through failure in charity even post Baptism. Where does Pope Eugene say that one need not be baptized to abide in charity?

If so, why did Pope Pius XII, who defined the specific criteria for “membership” in the ecclesiastical Mystical Body in his Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, also, with the same Magisterial authority (of which Pope Pius XII, in Humani generis declared “For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: ‘He who heareth you, heareth me’"), eight years after Mystici Corporis Christi declared in a Papal allocution:

“An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open.”

I do not know why Pope Pius XII said this but we know that it's impossible for a new born to make an act of love and while it is theoritically possible for one at the age of reason to do so, nevertheless is it practically possible? One would be reading what is not there if suggesting that Pope Pius was affirming a practical possibiliy for the unbaptized adult while he was reafirming the absolute spiritual destitution of the unbaptized infant, otherwise, to what end is it necessary to receive sacramental Baptism? Is it merely because Our Lord instituted it without reason and affirmed without reason that, "Unless a man be born again of WATER and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

Make note, columba, that “to be a member of Christ” presupposes, as a matter of logical infallible necessity, that one is “joined with” the ecclesiastical body; if not by the grace of Baptism in re, than in voto by “the bond of charity” that is present in baptism of desire and baptism of blood, as the Church ASSURES us through her authentic “ordinary teaching authority”. So YES, it is absolutely necessary to be united with the ecclesiastical Body; outside of which there is no salvation

Mike, you are arguing from the position that your grasp or interpretation of Church teaching has already been detrermined as the true one, i.e, that two types of membership exist; one tangible and one intangible. I'm of the mind that the latter is a modernistic invention that has gained approval (but not authoritative approval beyond that of apologetic lip service) and has grown because it was left unchecked. Pope Pius X labored hard to extinguish it while it was still in its infancy but in the last hundred years or so it has spread like a contagion (a bit like the swine flu/bird flu; all hype with no substance). I make that analogy because there seems to be a concerted effort these days to seperate physical reallity from spiritual reality when in fact, according to many saints; Thersa, Francis, Martin, Francis de Sales, to name but a meagre few), spiritual reality can be seen reflected in the physical world. Can a human body have life without the soul? Or, can one be attached to the Church spiritually without being in its body?
All things contrary to the natural law are considered sinful,; things such as murder, where one divides unnaturally those things that God has joined together, namely, the body and the soul. How this doesn't apply to the tradiional understanding of the Church as a unity of visible members under a visible head -both body and soul- united in one faith and one practice I do not know but it could explain how allowing for this seperation (of visible and non-visible membership) has implications also for the very head itself. Maybe the SSPX, SSPV, GMRI, even the brothers Dimond, are the progressive outcome of a "Church" that has, in redefining its boundaries, reaped what it has sown or permitted to be sown.

I am asked why God permits this error among Christians, since He is God and the strongest cannot stand against Him? I answer by a dictum of theology taken from the
Book of Wisdom (11:17) : "By what things a man sinneth, by the same also is he
tormented." (St Vincent Ferrer, sermon on the end times)

This is why the 1917 Code of Canon Law declares:

“Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.” (Canon 737)

"Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized." (Canon 1239. 2)

Yes, the highlighted section is a departure from tradition.

The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of Desire." (The Sacred Cannons, by Rev. John A. Abbo, S.T.L., J.C.D. and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan, A.M., LL.B., S.T.D., J.C.D.)

MRyan wrote:
Now where did the Church, her canonists and her theologians get that idea? Could it be that they were simply affirming with Pope Eugene IV the same doctrine the Church “accepts and embraces … according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools”?

I don't think they were affirming Pope Eugene IV.

I will not cite the 1983 Code or the CCC this time around for it is becoming more and more evident that you reject the authority of these authentic organs of magisterial teaching as being corrupted, just like Vatican Council II. But it really doesn’t matter because you reject the entire tradition, the universal teaching, and the authentic teaching authority of the Church on baptism of blood, anyway.

I don't think I'm rejecting tradition when I believe (as does Jehanne) that all the elect will convert to the One True Church before death and that the omnipotent God will see to it that all of them will receive the waters of regeneration even if that be miraculously.

Hello Columba,

I came upon the following link that seems to mirror in one click including the individual comment sections below much of the back and forth posts by all of us.

No salvation Outside the Catholic Church should not be so difficult should it?

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7kusnUFP8m0AuR5XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0ajJtYmszBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1JDRjAyOV84NA--/SIG=124hcl7tp/EXP=1329729068/**http%3a//rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/233096.php

DeSelby wrote:
Mike, is "The Church Christ" the same thing as the "Catholic Church," or is it ("The Church of Christ") a broader entity?

