Re: Another version of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

George Brenner Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:01 pm

Just so no one gets too frustrated, You can ask the Salvation question of 25 different people, including Religious and get 37 different answers ( not a Type O ). This in itself is a crisis of Faith.

With references listed below:

Has the position of the Roman Catholic Church changed?

At first glance, the Church has changed its teachings about whether a non-Catholic can be saved:
In the past, the Church seems to have taken an exclusivist position on the validity of other faith traditions. Numerous popes in the Middle Ages seem to have stated clearly that anyone who is "outside" the Church, who is "not subject to the Roman Pontiff" or is "not living within the Catholic Church" cannot be saved and will not attain Heaven.
Numerous statements since the 1960's seem to have stated clearly that the Church has switches to an inclusivist position. They now believe that non-Catholics can have indirect access to salvation, but that their faith may well place serious roadblocks on the path to salvation.
The church tackles this apparent conflict in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Items 846 and 847 attempt to harmonize ancient and recent statements on salvation of non-Christians.

Section 846 by making the following points:
In ancient times, the Church Fathers often said that "Outside the [Catholic] Church there is no salvation."
The church has always taught that:
"...all salvation comes from Christ...through the [Catholic] Church..."
"...the [Catholic] Church...is necessary for salvation..."
"...Christ ...affirmed...the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door."
Those who realize the Church's role and who "refuse either to enter it or to remain in it" cannot achieve salvation or attain Heaven after death.

This is what various popes meant when they said that there was no salvation outside the church.

Section 847 states that:
The above "...is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church."
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience -- those too may achieve eternal salvation." 9
This attempt at harmonizing leaves many Anglicans, Muslims, Protestants, Wiccans, and followers of other religions in an awkward situation. Many know of the claims of the Roman Catholic Church and reject them in favor of the teachings of other groups. That would seem to eliminate any possibility for them to be saved and attain Heaven, according to the Roman Catholic Church.

The Catechism's explanation is difficult to harmonize with very specific statements by past popes, which were often referred to by the phrase : "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" ("Outside the Church there is no salvation"). According to theSaint Benedict Center, this doctrine of the Catholic Faith "...was taught By Jesus Christ to His Apostles, preached by the Fathers, defined by popes and councils and piously believed by the faithful in every age of the Church." 13
Pope Innocent III: "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.
Pope Boniface VIII: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." From his Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.
Pope Eugene IV: "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." From his Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

Protestant denominations and the Anglican Communion would presumably fall under the category of "heretics and schismatics." Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, etc would presumably be considered "Pagans."
An attempt to harmonize Pope Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam Bull is available online. It raises a number of points. One is that this bull was directed at Catholics in France during the 14th century who were not submitting to the Pope. Thus, it would not apply to Protestants. 11

References:

"Pope Innocent III," Catholic Encyclopedia, at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08013a.htm
"Medieval Sourcebook: Boniface VII, Unam Sanctam, 1302," at: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html
"Unam Sanctam" Catholic Encyclopedia, at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15126a.htm
"The Council of Florence (AD 1438-1445)," at: http://www.catholicism.org/pages/florence.htm
"Dogmatic Constitution on the Church - Lumen Gentium. Chapter 1: "The Mystery of the church," Sections 14 to 16,"at: http://www.christusrex.org
"The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: Dedicated to 'The Immaculate'," at: http://www.christusrex.org/www1
"Decree on Ecumenism: Unitatis Redintegratio," (1964) at: http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v13.html
"Declaration on the relation of the Church to non-Christian religions: Nostra Aetate," at:http://www.christusrex.org/www1/
"Catechism of the Catholic Church," Doubleday (1994). Read reviews or order the 2nd edition of the Catechism safely from Amazon.com online book store
" 'Dominus Iesus' on the unicity and salviific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church" at:http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/
"The Unam Sanctam 'Problem' Resolved: Can Non-Catholics Be Saved?," at:http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/debate9.htm
The term "pluralism" is ambiguous. Here, it seems to refer to the belief that all religions are true. Sometimes, the word is used to refer to the fact of religious diversity.

DeSelby Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:11 pm

Has the position of the Roman Catholic Church changed?

[...]
An attempt to harmonize Pope Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam Bull is available online. It raises a number of points. One is that this bull was directed at Catholics in France during the 14th century who were not submitting to the Pope. Thus, it would not apply to Protestants. 11

[...]
11"The Unam Sanctam 'Problem' Resolved: Can Non-Catholics Be Saved?," at:http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/debate9.htm

Historicism.

columba Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:25 am

Mike.

To finish my point:

MRyan wote:
I have absolutely no fear of being in "error" on this, because the Church alone is the authentic interpreter of the deposit of faith, and not you. As I asked you more than once, please provide just one approved theologian, a saint, a Doctor or pope, who, since the Council of Trent, agrees with your rigorous out-of-context interpretation that has Pope Eugene IV solemnly "rejecting" the Church's and tradition's teaching on baptism of blood, and/or who agrees with your rigorous and errant interpretation of Sess. 6, Ch. 4, which has Trent allegedly "rejecting" any notion of sanctification without the Sacrament of baptism.

Your insistance on me providing a theologian, saint, Doctor or pope who, since the Council of Trent, agrees with my interpretations is totally irrelevant for the simple reason that Trent itself actually upholds my position. Irrelevant also for the reason that the 1,500 yrs Church history before Trent shows clearly what the Church has taught dogmatically cconcerning the necessity of sacramental Baptism (the only means by which one can enter the Church) for salvation.
You speak as if the time period between Trent to the present is the only context in which we can consider Church teachig, This is absurd. Even so, no athoritive teaching since Trent has disagreed with the necessity of sacramental Baptism for salvation. The closest we can get in contradiction to this is in the CCC (Re George's latest post for reference) and this is ambiguous enough to be of no value in determining the Churches true position on anything.

You cannot affirm what I affirm, and neither can you be assured that your position is true; because yours represents a constant battle of demonic confusion which sees the error-prone Catholic Church (on a matter of salvation, no less) engaged in an epic never-ending battle with herself where "competing magisteriums" fight it out over conflicting versions of Catholic doctrine; and, you would have us believe, she has been fighting with herself, with her saints, with her Doctors and with her theologians for going on two millennium.

I cannot affirm what you affirm because the dogmatic definitions of the Church throughout her whole history do not affirm what you affirm. The demonic confussion happens at present to be in the very place where one should be looking and expecting to receive clarity. I see no competing magisteriums. I do see -on ocassion- magisteriums contadicting their own teaching (locally) but never to the extent (like present) where this can be found in her own (universal) teaching documents where, as in the CCC, we can find an affirmation of constant Church teaching being stated clearly and a few lines later find it totally contradicted. I don't believe that God blessed man with a rational mind that he should lay it aside and unquestioningly follow contradiction.

You want sarcasm? Don't tempt me.

Off course I won't. How could you think such a thing? Smile

MRyan Thu Feb 09, 2012 5:43 pm

columba wrote:

columba wrote:
Mike your argument is not with Columba; its with Pope Eugene IV.

I thought you of all people would bow to the authority of a Supreme Pontiff.
As you know, Columba, I am not averse to a healthy dose of sarcasm. It has its rightful place ... and I use it often.

But this type of sarcasm only demonstrates the extreme paucity of your own thinking, for in truth, I have absolutely no argument with Pope Eugene IV for I actually know how to read his words in the clear context of his Bull. In other words, I understand his words "as they are written", and as they are and always have been understood by the Church; and I have the magisterial authority of the Church behind me to confirm this truth.

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.

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.

The only ones with a grievance with the Pope are those such as yourself who refuse to listen to the Ecclesia docens. Fitted with one-directional blinders the more enlightened remnant plows right ahead with their shallow, rigorous and private interpretation of Pope Eugene's words that not only fails to distinguish between an infallible dogmatic definition and contingent suppositions and explanations, but takes great liberty with the defined and the non-defined parts of the Bull by making non-supportive assumptions about the meaning of the words, all the while ignoring the substance and context of the Bull and ignoring the complimentary authoritative teachings of the ordinary magisterium, as if they are and can be opposed on a doctrine relating directly to a matter of salvation.

The latter proposition of which, I consider patently heretical.

Before examining, once again, the solemn dogmatic prescription, we will keep in mind that you maintain that Pope Eugene IV infallibly “defined” as part of his dogmatic definition on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus that “No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church”.

As such, you hold, this solemn “definition” precludes, as a matter of divine and Catholic Faith, the non-baptized Catholic convert and martyr (who sheds his blood while professing his faith in Jesus Christ) from being “joined with” Christ (and His Body) in the bond of charity since, you allege, there can be no bond of charity with Christ or His Body (and thus, no sanctification or the remission of sins) except by way of being externally joined to the ecclesiastical Church in the Sacrament of baptism.

We will also keep in mind that it is the same Pope Eugene IV who approved the following conciliar decree from the Council of Basel (Session 22, 15 October 1435):

The holy general synod of Basel, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, representing the universal church, for an everlasting record … especially condemns and censures in the book [‘of friar Augustine of Rome, archbishop of Nazareth’], the assertion which is scandalous, erroneous in the faith and offensive to the ears of the pious faithful, namely: […] Also, the propositions, and ones similar to them, which the synod declares are contained in the articles condemned at the sacred council of Constance, namely the following… 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.

We will also keep in mind that the same Pope Eugene IV also approved the following conciliar declaration from the same Session 22 of Basel:

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

No one, Columba, no one disputes the universal consensus “from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters” of baptism of blood and the unifying bond of charity; on the contrary, the Church “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.”

