UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

Excerpts from:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html


The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Letter, agreed upon in the ordinary meeting of this Congregation, and ordered its publication.

Rome, at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 28th may 1992.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

II ~ UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND PARTICULAR CHURCHES

7. The Church of Christ, which we profess in the Creed to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, is the universal Church, that is, the worldwide community of the disciples of the Lord(31), which is present and active amid the particular characteristics and the diversity of persons, groups, times and places. Among these manifold particular expressions of the saving presence of the one Church of Christ, there are to be found, from the times of the Apostles on, those entities which are in themselves Churches(32), because, although they are particular, the universal Church becomes present in them with all its essential elements(33). They are therefore constituted "after the model of the universal Church"(34), and each of them is "a portion of the People of God entrusted to a bishop to be guided by him with the assistance of his clergy"(35).

8. The universal Church is therefore the Body of the Churches(36). Hence it is possible to apply the concept of communion in analogous fashion to the union existing among particular Churches, and to see the universal Church as a Communion of Churches. Sometimes, however, the idea of a "communion of particular Churches" is presented in such a way as to weaken the concept of the unity of the Church at the visible and institutional level. Thus it is asserted that every particular Church is a subject complete in itself, and that the universal Church is the result of a reciprocal recognition on the part of the particular Churches.

This ecclesiological unilateralism, which impoverishes not only the concept of the universal Church but also that of the particular Church, betrays an insufficient understanding of the concept of communion. As history shows, when a particular Church has sought to become self-sufficient, and has weakened its real communion with the universal Church and with its living and visible centre, its internal unity suffers too, and it finds itself in danger of losing its own freedom in the face of the various forces of slavery and exploitation(37).

9. In order to grasp the true meaning of the analogical application of the term communion to the particular Churches taken as a whole, one must bear in mind above all that the particular Churches, insofar as they are "part of the one Church of Christ"(38), have a special relationship of "mutual interiority"(39) with the whole, that is, with the universal Church, because in every particular Church "the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and active"(40).

For this reason, "the universal Church cannot be conceived as the sum of the particular Churches, or as a federation of particular Churches"(41). It is not the result of the communion of the Churches, but, in its essential mystery, it is a reality ontologically and temporally prior to every individual particular Church.

Indeed, according to the Fathers, ontologically, the Church-mystery, the Church that is one and unique, precedes creation(42), and gives birth to the particular Churches as her daughters. She expresses herself in them; she is the mother and not the product of the particular Churches. Furthermore, the Church is manifested, temporally, on the day of Pentecost in the community of the one hundred and twenty gathered around Mary and the twelve Apostles, the representatives of the one unique Church and the founders-to-be of the local Churches, who have a mission directed to the world: from the first the Church speaks all languages(43).

From the Church, which in its origins and its first manifestation is universal, have arisen the different local Churches, as particular expressions of the one unique Church of Jesus Christ. Arising within and out of the universal Church, they have their ecclesiality in it and from it. Hence the formula of the Second Vatican Council: The Church in and formed out of the Churches (Ecclesia in et ex Ecclesiis)(44), is inseparable from this other formula: The Churches in and formed out of the Church (Ecclesia in et ex Ecclesiis)(45). Clearly the relationship between the universal Church and the particular Churches is a mystery, and cannot be compared to that which exists between the whole and the parts in a purely human group or society.

10. Every member of the faithful, through faith and Baptism, is inserted into the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. He or she does not belong to the universal Church in a mediate way, through belonging to a particular Church, but in an immediate way, even though entry into and life within the universal Church are necessarily brought about in a particular Church. From the point of view of the Church understood as communion, this means therefore that the universal communion of the faithful and the communion of the Churches are not consequences of one another, but constitute the same reality seen from different viewpoints.

Moreover, one's belonging to a particular Church never conflicts with the reality that in the Church no-one is a stranger(46): each member of the faithful, especially in the celebration of the Eucharist, is in his or her Church, in the Church of Christ, regardless of whether or not he or she belongs, according to canon law, to the diocese, parish or other particular community where the celebration takes place. In this sense, without impinging on the necessary regulations regarding juridical dependence(47), whoever belongs to one particular Church belongs to all the Churches; since belonging to the Communion, like belonging to the Church, is never simply particular, but by its very nature is always universal(48).

13. The Bishop is a visible source and foundation of the unity of the particular Church entrusted to his pastoral ministry(55). But for each particular Church to be fully Church, that is, the particular presence of the universal Church with all its essential elements, and hence constituted after the model of the universal Church, there must be present in it, as a proper element, the supreme authority of the Church: the Episcopal College "together with their head, the Supreme Pontiff, and never apart from him"(56). The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the episcopal College are proper elements of the universal Church that are "not derived from the particularity of the Churches"(57), but are nevertheless interior to each particular Church. Consequently "we must see the ministry of the Successor of Peter, not only as a 'global' service, reaching each particular Church from 'outside', as it were, but as belonging already to the essence of each particular Church from 'within'"(58). Indeed, the ministry of the Primacy involves, in essence, a truly episcopal power, which is not only supreme, full and universal, but also immediate, over everybody, whether Pastors or other faithful(59). The ministry of the Successor of Peter as something interior to each particular Church is a necessary expression of that fundamental mutual interiority between universal Church and particular Church(60).

17. "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honoured by the name of Christian, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter"(72). Among the non-Catholic Churches and Christian communities, there are indeed to be found many elements of the Church of Christ, which allow us, amid joy and hope, to acknowledge the existence of a certain communion, albeit imperfect(73).

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

Since, however, communion with the universal Church, represented by Peter's Successor, is not an external complement to the particular Church, but one of its internal constituents, the situation of those venerable Christian communities also means that their existence as particular Churches is wounded. The wound is even deeper in those ecclesial communities which have not retained the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist. This in turn also injures the Catholic Church, called by the Lord to become for all ]i]"one flock"[/i] with "one shepherd"(77), in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of its universality in history.
[END of excerpts]

Mike,

This thread is a very good post by you. I pray that all may read , pray and reflect on the words of our Holy Father

George,

One of the things I appreciate about the forum is that it challenges me and forces me to dig; not that I mind, for I love digging for the truth.

Sometimes I’ll come across something like this that I just have to share (and wonder why I hadn’t read it before), for it places the very difficult condition of the Eastern Orthodox into perspective and gives us fresh insight into that most remarkable divine edifice we call our Catholic home. And it reassures us that the man at the helm of the Ark knows what he’s doing, and that he has a back-seat Driver who has never taken His hands off the tiller.

Indeed, George, our Lord established a living miracle and placed at her helm the most fallible, and most often the most humble of men who have been fortified with the grace of an unfailing faith; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against that foundation of living faith, upon which the entire visible edifice rests – de fide.

Once again Mike many thanks for your solid defence of the church and for finding and referencing the teachings that I always know must exist but do not have the ability to find. Despite all the challenges that are thrown to discredit the Church under the guidance of our Pope you always present a solid rebuttal. I can only usually respond to such posts from a gut reaction point of view but you never fail to deliver on the real proof.
Good work as always, even though at times it seems that you are maybe casting pearls before swine.

simple Faith wrote:Once again Mike many thanks for your solid defence of the church and for finding and referencing the teachings that I always know must exist but do not have the ability to find. Despite all the challenges that are thrown to discredit the Church under the guidance of our Pope you always present a solid rebuttal. I can only usually respond to such posts from a gut reaction point of view but you never fail to deliver on the real proof.
Good work as always, even though at times it seems that you are maybe casting pearls before swine.

Glad you found that enlightening SF. Now, will you be kind enough to explain to everyone what it all means and hopefully clear up the contradictions. Let me explain what I mean.
The first half of the letter to the bishops deals with those particular churhes who are indeed true particular churches in that they are all subject to the Pope. I can't see too much wrong with what is being said there other than it taking many words that could have been stated more clearly in a few (you know like the old days).

The problems start with the second half where we find that the Church has now suddenly expanded to include those who will not subject themselves to the authority of the Romam Pontiff.
Lets look at the following words:

17. "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honoured by the name of Christian, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter"

Now who are those non-culpable parties who, "do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety..." and, "have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter?"
They obviously did at one time have unity but alas they "have not preserved" it and it was these whom Pope Eugene IV declared could not be saved. Even Mike agrees with this if you read his recent responses to Jehanne. Now that they can be saved (which I hope they will by converting to the one true Church) it puts Pope Eugene in the position where his dogmatic declaration is nul and void.

As Mike would say, "You can't make this stuff up."

PS.

The drinks are on me (Wed) if you can clear this up before then.

Columba wrote:

Now who are those non-culpable parties who, "do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety..." and, "have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter?"

Well Columba, ironically I think the likes of yourself, Fatima for Our Times , Jehanne and the other 'Pope bashers', "those who will not subject themselves to the authority of the Romam Pontiff" could fall into that category.
Thankfully however you have the hope that the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church will keep you in its 'bosum' despite your lack of faith in the Vicar of Christ. Just as in today's gospel when, by the efforts of others, the paralytic man was carried and lowered through the roof, to have his sins forgiven by Jesus, so may we hope that the true faithful within the Catholic Church will carry other 'paralised' persons to the feet of Jesus by their faith and concern for their salvation.

Make mine a pint of Guinness.

Sorry SF, You didn't address the contradictions. If you don't do so by Wednesday, Your buying.

columba wrote:
Glad you found that enlightening SF. Now, will you be kind enough to explain to everyone what it all means and hopefully clear up the contradictions. Let me explain what I mean.

The first half of the letter to the bishops deals with those particular churches who are indeed true particular churches in that they are all subject to the Pope. I can't see too much wrong with what is being said there other than it taking many words that could have been stated more clearly in a few (you know like the old days).

And yet, you cannot even be bothered to cite from the same Letter of the CDF to demonstrate the veracity of your unsubstantiated (and erroneous) assertion that says “The first half of the letter to the bishops deals with those particular Churches who are indeed true particular churches in that they are all subject to the Pope”, whereby you conclude that particular churches are those churches (and only those churches) subject to the Roman Pontiff.

It is customary in making an argument, columba, that if you are going tell us what an official document of the Church actually says, that textual evidence is brought forth from the subject document that supports the assertion.

Now, I don’t know why you seem to think that your assertion should be taken at face value when anyone who actually reads the Letter would see that you simply read into it what you wanted to read into it.

You remind me of Foot, who cites a single canon of current law and cannot be bothered to read or understand the very next canon which refutes his assertion that a particular church is "defined" as a diocese.

The first half of the Letter actually deals with (I) “The Church, A Mystery of Communion” and the (II) “Universal Church and Particular Churches”, and nowhere therein does the Letter suggest that it is dealing “with those particular churches who are indeed true particular churches in that they are all subject to the Pope”.

Nowhere. But, had you comprehended the Letter’s actual content, you would know that what makes a particular church “true” is not its external subjection or visible communion with the Pope; but, rather, it is a true particular church “by means of very close bonds, such as the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist” which “therefore merit the title of particular Churches”; for “in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present”.

However, and please pay attention, “for each particular Church to be fully Church, that is, the particular presence of the universal Church with all its essential elements, and hence constituted after the model of the universal Church, there must be present in it, as a proper element, the supreme authority of the Church: the Episcopal College "together with their head, the Supreme Pontiff, and never apart from him".

In other words, “communion with the universal Church, represented by Peter's Successor, is not an external complement to the particular Church, but one of its internal constituents”; as such “The ministry of the Successor of Peter as something interior to each particular Church is a necessary expression of that fundamental mutual interiority between universal Church and particular Church.”

Let this sink in: “The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the episcopal College are proper elements of the universal Church that are ’not derived from the particularity of the Churches’(57), but are nevertheless interior to each particular Church.”

And, as the Letter states, thus “the situation of those venerable Christian communities [separated from Peter] also means that their existence as particular Churches is wounded.”

Please also pay close attention to section III, where it teaches:

14. The unity of the Eucharist and the unity of the Episcopate with Peter and under Peter are not independent roots of the unity of the Church, since Christ instituted the Eucharist and the Episcopate as essentially interlinked realities(61). The Episcopate is one, just as the Eucharist is one: the one Sacrifice of the one Christ, dead and risen. The liturgy expresses this reality in various ways, showing, for example, that every celebration of the Eucharist is performed in union not only with the proper Bishop, but also with the Pope, with the episcopal order, with all the clergy, and with the entire people(62). Every valid celebration of the Eucharist expresses this universal communion with Peter and with the whole Church, or objectively calls for it, as in the case of the Christian Churches separated from Rome(63).

Now let’s watch you really go off the rails:

clumba wrote:
The problems start with the second half where we find that the Church has now suddenly expanded to include those who will not subject themselves to the authority of the Romam Pontiff. Lets look at the following words:

“The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honoured by the name of Christian, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter"

Now who are those non-culpable parties who, "do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety..." and, "have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter?"

They obviously did at one time have unity but alas they "have not preserved" it and it was these whom Pope Eugene IV declared could not be saved. Even Mike agrees with this if you read his recent responses to Jehanne. Now that they can be saved (which I hope they will by converting to the one true Church) it puts Pope Eugene in the position where his dogmatic declaration is nul and void.

As Mike would say, "You can't make this stuff up."

No, one cannot make up such an egregious “interpretation” of not only the subject Letter of the CDF, but also the Bull Cantate Domino where, with respect to the latter, Pope Eugene IV is addressing those who had not “preserved” in the unity of the Church, but by culpable heresy and schism had left her and who, like the “pagans, but also Jews” cannot be saved “unless before death they are joined with Her”.

