|
|
Angelqueen.org
For Purity and Tradition in Catholicism
|
Assisi-Contrast:
Lefebvre and Benedict XVI
What
are the important differences in first principles?
Tracing the
direct line from the 1949 Holy Office Letter to the Prayer Meeting at
Assisi
Page 2
|
|
View previous topic
:: View next topic
|
|
Author
|
Message
|
|
dona nobis
pacem
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 212
|
|
 Posted:
Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:34 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Drew posted:
|
Quote:
|
|
"It is the dogma itself that
is infallible and dogma is not subject to theological refinement."
|
In the 3 dogmatic statements on no salvation outside the Church,
does it literally say there is no such thing as baptism of desire? Does
it literally say there is no such thing as baptism of blood? Does it
literally say a man could be justified, but not saved? If not, how can
one escape a "theological refinement" of their own if they
reject those Catholic doctrines and Traditions? Here is a story of the
historical Tradition of baptism of blood: http://www.traditioninaction.org/SOD/j064sdSebaste3-10.htm
No Salvation Outside the Church is the objective Catholic
teaching, it is the rule of faith. That does not mean there is no
exceptions to the rule such as in the case where someone is a material
heretic and invincibly ignorant.
The dogma, no salvation outside the Church does say that if an
actual heretic dies defending the name of Jesus he will go to hell, but
that is not a blanket rejection of the doctrine of baptism of blood. It's
one particular example of an unrepentant vincible
mortal sin of heresy.
There should be a distinction made of an unbaptized
person who dies a martyr, they are truly theologically and actually
baptized with blood. We may say all martyrs are baptized with blood,
though most were first baptized with water. Their baptism may not have
been necessary for salvation since they were baptized with water, yet
since God called them to martyrdom, they may not have made it to heaven
had they refused, in that sense, all martyrderdom
may be looked at as a sort of baptism of blood.
While dwelling on the possibility of exceptions to the rule
should not replace the preaching of the rule. It does seem necessary at
times to speak of the exceptions to the rule in order to prove the dogma
has not been refined or changed from it's
original meaning. Speaking of the exception to the rule should be the
exception to the rule and not the rule. The rule is, there is no
salvation outside the Church!
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GordonG
Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 435
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:56 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Angelus
Press have kindly made available, for free, Fr Francois Laisney's book titled, Is Feeneyism
Catholic?. It is worth reading.
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
David Mueth
Joined: 26 Dec 2007
Posts: 243
Location: St. Clair, Missouri
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:14 pm Post subject: Not related
|
|
|
|
|
THE
1949 LETTER AND THE PRAYER MEETING ARE UNRELATED
The wisdom and authority of St. Thomas Aquinas has consistently
been defended by the popes and the official authority of the traditional
Church. Of course with V.II we have a new ballgame.
St Thomas clearly answers both these questions or difficulties.
I'll only touch on them and let someone else dig into St. Thomas.
1. The essential element, I take it from this thread (am only
slightly knowledgeable of the 1949 letter as to its details), is to
condemn the binding of God to His own law. Baptism of desire/blood enters
into God's domain and so He remains free to make usage of them.
2 A prayer meeting, here and now, with unbelievers of the true
faith and true God offers many possibilities of scandal and temptations
against faith, and may cause those weak in the faith to lose their own
faith. The whole thing gets pretty deep and dangerous, if one looks
deeply into St. Thomas.
_________________
TRADITION VS VATICAN II Impossible to Coexist(largely)
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:05 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
MICK
wrote:
|
|
Drew, below I will post an
article from the American Ecclesiastical Review, December, 1952, written
by Msgr. Joseph Fenton, that should not only put a rest to all your
arguments, but should be bookmarked by everyone, for it is the best
explanation of the Church's teaching "Outside of the Catholic
Church No Salvation" I've come across. (and written by someone who
was very learned in this subject matter).
In it, he claims the "Holy Office letter will stand as one of the
most important authoritative doctrinal statements of modern times"
and that "In accomplishing its purpose, the Holy Office letter has
given to Catholic theologians by far the most complete and detailed
exposition of the dogma that the Catholic Church is necessary for
salvation which has yet to come from the ecclesiastical magisterium"
Read it for yourself, and you will find that Feeneyism
and the St. Benedict Center group errors when it denies
"the possibility of salvation for any man who had only an implicit
desire to enter the Catholic Church".
And for fairness sake, if I'm to understand you as a Religious Brother,
Drew you should have no reservation in atleast
telling us what Religious Order you belong to, so that we know right
off the bat where you are coming from. With the anonymity of the
internet, you never know if you're communicating with someone who is
considered outside the Church, like those BLEEPS! or Feeneyites.
|
Mick,
For “fairness sake,” I am a third order Dominican and have been
for many years. And with respect for Msgr. Joseph Fenton I will say
before commenting on his well known article that he was on the whole
great defender of the Catholic Church but like, Archbishop Lefebvre, he
did not have the requisite imagination to see where this Holy Office
Letter of 1949 was leading. Msgr. Fenton over the next ten years after
writing this article became more active apposing liberal theologians and
their growing influence in the Church until he was removed from the
editorship of American ecclesiastical Review in 1963. With 58 years of
hindsight, Vatican II and the devastation that followed, it is easier to
see the defects in his analysis. I am glad you posted his article. It is
worth reviewing.
Bu t before taking a look at the article, do you think Msgr.
Fenton would grab a potted plant and join the pope in the Prayer Meeting
at Assisi? Would he set aside his personal theological analysis in favor
of the more authoritative “magisterial” opinions of JPII:
For those, however, who have not received the Gospel
proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris
Missio, salvation is accessible in mysterious
ways, inasmuch as divine grace is granted to them by virtue of Christ's
redeeming sacrifice, without external membership in the Church, but
nonetheless always in relation to her (cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious
relationship. It is mysterious for those who receive the grace, because
they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. John
Paul II, General Audience, May 31, 1995
The question has not changed, nor have you or anyone else
explained why it is in principle improper to pray with pagans, heretics,
Jews, Moslems, animists, etc. that may be in the state of grace and
temples of the Holy Ghost?
Msgr. Fenton opens his article by saying, “The science of sacred theology has been greatly aided by Archbishop
Cushing’s action in publishing the full text and the official English
translation of the Holy Office letter on the Church’s necessity for
salvation.” This confirms the claim that the article was not
published by the Holy Office, it was published by Cardinal Cushing. The
1949 Letter was never entered into the AAS which is the only official
press of the Holy See for the doctrinal and disciplinary problems (St.
Pius X, Promulgandi Pontificias Constitutiones).
Msgr. Fenton was a dogmatic theologian, he should have known that he was
giving the 1949 Letter an authority that it did not possess. It is ironic
that his future adversary, Fr. Karl Rahner out
did him by entering the 1949 Letter in Denzinger’s.
Msgr. Fenton said, “In accomplishing its purpose,
the Holy Office letter has given to Catholic theologians by far the most
complete and detailed exposition of the dogma that the Catholic Church is
necessary for salvation which has yet to come from the ecclesiastical magisterium.” The Holy Office Letter 1949 is
not “from the ecclesiastical magisterium.”
His implication that it is a magisterial document is an improper use of
terminology. If that were so Fr. Feeney would have been excommunicated
for heresy. That was not the case nor was any abjuration of heresy
necessary for his regularization. Communities that he founded today, in
good standing within their diocese, defend and teach what he defended and
taught. The Church’s Magisterium, its
expression of its attribute of infallibility, is engaged in either the
extra-ordinary or the ordinary and universal mode neither of which are
involved in the 1949 Holy Office Letter.
Msgr. Fenton acknowledges “that there is no salvation outside the
Church” is a dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. He
said, “Now the teachings we are obliged to
believe with the assent of divine and Catholic faith are the truths which
we know as the dogmas of the Catholic Church. These dogmas are truths
which the apostles of Jesus Christ preached to His Church as statements
which had been supernaturally communicated or revealed by God Himself.
They constitute the central or primary object of the Church’s infallible
teaching activity. It is important to note that our Holy Office letter
describes the doctrine ‘that there is no salvation outside the Church,’
not only as an infallible teaching, but also as a dogma.”
Now the curve ball, Msgr. Fenton accepts the 1949 Holy Office
Letter’s claim, “that God has entrusted the
authoritative and infallible explanation of these revealed truths, not to
private judgment, but to the teaching authority of the Church alone…. In
insisting upon the fact that Our Saviour has
confined the explanation of His dogma, not to private judgment, but to
the ecclesiastical magisterium alone.”
This as explained in the open letter is modernist attack against
the authority of dogma. Dogma is the “authoritative
and infallible explanation of these revealed truths” by the “teaching authority of the Church.” The
“private judgment” is that of the theologian who gives “explanation to
these revealed truths” in a manor not in accord with the literal dogma.
Dogma, as Msgr. Fenton acknowledges is the formal object of Divine and
Catholic faith. This assertion is claiming for the theologian a greater
authority than the dogma!
Msgr. Fenton’s claim that the 1949 Letter “assures us at this point that the Church will never pass over or
soft-pedal any of its dogmas, in the interests of a so-called defensive
mentality or for any other reason,” looks pretty naive from our
current perspective. After he turned the interpretative meaning of dogma
over to the theologians he left himself, and everyone else, without a
defense when Fr. Karl Rahner made everyone an
“anonymous Christian,” and then JPII invited them to the Prayer Meeting
at Assisi.
I think Msgr. Fenton plays a theological shell game with his
treatment of the necessity of precept and necessity of means. In regards
the necessity of precept as belonging to the Church in re OR,
the necessity of belonging to the Church as a necessity of means in voto for salvation when the Church dogmas have
always affirmed that for salvation, a Catholic must belong to the Church
both in re AND in voto.
Also, the novel distinction of the Church and the sacraments as
an extrinsic necessity and grace, faith, and charity as intrinsic
necessity for salvation is used to drop the distinction of necessity of
precept and necessity of means altogether. An extrinsic necessity cannot
be a necessity of means. Msgr. Fenton and the 1949 Holy Office Letter say
that the ends can be obtained without the “extrinsic necessities.” That
makes “extrinsic necessities” nothing more than necessities of precept by
definition. We know, and Msgr. Fenton admits that the Church is “a
necessity of means” and a “necessity of precept” for salvation.
What makes question Msgr. Fenton’s motives in this article is his
use of the incorrect translation from the encyclical Mystici
Corporis as the ultimate authority to defend
salvation by implicit desire. Msgr. Fenton said, “The
Holy Office then proceeds against what has been perhaps the most
obstinate and important error of the St. Benedict Center group when it
explains that ‘this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in
catechumens’; but that ‘when a person is involved in invincible
ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is
included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his
will to be conformed to the will of God.’….. The Holy Office letter,
….(goes) directly to the authoritative teaching of Pope Pius XII in his
encyclical Mystici Corporis
to back up its contention. That encyclical effectively taught the
possibility of salvation for persons who have only an implicit desire to
enter and to live within the Catholic Church”….because they “are related
to the Mystical Body by a certain unconscious yearning and desire.” And
he concludes, “The Holy Office interprets these
teachings of the Mystici Corporis
as a condemnation of the error defended explicitly by members of the St.
Benedict Center group, is the doctrine that no man be saved if he has
only an implicit desire or intention to enter the Church.”
This last quote at least shows that the 1949 Holy Office Letter
had nothing to do with Fr. Feeney’s teaching on the sacrament of baptism
and that claims to the contrary are nothing but a red herring to beg the
central question. But that is all that can be said in its favor. The
translation used by the Holy Office is incorrect. Pope Pius XII quotation
is accurately translated, “may be ordained towards the Mystical Body.”
The correct translation is in the subjunctive mode expressing a wish or
desire contrary to condition of fact. The entire authority for
salvation by implicit desire used by the 1949 Holy Office Letter and
confirmed approvingly by Msgr. Fenton is a mistranslation of what Pope
Pius XII said.
The question remains. For those who hold the
1949 Holy Office Letter as an orthodox expression of Catholic faith, what
objection can be offered against the Prayer Meeting at Assisi? The only
criterion for salvation is “that good disposition
of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of
God.” This is an internal and unknowable condition that may be
possessed by everyone. So why not pray with them?
Drew
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:23 pm Post subject: Re: 1949 letter
|
|
|
|
|
Michael
Wilson wrote:
|
|
Drew
wrote:
|
|
Michael
Wilson wrote:
|
|
I wholeheartedly accept and
subscribe to the 1949 letter from the Holy Office condemning Fr. Feeney
and the false doctrine which he proffesed,
while explaining the the true meaning of
EENS.
The "Feeneyite" arguments are balderash.
|
Michael Wilson,
Good. Now you have to
explain why there is a problem with the Prayer Meeting of Assisi. Or
is it that you have no problem with Prayer Meeting?
Drew
|
Drew,
I really don't "have
to" explain anything.
The difference between the
1949 letter and Assissi, is that the first
upholds the teaching of EENS (as understood by the Magisterium of the Church) while the second
recognizes the salvific value of other
religions.
As it stands, both Feeneyism and Assissi are
condemned by the 1949 letter. Here is the relevant quote from Msgr.