In fact, even the Saint Benedict Center “admits unanimity among those fathers and doctors who have spoken about baptism of blood” (Brian Kelly).

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”?

Keeping all of this in mind, let’s move ahead to Florence (six years removed from Basel), presided over by the same Pope Eugene IV, and the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441, and review, once again, the subject text of the Bull and ask some relevant questions:

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?

2) “[T]hat so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier.”

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”?

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?

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?

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”?

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.”

And in the same Mystici Corporis Christi, when Pope Pius XII declares “(57) … Finally, while by His grace He provides for the continual growth of the Church, He yet refuses to dwell through sanctifying grace in those members that are wholly severed from the Body”, can he possibly mean to include as “members that are wholly severed from the Body” 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”, of whom Pope Pius XII says: “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism”?

Doesn’t Pope Pius XII’s magisterial assertion that “An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism” sound remarkably similar to Pope Eugene IV’s solemn condemnation of the scandalous and erroneous assertion that says “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”?

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.

That is what is meant by St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, when he taught, in Liber II, Caput XXX, the common doctrine:

“Boni Catehecumeni sunt de Ecclesia, interna unione tantum, non autem externa” (Good catechumens are of the Church, by internal union only, not however, by external union).

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)

And with respect to the latter, this is why a “Commentary on the Code” affirms:

"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.)

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”?

Imagine that (sarcasm alert!).

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.

This is getting too lengthy, so I’ll end it here.

Jehanne Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:44 pm

Columba,

You ought to accept what Mike says in his lengthy essay, for he definitively is speaking the mind of both Pope Eugene IV and the infallible Magisterium of the Church. A martyr who dies for Christ in the "bosom and unity" of the Church, even if that person dies without Baptism, will go straight to Paradise. However, we are "at least allowed to hope" that all such martyrs leave this life with the Baptism seal than without it, but their eternal fate in Heaven is, regardless, absolutely secured. Such a teaching is absolutely de fide, and the Saint Benedict Center has never disputed that fact.

Mike's problem is that he would have us believe that the "exception proves the rule," that because someone could potentially gain Paradise vis-à-vis maytrdom without Baptism, someone "proves" that such an avenue is open to all the unbaptized. Such is clearly not the teaching of the Church, and it is heretical and absurd to claim that it is. To claim that an Orthodox, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, etc. who, by their own free will, either deny the Blessed Trinity, the Incarnation, a single Catholic dogma and/or the Primacy of Peter could still, in a way "unknown to them," somehow, implicitly, believe in truths which they explicitly deny is the height of absurdity.

What Mike rarely quotes is what I will continue to quote on this forum:

At the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517) Pope Leo X reaffirmed the teaching of Boniface VIII: “Where the necessity of salvation is concerned all the faithful of Christ must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, as we are taught by Holy Scripture, the testimony of the holy fathers, and by that constitution of our predecessor of happy memory, Boniface VIII, which begins Unam Sanctam.”

What could be clearer?

George Brenner Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:32 pm

Also pre Vatican II and CLEAR:

[quote]Pope Pius XII, writing in the Mystici Corporis Christi, set forth the truth that the visible Catholic Church is actually the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the true Church of God spoken of in the Scriptures, when he brought out the fact that the members of the Catholic Church recognizable as such, or, in other words, the members of the visible Catholic Church, are the true and only members of the true Church. He wrote:

Actually only those are to be included (annumerandi) as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body (neque a Corporis compage semet ipsos misere separarunt), or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.
There was another point magnificently clarified by the late Sovereign Pontiff in the text of the Mystici Corporis Christi. That was the teaching on the necessity of the Catholic Church for the attainment of eternal salvation. The following passage gives precious instruction on the status of those who are linked to the true Church by an unconscious or merely implicit desire or intention to enter this society.

As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church (qui ad adspectabilem, non pertinent Catholicae Ecclesiae compagem), solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the "great and glorious Body of Christ," and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation (in quo de sempiterna cuiusque propria salute securi esse non possunt). For even though by an unconscious desire and longing (inscio quodam desiderio ac voto) they have a certain relationship (ordinentur) with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with Us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ (in una Iesu Christi Corporis compagine coniuncti), may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love. Persevering in prayer to the Spirit of love and truth, We wait for them with open and outstretched arms to come not to a stranger's house, but to their own, their father's home.[quote]

MRyan Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:56 pm

Jehanne wrote:Columba,

You ought to accept what Mike says in his lengthy essay, for he definitively is speaking the mind of both Pope Eugene IV and the infallible Magisterium of the Church. A martyr who dies for Christ in the "bosom and unity" of the Church, even if that person dies without Baptism, will go straight to Paradise. However, we are "at least allowed to hope" that all such martyrs leave this life with the Baptism seal than without it, but their eternal fate in Heaven is, regardless, absolutely secured. Such a teaching is absolutely de fide, and the Saint Benedict Center has never disputed that fact.

The last statement is simply FALSE. Brian Kelly might affirm this truth, but the St. Benedict Center NH rejects any doctrine which says that baptism of blood, in and of itself, is sufficient for salvation. The fact that they recognize baptism of blood as a common, traditional and accepted doctrine of the Church is irrelevant; they REJECT the doctrine of baptism of blood as being efficacious for salvation without water baptism in that it cannot make one an adopted son and a true heir to the kingdom.

In other words, the St. Benedict Center NH does not deny that baptism of blood is capable of making one a friend of God in sanctifying grace, but it denies that it can effect the translation to the state and grace of abiding and divine adoptive son-ship (substantial Habitation) without water baptism.

Time and again I've cited the verbatim proof texts from the official website, which you have steadfastly ignored while allegedly "rebutting" these clear texts with irrelevant links to other articles, some of which are the very articles that prove my point.

If Br. Andre is still your superior, ask him - he'll confirm for you what the true position of the St. Benedict Center NH actually is.

Jehanne wrote:
Mike's problem is that he would have us believe that the "exception proves the rule," that because someone could potentially gain Paradise vis-à-vis maytrdom without Baptism, someone "proves" that such an avenue is open to all the unbaptized. Such is clearly not the teaching of the Church, and it is heretical and absurd to claim that it is. To claim that an Orthodox, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, etc. who, by their own free will, either deny the Blessed Trinity, the Incarnation, a single Catholic dogma and/or the Primacy of Peter could still, in a way "unknown to them," somehow, implicitly, believe in truths which they explicitly deny is the height of absurdity.

Jehanne, thank you once again for a short-sighted and flawed characterization of my position, which is also that of the Church.

If baptism of blood is a true doctrine (and you say it is infallibly true), than “such an avenue is open to all the unbaptized”, and the exception to baptism proves the rule that you say is a carte blanche prescription for heresy (though the doctrine is most certainly abused).

You go on to explain that one of the “exceptions” for baptism of blood that you reject as heretical and absurd is the case of the BAPTIZED Orthodox child who reaches the age of reason (or the adult) who professes the Faith of his received tradition and of the first seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church (and Catholic faith in all of the primary dogmas), and understands the Eastern Orthodox tradition on papal primacy as one of honor, and not one of universal jurisdiction. And because he “doubts or denies” this secondary dogma, he is ipso facto guilty of obstinately doubting or denying an article of faith; which, you say, cannot be a material error made in good-faith.

And, if he were to shed his blood for Christ, it is heretical and absurd to hold that his Baptism, his Faith and his desire to do the will of God in all things, can save him.

And we also know why you are a sedevacantist.

Furthermore, Jehanne, I never said that I believe that a “Jew, Muslim, etc. who, by their own free will, either deny the Blessed Trinity, [or] the Incarnation” can be saved while doubting or rejecting a primary dogma of the faith.

I agree with St. Thomas who teaches that belief in the object of one’s faith (our Lord) must be made explicit (even if by internal inspiration at death’s door); but I also accept the authority of the Church in this matter when she teaches that even if the Jew or Muslim does not “know” the truth of our Lord and His Church (that there is salvation in no other), if he is of good will and not culpable for his ignorance (they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it" {CCC 846}), then the revealing light of grace may yet shine upon him that he too may be saved, but never outside the Church.

Jehanne wrote:
What Mike rarely quotes is what I will continue to quote on this forum:

At the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517) Pope Leo X reaffirmed the teaching of Boniface VIII: “Where the necessity of salvation is concerned all the faithful of Christ must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, as we are taught by Holy Scripture, the testimony of the holy fathers, and by that constitution of our predecessor of happy memory, Boniface VIII, which begins Unam Sanctam.”

Why you suggest that I “rarely quote” this infallible dogmatic definition is beyond me; for I have never shied away from proclaiming and defending the defined definitions on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

But your spurious accusation suggests that I hide from or disagree with the definition in Unam Sanctum on the necessity of “all the faithful of Christ” to “be subject to the Roman Pontiff”, when I have gone round and round with you and others on this subject without end.

In fact, the example of the Eastern Orthodox child who reaches the age of reason and of his own free will accepts the received tradition and faith of his parents and his church only serves to demonstrate your own flawed thinking in this matter; for you insist that this same child, provided he does not fall into obstinate (formal) heresy, remains a “true Catholic” subject to the pope, while the very definition of membership in the Church excludes him from external membership and incorporation with the visible ecclesiastical Church of Christ!

As the universal Catechism teaches:

"Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who – by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'" (CCC 837)

So now you’ve made a distinction (without admitting it) for what being a “true Catholic” means with respect to grace and salvation (one that Foot rejects); which holds that one may be united to the Church in voto, when not in re; that is, of course, unless you want to deny free will.

