A Call to Catholic Men of Faith

MRyan Sat May 05, 2012 8:41 am

Following is the full text of the homily of Bishop Daniel R. Jenky, CSC, at the Mass during the April 14 "A Call to Catholic Men of Faith":

http://www.thecatholicpost.com/post/PostArticle.aspx?ID=2440
See also: http://www.realcatholictv.com/daily/?today=2012-05-04

There is only one basic reason why Christianity exists and that is the fact that Jesus Christ truly rose from the grave.

The disciples never expected the resurrection. The unanimous testimony of all four Gospels is that the terrible death of Jesus on the cross entirely dashed all their hopes about Jesus and about his message. He was dead, and that was the end of it. They looked for nothing more, and they expected nothing more.

So as much as they had loved him, in their eyes Jesus was a failed messiah. His dying seemed to entirely rob both his teaching and even his miracles of any lasting significance.

And they were clearly terrified that his awful fate, at the hands of the Sanhedrin and the Romans, could easily become their awful fate. So they hid, trembling with terror, behind shuttered windows and locked doors.

When the Risen Christ suddenly appeared in their midst, their reaction was shocked incredulity. They simply could not believe their own eyes.

Reality only very slowly began to penetrate their consciousness when Jesus offers proof of his resurrection. He shows them the wounds on his hands, his feet, and his side. Jesus even allowed them to touch him. He breaks bread with them and eats with them. And only then could they admit to themselves what had seemed absolutely impossible – the one who had truly died had truly risen! The Crucified now stood before them as their Risen, glorious, triumphant Lord.

His rising from the grave was every bit as real as his dying on the cross. The resurrection was the manifest proof of the invincible power of Almighty God. The inescapable fact of the resurrection confirmed every word Jesus had ever spoken and every work Jesus had ever done.

The Gospel was the truth. Jesus was the Christ, the promised Messiah of Israel. Jesus was the Savior of the world. Jesus was the very Son of God.

There is no other explanation for Christianity. It should have died out and entirely disappeared when Christ died and was buried, except for the fact that Christ was truly risen, and that during the 40 days before his Ascension, he interacted with his Apostles and disciples, and on one occasion even with hundreds of his followers.

Today’s appointed Gospel reading for this Saturday in the Octave of Easter is taken from the 16th Chapter of Mark. It concludes with a command from the lips of Jesus, given to his disciples, given to the whole Church, given to you and me assembled here today: “Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature.”

We heard in today’s Second Reading from the Acts of the Apostles that the same Sanhedrin that had condemned Jesus was amazed at the boldness of Peter and John. Perceiving them to be uneducated, ordinary men, they recognized them as companions of Jesus. They warned them never again to teach, or speak to anyone, in the name of Jesus.

But the elders and the scribes might as well have tried to turn back the tide, or hold back an avalanche. Peter and John had seen the Risen Christ with their own eyes. Peter and John were filled with the Holy Spirit. They asked whether it is right “in the sight of God for us to obey you rather than God. It is impossible for us not to speak about what we have seen and heard.”

And Peter and John and all the Apostles, starting first in Jerusalem in Judea and Galilee and then to the very ends of the earth, announced the Resurrection and the Good News to everyone they encountered.

According to the clear testimony of the Scriptures, these Apostles had once been rather ordinary men – like you and me. Their faith hadn’t always been strong. They made mistakes. They committed sins. They were often afraid and confused.

But meeting the Risen Lord had changed everything about these first disciples, and knowing the Risen Lord should also change everything about us.

You know, it has never been easy to be a Christian and it’s not supposed to be easy! The world, the flesh, and the devil will always love their own, and will always hate us. As Jesus once predicted, they hated me, they will certainly hate you.

But our Faith, when it is fully lived, is a fighting faith and a fearless faith. Grounded in the power of the resurrection, there is nothing in this world, and nothing in hell, that can ultimately defeat God’s one, true, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

For 2,000 years the enemies of Christ have certainly tried their best. But think about it. The Church survived and even flourished during centuries of terrible persecution, during the days of the Roman Empire.

The Church survived barbarian invasions. The Church survived wave after wave of Jihads. The Church survived the age of revolution. The Church survived Nazism and Communism.

And in the power of the resurrection, the Church will survive the hatred of Hollywood, the malice of the media, and the mendacious wickedness of the abortion industry.

The Church will survive the entrenched corruption and sheer incompetence of our Illinois state government, and even the calculated disdain of the President of the United States, his appointed bureaucrats in HHS, and of the current majority of the federal Senate.

May God have mercy on the souls of those politicians who pretend to be Catholic in church, but in their public lives, rather like Judas Iscariot, betray Jesus Christ by how they vote and how they willingly cooperate with intrinsic evil.

As Christians we must love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, but as Christians we must also stand up for what we believe and always be ready to fight for the Faith. The days in which we live now require heroic Catholicism, not casual Catholicism. We can no longer be Catholics by accident, but instead be Catholics by conviction.

In our own families, in our parishes, where we live and where we work – like that very first apostolic generation – we must be bold witnesses to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. We must be a fearless army of Catholic men, ready to give everything we have for the Lord, who gave everything for our salvation.

Remember that in past history other governments have tried to force Christians to huddle and hide only within the confines of their churches like the first disciples locked up in the Upper Room.

In the late 19th century, Bismarck waged his “Kulturkampf,” a Culture War, against the Roman Catholic Church, closing down every Catholic school and hospital, convent and monastery in Imperial Germany.

Clemenceau, nicknamed “the priest eater,” tried the same thing in France in the first decade of the 20th Century.

Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.

In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path.

Now things have come to such a pass in America that this is a battle that we could lose, but before the awesome judgement seat of Almighty God this is not a war where any believing Catholic may remain neutral.

This fall, every practicing Catholic must vote, and must vote their Catholic consciences, or by the following fall our Catholic schools, our Catholic hospitals, our Catholic Newman Centers, all our public ministries -- only excepting our church buildings – could easily be shut down. Because no Catholic institution, under any circumstance, can ever cooperate with the instrinsic evil of killing innocent human life in the womb.

No Catholic ministry – and yes, Mr. President, for Catholics our schools and hospitals are ministries – can remain faithful to the Lordship of the Risen Christ and to his glorious Gospel of Life if they are forced to pay for abortions.

Now remember what was the life-changing experience that utterly transformed those fearful and quaking disciples into fearless, heroic apostles. They encountered the Risen Christ. They reverenced his sacred wounds. They ate and drank with him.
Is that not what we do here together, this morning at this annual men’s march Mass?

This is the Saturday of the Octave of Easter, a solemnity so great and central to our Catholic faith that Easter Day is celebrated for eight full days, and the Easter season is joyously observed as the Great 50 Days of Easter. Through the power of the Holy Spirit, Christ – risen from the grave – is in our midst. His Holy Word teaches us the truth. His Sacred Body and Blood becomes our food and drink.

The Risen Christ is our Eternal Lord; the Head of his Body, the Church; our High Priest; our Teacher; our Captain in the well-fought fight.

We have nothing to fear, but we have a world to win for him. We have nothing to fear, for we have an eternal destiny in heaven. We have nothing to fear, though the earth may quake, kingdoms may rise and fall, demons may rage, but St. Michael the Archangel, and all the hosts of heaven, fight on our behalf.

No matter what happens in this passing moment, at the end of time and history, our God is God and Jesus is Lord, forever and ever.

Christus vincit! Christus regnat! Christus imperat!

Christ wins! Christ reigns! Christ commands!

George Brenner Sat May 05, 2012 1:15 pm

Great homily by Bishop Jenke. May God bless Bishop Jenke. I know of his courage and love of the Catholic faith well. This article certainly struck a nerve with me as has many of the absolutely obvious struggles between good and evil during my life. Please find the link below which details the pathetic call by many for the resignation of Bishop Jenke from his position on the Board of Fellows at Notre Dame. The evil and rot at Notre Dame has gone on for decades. There are many true Catholics at Notre Dame, like Law Emeritus Professor Charles E. Rice { see link below } who has fought the good fight for many years. Fellow Bishops of Father Jenke, I can not hear enough of you! I do not want to get started but let me say that the Bishop had it within his power to stop Obama from giving the commencement address a few years ago. Father Pavone along with many Cardinals and Bishops by name and signature showed strong support to cancel the address. Father Reginald Foster was given an honorary degree last May. The Bishop had it within his power to stop the award and recognition but did not. What a disgrace!

I know that we spend a lot of time posting and debating on the legitimacy of our Faith as being pure in official doctrine and protected by the Holy Spirit for all time in the perfection of the Deposit of Faith that all must hold as true. This is critical as Mike so courageously documents and explains to no avail in many cases. A person cannot fight the Crisis of Faith by hiding out and leaving Jesus alone in the garden. There have been many strong Catholics at all levels but VII has yet to be effectively implemented and has never fully recognized that Her greatest enemies came from within or that tragic multitudes were welcomed into the Church with open arms with both open and camouflaged perverse agendas to confuse, water down , abuse, cover up and not effectively teach the faith with a continuity of pious teachings from past ages. Sins of the flesh have been rampant. It truly has been a time of babel for the end user. What a spiritual price we have paid. We are now only beginning to understand the depth of the crisis.

I have an important meeting this coming Wednesday to discuss Bishop Jenke and many other subjects in the Crisis of Faith that we have been in for far too many years. I can not even fathom how many souls may have been lost due to silence, apathy or not making the right choices in the present. The specific accountability is in the hands of God. Pray for our Holy Father.

Notre Dame faculty Call for Resignation Link below( note individual comments):

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7mEtUKVP7E0AjnxXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1M2hsMjViBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1ZJUDEzOV8yNzc-/SIG=1260jqifn/EXP=1336262829/**http%3a//standupforreligiousfreedom.com/2012/jenky2/

Professor Rice on faculty attack on Bishop Jenke:

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7li.UqVPEEQA0ExXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1bjNzdDkzBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1ZJUDEzOV8yNzc-/SIG=13ddfrp7u/EXP=1336263486/**http%3a//blog.cardinalnewmansociety.org/2012/04/24/rice-notre-dame-faculty-attack-a-bishop/

JMJ,

George

columba Sat May 05, 2012 4:18 pm

George Brenner wrote:
A person cannot fight the Crisis of Faith by hiding out and leaving Jesus alone in the garden.

And a person cannot fight the Crisis of Faith if he himself does not have the faith, the same faith that Jesus gave to His apostles as a deposit to be faithfully preserved for all generations.

George Brenner wrote:
There have been many strong Catholics at all levels but VII has yet to be effectively implemented

May the Lord have mercy on us if VII has not as yet been fully implimented for what will it be like when it is.