Fenton:
|
Quote:
|
|
The Holy Office interprets these teachings of the Mystici
Corporis as a condemnation of two errors.
One of them, that defended explicitly by members of the St. Benedict
Center group, is the doctrine that no man be saved if he has only an
implicit desire or intention to enter the Church. The other is the teaching
that men may be saved “equally well (aequaliter)”
in any religion. For the previous condemnation of this latter error
the letter refers to two pronouncements by Pope Pius IX, his
allocution Singulari quadam
and his encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore.
|
Therefore to hold to either
Assissi or to Feeneism,
is to reject Mystici Corporis.
The person who has some
explaining to do is yourself: Do you reject the teaching of Mystici Corporis? If you
do, then you do not belong on a Catholic Forum.
|
Michael Wilson,
The 1949 Holy Office Letter affirms that the only criterion for
salvation is “that good disposition of soul
whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.”
This is an internal and unknowable condition that may be possessed by
everyone. Even Archbishop Lefebvre said, “The
error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They
are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in
heaven, no Protestant church” (Open Letter to Confused Catholics).
This statement by Archbishop Lefebvre is consistent with
everything that has been said by from JPII or Pope Benedict. You cannot
produce a single statement that affirms that the Church “recognizes the salvific
value of other religions.” The Prayer Meeting at Assisi affirms
that these pagans, Jews, Moslems, Protestants, may all be “anonymous
Christians.” Who are you to claim otherwise? What criteria are you making
your judgment?
Drew
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
dona nobis
pacem
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 212
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:52 pm Post subject: Re: 1949 letter
|
|
|
|
|
Brother Joseph asks:
|
Quote:
|
|
"The question has not
changed, nor have you or anyone else explained why it is in principle
improper to pray with pagans, heretics, Jews, Moslems, animists, etc.
that may be in the state of grace and temples of the Holy Ghost?"
~ "So why not pray with them?"
|
Because concluding that pagans, heretics, Jews, Moslems,
animists, etc are in the state of grace is a sinful subjective judgement. The objective non sinful judgment is that
they are outside the Church.
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
MICK
Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 504
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:23 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
I
like dona nobis pacem's response....
Brother Joseph asks:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
|
"The question has not
changed, nor have you or anyone else explained why it is in principle
improper to pray with pagans, heretics, Jews, Moslems, animists, etc.
that may be in the state of grace and temples of the Holy Ghost?"
~ "So why not pray with them?"
|
I was going to simply respond by saying that by praying with
them, the Pope and other Catholics involved would be confirming them in
their errors, which are definitely a hindrance to their salvation, and
sin mortally themselves, by engaging in worship that they know certainly
to be false (not to mention that by so doing, the Pope would give scandal
to other Catholics, thus encouraging them to do the same).
If any non-Catholic is to be saved, it will NOT be through their
false religions/worship, but IN SPITE of it, and through the Sacrament of
Baptism (the term "Baptism" which includes the 3 Baptisms of
Water, Blood, and/or Desire).
And I had a question for you Drew. In watching a History Channel
documentary about the sinking of the U.S.S. Indianapolis ship during
WWII, several sailors of both Catholic and Protestant religions were left
afloat at sea. The one sailor said that, in their agony floating at sea,
clinging to liferafts for days, they all came
to the point where they recited the Our Father together. Do you think
that was sinful? For a Catholic to pray an Our Father together with a
Protestant?
(I think I'm done responding. I find this subject to be very
enervating. Either my mind is just being too lazy to slowly read through
all of this and comprehend all the terminology or it just isn't big
enough to absorb all the info and process it all. I just stand by Msgr.
Joseph Fenton's response.)
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
penitent99
†
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 3831
Location: Novus Ordo Hell
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:12 pm Post subject: Re: 1949 letter
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
to Michael Wilson wrote:
|
|
The Prayer Meeting at Assisi affirms
that these pagans, Jews, Moslems, Protestants, may all be “anonymous
Christians.” Who are you to claim otherwise?
Drew
|
Since we are talking here of a prayer meeting between the
head of the Holy Catholic Church and the heads of various religions, many
(if not all) of which objectively worship demons, why does it matter that
some (or all — that's a stretch!) of the nonCatholic
participants may happen to be what you call "Anonymous
Christians"? Particularly when there is absolutely no evidence that
they are in fact such, and given that there is no attempt made to convert
any of these people to the True Faith? Also, these meetings are
structured to give the appearance that all religions including
Catholicism are on the same footing, and the false religions are treated as
if they did have some sort of salvific
value? And how does taking down the Crucifixes and putting up statues of
the Buddha fit into your so-called reasoning? Looks to me like you be loco
in the cabeza!
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
gpmtrad
†
Joined: 26 May 2007
Posts: 7793
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:54 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
MICK
wrote:
|
|
I just stand by Msgr. Joseph
Fenton's response.)
|
That's as solid ground as you'll ever find. Monsignor Fenton's
doctoral thesis was overseen by none less than Fr. Garrigou-Legrange.
Famous for his expert specialization on authentic ecclesiology, Monsignor
Fenton spent decades battling John Courtney Murray et al, only to find
that the luminaries at the Revolution in 1962 had already drunk Murray's Kool Aid down to the dregs. Whence came
"religious liberty" and the protestantized
"ecumenism" which, like lava, flowed into liturgical insanity
within the Church Herself.
Monsignor Fenton was a great theologian outnumbered by conciliar liberals in a moment of crisis from which
the Church has yet to recover.
_________________
Salus animarum prima lex
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
penitent99
†
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 3831
Location: Novus Ordo Hell
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:09 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Okay,
I get it. Drew is playing it cute and heavy handed at the same time.
Silly me.
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Pax Vobiscum
Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:58 pm Post subject: Re: 1949 letter
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
wrote:
|
|
The 1949 Holy Office Letter affirms that the only criterion for
salvation is “that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his
will to be conformed to the will of God.” This is an
internal and unknowable condition that may be possessed by everyone.
|
The only criterian? That's not
what the 1949 letter or Msgr Fenton taught.
According to both, the person must also have supernatural faith,
hope, and charity. In certain extraordinary circumstances, the "good
disposition" can only suffice to satisfy the necessity of precept. Msgr Fenton, who obtaines
his PhD under Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange and was
selected as the personal theologian to Cardinal Ottaviani
at Vatican II, said this teaching is nothing new, but has been the
"explicit teaching of the traditional Catholic theologians since the
days of ... St. Bellarmine". He goes
on to say it is "a commonplace of Catholic theology" that a
person can be save if, finding it impossible to actually to join the
Church as a member, he really sincerely intends to live within this
society.
Msgr Fenton: "The
[1949] letter applies this principle when it assures us that, in order
for a man to obtain eternal salvation, “it is not always required that he
be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary
that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.” Such, of
course, has been the explicit teaching of traditional Catholic
theologians since the days of Thomas Stapleton and St. Robert Bellarmine. It is a commonplace of Catholic
theology that a man could be saved if, finding it impossible to actually to
join the Church as a member, he really sincerely intended or desired to
live within this society.
"The Holy Office then proceeds against what has been perhaps
the most obstinate and important error of the St. Benedict Center group
when it explains that “this desire need not always be explicit, as it is
in catechumens”; but that “when a person is involved in invincible
ignorance, God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is
included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his
will to be conformed to the will of God.”
The 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia teaching the following about the
necessity of precept:
Catholic Encyclopedia: "Again, in relation to the means necessary to salvation
theologians divide necessity into necessity of means and necessity of
precept. In the first case the means is so necessary to salvation
that without it (absolute necessity) or its substitute (relative
necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the end cannot be reached.
Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by a necessity of means,
the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for salvation. In the
second case [necessity of precept], necessity is based on a positive
precept, commanding something the omission of which, unless culpable,
does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the end".
Is it your position that traditional Catholic theology, as taught
in Seminaries for hundreds of years, was false? On what authority do you
reject this teaching?
If you reply by saying your authority for rejecting this teaching
is a particular dogma, then my following up question is this: Please
quote the dogma that prevents you from accepting the teaching that, under
certain circumstances, a person can supply the necessity of precept by
membership in the Church in voto. What
dogma teaches that membership in the Church must be "in re" to
attain salvation?
And lastly, why would the 1917 Code of Canon law teaching that a
Catechumen, who was only joined to the Church "in voto", could receive a Catholic burial?
1917 Code of Canon law: "Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die
without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized." (Canon 1239.2)
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Wilson
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 814
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:30 pm Post subject: Drew
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:
|
|
Michael Wilson,
The 1949 Holy Office Letter affirms that the only criterion for
salvation is “that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his
will to be conformed to the will of God.” This is an internal and
unknowable condition that may be possessed by everyone. Even Archbishop
Lefebvre said, “The error consists in thinking that they are saved by
their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There
is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church” (Open Letter to
Confused Catholics).
This statement by Archbishop Lefebvre is consistent with everything
that has been said by from JPII or Pope Benedict. You cannot produce a
single statement that affirms that the Church “recognizes the salvific value of other religions.” The Prayer
Meeting at Assisi affirms that these pagans, Jews, Moslems,
Protestants, may all be “anonymous Christians.” Who are you to claim
otherwise? What criteria are you making your judgment?
Drew
|
Drew,
The Holy Office letter is in accord with the teaching of Misticy Corporis. Once
again: Do you reject the teaching of Pope Pius XII in Misticy
Corporis?
Secondly, you ask if I can produce a statement that affirms that
"The Church recognizes the salvific value
of other religions"? I certainly can; try (amongst many): Vatican
II, Unitatis Redintegratio
#3:
|
Quote:
|
|
It follows that the separated
Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be
deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of
significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the
Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of
salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of
grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
|
_________________
MichaelW.
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:57 pm Post subject: Re: 1949 letter
|
|
|
|
|
dona nobis
pacem wrote:
|
|
Brother Joseph
asks:
|
Quote:
|
|
"The question has not
changed, nor have you or anyone else explained why it is in principle
improper to pray with pagans, heretics, Jews, Moslems, animists, etc.
that may be in the state of grace and temples of the Holy
Ghost?" ~ "So why not pray with them?"
|
Because concluding that
pagans, heretics, Jews, Moslems, animists, etc are in the state of
grace is a sinful subjective judgement. The
objective non sinful judgment is that they are outside the Church.
|
dona nobis pacem,
I have no problem with your response. But I find it incompatible with
the Holy Office Letter 1949. Do you regard that letter as an orthodox
expression of the Catholic Faith? If you do, I would like to know by what
criteria you use to make the judgment that, "concluding that pagans,
heretics, Jews, Moslems, animists, etc are in the state of grace is a
sinful subjective judgment"? What objection can be made to Fr. Karl Rahner making everyone an "anonymous
Christian."
Once you admit "implicit salvation" grounded in an
unknowable internal disposition the Prayer Meeting at Assisi is what you
end up with.
Drew
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:07 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
MICK
wrote:
|
|
I like dona
nobis pacem's
response....
Brother Joseph asks:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
|
"The question has not
changed, nor have you or anyone else explained why it is in principle
improper to pray with pagans, heretics, Jews, Moslems, animists, etc.
that may be in the state of grace and temples of the Holy
Ghost?" ~ "So why not pray with them?"
|
I was going to simply
respond by saying that by praying with them, the Pope and other
Catholics involved would be confirming them in their errors, which are
definitely a hindrance to their salvation, and sin mortally themselves,
by engaging in worship that they know certainly to be false (not to
mention that by so doing, the Pope would give scandal to other
Catholics, thus encouraging them to do the same).
If any non-Catholic is to
be saved, it will NOT be through their false religions/worship, but IN
SPITE of it, and through the Sacrament of Baptism (the term
"Baptism" which includes the 3 Baptisms of Water, Blood,
and/or Desire).
And I had a question for
you Drew. In watching a History Channel documentary about the sinking
of the U.S.S. Indianapolis ship during WWII, several sailors of both
Catholic and Protestant religions were left afloat at sea. The one
sailor said that, in their agony floating at sea, clinging to liferafts for days, they all came to the point
where they recited the Our Father together. Do you think that was
sinful? For a Catholic to pray an Our Father together with a
Protestant?
(I think I'm done
responding. I find this subject to be very enervating. Either my mind
is just being too lazy to slowly read through all of this and
comprehend all the terminology or it just isn't big enough to absorb
all the info and process it all. I just stand by Msgr. Joseph Fenton's
response.)
|
Mick,
No one has said, not even the Holy Office 1949 Letter, that
pagans, Jews, Protestants. Hindu, etc. are “saved by their religion.” The
claim is that they are saved in their religion but not by their religion.
Bishop Fellay said,
“that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of
grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know
this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the
Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic
Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of
Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain
invisible.” JPII said that this union with the Mystical Body of
Christ can exist in those who “do not know the
Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her.”
These quotations are grounded in the 1949 Holy Office Letter that
was authoritatively referenced at Vatican II in Lumen Gentium, which said, “The
Church of Christ subsits in the Catholic
Church.” So in the end objective truths of the faith have only a
theoretical importance. They have no practical bearing on the question of
salvation. Even if they are “confirmed in their
errors”, what real difference does it make? The entire matter is
determined by “that good disposition of soul
whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.” How
can a Catholic “with a good disposition of soul” and
a pagan with a “good disposition of soul”,
both in the state of grace and temples of the Holy Ghost, praying together
make the Catholic “sin mortally.”