I'm more than willing to pour over voluminous citations from you (and I appreciate the effort it must take on your part), but it can sometimes become a tangled affair. So to help move forward, I would be very much obliged if you at first attempt to answer this question with as few words as possible (before quoting documents). I hope you that you are not offended by my asking of you this favor.

BTW, I've read the documents you've provided about "particular Churches;" I just want to make sure we're not talking past one another.

Not at all offended.

"The Church of Christ" IS “the same thing as the ‘Catholic Church’", in the same way the Catholic Church IS the Mystical Body of Christ.

columba wrote:
Mike it wasn't my intenetion to get into a baptism of blood/baptism of desire debate; it was rather my intention to start at the beginning by determining what the Church infallibly teaches concerning her membership, who is and who is not recognized as a member. Belief (or not) in baptism of desire and baptism of blood follows from ones understanding of what actually constitutes Church membership. As we already know, no one ouside this Church can be saved and our problem now is determning (by means of the Church's own teaching) who in fact is inside and who is outside.

It doesn’t matter if it is not your “intention” to address the baptisms of blood/desire, for you simply cannot ignore these universal doctrines by pretending they don’t exist as authentic teachings of the Magisterium and by pretending they are “opposed” to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and your rigorist and errant interpretation thereof which says that no one can be incorporated, sanctified nor saved without actual water baptism.

Even when Pope Pius XII affirms baptism of desire in an official magisterial document, for example, you simply scratch your head and look for some escape route which can explain how the very pope who defined the essential elements of membership in the Church can be so confused and so totally unaware of his blatant so-called contradiction.

I guess it was just coincidence that Pope Pius XII’s definition of Church membership was taken verbatim from St. Robert Bellarmine, another confused Doctor of the Church who just happened to teach the common doctrines of baptism of blood/baptism of desire.

It is simply amazing to me that in your response and rebuttal to the teaching of Pope Pius XII which says “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”, and specifically to my example of the same “act of love” found in the unbaptized martyr’s “heroic act of charity in shedding his blood for our Lord in his new found Faith”, you can actually say:

No other union is needed save that of supernatural charity which flows from supernatural faith received at Baptism. The unbaptized do not posses supernatural virtue

Just so it’s clear, you are saying that an unbaptized adult does not (and cannot) possess the supernatural virtue of charity “which flows from supernatural faith received at Baptism” because God confines the transmission of the theological/supernatural virtues to the instrument of water Baptism alone.

As such, you hold, He absolutely refuses to infuse these same virtues into the on-the-spot faith-filled martyr (whose conversion was made possible only by the grace of God) who professes his love and faith in our Lord to his last dying breadth.

In other words, the faith-filled martyr does not and cannot possess true Charity … for it is NOT POSSIBLE that he can possess that supernatural charity which vivifies his new-found faith, for God refuses to infuse His supernatural gifts apart from the actual instrument of water baptism.

And yet, in your direct response to Pope Pius XII’s teaching that “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”, you said:

I do not know why Pope Pius XII said this but we know that it's impossible for a new born to make an act of love and while it is theoretically possible for one at the age of reason to do so, nevertheless is it practically possible?

So what was impossible: “The unbaptized do not posses supernatural virtue ... receive[d] at Baptism”, now becomes “theoretically possible”?

There may be hope for you yet.

You “do not know why Pope Pius XII said this”? Really? Would you like to venture a guess? I mean, has the thought ever crossed your mind that perhaps our esteemed Pontiff didn’t just make it up, or was having a bad day and got really confused?

Is it “practically possible” for our Lord to infuse the supernatural virtues in a soul who, “previously to the sacrament of Baptism” responds to his grace of conversion by begging “for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow … whereby He maketh us just ... each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one's proper disposition and co-operation … through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting”? (Trent, Sess. VI, Ch. VII)

“[P]ractically possible?

Pius XII: “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”.

CCC, 1258 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.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

The Church has spoken.

I don’t have the energy to respond to the rest right now, but I may soon take it up again. Seems we’ve been over this for what seems like a few hundred times already.

columba wrote:
We have at the very least, 3 infallible pronouncements on the matter and as you have already acknowledged that the definitions themselves (and not the attendant descriptions) have the guarantee of infallibility, we should be able to determine from those pronouncements what in fact the Church is teaching as an infallible truth.