Your “true Catholic” definition that you say applies to the Eastern Orthodox adolescent who of his own free will professes the Orthodox faith and remains in his particular Orthodox church (without falling into obstinate heresy), recognizes that one may be “true Catholic” at least in desire, while professing the essential dogmas of the true faith and having the implicit desire to enter the true Church.

You see, Jehanne, you recognize (while fighting it) that external visible membership in the one true Church of Christ is not the sole requisite for being a member of Christ, and thus, being united to His Body – the Church.

On the other hand, you also seem to want to suggest that your “true Catholic” definition that applies to the Eastern Orthodox adolescent who professes the Orthodox faith and remains in his particular Orthodox church without falling into obstinate heresy, cannot apply if the same Eastern Orthodox adolescent, "of his own free will", doubts or denies the dogma of papal primacy.

In other words, you seem to want to equate such doubt or denial (that necessarily entails "free will") with "obstinate" heresy, while rejecting any notion of material error when accepting one's faith tradition which entails doubting or denying the secondary dogma of papal primacy of universal jurisdiction, while accepting the Orthodox belief in the primacy of honor.

You seem to be confused.

Jehanne wrote:
What could be clearer?

Precisely.

MRyan Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:26 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:Columba,

You ought to accept what Mike says in his lengthy essay, for he definitively is speaking the mind of both Pope Eugene IV and the infallible Magisterium of the Church. A martyr who dies for Christ in the "bosom and unity" of the Church, even if that person dies without Baptism, will go straight to Paradise. However, we are "at least allowed to hope" that all such martyrs leave this life with the Baptism seal than without it, but their eternal fate in Heaven is, regardless, absolutely secured. Such a teaching is absolutely de fide, and the Saint Benedict Center has never disputed that fact.
The last statement is simply FALSE. Brian Kelly might affirm this truth, but the St. Benedict Center NH rejects any doctrine which says that baptism of blood, in and of itself, is sufficient for salvation.

Jehanne,

Just to be clear, I am not disputing that one may hold that God will provide the Sacrament to all of His elect, I am objecting to your false characterization of the position of the St. Benedict Center on baptism of blood as if they agree with your proposition that holds that "A martyr who dies for Christ in the 'bosom and unity' of the Church, even if that person dies without Baptism, will go straight to Paradise", and that "their eternal fate in Heaven is, regardless, absolutely secured. Such a teaching is absolutely de fide, and the Saint Benedict Center has never disputed that fact."

On the contrary, the St. Benedict Center NH absolutely rejects baptism of blood (that it secures salvation) as "de fide", and disagrees with the Church that baptism of blood "assures" and is efficacious for salvation, for the reasons I've highlighted on numerous occasions.

Jehanne Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:08 pm

Mike,

Brian & I are both T.O. members of the St. Benedict Center, and we are both in good standing with the Center, so far as I know. If the Center and Brother Andre, in particular, thought that Brian's article was contrary to Father Fenney's theology, it is absurd to say that they would have allowed the publication of it on their website.

You are, once again, "pounding on open doors," and are far too engrossed into "proving negatives." You've agreed that an Orthodox child, having reached the age of 14, can at least possibly be guilty of formal heresy and schism, especially, if our Lord Himself personally revealed to that person the truths of the Catholic Faith, Papal Primacy, in particular, in such a way as to make that Orthodox child culpable for his/her unbelief. You've also rightly noted that the heresy on the part of the Orthodox child can be material, hence, that person would not be fully culpable. I agree with both possibilities.

Question is, "So what?!" The Orthodox, all of them, without exception, are schismatic; whether such be formal or material, is something that I cannot say. Does any of this effect the mission of the St. Benedict Center to preach the conversion to the One True Faith & One True Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved.

As for Pope Pius XII, he got, at "least implicitly," a few things wrong. For starters, a child who is fully baptized to Orthodox parents is fully Catholic. (What else could he/she be?) And, if that is the case, then only heresy and/or schism could separate that child from the One True Church. We can speculate when (and if) such an even occurs (probably, around age 14), but once again, such is irrelevant to our mission and our obligation to proclaim and preach to the Orthodox schismatics and Protestant heretics their absolute obligation to convert to the One True Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and submit themselves to the Roman Pontiff.

By the way, virtually all Protestants and Orthodox would find your position to be assuming. Most would happily admit that they are "obstinate heretics" and/or "obstinate schismatics." Question is, "What would it take for you to be convinced that an Orthodox individual was a formal schismatic?" What would that person have to say to you to convince you of this? Or, do you believe that formal heresy and/or schism on the part of an Orthodox individual is something that is impossible to ever establish?

MRyan Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:17 pm

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Brian & I are both T.O. members of the St. Benedict Center, and we are both in good standing with the Center, so far as I know. If the Center and Brother Andre, in particular, thought that Brian's article was contrary to Father Fenney's theology, it is absurd to say that they would have allowed the publication of it on their website.

Jehanne,

Unfortunately, this is just another logical syllogistic fallacy that says by the very fact that you and BK are T.O. members in “good standing” with the St. Benedict Center (if you say so), then it would be “absurd” to hold that the St. Benedict Center would allow a position contrary to its documented official position (and “opinion”) that holds that baptism of blood is NOT sufficient for salvation without water baptism. As I pointed out, Br. Andre recognizes the validity of the Church's teaching on the salvific efficacy of baptism of blood, so why would he attempt to prevent you or anyone else from holding it? (He is not so accommodating with sedeism).

Your statement vis-à-vis the position of the St. Benedict Center on baptism of blood is patently false; and your absurd logical fallacy cannot make it true.

Jehanne wrote:You are, once again, "pounding on open doors," and are far too engrossed into "proving negatives." You've agreed that an Orthodox child, having reached the age of 14, can at least possibly be guilty of formal heresy and schism, especially, if our Lord Himself personally revealed to that person the truths of the Catholic Faith, Papal Primacy, in particular, in such a way as to make that Orthodox child culpable for his/her unbelief. You've also rightly noted that the heresy on the part of the Orthodox child can be material, hence, that person would not be fully culpable. I agree with both possibilities.

Question is, "So what?!" The Orthodox, all of them, without exception, are schismatic; whether such be formal or material, is something that I cannot say. Does any of this effect the mission of the St. Benedict Center to preach the conversion to the One True Faith & One True Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved.

So what? I’m not the one who wrote that it is:

“[H]eretical and absurd” to “claim that an Orthodox … who, by their own free will … deny … the Primacy of Peter could still, in a way ‘unknown to them,’ somehow, implicitly, believe in truths which they explicitly deny is the height of absurdity."

It is so heretical and so absurd that you now say that you “agree” with the reasons why the Church does not presently hold the members of the particular Eastern Orthodox churches (for example) culpable in their doubt or denial of certain secondary dogmas – because these reasons might actually be true!

Well, break out the fine china!

And what’s with this “having reached the age of 14” mantra that I never said, but you keep repeating as if “14” is the magic number for having reached the age of reason -- by which one can be culpable for his own actions and acts of faith?

Furthermore, you are the one who falsely claimed that the Church teaches that members of the Orthodox “cannot” fall into obstinate heresy, not me. This is just one more of your non-sequiturs that serve only to obfuscate and to divert our attention from the truth.

Jehanne wrote:As for Pope Pius XII, he got, at "least implicitly," a few things wrong. For starters, a child who is fully baptized to Orthodox parents is fully Catholic. (What else could he/she be?) And, if that is the case, then only heresy and/or schism could separate that child from the One True Church. We can speculate when (and if) such an even occurs (probably, around age 14), but once again, such is irrelevant to our mission and our obligation to proclaim and preach to the Orthodox schismatics and Protestant heretics their absolute obligation to convert to the One True Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and submit themselves to the Roman Pontiff.

Way to throw Pope Pius XII under the bus for allegedly “at ‘least implicitly’” getting “a few things wrong”, as if he suggested that an infant baptized to Orthodox parents, who receives the habit of Catholic faith, with the act of faith being supplied by the Church, is NOT a Catholic. He suggested ("implicitly" or otherwise) no such thing.

What you are studiously ignoring is the definition of Church membership by which being “fully incorporated” into the Catholic Church is defined as such:

"Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who – by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. (CCC 837)

No child or adult who of his own free will professes the Orthodox faith and belongs to a particular Orthodox church can be “fully incorporated into the society of the Church”; for such a one is NOT a member of the ecclesiastical structure of the Church of Christ, period; though they may be united to her still by virtue of their Baptism, valid sacraments and the bonds of faith and charity.

So to suggest that Pope Pius XII, the very pope who defined membership in the Mystical Body, “implicitly” got it wrong ... is “absurd”.

Jehanne wrote:By the way, virtually all Protestants and Orthodox would find your position to be assuming. Most would happily admit that they are "obstinate heretics" and/or "obstinate schismatics." Question is, "What would it take for you to be convinced that an Orthodox individual was a formal schismatic?" What would that person have to say to you to convince you of this? Or, do you believe that formal heresy and/or schism on the part of an Orthodox individual is something that is impossible to ever establish?

No, the Protestants and Orthodox would reject out of hand any notion of their being “truly Catholic” while professing faith in their respective received traditions.

And no, they would most certainly not admit to being "obstinate heretics" and/or "obstinate schismatics", but would reject such accusations. The Orthodox, for example, may never admit to being in material error about their understanding of papal primacy, but that does not make them “obstinate heretics”.

But here you go again pounding the “open door” of trying to establish how one might know when a Protestant on Orthodox member is obstinate in his doubt or denial of a secondary dogma – why don’t you stop with the "speculations" and leave it alone; and, with the Church, preach the Gospel truth of the one true Church of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation?