George Brenner wrote:
and has never fully recognized that Her greatest enemies came from within or that tragic multitudes were welcomed into the Church with open arms with both open and camouflaged perverse agendas to confuse, water down , abuse, cover up and not effectively teach the faith with a continuity of pious teachings from past ages

And those who actually do recognize that the enemies are within and that the faith has not been taught effectively and even taught perversely are the ones who are told to be silent and are the ones accused of schism and heresy.
George, with all due respect and to spare you any indirect cheap shot, IMO I don't believe that you believe a single word you say above.

George Brenner wrote:
It truly has been a time of babel for the end user. What a spiritual price we have paid. We are now only beginning to understand the depth of the crisis.

It truly is a time of babel for we no longer can trust words to convey meaning and words can now mean whatever we wish them to mean. Surprizingly enough, the one language that still has the ability to convey precise meaning, most feared by the devil and most revered in the Church of by-gone-days, happens to have disappeared with the altar rails and the head scarves.

So tell us George; how deep then does the crisis go? Do you mean that there may be a dozen or so more cardinals and bishops involved in perverting the faith than was first thought. That's not really any deeper of a crsis, for all one would have to do is stick with what the Pope teaches and all would be well.

I have an important meeting this coming Wednesday to discuss Bishop Jenke and many other subjects in the Crisis of Faith that we have been in for far too many years.

I sincerely hope you have a fruitful meeting but I doubt that very much because you will follow the truth only to the boundary of your comfort zone. To sincerely follow the truth means to follow it regardless of where it leads.

I can not even fathom how many souls may have been lost due to silence, apathy or not making the right choices in the present.

We actually agree then that souls can be lost. That's progress indeed. For a whle I was thinking that only questioning Cathoilics could be lost and everyone else was saved. Tornpage for example withdrew from the forum for fear that he, being one such questioning Catholic, could become the inhouse apostate while at the same time true apostates and devil worshipers are highly esteemed and comforted on their road to hell. Strange times for sure.
Strange too how Paul VI having convened the very council that would facilite the devil in his attempted destructuion of the Church, was able to write;

"There is a great uneasiness, at this time, in the world and in the church, and that which is in question is the faith. It so happens now that I repeat to myself the obscure phrase of Jesus in the Gospel of St. Luke: "When the Son of Man returns, will He still find faith on the earth?" It so happens that there are books coming out in which the faith is in retreat on some important points, that the episcopates are remaining silent and these books are not looked upon as strange. This, to me, is strange. I sometimes read the Gospel passage of the end times and I attest that, at this time, some signs of this end are emerging."

"We must always hold ourselves in readiness, but everything could last a very long time yet. What strikes me, when I think of the Catholic world, is that within Catholicism, there seems sometimes to predominate a non-Catholic way of thinking, and it can happen that this non-Catholic thought within Catholicism, will tomorrow become the stronger. But it will never represent the thought of the Church. It is necessary that a small flock subsist, no matter how small it might be." (Pope Paul VI spoke in 1977, one year before his death).

George Brenner Sat May 05, 2012 8:15 pm

Columba said: George, with all due respect and to spare you any indirect cheap shot, IMO I don't believe that you believe a single word you say above.

Columba, you are entitled to your opinion. God knows the truth of what I believe and what is in my heart. I believe that you do believe in what you post. I accept that fact. But since you do not believe in my sincerity there is no longer any reason for us to have more exchanges. I do pray that you may find truth and salvation. Believe it or not.

JMJ,

George

MRyan Sat May 05, 2012 8:50 pm

columba wrote:
I sincerely hope you have a fruitful meeting but I doubt that very much because you will follow the truth only to the boundary of your comfort zone. To sincerely follow the truth means to follow it regardless of where it leads.

And now he goes after George, who cannot be sincere, and is suspected of being “Protestanized” (or some such nonsense).

And this from the avowed “fence-sitter’ who has no problem in accusing Cardinals and Bishops of the Church of being formally heretical/apostate non-Catholics, but can’t “sincerely follow the truth … regardless of where it leads” when if comes to the Roman Pontiff … because it appears “you will follow the truth only to the boundary of your comfort zone.”

Go heal thyself.

Of course, if there are Bishops who are rotten cowardly stewards who are concerned more with being politically correct and sweeping problems under the rug than acting like the Shepherds they are in standing up for the Faith, Columba is ready “follow the truth” which tells him that Cardinals so and so and Bishops so and so are “perverting the faith” and must be formally heretical or apostate “non-Catholics”; but not necessarily the “Bishop of Rome”, whose faith is the cornerstone of faith and communion of the very Church Columba despises.

And that remark about Tornpage is a cheap shot. Please do not compare your fence-sitting duplicity with his fear of being the “resident apostate” on a forum in communion with the Pope. If Tornpage is no longer in communion with the Catholic Church, why in the world would he want to stay on a Forum whose owner and members, except for the one or two resident schismatics, are in communion with the Church? Do not confuse him with likes of Foot and yourself.

Furthermore, to say “Tornpage for example withdrew from the forum for fear that he, being one such questioning Catholic, could become the in house apostate while at the same time true apostates and devil worshipers are highly esteemed and comforted on their road to hell", is the despicable ranting of an in-house schismatic.

What are you doing here? Oh, still “discerning” whether the Pope is really the Pope and the visible Catholic Church is really the one true Church of Christ, even with all of those “true apostates and devil worshipers” he hangs out with.

columba Sun May 06, 2012 4:13 pm

George Brenner wrote:
Columba said: George, with all due respect and to spare you any indirect cheap shot, IMO I don't believe that you believe a single word you say above.

Columba, you are entitled to your opinion. God knows the truth of what I believe and what is in my heart. I believe that you do believe in what you post. I accept that fact. But since you do not believe in my sincerity there is no longer any reason for us to have more exchanges. I do pray that you may find truth and salvation. Believe it or not.

JMJ,

George

George,
Not so much doubting your sincerity as believing you to be sincerely misled by the arguments of Mike and a false understanding of the limits of papal infallibility. I sincerely hope you don't believe that the Catholic Church can be in a state of crisis (loss of identity) for 50 years without at least the tacit cooperation of its pontiffs.

A council was convened, not for the purpose of combatting modernism and re-establishing and reaffirming the truths of the faith (as a doctrinal council would have done) but instead had the sole intention of finding ways to accommodate modernism within the Church. The proof of this can be derived not only from the reasons given for convening it but also by the council documents themselves and the understanding of them adopted by consecutive magisteriums.

I believe you are sincere in your defense of the papacy but that you are employing means which contradict what your own eyes tell you. To truly defend the papacy does not mean that you must constantly ignore or cover up the incompetancy of any individual pope when this "incompetancy" is detrimental to the faith and goes against traditional understandings of Church and faith.

MRyan Sun May 06, 2012 5:36 pm

columba wrote:I sincerely hope you don't believe that the Catholic Church can be in a state of crisis (loss of identity) for 50 years without at least the tacit cooperation of its pontiffs.

Perhaps columba can point to a century when the Church was not in a state of crisis and in need of reform, and especially a reform of the clergy and even the episcopacy; I would like to see the evidence. The indefectibility of the Church does not prevent human failure, cowardice, worldly pursuits, corruption, etc., etc. Neither does it prevent bad judgments, even with good intentions.

columba wrote:A council was convened ... for the purpose ... [and] the sole intention of finding ways to accommodate modernism within the Church. The proof of this can be derived not only from the reasons given for convening it but also by the council documents themselves and the understanding of them adopted by consecutive magisteriums.

The resident schismatic speaks; and woe to the "Protestantized" Catholic who does not recognize the "facts" of columba's attack against the one true Church of Christ and her Supreme Pontiff who is complicit in carrying forward the Council's "sole intention of finding ways to accommodate [the heresy of] modernism within the Church."

What a load of pompous schismatic drivel.

Jehanne Sun May 06, 2012 6:46 pm

Mike,

You seem like your the Pope's "spin master," so let's try another one:

http://protectthepope.com/?p=2679

So, should we preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Jews? Or, how about this:

We all know there are numerous models of unity and you know that the Catholic Church also has as her goal the full visible unity of the disciples of Christ, as defined by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in its various Documents (cf. Lumen Gentium, nn. 8, 13; Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.). This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 4); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world.

On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history. Absolutely not!

It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline. Unity in multiplicity, and multiplicity in unity: in my Homily for the Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul on 29 June last, I insisted that full unity and true catholicity in the original sense of the word go together. As a necessary condition for the achievement of this coexistence, the commitment to unity must be constantly purified and renewed; it must constantly grow and mature.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/august/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050819_ecumenical-meeting_en.html

Please help me understand the part in bold. Is the Pope saying that we ought not to convert "non-Catholic Christians" to the One True Faith & Church?

MRyan Mon May 07, 2012 9:47 am

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

You seem like your the Pope's "spin master," so let's try another one:

http://protectthepope.com/?p=2679

So, should we preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Jews? Or, how about this:

We all know there are numerous models of unity and you know that the Catholic Church also has as her goal the full visible unity of the disciples of Christ, as defined by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in its various Documents (cf. Lumen Gentium, nn. 8, 13; Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.). This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 4); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world.

On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history. Absolutely not!

It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline. Unity in multiplicity, and multiplicity in unity: in my Homily for the Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul on 29 June last, I insisted that full unity and true catholicity in the original sense of the word go together. As a necessary condition for the achievement of this coexistence, the commitment to unity must be constantly purified and renewed; it must constantly grow and mature.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/august/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050819_ecumenical-meeting_en.html

Please help me understand the part in bold. Is the Pope saying that we ought not to convert "non-Catholic Christians" to the One True Faith & Church?

You know, Jehanne, you seem to really enjoy playing these games where I am suppose to play "spin master" to certain things the Pope has said, including his "private" musings (as Joseph Ratzinger) on leaving the conversion of the Jews in God's hands, as if we've never gone over this before.

In fact, for some additional perspective and a plausible explanation, I could tell you to read Jimmy Akin's article "Pope: Don't Evangelize Jews! Really?", where he opens with:

Pope Benedict’s remarks concerning Jewish individuals in his recent book Jesus of Nazareth (vol. 2) have attracted considerable attention.

For example, the book contains a passage which some have interpreted as saying that the Church should not seek to convert Jewish individuals. It is not at all clear to me that this is what the pope is saying. The passage is complex and bears more than one interpretation. So let’s dive in and see what we can make of it.