As for myself, I would not pray the Our Father with a Protestant
but I would not object to a Protestant praying the Our Father with me.
And as for you, I do not think I would stand to
close to Msgr. Fenton on this question. He, who most certainly knew
better, supported this 1949 Holy Office Letter with a willful
mistranslation of Pope Pius XII.
Drew
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
penitent99
†
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 3831
Location: Novus Ordo Hell
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:15 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
The
800 lb gorilla in the room, of course, is that the Church has been in
apostasy since 1572, when Gregory XIII permitted a change to the 1570
Missal. This proves conclusively that Msgr. Fenton was a Freemason and an
Anonymous Poughkeepsie toe-picker.
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:27 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Pax Vobiscum
wrote:
|
|
Drew
wrote:
|
|
The 1949 Holy Office Letter affirms that the only criterion for
salvation is “that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his
will to be conformed to the will of God.” This is an
internal and unknowable condition that may be possessed by everyone.
|
The only criterian? That's not what the 1949 letter or Msgr Fenton taught. According to both, the person
must also have supernatural faith, hope, and charity. In certain
extraordinary circumstances, the "good disposition" can only
suffice to satisfy the necessity of precept. Msgr
Fenton, who obtaines his PhD under Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange and was selected as the personal
theologian to Cardinal Ottaviani at Vatican
II, said this teaching is nothing new, but has been the "explicit
teaching of the traditional Catholic theologians since the days of ...
St. Bellarmine". He goes on to say
it is "a commonplace of Catholic theology" that a person can
be save if, finding it impossible to actually to join the Church as a
member, he really sincerely intends to live within this society.
Msgr Fenton: "The [1949] letter applies this
principle when it assures us that, in order for a man to obtain eternal
salvation, “it is not always required that he be incorporated into the
Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be
united to her by desire and longing.” Such, of course, has been the
explicit teaching of traditional Catholic theologians since the days of
Thomas Stapleton and St. Robert Bellarmine.
It is a commonplace of Catholic theology that a man could be saved if,
finding it impossible to actually to join the Church as a member, he
really sincerely intended or desired to live within this society.
"The Holy Office then
proceeds against what has been perhaps the most obstinate and important
error of the St. Benedict Center group when it explains that “this
desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens”; but that
“when a person is involved in invincible ignorance, God accepts also an
implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good
disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to
the will of God.”
The 1908 Catholic
Encyclopedia teaching the following about the necessity of precept:
Catholic Encyclopedia: "Again, in relation to the means
necessary to salvation theologians divide necessity into necessity of
means and necessity of precept. In the first case the means is so
necessary to salvation that without it (absolute necessity) or its
substitute (relative necessity), even if the omission is guiltless, the
end cannot be reached. Thus faith and baptism of water are necessary by
a necessity of means, the former absolutely, the latter relatively, for
salvation. In the second case [necessity of precept], necessity is
based on a positive precept, commanding something the omission of
which, unless culpable, does not absolutely prevent the reaching of the
end".
Is it your position that
traditional Catholic theology, as taught in Seminaries for hundreds of
years, was false? On what authority do you reject this teaching?
If you reply by saying your
authority for rejecting this teaching is a particular dogma, then my
following up question is this: Please quote the dogma that prevents you
from accepting the teaching that, under certain circumstances, a person
can supply the necessity of precept by membership in the Church in voto. What dogma teaches that membership in the
Church must be "in re" to attain salvation?
And lastly, why would the
1917 Code of Canon law teaching that a Catechumen, who was only joined
to the Church "in voto", could
receive a Catholic burial?
1917 Code of Canon law: "Catechumens who, through no fault of
their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as baptized."
(Canon 1239.2)
|
Pax Vobiscum,
I stand by this statement that, “The 1949 Holy
Office Letter affirms that the only criterion for salvation is “that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes
his will to be conformed to the will of God.” This is an internal and unknowable condition that may be
possessed by everyone.”
Supernatural faith is the belief in what God has revealed on the
authority of God who reveals. You might begin with writing the Catholic
Credo of Implicit Faith. I wouldn’t suggest using Msgr. Fenton as a
reference because he does not cite the belief in a single doctrine of
Catholic faith that is necessary for salvation. What is “implicit
supernatural faith”? That is meaningless nonsense, something like a
square circle.
The same problem exists with implicit supernatural hope and
charity. St. Thomas says that it is impossible to love what is not known.
This is nothing but window dressing by Fr. Fenton and the 1949 Holy
Office Letter. The material cause for justification and salvation offered
by the 1949 Holy Office Letter is “that good
disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to
the will of God.”
“Msgr. Fenton…said this teaching is nothing new, but has been the
‘explicit teaching of the traditional Catholic theologians since the days
of ... St. Bellarmine’". This quote you
offer of Msgr. Fenton refers to a teaching of theologians that explicit
desire to be united to the Catholic Church is necessary and sufficient
cause of salvation and has been “teaching of traditional Catholic
theologians since the days of Thomas Stapleton and St. Robert Bellarmine,” that is, for only the last 400 years,
from the age of discovery. What about the previous 1600 years? Msgr.
Fenton offers no comment. As to implicit desire being salvific
Msgr. Fenton doesn’t offer a date for this novelty. I might suggest 1949.
As for the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia article on Baptism, it is
addressing explicit desire and its use of the terms “absolute necessity
of means” and “relative necessity of means” is nothing but an earlier
variation of Msgr. Fenton’s “intrinsic necessity of means” and “extrinsic
necessity of means.” This is nothing but a corruption of language. The
ends can be obtained without a “relative necessity of means” or an
“extrinsic necessity of means.” If the ends can be obtained without them,
they are not a necessity of means by definition.
But really, you are just begging the question. The question has
not been about explicit desire which is another matter altogether. We are
talking about the teaching of the 1949 Holy Office Letter that affirms
salvation by implicit desire. Do you believe this novelty is orthodox
Catholic teaching? If so, I want to know your objections to the Prayer
Meeting at Assisi.
Perhaps you have none.
Drew
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
dona nobis
pacem
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 212
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:36 pm Post subject: Re: 1949 letter
|
|
|
|
|
Drew said:
|
Quote:
|
|
"I have no problem with your
response. But I find it incompatible with the Holy Office Letter 1949. Do
you regard that letter as an orthodox expression of the Catholic Faith?
If you do, I would like to know by what criteria you use to make the
judgment that, "concluding that pagans, heretics, Jews, Moslems,
animists, etc are in the state of grace is a sinful subjective
judgment"? What objection can be made to Fr. Karl Rahner making everyone an "anonymous
Christian."
Once you admit "implicit salvation" grounded in an unknowable
internal disposition the Prayer Meeting at Assisi is what you end up
with."
|
Your justification for declaring the Holy Office Letter 1949 to
be unorthodox was you didn't believe there would be any other Catholic
teaching, doctrine, or principle that would prevent a Catholic from
praying with pagans, heretics, Jews, Moslems, animists, etc. I pointed
out the teachings, doctrines, and principles on judgment are sufficient.
What makes you believe the doctrines and teaching on judgment are
incompatible with the Holy Office Letter 1949?
What criteria do I use to make the objective judgment that
judging that pagans, heretics, Jews, Moslems, animists, and etc. are free
from mortal sin is in itself a sinful subjective judgment rather then an allowed and necessary objective judgment?
It's impossible for us to know the state of their souls as God truly sees
them. It's easy to make the objective judgment that they are outside the
Church simply because they do not claim to be formal members of the
Church.
Drew asked:
|
Quote:
|
|
What objection can be made to Fr.
Karl Rahner making everyone an
"anonymous Christian?"
|
Objectively speaking, Fr. Rahner is
making a sinful subjective judgment, the objective judgment is that not
everyone is a formal member of the Catholic Church, but I am not capable
of knowing if Fr. Rahner has actually committed
a sin by saying that!
For a more in-depth understanding on judging I recommend you
listen to Father Chad Rippergers 25 minute
sermon called "Judging and Fraternal Correction" available if
you pray a rosary or etc. for Father here: http://www.sensustraditionis.org/multimedia.html
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:02 pm Post subject: Re: Drew
|
|
|
|
|
Michael
Wilson wrote:
|
|
Quote:
|
|
Michael Wilson,
The 1949 Holy Office Letter affirms that the only criterion for
salvation is “that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes
his will to be conformed to the will of God.” This is an internal and
unknowable condition that may be possessed by everyone. Even
Archbishop Lefebvre said, “The error consists in thinking that they
are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not
by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church”
(Open Letter to Confused Catholics).
This statement by Archbishop Lefebvre is consistent with everything
that has been said by from JPII or Pope Benedict. You cannot produce
a single statement that affirms that the Church “recognizes the salvific value of other religions.” The Prayer
Meeting at Assisi affirms that these pagans, Jews, Moslems,
Protestants, may all be “anonymous Christians.” Who are you to claim
otherwise? What criteria are you making your judgment?
Drew
|
Drew,
The Holy Office letter is
in accord with the teaching of Misticy Corporis. Once again: Do you reject the teaching of
Pope Pius XII in Misticy Corporis?
Secondly, you ask if I can
produce a statement that affirms that "The Church recognizes the salvific value of other religions"? I
certainly can; try (amongst many): Vatican II, Unitatis
Redintegratio #3:
|
Quote:
|
|
It follows that the separated
Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to
be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of
significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the
Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of
salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of
grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
|
|
Michael Wilson:
1) The 1949 Holy Office Letter is not in accord with the
teaching of Mystici Corporis. That was the most critical point of my
comments on Msgr. Fenton’s article. The clause translated in indicative
mode as “related to the Mystical Body” is a mistranslation. In my reply
to Mick I said”, “The translation used by the Holy Office is incorrect.
Pope Pius XII's quotation is accurately translated, “may be ordained
towards the Mystical Body.” The correct translation is in the subjunctive
mode expressing a wish or desire contrary to condition of fact. The
entire authority for salvation by implicit desire used by the 1949 Holy
Office Letter and confirmed approvingly by Msgr. Fenton is a
mistranslation of what Pope Pius XII said.”
2) The qualifying clause in your Vatican II citation, “which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of
grace and truth entrusted to the Church” confirms what I
previously said. The 1949 Holy Office Letter as well as the quotes
previously posted from JPII, Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay, and the comments of Msgr. Fenton and the 1949
Holy Office Letter all hold that pagans, Moslems, Jews, Protestants,
Hindus, etc. are saved in their religion but not by their
religion. To better clarify my challenge, you will not find a single
statement where the Church affirms non-Catholics are saved by
their religion.
Back to my first question. If the Holy Ghost dwells within the
souls of pagans, Moslems, Jews, etc. who even unbeknownst to themselves
are in the state of grace, why not have a Prayer Meeting at Assisi with
them?
Drew
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
dona nobis
pacem
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 212
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:34 pm Post subject: Re: Drew
|
|
|
|
|
Brother Joseph said:
|
Quote:
|
|
How can a Catholic “with a good disposition
of soul” and a pagan with a “good disposition of soul”, both in the
state of grace and temples of the Holy Ghost, praying together make the
Catholic “sin mortally.”
|
If that was the actual case, it most likely would not be a mortal
sin. But since you cannot know for sure if the pagan has a good
disposition of the soul you are essentially playing a game of Russian
Roulette with your own soul. But more importantly, you have already
sinned a sin most likely mortal by making a subjective judgement! If such a judgement
was truely a mortal sin, all it would mean is
that since the pagan has a good disposition of the soul, you get a cooler
place in hell if you die without repenting for making the judgement the you would if the pagan does not have a
good disposition of the soul!
Brother Joseph said:
|
Quote:
|
|
I would not object to a
Protestant praying the Our Father with me.
|
"I will not pray with you, nor shall you pray with me,
neither will I say Amen to your prayers, nor shall you mine!" St. Margaret
Clitherow
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Pax Vobiscum
Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340
|
|
Posted:
Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:11 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
wrote:
|
|
I stand by this statement that, “The 1949 Holy Office Letter affirms
that the only criterion for salvation is “that good
disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to
the will of God.” This is an internal and unknowable condition that may
be possessed by everyone.”
|
Drew,
The portion of the letter you are referring to ("the good
disposition of soul, etc.") only satisfies (in certain
circumstances) the necessity of precept (the necessity of
belonging to the Church externally). But belonging to the Church externally
does not, in and of itself, result in salvation. In addition to the
fulfillment of this precept, the person must also belong to the Church internally
by the possession of supernatural faith, hope, and charity; and the
possession of these three supernatural virtues is never merely "in voto" (desire), but must be "in re"
(in reality). In other words, there is no such thing as possessing these
virtues merely by a desire to possess them. A person either has them or
they don’t. In order to possess them, they must be present in the soul
actually.
Before continuing, the following quotation from the article
explicitly states that the person must possess supernatural faith, hope,
and charity “in re”. This shows that the "good dispostion",
in and of itself, does not suffice for salvation.