The divine mission of the Church has not changed – and the Church has not relented in her divine mission to restore the separated brethren to full communion.

Jehanne Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:38 pm

Mike,

An infant born to Orthodox parents who has been validly baptized is fully Catholic and is completely and absolutely a member of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. Yes or no? If so, only heresy, schism, or some other sin that results in excommunication could separate that individual from the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. True or false?

When our Orthodox child "comes of age" (around age 14, per the SSPX -- of course, this, admittedly, varies from person to person, but sometime after the Age of Reason, which is around age 7) and embraces his parents false beliefs, that individual falls into heresy, whether it be material or formal. True or false?

So, once again, "what's your point here?"

As for the St. Benedict Center, my views are my own, as you, yourself, have said.

MRyan Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:55 pm

Jehanne wrote:
An infant born to Orthodox parents who has been validly baptized is fully Catholic and is completely and absolutely a member of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. Yes or no?

Yes.

Jehanne wrote:If so, only heresy, schism, or some other sin that results in excommunication could separate that individual from the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. True or false?

False. While only heresy, schism, or apostasy can wholly sever the baptized from the Mystical Body of Christ, to be a member of the ecclesiastical Church of Christ (which IS the Mystical Body) requires a profession of the same faith, participation in the same sacraments and visible union and communion with the baptized faithful under the jurisdiction and authority of the Roman Pontiff.

Since you will never tire of citing the following dogmatic definition, here it is again:

At the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517) Pope Leo X reaffirmed the teaching of Boniface VIII: “Where the necessity of salvation is concerned all the faithful of Christ must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, as we are taught by Holy Scripture, the testimony of the holy fathers, and by that constitution of our predecessor of happy memory, Boniface VIII, which begins Unam Sanctam.”

Any member of a particular Eastern Orthodox Church who does not profess the Catholic faith whole and inviolate is NOT a member of the faithful subject to the Roman Pontiff, for such membership and subjection must be, by definition, external.

So the point is, while the external bonds that unite one to the ecclesiastical body may be severed by circumstances beyond one’s control, the internal bonds that incorporate one to Christ will remain until such time an obstinate heresy and/or schism is manifested.

So the point is, there are radical Feeneyites who maintain:

1) That there is no salvation outside of external membership in the one true Church of Christ – PERIOD

2) But who also recognize that a member of the Orthodox Church who has reached the aged of reason and professes the faith of his parents and his received tradition, may not be culpable, or may be confused about papal primacy and/or any of the other secondary dogmas/doctrines; that he is still a “member” of the Roman Catholic Church by virtue of his Baptism and is subject to the Pope until he falls into obstinate heresy/schism

This is patently false, for it rejects the very definition of Church membership the Feeneyite has staked the dogma of salvation to; by which no one at all can be saved.

You appear to want to fall into the same trap; that of making it appear that one's external incorporation into the ecclesiastical body is irrelevant to one's initial habit of faith and Catholic incorporation received in Baptism, which cannot be lost until the mortal sins of obstinate heresy and/or schism are manifested.

So the point is, this is false.

So the point is, you are on record as saying that an "implicit" external submission to the Roman Pontiff is heretical and absurd.

And as I told Foot, you can’t have it both ways.

Jehanne wrote:
When our Orthodox child "comes of age" (around age 14, per the SSPX -- of course, this, admittedly, varies from person to person, but sometime after the Age of Reason, which is around age 7) and embraces his parents false beliefs, that individual falls into heresy, wether it be material or formal. True or false?

Technically speaking, “material heresy” is non-culpable innocent error, so it is not heresy per se, though the erroneous belief may be heretical.

What happens to a Catholic who falls into “material heresy”?

Nothing? That’s what I thought. So, what’s your point?

Jehanne wrote:
As for the St. Benedict Center, my views are my own, as you, yourself, have said.

The “point is” that you erroneously, and repeatedly, pass off your views on baptism of blood as belonging to the St. Benedict Center, NH, when this is patently false. This is not a matter of “opinion”, it is an objective fact.

Jehanne Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:23 pm

MRyan wrote:So the point is, while the external bonds that unite one to the ecclesiastical body may be severed by circumstances beyond one’s control, the internal bonds that incorporate one to Christ will remain until such time an obstinate heresy and/or schism is manifested.

This is heretical and absurd. You have acknowledged that a validly baptized infant born to Orthodox parents is fully Catholic after his/her baptism, but that individual, later on, loses membership in the Church through some mechanism "beyond one's control." What mechanism? Excommunication? How does one who has been fully incorporated into the Church at birth through Baptism lose his/her membership without ever sinning? One can cease to be Catholic without sin?

MRyan wrote:But who also recognize that a member of the Orthodox Church who has reached the aged of reason and professes the faith of his parents and his received tradition, may not be culpable, or may be confused about papal primacy and/or any of the other secondary dogmas/doctrines; that he is still a “member” of the Roman Catholic Church by virtue of his Baptism and is subject to the Pope until he falls into obstinate heresy/schism

Nicely put. This is de fide.

MRyan wrote:So the point is, you are on record as saying that an "implicit" external submission to the Roman Pontiff is heretical and absurd.

We're making progress here. The who idea of "implicit external submission to the Roman Pontiff" is heretical and absurd, when an individual in question, would explicitly deny that he/she has any such "submission." Do you believe that it is possible for an Orthodox, Protestant, etc. to have "implicit submission" to the Pope who explicitly denies having any such "implicit submission"? Or, do you think that such is possible?

MRyan wrote:What happens to a Catholic who falls into “material heresy”?

Interesting question. Compare & contrast -- how is the situation of such a "Catholic" any different than an Orthodox? Are such "Catholic" individuals still "members" of the Church? Do they need to go to Confession at all? Why can they receive the Sacraments and not the Orthodox?

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
As for the St. Benedict Center, my views are my own, as you, yourself, have said.
The “point is” that you erroneously, and repeatedly, pass off your views on baptism of blood as belonging to the St. Benedict Center, NH, when this is patently false. This is not a matter of “opinion”, it is an objective fact.

Who cares? Let's say that you are correct in "parroting" the position of the St. Benedict Center. Well, I think that they are wrong. Every group has its differences.

MRyan Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:37 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:So the point is, while the external bonds that unite one to the ecclesiastical body may be severed by circumstances beyond one’s control, the internal bonds that incorporate one to Christ will remain until such time an obstinate heresy and/or schism is manifested.

This is heretical and absurd. You have acknowledged that a validly baptized infant born to Orthodox parents is fully Catholic after his/her baptism, but that individual, later on, loses membership in the Church through some mechanism "beyond one's control." What mechanism? Excommunication? How does one who has been fully incorporated into the Church at birth through Baptism lose his/her membership without ever sinning? One can cease to be Catholic without sin?

You are not paying attention. You want to play the “true and false” question game where the external and internal distinctions that define one’s relationship to the Mystical Body are completely obliterated and rendered meaningless; and where a change in perspective (from the point of view of internal grace and incorporation vs. the objective reality of one’s external profession of faith and Church membership) will change or require a nuanced response to the “true or false” question.

It is infallibly true that a baptized infant (to include a baptized Eastern Orthodox infant) who “has no actual faith”, as Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 13 on the Sacrament of Baptism declared, is “numbered among the faithful” because the child has received, through Baptism, the seal of incorporation and the gift of habitual faith (with actual faith being supplied by the Church).

However, the Church also recognizes that the infant who is raised in the Orthodox Church is not “fully incorporated” as a member of the Roman Catholic Church by reason of his external membership in the Orthodox Church. And, as you already acknowledged, the Church does not impose or claim any juridical rights over the child.

It is also true that the bonds which invisibly and internally bind the child to the visible Mystical Body cannot be wholly severed except by way of obstinate heresy or schism (or apostasy).

So to say the infant is “completely and absolutely a member of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ” is true from the standpoint of grace, Catholic faith and internal unity (communion), but it is not true from the perspective of external membership in the visible structure of the ecclesiastical Church. Note well the language of the 1917 Code:

“After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one] is a heretic.” (Canon 1325)

The name “Christian” applies to baptized Orthodox Christians as well, despite your “only Catholics are Christians” mantra. The Church has long recognized them by that name, so what you say is irrelevant. So a child raised by Orthodox parents in the Orthodox faith is not a “Catholic Christian”, he is an “Orthodox Christian” who, despite external appearances, possesses the virtue of Catholic faith received in Baptism and remains in communion with the community of believers belonging to the one true Church.

What you call “heretical and absurd” is the simple truth that recognizes that “while the external bonds that unite one to the ecclesiastical body may be severed by circumstances beyond one’s control, the internal bonds that incorporate one to Christ will remain until such time an obstinate heresy and/or schism is manifested.”

“[C]ircumstances beyond one’s control” refers to the objective external reality of one's membership in the Orthodox Church. But you simply obliterate the valid and necessary distinctions between internal and external unity with the ecclesiastical Church by insisting that one’s “membership” in the Church can never be severed “until such time an obstinate heresy and/or schism is manifested”, while failing to recognize that by an act of free will, the child who comes to the age of reason must “choose” the Church to which he will outwardly belong and which faith he will now externally profess.

And, when he chooses the Orthodox faith of his received tradition, it is not that he “loses” internal membership (incorporation) with the Church (he does not); but, by an act of free will, he makes manifest the objective reality of his external membership in the Orthodox Church.

So to say that he is “completely and absolutely a member of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ” is simply not true, unless you want to "deny free will" and to deny the very definition of membership in the Mystical Body.

I would also draw your attention to the solemn words of Pope Clement VI, in Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351, where he declared:

“… We ask: In the first place whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, if they remain obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church.