The beginning of the discussion (which is not usually quoted by people commenting on the text) is this. Starting on p. 44 of the book, Pope Benedict writes:

At this point we encounter once again the connection between the Gospel tradition and the basic elements of Pauline theology. If Jesus says in the eschatological discourse that the Gospel must first be proclaimed to the Gentiles and only then can the end come, we find exactly the same thing in Paul’s Letter to the Romans: “A hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved” (11:25–26).

The full number of the Gentiles and all Israel: in this formula we see the universalism of the divine salvific will. For our purposes, though, the important point is that Paul, too, recognizes an age of the Gentiles, which is the present and which must be fulfilled if God’s plan is to attain its goal.
So Pope Benedict is contemplating the two-stages of phases of history that precede the end of the world. First, there are what Our Lord refers to as “the times of the gentiles,” in which the gospel is preached to all nations and the gentiles are given the chance to convert, and then the second stage in which the partial hardness that has come upon Israel is removed and so “all Israel will be saved”—a reference to a corporate conversion of the Jewish people at the end of history.

Note how this viewpoint differs from two rival viewpoints: First, it differs from the “Jews don’t need Jesus, they have their own covenant” perspective. This idea, which has been trendy is some Catholic circles of late, is manifestly contrary to the teaching of the New Testament and to the historic teaching of the Church’s magisterium. It also is not what Pope Benedict is advocating here. He is not saying that Jews don’t need Jesus or that they don’t need to become Christians. He is saying that they will corporately convert to Christ, but not until the end of time. Prior to that point, individual Jews may become Christians—as with the apostles and the very first Christians and with other converts from Judaism down through history. But the full, corporate conversion of Israel (which even then might not involve every single individual without exception) is something to be found only at the end of the world.

But, you already know all this, and in fact commented on this very subject over at "Inside Scoop", the Ignatius Press Blog, where you wrote:

We've been having some lively discussion around this interesting and vexing topic on my blog. I've made some missteps along the way and just added a disclaimer to one of my recent posts.

http://wheat4paradise.wordpress.com/

Posted by: David | Saturday, March 26, 2011 at 11:13 AM

So, David, what are you doing - goading me?

All I now is this, the Pope believes his own Catechism and Ad Gentes which Magisterially declare:

CCC # 848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who,through no fault of their own,are ignorant of the Gospel,to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.” (AG 7).

How Joseph Ratzinger the theologian reconciles his thoughts with Pope Benedict XVI and the perennial Magisterium is not mine to "spin", for I simply do not know, and "It is not at all clear to me that this is what the pope is saying. The passage is complex and bears more than one interpretation". But I do know that Pope BXVI has not lost the Faith, or "rejected" any doctrines.

As far as "On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history. Absolutely not!", it speaks for itself when it tell us us exactly what the attainment of full communion with the Church does NOT mean; it does not mean an "ecumenism of the return" that means or requires a rejection of "one's own faith history."

What is it you do not understand?

columba Mon May 07, 2012 11:32 am

Mike,

Thanks for confirming what I said to George in an earlier post, "It truly is a time of babel for we no longer can trust words to convey meaning and words can now mean whatever we wish them to mean."

You said: "In fact, for some additional perspective and a plausible explanation, I could tell you to read Jimmy Akin's article "Pope: Don't Evangelize Jews! Really?", where he opens with:"

and then provide quotes from a Jimmy Akin article which prove exacty what I said to George. Here is one such quote from the article:

"For example, the book contains a passage which some have interpreted as saying that the Church should not seek to convert Jewish individuals. It is not at all clear to me that this is what the pope is saying."

Nor is it clear to anyone else Mr Atkin what the pope is saying, but we can determine what the pope is really saying by observing how he himself interprets his own words throughout the course of his pontificate. We also know that if there happens to be a variety of interpretations, one of which is heterodox, we must hold it to its heterodox meaning as adviced by Pope Pius VI, where he says,
"Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it....

..It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed...

..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." (Auctorem fidei, August 28, 1794:)

Advice I would suggest that has been totally lost on you Mike and not taken into account by Jimmy Atkin.

DeSelby Mon May 07, 2012 3:56 pm

MRyan wrote:As far as "On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history. Absolutely not!", it speaks for itself when it tell us us exactly what the attainment of full communion with the Church does NOT mean; it does not mean an "ecumenism of the return" that means or requires a rejection of "one's own faith history."

What is it you do not understand?

If that "faith history" entails, explicitly or implicitly, a rejection of Catholicism, why shouldn't its denial and rejection be required for "attainment of full communion with the Church"?

DeSelby Mon May 07, 2012 4:07 pm

Also Mike, just a simple heads up: it appears you're confusing Don/Jehanne with the comments of David/wheat4paradise at the "Inside Scoop" blog.

MRyan Mon May 07, 2012 4:47 pm

DeSelby wrote:Also Mike, just a simple heads up: it appears you're confusing Don/Jehanne with the comments of David/wheat4paradise at the "Inside Scoop" blog.

Ouch ... my mistake ... my apologies to Don/Jehanne for confusing him with David.

MRyan Mon May 07, 2012 5:45 pm

DeSelby wrote:
MRyan wrote:As far as "On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history. Absolutely not!", it speaks for itself when it tell us us exactly what the attainment of full communion with the Church does NOT mean; it does not mean an "ecumenism of the return" that means or requires a rejection of "one's own faith history."

What is it you do not understand?

If that "faith history" entails, explicitly or implicitly, a rejection of Catholicism, why shouldn't its denial and rejection be required for "attainment of full communion with the Church"?

DeSelby, ask yourself if individual members of particular Eastern Orthodox churches should have to "reject" their "faith history" when they finally accept the dogma of Papal Primacy, and accept the Catholic Faith whole and inviolate.

It is precisely the imposed "Latinization" of the East which historically posed as a stumbling block to conversions. No one is suggesting that the doctrines which remain incompatible can be retained by those Christians who are finally joined to the Church in full communion.

Neither should a Protestant have to "reject" his entire faith history when it is precisely that history which most likely provided the impetus for full communion.

If you've ever listened to EWTN's "The Journey Home" and the first hand conversion story accounts of former Protestant Ministers, you would know what I mean, and you would know what is meant by "this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history".

columba Mon May 07, 2012 9:38 pm

Mryan wrote;
If you've ever listened to EWTN's "The Journey Home" and the first hand conversion story accounts of former Protestant Ministers, you would know what I mean, and you would know what is meant by "this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history".

This is absolute utter nonsense.
If you ever read the story of Scott Hahn's conversion you would immediately see that the biggest and almost insurmountable obstacle to his converaion was precisely the denial of his own faith history rooted in the theology of the heresies of Martin Luther. Scott Hahn, converted to post VatII Catholicism and in doing so was able to retain some of his previous Protestant ideas of salvation outside the Catholic Church.
This same "faith history" is what prevented C. S. Lewis from embracing the Catholic Faith, even despite the fact that all his monumental apologetic works pointed him in the direction of Catholicism. One writer and scholar of the works of C. S. Lewis (who's name escapes me right now) believed that he (C. S. Lewis) embraced the Catholic faith on his deathbed. I would like to think that this was indeed the case, but it is absolutely certain that in converting to the Catholic faith one must reject ones own faith history because that previous faith history was nothing less than heresy. It consists in abandoning a man-made religion and accepting and embracing the truth as taught by Christ Himself.

George Brenner Tue May 08, 2012 4:22 pm

Columba said:

but it is absolutely certain that in converting to the Catholic faith one must reject ones own faith history because that previous faith history was nothing less than heresy.

Sorry Columba but you are wrong. Do you realize that as Jesus taught that the wheat must be separated from the chaff. Do you understand that the chaff is actually part of the wheat, it is a coating of the wheat. Chaff is not another plant, it is part of the wheat. The process of threshing removes the chaff from the wheat so that the wheat will be fruitful. So it is with one of another faith. Their faiths history contains many truths which are part of the wheat and it is the chaff ( such as heresy or the like which must removed so that they may be in communion with the one true Faith, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Show some mercy and compassion in believing and explaining the faith. Truth is truth but you just constantly twist it to your private interpretation.

columba Tue May 08, 2012 5:15 pm

George Brenner wrote:
Columba said:
but it is absolutely certain that in converting to the Catholic faith one must reject ones own faith history because that previous faith history was nothing less than heresy.

Sorry Columba but you are wrong. Do you realize that as Jesus taught that the wheat must be separated from the chaff. Do you understand that the chaff is actually part of the wheat, it is a coating of the wheat. Chaff is not another plant, it is part of the wheat. The process of threshing removes the chaff from the wheat so that the wheat will be fruitful. So it is with one of another faith. Their faiths history contains many truths which are part of the wheat and it is the chaff ( such as heresy or the like which must removed so that they may be in communion with the one true Faith, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Show some mercy and compassion in believing and explaining the faith. Truth is truth but you just constantly twist it to your private interpretation.

George, when one makes a stand for the truth, especially an unsavory truth, it is only to be expected that accusations of lack of compassion and mercy will follow.
I stand by what I said, not because I've used my own private interpretation or twisted Church teaching to suit some preconceived notion of what I believe by my own authority to be the truth, but because this is precisely what the Church actually teaches.

If one deviates even one iota from any point of Catholic faith then one renounces the faith completely. Even if one holds every other doctrine save one, the rule still holds. It is obvious why this is so. Every truth of faith which the heretic holds is not a truth of the faith to him. He holds it merely because he chooses to hold it and not because of any virtue of faith, therefore his "faith history" is wrongly called "faith history." The word "faith" has no conexion with what a heretic believes. I suppose too that it's not PC to use the word heretic, and shows a lack of mercy and compassion on the part of the one who uses it. Be that as it may it describes the condition perfetly and helps avoid an otherwise ambiguous meaning.

I haven't checked it out yet but if I were to look for a Catholic commentary on the teaching of Jesus concerning the wheat and the chaff, I think it would not have the interpretation which you have attributed to it. I think the wheat and chaff refer to works; the chaff being those works not inspired by supernatural faith.

DeSelby Wed May 09, 2012 1:15 am

I'll respond tomorrow to all of this.

Guest Wed May 09, 2012 2:14 pm

Columba,
I used to be your fan but I think you have succumbed too much to the Sedevacantist position.

I am on MRyan side in this one--though it hurts to admit it Shocked

Even if Vatican II was initiated by modernists and they wanted to get their stuff in...it doesn't change the fact that it is an approved council. It is a universal pastoral council--possibly the first-- which means it is open to interpretation. I don't think Vat II would be so long if bishops thought they were binding consciences to the exact expressions of the council.

To expect bishops and priests to have an exact understanding of all Church teaching in the currant crisis is asking too much. These good bishops are growing stronger and clearer...that's all. Cut them some slack. Most are very busy and think they learned all they needed in seminary. These technical questions of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus etc... really aren't there first priority. There is a lot of reform that is more obvious.