Columba, in other words, with respect to formal heresy and schism, can see no difference between the heretics and schismatics mentioned by name by Pope Eugene IV who only recently left the Church in obstinate heresy and schism, and the Orthodox Christians of today who are removed from the Eastern schism by some nine and ½ centuries and whose guilt, as the Church teaches, is mitigated by reason of time, tradition, misunderstandings and other exculpatory factors.

But, columba, you are consistent with your fallacious “interpretations”, whether it is that of an official Letter of the CDF, or of a Papal Bull.

Sorry, columba, but there is no “contradiction” within the Letter, but only a demonstrable faulty interpretation by you … which we know is just par for the course.

Columba, sometimes I fly in a really huge aeroplane. I know that it actually flies because I've actually experienced it fly. I don't think I could really explain to you how it flies but there is no contradiction between it flying and me not understanding how it flies. I trust the Pope in his guidance of the Church in the same way that I trust the pilot flying the plane. The fact that I don't fully understand aeronautics doesn not mean that the pilot or the airline is incompetent, the plane still flies regardless of my level of understanding. I could list many plausible reasons why the plane shouldn't fly but no matter how good my reasons are it will not stop the plane from flying.
In a similar way I can not fully understand the limitless love and mercy of God or why he should do what you or I think he should not do eg. send all those unbaptised babies or non-Catholics to hell, but I still trust and hope in his ability to save them.

G K Chesterton (who you are familar with) said:
'Every great heretic had always exhibit three remarkable characteristics in combination. First, he picked out some mystical idea from the Church's bundle or balance of mystical ideas. Second, he used that one mystical idea against all the other mystical ideas. Third (and most singular), he seems generally to have had no notion that his own favorite mystical idea was a mystical idea, at least in the sense of a mysterious or dubious or dogmatic idea. With a queer uncanny innocence, he seems always to have taken this one thing for granted. He assumed it to be unassailable, even when he was using it to assail all sorts of similar things."

I'm still hoping your buying the drinks tomorrow!!!

Simple_Faith, God Bless You


Your last post is beautifully said. The Church is protected by the Holy Spirit for all time. We do not need to understand everything. Few if any truly ever do. One needs to live the Faith and believe all that the Church teaches on matters of Faith and Morals to be held by all the faithful.

JMJ,

George

simple Faith wrote:
Columba, sometimes I fly in a really huge aeroplane. I know that it actually flies because I've actually experienced it fly. I don't think I could really explain to you how it flies but there is no contradiction between it flying and me not understanding how it flies. I trust the Pope in his guidance of the Church in the same way that I trust the pilot flying the plane. The fact that I don't fully understand aeronautics doesn not mean that the pilot or the airline is incompetent, the plane still flies regardless of my level of understanding. I could list many plausible reasons why the plane shouldn't fly but no matter how good my reasons are it will not stop the plane from flying.

SF,
I'll tell you how the plane flies on Wed. I learnt that at school.

In a similar way I can not fully understand the limitless love and mercy of God or why he should do what you or I think he should not do eg. send all those unbaptised babies or non-Catholics to hell, but I still trust and hope in his ability to save them.

I believe God's mercy is unfathomable -even to the angels- as is His justice.
God will do what He said He will do and will save those whom He said He will save; "All who believe and are Baptized will be saved."
I trust and hope that He will bring -all of good will- to the laver of regeneration before they depart this world.

G K Chesterton (who you are familar with) said:
'Every great heretic had always exhibit three remarkable characteristics in combination. First, he picked out some mystical idea from the Church's bundle or balance of mystical ideas. Second, he used that one mystical idea against all the other mystical ideas. Third (and most singular), he seems generally to have had no notion that his own favorite mystical idea was a mystical idea, at least in the sense of a mysterious or dubious or dogmatic idea. With a queer uncanny innocence, he seems always to have taken this one thing for granted. He assumed it to be unassailable, even when he was using it to assail all sorts of similar things."

As much as I enjoy reading G K Chesterson and learned much form his books, he is not however, a canonized saint nor Doctor of the Church.
Having said that, I'm not in disagreement with him on the passage you quoted. This could easily be applied to those who believe that God saves everyone and refuse to believe that some (even the majority) are lost. Just because one knows of the mercy of God and uses that to trump every dognatic declaration of His Holy Church, does not mean that that's the way things are, even if one holds to it "With a queer uncanny innocence."
Let me say, my understanding is not based on extracting one mystical Idea from the Church's bundle of mystical ideas and ignoring all the others. I believe in every dogma of the Catholic Church and will not be anathematized for replacing them with some other meaning under the specious name of "a deeper understanding," and, "nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning." (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos #7).

What I and many others see, is the expression of dogmas not being preserved, and therefore the meaning that's derived from the new expression cannot be trusted.

A few questions for You and Mike:

1. How does one enter the Church? Is it by sacramental Baptism only?
2. Does the Church recognize as one of her members one who has not been Baptized?
3. Has the Church ever proclaimed dogmatically that heretical sects or schismatic sects are part of, and inside the Church?
4. Has the Church ever proclaimed dogmatically that heretical sects or schismatic sects are NOT part of, or inside the Church?
5. Has the Church ever declared dogmatically that there are invisible members of the Church here on earth?
6. Has the Church ever stated dogmatically that the Church is of visible members only?
7. Has the Church ever stated that it is foolish to consider that unbaptized infants gain salvation?
8. Has the Church ever stated recently that it is Not a foolish thing to consider that unbatized infants enter heaven?

Hmm.. That should be enough for now considering the average length of Mike's replies.

George Brenner wrote:

Simple_Faith, God Bless You


Your last post is beautifully said. The Church is protected by the Holy Spirit for all time. We do not need to understand everything. Few if any truly ever do. One needs to live the Faith and believe all that the Church teaches on matters of Faith and Morals to be held by all the faithful.

JMJ,

George

George,

I too believe as you and simple faith believe that the Church is protected by the Holy Ghost for all time, even if it be reduced only to a handful who hold the Faith whole and entire. That remnant in the last days will be given the same protection.
The Church is Christ and Christ is the Church; it cannot fail.

MRyan wrote:
It is customary in making an argument, columba, that if you are going tell us what an official document of the Church actually says, that textual evidence is brought forth from the subject document that supports the assertion.

OK Mike, I'll give it a go but it's hard to know where to start. (It wasn't that I couldn't be bothered but rather that I was pushed for time}.

The letter is confusing in so many ways. At one point it speaks of particular Churches as if they are in fact talking of those existing inside the Universal Church (which is of course the Catholic Church) only to find on reading further that these particular Churches are those outside the fold. Later it calls those inside the fold (those we recognize as truly Catholic Churches), local churches.

8. "The universal Church is therefore the Body of the Churches(36). Hence it is possible to apply the concept of communion in analogous fashion to the union existing among particular Churches, and to see the universal Church as a Communion of Churches."

Really? I thought that the Universal Church was the One, true, Roman Catholic Church.

"Sometimes, however, the idea of a "communion of particular Churches" is presented in such a way as to weaken the concept of the unity of the Church at the visible and institutional level. Thus it is asserted that every particular Church is a subject complete in itself, and that the universal Church is the result of a reciprocal recognition on the part of the particular Churches."

Is that so? Then why not just state what we all already know; that the Univerasl Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, undivided and already possessing that complete unity and all outside her are not in the universal Church as founded by Christ and preserved by His apostles and their successors.

"Indeed, according to the Fathers, ontologically, the Church-mystery, the Church that is one and unique, precedes creation(42), and gives birth to the particular Churches as her daughters. She expresses herself in them; she is the mother and not the product of the particular Churches."

What Fathers? Is he talking now of particular Churches as those being in communion with Peter or is he now talking of local Churches?

I'll return to the rest as I only have a few minutes left to type but the following extract is confusing to say the least:

Since, however, communion with the universal Church, represented by Peter's Successor, is not an external complement to the particular Church, but one of its internal constituents, the situation of those venerable Christian communities also means that their existence as particular Churches is wounded. The wound is even deeper in those ecclesial communities which have not retained the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist. This in turn also injures the Catholic Church, called by the Lord to become for all ]i]"one flock"[/i] with "one shepherd"(77), in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of its universality in history

Their existance as particular Churches is wounded, yes, and this places them outside the Church according to the thrice defined Dogma, while the Holy Catholic Church remains intact, undivided and unwounded.
It seems like we're waiting and longing for the day when the Church of Christ is united as if it is not already ONE, Holy and Apostolic.

When I read such ambiguous things as this, I take the Advice of Pope Pius X and hold it to its heretical meaning until clarification be provided. Unfortunately the clarification as to the interpretation of this has already been provided by the words and actions of recent popes since.

columba wrote:
OK Mike, I'll give it a go but it's hard to know where to start. (It wasn't that I couldn't be bothered but rather that I was pushed for time).

The letter is confusing in so many ways. At one point it speaks of particular Churches as if they are in fact talking of those existing inside the Universal Church (which is of course the Catholic Church) only to find on reading further that these particular Churches are those outside the fold. Later it calls those inside the fold (those we recognize as truly Catholic Churches), local churches.

I do not doubt that for you the CDF Letter is confusing in many ways; critical distinctions in ecclesiology and theology do not come easy for you. After all, as you suggest, churches that are called “genuine” or “true particular churches” can’t really be true particular churches because only the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ is a “true” Church, and all others are frauds. Yet, you miss the critical distinctions that hold that the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church of Christ is present in a particular church whenever a valid Eucharist is celebrated and whenever valid Sacraments are conferred, and that particular churches have no existence outside of the ONE true Church of Christ.

You also confuse individual external membership with the essential characteristics of particular churches that unite them (however imperfectly) to the universal Church of Christ.

columba wrote:

8. "The universal Church is therefore the Body of the Churches (36). Hence it is possible to apply the concept of communion in analogous fashion to the union existing among particular Churches, and to see the universal Church as a Communion of Churches."

Really? I thought that the Universal Church was the One, true, Roman Catholic Church.

And we see how you simply ignore the context and act as if the Letter is suggesting that “the Universal Church was [NOT] the One, true, Roman Catholic Church”.
What you “thought” but ignore is actually spelled out quite clearly:

The Church of Christ, which we profess in the Creed to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, is the universal Church, that is, the worldwide community of the disciples of the Lord (31), which is present and active amid the particular characteristics and the diversity of persons, groups, times and places.

But, I’m sure you’re not done with the sarcasm; this is all so confusing.

columba wrote:

"Sometimes, however, the idea of a "communion of particular Churches" is presented in such a way as to weaken the concept of the unity of the Church at the visible and institutional level. Thus it is asserted that every particular Church is a subject complete in itself, and that the universal Church is the result of a reciprocal recognition on the part of the particular Churches."

Is that so? Then why not just state what we all already know; that the Univerasl Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, undivided and already possessing that complete unity and all outside her are not in the universal Church as founded by Christ and preserved by His apostles and their successors.

First of all, it was already clearly stated that “The Church of Christ, which we profess in the Creed to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, is the universal Church”. It was also clearly stated that “The Church of Christ … which we profess … is the universal Church … is … the worldwide community of the disciples of the Lord(31), which is present and active amid the particular characteristics and the diversity of persons, groups, times and places.”

Do you deny, columba, that the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic … universal Church of Christ … is present and active amid the particular characteristics” of the Eastern Orthodox churches? Is that just too difficult and “confusing” for you to comprehend?

Actually, we can see that it is too difficult for you, since you told us that “all” of those who are “outside” of the “complete unity” of the One True Church are not “in the universal Church”, whereby you conflate and confuse individual external membership with the particular characteristics that define a particular church and its essential communion with the universal Church of Christ, which, “in its essential mystery … is a reality ontologically and temporally prior to every individual particular Church”.

The Mystical Body of Christ as a “mystery”, and “the relationship between the universal Church and the particular Churches is a mystery”? Oh no, you say, it is quite simple, one is either “inside” or “outside” the Church; and the members of the Eastern Orthodox Churches are definitely not “inside” the Catholic Church; therefore, the so-called “particular Churches” of the Eastern Orthodox cannot, despite what the Letter (the Church) says, form a "part of the one Church of Christ". See, simple.

In fact, it is so simple, anything to the contrary is “heretical”, and that’s exactly how Pope St. Pius X told you to consider the Letter of the CDF (the one signed by Cardinal Ratizinger and approved by Pope JPII) until the Church corrects this egregious “ambiguity” and explains it in such a way that even you can understand it. After all, if you don’t understand it, it must be heretical.

In your citation of the passage that reads: “Thus it is asserted that every particular Church is a subject complete in itself, and that the universal Church is the result of a reciprocal recognition on the part of the particular Churches", I hope you read what immediately follows, since it makes it clear that what it is describing is a “ecclesiological unilateralism, which impoverishes not only the concept of the universal Church but also that of the particular Church, betrays an insufficient understanding of the concept of communion.”

And yes, columba, your “ecclesiological unilateralism” which seeks to wholly exclude the particular Orthodox churches from communion with the one true Church of Christ “impoverishes not only the concept of the universal Church but also that of the particular Church… [and] betrays an insufficient understanding of the concept of communion.”

columba wrote:

"Indeed, according to the Fathers, ontologically, the Church-mystery, the Church that is one and unique, precedes creation(42), and gives birth to the particular Churches as her daughters. She expresses herself in them; she is the mother and not the product of the particular Churches."