Please note what Pope Clement VI is saying, that “in baptism” the subject Eastern Orthodox adolescent(s) “have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards [having reached the age of reason and willful culpable consent] have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of this same Roman Church [by his own free will], which one alone is Catholic”; and that ONLY if “they remain obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church” does their withdrawal and separation from the visible bonds of the Church result in their being wholly severed from the Mystical Body.

In other words, Jehanne, what you call “heretical and absurd”, Pope Clement VI recognizes as the truth; to wit, that one may indeed “withdraw in the future from the communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic” while remaining united to the same Roman Church by virtue of one’s Baptism, participation in the same Sacraments, and by virtue of the internal bonds of faith and charity.

To “withdraw in the future from the communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic” is to withdraw from external membership and communion with the visible Church of Christ; after all:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed…(Mystici Corporis Christi)

Again, and again, and again, the Eastern Orthodox adolescent who of his own free will professes the Orthodox faith of his received tradition, and does not obstinately doubt or deny a revealed truth; while remaining united to Christ and His Mystical Body by the internal bonds of faith, charity and incorporation, he is NOT “Fully incorporated into the society of the Church” and has separated himself from the external “unity of the Body”.

He does not enjoy “full communion” with the Church, period.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:But who also recognize that a member of the Orthodox Church who has reached the aged of reason and professes the faith of his parents and his received tradition, may not be culpable, or may be confused about papal primacy and/or any of the other secondary dogmas/doctrines; that he is still a “member” of the Roman Catholic Church by virtue of his Baptism and is subject to the Pope until he falls into obstinate heresy/schism

Nicely put. This is de fide.

Your little sarcastic parody and deliberate misrepresentation has not gone unnoticed (I specifically stated that the radical Feeneyite proposition was false).

What you say is "de fide" is a denial of that truth declared by Pope Clement VI who confirmed that one may indeed “withdraw in the future from the communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic” while remaining internally united to the same Roman Church by virtue of one’s Baptism, participation in the same Sacraments, and by virtue of the internal bonds of faith and charity.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
So the point is, you are on record as saying that an "implicit" external submission to the Roman Pontiff is heretical and absurd.

We're making progress here. The whole idea of "implicit external submission to the Roman Pontiff" is heretical and absurd, when an individual in question, would explicitly deny that he/she has any such "submission." Do you believe that it is possible for an Orthodox, Protestant, etc. to have "implicit submission" to the Pope who explicitly denies having any such "implicit submission"? Or, do you think that such is possible?

No, we are not making progress. What you call "de fide" is the alleged fact that says if one's doubt or denial of papal primacy is not obstinate, then the very unity that defines one's "membership" in the Church, to include communion with and subjection to the Roman Pontiff (which you must be explicit), still exists despite the fact that the Orthodox member is not visibly united to the Roman Pontiff (and has withdrawn communion) and does not express an explicit belief in papal primacy!

In other words, you deny free will and the definition of Church membership, and call this denial "de fide".

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:What happens to a Catholic who falls into “material heresy”?

Interesting question. Compare & contrast -- how is the situation of such a "Catholic" any different than an Orthodox? Are such "Catholic" individuals still "members" of the Church? Do they need to go to Confession at all? Why can they receive the Sacraments and not the Orthodox?

As usual, you miss the point entirely. "Material heresy" is nothing more than "material error", and as such, there is nothing to confess if one is not aware of the error. If he was aware of the error and persisted in it, it would no longer be "material", now, would it?

And why do you say the Orthodox cannot receive the sacraments? Where do you come up with this stuff? Wait, I now where, from the same place where you derived this gem where you say on your blog that in an emergency (at the point of death) one can receive absolution (last rites) from an Orthodox priest provided:

He says that he believes firmly and faithfully in all of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and also in Unam sanctam ecclesiam catholicam, that is, that the Pope, the Vicar of God and the Successor to Saint Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is the Head of the universal Church. He says that while he does not have canonical standing within the Catholic Church (being Orthodox) and is, therefore, technically a "non-Catholic," he does have valid orders and is, therefore, willing to give you the Last Rites.

I swear, one cannot make this stuff up.

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:
As for the St. Benedict Center, my views are my own, as you, yourself, have said.
The “point is” that you erroneously, and repeatedly, pass off your views on baptism of blood as belonging to the St. Benedict Center, NH, when this is patently false. This is not a matter of “opinion”, it is an objective fact.
Who cares? Let's say that you are correct in "parroting" the position of the St. Benedict Center. Well, I think that they are wrong. Every group has its differences.

If you don't care about the truth, then you're right, "who cares?" The truth is that you "pass off your views on baptism of blood as belonging to the St. Benedict Center, NH, when this is patently false. This is not a matter of “opinion”, it is an objective fact."

Who cares? Obviously, not you.

Jehanne Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:02 pm

Mike,

Thank you for the references:

“After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one] is a heretic.” (Canon 1325)

"We ask: In the first place whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, if they remain obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church." (Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351)

I am going to add these citations to my blog. I feel that they sum-up my position perfectly, and I do not disagree with them at all! Apparently, according to you, an Orthodox child is fully Catholic at birth, but later on, just loses his/her "canonical standing" within the Church. Okay, fine.

I used to have qualms about the SSPX/SSPV/CMRI/etc., in that, I felt that I may be jeopardizing my eternal salvation if I, as a confessing Catholic, got involved with groups that had valid orders but who simply lacked canonical standing within the Church and/or "official" recognition from Rome, or simply withheld obedience from the Pope. However, that's really "no big deal," is it? For, if I have received my "faith tradition" from the SSPX and others (which I have), then that is my tradition and actual, canonical incorporation within the canonical strucutre of the Catholic Church is really no big deal! Thank you!!

On the other hand, didn't Pope Clement VI also say,

“We ask if you believe and the Armenians obedient to you, that no man of those travelling outside the faith of the same Church and obedience to the Pontiff of the Romans can finally be saved; [...and] if you have believed and believe that all those who have set themselves up against the Faith of the Roman Church and have died in final impenitence have been damned and have descended to the perpetual torments of hell.” (Super Qibusdam)

On the other hand, how can an Orthodox know that he/she is not guilty of heresy? Back to "proving negatives," aren't we?

Question is, "What do you want from us?" Honestly, I do not know! I guess that you are okay with us telling the Orthodox, Protestants, etc., about the "absolute submission" of that person's submission to the Roman Pontiff, just in case, that individual may be in a state of obstinate heresy.

As for me, I am sticking with groups like the SSPX, St. Benedict Center, etc. As for my message to an Orthodox individuals reading this, "I believe that you are de facto schismatic, and if you die in an state of obstinate schism, you will forfeit your salvation." Ditto for Protestants. Are you okay with that? By the way, what do you think of the Balamand Declaration? I don't agree with it, and I do not believe that I owe it any obedience, even if the Pope signed it, because I find it to be contrary to my faith tradition. Do you have any problems with that?

Jehanne Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:55 pm

MRyan wrote:And why do you say the Orthodox cannot receive the sacraments? Where do you come up with this stuff? Wait, I now where, from the same place where you derived this gem where you say on your blog that in an emergency (at the point of death) one can receive absolution (last rites) from an Orthodox priest provided:

He says that he believes firmly and faithfully in all of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and also in Unam sanctam ecclesiam catholicam, that is, that the Pope, the Vicar of God and the Successor to Saint Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is the Head of the universal Church. He says that while he does not have canonical standing within the Catholic Church (being Orthodox) and is, therefore, technically a "non-Catholic," he does have valid orders and is, therefore, willing to give you the Last Rites.

I swear, one cannot make this stuff up.

Your replies are too long-winded. The Orthodox, in my faith tradition, lack jurisdiction. Of course, my statement was not to be carte blanche. It's just many have said that the SSPX lacks jurisdiction (and that their Sacraments are not valid), however, if the Orthodox have jurisdiction, then the SSPX & others must also! (Or, vice-a-verse!!) Of course, my statement was not mention to cover Baptism or Matrimony! (Duh.)

MRyan wrote:The “point is” that you erroneously, and repeatedly, pass off your views on baptism of blood as belonging to the St. Benedict Center, NH, when this is patently false. This is not a matter of “opinion”, it is an objective fact..

If you don't care about the truth, then you're right, "who cares?" The truth is that you "pass off your views on baptism of blood as belonging to the St. Benedict Center, NH, when this is patently false. This is not a matter of “opinion”, it is an objective fact."

Who cares? Obviously, not you.

The St. Benedict Center is wrong on this question. Okay? Drop it. I do not agree with them, never have. You act like that there can be no differences within a political party, that Republicans or Democrats; to be either one of those, must agree on every issue! I agree with the St. Benedict Center on the essentials; that's what, for me, is important!!

MRyan Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:48 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:And why do you say the Orthodox cannot receive the sacraments? Where do you come up with this stuff? Wait, I now where, from the same place where you derived this gem where you say on your blog that in an emergency (at the point of death) one can receive absolution (last rites) from an Orthodox priest provided:

He says that he believes firmly and faithfully in all of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and also in Unam sanctam ecclesiam catholicam, that is, that the Pope, the Vicar of God and the Successor to Saint Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is the Head of the universal Church. He says that while he does not have canonical standing within the Catholic Church (being Orthodox) and is, therefore, technically a "non-Catholic," he does have valid orders and is, therefore, willing to give you the Last Rites.

I swear, one cannot make this stuff up.