How long did it take you Columba to get to the "knowlege" you have now? Where you outside the Church without your now insights?

St. Ignatius said that we should excuse before accusing. I think that is fair policy.

Guest Wed May 09, 2012 2:20 pm

columba wrote:
George Brenner wrote:
Columba said:
but it is absolutely certain that in converting to the Catholic faith one must reject ones own faith history because that previous faith history was nothing less than heresy.

Sorry Columba but you are wrong. Do you realize that as Jesus taught that the wheat must be separated from the chaff. Do you understand that the chaff is actually part of the wheat, it is a coating of the wheat. Chaff is not another plant, it is part of the wheat. The process of threshing removes the chaff from the wheat so that the wheat will be fruitful. So it is with one of another faith. Their faiths history contains many truths which are part of the wheat and it is the chaff ( such as heresy or the like which must removed so that they may be in communion with the one true Faith, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Show some mercy and compassion in believing and explaining the faith. Truth is truth but you just constantly twist it to your private interpretation.

George, when one makes a stand for the truth, especially an unsavory truth, it is only to be expected that accusations of lack of compassion and mercy will follow.
I stand by what I said, not because I've used my own private interpretation or twisted Church teaching to suit some preconceived notion of what I believe by my own authority to be the truth, but because this is precisely what the Church actually teaches.

If one deviates even one iota from any point of Catholic faith then one renounces the faith completely. Even if one holds every other doctrine save one, the rule still holds. It is obvious why this is so. Every truth of faith which the heretic holds is not a truth of the faith to him. He holds it merely because he chooses to hold it and not because of any virtue of faith, therefore his "faith history" is wrongly called "faith history." The word "faith" has no conexion with what a heretic believes. I suppose too that it's not PC to use the word heretic, and shows a lack of mercy and compassion on the part of the one who uses it. Be that as it may it describes the condition perfetly and helps avoid an otherwise ambiguous meaning.

I haven't checked it out yet but if I were to look for a Catholic commentary on the teaching of Jesus concerning the wheat and the chaff, I think it would not have the interpretation which you have attributed to it. I think the wheat and chaff refer to works; the chaff being those works not inspired by supernatural faith.

I think you are missing the point of error being pernicious. There are times that there are confusions on this or that doctrine like the Immaculate Conception. Does it mean St. Thomas rejecte the whole Faith because he was wrong? No. There was confusion on the issue. Now in today's Church multiply this by 10X so not all those who are wrong on doctrine are pernicious--They like St. Thomas are just confused.

MRyan Wed May 09, 2012 4:20 pm

cowboy wrote:Columba,
I used to be your fan but I think you have succumbed too much to the Sedevacantist position.

I am on MRyan side in this one--though it hurts to admit it

Oy vey!

cowboy wrote:Even if Vatican II was initiated by modernists and they wanted to get their stuff in...it doesn't change the fact that it is an approved council. It is a universal pastoral council--possibly the first-- which means it is open to interpretation. I don't think Vat II would be so long if bishops thought they were binding consciences to the exact expressions of the council.

And the only authentic interpreter of the Council is the Magisterium.

cowboy wrote:To expect bishops and priests to have an exact understanding of all Church teaching in the currant crisis is asking too much. These good bishops are growing stronger and clearer...that's all. Cut them some slack. Most are very busy and think they learned all they needed in seminary. These technical questions of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus etc... really aren't there first priority. There is a lot of reform that is more obvious.

How long did it take you Columba to get to the "knowledge" you have now? Where you outside the Church without your now insights?

Columba's "knowledge" is, unfortunately, woefully deficient. Any layman who pits his untrained "opinions" on baptism of blood and baptism of desire, for example, against the authentic ordinary magisterium and the universal moral consensus of saints, Doctors and theologians is someone no one can take seriously.

Goodness, he even passes himself off as a semi-fluent Latin scholar wannabe who doesn't much care what actual Medieval Latin Scholars have to say against his appalling translations and "interpretations". As the true arbiter of faith and tradition, his "scholarship" is not restricted by actual training and knowledge in any given discipline.

Case in point - columba's woefully deficient understanding of "particular churches" where his is nothing more than the ignorant and arrogant dissent of certain sedevacantists who are simply out of their league; but this does not stop them from accusing the pope of heresy and error when lecturing anyone who will listen on the Church's "true understanding" of "particular churches"; an understanding that goes right to the heart of the Divine Constitution of the One True Church of Christ.

Pure hubris, all of it; from theological amateurs who pass themselves off as "knowledgeable".

cowboy wrote:St. Ignatius said that we should excuse before accusing. I think that is fair policy.

Yes, and the Church also has an official "policy" with respect to the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestants, and it is a policy columba rejects for it assumes good will and a lack of formal (obstinate) heresy (though it does not preclude formal heresy in individuals - the Church simply leaves the formal delict, if there is one, between the individual and God).

columba wrote:
I haven't checked it out yet but if I were to look for a Catholic commentary on the teaching of Jesus concerning the wheat and the chaff, I think it would not have the interpretation which you have attributed to it. I think the wheat and chaff refer to works; the chaff being those works not inspired by supernatural faith.

Yes, please "check it out"!

Haydock Commentary:

Epistle: Colossians 3: 12-17

12 Put ye on, therefore, as the elect of God, holy, and beloved, the bowels of mercy, benignity, humility, modesty, patience:

13 Bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if any have a complaint against another: even as the Lord hath forgiven you, so do you also.

14 But above all these things have charity, which is the bond of perfection:

Commentary on Verse 14: Above all these things have charity, the love of God, and of your neighbor, which is the bond of perfection, the end of all virtues, which unites the hearts of all to God. (Witham)

15 And let the peace of Christ rejoice in your hearts, wherein also you are called in one body: and be ye thankful.

Commentary on Verse 15: The peace of Christ rejoice: reign, conquer, bear away the prize. (Witham)

Gospel: St. Matthew 13: 24-30

24 At that time, Jesus spoke to the multitudes this parable: The kingdom of Heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seeds in his field.

Commentary on Verse 24: He spoke to the multitudes this parable. As in the preceding parable our Lord spoke of those who did not receive the word, so in this He speaks of those who receive the corrupted word; for it is a diabolical machination to confound error with truth. (St. John Chrysostom in St. Thomas Aquinas) --- There are three things worthy of observation in this parable. 1st. That the Church of God on earth consists of both good and bad; the 2nd, that God is not the author of evil; and the 3rd, that God does not always punish the wicked on the spot, but patiently bears with them. (Menochius)

25 But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat, and went his way.

Commentary on Verse 25: Were asleep. When the superiors or pastors of the Church were lulled asleep or negligent, or, when the apostles were dead, as St. Augustine expounds it, the devil spread the tares or error and sin amongst a great number of Christians. These falling from the state of grace, or becoming heretics, are yet mingled with the rest of the faithful in the same outward profession of Christianity, not unlike the good corn and cockle in the same field.

26 And when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle.

27 Then the servants of the master of the house came and said to him: 'Master, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it cockle?'

Commentary on Verse 27: Then the servants. St. John Chrysostom observes, there are many circumstances in the parables that have no connection with the instruction designed to be conveyed in the parables, and which are merely added to connect the different parts together.

28 And he said to them: 'An enemy hath done this.' And the servants said to him: 'Wilt thou that we go and gather it up?'

29 And he said: 'No, lest perhaps while ye gather up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it.'

Commentary on Verse 29: No, lest, &c. The prayers of repenting sinners are never despised. We are taught also by this example not to cut off too hastily a fallen brother; for, whatever he may be today, tomorrow perhaps he may see his error and embrace the truth. (St. Jerome). --- Jesus Christ exhorts us to bear with infidels and heretics, not on our own account only, as wicked men are frequently of use to the virtuous, but also on their account; for sometimes the persons who have been corrupted and perverted, will return to the paths of virtue and truth. Let, therefore, both grow until the harvest, i.e. to the day of judgment, when the power of rectifying another's error shall be no more. (St. Augustine in St. Thomas Aquinas)

--- When many are implicated in one misfortune, what remains but to bewail their condition. Let us then be willing to correct our brethren to the utmost of our power, but let it be always with mercy, charity and compassion; what we cannot correct, let us bear with patience, permitting what God permits, and interceding with Him to move and convert their hearts. But when an opportunity offers, let us publicly advocate the truth, and condemn error. (St. Jerome)

--- St. Augustine affirms, that no one should be compelled by force to an unity of religious tenets: such as dissent for us must be persuaded by words, overcome by argumentation, and convinced by reason. (St. Thomas Aquinas)

30 'Let both grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but gather the wheat into my barn.'

George is absolutely correct, while columba is too narrow with his "interpretation" which places the final act of separation (what from the chaff) only in the context of separating fruitful works from dead works.

His error, of course, is to assume that neither the Orthodox nor Protestants are capable of good works (supernatural virtue) because they are all formal heretics.

One can only wonder if his incessant accusations against the Church of Christ, whose "sole intention" since VCII, he says, is to promote the heresy of modernism, will be wheat, or chaff:

For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree, therefore, that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down and cast into the fire. (Luke 3:9) Whose fan is in his hand, and he will purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.(Luke 3:17)

But please do "check it out", columba.

cowboy wrote:
I think you [columba] are missing the point of error being pernicious. There are times that there are confusions on this or that doctrine like the Immaculate Conception. Does it mean St. Thomas rejecte the whole Faith because he was wrong? No. There was confusion on the issue. Now in today's Church multiply this by 10X so not all those who are wrong on doctrine are pernicious--They like St. Thomas are just confused.

Good point, even though columba will most likely say that we are speaking about defined dogmas, not errant opinions on matters unrevealed and undefined.

But he will still miss the point, for the "pertinacity" even in these matters is the difference between error in good faith, and formal heresy.

Columba scolds the Church for not treating the Orthodox and Protestants as formal heretics. He is after all, smarter than the Church and the true arbiter of faith and tradition.

Neither does columba seem to appreciate it when the tables are turned and the same "standards" for heresy, schism and apostasy he employs against Cardinals, Bishops, the Eastern Orthodox and Protestants are directed at him.

I have no problem using his own standards in accusing him of heresy and schism for his refusal to remain subject to the Roman Pontiff and for his heretical position vis a vis the indefectibility of the Church with her so-called "doubtful" Mass, doubtful Sacraments, doubtful Episcopacy, a doubtful Pope and a doubtful visible Church of Christ.