What Fathers? Is he talking now of particular Churches as those being in communion with Peter or is he now talking of local Churches?

What do you mean “What Fathers”? In speaking about how ‘the Church that is one and unique, precedes creation”, the footnote makes reference to the allegorical second century “Shepherd of Hermas" (known to the early Church Fathers), as well as to an Epistle of “St. Clement of Rome”.

There is no real difference between “local” and “particular” churches, except to say that “local” churches is the more colloquial and common name give to those particular churches established by the Apostles. But all local churches are particular, with “particular” having a more canonical connotation.

columba wrote:
I'll return to the rest as I only have a few minutes left to type but the following extract is confusing to say the least:

Since, however, communion with the universal Church, represented by Peter's Successor, is not an external complement to the particular Church, but one of its internal constituents, the situation of those venerable Christian communities also means that their existence as particular Churches is wounded. The wound is even deeper in those ecclesial communities which have not retained the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist. This in turn also injures the Catholic Church, called by the Lord to become for all "one flock" with "one shepherd"(77), in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of its universality in history

Their existence as particular Churches is wounded, yes, and this places them outside the Church according to the thrice defined Dogma, while the Holy Catholic Church remains intact, undivided and unwounded.

And here we see your appalling ecclesiology on full display. The thrice defined dogma has nothing to do with the existence of particular churches and the real communion that exists between the universal and particular, despite, in this case, the severe wound to the latter's unity.

Really, this is pretty bad, even by your standards.

columba wrote:
It seems like we're waiting and longing for the day when the Church of Christ is united as if it is not already ONE, Holy and Apostolic.

Yes, we are waiting and longing for the day when those separated particular churches are finally reunited with one true Church of Christ in full communion, which takes nothing away from the fact that:

Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.

… the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10] (CDF, Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church, June, 2007)

Neither does it change the fact that:

41. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi)

This is too complicated for you, no?

columba wrote:
When I read such ambiguous things as this, I take the Advice of Pope Pius X and hold it to its heretical meaning until clarification be provided. Unfortunately the clarification as to the interpretation of this has already been provided by the words and actions of recent popes since.

Columba, such a heretical twisting of the words of Pope St. Pius X really is scandalous.

In no way can you cite the sainted Pontiff to have said or to have suggested that the teaching of the Catholic Church as it is expressed through the ordinary magisterial voice of one of his predecessors or successors in the form of an official Letter by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly known as the Holy Office) should be held as “heretical” because a layman such as yourself (who is clearly not equipped to understand it) finds “heretical ambiguity” within.

Truly appalling.

On a final note, columba, you don't seem to realize that it precisely because of "The vastness of the subject matter and ... the many new contributions to the field" that "some are not immune from erroneous interpretation which in turn give rise to confusion and doubt" that "required clarification by way of precise definition and correction, for instance in the declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), the Letter addressed to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Communionis notio (1992), and the declaration Dominus Iesus (2000), all published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" ... by which "the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate." (CDF, Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church, June, 2007)

But, its all ambiguous heresy to you; and sedevacantism never looked so appealing.

MRyan why do you need to be mean and insulting so often? It is really unchristian.

cowboy wrote:MRyan why do you need to be mean and insulting so often? It is really unchristian.

What is "mean, insulting and unchristian" is to allege heresy against the bride of Christ when the alleged "heretical ambiguity" is in the flawed understanding of the beholder and not in the Church herself.

Why are you so eager to give a free pass to those Catholics who insult Holy Mother Church with these wretched accusations? You mean its okay to accuse the Popes and the Church of heresy in their official magisterial pronouncements as long as it is done "nicely"? I don't see anything "nice" about it, but only insults and sarcasm

There was nothing "mean, insulting or unchristian" in my response, but only a dose of the same irreverent sarcasm employed by columba - a sarcasm he directed at the Church.

Cowboy, what is your problem? Why do come across as such a whiny wimp?

”To bring contempt and odium on the mystic Spouse of Christ, who is the true light, the children of darkness have been wont to cast in her face before the world a stupid calumny, and perverting the meaning and force of things and words, to depict her as the friend of darkness and ignorance… (Motu-proprio, Ut mysticum, 14 March, 1891”; extract from Encyclical of Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis).

Protocol says I should first get this out of the way: Sorry, Cowboy, if you are offended by the words of Pope St. Pius X, but as columba said “if the shoe fits”.

Columba, I am afraid that I will have to insist that you provide the “proof” for the following outlandish assertion (that I consider a “stupid calumny”) that you so rashly attribute to Pope St. Pius X:

When I read such ambiguous things as this, I take the Advice of Pope Pius X and hold it to its heretical meaning until clarification be provided. Unfortunately the clarification as to the interpretation of this has already been provided by the words and actions of recent popes since.

The only “proof” document (from Pope Pius X) that I can think of that might have some relevancy is from the same Pascendi Dominici Gregis (cited in my lead-in), but I am not aware of any such passage that can even remotely be construed as justification for such a ridiculous allegation against the pope and the Holy Office.

However, while we are on the subject, and before going to what I suspect is the “proof” you actually meant to reference (Pope Pius VI, in his Apostolic Constitution: Auctorem Fidei), perhaps you should consider the following passages from the same Encyclical of Pius X:

3. […] Finally, and this almost destroys all hope of cure, their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.

28. … On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new - we find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX., where it is enunciated in these terms: Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence the sense, too, of the sacred dogmas is that which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth. Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, impeded by this pronouncement - on the contrary it is aided and promoted. For the same Council continues: Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries - but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.

Now, in the CDF’s Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church (cited previously), in response to the “First Question … Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?”, the CDF replied:

The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.

This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council. Paul VI affirmed it and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: “There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation”. The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention.

Do you see, columba, how it all ties together?

Do you really want to suggest that “Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church”, and in particular, “The universal Church and particular churches”, there can be no “development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith” by the Second Vatican Council that “developed, deepened and more fully explained it”, because you find it “ambiguous” and thus, you hold it as “heretical”?

Seriously?

Anyway, let’s address once again what I believe is probably your intended reference for your scandalous assertion, Pope Pius VI's Apostolic Constitution: Auctorem Fidei:

"In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged"

OK, I “denounce” as “a stupid calumny, and perverting the meaning and force of things and words, to depict her [the Church] as the friend of darkness and ignorance”; to wit, I denounce as a stupid calumny your allegation that says “under the veil of ambiguity” the Church has perpetuated what appears to be a heretical and “perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged”.

Yes, columba, you are actually charging the ordinary magisterium of the Church with “the capacity of innovators in the art of deception”, so as

not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.”

What kind of torturous ecclesiology and rigorist catholic mindset can derive from this Apostolic Constitution the so-called right to hold an infallible teaching of the Vatican Council on the DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH, as well as its ordinary magisterial clarifications “Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church” and “ON SOME ASPECTS OF THE CHURCH UNDERSTOOD AS COMMUNION” as “heretical” until proven otherwise because someone such as yourself finds a heretical meaning (vicious lying by way of deceit) in its so-called “ambiguity”?

Both Popes Pius VI and St. Pius X would have condemned such a heretical notion as “a stupid calumny, and perverting the meaning and force of things and words, to depict her as the friend of darkness and ignorance”.

columba wrote:
Let me say, my understanding is not based on extracting one mystical Idea from the Church's bundle of mystical ideas and ignoring all the others. I believe in every dogma of the Catholic Church and will not be anathematized for replacing them with some other meaning under the specious name of "a deeper understanding," and, "nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning." (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos #7).

There you go again in your vain and scandalous attempt to accuse the Church of replacing her dogmas with some other meaning under the specious name of "a deeper understanding” and of diminishing, changing and/or adding to these truths such that they have not been “preserved both as regards expression and meaning”.

And where is the evidence of such a serious charge of heresy against the teaching authority of the Catholic Church? Only in your mind.

As I demonstrated in my last post, you simply pick and choose that section of a particular papal document you like, while ignoring the rest which places it into context and actually condemns the idea you are trying to promote, that of accusing the Magisterium of those same crimes it condemns.

And in this, columba, you have no excuse; for you repeat the same falsehood over and over again, and refuse to be moderated by the Church. This is why such spurious and scandalous accusations are no different from that of the modernists, about whom:

Though they express astonishment themselves, no one can justly be surprised that We number such men among the enemies of the Church, if, leaving out of consideration the internal disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge, he is acquainted with their tenets, their manner of speech, their conduct. Nor indeed will he err in accounting them the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. … Finally, and this almost destroys all hope of cure, their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.

Yep.

columba wrote:
What I and many others see, is the expression of dogmas not being preserved, and therefore the meaning that's derived from the new expression cannot be trusted.

Not only do you not “trust” the living authentic magisterium of the Church, you call the supreme teachings of an Ecumenical Council and the ordinary magisterial teachings on the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, “heretical” until proven otherwise.

There is absolutely nothing “Catholic” about it.

columba wrote:
A few questions for You and Mike:

1. How does one enter the Church? Is it by sacramental Baptism only?
2. Does the Church recognize as one of her members one who has not been Baptized?
3. Has the Church ever proclaimed dogmatically that heretical sects or schismatic sects are part of, and inside the Church?
4. Has the Church ever proclaimed dogmatically that heretical sects or schismatic sects are NOT part of, or inside the Church?
5. Has the Church ever declared dogmatically that there are invisible members of the Church here on earth?
6. Has the Church ever stated dogmatically that the Church is of visible members only?
7. Has the Church ever stated that it is foolish to consider that unbaptized infants gain salvation?
8. Has the Church ever stated recently that it is Not a foolish thing to consider that unbatized infants enter heaven?

Hmm.. That should be enough for now considering the average length of Mike's replies.

I will not give the courtesy of a reply to such flawed and misleading questions that reveal only a bankrupt Pharisaical theology/ecclesiology that cannot begin to comprehend simple theological distinctions, and which refuses to be moderated by the Church.

Is that brief enough?

I will not give the courtesy of a reply to such flawed and misleading questions that reveal only a bankrupt Pharisaical theology/ecclesiology that cannot begin to comprehend simple theological distinctions, and which refuses to be moderated by the Church.

Is that brief enough?

As the previous thread on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus was derailed into a Baptism of Blood debate, I decided to use this thread of yours Mike to get back on the subject of what constitutes Church membership. As you refuse to answer the straight forward questions then I'll ask Simple Faith for his answers.

You started this thread -I assume- hoping to show (by way of Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to the bishops) how the new ecumenism is in accord with the traditional understanding of Church. The letter does not show this connection with tradition.

columba wrote:
Let me say, my understanding is not based on extracting one mystical Idea from the Church's bundle of mystical ideas and ignoring all the others. I believe in every dogma of the Catholic Church and will not be anathematized for replacing them with some other meaning under the specious name of "a deeper understanding," and, "nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning." (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos #7).

There you go again in your vain and scandalous attempt to accuse the Church of replacing her dogmas with some other meaning under the specious name of "a deeper understanding” and of diminishing, changing and/or adding to these truths such that they have not been “preserved both as regards expression and meaning”.

And where is the evidence of such a serious charge of heresy against the teaching authority of the Catholic Church? Only in your mind.

You don't need me to show you how the means of expression has changed since Vat II. Clarity has been replaced with ambiguity, when the faithful have the right -as taught by Pope Pius VI's in Apostolic Constitution: Auctorem Fidei (I stand corrected in attributing it to Pope Pius X) - to clear and unabiguous language from the teaching authority of the Church when expressing the doctrines of the faith.

MRyan wrote:
Yes, columba, you are actually charging the ordinary magisterium of the Church with “the capacity of innovators in the art of deception”,

I am not making any chrages. I am stating an obvious and observable fact that the expression of the faith has changed allowing for the conclussions derived from the new expression to be different for any given individual, thus, the conclussions cannot be trusted to be accurately transmitting the doctrines of the faith. I don't happen to be a lone maverick; for example the SSPX have stated similar.

MRyan wrote:
As I demonstrated in my last post, you simply pick and choose that section of a particular papal document you like, while ignoring the rest which places it into context and actually condemns the idea you are trying to promote, that of accusing the Magisterium of those same crimes it condemns.

This throw-away accusation would gain some meat if you had amswered the questions I posed. Simple "yes" or "no" to each would have sufficed.

Well Well, I see that Cowboy has rode back into the Forum. You were the first one to welcome me as a new member. So I say to you welcome back!

So Cowboy, what are your thoughts on the following link about THE Cowboy; by that I mean, " The Duke "....... John Wayne / Catholic

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7iNPlUVPvx4AWndXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0ZTkzZ25nBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1JDRjAyOV84NA--/SIG=12g0e3ec0/EXP=1329989071/**http%3a//catholicism.org/john-wayne-im-a-cardiac-catholic.html

cowboy wrote:MRyan why do you need to be mean and insulting so often? It is really unchristian.

Cowboy,
I really don't mind being insulted and I don't actually take them (Mike's occasional harsh words) as insults at all. Whether deserved or not -in any given instance- they're still good for the soul. I have a certain weird kind of humor that can come across as sarcasim when transposed to the written word and the more I associate with Simple Faith the worse it gets. (bet that sounded sarcastic), so it might possibly be the case that Mike isn't perfect either. Harsh words won't make me any worse than I already am in God's eyes and likewise, words of praise won't make me any better, though (for me) insults are always the safer bet.

BTW, good to hear from you again. Does anyone know where Duckbill went?