Msgr. Fenton: "In other words, according to the connotations of these two
terms, the explicit votum by which a man may be
joined to the Church so as to achieve his salvation must be a real desire
or intention, and not a mere velleity. The act
of the will in which the implicit salvific votum of the Church is contained must likewise be
more than a mere velleity. This operation also
must be a real and effective act of the will.
"In teaching that a votum or a desiderium of the Church can, under certain
circumstances, suffice to bring a man to the attainment of the Beatific
Vision, we must not forget that the Holy Office letter likewise uses a
procedure which has been employed by the traditional Catholic theologians
for many years. It classifies the Church itself, along with the
sacraments of Baptism and Penance, among “those helps to salvation which
are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only
by divine institution.” Conversely, of course, it thus implies the
existence of other resources which are ordered to man’s ultimate goal by
way of intrinsic necessity. Realties like the Church itself, and the
sacraments of Baptism and Penance, may under certain circumstances
achieve their effect when they are processed or used only in intention or
desire. Helps of the other classification, like sanctifying grace,
faith, and charity, must, on the other hand, be possessed or used in
re if they are to achieve their purpose at all." (END).
Regarding belonging to the Church internally and externally,
this is sometimes referred to as belonging to the body of the
Church, and soul of the Church (not two being, but two parts of
the one being of the Church). This terminology is found in the writings
of St. Robert Bellarmine and various
Catechisms. The following citation from the Catechism of Pius X explains
the distinction:
Catechism of Pius X:
21 Q. What is the constitution of the Church
of Jesus Christ?
Answer. The
Church of Jesus Christ has been constituted as a true and perfect
Society; and in her we can distinguish a soul and a body.
22 Q. In what does the Soul of the Church
consist?
Answer. The Soul of the Church consists in her internal and spiritual
endowments, that is, faith, hope, charity, the gifts of grace and of
the Holy Ghost, together with all the heavenly treasures which are hers
through the merits of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, and of the Saints.
23 Q. In what does the Body of the Church
consist?
Answer. The Body of the Church consists in her
external and visible aspect, that is, in
the association of her members, in her worship, in her teaching-power and
in her external rule and government.(END)
In order to be saved, a person must belong to both the body
and the soul of the Church; however, the precept requiring
membership in the body can be satisfied, under certain
circumstances, in voto – that is, by a
desire for membership, rather than actual membership. However, unlike
union with the body of the Church, in order to be saved a person
must be united to the soul of the Church perfectly.
Imperfect union with the soul of the Church is found in the person
who possesses supernatural faith, but not charity (the person in mortal
sin, for example). Perfect union with the soul of the
Church is found in the person who possesses all three theological
virtues, which are necessary for salvation.
To conclude this point, the “good disposition" mentioned in
the letter only satisfies, under certain conditions, the positive precept
of external membership in the Church. And external membership
alone alone does not suffice for salvation.
Membership in the body of the Church, whether in reality or in desire,
only suffices for salvation when the person is united perfectly with the
soul of the Church by the actual possession of all three theological
virtues.
[quote=”Drew] ““Msgr. Fenton…said this teaching is nothing new,
but has been the ‘explicit teaching of the traditional Catholic
theologians since the days of ... St. Bellarmine’".
This quote you offer of Msgr. Fenton refers to a teaching of theologians
that explicit desire to be united to the Catholic Church is necessary
and sufficient cause of salvation and has been “teaching of
traditional Catholic theologians since the days of Thomas Stapleton and
St. Robert Bellarmine,” that is, for only the
last 400 years, from the age of discovery. What about the previous 1600
years? Msgr. Fenton offers no comment. As to implicit desire being salvific Msgr. Fenton doesn’t offer a date for this
novelty. I might suggest 1949.[/quote]
Regarding the underlined part, once again, we must distinguish
between belonging to the Church by an external union (the body of the
Church), and belonging to the Church by an internal union (the soul of
the Church). External union alone is certainly not the “sufficient
cause of salvation”. And, as has been said, the “good disposition” is
referring to the precept requiring external membership in the
Church.
As to the distinction between belonging to the Church in voto and in re only being the common
teaching for 400 years, this statement only means that the theological
terminology used to describe the teaching has only been used for 400
years. The teaching that these theological terms are used to explain -
namely, that a person can be saved without actual membership in the
Church - goes back to the beginning (Ambrose, Augustine, the Roman Martyrology, etc.), with a question in the Summa of
St. Thomas dedicated to the question of three baptisms. St. Thomas
teaches that a person can be saved through baptism of desire, which means
without actual membership in the Church (since he who is not actual baptised is not an actual member of the Church)
St. Thomas: “I answer that, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to
someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the
case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized:
which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who
have the use of the free will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is
wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally
nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can
salvation be obtained.
"“Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to
anyone in reality but not in desire; for instance, when a man wishes to
be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before
receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being
actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is
the outcome of faith that worketh by charity,
whereby God, Whose power is not yet tied to visible sacraments,
sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian,
who died while yet a catechumen: ‘I lost him whom I was to regenerate:
but he did not lose the graces he prayed for.’”( Article 1, Part
III, Q. 68:)
Roman Martyrology:
January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana,
Virgin and Martyr, who was stoned by the heathen while still a
catechumen, when she was praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, whose
foster-sister she was.
April 12: At Braga, in Portugal, St. Victor, Martyr, who,
while still yet a catechumen, refused to worship an idol, and
confessed Christ Jesus with great constancy, and so after many torments, he
merited to be baptized in his own blood, his head being cut
off."
Neither of these two martyrs fulfilled the precept of actual
membership in the Church, but both did die as members of the body
of the Church by desire (in voto), and as
members of the soul of the Church in reality (in re).
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72
|
|
Posted:
Wed Jan 12, 2011 9:44 am Post subject: Re: 1949 letter
|
|
|
|
|
dona nobis
pacem wrote:
|
|
Drew said:
|
Quote:
|
|
"I have no problem with
your response. But I find it incompatible with the Holy Office Letter
1949. Do you regard that letter as an orthodox expression of the
Catholic Faith? If you do, I would like to know by what criteria you
use to make the judgment that, "concluding that pagans,
heretics, Jews, Moslems, animists, etc are in the state of grace is a
sinful subjective judgment"? What objection can be made to Fr.
Karl Rahner making everyone an
"anonymous Christian."
Once you admit "implicit salvation" grounded in an
unknowable internal disposition the Prayer Meeting at Assisi is what
you end up with."
|
Your justification for
declaring the Holy Office Letter 1949 to be unorthodox was you didn't
believe there would be any other Catholic teaching, doctrine, or
principle that would prevent a Catholic from praying with pagans,
heretics, Jews, Moslems, animists, etc. I pointed out the teachings,
doctrines, and principles on judgment are sufficient.
|
dona nobis pacem:
I have never said anything of the sort. The Holy Office Letter 1949
is “unorthodox” because it affirms salvation by implicit desire. It
denies defined Catholic dogmas that explicit faith, subjection to the
Roman pontiff, membership in the Church, and the sacraments are necessary
for salvation.
From the Holy Office Letter 1949, and confirmed in Msgr. Fenton’s
article, the essential reference for salvation by implicit desire is an
erroneous translation from Pope Pius XII as previously noted. The
theological ground of salvation by implicit desire rests on a lie.
Msgr. Fenton dates the opinion of “traditional theologians” for
salvation by explicit desire to 1600 AD, the time of St. Robert Bellarmine. He does not date salvation by implicit
desire beyond the encyclical Mystici Corporis.
The Holy Office Letter 1949 was never published in the AAS. Pope
St. Pius X said, the AAS is the only official
press of the Holy See for the (publication) of doctrinal and disciplinary
problems (Promulgandi Pontificias
Constitutiones 1908). If this “doctrinal problem” was not published in the AAS
it is not an act of the Apostolic See. The Open Letter to Dr. Jones says
correctly that the Holy Office Letter 1949 “has
no greater authority than a private letter from one bishop to another.
The Letter was included in the 1962 edition of Denzinger’s,
not by virtue of the authority of the document, but rather by the
modernist agenda of the editor, Rev. Karl Rahner.
This Denzinger entry was then referenced in a
footnote in the Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium.”
Lumen Gentium is where we find the statement, “The
Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.” It does not
take much insight to connect the dots between the 1949 Holy Office Letter
and the Prayer Meeting at Assisi.
If you accept the Holy Office Letter 1949 you will have to accept
the new ecumenical ecclesiology.
Drew
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72
|
|
Posted:
Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:46 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Pax Vobiscum
wrote:
|
|
Drew
wrote:
|
|
I stand by this statement that, “The 1949 Holy Office Letter
affirms that the only criterion for salvation is “that good
disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed
to the will of God.” This is an internal and unknowable condition that may
be possessed by everyone.”
|
Drew,
The portion of the letter
you are referring to ("the good disposition of soul, etc.")
only satisfies (in certain circumstances) the necessity of precept (the
necessity of belonging to the Church externally). But belonging
to the Church externally does not, in and of itself, result in
salvation. In addition to the fulfillment of this precept, the person
must also belong to the Church internally by the possession of
supernatural faith, hope, and charity; and the possession of these
three supernatural virtues is never merely "in voto"
(desire), but must be "in re" (in reality). In other words,
there is no such thing as possessing these virtues merely by a desire
to possess them. A person either has them or they don’t. In order to
possess them, they must be present in the soul actually.
Before continuing, the
following quotation from the article explicitly states that the person
must possess supernatural faith, hope, and charity “in re”. This shows
that the "good dispostion", in and
of itself, does not suffice for salvation.
Msgr. Fenton: "In other words, according to the
connotations of these two terms, the explicit votum
by which a man may be joined to the Church so as to achieve his salvation
must be a real desire or intention, and not a mere velleity.
The act of the will in which the implicit salvific
votum of the Church is contained must
likewise be more than a mere velleity. This
operation also must be a real and effective act of the will.
"In teaching that a votum or a desiderium of
the Church can, under certain circumstances, suffice to bring a man to
the attainment of the Beatific Vision, we must not forget that the Holy
Office letter likewise uses a procedure which has been employed by the
traditional Catholic theologians for many years. It classifies the
Church itself, along with the sacraments of Baptism and Penance, among
“those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end,
not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution.”
Conversely, of course, it thus implies the existence of other resources
which are ordered to man’s ultimate goal by way of intrinsic necessity.
Realties like the Church itself, and the sacraments of Baptism and
Penance, may under certain circumstances achieve their effect when they
are processed or used only in intention or desire. Helps of the
other classification, like sanctifying grace, faith, and charity, must,
on the other hand, be possessed or used in re if they are to
achieve their purpose at all." (END).
Regarding belonging to the
Church internally and externally, this is sometimes
referred to as belonging to the body of the Church, and soul
of the Church (not two being, but two parts of the one being of the
Church). This terminology is found in the writings of St. Robert Bellarmine and various Catechisms. The following
citation from the Catechism of Pius X explains the distinction:
Catechism of Pius X:
21 Q. What is the
constitution of the Church of Jesus Christ?
Answer. The Church of Jesus Christ has been
constituted as a true and perfect Society; and in her we can
distinguish a soul and a body.
22 Q. In what does the Soul
of the Church consist?
Answer. The Soul of the Church consists in her
internal and spiritual endowments, that is, faith, hope, charity, the
gifts of grace and of the Holy Ghost, together with all the heavenly
treasures which are hers through the merits of our Redeemer, Jesus
Christ, and of the Saints.
23 Q. In what does the Body
of the Church consist?
Answer. The Body of the
Church consists in her external and visible aspect, that is, in the association of her members, in
her worship, in her teaching-power and in her external rule and
government.(END)
In order to be saved, a
person must belong to both the body and the soul of the
Church; however, the precept requiring membership in the body can
be satisfied, under certain circumstances, in voto
– that is, by a desire for membership, rather than actual
membership. However, unlike union with the body of the Church,
in order to be saved a person must be united to the soul of the
Church perfectly. Imperfect union with the soul of the
Church is found in the person who possesses supernatural faith, but not
charity (the person in mortal sin, for example). Perfect union
with the soul of the Church is found in the person who possesses
all three theological virtues, which are necessary for salvation.
To conclude this point, the
“good disposition" mentioned in the letter only satisfies, under
certain conditions, the positive precept of external membership
in the Church. And external membership alone alone
does not suffice for salvation. Membership in the body of the Church,
whether in reality or in desire, only suffices for salvation when the
person is united perfectly with the soul of the Church by the actual
possession of all three theological virtues.
|
Drew
wrote:
|
|
““Msgr. Fenton…said this teaching is
nothing new, but has been the ‘explicit teaching of the traditional
Catholic theologians since the days of ... St. Bellarmine’".
This quote you offer of Msgr. Fenton refers to a teaching of
theologians that explicit desire to be united to the Catholic
Church is necessary and sufficient cause of salvation and has
been “teaching of traditional Catholic theologians since the days of
Thomas Stapleton and St. Robert Bellarmine,”
that is, for only the last 400 years, from the age of discovery. What
about the previous 1600 years? Msgr. Fenton offers no comment. As to
implicit desire being salvific Msgr. Fenton
doesn’t offer a date for this novelty. I might suggest 1949.
|
Regarding the underlined part,
once again, we must distinguish between belonging to the Church by an external
union (the body of the Church), and belonging to the Church by an
internal union (the soul of the Church). External union alone is
certainly not the “sufficient cause of salvation”. And, as has been
said, the “good disposition” is referring to the precept requiring external
membership in the Church.