His heresy also extends to pitting Magisteriums and Popes one against another as he calls for a future Pope or Council to finally condemn VCII, the New Mass and the Conciliar Church -- as he clings to a former Magisterium while rejecting the present - as if they are not one and the same voice of Christ.

And he calls this "fence sitting". I call it heresy and schism.

DeSelby Wed May 09, 2012 4:37 pm

MRyan wrote:
DeSelby, ask yourself if individual members of particular Eastern Orthodox churches should have to "reject" their "faith history" when they finally accept the dogma of Papal Primacy, and accept the Catholic Faith whole and inviolate.

It is precisely the imposed "Latinization" of the East which historically posed as a stumbling block to conversions. No one is suggesting that the doctrines which remain incompatible can be retained by those Christians who are finally joined to the Church in full communion.

Neither should a Protestant have to "reject" his entire faith history when it is precisely that history which most likely provided the impetus for full communion.

If you've ever listened to EWTN's "The Journey Home" and the first hand conversion story accounts of former Protestant Ministers, you would know what I mean, and you would know what is meant by "this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history".

I've seen the show, yes; I also find myself in agreement with Columba's response to this above.

For now I'll try to limit myself somewhat to only referring to the second half of the papal speech in question:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/august/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050819_ecumenical-meeting_en.html

We all know there are numerous models of unity and you know that the Catholic Church also has as her goal the full visible unity of the disciples of Christ, as defined by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in its various Documents (cf. Lumen Gentium, nn. 8, 13; Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.). This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 4); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world.

On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history. Absolutely not!

It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline. Unity in multiplicity, and multiplicity in unity: in my Homily for the Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul on 29 June last, I insisted that full unity and true catholicity in the original sense of the word go together. As a necessary condition for the achievement of this coexistence, the commitment to unity must be constantly purified and renewed; it must constantly grow and mature.

To this end, dialogue has its own contribution to make. More than an exchange of thoughts, an academic exercise, it is an exchange of gifts (cf. Ut Unum Sint, n. 28), in which the Churches and the Ecclesial Communities can make available their own riches (cf. Lumen Gentium, nn. 8, 15; Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 3, 14ff.; Ut Unum Sint, nn. 10-14).

There are ambiguities here (to my eyes at least) mixed in with some notions that are probably sound. I say "probably" because ambiguities have the same effect as a pile of dirt dumped in a pitcher of clear water.

For instance, he references "... the achievement of this coexistence...." Coexistence implies, necessarily, the existence in common of disparate entities. And this coexistence is to be "achieved", as if it is an end in itself.

The passage that immediately follows it:

As a result of this commitment, the journey can move forward, step by step, as the Letter to the Ephesians says, until at last we will all "attain to the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" (Eph 4: 13).

... suggests that perhaps this coexistence is supposed to be a sort of preliminary condition to "full unity." That would be trying to put a positive spin on it, I guess you could say.

But the portion that immediately precedes, and includes, the "coexistence" quote,

Unity in multiplicity, and multiplicity in unity: in my Homily for the Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul on 29 June last, I insisted that full unity and true catholicity in the original sense of the word go together. As a necessary condition for the achievement of this coexistence, the commitment to unity must be constantly purified and renewed; it must constantly grow and mature.

... suggests (OK... to me at least) that it is the condition of so-called "full unity" that is being referred to as "this coexistence."

In short, babel.

It is also worth noting that, "in this context", Roger Schutz is put forward as an example for us:

It is obvious that this dialogue can develop only in a context of sincere and committed spirituality. We cannot "bring about" unity by our powers alone. We can only obtain unity as a gift of the Holy Spirit. Consequently, spiritual ecumenism - prayer, conversion and the sanctification of life - constitutes the heart of the meeting and of the ecumenical movement (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 8; Ut Unum Sint, 15ff., 21, etc.). It could be said that the best form of ecumenism consists in living in accordance with the Gospel.

I would also like in this context to remember the great pioneer of unity, Bro. Roger Schutz, who was so tragically snatched from life. I had known him personally for a long time and had a cordial friendship with him.

He often came to visit me and, as I already said in Rome on the day of his assassination, I received a letter from him that moved my heart, because in it he underlined his adherence to my path and announced to me that he wanted to come and see me. He is now visiting us and speaking to us from on high. I think that we must listen to him, from within we must listen to his spiritually-lived ecumenism and allow ourselves to be led by his witness towards an interiorized and spiritualized ecumenism.

I see good reason in this context for optimism in the fact that today a kind of "network" of spiritual links is developing between Catholics and Christians from the different Churches and Ecclesial Communities: each individual commits himself to prayer, to the examination of his own life, to the purification of memory, to the openness of charity.

Roger Schutz, who never clearly converted (unfortunately), or clearly gave up protestantism, but only "enriched" it with, in his words, "the mystery of the Catholic faith".

Perhaps it could be argued that "conversion" is, though, mentioned with regard to "spiritual ecumenism":

Consequently, spiritual ecumenism - prayer, conversion and the sanctification of life - constitutes the heart of the meeting and of the ecumenical movement (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 8; Ut Unum Sint, 15ff., 21, etc.).

The references to Ut Unum Sint for example speak "of an interior conversion, of a renewal of mind". Which in and of itself is good; but what is it supposed to imply in the context of ecumenism? Is it a conversion to the Catholic faith?

I also find it worth noting that Paul Couturier is brought up at the end of the speech:

The father of spiritual ecumenism, Paul Couturier, spoke in this regard of an "invisible cloister" which unites within its walls those souls inflamed with love for Christ and his Church. I am convinced that if more and more people unite themselves interiorly to the Lord's prayer "that all may be one" (Jn 17: 21), then this prayer, made in the Name of Jesus, will not go unheard (cf. Jn 14: 13; 15: 7, 16, etc.).

Wikipedia, though not always the best of sources I'll admit, has the following in their article on him:

He also studied the work of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a fellow scientist, and was strongly influenced by Chardin's view of the unity of all humanity in Christ, regardless of their beliefs. He personally believed that praying for the increased holiness of all peoples would inevitably lead to a greater understanding of God, and eventually a greater understanding of Christ by all peoples of the world.

It is easy to imagine a parallel between "the unity of all humanity in Christ, regardless of their beliefs" and a sort of "unity of all christians in the Catholic Church, regardless of their beliefs."

They have the following quote from Cardinal Kasper on Couturier:

While [Father Paul] Wattson maintained that the goal of unity was the return to the Catholic Church, Abbé Paul Couturier of Lyons (1881–1953) gave a new impetus to this Week in the 1930s, ecumenical in the true sense of the word. He changed the name "Church Unity Octave" to "Universal Week of Prayer for Christian Unity", thus furthering a unity of the Church that "Christ wills by the means he wills".

Paul Couturier's 1944 spiritual testament is very important, profound and moving; it is one of the most inspired ecumenical texts, still worth reading and meditating on today. The author speaks of an "invisible monastery", "built of all those souls whom, because of their sincere efforts to open themselves to his fire and his light, the Holy Spirit has enabled to have a deep understanding of the painful division among Christians; an awareness of this in these souls has given rise to continuous suffering and as a result, regular recourse to prayer and penance".

Paul Couturier can be considered the father of spiritual ecumenism. His influence was felt by the Dombes Group and by Roger Schutz and the Taizé Community. Sr. Maria Gabriella also drew great inspiration from him. Today, his invisible monastery is at last taking shape through the growing number of prayer networks between Catholic monasteries and non-Catholics, spiritual movements and communities, centres of male and female religious, Bishops, priests and lay people.

There was this reference to Couturier on the St. Benedict Center site:

Because of certain practices carried out in the name of ecumenism, many of the faithful are confused about all this. Joe Catholic in the pew has a fluffy notion of what Christian unity is. He might think it means a sort of inter-church cooperation in feeding the hungry, or getting together for discussions which conclude in irenic slogans like, “the points on which we agree are vastly more important than the points on which we differ.” If he could articulate the common misconception of Christian unity, Joe might say that it is the greater cooperation, mutual respect, and love between all Christians, no matter what their denomination. So, when he prays for Church unity, Joe might be praying for more of this kind of thing.

But he would not be praying for Christian unity.

The article on Father Paul Wattson of Graymoor we recently posted on our site reveals that his conception of Christian unity was not Joe’s. This apostolic man, a convert from Episcopalianism, knew that true Christian unity can only be achieved in the Catholic Church. To work for this, he started the Chair of Unity Octave, which eventually received ecclesiastical approbation. Father Paul, who died in 1940, resisted efforts to make the Octave more “inclusive” and less explicitly Catholic:

There was an attempt to “water down” the intention of the Octave by some Christians, including an influential Catholic priest, Abbe Paul Couturier of France. Their adjusted prayer became “the reunion of Christians in the manner best pleasing to Christ,” rather than “reunion under the authority of the Successor of Saint Peter.” Many non-Catholic Christians, especially the Orthodox, jumped on this bandwagon. Although the leaders of this prayer octave tried to enlist Father Paul in their support, he remained adamant that reunion had to come under the auspices of the pope. (“Father Paul of Graymoor: Founder of the Society of the Atonement and Father of the Church Unity Octave“)

The misdirected effort to unify Christians without seeking converts to Catholicism was already under way in the first half of the twentieth century[...]

This is all just my way of saying that your response,

Neither should a Protestant have to "reject" his entire faith history when it is precisely that history which most likely provided the impetus for full communion.

If you've ever listened to EWTN's "The Journey Home" and the first hand conversion story accounts of former Protestant Ministers, you would know what I mean, and you would know what is meant by "this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history".

... too greatly simplifies the situation.

George Brenner Wed May 09, 2012 9:06 pm

MIke,

I had an opportunity to have breakfast with Doctor E. Michael Jones this morning. We had a great conversation about the love of our Faith. I told Mike Jones that you MRyan {Mike} has been a very inspirational person in my Catholic life and that I would very much like for the two of you to talk. With the fact that Mike Jones life has included discussions with our Holy Father along with so many other prominent fiqures throughout the world and has written books on many of the critical topics of our time, I asked Mike Jones if he would chat with you on our mutual love for our Catholic faith. Mike Jones graciously said yes to please have MRyan Contact him at Jones@Culturewars.com

My prayer is that grace may enable us to grow in love to do the will of God.

JMJ,

George

columba Thu May 10, 2012 1:04 pm

Cowboy wrote:
Columba,
I used to be your fan but I think you have succumbed too much to the Sedevacantist position.

Good to hear from you again Cowboy. Welcome back. Smile

Contrary to popular belief, I still don't have a definite opinion as to whether the chair of Peter is validly occupied or not and even if I had it would be just that.. an opinion, but I don't reject it as an absolute impossibility. My main point of contention with some who hold the vacant seat position is that everyone must acknowledge their view to be infallibly correct. It could only be infallibly correct if they themselves happened to be the valid occupants of the chair.