George Brenner wrote: Well Well, I see that Cowboy has rode back into the Forum. You were the first one to welcome me as a new member. So I say to you welcome back!

So Cowboy, what are your thoughts on the following link about THE Cowboy; by that I mean, " The Duke "....... John Wayne / Catholic

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7iNPlUVPvx4AWndXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0ZTkzZ25nBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1JDRjAyOV84NA--/SIG=12g0e3ec0/EXP=1329989071/**http%3a//catholicism.org/john-wayne-im-a-cardiac-catholic.html

George that was interesting.
May God have mercy on his soul.

columba wrote:
A few questions for You and Mike:

Since you seem to want to hide behind these questions and the SSPX before providing any real response to my very specific responses which address every one of your flawed objections to the Church’s infallible teachings on the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, and in particular, the Universal and Particular Churches; teachings you consider heretical, I will respond to your questions.

As every one of your questions pertains to membership in the Church, my answers will be in the context of the common definition; that of an organic, material, corporal, visible, external and formal Church membership proposed by St. Bellarmine and Pope Pius XII, both of whom also considered the faith/charity-filled adult, catechumen and the martyr who died without benefit of the Sacrament of Baptism to have received the grace of regeneration and to have been united to the Mystical Body by the bonds of faith and charity.

The distinction between internal unity and external membership has been a common doctrine of the Church since the days of St. Cyprian, and is taught by the authentic and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church still today. Anyone who is familiar with the Summa, the Sentences of Peter Lombard, the Catechism of Trent and the unanimous moral consensus of the saints, Doctors and theologians, would know this, rather than pretend, as columba does, that the Church has allowed and has been teaching error on a matter of salvation for about as long as her visible existence.

1. How does one enter the Church? Is it by sacramental Baptism only?

Yes.

2. Does the Church recognize as one of her members one who has not been Baptized?

No; though, the good-faith unbaptized catechumen, who is not a formal member of the Church, may be presumed to be IN the Church and is afforded the privilege of the prayers of the Church in Christian burial.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with Popes St. Pius X and Benedict XV.

3. Has the Church ever proclaimed dogmatically that heretical sects or schismatic sects are part of, and inside the Church?

Never – not with respect to membership (though as infants they are Baptized into the one true Church); but she always held that even heretical and schismatic churches that possess valid apostolic succession, a valid priesthood and valid sacraments are a part of the universal one true Church of Christ by virtue of their being true, but defective, particular churches.

That she traditionally stressed almost exclusively the defect and the open wound of separation rather than a true partial communion was to be expected when the Eastern Orthodox churches were considered to be in open culpable schism.

What you and the faux traditionalists cannot accept is the fact that the Church has lifted the excommunications and the mortal sin of obstinacy is no longer presumed to be operative.

4. Has the Church ever proclaimed dogmatically that heretical sects or schismatic sects are NOT part of, or inside the Church?

Of course, but in the context of formal schism with the Roman Pontiff, which, while being an essential internal element of unity, it is not a constitutive element of a particular church. Objectively, this unity is reflected in every valid Eastern Orthodox Mass.

5. Has the Church ever declared dogmatically that there are invisible members of the Church here on earth?

Never; but she teaches through her ordinary and authentic, living, authoritative and universal magisterium that good-faith non-baptized catechumens and martyrs, for example, are united to her in faith and charity, and she considers such souls already IN the Church (but not as visible “members”), as St. Fulgentius, tradition and the Church teaches still today in even more explicit terms.

6. Has the Church ever stated dogmatically that the Church is of visible members only?

Of course not, otherwise the Communion of Saints would not exist.

7. Has the Church ever stated that it is foolish to consider that unbaptized infants gain salvation?

Yes, in the context that it would be foolish to say she knows of another means other than Baptism that can assure an infant’s salvation.

8. Has the Church ever stated recently that it is Not a foolish thing to consider that unbatized infants enter heaven?

She recently re-affirmed her perennial teaching that she knows of no means other than water baptism that can assure an infant’s salvation, while also allowing hope that God may save these same infants in a way known only to Himself, but never apart from the Church and never without the regenerative saving grace of Baptism.

MRyan wrote:
As every one of your questions pertains to membership in the Church, my answers will be in the context of the common definition; that of an organic, material, corporal, visible, external and formal Church membership proposed by St. Bellarmine and Pope Pius XII, both of whom also considered the faith/charity-filled adult, catechumen and the martyr who died without benefit of the Sacrament of Baptism to have received the grace of regeneration and to have been united to the Mystical Body by the bonds of faith and charity.

So then, there are indeed two types of membership?
That would be fine except for the fact that the Church does not recognize as her members those who have not received sacramental Basptism.

MRyan wrote:
The distinction between internal unity and external membership has been a common doctrine of the Church since the days of St. Cyprian,

St. John Chrysostom didn't seem to be aware of this common doctrine when he wrote;

"..for if it should come to pass (which God forbid) that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated, though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none other than hell and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds indissoluble"

and also;

"Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ in nowise from them, those who depart hence without the illumination, without the seal! They indeed deserve our wailing, they deserve our groans; they are outside the Palace, with the culprits, with the condemned: for, "Verily I say unto you, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven."

MRyan wrote:
Anyone who is familiar with the Summa, the Sentences of Peter Lombard, the Catechism of Trent and the unanimous moral consensus of the saints, Doctors and theologians, would know this, rather than pretend, as columba does, that the Church has allowed and has been teaching error on a matter of salvation for about as long as her visible existence.

All the above named, holy as they were, are not the magisterium of the Church and they are not unanimous as you claim. Even the present magisterium states clearly (in what some consider to be its infallible catechism) that;

62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude;

But like I said before, the CCC goes on to explain that the Church in fact does know of another means other than the sacrament of Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude. This is hardly consistent. How can a doctrine be made out of something the Church admits herself she does not know? Can't you see the problem Mike?

the good-faith unbaptized catechumen, who is not a formal member of the Church, may be presumed to be IN the Church and is afforded the privilege of the prayers of the Church in Christian burial.

If he is IN the Church then he IS a member of the Church; but the only way one can become a memeber of the Chucrh is through sacramental Baptism.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with Popes St. Pius X and Benedict XV.

I don't have a problem with either of the good Popes as they never proposed this teaching as a doctrine of the faith binding on the faithful.
On the other hand, if you Mike do not have a problem with this then; You have a problem.

More later but will leave it there for now.

columba wrote:
You started this thread -I assume- hoping to show (by way of Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to the bishops) how the new ecumenism is in accord with the traditional understanding of Church. The letter does not show this connection with tradition.

My purpose in starting this thread was fairly simple and straight-forward: A) To present the Church’s teaching On Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion, and in particular, her teaching on Universal Church and Particular Churches; and B), To demonstrate the Church’s teaching on Ecclesial Communion and Ecumenism, and how the former is indeed the basis for the latter.

I also started this thread in order to shift this important topic from the confining and somewhat fetid air of the sedespleenist sub-forum where the copy and paste allegations of Fatima for our times were exposed for the outright falsehoods that they are. Little did I suspect, though I should have, that his fence-sitting fellow-traveler would take up the same charge of heresy against the Catholic Church.

Sometimes I am just naïve enough to think that the actual teachings of the living authentic ordinary Magisterium on her very own Dogmatic Constitution would resonate (even if not clearly understood) with Catholics who remain conflicted or confused by the steady barrage of propaganda coming from the smarter-than the-Church rad-trad community which sees only pestilence and error from the same Magisterium.

I know; I shouldn’t be so naïve. I will return to this subject and the fallacy of your responses after we address the important related question of “membership” (as reflected in your questions).

columba wrote

MRyan wrote:
As every one of your questions pertains to membership in the Church, my answers will be in the context of the common definition; that of an organic, material, corporal, visible, external and formal Church membership proposed by St. Bellarmine and Pope Pius XII, both of whom also considered the faith/charity-filled adult, catechumen and the martyr who died without benefit of the Sacrament of Baptism to have received the grace of regeneration and to have been united to the Mystical Body by the bonds of faith and charity.

So then, there are indeed two types of membership?
That would be fine except for the fact that the Church does not recognize as her members those who have not received sacramental Baptism.

That is correct; the Church does not recognize as members of her society those who have not received sacramental Baptism. Neither does she recognize as her members those who do not profess the same Catholic faith, those who do not participate in the same Sacraments or those who are not subject to the Roman Pontiff.

So where does this leave the good-faith baptized adolescent who of his own free will professes the faith of his received Orthodox tradition (the faith of the first seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church) while remaining confused about the dogma of papal primacy; meaning, his professed doubt or denial of a secondary dogma is not obstinate or pertinacious?

Since neither Fatima for our times nor Jehanne could answer this question except to contradict themselves and to deny free will, it’s your turn to answer the question; after all, I have answered all of yours.

The way I see it, as a professed sede fence-sitter of the radical Feeneyite (but un-Feeney-like) persuasion, you have only two options:

You can affirm the blatantly self-contradictory Dimond/Foot explanation that says the adolescent remains a true member of the Catholic Church in communion with and under the authority of the Roman Pontiff until he falls into obstinate heresy, schism or apostasy (thereby denying free will and the definition of Church membership), OR:

You can take the more radical but at least more consistent R. Ibranyi position which calls this position heretical and which says every child who reaches the age of reason who does not profess the Catholic faith whole and inviolate is ipso facto a manifest obstinate heretic and schismatic regardless of any mitigating circumstances that might render him inculpable for his confusion over secondary dogmas.

Needless to say (that is, in a sane Catholic world), Catholics reject both of these positions as false and recognize with the Church that the same baptized and inculpable Orthodox member is externally united to the true Church only in voto so long as full communion through any of the external bonds of membership is lacking, and so long as he remains inculpable for his professed error(s) and for his lack of external unity with the Roman Pontiff.

Since you are on record as rejecting the Church's long-established tradition and teaching on the reality of a non-external unity/incorporation (in voto) with Christ and His Church, and judging from your professed Pharisaical and Fundamentalist ecclesiology, it would be entirely consistent for you to side with the radical Feeneyite position of R. Ibranyi and denounce every single child of the Eastern Orthodox Church (who comes of age and professes the faith of his received tradition) as a manifest obstinate heretic and schismatic who in no way can be a “member” of Christ and His Body, the Catholic Church; and thus, he is outside the Church's reach of sanctification and salvation so long as he remains a visible member of a particular Orthodox Church.

Once we get past this little hurdle, I will once again demonstrate that St. and Doctor Bellarmine and Pope Pius XII were not in error, as you so arrogantly allege, and were only affirming the universal and constant teaching of the Church on how such souls who possess “a salutary votum or desiderium of entering the Church are ‘within’ it insofar as they are working and fighting within it for the attainment of the objectives of Jesus Christ. Yet they are definitely not parts or members of this society.” (Fr. Fenton, Questions About Membership in the Church).

Btw, you should know better than to cite and recruit St. John Chrysostom, for it has been amply demonstrated that you have taken him out of context while ignoring the rest of his Oration(s) and his clearly stated belief that both his father and another female soul he writes about were within the Church in voto even without, or before, Baptism.

Of course, you are going to make me pull, once again, the actual citations; and I will gladly do so, but I would like to focus for the moment on the pressing unanswered question posed to you on whether the baptized Orthodox child who comes to the age of reason and professes the faith of his received tradition, and is inculpable for his erroneous understanding of papal primacy (or any other secondary dogma), is a “member” of the Catholic Church.

If you say that every such child is not and cannot be united to Christ because he is not an external "member" of the Church; and, therefore he cannot be in a state of grace or saved, I would like to know how the child fell into a state of mortal sin after being sanctified in Baptism (where he received the grace of habitual Catholic faith) when he is not morally culpable for his doubt or denial of a secondary dogma of the Church.

I don't like ambiguity on doctrinal matters of salvation, columba, and I want to know if this baptized child, who is not an external member of the Church, can be in a state of sanctification (from his Baptism) if he is not morally culpable for his doubt or denial of a secondary dogma, and thus, he has not fallen into the mortal sin of obstinate doubt or rejection.

Foot played the "I don't understand the question" game while mindlessly repeating the Church's teaching on the status of Baptized infants; I hope you will not play the same game.

If you are going to be consistent, I already know your answer; and I must confess it sends the chill of a profound gut-wrenching sadness into my very being.

Perhaps you'll surprise me, I can be optimistic to a fault.

Mryan wrote:
Of course, you are going to make me pull, once again, the actual citations; and I will gladly do so, but I would like to focus for the moment on the pressing unanswered question posed to you on whether the baptized Orthodox child who comes to the age of reason and professes the faith of his received tradition, and is inculpable for his erroneous understanding of papal primacy (or any other secondary dogma), is a “member” of the Catholic Church.

Mike you haven't sussed out my position correctly for I do agree with you that such a child who comes to the age of reason and is inculpable for his error, remains within the Catholic Church. He may be a material heretic but would (if he indeed holds the true faith) renounce his error when presented with the truth. In fact he then has the option of either accepting or rejecting. If he rejects, he then falls into mortal sin by moving from a state of material heresy to that of formal.
If it were not possible for the reasonable mind to determine the truth concerning the primacy of Peter, there would be no fault on his part but he, like the Protestant sects, must deny what can easily be assertained from scripture alone (never mind tradition) therefore his sin of seperation becomes culpable and thus he places himself outside the One True Church.
The authority of Peter is a Divinely revealed truth and not one that needs be deduced or extracted from the deposit of faith. To add to this, it has not been proven that ignorance of those things which are deemed necessary for salvation can be a non-culpable mistake. In fact the contrary opinion (see Jehannes signature) has much theological weight.