Yes, “we” should, meaning our interpretation must be consistent with the Church’s stated (magisterial) understanding of her owned defined dogmas, otherwise “we” becomes “me”, as in:

“I determine from those pronouncements what in fact the Church is teaching as an infallible truth”; and “It is my interpretation of the clear words, ‘as it is written’, that is infallibly true, and no other, even when the living magisterial authority of Church, and all of her saints, Doctors and theologians, tell me otherwise”.

Sounds very familiar.

columba wrote:
Your quote to Jehanne: "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."

The attendant descriptions surrounding the dogma "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" do not then supercede the actually dogmatic definiion, the very purpose of which was define clearly in word (not just to bishops and priests but to the whole Church throughout the world) what is being proposed for belief.

Your error is to rashly assume that the attendant description telling us why the shedding of blood for Christ is to no avail for those who have not remained within the unity and bosom of the Church would “supersede the actual dogmatic definition” if her own (and the common understanding) would suggest (as she actually teaches) that this does not in any way preclude a good-faith non-baptized martyr from being joined to the Church (who is “in” the Church – St. Fulgentius) as a result of a supreme act of true supernatural charity.

As Pope Eugene IV would make absolutely clear, he

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. (Council of Florence, Session 22 -- 15 October 1435)

Is it or is it not true that the Church “accepts and embraces” baptism of blood “according to [its] true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools”?

If you say it isn’t true, you are willfully blind to the truth.

columba wrote:
It is clear from the earliest times (long before any dogmatic declarations) that the absolute necessity of incorporation into the Mystical Body of Christ (by Baptism) was held as de fide and contained within the deposit of faith and in accord with sacred scripture and tradition.

And it is still true today, though it was never held as an intrinsic necessity such that the grace of baptism could not be conferred without actual ablution. From the earliest days of St. Cyprian (who gave us the first formula for Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus) the Church held that God is not exclusively bound by His Sacraments to effect the same end.

columba wrote:
We know from the earliest times who was, and who was not, considered as belonging to the Church and this excluded from membership not only the obvious candidates but also catechumens who were refused Christain burial. From this we can deduce what the mind of the Church was concerning membership and since then we've had several dogmatic affirmations upholding this traditional definition. Therfore it could never be possible that a definitve (infallible) statement could be issued to the contrary; i.e, that non-corporal members of the Church exist. We can have speculation, we can have boudary pushing or (misplaced) hope, but we can never have a dogmatic declaration affirming that which does not belong to the deposit of faith.

Your transition from citing (correctly) the Church’s long held prescription against the Christian burial of non-Baptized catechumens, who had the unfortunate distinction of being classed with the ranks of the apostates, heretics, schismatics and those whose notorious crimes gave grave scandal, to “since then we've had several dogmatic affirmations upholding this traditional definition” was pretty crafty since you insinuate that the “dogmatic definition” (which you do not cite) on “membership” affirms the perennial custom that was finally overturned by St. Pope Pius X and Benedict XV with the promulgation of the 1917 code of canon law.

And now you have dilemma, for if your assertion is true (that the discipline forbidding Christian burial to non-baptized catechumens was an affirmation of the infallibility of the dogma that allegedly says that only those who are incorporated into the Church by water baptism can be among the elect), then the Church not only, as you allege, instituted a discipline related to the doctrine of salvation that “is a departure from tradition”, but stands in violation of her own dogma by declaring "catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized" (Canon 1239. 2) because “Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all” (Canon 737).

Again, “The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of Desire." (The Sacred Cannons, by Rev. John A. Abbo and Rev. Jerome D. Hannan)

You are of course totally wrong, for the long-standing custom against such burials had nothing to do with the truth of baptism of blood/baptism of desire, but only with stressing the importance of Baptism while avoiding the perception that all such catechumens are members of the Church.

And the fact that the very same supreme authority of the Church holding universal Primacy over her own laws and disciples reversed this long-standing custom to place the emphasis on mercy rather on the perception of a severe justice, proves that your flawed “interpretation” and your not-so-veiled accusation of error against the Magisterium is totally without merit, and not without its own scandal, which is precisely this:

We can have speculation, we can have boundary pushing or (misplaced) hope, but we can never have a dogmatic declaration affirming that which does not belong to the deposit of faith.

You call the long-standing Magisterial teaching of the Church on baptism of blood "speculation" and once again affirm belief in the non-Catholic notion that says only that which has been dogmatically defined requires assent (in this case, religious submission of the mind and will), thereby implying that you refuse such assent because the Church's so-called "speculation" may in fact be opposed to her own definitive dogmas.