Cowboy wrote:
I am on MRyan side in this one--though it hurts to admit it

And what a lethargic faith you would be lumbered with. The hurt you feel may be a warning pain indicative of something worse to follow if left untreated. A Call to Catholic Men of Faith 676358

If you really were on Mryan's side you would have to concede that my position is every bit as valid as the Protestant position and it should not be condemned as “non-Christian.”
You see, Mryan isn't even on Mryan's side. If he were, he would have no gripe with me at all. He would merely extend the same charity to me as he does to non Catholic sects and excuse rather than accuse. If he contests my sincerity he is only proving his own belief to be insincere; the belief that one cannot judge the interior disposition of another.
If I judge Protestant sects to be heretical, I do so for the simple reason that the Church has declared them so and infallibly maintains that they must convert to the true faith in order to be saved. The interior disposition of any individual member of a given sect is way beyond my competency to judge. As for the non-Catholic sect itself, it is unquestionably heretical.

Cowboy wrote:
Even if Vatican II was initiated by modernists and they wanted to get their stuff in...it doesn't change the fact that it is an approved council. It is a universal pastoral council--possibly the first-- which means it is open to interpretation. I don't think Vat II would be so long if bishops thought they were binding consciences to the exact expressions of the council.

Precisely my point Cowboy. I interpret Vat II in accord with tradition. Unfortunately it seems to be the case that today's hierarchy believe that the Church was founded in 1962.

Cowboy wrote:
To expect bishops and priests to have an exact understanding of all Church teaching in the currant crisis is asking too much.

That's exactly what their job description is. How can they be teachers if they do not know the teachings. Our Lord warned us against following the blind. Both will fall into the pit together. If they do not have an exact understanding of the faith then they should not be teachers of the faith and resign. Anyone with a basic Catholic sense can distinquish the truth from a lie. If there still remain some gray areas (such as what form Limbo takes) then no one has a right to promote their own belief as infallible truth and act as if the question has already been settled in their favor.

Cowboy wrote:
These good bishops are growing stronger and clearer...that's all. Cut them some slack.

I've never condemned any good bishops; I just haven't met any who profess the exact same faith as their predecessors. I have often condemned those who are leading souls astray with their false teachings that stand in contradiction to the constant teaching of the Church. I can cut loads of slack for the ignorant who are seeking the truth; as for those who are charged with instructing the ignorant and wear the robes of teachers of the faith, the slack due to them I pray the Lord will take and give to those whom they instructed falsely.

Cowboy wrote:
Most are very busy and think they learned all they needed in seminary. These technical questions of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus etc... really aren't there first priority. There is a lot of reform that is more obvious.

I disagree. If the foundation on which the Catholic Church stands -its claim to be the one, true Church of Christ- is undermined, then it matters not what teachings follow thereafter. There is no greater priority than that of reestablishing the true identity of the Catholic Church.
I wouldn't expect any praise in my job either if I busied myself promoting my competitors merits and neglected to promote the merits of the company I'm meant to represent. In fact I'd get the sack.

Cowboy wrote:
How long did it take you Columba to get to the "knowlege" you have now? Where you outside the Church without your now insights?

It has taken me approx one year to learn those truths of the faith (and their implications) which the Church has taught infallibly and this with only part-time study. If it were my sole profession I would have been an expert years ago as would anyone else. Prior to knowing what I know now I was being led on the road to hell by those “professional” and ordained teachers of the faith whom Mike would now have me follow unquestioningly. I trust them not. Like Our Lord said, “If salt loses its saltiness, what can make it salty again.” I understand these words now.

St. Ignatius said that we should excuse before accusing. I think that is fair policy

And a policy I 100% agree with,
I'm sure St. Ignatius would never have suggested that when it concerns the common good and the eternal salvation of souls one should remain silent. In our age where individual rights are hailed as sacrosanct, seeking the common good has always been the Church's position.
Minor faults and human imperfections should always be overlooked; not so with blatant error that can potentially lead astray the souls of others. To remain silent in such cases for fear of offending is not charity. It is more associated with the fear of not being liked.

Cowboy I know you were being candid with reference to being a "fan" and no hard feelings here. A Call to Catholic Men of Faith 625443

With all due respect to Mike, I just hope for your sake you don't become an MRyanite.

columba Thu May 10, 2012 1:20 pm

Cowboy wrote:
I think you are missing the point of error being pernicious. There are times that there are confusions on this or that doctrine like the Immaculate Conception. Does it mean St. Thomas rejecte the whole Faith because he was wrong? No. There was confusion on the issue. Now in today's Church multiply this by 10X so not all those who are wrong on doctrine are pernicious--They like St. Thomas are just confused

It's not whether the error is pernicious or innocently held because in either case the net result will be the same, the loss of faith. We are not here talking of unresolved questions of faith. When speaking of error I mean those things now being taught contrary to already defined doctrine. Confussion can only exist where there is no clear teaching that can be referred to for clarification. St. Thomas was not in error because their was no existing teaching on the matter that he could be guilty of contradicting.

MRyan Thu May 10, 2012 10:35 pm

George Brenner wrote: MIke,

I had an opportunity to have breakfast with Doctor E. Michael Jones this morning. We had a great conversation about the love of our Faith. I told Mike Jones that you MRyan {Mike} has been a very inspirational person in my Catholic life and that I would very much like for the two of you to talk. With the fact that Mike Jones life has included discussions with our Holy Father along with so many other prominent fiqures throughout the world and has written books on many of the critical topics of our time, I asked Mike Jones if he would chat with you on our mutual love for our Catholic faith. Mike Jones graciously said yes to please have MRyan Contact him at Jones@Culturewars.com

My prayer is that grace may enable us to grow in love to do the will of God.

JMJ,

George

George, thank you for thinking of me, and for the kind words. I hope to contact Mr. Jones in the near future.

Your prayer is my prayer,

Mike

MRyan Thu May 10, 2012 10:47 pm

DeSelby wrote:
MRyan wrote:
DeSelby, ask yourself if individual members of particular Eastern Orthodox churches should have to "reject" their "faith history" when they finally accept the dogma of Papal Primacy, and accept the Catholic Faith whole and inviolate.

It is precisely the imposed "Latinization" of the East which historically posed as a stumbling block to conversions. No one is suggesting that the doctrines which remain incompatible can be retained by those Christians who are finally joined to the Church in full communion.

Neither should a Protestant have to "reject" his entire faith history when it is precisely that history which most likely provided the impetus for full communion.

If you've ever listened to EWTN's "The Journey Home" and the first hand conversion story accounts of former Protestant Ministers, you would know what I mean, and you would know what is meant by "this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history".

I've seen the show, yes; I also find myself in agreement with Columba's response to this above.

You'll forgive me for not responding. I'm actually getting tired of this. The "babel" of Pope JPII, "Roger Schultz is put forward as an example"; "The father of spiritual ecumenism, Paul Couturier", "Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a fellow scientist, and was strongly influenced by Chardin's view of the unity of all humanity in Christ"; "Sr. Maria Gabriella also drew great inspiration from him"; all of this anecdotal something or other ... "too greatly simplifies [or complicates] the situation".

Yep.

Guest Thu May 10, 2012 10:48 pm

Ok Columba fair points in rebuttal.

I still think there is room to be patient with bishops and priests. But it is true their job is to know these things but there is also a clerical culture that prevents them from even considering the question.
That is the problem is that they see no problem.

Don't worry about me becoming a MRyanite. I don't consider him a real Christian because he is too nasty to people and seems to enjoy it. He has a good intellect but can be too harsh.

Jehanne Thu May 10, 2012 11:16 pm

Mike,

What do you think of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin? Do you believe that he was wholly orthodox in his theology?

MRyan Fri May 11, 2012 9:05 am

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

What do you think of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin? Do you believe that he was wholly orthodox in his theology?

No.

George Brenner Fri May 11, 2012 3:58 pm

Cowboy said:
Don't worry about me becoming a MRyanite. I don't consider him a real Christian because he is too nasty to people and seems to enjoy it. He has a good intellect but can be too harsh.

We may or may not live to see that Father Leonard Feeney was not a feeneynite as most proclaim but in word and deed a devout Catholic. This is a developing story whose conclusion will come as a shock to most Catholics.

Along the same lines, there is no such thing as a MRyanite. Love, Charity and Truth when aided with supernatural grace are so intertwined and dependent on each other, that only few are blessed to obtain spiritual results that are pleasing to the will of God. When applied properly and with help from the Holy Ghost, all three by necessity will at times need to use any or all of the approaches including but not limited to: compassion, kindness, agreement, reinforcement, modification, correction, rebuke, chastisement or justified anger.

Search of Truth can only begin to be fruitful when we are willing to let go of the pride in the "me" and ask for God's help with honest, sincere and humble prayer to do the will of the "Thee" as in the will of God.

Those that have failed in their duties to teach, been bad role models or in the worst situations have committed sins of the flesh does not give justification for anyone to attack Our Faith, Our Church or our Pope. By, living, loving and practicing our Faith, we can all be part of the cure and have a positive effect on the Crisis of Faith we are living in today. Each of us have an opportunity and obligation NOT to make it a personal crisis of faith.

DeSelby Sat May 12, 2012 12:05 am

MRyan wrote:
You'll forgive me for not responding. I'm actually getting tired of this. The "babel" of Pope JPII, "Roger Schultz is put forward as an example"; "The father of spiritual ecumenism, Paul Couturier", "Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a fellow scientist, and was strongly influenced by Chardin's view of the unity of all humanity in Christ"; "Sr. Maria Gabriella also drew great inspiration from him"; all of this anecdotal something or other ... "too greatly simplifies [or complicates] the situation".

Yep.

You're forgiven for not responding, Mike.

While I'm at, I'll also forgive you of your usual flippant dismissiveness when confronted with arguments which — really, who cares what validity they may have actually possessed — are clearly not at all worthy of anyone's consideration, especially yours, coming as they do from a lowly pissant and peon such as myself. You are right to be tired.

Guest Sat May 12, 2012 3:19 am

Same ole same ole. lol!

MRyan Sat May 12, 2012 9:09 am

DeSelby,

I’m not sure what you really mean by any perceived “usual flippant dismissiveness” on my part when I’m “confronted” with the validity of arguments (however valid they may be) that are not at all worthy of my attention.