As to the distinction
between belonging to the Church in voto and
in re only being the common teaching for 400 years, this
statement only means that the theological terminology used to describe
the teaching has only been used for 400 years. The teaching that these
theological terms are used to explain - namely, that a person can be
saved without actual membership in the Church - goes back to the
beginning (Ambrose, Augustine, the Roman Martyrology,
etc.), with a question in the Summa of St. Thomas dedicated to the
question of three baptisms. St. Thomas teaches that a person can be
saved through baptism of desire, which means without actual membership
in the Church (since he who is not actual baptised
is not an actual member of the Church)
St. Thomas: “I answer that, the sacrament of Baptism
may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in
desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor
wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the
sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free will.
Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain
salvation: since neither sacramentally nor
mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can
salvation be obtained.
"“Secondly, the
sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in
desire; for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some
ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And
such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on
account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith
that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose
power is not yet tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly.
Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died
while yet a catechumen: ‘I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he
did not lose the graces he prayed for.’”( Article 1, Part III,
Q. 68:)
Roman Martyrology:
January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana, Virgin and Martyr, who was stoned by
the heathen while still a catechumen, when she was praying at
the tomb of St. Agnes, whose foster-sister she was.
April 12: At Braga, in
Portugal, St. Victor, Martyr, who, while still yet a catechumen,
refused to worship an idol, and confessed Christ Jesus with great
constancy, and so after many torments, he merited to be baptized in
his own blood, his head being cut off."
Neither of these two
martyrs fulfilled the precept of actual membership in the Church, but
both did die as members of the body of the Church by desire (in voto), and as members of the soul of the
Church in reality (in re).[/quote]
|
Pax Vobiscum:
The question asked refers to salvation by implicit desire.
Your post addresses salvation by explicit desire almost in its
entirety. Msgr. Fenton traces the development of salvation of explicit
desire to theologians in the early 17th century which would make it a
relative new development in the history of the Church. Salvation by
implicit desire is another matter. Msgr. Fenton traces that to the
mistranslated phrase in the encyclical Mystici
Corporis in 1943.
You apparently agree with the 1949 Holy Office Letter that
teaches salvation by implicit desire. You also believe that this
salvation by implicit desire must have supernatural faith, hope, and
charity. Since faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority
of God who reveals, how is it possible to make an act of faith in a
revealed truth that you do not know? How is it possible to have supernatural
hope when you do not know what has been promised? How can you have
supernatural love for something unknown? St. Thomas says you cannot love
what you do not know. Write a credo of implicit faith and publish it in
your next post.
No Church Father, Doctor, Saint, accepted tradition, council,
Pope has taught the doctrine of salvation by implicit desire. Not even
Pope Pius XII who is the alleged source of the doctrine.
Also, you should drop the terminology that you found in the
Catechism of Pius X distinguishing between the soul and body of the
Church. Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis quoting Pope Leo XIII said, “This presence and activity of the Spirit of Jesus
Christ is tersely and vigorously described by Our predecessor of immortal
memory Leo XIII in his Encyclical Letter Divinum
Illud in these words: ‘Let it suffice to
say that, as Christ is the Head of the Church, so is the Holy Spirit her
soul.’”
Msgr. Fenton’s article makes specific mention that the 1949 Holy
Office Letter avoided the use of these terms saying, “It is interesting to note that the Holy Office has
made no use of such terminology as ‘the soul and the body of the Church,
or the soul of the Church.’”
The use of such inaccurate and misleading terminology in the
Catechism of Pius X is only a good example of errors that can slip into
catechisms.
The same can be said regarding the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia
article on baptism where the terms “absolute
necessity of means” and “relative
necessity of means” were used. They never caught on because a
“relative necessity of means” is a by definition not a necessity of means
at all. To use such sloppy terms and phrases just makes just makes a
muddled head.
Drew
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Pax Vobiscum
Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340
|
|
Posted:
Wed Jan 12, 2011 8:11 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
wrote:
|
|
[Pax Vobiscum:
The question asked refers to salvation by implicit desire. Your
post addresses salvation by explicit desire almost in its entirety.
Msgr. Fenton traces the development of salvation of explicit desire to
theologians in the early 17th century which would make it a relative
new development in the history of the Church. Salvation by implicit
desire is another matter. Msgr. Fenton traces that to the
mistranslated phrase in the encyclical Mystici
Corporis in 1943.
You apparently agree with the 1949 Holy Office Letter that teaches
salvation by implicit desire. You also believe that this salvation
by implicit desire must have supernatural faith, hope, and charity.
Since faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of
God who reveals, how is it possible to make an act of faith in a
revealed truth that you do not know? How is it possible to have
supernatural hope when you do not know what has been promised? How can
you have supernatural love for something unknown? St. Thomas says
you cannot love what you do not know. Write a credo of implicit faith
and publish it in your next post.
|
The issue that needs to be clarified is the object of the
implicit or explicit desire. Several times you referred to
"salvation by implicit desire" as if the object of the
implicit desire was merely salvation. It is not.
When the letter speaks of attaining something in reality (in
re), or by desire (in voto), whether
implicit or explicit, it is referring to a specific object; and the
object in question is not supernatural faith, hope or charity. As your
bolded comments above demonstrate, these cannot be possessed merely by an
implicit desire to possess them. All three of the theological virtues
must be possessed in reality if the person is to be saved, which is
exactly what the 1949 letter and the article of Fr. Fenton teach.
So what is the particular object of the explicit or
implicit desire. The object is formal membership in visible society of
the Church. That is the precept which, under certain circumstances, can
be satisfied by merely desiring it, even implicitly. But to actually be
saved requires more than fulfilling the positive precept requiring
membership in the visible society of the Church; it also requires the
actual possession of supernatural faith, hope, and charity, without which
membership in the visible society of the Church, whether actual or merely
by desire, will not suffice.
Msgr Fenton: "Finally the letter brings out two points which
many of the writers who have dealt with this question have passed over
all too quickly. It insists that, in order to be effective for eternal
salvation, any intention or desire of entering the Church, whether
explicit or implicit must be animated by perfect charity. No
benevolence on a merely natural plane can suffice to save man, even when
that man actually intends to enter and to live within the true Church of
Jesus Christ. Non-membership in the Church, even on the part of a man who
wishes to become a Catholic, does not in any way dispense from the
necessity of those factors which are requisite for the attainment of the
Beatific Vision by intrinsic necessity [the possession of faith, hope,
and charity], and not merely by reason of divine institution.
"Furthermore, the Holy Office also insists upon the
necessity of true and supernatural faith in any many who attains eternal
salvation. A man may be invincibly ignorant of the Catholic
Church, and still be saved by reason of an implicit desire or intention
to enter and to live within that society. But, if he is saved, he
achieves the Beatific Vision as one who has died with genuine
supernatural faith. He must actually and explicitly accept as certain
some definite truths which have been supernaturally revealed by God. ….
(END)
The object of the implicit desire is membership within the
visible society of the Church. The necessity of the theological virtues
is a separate matter altogether.
Msgr Fenton points out an interesting fact that seems to confirm the
teaching that a merely implicit desire to enter into the visible society
of the Church can, under certain circumstances, suffice. As he explains,
the common opinion of what must be believed explicitly to have
supernatural faith (belief in God, that He rewards the good and punishes
the evil, belief in the Trinity and Incarnation) does not include belief
in the Church itself. “It is noteworthy", writes Fenton,
"that the theologians of the Church have never included the doctrine
of the Church itself among those supernatural truths which must be held
explicitly....” This seems to confirms that a mere implicit desire to
join the visible Society of the Church could, under certain circumstances,
suffice for the necessity of precept (the necessity to join the visible
society of the Church).
Regarding the terms body and soul of the Church,
which were used by St. Robert Bellarmine and
the Catechism of Pius X; as long as it is explained that the body
and soul are part of the one being of the Church, and do not refer
to two separate beings, I don’t think these terms are imprecise at all.
In fact, I think the distinction serves to clarify exactly what you were
confused about.
In conclusion, the desire we are speaking only applies to the
precept of joining the visible society of the Church (the body of the
Church). It is not referring to a general implicit desire for salvation,
or an implicit desire for the theological virtues. The theological
virtues are a different matter altogether and, as the letter states, must
be possessed actually to be saved.
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72
|
|
Posted:
Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:07 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Pax Vobiscum
wrote:
|
|
Drew
wrote:
|
|
[Pax Vobiscum:
The question asked refers to salvation by implicit desire.
Your post addresses salvation by explicit desire almost in its
entirety. Msgr. Fenton traces the development of salvation of
explicit desire to theologians in the early 17th century which
would make it a relative new development in the history of the
Church. Salvation by implicit desire is another matter. Msgr.
Fenton traces that to the mistranslated phrase in the encyclical Mystici Corporis
in 1943.
You apparently agree with the 1949 Holy Office Letter that teaches
salvation by implicit desire. You also believe that this salvation
by implicit desire must have supernatural faith, hope, and
charity. Since faith is believing what God has revealed on the
authority of God who reveals, how is it possible to make an act of
faith in a revealed truth that you do not know? How is it possible to
have supernatural hope when you do not know what has been promised?
How can you have supernatural love for something unknown? St.
Thomas says you cannot love what you do not know. Write a credo of
implicit faith and publish it in your next post.
|
The issue that needs to be
clarified is the object of the implicit or explicit desire.
Several times you referred to "salvation by implicit desire"
as if the object of the implicit desire was merely salvation. It
is not.
|
The “issue” concerns a novel teaching of salvation by implicit
desire in the 1949 Holy Office Letter for which Msgr. Fenton admits has
its origin in the 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis by Pope Pius XII. The reference quotation
from the encyclical is:
The Latin text:
Quandoquidem, etiamsi inscio
quodam desiderio ac voto ad mysticum Redemptoris Corpus ordinentur,
tot tamen tantisque caelestibus muneribus adiumentisque carent, quibus in Catholica solummodo Ecclesia frui
licet.
This is translated:
For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a
certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still
remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed
in the Catholic Church.
The phrase, “they have a certain relationship with the Mystical
Body...” is a mistranslation. The correct translation should be, “they
may be ordained towards the Mystical Body…” The mistranslation uses the
incorrect words “relationship with” and it is in the incorrect indictative mode. The correct reading should be in
the subjunctive mode which expresses a ‘wish or desire contrary to fact.’
The English Grammar Dictionary says, “The subjunctive mode is used to
express hypothetical or imaginary situations.”
The novel doctrine of salvation by implicit desire is from the
1949 Holy Office Letter, and the justification for this doctrine is
grounded in a lie. There is nothing from any of the Fathers, Doctors,
Holy Scripture, accepted tradition, popes, or councils that teach or has
ever taught salvation by implicit desire. This lie was planted in the
1949 Holy Office Letter, rooted by Fr. Karl Rahner
in Denzinger’s, nurtured in Lumen Gentium, brought to full maturity in the ‘spirit of
Vatican II’ and paraded about in potted plants at the Prayer Meeting of
Assisi.
This novel doctrine denies defined Catholic dogmas that the
explicit faith, subjection to the Roman Pontiff, and the sacraments are
necessary for salvation. Dogma is divine revelation. It is the formal
object of Divine and Catholic Faith. Your theology must be grounded in
dogma or it will never grasp truth.
Pax Vobiscum, that is the issue.
What the “object of the implicit desire” is is
unknown by definition. It is unknown subjectively and objectively. The
1949 Holy Office Letter affirms that the only criterion for salvation is,
“that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be
conformed to the will of God.” This is the only possible object of thought
possible mentioned in the 1949 Letter. This is an internal and unknowable
condition that may be possessed by no one or everyone. Take your pick.
|
Pax Vobiscum
wrote:
|
|
When the letter speaks of
attaining something in reality (in re), or by desire (in voto), whether implicit or explicit, it is
referring to a specific object; and the object in question is not
supernatural faith, hope or charity. As your bolded comments above
demonstrate, these cannot be possessed merely by an implicit desire to
possess them. All three of the theological virtues must be possessed in
reality if the person is to be saved, which is exactly what the 1949
letter and the article of Fr. Fenton teach.
So what is the particular object of the explicit or implicit
desire. The object is formal membership in visible society of the
Church. That is the precept which, under certain circumstances, can be
satisfied by merely desiring it, even implicitly. But to actually be
saved requires more than fulfilling the positive precept requiring
membership in the visible society of the Church; it also requires the
actual possession of supernatural faith, hope, and charity, without
which membership in the visible society of the Church, whether actual
or merely by desire, will not suffice.
|
To say that the “particular object of implicit desire… is formal
membership in the visible society of the Church,” is nonsense. It seems
to me that you do not know the definition of terms you are using. A
desire to enter a “formal membership in a visible society” can only be
done with an explicit desire. It is also an abuse of language to say that
a precept can be fulfilled in voto. Why?