The latter is heresy.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Will you deny that “the Church accepts and embraces” baptism of blood “as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools”?

Of course I accept that the Church embraces these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools as do I and all who consider themselves Cathoilc. To date though, there haven't been any canonized martyrs who have been definitively found to have died without Baptism.

I didn’t ask you if “the Church embraces these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools”, I asked you if “the Church accepts and embraces” baptism of blood “as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools”?

You refuse to provide a direct answer to a very direct question. You then obfuscate even more by playing the “prove the negative” game whereby you tell us you will not believe what the Church teaches on baptism of blood, as it is “commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools” unless it can be “definitively” proven that there are martyrs in heaven who “died without Baptism”.

And the very fact that the Church’s own approved martyrology has several such instances of baptism of blood is no “definitive” proof at all, for you remain free to call it all a fancy legend having no merit whatsoever. In other words, the very fact the Church not only allows the Faithful to believe that there are martyrs in heaven who died without water baptism, but presents such evidence in her own Liturgical books, and teaches the same doctrine in her own magisterial documents and laws, does not satisfy your definition of a “definitive” proof that requires “submission” to the teaching authority of the Church – for the Church may in fact be in error on a doctrine directly related to our salvation.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
1) Pagans, Jews and all heretics and schismatics must be “joined with her” (the Church) before death overtakes them if they are to be saved.

Question: Is the non-baptized Catholic convert and martyr who sheds his blood while professing his faith in Jesus Christ one of the “pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics” referred to by Pope Eugene IV?

Question: Given that only those who have been Baptized into the Church can become formal heretics or schismatics, is the non-baptized Catholic convert and martyr who sheds his blood for Christ one of the “heretics and schismatics” who leaves the Church, and thus, does not “remain” in the ecclesiastical body”?

He happens to be one of those the Church considers outside the fold and holds no jurisdiction over, thus, it is even permissible that he be Baptized at the hands of one of those pagans, Jews, heretics or schismatics; so yes, Pope Eugene IV while making it clear that there can be no excuse of invincible ignorance or hope of baptism of desire for all the above mentioned, makes no exceptions either for those as yet not on the barque.

Not only has he not left the Church via heresy, schism or apostacy, he hasn't even entered in.

And of course, you made all of that up for nowhere does Pope Eugene IV say any such thing, especially with respect to the good-faith non-baptized martyr who is NOT one of the “pagans” or “Jews”, who profess a false belief, and he is NOT one of the “heretics and schismatics” who has not “remained” in the Church as a result of his heresy and schism.

You just say, “Too bad, that’s the way I read the dogma and that’s the way the Church has always understood these words, no matter what she or the common tradition says to the contrary, just ask ME”!

In other words, you made it up out of whole cloth.

I need another break.

Mike,

You reject the "theological schools" which Florence affirmed. You've told me this here recently, for you reject this:

"Everyone is bound to believe something explicitly...even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or he would send some preacher of the faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20)." (The Disputed Questions on Truth, q.14, a.11)

Let's just assume that there are unbaptized martyrs in Heaven. So what? They still died as Catholics, within the "bosom and unity" of the One True Church. End of story.

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

You reject the "theological schools" which Florence affirmed. You've told me this here recently, for you reject this:

"Everyone is bound to believe something explicitly...even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. For it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation, provided that on his part there is no hindrance. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or he would send some preacher of the faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20)." (The Disputed Questions on Truth, q.14, a.11)

I neither “rejected” nor “told” you any such thing. In fact, I provided a detailed response to this false allegation to which you haven't responded, but simply repeat the falsehood, as is your style.

Jehanne wrote:Let's just assume that there are unbaptized martyrs in Heaven. So what? They still died as Catholics, within the "bosom and unity" of the One True Church. End of story.

Tell that to columba. Was I even addressing you? Must you interject yourself into these exchanges even when you have nothing to add except to provide some caustic statement to the effect of “who cares”?

Seriously, stop interjecting yourself into these exchanges with your condescending digs and false allegations -- and go be a “somebody” on your infamous blog.

Well, this is a message board, and I can post where I please. You don't own this board, Mike; it belongs to Rasha.

As for Baptism of Blood, I know that Columba agrees that all such martyrs, if they die within the "bosom and unity" of the Church are destined for Paradise. As for Saint Thomas' teaching, which was that of all the theological schools, if you accept such, great! My apologies.