This homing in on the individual member of a sect however is -for me- not really relevant. What is relevent (and disturbing) is when a Pope addresses the sect itself as a body and insinuates that the errors proper to that sect are somehow yet pleasing or acceptable to God. This not only is detrimental to the cause of reconcilliation but even worse, detrimental to the faith of true Catholics.
No doubt Mike you will state that the Pope (and recent popes) have never condoned the errors of those seperated from the Church. To not condemn error is to condone it and to play down the significance of it is (in the real world) to render it totally insignificant. Worst of all -IMO- is when the further step is taken to play down the errors of those completely apostate religions (I'm thinking here mainly of the anti Christ religions of judaism and Islam) and professing that they too are on the road to salvation, Again, I'm not considering here the individual Jew or Muslim but the religion as a whole (the body) which is in fact what Benedict XVI was addressing.

But getting back to the individual (this time the Catholic individual). Each Catholic has the duty and the right to protect and nourish the faith he received at Baptism and to keep it in its purity. In rejecting the errors of schismatical, heretical and apostate sects, I am by implication also condemning them and setting myself against them as an enemy. As for reading the hearts of their individual members, that I leave to the mercy of God. As for the diabolical sects themselves, they are outside the fold and leading their members to everlasting perdition.
In resisting the errors of the above mentioned I am again, by implication, resisting those who by word or deed condone their errors; in this case I'm implicitly resisting the Pope, but that's ok as their are theologically valid grounds for doing so in the presevation of ones own faith and that of those under ones care. As for, "Is the Pope a heretic" my judgement doesn't extend that far but rather I say no more than St. Alphonsus;

'As regards my opinions concerning the present state of the Church with relation to the election of the new Pope, what opinion of any weight could a miserable, ignorant, and unspiritual person like myself possibly give? There is need for prayer and much prayer. All the human science and prudence that there is cannot extricate the Church from the present state of relaxation and confusion in which every section finds itself; the all-powerful arm of God is necessary.

As regards the bishops, very few of them possess genuine zeal for souls. Almost all religious communities - and one could omit the "almost" - are relaxed. As a result of the present state of general confusion, observance has collapsed and obedience is a thing of the past. The state of the secular clergy is still worse: so, in a word, there is a need for a general reform of all clerics and ecclesiastics if there is to be any improvement in the present great corruption of morals among the laity.

So we have to pray to Jesus Christ that He would give us as head of the Church one possessed of more spirit and zeal for the glory of God than of learning and human prudence. He should be free of all party attachments and devoid of human respect. If, by chance, for our great misfortune, we should get a Pope that does not have the glory of God as his sole purpose, the Lord will not help him greatly and things from their present condition will go from bad to worse. However, prayer, which can provide a remedy for so many present ills, will move the Lord to put His hand to the problem and remedy the situation.'
St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori

columba wrote:
Mike you haven't sussed out my position correctly for I do agree with you that such a child who comes to the age of reason and is inculpable for his error, remains within the Catholic Church. He may be a material heretic ....

Please explain, columba, how this same child remains “within the Catholic Church” while not being a member of the Catholic Church.

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
Mike you haven't sussed out my position correctly for I do agree with you that such a child who comes to the age of reason and is inculpable for his error, remains within the Catholic Church. He may be a material heretic ....

Please explain, columba, how this same child remains “within the Catholic Church” while not being a member of the Catholic Church.

He was Baptized into the Catholic faith (there is no other faith in which he could be Baptized) and is therefore subject to Peter (even unknowingly to him) as are our own Catholic children. He is therefore completely Catholic and if he were to die before the age of reason he would go straight to heaven. Even after the age of reason, if he does not reject any known dogma of the faith he still remains Catholic, not Orthodox, Protestant or whatever the sect may be. He remains a member of the Cathoilic Church because he never left the Catholic Church. However, once he makes the decission to leave the Catholic faith (by rejecting one or more of her dogmas) he then becomes a member of the sect and volutarily places himself outside the fold.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
Mike you haven't sussed out my position correctly for I do agree with you that such a child who comes to the age of reason and is inculpable for his error, remains within the Catholic Church. He may be a material heretic ....

Please explain, columba, how this same child remains “within the Catholic Church” while not being a member of the Catholic Church.

He was Baptized into the Catholic faith (there is no other faith in which he could be Baptized) and is therefore subject to Peter (even unknowingly to him) as are our own Catholic children. He is therefore completely Catholic and if he were to die before the age of reason he would go straight to heaven. Even after the age of reason, if he does not reject any known dogma of the faith he still remains Catholic, not Orthodox, Protestant or whatever the sect may be. He remains a member of the Cathoilic Church because he never left the Catholic Church. However, once he makes the decission to leave the Catholic faith (by rejecting one or more of her dogmas) he then becomes a member of the sect and volutarily places himself outside the fold.

You have yet to explain how the baptized Orthodox child who comes to the age of reason and professes the faith of his received tradition, and is inculpable in his erroneous understanding of papal primacy (or any other secondary dogma), is a “member” of the Catholic Church, while at the same time being an external member of his particular Orthodox Church where he professes the same Orthodox faith of his parents and his received tradition; where he is in visible and voluntary communion with other members of his particular Church, and where he is NOT in external unity with, and is NOT externally subject to, the Roman Pontiff.

You cannot have it both ways; and Baptism, for those who of their own free will can make their own act of faith, is NOT the only essential requirement for Church membership.

The Church considers this adult an Orthodox-Christian, not a Catholic-Christian; and, while not presuming obstinate doubt or denial, recognizes that his faith and communion are defective, while you treat him as an infant who has never gown up and give him a free pass to heaven as an external member of the Roman Catholic Church who, with the same free will of an adult, is "subject to Peter (even unknowingly to him) as are our own Catholic children", while in fact he is NOT externally subject to or in communion with Peter and does not enjoy external membership in the Church.

Explain yourself, and explain why the definition of membership in the Church can be brushed aside in the case of an Orthodox adolescent who professes the faith of his received tradition and is NOT in external communion with, or externally subject to, the Roman Pontiff.

MRyan wrote:
You have yet to explain how the baptized Orthodox child who comes to the age of reason and professes the faith of his received tradition, and is inculpable in his erroneous understanding of papal primacy (or any other secondary dogma), is a “member” of the Catholic Church, while at the same time being an external member of his particular Orthodox Church where he professes the same Orthodox faith of his parents and his received tradition; where he is in visible and voluntary communion with other members of his particular Church, and where he is NOT in external unity with, and is NOT externally subject to, the Roman Pontiff.

This may be going round in circles a bit but perseverance might pay off in this instance.

While professing the faith of his received tradition (especially in the case of the Orthodox) he is neither rejecting, nor in denial of any dogma of the Catholic faith while he remains inculpably ignorant of such. He himself may go through life inculpably ignorant of -lets say, the dogma of the necessity of subjection to the Roman Pontiff and still die a true Catholic within the bossom of the Church. I'm not here affirming that this is possible -while aided by, and cooperating with grace- to sustain ones state of inculpability indefinately, but merely -for the sake of argument- ignoring this all-important
acton of grace promised at Baptism. Post-Baptismal ignorance, after the age of reason, can't automatically be assumed to be inculpable if we believe that the invisible action of grace is constantly inclining one towards the seeking of and acceptance of the fullness of truth. The modern idea of assuming inculpabilty is a dangerous one -IMO- as even though we do not judge the inner man, we are obliged to judge externals and, -as you correctly say,- to all external appearances the soul in question is not in communion with the Church but in communion with a schismatic sect and thus in dire danger of forfieting any reward for laboring outside the fold.

The Church considers this adult an Orthodox-Christian, not a Catholic-Christian; and, while not presuming obstinate doubt or denial, recognizes that his faith and communion are defective

This is the unforgivable, modern-day presumption, that obstinate doubt is not assumed. For the sake of the souls in question it should be assumed and has always been assumed by the Church, that those adhering to the false doctrines of non-Catholic sects, are themselves culpable for their error. Presuming that God's mercy will see to it that all such souls remain inculpable, is just that; presumption.

while in fact he is NOT externally subject to or in communion with Peter and does not enjoy external membership in the Church.

This is why his soul is in grave danger of eternal damnation and for charity sake he should be made aware of his imminent danger. Instead he is told that he is an internal member of the one true Church of Christ and given the guarantee that no attempt will be made at proselytization. Bad enough in his case, but worse for the jews who have not the grace of Baptism to assist a deathbed conversion.

Explain yourself, and explain why the definition of membership in the Church can be brushed aside in the case of an Orthodox adolescent who professes the faith of his received tradition and is NOT in external communion with, or externally subject to, the Roman Pontiff.

It can't be brushed aside. While he is not an external member he must be presumed to be in grave spiritual danger and for all itents and purposes be considered as like the Pagan or Jew. This assuming, that goes on in the modernized, PC Church of today, presumes everything except the fewness of the saved.

Columba, don't be offended, but I am omitting your comments relative to your totally opinionated “assumptions” about why the Church should “presume” all of the Orthodox are obstinate heretics and schismatics, for such prudential matters have nothing to do with the subject at hand; or, more to the point, with your admission that such souls can be saved as external members of their respective particular Orthodox Churches – without, as adults above the age of reason, professing the catholic faith whole and inviolate, without external unity with the Roman Pontiff and without, in other words, membership in the Catholic Church.

Let’s keep the discussion centered on that and your blatant contradiction that says that no one can be within the Catholic Church without being an external member thereof (apparently now redefined as water baptism only).

Let me quote you, and place your second statement into context:

So then, there are indeed two types of membership?

That would be fine except for the fact that the Church does not recognize as her members those who … [do not “profess the true faith and have not unhappily withdrawn from Body-unity”]

Let’s proceed.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
You have yet to explain how the baptized Orthodox child who comes to the age of reason and professes the faith of his received tradition, and is inculpable in his erroneous understanding of papal primacy (or any other secondary dogma), is a “member” of the Catholic Church, while at the same time being an external member of his particular Orthodox Church where he professes the same Orthodox faith of his parents and his received tradition; where he is in visible and voluntary communion with other members of his particular Church, and where he is NOT in external unity with, and is NOT externally subject to, the Roman Pontiff.

Explain yourself, and explain why the definition of membership in the Church can be brushed aside in the case of an Orthodox adolescent who professes the faith of his received tradition and is NOT in external communion with, or externally subject to, the Roman Pontiff.

This may be going round in circles a bit but perseverance might pay off in this instance.

While professing the faith of his received tradition (especially in the case of the Orthodox) he is neither rejecting, nor in denial of any dogma of the Catholic faith while he remains inculpably ignorant of such. He himself may go through life inculpably ignorant of -lets say, the dogma of the necessity of subjection to the Roman Pontiff and still die a true Catholic within the bossom of the Church.

It can't be brushed aside. While he is not an external member he must be presumed to be in grave spiritual danger and for all itents and purposes be considered as like the Pagan or Jew. This assuming, that goes on in the modernized, PC Church of today, presumes everything except the fewness of the saved.

I agree, let’s persevere.

You just brushed it aside by telling us that he is NOT an external member of the Church, and can be saved without being a member of the Church by virtue of the faith he received in Baptism while innocently professing the Orthodox faith … and is not culpable for the doubt or rejection of any secondary dogmas or for not being in external communion with the Roman Pontiff.

Now, columba; as I said, you cannot have it both ways. If external membership in the Church is not necessary in re for salvation, then it must be necessary and realized invisibly at least in desire (in voto), for there is no salvation outside the Church.

Just so we’re clear, what you are telling us is that for any of the baptized Orthodox above the age of reason (an adult), the profession of the true faith (whole and inviolate), external submission to (and unity with) the Roman Pontiff, and (in other words) external membership in the Catholic Church are not always necessary for salvation when inculpable ignorance excuses errors made on the secondary dogmas.

Please explain once again how someone can be within the Catholic Church, without being a member -- as it is defined by Pope Pius XII.

“Are there two types of membership”?

You of course realize where this is going. You are on record as saying that an adult may be within the Catholic Church without being a member of the Church, so long as that person has been validly baptized; yet you reject the teaching of the Church and of Pope Pius XII which teaches that the faith/charity-filled catechumen or martyr who desires Baptism, and, unlike the subject Orthodox adult, who professes the true faith whole and inviolate, and has an explicit desire to enter the Church and to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, can NOT be saved because he is not an external physical “member” of the Catholic Church.

Unbelievable.

And you do not see the blatant hypocrisy? Please show me where, for adults such as the Orthodox, the Church redefined membership in the Mystical Body (the Church Militant) to that of one essential element only - water Baptism.

And finally, “Are there two types of membership”?

Columba,

While you ponder your response, let me add this relevant part of an exchange on the same subject:

https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t192-questions-about-membership-in-the-church

Questions About Membership in the Church
by Joseph Clifford Fenton

Excerpt (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1357):

“(2) Although the Church is the only social unit on earth working for the objectives of Jesus Christ, there are individuals who, through the power of God's grace, work for that same objective without being in any way members of the Church. These are the individuals who are "within" the Catholic Church by a salutary votum or desiderium. This votum or desiderium is salutary only when it is enlightened by true supernatural faith and motivated by true charity, and, obviously, only when it is impossible for the individual to be 'within' the Church as a member.