Your replies are too long-winded. The Orthodox, in my faith tradition, lack jurisdiction. Of course, my statement was not to be carte blanche. It's just many have said that the SSPX lacks jurisdiction (and that their Sacraments are not valid), however, if the Orthodox have jurisdiction, then the SSPX & others must also! (Or, vice-a-verse!!) Of course, my statement was not mention to cover Baptism or Matrimony! (Duh.)

Let me see if I can be brief(er).

Not only does an Orthodox priest NOT need ordinary “jurisdiction” when administering the sacraments of last rites in an emergency to a dying Catholic who requests it (jurisdiction is always supplied in these cases); he does not need to reject his received Faith and then profess to you his divine and Catholic faith, to include his communion with the Pope.

Your “single” example which sought “To establish that Canon 844 is wholly orthodox”, and which sought to establish that what was good for the SSPX with their claims to supplied jurisdiction was good for the Orthodox, was a sorry example of a very defective understanding of a universal law, canon law and jurisdiction - where your “example” had absolutely NOTHING to do with what you sought to “prove”.

In other words, the SSPX’s beef with Canon 844 has NOTHING to do with the emergency administration of the Sacraments by non-Catholic priests (near death or grave necessity); but, rather, with the administration of the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, for example, when “a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided”, which is a significant departure from the 1917 Code, and a bit ambiguous.

However, the local Bishop/Ordinary determines when such “genuine spiritual advantage commends it”, and it is his responsibility; and his alone.

And, while the 1917 Code was abrogated by the 1983 Code (and, “Insofar as they repeat former law, the canons of this Code must be assessed also in accord with canonical tradition”), the 1917 Code also made it clear that “In danger of death all priests and bishops, even those not approved for confessions, validly and licitly absolve all penitents whatsoever, no matter how reserved or notorious…” (Canon 882).

In fact, even if, as in times past, the Orthodox priest was considered to be an excommunicated heretic and/or schismatic:

“… the faithful may for any just cause ask the sacraments or sacramentals of one who is excommunicated, especially if there is no one else to give them (c. 2261.2)… But from an excommunicated vitandus [“one to be avoided”] or one against whom there is a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, the faithful may only in danger of death ask for sacramental absolution according to canons 882, 2252, and also for other sacraments and sacramentals in case there is no one else to administer them (c. 2261.3).” (Canon 2261.2-3, 1917 Code of Canon Law)

But that’s OK, Jehanne, there is no need for you to correct such glaring errors in your blog, you can say whatever you want; after all, all truth is relative so long it is part of your private “faith tradition”.

That wasn’t too "long-winded" for you, was it?

Jehanne Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:14 pm

You're doing much better. So, all this talk about the SSPX priests lacking jurisdiction is just nonsense then (even though such talk has come from some Cardinals, and, I believe, the Curia itself); after all, if the Orthodox now have jurisdiction, then the SSPX priests must also have it, right?! In fact, post Vatican II, it appears that jurisdiction is something that is impossible for a priest to lose. Correct? If not, where does jurisdiction come from?

George Brenner Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:58 pm

Plain easy to understand at least for me:

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means

MRyan Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:00 pm

Jehanne,

Forgive me if I have a hard time following your logic. You must realize that the SSPX falls under the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, the Orthodox do not. Jurisdiction comes from Jesus Christ, who supplies jurisdiction for the benefit of the Faithful every time necessity dictates.

I think what Pascendi was getting at, quite correctly, is the fact that the Church recognizes that the Orthodox have never recognized the universal and ordinary jurisdiction of the Pope, but only Apostolic jurisdiction (the right and power to act as Christ’s minister) as supplied by Christ to every validly ordained successor to the Apostles.

And, while it is true that Eastern Orthodox bishops and priests do not possess ordinary jurisdiction (they have not been "sent" by the pope), as far as they are concerned, and as far as how the Church approaches this matter, it seems a bit irrelevant since the Sacraments of the Orthodox Church are both valid and licit within their own particular Churches.

This is also why, to the extend possible, the Church bends over backwards to recognize the existing territorial jurisdiction of Orthodox minsters who are restored to full communion with the Catholic Church, and its laws governing ordinary jurisdiction and the administration of the sacraments.

So, all of this talk about the SSPX lacking ordinary jurisdiction is not just talk; it is a fact.

However, to the extend that the faithful (who receive the Sacrament of Penance, for example, from SSPX priests, who lack the jurisdiction required for valid absolution) are “In common error or in positive or probable doubt about either law or fact, the Church supplies jurisdiction for both the external and internal forum.” (Canon 209, 1917 Code of Canon Law).

That is what all "this talk” has been about, and I see no need to talk any more about it.

Jehanne Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:25 pm

Perhaps you need a course in logic. So, an Orthodox priest who denies Papal Primacy (let's assume, for the sake of argument, that he is an obstinate heretic) has both valid and licit sacraments, however, an SSPX priest who affirms Papal Primacy has illicit Sacraments and maybe even invalid ones. Is this correct?

Why the silence on the Balamand Declaration?

MRyan Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:29 pm

MRyan wrote:Jehanne,

This is also why, to the extend possible, the Church bends over backwards to recognize the existing territorial jurisdiction of Orthodox minsters who are restored to full communion with the Catholic Church, and its laws governing ordinary jurisdiction and the administration of the sacraments.

I should add that with respect to territorial jurisdiction (under the jurisdiction of the pope), the 1983 Code of Canon Law applies only to the Latin Church; the Eastern Catholic Particular Churches fall under the "1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Church", otherwise known as the "1990 CODE OF CANONS OF ORIENTAL CHURCHES".

Jehanne Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:31 pm

George Brenner wrote: Plain easy to understand at least for me:

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means

I do not believe in the existence of "invincibly ignorant" individuals. Even Mike has admitted that it is at least possible for the One and Triune God to provide enough evidence for the Catholic faith to any non-Catholic, so as to make that person culpable for his/her unbelief. If I can prove to you that I exist, why doubt the Holy Spirit's ability to do the same?

MRyan Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:40 pm

Jehanne wrote:Perhaps you need a course in logic. So, an Orthodox priest who denies Papal Primacy (let's assume, for the sake of argument, that he is an obstinate heretic) has both valid and licit sacraments, however, an SSPX priest who affirms Papal Primacy has illicit Sacraments and maybe even invalid ones. Is this correct?

Yes, but what “maybe invalid” with respect to the SSPX priest, supplied jurisdiction hinges not on the priest, but on the disposition of the penitent (common knowledge or in positive or probable doubt) who approaches the SSPX priest for absolution (who is obliged when so approached).

And your statement illogically assumes that the Orthodox, because they have access to valid and licit sacraments within their own particular churches, are in a better situation even though they are separated from the one true Church of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation. While the SSPX are in an irregular situation, unlike the Orthodox, they are not separated from the Church (though, like the Orthodox, certain individuals among them may be in schism). The Orthodox may enjoy “partial communion”; but their separation is not just "irregular”, the breech is quite serious.

However, like with the SSPX, if the spirit of schism rears its ugly head in the heart of the baptized, God will judge culpability.

Finally; yes, Catholics have been given more, and more is expected of us. And we wouldn't have it any other way.

Jehanne wrote:Why the silence on the Balamand Declaration?

What about it?

The Declaration seeks to "evangelize” rather than to “proselytize”, the latter of which means “to force or coerce in an unreasonable manner by threats, intimidation or other means.”

And, as someone else responded to this question (some time ago):

“The Holy Father(s) have determined that the most productive route to bringing the Orthodox to Truth is by the discussion of the differences through direct communication between the Various Churches.

Namely that the evangelization be done in the same way as was conducted at the Council of Florence, between Theologians Bishops and Patriarchs with the intent of explaining the Truth to whole Churches, not individuals.” (Catholic Answers)

However, at the street level where we all live, we evangelize, when we have the opportunity, to individuals; without, one would hope, resorting to the “you are all heretics and schismatics” language that worked so wonderfully in the past.

So when you’re the Pope, you can enforce a different strategy.

George Brenner Sun Feb 12, 2012 8:34 pm

Jehanne,

Are you saying that the following quote from the Catechism is an error and if so on who"s authority?

Invincibly Ignorant

The Church recognizes that God does not condemn those who are innocently ignorant of the truth about his offer of salvation. Regarding the doctrine in question, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (quoting Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, 16) states:

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)

Vatican II document Gaudium Et Spesteaches similarly on the possibility of salvation:

All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery. (22)

This teaching is consistent with Jesus’ own teaching about those who innocently reject him: "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin" (Jn 15:22).

But once a person comes to know the truth, he must embrace it or he will be culpable of rejecting it. We see this in Jesus’ words to the Pharisees: "If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains" (Jn 9:41). Paul taught likewise concerning the Gentiles:

George Brenner Sun Feb 12, 2012 8:41 pm

Jehanne,

Do you agree or disagree with the following, particularly invincible ignorance?

There is no de facto baptism of desire that we can know of.Only God can judge cases of implicit faith.
The popes and Councils knew about implciit faith (baptisms of desire,invincible ignorance etc) and did not interpret it as de facto but de jure salvation. Something we accept in principle, de jure, as a concept, ‘in certain circumstances’(Letter of the Holy Office 1949) and known only to God.

Jehanne Sun Feb 12, 2012 8:47 pm

The "invincibly ignorant" constitute a null set, George, devoid of any human beings whatsoever. Null sets are not a bad thing; none of modern science or mathematics would make sense without them. Consider this simple null set:

1) 2X + 3Y > 16
2) X + Y < -16

Okay, it's a simple example for which no solution exists. However, does that mean that it is a bad example? Not at all, for mathematics would not make sense without it, and neither would theology, if the later was incapable of describing things which do not exist and/or which do not (or can not) occur.