Perhaps you’ve confused me with someone else who simply walks away from debates and can’t be bothered to respond. Take a look at the number of my posts on this forum and then consider that the overwhelming majority of those are responses to the posts of others. I have not shied away from any subject, not even the noxious sede propaganda and insults against the Holy Father. If anything, I am more likely to be accused of beating a subject to death.

Having said that, I see your point; however, let me explain my point. As soon as you said you agree with columba, I knew this exchange would be fruitless, for anyone who agrees with this statement of columba is someone who comes to the table with a certain intractable and irreconcilable frame of reference:

it is absolutely certain that in converting to the Catholic faith one must reject ones own faith history because that previous faith history was nothing less than heresy. It consists in abandoning a man-made religion and accepting and embracing the truth as taught by Christ Himself.

In other words, DeSelby, like Columba, you’ve already rejected the Church’s official position vis a vis the Eastern Orthodox and Protestants and consider them to be formal heretics who are absolutely cut off from Faith and from the life of grace that can flow only though the Church through her valid sacraments, the benefits of which require the proper dispositions (good will motivated by faith and charity) to include at least an implicit desire to be united to the one true Church of Christ.

You’ve already dismissed the Church’s policy that presumes the non-culpability of non-Catholic Christians, so really, what kind of “debate” do you think we can have when what should be our grounding frame of reference (the Magisterium) is dismissed from the start?

For example, Columba said that Scott Hahn would never have converted to “post VatII Catholicism” unless he “was able to retain some of his previous Protestant ideas [‘rooted in the theology of the heresies of Martin Luther’] of salvation outside the Catholic Church.” In other words, according to columba, Scott Hahn is a faithless heretic who converted to a “post VatII Catholicism” that rejects the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and embraces the heretical doctrine of Luther.

I said, “If you've ever listened to EWTN's ‘The Journey Home’ and the first hand conversion story accounts of former Protestant Ministers, you would know what I mean, and you would know what is meant by "this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history".

You replied:

I've seen the show, yes; I also find myself in agreement with Columba's response to this above.

And his response “above” also included this:

Every truth of faith which the heretic holds is not a truth of the faith to him. He holds it merely because he chooses to hold it and not because of any virtue of faith, therefore his "faith history" is wrongly called "faith history." The word "faith" has no conexion with what a heretic believes.

We have absolutely no common reference with which to proceed if the official teachings and policy towards non-Catholic Christians are dismissed as so much heretical drivel. And that is the frame of reference I must place your comments relative to the “babel” of JPII and your anecdotal stories of an obviously disingenuous ecumenical movement that does not really have as its non-negotiable goal full communion in the one true Church of Christ.

If I offended you, I didn’t mean to, but either way; I stand by my remarks, for I am indeed tired of this sede-tinged nonsense, no matter how valid the concerns raised by these anecdotal stories.

It's unfortunate that our discussion took this turn, but at least our respective cards are on the table.

Guest Sat May 12, 2012 10:23 am

I don't really see a problem with the "faith history" statement. "Faith history" could mean a lot of things.

The Ukrainian Catholics for example, celebrate a Lenten service called the Pasia service. This service was created by a Bishop in Kiev when they were NOT in communion with Rome. It's a very beautiful service and there would not be any reason to discard it just because it was created during that time period.

MRyan Sat May 12, 2012 10:46 am

columba wrote:
It's not whether the error is pernicious or innocently held because in either case the net result will be the same, the loss of faith. We are not here talking of unresolved questions of faith. When speaking of error I mean those things now being taught contrary to already defined doctrine. Confussion can only exist where there is no clear teaching that can be referred to for clarification. St. Thomas was not in error because their was no existing teaching on the matter that he could be guilty of contradicting.

And with one snap of his magisterial finger, the valid distinctions that define and separate formal heresy from material error are dismissed as so much gibberish “because in either case the net result will be the same, the loss of faith.”

And this from the same person who says that an adult baptized member of a particular Orthodox Church can also be a visible member of the Catholic Church who remains in communion with the Roman Pontiff and with the visible society of the Catholic Faithful.

This is nothing less than the Dimond doctrine that posits so long as the baptized adult member of an Orthodox church remains inculpably ignorant of the true dogmas, such as Papal Primacy, he retains membership in the Catholic Church and the virtue of Faith received in Baptism (provided he professes the Catholic Faith whole and inviolate). But as soon as the same Orthodox adult becomes aware of the Catholic teaching on Papal Primacy, for example, and does not immediately embrace it, there are no cultural conditions or ancient faith traditions that can excuse him, and all Faith is lost.

Never mind what St. Augustine taught and what the Church continues to teach to the contrary; columba and this sede sect, the true arbiters of truth and tradition, have spoken.

As an official and reformable policy, the Church can either hold the Orthodox churches (and individuals) culpable, or non-culpable; but this does not change the infallible fact that formal heresy and schism can exist only with an obstinate will, and this does not change the infallible fact that certain of the Eastern Orthodox may very well be formal heretics (just as certain Roman Catholics may be obstinate in their heresy and schism).

In either case, official Church policy and even formal excommunications do not infringe on a matter that can be known by God alone; though our Lord will consider any excommunication as a valid act of His Church; just as He will consider as equally valid the lifting of the formal penalty, even if the delict persists internally in the will.

But we know this: The Church’s official policy, which cannot be opposed to the Faith or to immutable Tradition, is our Lord’s policy, for “He who hears you, hears Me”.

Jehanne Sat May 12, 2012 11:22 am

MRyan wrote:But we know this: The Church’s official policy, which cannot be opposed to the Faith or to immutable Tradition, is our Lord’s policy, for “He who hears you, hears Me”.

Mike,

Absolutely true, which means,

Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ...

If you want to say that the E.O. are all inculpable, great, but unless you can ever know this, we'll continue to proclaim "from the housetops":

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

MRyan Sat May 12, 2012 11:26 am

columba wrote:
When speaking of error I mean those things now being taught contrary to already defined doctrine. Confussion can only exist where there is no clear teaching that can be referred to for clarification. St. Thomas was not in error because their was no existing teaching on the matter that he could be guilty of contradicting.

What columba should have said is that “there was no existing formally defined or definitive teaching on the matter that he could be guilty of contradicting”, but to say that “there was no existing teaching on the matter” (the true teaching that says the flesh of our Blessed Mother was never stained with sin, before or after “ensoulment”), is simply false, for the true doctrine was held by the Doctor Subtilis, Duns Scotus and others. In fact, this true doctrine would be held universally centuries before it was formally defined.

So yes, Aquinas was in innocent “error” on this matter, though he was free to hold it. The true dogma did not begin with the formal definition, it always existed in the deposit of faith as a Revealed truth, though its finer points remained veiled for some time.

columba Sat May 12, 2012 11:27 am

MRyan wrote:
Take a look at the number of my posts on this forum and then consider that the overwhelming majority of those are responses to the posts of others. I have not shied away from any subject, not even the noxious sede propaganda and insults against the Holy Father. If anything, I am more likely to be accused of beating a subject to death.

It's not so much the number of posts that's the problem for me but rather the length of each. I don't have time to answer each and every point immediately but I sincerely wish I had that time available. Neither have I ever shied away from responding to you and will not shy away as long as you pose a danger to the faith of others. It happens that lately I've been side tracked by anathemas from George but any future exchange on that line will only waste more time. I give george the last word.

I have much to contest in all those posts of yours Mike but for the present I will have to do so bit by bit. For now, DeSelby and Rasha can both be considered correct in their understanding of "faith history." DeSelby has taken the same meaning as I have from the term; Rasha has taken your meaning.
The reason I chose to read the term in its heretical meaning is precisely because the term itself is not self explanatory and is merely another example of ambiguity used for the purpose of sowing confussion. In the context which the term was used by Benedict XVI, the obvious face-value meaning is that meaning to which I (and I believe DeSelby) have held it to.

columba Sat May 12, 2012 11:44 am

MRyan wrote:
columba wrote:
When speaking of error I mean those things now being taught contrary to already defined doctrine. Confussion can only exist where there is no clear teaching that can be referred to for clarification. St. Thomas was not in error because their was no existing teaching on the matter that he could be guilty of contradicting.
What columba should have said is that “there was no existing formally defined or definitive teaching on the matter that he could be guilty of contradicting”, but to say that “there was no existing teaching on the matter” (the true teaching that says the flesh of our Blessed Mother was never stained with sin, before or after “ensoulment”), is simply false, for the true doctrine was held by the Doctor Subtilis, Duns Scotus and others. In fact, this true doctrine would be held universally centuries before it was formally defined.

So yes, Aquinas was in innocent “error” on this matter, though he was free to hold it. The true dogma did not begin with the formal definition, it always existed in the deposit of faith as a Revealed truth, though its finer points remained veiled for some time.

I totally agree.

MRyan Sat May 12, 2012 11:49 am

Jehanne wrote:
MRyan wrote:But we know this: The Church’s official policy, which cannot be opposed to the Faith or to immutable Tradition, is our Lord’s policy, for “He who hears you, hears Me”.

Mike,

Absolutely true, which means,

Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ...
If you want to say that the E.O. are all inculpable, great, but unless you can ever know this, we'll continue to proclaim "from the housetops":

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Jehanne,

You have failed to make the proper distinctions and are confusing policy with doctrine.

In his letter to the Orthodox churches, Pope Pius IX said that the Orthodox have "no excuse" for not returning to the Catholic Church. But is such a statement irreformable "doctrine", or a reformable opinion which was shaped by the Church's current policy and the formal act of excommunication still in force?

Did it change the infallible fact that certain of the Orthodox may not be culpable for the sin of schism? Again, Pius IX made this statement when the excommunications were still in force, just as "the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ..." was made under the same formal conditions.

Whatever the Church says "the Greeks or others" should say", the infallible fact remains that they are not in full communion with Peter and the one true Church of Christ. The Church's policy towards the Greeks and others vis a vis their relationship with the Catholic Church does not change this infallible fact, nor does it change the infallible fact that formal heresy cannot exist without an obstinate will.

And the Church continues to proclaim:

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Official policy does not change dogma; and it cannot be opposed to the Faith.

columba Sat May 12, 2012 12:04 pm

RashaLampa wrote:I don't really see a problem with the "faith history" statement. "Faith history" could mean a lot of things.

The Ukrainian Catholics for example, celebrate a Lenten service called the Pasia service. This service was created by a Bishop in Kiev when they were NOT in communion with Rome. It's a very beautiful service and there would not be any reason to discard it just because it was created during that time period.