The individuals who are ‘within’ the Church only by a salutary votum or desiderium pray and work, against fierce opposition, for the accomplishment of the purposes of the Incarnation.

The society which is the only true supernatural kingdom of God on earth in the dispensation of the New Testament is composed or made up of its members. The men and women who have a salutary votum or desiderium of entering the Church are 'within' it insofar as they are working and fighting within it for the attainment of the objectives of Jesus Christ. Yet they are definitely not parts or members of this society.”

Tornpage wrote

Columba wrote:
tornpage... I also thank MR for posting that but (as you probably can guess) I can't agree that everything has been tied together beautifully. To me it's yet another wordy attempt at reconciling two contradictory positions, i.e, the necessity of "physical" membership and the theory of non-physical membership as being compatible or reconcilable. James 5:12 comes to mind here (yes yes, no no)

Columba,

There is no contradiction, as one may be justified by desire and therefore without a "physical membership." The Church does not say that there cannot be salvation without physical membership. Some here interpret Pius XII's statement in Mystici Corporis as standing for a necessity of physical membership for salvation, but they misinterpret the quote. The man they are quoting (Pius XII) believed, as noted by Father Fenton:

He likewise, however, spoke of the possibility of salvation for those who “are related to the Mystical Body by a certain unconscious yearning and desire (inscio quodam desiderio ac voto).” He depicted such individuals as existing in a state “in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church."

So not only do [you] misinterpret teachings of the Church by ignoring statements that the Church has made that would help you draw a proper interpretation, you ignore statements of individuals which would show your interpretation of what they are saying to be false. You are telling someone who made a statement that it means something contrary to what they tell you it means. And this is someone (the Magisterium of the Church) that both you and I believe is incapable of error on matters directly pertaining to what it is talking about.

Do you not see how insane that is?

Columba, in reference to our subject Orthodox adult who is not a physical (i.e., external, visible or formal) member of the Catholic Church (in the words of Pius XII, he has "withdrawn from Body-unity”), with as few words as possible, please reconcile the following:

"To me it's yet another wordy attempt at reconciling two contradictory positions, i.e, the necessity of ‘physical’ membership and the theory of non-physical membership as being compatible or reconcilable".

Columba,

Here is the problem (just in case it hasn’t sunk in); you wrote:

He was Baptized into the Catholic faith (there is no other faith in which he could be Baptized) and is therefore subject to Peter (even unknowingly to him) as are our own Catholic children. He is therefore completely Catholic and if he were to die before the age of reason he would go straight to heaven. Even after the age of reason, if he does not reject any known dogma of the faith he still remains Catholic, not Orthodox, Protestant or whatever the sect may be. He remains a member of the Catholic Church because he never left the Catholic Church. However, once he makes the decision to leave the Catholic faith (by rejecting one or more of her dogmas) he then becomes a member of the sect and voluntarily places himself outside the fold.

And:

He himself may go through life inculpably ignorant of -lets say, the dogma of the necessity of subjection to the Roman Pontiff and still die a true Catholic within the bosom of the Church... It can't be brushed aside. While he is not an external member …

Finally, you wrote:

"To me it's yet another wordy attempt at reconciling two contradictory positions, i.e, the necessity of ‘physical’ membership and the theory of non-physical membership as being compatible or reconcilable".

Please explain, once again, how our good-faith Orthodox adolescent who does not profess the same Faith (whole and inviolate) as that received at his Baptism, and who is not in external unity with the Roman Pontiff and the Church because, as Pope Pius XII declared, he has “unhappily withdrawn from Body-unity” (that he is unaware of this involuntary act is irrelevant to the definition of external physical membership in the Body of the society of the Church Militant), can at the same time "remain a member, in the bosom [and unity] of the Catholic Church ... While he is not an external member … of the Catholic Church".

"Are there two types of membership?"

MRyan wrote:
Please explain, once again, how our good-faith Orthodox adolescent who does not profess the same Faith (whole and inviolate) as that received at his Baptism, and who is not in external unity with the Roman Pontiff and the Church because, as Pope Pius XII declared, he has “unhappily withdrawn from Body-unity” (that he is unaware of this involuntary act is irrelevant to the definition of external physical membership in the Body of the society of the Church Militant), can at the same time "remain a member, in the bosom [and unity] of the Catholic Church ... While he is not an external member … of the Catholic Church".

"Are there two types of membership?"

OK Mike.. I'll get to a full response soon as there are many things in your recent posts I which to reply to but for now I'll provide once again (hopefully in a clearer way) an answer to your question above.

I'll try this analogy.
Let's say you or I, having only just received the sacrament of Baptism (as infants), were immediately whisked away by a group of -let's say- extreme Muslims, and went through our childhood attending the religious ceremonies of the Muslim faith and being taught all the practices and beliefs of that faith; would we now not be considered Catholic and subjects of the Roman Pontiff even though we have rejected nothing (as yet) of the Catholic faith?
Now let's say, we reach the age of reason and begin to conform -of our own free will, against the law of God imprinted on our hearts- to these Muslim practices (e.g. condoning pediaphilia or incest) and through our own rejection of the natural law and against the promptings of grace decide to go along to get along, would the resulting blindness that results from our rejection of grace be not our own fault? You might argue that the sins of pediaphilia and incest are not specifically sins against faith but of course ( even for a baptized Catholic) they predispose the offeneder to loss of faith through the blocking of grace.
Likewise in all non-Roman Catholic sects (Orthodox included), there is an accompanying lie inherent, and it is this lie, when accepted, that places one outsde the Church and then makes them a member of the sect in which they physically live. While the baptized Catholic is not accepting the lie of the sect nor rejecting any dogmas of the faith, he remains not only an internal member, but also an external member of the one true Church. If he ceased to be an internal member he would also cease to be an external member. If he ceased to be an external member, he would also cease to be an internal member. the two are one and the same, therefore there is only one type of membership; that is why those who profess a faith other than that of the Holy Roman Catolic Church, are anathema, and by a dogmatic declaration of the Church are presumed anathematized by the external sign of their being in association with heretics or schismatics.
Obviously it would be the case that one who did not hold to the lie inherent in the given sect, would make this visibily apparent; thus, while he refuses to do so we must (as the Church has always done) assume (even for his sake) that he is schismatic.
But one thing for sure -and it seems you do not want to comment on this- is the fact that the sect itself (as a body and in its profession) is without doubt schismatic and cut off from the Church. neither inside externally nor internally.

columba wrote:OK Mike.. I'll get to a full response soon as there are many things in your recent posts I which to reply to but for now I'll provide once again (hopefully in a clearer way) an answer to your question above.

I'll try this analogy.

No, columba, there is no need for another “analogy”; especially one as ridiculous as the baptized Muslim who comes of age only to accept “pedophilia or incest”, as if a mortal sin against the natural law is in any way relevant and analogous to the baptized Orthodox adolescent who professes his faith in all of the dogmas of the Church (as they were infallibly expressed in the first seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church), while being in inculpable error on secondary dogmas such as papal primacy.

You seem desperate to find a way to dig yourself out from underneath the mess you created for yourself when you insisted first that no one can be within the Church without also being an external (“physical”) member of the Church; and then told us that this same Orthodox adult member, while professing the Orthodox faith (even professing falsely his errant understanding of papal primacy), if he does not fall into obstinate heresy or schism, remains within the bosom and unity of the Mystical Body, while at the same time he remains separated from that same Body-unity found only in “external” membership, to wit (in addition to Baptism), in the profession of the same Catholic faith and external communion with the faithful and the Roman Pontiff.

What you told us (prior to this post), columba, though you seem to be fighting it the whole way as you are forced to confront the truth of what you are actually saying, is that this same Orthodox adult, while reaming outside of at least two essential bonds of external unity, retains his essential unity with the Church internally through an implicit desire (as a result of his Baptism and his good-faith explicit profession of his received Orthodox tradition) to profess the true faith whole and inviolate, and to be united with the Roman Pontiff.

That is the truth, and the sooner you realize that this is exactly what you are saying, the better.

But it all falls apart as you revert back to an even more severe Dimond-like obfuscation and nonsense (you sound exactly like R. Ibranyi):

columba wrote:
Likewise in all non-Roman Catholic sects (Orthodox included), there is an accompanying lie inherent, and it is this lie, when accepted, that places one outsde the Church and then makes them a member of the sect in which they physically live. While the baptized Catholic is not accepting the lie of the sect nor rejecting any dogmas of the faith, he remains not only an internal member, but also an external member of the one true Church. If he ceased to be an internal member he would also cease to be an external member. If he ceased to be an external member, he would also cease to be an internal member. the two are one and the same, therefore there is only one type of membership; that is why those who profess a faith other than that of the Holy Roman Catolic Church, are anathema, and by a dogmatic declaration of the Church are presumed anathematized by the external sign of their being in association with heretics or schismatics.

What a complete distortion of the truth. You are like Jekyll and Hyde. You are really tap-dancing now (OK, an Irish jig) and making it up as you go along. Unfortunately, the hole you are digging just keeps getting deeper and deeper.

In complete contradiction to what you already told us, now you revert back to the old columba by telling us that no one can be an internal member without being an external member; when you just said that the subject Orthodox adolescent or adult remains a “true catholic” and “remains a member of the Catholic Church” and, if inculpably ignorant of, or confused about, (let’s say) the true doctrine of papal primacy while professing the faith of his received tradition on this same doctrine, he will "die within the bosom [and unity] of the Church”, while at the same time, “It can't be brushed aside … he is not an external member” … of the Catholic Church.

Physician, heal thyself. Such blatant hypocrisy simply boggles the mind. You are so utterly confused it is painful to watch.

columba wrote:
But one thing for sure -and it seems you do not want to comment on this- is the fact that the sect itself (as a body and in its profession) is without doubt schismatic and cut off from the Church. neither inside externally nor internally.

Nice try at a diversion. Let’s stick to the subject at hand. I have and will respond again to this false accusation when I am good and ready; as it is, we are not done with the present dispute.

You are going to have to either renounce everything you told us prior to this last post about the co-existence of internal unity and external membership, or admit your egregious error and blatant hypocrisy.

In this latest post, gone is any semblance of your prior recognition of the truth that material error in the profession of a secondary dogma is not heretical or schismatic unless it is obstinate and pertinacious.

You need to come to grips with your hypocrisy and duplicitous speech, non-intentional as it may be.

Mike you haven't addressed at all what I have said and instead have built up a strew man and then proceded to cut him to pieces where as, anyone else who reads what I said, will understand that I am including as truly Catholic, any material heretic who, having been validly baptized into the one true faith (there being only ONE Baptism), regardless of geographic location, the sect of his parents, or the culture he lives in. These things do not determine the catholicity of a soul. What does determine the catholicity of a soul is his holding the faith, whole and entire. A material heretic, once made aware of any true doctrine, immediately embraces it and his previous, material heresy vanishes.
He remains truly Catholic in both senses; externally and internally.

You also conveniently overlook the most important factor in this equation, without which faith itself becomes a mere, humanistic ideology, having more in common with secular humanism than divine revelation. I'm talking of course of grace and free will. You seem to poohoo any reference to such, but the more you try to exclude the action of grace from the discussion, the more it becomes impossible for you to ackowledge the existance of culpability. I'll repost here what I said in reference to this and you can tell me if it's heretical;

columba wrote:
I'm not here affirming that this is possible -while aided by, and cooperating with grace- to sustain ones state of inculpability indefinately, but merely -for the sake of argument- ignoring this all-important acton of grace promised at Baptism. Post-Baptismal ignorance, after the age of reason, can't automatically be assumed to be inculpable if we believe that the invisible action of grace is constantly inclining one towards the seeking of and acceptance of the fullness of truth.
Again, for reference, see Jehannes signature.

and

If it were not possible for the reasonable mind to determine the truth concerning the primacy of Peter, there would be no fault on his part but he, like the Protestant sects, must deny what can easily be assertained from scripture alone (never mind tradition) therefore his sin of seperation becomes culpable and thus he places himself outside the One True Church.

To brush aside the notion of culpability is to brush aside that very element on which our salvation depends, i.e, the action of grace in all its forms; sanctifying, actual or habitual, all of which are promised at Baptism to those who cooporate with God in their own salvation. If culpability can be assumed to be absent in the case of the schismatic, then why draw the line there? Why not absent too in regards to your's or my sin.
If I were to assume absence of culpabilty on my own part, I may as well omit the "Mea Culpa," from my recitation of the Confiteor.
This is why the Church (until recently) assumed culpabilty on the part of the schismatic, knowing that if he indeed is culpable he is in danger of loosing his very soul. This is why the Church -even if hypothetically there were two types of membership- proclaims and acknowledges via her dogmatic declaration, only ONE membership, and all who are not subject to the Roman Pontiff are anathema AND OUTSIDE THE CHURCH.
This is where I stand; where the Church always stood. Regardless how God will judge the individual soul, to all external appearances the schismatic is not within the fold either externally or internally. We can judge by externals; God will do the internal judging.

MRyan wrote:
You are going to have to either renounce everything you told us prior to this last post about the co-existence of internal unity and external membership, or admit your egregious error and blatant hypocrisy.

Show me the hypocracy! Show me the error!
Can you, for all your attempts to reconcile with the law of contradiction, internal and external, separation and unity, doctrine and specious speculation, make judgement affirming the legitimacy of schismatic sects, against the Church's dogma of their illigitimacy to the extent where the Church affirms that, even their sacraments avail them nothing.