After all, you saying that it is impossible for the One and Triune God to reveal Himself to any non-Catholic in such a way as to make that person culpable for their unbelief? Is that what the Catechism is saying?

As for the One and Triune God "knowing about the implicitly ignorant," of course, such is true! However, the "theological string" pulls "both ways"; God knows of what evidence it would take to deliver such an individual from his/her "invincibly ignorant" state!

George Brenner Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:28 pm

In the letter of the Holy Office 1949, it clearly says," Known Only to God", in which case we should have unquestioned faith in God and The Holy Spirit in the possibilty of Invincible ignorance and its solution and not change the issue into something of our own making. I am not in the least bit worried if someone were to be invincibly ignorant as I completely trust in God and the outcome. One should let the the words of the Catechism stand on their own, period.

Jehanne Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:45 pm

George,

We know much more about the One and Triune God than what is written in the CCC. For starters, we know that God is a Perfect Being, as such, He cannot lie, ever, which means that He cannot, by His "divine light & grace", lead anyone into a false religion or allow that individual to remain in one. To claim otherwise is to make God into a liar, which means that He would not be Perfect, hence, He would not be God. Therefore, if someone is outside of the Catholic Church, then such must, at least to some degree, be their fault, which means that they must be culpable, at least to some degree. Only by cooperating with the graces of the Holy Spirit will they be able to leave their false religions and enter into the One True Faith and One True Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved. Many individuals, of course, make such a journey.

QED.

P.S. You are reading material into the Holy Office Letter that is not there. No Pope has ever said something like, "We must hold as certain that there are invincibly ignorant individuals."

George Brenner Sun Feb 12, 2012 10:22 pm

Jehanne said:

P.S. You are reading material into the Holy Office Letter that is not there. No Pope has ever said something like, "We must hold as certain that there are invincibly ignorant individuals."

I never said those words you quoted above. I simply quoted the Catechism on many subjects and you chose invincible ignorance as an issue for you to which you took objection. The words in the Catechism speak for themselves.

DeSelby Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:00 pm

MRyan wrote:
Jehanne wrote:Why the silence on the Balamand Declaration?
What about it?

The Declaration seeks to "evangelize” rather than to “proselytize”, the latter of which means “to force or coerce in an unreasonable manner by threats, intimidation or other means.”

And, as someone else responded to this question (some time ago):

“The Holy Father(s) have determined that the most productive route to bringing the Orthodox to Truth is by the discussion of the differences through direct communication between the Various Churches.

Namely that the evangelization be done in the same way as was conducted at the Council of Florence, between Theologians Bishops and Patriarchs with the intent of explaining the Truth to whole Churches, not individuals.” (Catholic Answers)
However, at the street level where we all live, we evangelize, when we have the opportunity, to individuals; without, one would hope, resorting to the “you are all heretics and schismatics” language that worked so wonderfully in the past.

So when you’re the Pope, you can enforce a different strategy.

From the Balamand Statement:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930624_lebanon_en.html

10) The situation thus created resulted in fact in tensions and oppositions.

Progressively, in the decades which followed these unions, missionary activity tended to include among its priorities the effort to convert other Christians, individually or in groups, so as "to bring them back" to one’s own Church. In order to legitimize this tendency, a source of proselytism, the Catholic Church developed the theological vision according to which she presented herself as the only one to whom salvation was entrusted. As a reaction, the Orthodox Church, in turn, came to accept the same vision according to which only in her could salvation be found. To assure the salvation of "the separated brethren" it even happened that Christians were rebaptized and that certain requirements of the religious freedom of persons and of their act of faith were forgotten. This perspective was one to which that period showed little sensitivity.

It's unbelievable to me that a Catholic would sign off on this based on this quote alone. Completely unbelievable.

John Paul II was Ok with this?

MRyan Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:35 am

Here we go again.

Well, the pope was having a bad day. It was right after he had “kissed the Koran”, held a potted plant with some pagans, and “The Amazing Heresies of JPII” DVD was climbing up "the sede hit parade" chart.

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.

Yes, the declaration was poorly worded in spots; no secret there. However, as someone on “The Byzantine Forum” wrote:

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.

Believe it.

simple Faith Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:42 am

Mryan wrote
"Well, the pope was having a bad day. It was right after he had “kissed the Koran”, held a potted plant with some pagans, and “The Amazing Heresies of JPII” DVD was climbing up the sede hit parade" chart."
Mike, I know I shouldn't encourage your 'sarcasm', but hey, that was funny!

MRyan Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:53 am

Jehanne wrote:
We know much more about the One and Triune God than what is written in the CCC. For starters, we know that God is a Perfect Being, as such, He cannot lie, ever, which means that He cannot, by His "divine light & grace", lead anyone into a false religion or allow that individual to remain in one. To claim otherwise is to make God into a liar, which means that He would not be Perfect, hence, He would not be God.

There you go again -- denying free will. The One and Triune God most certainly can “allow” that individual to remain in a false religion, and you are placing the cart before the horse.

But you almost get it right with what follows:

Therefore, if someone is outside of the Catholic Church, then such must, at least to some degree, be their fault, which means that they must be culpable, at least to some degree. Only by cooperating with the graces of the Holy Spirit will they be able to leave their false religions and enter into the One True Faith and One True Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved. Many individuals, of course, make such a journey.

The last two sentences are true; but, as to the first, if someone IS outside the Catholic Church, it may NOT be his fault to any degree whatsoever – that’s what “invincible ignorance” means and that is precisely what Pope Pius IX taught on at least three separate occasions. So for you to call his teaching “absurd” is “absurd”.

However, given that everyone is given sufficient graces for salvation, if he remains outside the Church (externally and/or internally) and is lost, then it is entirely his fault for not cooperating with the graces God gives him to dispel the darkness.

If he is of good will, as Pius IX taught, then God will dispel the darkness to the extent sufficient for his salvation, without revealing how and to what degree (beyond supernatural faith in the one true God) He MUST, before death, scatter the remaining darkness in order to be joined to Christ in His Mystical Body.

So, to call the doctrine of "implicit desire" as it pertains to Baptism and to entry into the Church (and subjection to the Roman Pontiff) "heretical and absurd" unless these desires become "explicit", is as vacuous as the "null set" theory on invincible ignorance.

MRyan Mon Feb 13, 2012 1:51 pm

George,

I bet you didn’t know that the theology behind the doctrine of “invincible ignorance”, as it is taught in the CCC and by Pope Pius IX (for example), can make no sense without first understanding, as in mathematics, that the doctrine is “incapable of describing things which do not exist and/or which do not (or can not) occur”.

See, what the CCC and Pope Pius IX are really saying (because they are incapable of describing it) is that invincible ignorance does not really exist and/or it does not or cannot occur.

Follow the math/theology of the doctrine as if it represents a simple null set:

1) 2X + 3Y > 16
2) X + Y < -16

I told you I couldn't make this stuff up.

Who needs sarcasm when we have this?

tornpage Mon Feb 13, 2012 2:50 pm

Mike,

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.

I'm sure all of those motives (and nothing "wrong" with any of them, except
"condemning uniatism as a method of reunion" - huh? how could you reunite without being united? ) could have been met without saying it the way it was said, which goes beyond those motives and suggests others - or at least suggests that the theology that informed the particular movement of the pen is different from mine, or DeSelby's, or other Catholics.

And since I'm talking about motives:

In order to legitimize this tendency, a source of proselytism, the Catholic Church developed the theological vision according to which she presented herself as the only one to whom salvation was entrusted.

Oh, that's why.

Just a bad language day?

Jehanne Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:50 pm

Mike,

You've already admitted to me the possibility that the One and Triune God, the Holy Spirit, could reveal to any individual sufficient knowledge to make that person culpable for his/her remaining outside the Church. End of argument. If I want to assert that there is no "invincibly ignorant" persons of the One True Faith, can you disprove that assertion? If so, how? If any case, we are back to Florence's simple declaration:

"No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

Of course, Pope Eugene IV understood "invincibly ignorance" completely:

"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)

MRyan Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:57 pm

tornpage wrote:Mike,

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.
I'm sure all of those motives (and nothing "wrong" with any of them, except
"condemning uniatism as a method of reunion" - huh? how could you reunite without being united? ) could have been met without saying it the way it was said, which goes beyond those motives and suggests others - or at least suggests that the theology that informed the particular movement of the pen is different from mine, or DeSelby's, or other Catholics.

That’s a fair statement, and I might add the name of JPII, whose own theology is not necessarily identical with that of a Cardinal Kaspar. As a prudential declaration that hoped to shape official ecumenical policy between the West (Roman C.) and the East (Orthodox and Catholic), the subject doctrinal iteration on the apparent non-exclusivity of the Church as the sole means of salvation lacked the precision one would hope for (I'm being kind), though I suppose this is not surprising; but it can and should be understood in an orthodox manner (no pun intended).

What I meant by “condemning uniatism as a method of reunion” is the perceived negative and pejorative overtones of “Uniate”, a term that was formally applied quite routinely to the previously Eastern Orthodox churches by the Eastern Orthodox, though the term was also commonly used by the West. As Wikipedia explains:

According to Eastern Orthodox Professor John Erickson of St Vladimir's Theological Seminary, "The term 'uniate' itself, once used with pride in the Roman communion, had long since come to be considered as pejorative. 'Eastern Rite Catholic' also was no longer in vogue because it might suggest that the Catholics in question differed from Latins only in the externals of worship. The Second Vatican Council affirmed rather that Eastern Catholics constituted churches, whose vocation was to provide a bridge to the separated churches of the East." An acceptable, commonly used term is now united Oriental Churches.