Because a precept, like all laws, commands, directives, counsels,
dictates, etc. by their nature do not bind in cases of physical
impossibility. It would be improper to say that a seriously ill person
fulfilled his precept to attend Sunday Mass in voto
because there is no precept that binds a seriously ill person to attend
Mass on Sunday.
|
Pax Vobiscum
wrote:
|
|
Msgr Fenton:
"Finally the letter brings out two points which many of the
writers who have dealt with this question have passed over all too
quickly. It insists that, in order to be effective for eternal
salvation, any intention or desire of entering the Church, whether
explicit or implicit must be animated by perfect charity. No
benevolence on a merely natural plane can suffice to save man, even
when that man actually intends to enter and to live within the true
Church of Jesus Christ. Non-membership in the Church, even on the part
of a man who wishes to become a Catholic, does not in any way dispense
from the necessity of those factors which are requisite for the
attainment of the Beatific Vision by intrinsic necessity [the
possession of faith, hope, and charity], and not merely by reason of
divine institution.
|
If a person has supernatural faith, hope and charity then they do
not have “implicit desire.” Supernatural faith is believing what God has
revealed on the authority of God who reveals. Supernatural charity presupposes
knowledge of the One loved. The terms used are mutually exclusive.
|
Pax Vobiscum
wrote:
|
|
"Furthermore, the Holy
Office also insists upon the necessity of true and supernatural faith
in any many who attains eternal salvation. A man may be
invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church, and still be saved by
reason of an implicit desire or intention to enter and to live within
that society. But, if he is saved, he achieves the Beatific Vision as
one who has died with genuine supernatural faith. He must actually
and explicitly accept as certain some definite truths which have been
supernaturally revealed by God. …. (END)
|
Your last sentence is gratuitous concession of your own
invention. Msgr. Fenton, the 1949 Holy Office Letter, the previous
quotations of JPII, Archbishop Lefebvre, and Bishop Fellay
do not cite a single article of Divine and Catholic Faith that is
necessarily entailed upon “implicit desire.” Write a Credo of Implicit
Faith.
|
Pax Vobiscum
wrote:
|
|
The object of the implicit
desire is membership within the visible society of the Church. The
necessity of the theological virtues is a separate matter altogether.
|
Cannot you see that this statement is non-sense? No wonder the
people that believe the 1949 Holy Office Letter is orthodox end up
holding potted plants with pagans, Hindus, etc. at the Prayer Meeting at
Assisi. Once you stop believing in dogma you start believing in anything.
Dogma is the boundary of theological speculation.
|
Pax Vobiscum
wrote:
|
|
Msgr Fenton points
out an interesting fact that seems to confirm the teaching that a
merely implicit desire to enter into the visible society of the Church
can, under certain circumstances, suffice. As he explains, the common
opinion of what must be believed explicitly to have supernatural faith
(belief in God, that He rewards the good and punishes the evil, belief
in the Trinity and Incarnation) does not include belief in the Church
itself. “It is noteworthy", writes Fenton, "that the
theologians of the Church have never included the doctrine of the
Church itself among those supernatural truths which must be held
explicitly....” This seems to confirms that a mere implicit desire
to join the visible Society of the Church could, under certain
circumstances, suffice for the necessity of precept (the necessity to
join the visible society of the Church).
|
You are saying the same nonsense again, “Implicit desire to join
the visible Society.” This is not any different than talking about square
circles. Again here you talk about fulfilling a necessity of precept in voto, and again, I must say, that that is an abuse of
language. You do not need to study theology. You need to study grammar.
|
Pax Vobiscum
wrote:
|
|
Regarding the terms body
and soul of the Church, which were used by St. Robert Bellarmine and the Catechism of Pius X; as long as
it is explained that the body and soul are part of the
one being of the Church, and do not refer to two separate beings, I
don’t think these terms are imprecise at all. In fact, I think the
distinction serves to clarify exactly what you were confused about.
|
The use of the terms “body of the Church” and “soul of the
Church” were shelved by serious theologian on both sides of this issue
after Mystici Corporis,
and should have been shelved after Pope Leo XIII’s comments. The books
that used the terms for a theological framework are as dated as a leisure
suit. When you say, “I don’t think these terms
are imprecise at all. In fact, I think the distinction serves to clarify
exactly what you were confused about,” you are saying a lot more
about yourself than about any theological problem. Perhaps you should ask
a priest that has some theological standing to guide you on this
question. The ‘soul of the Church is the Holy Ghost’ and when you use
the term “soul of the Church” in a metaphorical imprecise manner, you are
not only corrupting theology, you are in a sense taking the name of God
in vain. Stop doing it.
|
Pax Vobiscum
wrote:
|
|
In conclusion, the desire we are speaking
only applies to the precept of joining the visible society of the
Church (the body of the Church). It is not referring to a general
implicit desire for salvation, or an implicit desire for the
theological virtues. The theological virtues are a different matter
altogether and, as the letter states, must be possessed actually to be
saved.
|
So what objection can be offered to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi?
There was no one on the dais with JPII that probably did not believe in a
“god who rewards and punishes.’ Natural philosophy can arrive at that
belief.
The 1949 Holy Office Letter never entered into the AAS as
stipulated in the encyclical of St. Pius X has no greater authority than
a private letter from one bishop to another. On this private 1949 Letter
you have given greater authority than Catholic dogma, the formal object
of divine and Catholic faith.
The SSPX is currently in doctrinal discussion with Rome. The
opinions expressed in the 1949 Letter and your comments are in perfect
agreement with the new ecumenical ecclesiology. You may object to some
details like who exactly is invited, or who gets to stand closer to the
Pope, or the kind of plant they hold, etc. but you cannot object to the
Meeting in principle. You have accepted its theological justification.
Drew
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
penitent99
†
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 3831
Location: Novus Ordo Hell
|
|
Posted:
Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:58 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
wrote:
|
|
The English Grammar Dictionary says,
“The subjunctive mode is used to express hypothetical or imaginary
situations.”
|
If I tried to address the theological issues of this phase of the
discussion, I'd be bringing a knife to a gun fight. About the only cogent
point I can make here is that as far as I can see, "Drew" and
Karl Rahner are both using the same flawed
reasoning when they leap from Msgr. Fenton's 1949 letter to Assisi.
Regarding grammar, however, I'm on somewhat firmer ground.
Why don't you read the entire definition of the subjunctive case,
"Drew," instead of cherry-picking the one part of the
definition that you can use to try to bolster your argument? I can't
imagine you're not aware that the subjunctive mode is also (and indeed,
primarily) used to address conditional situations and possibilities. It
is grossly misleading to suggest that it is used only for hypothetical or
imaginary situations.
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72
|
|
Posted:
Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:46 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
penitent99
wrote:
|
|
Drew
wrote:
|
|
The English Grammar Dictionary
says, “The subjunctive mode is used to express hypothetical or
imaginary situations.”
|
If I tried to address the
theological issues of this phase of the discussion, I'd be bringing a
knife to a gun fight. About the only cogent point I can make here is that
as far as I can see, "Drew" and Karl Rahner
are both using the same flawed reasoning when they leap from Msgr.
Fenton's 1949 letter to Assisi.
Regarding grammar, however,
I'm on somewhat firmer ground.
Why don't you read the
entire definition of the subjunctive case, "Drew," instead of
cherry-picking the one part of the definition that you can use to try
to bolster your argument? I can't imagine you're not aware that the
subjunctive mode is also (and indeed, primarily) used to address
conditional situations and possibilities. It is grossly misleading to
suggest that it is used only for hypothetical or imaginary situations.
|
Penitent:
I am not a Latin expert. I have provided the original Latin text
in question with a translation. The translation was done in consultation
with two priests who are experts in Latin, one being a former seminary
instructor.
If you believe the Latin translation provided to be inaccurate
then you should provide evidence.
The translation used in the 1949 Holy Office Letter and used by
Msgr. Fenton is a lie. And this lie is referenced in both documents as
the reason for salvation by implicit desire.
Drew
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Pax Vobiscum
Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340
|
|
Posted:
Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:28 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
wrote:
|
|
“What the “object of the implicit
desire” is is unknown by definition. It is
unknown subjectively and objectively. The 1949 Holy Office Letter
affirms that the only criterion for salvation is, “that good
disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to
the will of God.” This is the only possible object of thought possible
mentioned in the 1949 Letter. This is an internal and unknowable condition
that may be possessed by no one or everyone. Take your pick.”
|
I don’t know how else to say it. Firstly, the letter explicitly
states that supernatural faith, hope, and charity are necessary for
salvation. Therefore, it is incorrect to say, as you did, that “the
only criterion for salvation is, “that good disposition of soul whereby a
person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.” That is
far from the only criterion.
I’ll try one more time to make the point. The object being
referred to when the letter speaks of explicit or implicit desire, is
formal membership in the visible society of the Church.
What the letter teaches is that if a person
somehow obtains supernatural faith by explicit belief in the four
necessary dogmas, along with supernatural charity and grace; but if he is
not explicitly aware of the Catholic Church, an implicit desire to join
the visible society of the Church can suffice in the place of formal
membership. A catechumen
who obtains supernatural faith, hope, and charity is united to the
visible Society through an explicit desire; while someone who
obtained the supernatural faith and the state of grace without being
aware of the visible society of the Church, through no fault of their
own, could be saved by an implicit desire to join the visible society of
the Church. The object of the desire we are speaking of is membership in the visible society of the Church.
The distinctions employed by St. Robert Bellarmine,
Doctor of the Universal Church, helps to clarify this point. Of course,
I’m sure you reject this teaching of the Doctor of the Church, just as
you do the same teaching found in the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X – one
of only two canonized Popes in the past 500 years.
St. Robert Bellarmine: “We must note, however, that, according to Augustine, the
Church is a living Body, in which there is a body and a soul. The
soul are the internal gifts of the Holy Spirit; faith, hope, and charity,
and the rest. The body are the external profession of faith and communication
of the Sacraments. From which it follows that some people belong
to both the soul and the body of the Church, and are, therefore, united
to Christ, the Head, both interiorly and exteriorly. And these are
most perfectly in the Church. … Others, however, are of the soul but
not of the body (in re), as Catechumens and those who have been
excommunicated, who may have faith and charity which is possible.
Finally, some belong to the body and not the soul, like those who have no
internal virtue, but yet, out of hope or (moved) by some temporal fear,
they profess the faith and share in the Sacraments, under the rule of
legitimate pastors.”
St. Robert Bellarmine: “The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is
not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually [the
soul] nor corporally [the body], which signifies that he is not such by
internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics are united
and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith
and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are
united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the
good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by
an external union”.
What St. Bellarmine refers to as
“external union” is the object of the desire spoke of in the letter; and
this desire can be either explicit for the one who is aware of the
visible society of the Church (the Catechumen), or implicit for the one
who is not aware of the visible society of the Church, through no fault
of his own, but who somehow acquires supernatural faith, hope, and
charity (which requires explicit faith).
Regarding my statement that implicit desire satisfies the
necessity of precept, I probably could have worded that better. My point
was that this positive precept can be excused when it is not possible to
perform, and the end can be reached without actually fulfilling it. And
the positive precept in question is formal membership in the visible society
of the Church.
Lastly, regarding your question as to whether or not I object to
Assisi. I’ve been trying to avoid answering until this point is cleared
up, but I’ll go ahead and answer now. I object to Assisi because I am not
in favor of people committing a mortal sin against the first Commandment
through false worship. John Paul II and Benedict XVI seem to think false
worship is a means for obtaining world peace. I think the Pope holding a
“prayer meeting” at which people are encouraged to commit a mortal sin
against the first Commandment is a means for bringing about, not world
peace, but what was shown in the vision of Fatima (wherein the Pope is
killed) and then the Great Chastisement.
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
cindy
†
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 2871
Location: Canada
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Vadis
Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 874
Location: USA
|
|
Posted:
Thu Jan 13, 2011 3:46 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:
|
|
"It is the dogma itself that
is infallible and dogma is not subject to theological refinement
|
More myth here..... the question to ask is, how doe the Teaching Church understand these supposed
" dogmatic" statements, not how Bro Joseph and Feeneyites...
Do you see the whole picture here? It is this small select group
of non-theologians that know better then the
Teaching Church e.g. Doctors, Popes, Approved Theologians of the past 400
years.
Drew als stated that the Holy Office
Letter of 1949 contradicts Pope Pius XIIth Encylical Mystic corpus Christi of 1943...
This is funny, since Pope Pius XIIth
edited the Holy Office Letter of 1949.. 
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72
|
|
Posted:
Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:18 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Pax Vobiscum
wrote:
|
|
Drew
wrote:
|
|
“What the “object of the implicit
desire” is is unknown by definition. It is
unknown subjectively and objectively. The 1949 Holy Office Letter
affirms that the only criterion for salvation is, “that good
disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed
to the will of God.” This is the only possible object of
thought possible mentioned in the 1949 Letter. This is an
internal and unknowable condition that may be possessed by no one or
everyone. Take your pick.”
|
I don’t know how else to
say it. Firstly, the letter explicitly states that supernatural faith,
hope, and charity are necessary for salvation. Therefore, it is
incorrect to say, as you did, that “the only criterion for salvation
is, “that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to
be conformed to the will of God.” That is far from the only
criterion.