In this latest post, gone is any semblance of your prior recognition of the truth that material error in the profession of a secondary dogma is not heretical or schismatic unless it is obstinate and pertinacious.

I've affirmed this in every post. What I also affirm is that this state of material error cannot persist indeffinately for one who is led by grace which in reality is the supernatural intervention by Almighty God to procure the eternal salvation of the elect, but only with that souls cooperation. Culpability can only be completely absent if the soul is on its own, unassisted by grace.
Are you stating that subjection to the Romen Pontiff is a secondary dogma when it has been declared dogmatically to be an essential requirement for salvation?

columba wrote:
But one thing for sure -and it seems you do not want to comment on this- is the fact that the sect itself (as a body and in its profession) is without doubt schismatic and cut off from the Church. neither inside externally nor internally.

Nice try at a diversion. Let’s stick to the subject at hand. I have and will respond again to this false accusation when I am good and ready; as it is, we are not done with the present dispute. Nice try at a diversion. Let’s stick to the subject at hand. I have and will respond again to this false accusation when I am good and ready; as it is, we are not done with the present dispute.

The diversion was in fact my main point of contention. That the Church today is not talking about what you or I are discussing but rather referring to the Sect (with a capital "S"). If it were about the individual then she could state concerning them (as she does concerning Baptism on the fate of unbaptized infants) that the Church Knows of no other means by which a schimatic can be saved other than before death converting to the One True Faith. If there be another way, it is unknown to man.

If I were to sum up, I would say;
I am compelled by virtue of my faith to believe that there is only one holy Catholic apostolic Church. This I firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins. I believe, that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Well what do ya Know!
Pope Boniface VIII has said the same but in even stronger words.
He must be more gone with the fairies than me.

Quote:
"We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her' (Canticle of Canticles 6:; which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noah, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed… 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."

Please excuse the smiley that appeared in the quote above. I can't edit it out.

Mike you haven't addressed at all what I have said and instead have built up a strew man and then proceded to cut him to pieces where as, anyone else who reads what I said, will understand that I am including as truly Catholic, any material heretic who, having been validly baptized into the one true faith (there being only ONE Baptism), regardless of geographic location, the sect of his parents, or the culture he lives in. These things do not determine the catholicity of a soul. What does determine the catholicity of a soul is his holding the faith, whole and entire. A material heretic, once made aware of any true doctrine, immediately embraces it and his previous, material heresy vanishes.
He remains truly Catholic in both senses; externally and internally.

I haven’t invented any straw man; not at all; I’ve quoted you verbatim, and here you are once again contradicting yourself by saying that so long as the Orthodox adult is not aware that he is not in communion with the pope, and/or he is not aware that he does not profess the Catholic Faith whole and inviolate, “He remains truly Catholic in both senses; externally and internally”, even though he does NOT profess the “one true faith” whole and inviolate, and he is NOT in external communion with the Roman Pontiff. You are still treating him as an infant.

In fact, you previously said, “It can't be brushed aside … he is not an external member” … of the Catholic Church.

So please tell us how “He remains truly Catholic in both senses; externally and internally”, while at the same time “‘he is not an external member’ … of the Catholic Church”.

Let your speech be “yes, yes; no, no”, and stop this double-talk.

And look at you dare to say “What does determine the catholicity of a soul is his holding the faith, whole and entire, when you refuse to acknowledge that the catechumen or martyr burning in his love for Christ, who may have been taught the fullness of the Truth, and professes with all the graces God has given him the Catholic faith whole and inviolate, though he is prevented from receiving the grace of actual water baptism (as opposed to the materially heretical baptized Orthodox adult who may even be luke-warm in the faith, possessing attrition rather than a sincere contrition).

Oh no, you say, God will leave our faith/charity-filled catechumen high and dry without the gifts of the Church he begs for: the theological virtues of faith and charity, and without the regenerative sanctifying grace of salvation (he is damned for lack of a minister and water as he is burned at the stake professing his faith and love for Christ), while He whisks the materially heretical Orthodox adult into heaven after, upon his sudden death, forgiving his non-culpable sins of faith, all because he was baptized into a faith he does not now fully profess.

Truly, truly, amazing.

Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism...

Poor, poor, deluded Pope Pius XII; little did he know that not only was he not speaking in the magisterial "we", he was repeating one of the oldest heresies of the Catholic Church. I guess he can blame the likes of the Drs. Aquinas and Bellarmine, not to mention the universal moral consensus of the saints and theologians.

They know nada, isn't that right, columba?

columba wrote:
Are you stating that subjection to the Romen Pontiff is a secondary dogma when it has been declared dogmatically to be an essential requirement for salvation?

That is precisely what I am stating, because that’s what the Church teaches. As an absolute necessity for heaven, man is obliged to believe that which is the object of our Faith, those principal dogmas pertaining to the one true Trinitarian God and our Lord Jesus Christ Incarnate, Savior and Redeemer. This is why St. Thomas taught that belief in the secondary dogmas may be implicit in one’s belief in a primary dogma.

Subjection to the Roman Pontiff is not the object of our faith, it a revealed and defined secondary dogma. Obviously, "those who", as Pope Pius IX declared, “are contumacious against the authority of the same Church (and) definitions and who are obstinately (pertinaciter) separated from the unity of this Church and from the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, to whom the custody of the vineyard was entrusted by the Savior, cannot obtain eternal salvation." (Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863)

MRyan wrote:
I haven’t invented any straw man; not at all; I’ve quoted you verbatim, and here you are once again contradicting yourself by saying that so long as the Orthodox adult is not aware that he is not in communion with the pope, and/or he is not aware that he does not profess the Catholic Faith whole and inviolate, “He remains truly Catholic in both senses; externally and internally”, even though he does NOT profess the “one true faith” whole and inviolate, and he is NOT in external communion with the Roman Pontiff. You are still treating him as an infant.

Let me attempt yet another anology to prove that their is no contradiction in what I'm saying.
Lests say a certain Catholic man went into a coma in i853 and did not regain conciousness til a few months after December 8th 1854. Before going into a coma he believed that Our Lady was not conceived without sin. When he recovered he still held this belief for no one had informed him of the dogma that had recently been defined by Pope Pius IX.
Question: Did he go into a coma a Catholic and come out of it a heretic? Did he cut of his exterrnal membership while in a comma? Remember, a dogma is not some new addition to the faith but an affirmation that what has been defined, always was, is and forever shall be the truth but neither did all those who believed contrary before the proclamation incur any anathema. Our comma patient's now inculpable, material heresy will be cured at his first hearing of the dogma.
Likewise, our Ortodox friend while remaining inculpable incurrs no anathema and remains both an external and internal member of the One True Church.
If you have him knowingly refusing subjection to the Roman Pontiff then that's fine; he now becomes a schismatic member of a sect he now embraces. Like you say, he is not an infant and is now culpable.

In fact, you previously said, “It can't be brushed aside … he is not an external member” … of the Catholic Church.


So please tell us how “He remains truly Catholic in both senses; externally and internally”, while at the same time “‘he is not an external member’ … of the Catholic Church”.

(Deep breath): You are getting external membership mixed up either with location, biological family membership, or external enviroment. External Church membership is to do with ones internal spiritual disposition in regards to the Church, i.e, ones adherence to those things essential for salvation. or, to put it another way; ones docility to the promptings of grace, all of which lead to the full acceptance of truth both individually and collectively as a sect -the latter's (leadership) being without the excuse of inculpable ingorance, comprising as they do of theologians and scripture schollars.

Let your speech be “yes, yes; no, no”, and stop this double-talk

If only all would take this advice. I'll try again. How's this for Yes, Yes; No, no?

"We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and that one is apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. One is she of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her' (Canticle of Canticles 6; which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, 'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' (Ephesians 4:5). Certainly Noah had one ark at the time of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect to one cubit having one ruler and guide, namely Noah, outside of which we read all living things were destroyed… 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."

And look at you dare to say “What does determine the catholicity of a soul is his holding the faith, whole and entire, when you refuse to acknowledge that the catechumen or martyr burning in his love for Christ, who may have been taught the fullness of the Truth, and professes with all the graces God has given him the Catholic faith whole and inviolate, though he is prevented from receiving the grace of actual water baptism (as opposed to the materially heretical baptized Orthodox adult who may even be luke-warm in the faith, possessing attrition rather than a sincere contrition).

Oh no, you say, God will leave our faith/charity-filled catechumen high and dry without the gifts of the Church he begs for: the theological virtues of faith and charity, and without the regenerative sanctifying grace of salvation (he is damned for lack of a minister and water as he is burned at the stake professing his faith and love for Christ), while He whisks the materially heretical Orthodox adult into heaven after, upon his sudden death, forgiving his non-culpable sins of faith, all because he was baptized into a faith he does not now fully profess.

Truly, truly, amazing.

Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism...


Poor, poor, deluded Pope Pius XII; little did he know that not only was he not speaking in the magisterial "we", he was repeating one of the oldest heresies of the Catholic Church. I guess he can blame the likes of the Drs. Aquinas and Bellarmine, not to mention the universal moral consensus of the saints and theologians.

They know nada, isn't that right, columba?

I'll deal with the straw men later.
BTW. We need a diversion sign icon when changing topic but I feel all this is worth the effort. The seamless robe of truth has no patches. I'm discovering ever more clearly the patches of speculative theology posing as doctrine, sewn on to the spotless garment of Catholic dogma.
They should have used invisible thread; the seams were always showing but it's looking like they're beginning to tear.

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
Are you stating that subjection to the Romen Pontiff is a secondary dogma when it has been declared dogmatically to be an essential requirement for salvation?

That is precisely what I am stating, because that’s what the Church teaches. As an absolute necessity for heaven, man is obliged to believe that which is the object of our Faith, those principal dogmas pertaining to the one true Trinitarian God and our Lord Jesus Christ Incarnate, Savior and Redeemer. This is why St. Thomas taught that belief in the secondary dogmas may be implicit in one’s belief in a primary dogma.

Subjection to the Roman Pontiff is not the object of our faith, it a revealed and defined secondary dogma. Obviously, "those who", as Pope Pius IX declared, “are contumacious against the authority of the same Church (and) definitions and who are obstinately (pertinaciter) separated from the unity of this Church and from the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, to whom the custody of the vineyard was entrusted by the Savior, cannot obtain eternal salvation." (Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863)

Quick quesion Mike:

Is is not absolutely necessary for the salvation, that every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff?

columba wrote:
(Deep breath): You are getting external membership mixed up either with location, biological family membership, or external enviroment. External Church membership is to do with ones internal spiritual disposition in regards to the Church, i.e, ones adherence to those things essential for salvation. or, to put it another way; ones docility to the promptings of grace, all of which lead to the full acceptance of truth both individually and collectively as a sect -the latter's (leadership) being without the excuse of inculpable ingorance, comprising as they do of theologians and scripture schollars.

Take another deep breadth; first of all, I am not “getting external membership mixed up either with location, biological family membership or external environment"; I suggested no such thing.

I am on very solid (infallible) ground with the Church when I affirm that “the Mystical Body of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church, whose members are all those who have been baptized and who at least externally practice and profess the true faith”.

Second, you are absolutely wrong with your definition of external Church membership. For a baptized Catholic, external Church membership has NOTHING “to do with one’s internal spiritual disposition”, and everything to do with one’s visible communion with the Church and the profession of the same faith.

Unfortunately, you sound a lot like John Calvin who erroneously taught that “if a baptized person has lost the virtue of faith, in spite of his external profession of belief and conformity with Christian practice he is no longer a member of the organic Body of Christ.” As Fr. Hardon explains, St. Robert Bellarmine refuted this error when he taught:

"It is certainly true," he [Bellarmine] admits, "that a sincere faith and not its mere external profession is required if we are to be internally united to the Body of Christ, which is the Church . . . . But even the man who makes only an outward profession along with the rest of the faithful is a true member, albeit a dry and dead member, of the Body of the Church."

It follows, therefore, that the Mystical Body of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church, whose members are all those who have been baptized and who at least externally practice and profess the true faith. Commentators on the Mystici Corporis make special note of the fact that, after centuries of controversy on the subject, the Pope has authoritatively approved Bellarmine's doctrine on the minimum essentials for membership in the Mystical Body—which reads like a paraphrase from the third book of St. Robert's De Conciliis. In the words of Pope Pius XII, "only those are really to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith and have not unhappily withdrawn from Body-unity, or for grave faults been excluded by legitimate authority. For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one Body." (Communion of Saints: St. Robert Bellarmine on the Mystical Body of Christ| John A. Hardon, S.J.

This also proves, columba, contrary to assertion, that one may in fact sever internal unity with the Body of Christ while remaining an external member of the same Body.

And guess what, it follows that it is possible to be united internally to the Mystical Body without being an external member.

Columba, its time for you to go back to the Catholic drawing board and start over. You’re in a deep hole and I’m trying to throw you a lifeline ... but you’re not listening ... and the hole just keeps getting deeper and deeper as you try and explain away your blatant contradiction.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
Are you stating that subjection to the Romen Pontiff is a secondary dogma when it has been declared dogmatically to be an essential requirement for salvation?

That is precisely what I am stating, because that’s what the Church teaches. As an absolute necessity for heaven, man is obliged to believe that which is the object of our Faith, those principal dogmas pertaining to the one true Trinitarian God and our Lord Jesus Christ Incarnate, Savior and Redeemer. This is why St. Thomas taught that belief in the secondary dogmas may be implicit in one’s belief in a primary dogma.