I hope that clarification helped.

tornpage wrote:
And since I'm talking about motives:

In order to legitimize this tendency, a source of proselytism, the Catholic Church developed the theological vision according to which she presented herself as the only one to whom salvation was entrusted.

Oh, that's why.

Just a bad language day?

Apparently.

George Brenner Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:04 pm

Saturday, February 11, 2012
RADICI CRISTIANE SAYS CLEARLY CHURCH HAS NOT CHANGED LITERAL MEANING OF DOGMA AND INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE AND BAPTISM OF DESIRE ARE NOT DEFACTO EXCEPTIONS.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/02/radici-cristiane-says-clearly-church.html#links

columba Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:38 pm

George Brenner wrote:Saturday, February 11, 2012
RADICI CRISTIANE SAYS CLEARLY CHURCH HAS NOT CHANGED LITERAL MEANING OF DOGMA AND INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE AND BAPTISM OF DESIRE ARE NOT DEFACTO EXCEPTIONS.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/02/radici-cristiane-says-clearly-church.html#links

George,
That article is by Lionel Andres a former member here (now under the ban).

George Brenner Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:41 pm

Columba,

I Did not know about any ban.. I came across this post and thought it was worthy of review. Why was He banned; just curious?

columba Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:13 pm

Jehanne wrote:
Columba,

You ought to accept what Mike says in his lengthy essay, for he definitively is speaking the mind of both Pope Eugene IV and the infallible Magisterium of the Church. A martyr who dies for Christ in the "bosom and unity" of the Church, even if that person dies without Baptism, will go straight to Paradise. However, we are "at least allowed to hope" that all such martyrs leave this life with the Baptism seal than without it, but their eternal fate in Heaven is, regardless, absolutely secured. Such a teaching is absolutely de fide, and the Saint Benedict Center has never disputed that fact.

Jehanne, I haven't had time to reply to this and respond to Mike as yet but will get to it soon.

In the interim.

Mike.
Looking at your last two posts makes one wonder how it would be possible (considering the verbal gymnastics that needs be employed) to ever know for certain what the Church's true position on any teaching is or if one is just meant to accept an infinite number of variations and be content that at the top, all is under control.
This mode of argument if applied to any other subject or discipline would expose its inherent flaws even more clearly; but suffice to say for now, the cracks are becomming ever more noticable to the naked eye.

columba Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:28 pm

George Brenner wrote:Columba,

I Did not know about any ban.. I came across this post and thought it was worthy of review. Why was He banned; just curious?

If you check through some older threads here George you will see similar type posts from Lionel. Nothing at all wrong with his posts and blog articles per se, but it is (or has been) the case that if one were to disagree with them, one could find oneself on his blog or you tube channel publically condemned as a heretic. Another version of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - Page 2 625443

Another version of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - Page 2 625443

George Brenner Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:52 pm

Thanks Columba,

Now I know the rest of the story. Reason enough one should never call the Pope a heretic and greatly reduce their chances for salvation. Matters of Heresy are for God and Holy Mother Church to determine.

MRyan Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:09 pm

columba wrote:
Mike.
Looking at your last two posts makes one wonder how it would be possible (considering the verbal gymnastics that needs be employed) to ever know for certain what the Church's true position on any teaching is or if one is just meant to accept an infinite number of variations and be content that at the top, all is under control.
This mode of argument if applied to any other subject or discipline would expose its inherent flaws even more clearly; but suffice to say for now, the cracks are becomming ever more noticable to the naked eye.

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.

Yes, columba, it is precisely this (your) rigorist and flawed “interpretation” of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus that the Church has been correcting as far back as the 1949 Holy Office Letter when it took the St. Benedict Center to task for rejecting any notion of an “implicit desire” to enter the Church (and, by extension, to be subject to the Roman Pontiff). And, your rigorist error-filled take on the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is sufficiently revealed when you affirm over and over again that the Church has dogmatically “defined” as an article of divine and Catholic Faith that not even a faith-filled last minute non-water baptized Catholic convert and martyr can be sanctified and saved in the shedding of his blood for Christ. The dogma prevents Our Lord, in other words, from operating outside of the materiality of His own Sacrament of Regeneration by effecting the same end when choosing to act as the direct instrument for the transmission of His blood redemption.

This (yours) is such a Pharisaical perversion of the truth of the actual words, context and intent of the subject Bull that it boggles the Catholic mind that such a perversion can allege to reflect the Church’s understanding of her own dogma as she continues to teach the true doctrine not only in her numerous Magisterial organs of transmission of Catholic Truth, but also as it is universally taught in the common teachings of the saints, the theologians and the Doctors of the Church.

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.

Suffice to say for now; the cracks in your error-filled charges against the Church’s magisterial teachings are becoming ever more noticeable to the naked eye.

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.

Jehanne Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:20 pm

Mike,

Let's assume that you are right and Columba has gotten some things wrong. How is his situation any different from that of a baptized child who embraces his parents' false beliefs and becomes a member of the Orthodox Church?

On a related note, how would an Orthodox priest lose jurisdiction, if ever? If that person became an apostate, say, an atheist, would he still have jurisdiction?

MRyan Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:40 pm

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

You've already admitted to me the possibility that the One and Triune God, the Holy Spirit, could reveal to any individual sufficient knowledge to make that person culpable for his/her remaining outside the Church. End of argument. If I want to assert that there is no "invincibly ignorant" persons of the One True Faith, can you disprove that assertion? If so, how?

No, it is NOT the end of argument, for you are twisting the argument by challenging me to prove a negative and by telling us that there can be no such thing as "invincibly ignorant" persons of the One True Faith who will be saved while in ignorance of the explicit requirements to enter the Church and to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

You call the Church’s teaching on the possibility of an implicit desire for belief in these secondary articles “heretical and absurd”, while also ignoring St. Thomas’ teaching on secondary dogmas and why the necessity of explicit belief pertains only to the object on one’s belief (which he taught is our Lord Jesus Christ).

The Church also teaches that the object of our Faith is our Lord Jesus Christ, and that no one can be saved except through Him; “No one, therefore, can enter into communion with God except through Christ, by the working of the Holy Spirit”(Dominus Iesus, cf., Redemptoris missio). 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).

That I’ve admitted to you “the possibility that the One and Triune God, the Holy Spirit, could reveal to any individual sufficient knowledge to make that person culpable for his/her remaining outside the Church” is entirely irrelevant, for it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but only with what God “can” do and the responsibility to accept what has been explicitly revealed; IF it is revealed.

Jehanne wrote:
If any case, we are back to Florence's simple declaration:

"No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

And what has THAT to do with what you say is a revealed dogma (baptism of blood), and what has THAT to do with the same doctrine which recognizes that the last minute Catholic convert who expresses his Faith and sheds his blood for our Lord may be ignorant of the necessity to be subject to the Roman Pontiff?

Jehanne wrote:
Of course, Pope Eugene IV understood "invincibly ignorance" completely:

"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)

This is good; you cite St. Thomas Aquinas on his teaching relative to what he believed is required for explicit belief, and suggest to us that Pope Eugene IV's dogmatic proclamation that affirms that "no one can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church" is something of a rejection of the Church's teaching on "invincible ignorance".

Nice try.

MRyan Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:10 pm

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Let's assume that you are right and Columba has gotten some things wrong. How is his situation any different from that of a baptized child who embraces his parents' false beliefs and becomes a member of the Orthodox Church?

Columba is a Catholic; and he is not a child. Neither was he raised in the “faith tradition” of the Orthodox Church.

His culpability, should he not profess the true faith whole and inviolate, would be that much more severe, for to whomever much is given, of him will much be required.

Unfortunately, columba appears to confuse “faith tradition” with “private faith tradition” as he marginalizes and even annuls the authentic living authoritative magisterium of the Church, while pitting “magisteriums” against each other – a most unorthodox and even heretical idea, indeed.

Jehanne wrote:
On a related note, how would an Orthodox priest lose jurisdiction, if ever? If that person became an apostate, say, an atheist, would he still have jurisdiction?

His situation is no different from that of a Catholic priest, with the notable exception that his does not possess the "ordinary jurisdiction" that flows through the Pope to his Bishop (though his jurisdiction is still valid).

I would assume he is subject to the territorial jurisdiction of his Patriarch, just as a priest is subject to the jurisdiction of his Diocesan Ordinary. If jurisdiction is lost through apostasy or heresy or some other delict, like any other priest, the administration of the sacraments would be illicit, but not necessarily invalid (if he has faculties), especially in emergencies.

Jehanne Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:29 pm

MRyan wrote:
"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)

This is good; you cite St. Thomas Aquinas on his teaching relative to what he believed is required for explicit belief, and suggest to us that Pope Eugene IV's dogmatic proclamation that affirms that "no one can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church" is something of a rejection of the Church's teaching on "invincible ignorance".

Nice try.

By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools. (Council of Florence, Session 22 -- 15 October 1435)

MRyan Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:
"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)

This is good; you cite St. Thomas Aquinas on his teaching relative to what he believed is required for explicit belief, and suggest to us that Pope Eugene IV's dogmatic proclamation that affirms that "no one can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church" is something of a rejection of the Church's teaching on "invincible ignorance".

Nice try.

By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools. (Council of Florence, Session 22 -- 15 October 1435)

Quite so; that's a great citation, no?

And what began to be recognized in the 15th or 16th century, would be commonly recognized by the theological schools of the 19th and 20th centuries, and is taught by the Church today.

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.

Sponsored content