I’ll try one more time to
make the point. The object being referred to when the letter
speaks of explicit or implicit desire, is formal membership in the
visible society of the Church.
What the letter teaches is
that if a person somehow obtains supernatural faith by explicit belief
in the four necessary dogmas, along with supernatural charity and
grace; but if he is not explicitly aware of the Catholic Church, an
implicit desire to join the visible society of the Church can suffice
in the place of formal membership. A catechumen who obtains supernatural faith,
hope, and charity is united to the visible Society through an explicit
desire; while someone who obtained the supernatural faith and the
state of grace without being aware of the visible society of the
Church, through no fault of their own, could be saved by an implicit
desire to join the visible society of the Church. The object of the desire
we are speaking of is membership in the
visible society of the Church.
The distinctions employed
by St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the
Universal Church, helps to clarify this point. Of course, I’m sure you
reject this teaching of the Doctor of the Church, just as you do the
same teaching found in the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X – one of only
two canonized Popes in the past 500 years.
St. Robert Bellarmine: “We must note, however, that, according to Augustine, the
Church is a living Body, in which there is a body and a soul. The
soul are the internal gifts of the Holy Spirit; faith, hope, and
charity, and the rest. The body are the external profession of
faith and communication of the Sacraments. From which it follows
that some people belong to both the soul and the body of the Church,
and are, therefore, united to Christ, the Head, both interiorly and
exteriorly. And these are most perfectly in the Church. … Others,
however, are of the soul but not of the body (in re), as Catechumens and
those who have been excommunicated, who may have faith and charity which
is possible. Finally, some belong to the body and not the soul,
like those who have no internal virtue, but yet, out of hope or (moved)
by some temporal fear, they profess the faith and share in the
Sacraments, under the rule of legitimate pastors.”
St. Robert Bellarmine: “The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is
not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually
[the soul] nor corporally [the body], which signifies that he is not
such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics
are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by
confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the
occult heretics are united and are members although only by external
union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church
only by an internal union, not by an external union”.
What St. Bellarmine refers to as “external union” is the
object of the desire spoke of in the letter; and this desire can be
either explicit for the one who is aware of the visible society of the
Church (the Catechumen), or implicit for the one who is not aware of
the visible society of the Church, through no fault of his own, but who
somehow acquires supernatural faith, hope, and charity (which requires
explicit faith).
Regarding my statement that
implicit desire satisfies the necessity of precept, I probably could
have worded that better. My point was that this positive precept can be
excused when it is not possible to perform, and the end can be reached
without actually fulfilling it. And the positive precept in question is
formal membership in the visible society of the Church.
Lastly, regarding your
question as to whether or not I object to Assisi. I’ve been trying to
avoid answering until this point is cleared up, but I’ll go ahead and
answer now. I object to Assisi because I am not in favor of people
committing a mortal sin against the first Commandment through false
worship. John Paul II and Benedict XVI seem to think false worship is a
means for obtaining world peace. I think the Pope holding a “prayer
meeting” at which people are encouraged to commit a mortal sin against
the first Commandment is a means for bringing about, not world peace,
but what was shown in the vision of Fatima (wherein the Pope is killed)
and then the Great Chastisement.
|
Pax Vobiscum:
Let me begin again with exposition of what you are defending. The
Holy Office Letter 1949, never entered into the AAS and therefore with no
greater authority than a private letter from one bishop to another,
affirms the novel doctrine salvation by implicit desire. The ground for
this doctrine in a statement of Pope Pius XII from Mystici
Corporis that has been mistranslated and
corrupted from its intended meaning. The entire theology of salvation by implicit
desire is based upon a lie. Msgr. Fenton dates the theology of explicit
desire to theologians at the time of St. Robert Bellarmine.
St. Robert Bellarmine did not teach ‘salvation
by implicit desire.’
This 1949 Letter was entered into Denzigers
by Fr. Karl Rahner, the author the “Anonymous Christian.” The theology of the “Anonymous Christian” is based upon the Vatican
II document, Lumen Gentium, which
teaches that, "Those also can attain to
salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of
Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by
their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of
conscience.” This statement directly footnotes the 1949 Holy
Office Letter. Lumen Gentium also
said, “the Church of Christ…subsists in the
Catholic Church.” In spite of its title, “Dogmatic Constitution on
the Church,” Lumen Gentium it is not a
“dogmatic” document. It is the product of a pastoral council that
intentionally did not define any doctrine of Catholic faith.
Salvation by implicit desire cannot have anything other than “that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes
his will to be conformed to the will of God..” because nothing
else is known to be an object of thought. If a person has supernatural
faith his desire would be explicit and that is why no article of faith is
mentioned in the 1949 Letter or in Msgr. Fenton’s article. Read again the
quotes in the Open Letter to Dr. Jones by Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay and Pope John Paul II.
|
Archbishop
Marcel Lefebvre wrote:
|
|
The doctrine of the Church also
recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will
of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants,
Muslims, and Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of
good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in
an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church. The error
consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are
saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in
heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is
the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of
God. As priests we must state the truth.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics
|
|
Bishop
Bernard Fellay wrote:
|
|
And the Church has always taught
that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of
grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know
this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the
Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the
Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical
Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain
invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a
Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives
according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his
heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of
grace, he will go to heaven.
Bishop Bernard Fellay, The Angelus, A Talk
Heard Round the World, April, 2006
|
|
JPII
wrote:
|
|
Normally, it will be in the
sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and
by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of
other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive
salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or
acknowledge him as their Saviour.
John Paul II, The Seeds of the Word in the Religions of the World,
September 9, 1998
|
|
JPII
wrote:
|
|
For those, however, who have not
received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio,
salvation is accessible in mysterious ways, inasmuch as divine grace is
granted to them by virtue of Christ's redeeming sacrifice, without external
membership in the Church, but nonetheless always in relation to her
(cf. RM 10). It is a mysterious relationship. It is mysterious for
those who receive the grace, because they do not know the Church and
sometimes even outwardly reject her.
John Paul II, General Audience, May 31, 1995
|
In this quote of Archbishop Lefebvre he says that, the “implicit…desire. This consists in doing the will of
God.” You say, “The object being referred
to when the letter speaks of …implicit desire, is formal membership in
the visible society of the Church.” I do not agree with Archbishop
Lefebvre but what he is saying makes sense and is consistent with the
1949 Holy Office Letter, the Lumen Gentium
reference, and the quotes of JPII. What you are saying does not make sense.
The chain of evidence from the 1949 Holy Office Letter to the new
ecumenical ecclesiology that has overturned nearly every accepted
ecclesiastical tradition and given us the Novus Ordo
leads directly to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi. I am please to read your
objections to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi but if you do not see its
theological provenance you will not be able to effectively oppose it.
I agree with the statement in the Open Letter to Dr. Jones that
said, "The common end of all Modernist activity
is the destruction of dogma. The SSPX in their negotiations with Rome
cannot defend the Catholic Faith against Modernist errors because the
only defense is the immutable universal truth of defined Catholic dogma.
In accepting the 1949 Letter as normative, they have stripped themselves
of the only weapon against a corrupted authority. They cannot effectively
complain about the prayer meeting at Assisi because they have accepted
its theological justification."
Drew
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Pax Vobiscum
Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340
|
|
Posted:
Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:35 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
wrote:
|
|
Salvation by implicit desire
cannot have anything other than “that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his
will to be conformed to the will of God..” because
nothing else is known to be an object of thought. If a person has
supernatural faith his desire would be explicit and that is why no
article of faith is mentioned in the 1949 Letter or in Msgr. Fenton’s
article.
|
The term "salvation by implicit desire" is your term.
It is not found in the article by Fr. Fenton or the 1949 letter from the
Holy Office. You made up the phrase and also its definition. The reason
we have having a problem communicating is because you are arguing against
a doctrine that you made up, using a phrase that you made up.
As I have mentioned repeatedly, when the term implicit desire is
used in the article by Fr. Fenton and in the 1949 letter from the Holy
Office, it is referring to the possibility of salvation for a person who
implicitly desire to enter the Church and who simultaneously
possesses sanctifying grace, which requires the possession of
supernatural faith, which itself require the acceptance of certain
supernatural revealed truths.
The following is from another article by Fr. Fenton. This article
is from the April 1945 edition of American Ecclesiastical Review. The
article deals with some modern errors with respect to ecclesiology. In
the article, Fr. Fenton explains the history of the various schools of
thought on what constitutes membership in the Church. He concludes the
article by re-phrasing the points that the authors of the articles he
initially critiqued raised in a way that was correct. Here's the quote:
Fr. Fenton: “The truth on the points treated in the citations from Fr. Congar and Fr. White may be expressed in the
following conclusions:
1.) The members of the true Church of Jesus Christ are those who
profess the true faith, and enjoy the communication of the sacraments,
under the rule of legitimate pastors, and in particular under the rule of
the Holy Father. Those are the members, and the only members, of the true
Church of Jesus Christ.
2.) All baptized persons are subject to the laws of the true
Church of Jesus Christ, whether they are members of this society or not.
3.) Those persons who are not parts or members of the Catholic
Church, but who are in the state of grace, enjoy this grace as men
who intend, implicitly or explicitly, to enter the Church as members.”
END
Notice the last line. He refers to the implicit or explicit
desire to "enter the Church", which is the object of the
desire (as I have been saying). In fact, the article we have been
discussing says basically the same thing. Here's the quote:
Fr. Fenton on the 1949 letter of the Holy
Office: "That encyclical effectively
taught the possibility of salvation for persons who have only an
implicit desire to enter and to live within the Catholic Church."
That is what I have been trying to show you. The implicit desire
is not an "implicit desire for salvation" (a term you made up).
It is an implicit desire to formally enter the Church. And the result in
salvation, the implicit desire to enter the Church must be accompanied by
the actual possession of supernatural faith, hope, and charity.
Regarding the Liberals using this to undermine the dogma. Of
course they do! The Liberals use any subtly possible to undermine the
truth, but it doesn't mean that the sublty is
erroneous. The Liberals focus all attention on a subtle distinction
without explaining themselves, and end by leading people astray. One of
the dangers in our day is reacting against the Liberals and falling into
error in the other direction. There is usually a grain of truth contained
within their erorrs. The temptation is to
reject, not only their errors, but also the truth contained within them.
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Wilson
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 814
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas
|
|
Posted:
Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:26 pm Post subject: Salvation through
other religions.
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
stated:
|
Quote:
|
|
2) The qualifying
clause in your Vatican II citation, “which derive their efficacy from
the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church”
confirms what I previously said. The 1949 Holy Office Letter as well as
the quotes previously posted from JPII, Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay, and the comments of Msgr. Fenton and the
1949 Holy Office Letter all hold that pagans, Moslems, Jews,
Protestants, Hindus, etc. are saved in their religion but not by their
religion. To better clarify my challenge, you will not find a single
statement where the Church affirms non-Catholics are saved by their
religion.
Back to my first question. If the Holy Ghost dwells within the souls of
pagans, Moslems, Jews, etc. who even unbeknownst to themselves are in
the state of grace, why not have a Prayer Meeting at Assisi with them?
|
Drew,
The question you asked me, was wether I
could produce a statement that affirms that "The Church recognizes
the salvific value of other religions"
In response I quoted U.R. # 3.:
|
Quote:
|
|
It follows that the separated
Churches(23) and Communities as such,though we believe
them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means
deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.
For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of
salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of
grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
|
The bolded parts of the statement are quite explicit which I will
now put together:
"It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities
as such,have been by no means deprived of
significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit
of Christ has not refrained from using them(the false churches) as
means of salvation."
The statement is quite explicit, the "Churches" and
"Communities" themselves are means of salvation.
Even the added qualifier which you pointed out, does not save the
statement, because these other "Churches" and
"Communities" being merely human inventions, do not possess any
eficacy of themselves and can never possess any
efficacy theoretically transmitted through the Holy Ghost, for Christ has
only one bride.
To say that they possess valid sacraments does not change
anything, as those sacraments do not belong to the false churches, and
therefore their efficacy cannot be attributed to them.
I did not go in to your question #1 as I believe "Pax Vobiscum" has
pretty well said anything I might have said, only much better.
As to Assissi, the proof that the 1949
letter has nothing to do with this abomination, is that such a meeting
would never have even been imagined up to and including the pontificate
of Pius XII.
_________________
MichaelW.
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
CS Gibson
†
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 663
|
|
Posted:
Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:57 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
As
the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office is easily found on the web I suggest
those interested should read it. How anyone can say that a letter which
explicitly states that it has been decreed by the Cardinals of the
Supreme Congregation (of the Holy Office) in plenary session and approved
by the Sovereign Pontiff in audience has no more authority than "a
private letter from one bishop to another" is beyond me.
The fact that it was not published in the AAS means nothing. It is
true to say that the AAS is the only official organ for official
documents of the Holy See, but that does not mean that documents not
found in it cannot be official.
The matter was a doctrinal one, the Holy Office whose prefect was
the Pope himself was the competent doctrinal authority and it issued a
decision approved by the Pope. Furthermore the teaching contained therein
is the same as taught by all Catholic theologians of the time. There
really isn't much more to say about it.