Subjection to the Roman Pontiff is not the object of our faith, it a revealed and defined secondary dogma. Obviously, "those who", as Pope Pius IX declared, “are contumacious against the authority of the same Church (and) definitions and who are obstinately (pertinaciter) separated from the unity of this Church and from the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, to whom the custody of the vineyard was entrusted by the Savior, cannot obtain eternal salvation." (Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863)

Quick quesion Mike:

Is is not absolutely necessary for the salvation, that every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff?

I thought I just answered that question.

OK, quick answer (sort of); yes, it is absolutely necessary in the sense (like water baptism) that no one is excused from fulfilling this divine and ecclesiastical precept. In other words, it is a moral obligation from which no one is excused (at least in intention if an impediment obstructs its fulfillment in act) once someone knows of its necessity for salvation.

However, it is not absolutely necessary for salvation in the intrinsic sense in that it is not the object of one’s faith or intrinsic to eternal beatitude; and thus, subjection to the Roman Pontiff may still be realized internally by way of intention (desire) when, as I just said, some unforeseen impediment obstructs it from being realized explicitly or externally. It should go without saying that an external separation, as Pope Pius IX declared, cannot be deliberate; meaning, it cannot be obstinate or pertinacious ("contumacious"); which again, goes back to a proper intention to do the will of God in all things.

If it were absolute, it is doubtful that a few great saints, such as St. Meletius and St. Cyprian of Carthage, would be revered as saints because they almost certainly died out-of-communion with the Bishop of Rome (squabbles with the Holy See).

You are absolutely wrong when you say that inculpable ignorance in this regard extends only to a lack of knowledge of the dogma and its necessity, as if subjection to the Roman Pontiff is of the same intrinsic necessity as coming to a supernatural Faith in the one true God (the object of one's faith and the very essence of eternal beatitude). You were never very good with essential distinctions.

You definitely take the erroneous Dimond bro. and Ffot radical sede position that says that once the true dogma of universal papal primacy (for example) has been revealed to the Orthodox adolescent, he cannot be excused should he not immediately embrace the dogma with divine and catholic faith and reject his received common tradition on primacy of honor.

You hold, apparently, that there are absolutely no mitigating circumstances that might excuse one from moral culpability for doubting or denying the true dogma; after all, the Orthodox adolescent was given the virtue of faith at Baptism so that when he comes of age he could make a true act of faith; and he certainly can, but it does not mean, even being of good-faith, that he will, or that he is morally culpable (obstinate and pertinacious) for his doubt or denial of a revealed or definitive truth (revealed or non-revealed).

While the Magisterium cannot know the limits of one’s inculpable ignorance, or the internal disposition of any given soul, she can make prudential judgments in this regard with respect to moral culpability in the external forum so as to determine whether she holds individual Orthodox and the particular Orthodox Churches culpable for the objective acts of heresy and schism.

Your mistake, columba, is to confuse the traditional approach to the Orthodox (holding them as at least formally schismatic) with dogma, when it is actually a matter of subjective prudence. While always recognizing the very grave objective nature and spiritual danger the separation represents, it is within the Church’s supreme authority to modify and even reverse long-standing policies (and to lift excommunications) when she no longer finds them useful for correction and to restoring full communion (due to long-standing contingencies the Church has explained – and you reject).

Speaking of being subject to the Roman Pontiff, columba:

Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize AND OBEY the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors." (Pope Pius XI, Encyclical, Mortalium animos, January 6, 1928)

And:

… it is as contrary to the divine constitution of the Church as it is to perpetual and constant tradition for anyone to attempt to prove the catholicity of his faith and truly call himself a Catholic when he fails in OBEDIENCE to the Apostolic See." (Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra to the Armenians, January 6, 1873).

Finally,

You say that you are subject to the church and faithful to tradition by the sole fact that you obey certain norms of the past that were decreed by the predecessor of him to whom God has today conferred the powers given to Peter. That is to say, on this point also, the concept of "tradition" that you invoke is distorted. (Pope Paul VI’s Letter to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, 1976)

This also proves, columba, contrary to assertion, that one may in fact sever internal unity with the Body of Christ while remaining an external member of the same Body.

And guess what, it follows that it is possible to be united internally to the Mystical Body without being an external member.

Mike,

I think you're doing a great job of explaining how an Orthodox can be internally united with the Church and a member in voto, and thus capable of being saved by such an "internal" union.

I don't think it's too far of a stretch to be able to also extend that to a Protestant, whose rejection of a Catholic dogma may likewise not be pertinacious and morally culpable.

But . . .

What about the non-Christian? All of the above believe that they are redeemed by the Blood of Christ. I look forward to a discussion on that issue sometime. We have discussed St. Thomas and the "necessity of infallibility" of explicit faith, and I think St. Augustine would come down on the same necessity. Both I believe would require explicit faith in Christ now, since the extent of the faith in Christ is determined not only by individual circumstances, but also by epochal considerations, considerations relating to God's revelation to mankind en masse.

Obviously there is a point at which all men are treated the same, apart from individual circumstance. It would seem that those who accept an implicit faith in Christ push that point to a general willingness to do God's will, and a belief in him as a rewarder of good and punisher of evil, based on a reading (but not the only, or even the majority or "common") of Hebrews 11:6.

As I see it, that's making a necessary but not always sufficient condition always sufficient unless there has been a promulgation of the Gospel that has been "rejected" in some culpable sense on an individual basis.

I'm not so sure of that. I have in the past addressed that with JAT and you a bit. Of course, in many ways its just an intellectual exercise, a discussion that is not necessary to our (all Christian believers here) salvation and which most of us don't have the luxury to explore.

As to non-believers, if explicit faith is not necessary, I have to wonder: do we do them more harm (by maybe rendering a natural disinclination culpable) in broaching the Gospel than not?

Tornpage,

Without getting into this just yet (or again, perhaps we can save it for another thread), I think you might appreciate the responses you will find (in the "First Things" link provided) relative to Cardinal Dulles’ article “Who Can Be Saved?”

Fr. Brian Harrison also weighs in, and Cardinal Dulles responds positively to his comments, and addresses the others as well.

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/04/may-letters-27

MRyan wrote:
I am on very solid (infallible) ground with the Church when I affirm that “the Mystical Body of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church, whose members are all those who have been baptized and who at least externally practice and profess the true faith”.

We agree then.

Second, you are absolutely wrong with your definition of external Church membership. For a baptized Catholic, external Church membership has NOTHING “to do with one’s internal spiritual disposition”, and everything to do with one’s visible communion with the Church and the profession of the same faith.

So, has profession of the same faith got NOTHING to do with spiritual disposition?
And, is one not an external member who, having been validly baptized, rejects no known dogma of the Catholic Faith?
The irony here is; if what you are saying is true you are in agreement with me, that one cannot be an external member of the Church who internally professes a faith other than that of the Catholic faith. If internally one has not rejected the Catholic faith, he remains an external member of that faith in which he was baptized. Being that there is only ONE Baptism (that which incorporates one into the Catholic Church), he cannot -while rejecting no known dogma- be anything other than Catholic. The worst accusation that can be leveled at him is that he's a material heretic, but material heresy does not place one outside the Church. (see the example I cited of the comatosed Cartholic).

Do you agree with that?

Unfortunately, you sound a lot like John Calvin who erroneously taught that “if a baptized person has lost the virtue of faith, in spite of his external profession of belief and conformity with Christian practice he is no longer a member of the organic Body of Christ.” As Fr. Hardon explains, St. Robert Bellarmine refuted this error when he taught:

And fortunately I do not agree with Calvin on this.
As an "ex"-Catholic Irish comedian once said, "Once you're a Catholic it's impossible to be considered as anything else other than a Catholic. Even if you become a Hindu people still say, "He's a bad Catholic."

The point being; external membership is no guarantee of salvation if one is not also internally united. Likewise, one who declines external membership must be presumed to lack internal membership. In reality you can't have one without the other. When the Church says that schismatics are anathema, she is not imposing a sentance, she is merely confirming an existing fact.

It is certainly true," he [Bellarmine] admits, "that a sincere faith and not its mere external profession is required if we are to be internally united to the Body of Christ, which is the Church . . . . But even the man who makes only an outward profession along with the rest of the faithful is a true member, albeit a dry and dead member, of the Body of the Church."

I can't recall having disagreed with this.
Nowhere here is St. Bellarmine saying that external membership is superfluous. He's merely making the same point that I made above.

It follows, therefore, that the Mystical Body of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church, whose members are all those who have been baptized and who at least externally practice and profess the true faith.

Again, I agree.
That's why I say that the Catholic, who, while being brought up in another sect is still a true external, practicing member of the Catholic Church until such a time that he should reject a known dogma of the faith in which he was baptized.

"only those are really to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith and have not unhappily withdrawn from Body-unity, or for grave faults been excluded by legitimate authority. For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one Body."

Exactly what I've just said.

MRyan wrote:
This also proves, columba, contrary to assertion, that one may in fact sever internal unity with the Body of Christ while remaining an external member of the same Body.

Couldn't agree more.
In this case the external appearance counts for nothing. That's why I said that in reality he will fare no better than the Pagan; in fact he may fare worse by decending into hell with the indelible mark of Baptism intact. Likewise, if a man were internally united he would also ask (or as the Church would put it; Beg) for external unity. That's why he is considered a non-member while refusing this unity.

And guess what, it follows that it is possible to be united internally to the Mystical Body without being an external member.

Guess what, it's not. If it were, there'd be no reason to seek external unity at all and that is in fact what has happened. Attempts at proselization have now been abandoned and are considered irrelevent. If it is not taken up again we will be engulfed in this fastly approaching One World Church. The dangers of assuming dual membership far outweigh the advantages. The safest bet for all concerned is to restate what always has been stated, that all those existing outside the One True Church will forfeit their salvation.

Columba, its time for you to go back to the Catholic drawing board and start over. You’re in a deep hole and I’m trying to throw you a lifeline ... but you’re not listening ... and the hole just keeps getting deeper and deeper as you try and explain away your blatant contradiction.

Mike, your lifeline is a Trojan Horse.
I am listening very carefully and find myself in agreement with St. Robert Bellarmine who's quotes you presumably used to refute me.
Maybe it's the case that you and I are in agreement here and differ only in our conclussions. But more later.

MRyan wrote:
OK, quick answer (sort of); yes, it is absolutely necessary in the sense (like water baptism) that no one is excused from fulfilling this divine and ecclesiastical precept. In other words, it is a moral obligation from which no one is excused (at least in intention if an impediment obstructs its fulfillment in act) once someone knows of its necessity for salvation.

Another quick question.
Where does it say that?

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
I am on very solid (infallible) ground with the Church when I affirm that “the Mystical Body of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church, whose members are all those who have been baptized and who at least externally practice and profess the true faith”.

We agree then.

No, we do not, as we shall see.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Second, you are absolutely wrong with your definition of external Church membership. For a baptized Catholic, external Church membership has NOTHING “to do with one’s internal spiritual disposition”, and everything to do with one’s visible communion with the Church and the profession of the same faith.

So, has profession of the same faith got NOTHING to do with spiritual disposition?

With respect to external Church membership, that is correct, the profession of the same faith has NOTHING to do with one's spiritual disposition.

columba wrote:
And, is one not an external member who, having been validly baptized, rejects no known dogma of the Catholic Faith?

Yes, so long as he is in visible communion with the Catholic Church (external unity with the one Body).

columba wrote:
The irony here is; if what you are saying is true you are in agreement with me, that one cannot be an external member of the Church who internally professes a faith other than that of the Catholic faith.

There is no irony, for I am not in agreement with you, and you are not paying attention. One CAN in fact be an external member when only making the appearance of holding or professing the true faith, while internally holding a false faith. This is known as “occult” or secret heresy, which makes any of the Baptized a dead internal member of the Church, while remaining an external member of the Church Militant.

You also erroneously said that no one can be an external member without being an internal member (and vice versa).

You also erroneously defined “External Church membership” as having “to do with ones internal spiritual disposition in regards to the Church, i.e, ones adherence to those things essential for salvation.”

In other words, as you continue down this same errant path (one error begets another), you next equate external Church membership with “the catholicity of a soul”, as in “What does determine the catholicity of a soul is his holding the faith, whole and entire”; meaning, membership in the Church is determined by an internal and external unity in faith (the body must profess the same faith as the soul).

Finally, your entirely false ecclesiology led you to erroneously state the following double-minded hypocrisy:

“He remains truly Catholic in both senses; externally and internally”, while at the same time “‘he is not an external member’ … of the Catholic Church”.

So please don’t insult me by telling me that we are in agreement, and that no real difference stands between us since we are essentially saying the same thing.

No, to both.

Your inculpable ignorance time is just about up.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
OK, quick answer (sort of); yes, it is absolutely necessary in the sense (like water baptism) that no one is excused from fulfilling this divine and ecclesiastical precept. In other words, it is a moral obligation from which no one is excused (at least in intention if an impediment obstructs its fulfillment in act) once someone knows of its necessity for salvation.

Another quick question.
Where does it say that?

It is the common doctrine of the theologians (and is found in the approved theology manuals); it is spelled out in the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas on primary and secondary dogmas, it is spelled out in the Holy Office Letter of 1949, and Pope Pius IX alludes to the same already cited doctrine in Quanto conficiamur moerore, as does the CCC, numbers 1790-1793, for example.