If the Ukrainian Catholics had denied the dogma of transubstantiation, the power of a priest to confer absolutuion in the sacrament of penance or deny the dogmas concerning the Blessed Virgin, they would certainly have had to abandon their own faith history on those points. The Ukrainian Catholics (or any Protestant sect) would not (even in the past) have been required to give up forms of prayer not pertaining to the sacraments which did not contradict Catholic faith. The Way of the Cross would be one such practice excempt from censure.
Benedict XVI was addressing Protestants when he mentioned the non-abandonment of faith history.

columba Sat May 12, 2012 7:30 pm

MRyan wrote:
Columba's "knowledge" is, unfortunately, woefully deficient. Any layman who pits his untrained "opinions" on baptism of blood and baptism of desire, for example, against the authentic ordinary magisterium and the universal moral consensus of saints, Doctors and theologians is someone no one can take seriously.

Didn't we debate this before and you lost.
"The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude;" CCC 1257.

MRyan wrote:
Goodness, he even passes himself off as a semi-fluent Latin scholar wannabe who doesn't much care what actual Medieval Latin Scholars have to say against his appalling translations and "interpretations". As the true arbiter of faith and tradition, his "scholarship" is not restricted by actual training and knowledge in any given discipline.

Can you show me where I professed to be a semi-fluent Latin scholar? On second thoughts don't bother; I'd only be facilitating your ad hominem distraction tactics that almost everyone here has at one time or another called you out on but to no avail.
Like you, I can read what Latin scholars say concerning certain questionable translations and work out quite easily who is and who is not interpreting certain words and phrases according to their own agenda.

MRyan wrote:
Case in point - columba's woefully deficient understanding of "particular churches" where his is nothing more than the ignorant and arrogant dissent of certain sedevacantists who are simply out of their league;

Hmmm... Then what about those "particular churches" which aren't "particular churches" but are not to be excluded from THEE "Particular Church" of Jesus Christ.
If I'm confused it's merely a temporary condition brought on by reading too much post conciliar babel. I'm now on the road to full recovery.
BTW. Do YOU know what a particular church is? There are two possible answers to this. One dates from 1 AD, the other from around 1962.

MRyan wrote:
but this does not stop them from accusing the pope of heresy and error when lecturing anyone who will listen on the Church's "true understanding" of "particular churches"; an understanding that goes right to the heart of the Divine Constitution of the One True Church of Christ.

Yep... I bet they're just confused. Thankfully we have someone like you Mike who can interpret gobbledygook and bring two contrary understandings into harmony.
BTW.. You don't happen to have a copy of "Beginners Guide to Gobbledygook" I could borrow, or did you lend it to George? You know the one that teaches how "all" becomes "many" and "knows of no other means" becomes "knows of one other means?" Can't find it on Amazon.

MRyan wrote:
Pure hubris, all of it; from theological amateurs who pass themselves off as "knowledgeable".

Again it's so good we have you Mike; a true theological expert who tried to tell mac he hadn't read the books he was quoting from only to find he had conversed with the authors themselves revealing the truth of his argument and refuting you in your own hubristic ignorance. I'm not one to gloat but mac may well be an angel sent from heaven to teach you some humility for which you will one day be eternally thankful.

Yes, please "check it out"!
Haydock Commentary:

Epistle: Colossians 3: 12-17

12 Put ye on, therefore, as the elect of God, holy, and beloved, the bowels of mercy, benignity, humility, modesty, patience:

13 Bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if any have a complaint against another: even as the Lord hath forgiven you, so do you also.

14 But above all these things have charity, which is the bond of perfection:

Commentary on Verse 14: Above all these things have charity, the love of God, and of your neighbor, which is the bond of perfection, the end of all virtues, which unites the hearts of all to God. (Witham)

15 And let the peace of Christ rejoice in your hearts, wherein also you are called in one body: and be ye thankful.

Commentary on Verse 15: The peace of Christ rejoice: reign, conquer, bear away the prize. (Witham)

Gospel: St. Matthew 13: 24-30

24 At that time, Jesus spoke to the multitudes this parable: The kingdom of Heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seeds in his field.

Commentary on Verse 24: He spoke to the multitudes this parable. As in the preceding parable our Lord spoke of those who did not receive the word, so in this He speaks of those who receive the corrupted word; for it is a diabolical machination to confound error with truth. (St. John Chrysostom in St. Thomas Aquinas) --- There are three things worthy of observation in this parable. 1st. That the Church of God on earth consists of both good and bad; the 2nd, that God is not the author of evil; and the 3rd, that God does not always punish the wicked on the spot, but patiently bears with them. (Menochius)

25 But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat, and went his way.

Commentary on Verse 25: Were asleep. When the superiors or pastors of the Church were lulled asleep or negligent, or, when the apostles were dead, as St. Augustine expounds it, the devil spread the tares or error and sin amongst a great number of Christians. These falling from the state of grace, or becoming heretics, are yet mingled with the rest of the faithful in the same outward profession of Christianity, not unlike the good corn and cockle in the same field.

26 And when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle.

27 Then the servants of the master of the house came and said to him: 'Master, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it cockle?'

Commentary on Verse 27: Then the servants. St. John Chrysostom observes, there are many circumstances in the parables that have no connection with the instruction designed to be conveyed in the parables, and which are merely added to connect the different parts together.

28 And he said to them: 'An enemy hath done this.' And the servants said to him: 'Wilt thou that we go and gather it up?'

29 And he said: 'No, lest perhaps while ye gather up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it.'

Commentary on Verse 29: No, lest, &c. The prayers of repenting sinners are never despised. We are taught also by this example not to cut off too hastily a fallen brother; for, whatever he may be today, tomorrow perhaps he may see his error and embrace the truth. (St. Jerome). --- Jesus Christ exhorts us to bear with infidels and heretics, not on our own account only, as wicked men are frequently of use to the virtuous, but also on their account; for sometimes the persons who have been corrupted and perverted, will return to the paths of virtue and truth. Let, therefore, both grow until the harvest, i.e. to the day of judgment, when the power of rectifying another's error shall be no more. (St. Augustine in St. Thomas Aquinas)

--- When many are implicated in one misfortune, what remains but to bewail their condition. Let us then be willing to correct our brethren to the utmost of our power, but let it be always with mercy, charity and compassion; what we cannot correct, let us bear with patience, permitting what God permits, and interceding with Him to move and convert their hearts. But when an opportunity offers, let us publicly advocate the truth, and condemn error. (St. Jerome)

--- St. Augustine affirms, that no one should be compelled by force to an unity of religious tenets: such as dissent for us must be persuaded by words, overcome by argumentation, and convinced by reason. (St. Thomas Aquinas)

30 'Let both grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but gather the wheat into my barn.'

George is absolutely correct, while columba is too narrow with his "interpretation" which places the final act of separation (what from the chaff) only in the context of separating fruitful works from dead works.

George was not absolutely correct. He said that the wheat and the chaff were one and the same plant and with that I agree. For each individual the chaff will be burned away either in purgatory (or God forbid, eternally in hell). But nowhere in the quoted commentary can wefind the mention of chaff. Weeds growing up with the wheat yes, but the wheat and the weeds are not the same entity.
Just clearing that up.

MRyan wrote:
His error, [columba's] of course, is to assume that neither the Orthodox nor Protestants are capable of good works (supernatural virtue) because they are all formal heretics.

Then if they are not formal heretics they must be true Catholics. This was the very point on which you disagreed some weeks ago. We discussed the hypothetical case of the child being baptized into the Catholic faith while in the care of an orphanage. The child was later fostered (lets say in this instance) to a Protestant couple. At what point does the child become non-Catholic and a what point does the Church disown him as one of her own? Is it when he leaves the orphange and is en route to his new home or is it years later when he knowingly rejects the Catholic faith? If he is capable of good works it is beause he yet remains a true Catholic and not because he is a Protestant. Protestants (those who have rejected the Catholic faith) are not capable of (supernatural) good works.

One can only wonder if his incessant accusations against the Church of Christ, whose "sole intention" since VCII, he says, is to promote the heresy of modernism, will be wheat, or chaff:

We've yet to reach agreement on the meaning of "the Church of Christ"

MRyan wrote:
Columba scolds the Church for not treating the Orthodox and Protestants as formal heretics. He is after all, smarter than the Church and the true arbiter of faith and tradition.

Well tell me then,; are the sects they belong to Catholic? I have no problem accepting that within the sect there are indeed individual true Catholics, those who have not reached the age of reason and have not rejected the Catholic faith.

MRyan wrote:
Neither does columba seem to appreciate it when the tables are turned and the same "standards" for heresy, schism and apostasy he employs against Cardinals, Bishops, the Eastern Orthodox and Protestants are directed at him.

You need to be more precise. What article of faith do I reject?

I have no problem using his own standards in accusing him of heresy and schism for his refusal to remain subject to the Roman Pontiff and for his heretical position vis a vis the indefectibility of the Church with her so-called "doubtful" Mass, doubtful Sacraments, doubtful Episcopacy, a doubtful Pope and a doubtful visible Church of Christ.

Can you prove your assumptions beyond personal opinion. If a pope is infallibly certain never to lose the faith or never to be elected invalidly then I am most certainly wrong in harboring doubts, doubts which procede from their fruits.
If however it be the case that no such infallible protection is guaranteed, then it is (according to the fruits) quite possible that my doubts may be yet proved correct and that any changes made to the sacraments by such popes could render those sacraments potentially invalid. To be on the safe side I stick with the old forms.

His heresy also extends to pitting Magisteriums and Popes one against another

The post conciliar popes need no help from me in pitting one against the other.
They declare so themselves that this is in fact what they're doing; Remember that phrase "counter syllabus?" it weren't me who used the term against the syllabus of a past pope.
Counter definition; To speak or act in opposition to.

And he calls this "fence sitting". I call it heresy and schism.

Call it what you will. It's the safest place to be while the current leaders are still figuring out which Church they belong to.

MRyan Sun May 13, 2012 11:06 am

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Columba's "knowledge" is, unfortunately, woefully deficient. Any layman who pits his untrained "opinions" on baptism of blood and baptism of desire, for example, against the authentic ordinary magisterium and the universal moral consensus of saints, Doctors and theologians is someone no one can take seriously.

Didn't we debate this before and you lost.
"The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude;" CCC 1257.

You mean the Church “lost”, along with those other “losers” – “the authentic ordinary magisterium and the universal moral consensus of saints, Doctors and theologians”, all of which teach:

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

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

Pope St. Pius X also “lost” the debate:

16 Q. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?
A. Baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, for our Lord has expressly said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.(Catechism of Pope St. Pius X)

Shall we name all of the Doctors who "lost" this debate, as well as all the other magisterial “losers”?

Nah, it would be another waste of time for someone who refuses to be moderated by the Church.

Sponsored content