On the subject of Assisi I & II: The problem is not one of
ascertaining the state of grace or not in which the members of other
religions may find themselves, but rather the risk of indifferentism
which is the belief that all religions are of equal value.
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
CS Gibson
†
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 663
|
|
Posted:
Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:14 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Vatican
II U.R. #3 is ambiguous. It all depends upon what "means" means.
Let us take the example of the Orthodox. They possess valid sacraments
and no one denies that the Orthodox are genuinely sanctified by these
means. Of course these sacraments belong to the Catholic Church; but
nonetheless, the structure of the Orthodox Church is the means through
which its members receive the sacraments and in that sense one can say
that the Holy Spirit uses the Orthodox Church as a means of receiving the
graces necessary for salvation for those who are members of it and in
good faith. This does not mean that Orthodox Christians are saved by the
Orthodox Church. They are saved by the Catholic Church, but God
nonetheless makes use of the structures of a schismatic body for this
end.
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Pax Vobiscum
Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340
|
|
Posted:
Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:25 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
CS
Gibson wrote:
|
|
Vatican II U.R. #3 is ambiguous. It
all depends upon what "means" means. Let us take the example
of the Orthodox. They possess valid sacraments and no one denies that
the Orthodox are genuinely sanctified by these means. Of course these
sacraments belong to the Catholic Church; but nonetheless, the
structure of the Orthodox Church is the means through which its members
receive the sacraments and in that sense one can say that the Holy
Spirit uses the Orthodox Church as a means of receiving the graces
necessary for salvation for those who are members of it and in good
faith. This does not mean that Orthodox Christians are saved by the
Orthodox Church. They are saved by the Catholic Church, but God
nonetheless makes use of the structures of a schismatic body for this
end.
|
Another (less ecumenical) way to phrase it would be to say the
Holy Ghost sanctifies those in good faith through the sacraments, even
when the sacraments are administered illicitly by heretics and schismatics.
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
CS Gibson
†
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 663
|
|
Posted:
Thu Jan 13, 2011 8:36 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
I
agree. But there is no denying the fact that the Holy Ghost makes use of
the structures of a schismatic body to bring the sacraments to those He
sanctifies.
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Pax Vobiscum
Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340
|
|
Posted:
Thu Jan 13, 2011 9:01 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
I
know what you mean. But since Vatican II always uses such positive
language, thereby presenting heretics and false religions in the best
possible light (which usually causes Catholics to have a more favorable
opinion toward these groups, which then paves the way for
indifferentism), I think it is best to re-phrase it in the worst light
for the false religions, heretics, and schismatics.
By saying the Holy Ghost sanctifies men of good faith through the
sacraments, even when they are administered by heretics and schismatics, I think it better expresses the reality.
The Vatican II terminology, which says that God uses the Orthodox sects
as a means of sanctifying souls, presents the Orthodox sects in to
positive a light, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
CS Gibson
†
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 663
|
|
Posted:
Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:37 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Personally
I wouldn't call the Orthodox churches sects. The Popes have invited them
to councils in the past, which I don't think would have been the case if
they regarded them as sects.
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
LordBridey
†
Joined: 26 Dec 2005
Posts: 280
|
|
Posted:
Fri Jan 14, 2011 2:02 am Post subject: Re: Loyal opposition
|
|
|
|
|
St.
Elmo wrote:
|
|
Yes, Benedict is smarter than I
about pretty much everything, but I'd bet my 401(k) that the
probability of success here approaches zero, while the cost in terms of
promoting indifferentism among Catholics, especially younger Catholics,
is astronomical. I don't think its bad
manners or uncharitable to quietly agree with most of you that it's
just a bad idea and wish he would reconsider. 
|
I dunno St. Elmo. It might be worth
considering that after the '86 gathering some pretty remarkable,
unpredictable, and incredible events soon followed that could be
described as issueing in an era of increased
world peace. At least the threat of assured mutual destruction was
significantly diminished. Certainly the millions that were liberated from
a tyrannical, Godless yoke enjoy a greater sense of peace. Precedent
suggests that success is actually far greater than zero, and besides, who
would wisely bet against the prayers of the vicar of Christ united with
those of His Most Holy Bride? Plenty of time to rethink that bet.
As far as the promotion of indifferentism, I agree that there
exists a risk, but again there is no verifiable evidence that such a
phenomenon resulted among young Catholics following previous similar
events. In fact, and to the contrary, it could be argued and demonstrated
that young Catholics have become far more robust, knowlegable,
and conservative, if not traditional in their faith in the years
following the original event. The risk is very minimal, and I would trust
this pontiff, along with his current master of ceremonies to avoid some
of the flaws and symbolic mistakes that his predecessor unfortunately
allowed. The costs are not, I respectfully suggest, astronomical.
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Vadis
Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 874
Location: USA
|
|
Posted:
Fri Jan 14, 2011 2:40 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Brother Joseph is expounding the myth of Feeneyism here :
|
Quote:
|
|
The Holy Office Letter 1949, never
entered into the AAS and therefore with no greater authority than a
private letter from one bishop to another, affirms the novel doctrine
salvation by implicit desire. The ground for this doctrine in a
statement of Pope Pius XII from Mystici Corporis that has been mistranslated and corrupted
from its intended meaning. The entire theology of salvation by implicit
desire is based upon a lie.
|
1. Since the Letter does not expand any new doctrine our action
from the Holy Office it does not need to be published in the Acta.
2. Even it not being in the Acta is
moot, it was composed by the Holy Office and edited by the Holy Father,
who is the Prefect of the Holy Office.
3. Mistranslations? This has the ring of protestantism,
as so many arguments posited by those heretics are based on fuzzy "
mistranslations" of Holy Writ........
4. Mystici Corporis
was written by Pope Pius XIIth and the "
Letter was edited by him......End of story.
4.
My
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
penitent99
†
Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 3831
Location: Novus Ordo Hell
|
|
Posted:
Fri Jan 14, 2011 1:55 pm Post subject: Re: Salvation through
other religions.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael
Wilson wrote:
|
|
Drew,
The question you asked me, was wether I could
produce a statement that affirms that "The Church recognizes the salvific value of other religions"
In response I quoted U.R. # 3.:
|
Quote:
|
|
It follows
that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such,though we believe
them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means
deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.
For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means
of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness
of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
|
|
Although this is essentially a side issue, I can't let it go
unchallenged.
Bottom line: I personally can't accept any complete and utter
novelty from a non-dogmatic "pastoral" Vat II (declared
as such by at least 2 popes) document as establishing that it is
something that "the Church recognizes." If someone could
provide a de fide teaching from before Vat II, I'd like to see it.
I'd be astounded if such a document actually exists.
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72
|
|
Posted:
Fri Jan 14, 2011 4:57 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Pax Vobiscum
wrote:
|
|
Drew
wrote:
|
|
Salvation by implicit desire
cannot have anything other than “that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his
will to be conformed to the will of God..” because nothing
else is known to be an object of thought. If a person has
supernatural faith his desire would be explicit and that is why no
article of faith is mentioned in the 1949 Letter or in Msgr. Fenton’s
article.
|
The term "salvation by
implicit desire" is your term. It is not found in the article by
Fr. Fenton or the 1949 letter from the Holy Office. You made up the
phrase and also its definition. The reason we have having a problem
communicating is because you are arguing against a doctrine that you made
up, using a phrase that you made up.
As I have mentioned
repeatedly, when the term implicit desire is used in the article by Fr.
Fenton and in the 1949 letter from the Holy Office, it is referring to
the possibility of salvation for a person who implicitly desire to
enter the Church and who simultaneously possesses sanctifying
grace, which requires the possession of supernatural faith, which
itself require the acceptance of certain supernatural revealed truths.
The following is from another
article by Fr. Fenton. This article is from the April 1945 edition of
American Ecclesiastical Review. The article deals with some modern
errors with respect to ecclesiology. In the article, Fr. Fenton
explains the history of the various schools of thought on what
constitutes membership in the Church. He concludes the article by
re-phrasing the points that the authors of the articles he initially
critiqued raised in a way that was correct. Here's the quote:
Fr. Fenton: “The truth on the points treated in the
citations from Fr. Congar and Fr. White may
be expressed in the following conclusions:
1.) The members of the true
Church of Jesus Christ are those who profess the true faith, and enjoy
the communication of the sacraments, under the rule of legitimate
pastors, and in particular under the rule of the Holy Father. Those are
the members, and the only members, of the true Church of Jesus Christ.
2.) All baptized persons
are subject to the laws of the true Church of Jesus Christ, whether
they are members of this society or not.
3.) Those persons who
are not parts or members of the Catholic Church, but who are in the
state of grace, enjoy this grace as men who intend, implicitly
or explicitly, to enter the Church as members.” END
Notice the last line. He
refers to the implicit or explicit desire to "enter the
Church", which is the object of the desire (as I have been
saying). In fact, the article we have been discussing says basically
the same thing. Here's the quote:
Fr. Fenton on the 1949 letter
of the Holy Office: "That encyclical effectively taught the possibility of
salvation for persons who have only an implicit desire to enter and
to live within the Catholic Church."
That is what I have been
trying to show you. The implicit desire is not an "implicit desire
for salvation" (a term you made up). It is an implicit desire to
formally enter the Church. And the result in salvation, the implicit
desire to enter the Church must be accompanied by the actual possession
of supernatural faith, hope, and charity.
Regarding the Liberals
using this to undermine the dogma. Of course they do! The Liberals use
any subtly possible to undermine the truth, but it doesn't mean that
the sublty is erroneous. The Liberals focus
all attention on a subtle distinction without explaining themselves,
and end by leading people astray. One of the dangers in our day is
reacting against the Liberals and falling into error in the other
direction. There is usually a grain of truth contained within their erorrs. The temptation is to reject, not only their
errors, but also the truth contained within them.
|
Pax Vobiscum:
Made up the phrase? Made up the doctrine? I admit the doctrine is “made up” but
not made up by me. As to the phrase, “salvation
by implicit desire,” it is what the 1949 Holy Office Letter
teaches. The pertinent sentences from the 1949 Holy Office Letter are:
“One may obtain eternal salvation…. it is necessary
that at least he be united to (the Church) by desire and longing…. God
accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that
good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed
to the will of God.”
You have repeatedly interpreted this to say that, “The object of explicit and implicit desire, is formal
membership in the visible society of the Church.” Is that
possible? The Holy Office Letter 1949 says that the “implicit desire is included in that good disposition
of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of
God.” Desire exists in the subject. The object of desire, which is
explicit, is “to be conformed to the will of
God.” Implicit desire to be united to the Church is an assumed
attribute of the “good disposition of soul”
when the person has the object of his intention to be “conformed to the will of God.” Such a thing is
unknown both subjectively and objectively. It is the assumption of this “implicit desire” that leads to salvation that
is novel. It has not been revealed by God.
Furthermore, it has not been taught by the Church. Msgr. Fenton
says that this teaching is based upon Mystici
Corporis and we know that that is lie. The
specific referenced mistranslation was previously posted. Does it need to
be repeated?
Archbishop Lefebvre said that, the “implicit…desire…consists
in doing the will of God.” Do you think he misunderstood the
question? If you want a more authoritative interpretation of the 1949
Holy Office Letter look to Lumen Gentium.
It teaches that, "Those also can attain to
salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of
Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by
their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of
conscience.” This Lumen Gentium
statement directly references the 1949 Holy Office Letter. The formal
object of desire is “to do (God’s) will”
and the final object is “attain salvation.”
Or look to JPII who said that, “For those,
however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the
Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible… without external
membership in the Church…It is mysterious for those who receive the grace
(of salvation), because they do not know the Church and sometimes even
outwardly reject her.” So now would you join “implicit desire” to enter the Church with “explicit desire” not to enter the Church?
But common sense should tell you that a person who wants to
establish a “formal membership in the visible
society,” the “visible society”
then must be the formal object of his desire, and a desire with a “formal
object” can only be explicit.
“Salvation by implicit desire” could also be called “salvation by
explicit desire to be ‘conformed to the will of
God.’” It would mean the same thing. But is that sufficient for
salvation? As the Open Letter to Dr. Jones said, “The
material cause of this 'membership' (in the Church) and salvation is the
'good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be
conformed to the will of God.'” The Open Letter calls it “a form of Pelagianism.”
But “the reason we have having a problem
communicating” is because you are begging the question. Is this
desire “to be conformed to the will of God”
sufficient for salvation?
I know, and you have said, that that Holy Office Letter 1949
refers to supernatural faith, hope, and charity are necessary for
salvation. But what are they really saying? Supernatural hope and charity
presuppose supernatural faith. Supernatural faith is believing what God
has revealed on the authority of God. The Holy Office Letter 1949 and
Msgr. Fenton do not mention a single article of Catholic faith that is
necessary for salvation and neither have you. I have asked you produce a
Credo of “implicit faith” to know exactly what you mean.
What is this “supernatural faith” the
Holy Office Letter 1949 requires? Msgr. Fenton says, “He must accept explicitly and precisely as revealed
truths the existence of God as the Head of the supernatural order and the
fact that God rewards good and punishes evil. Our letter (Holy Office
Letter 1949) manifestly alludes to this necessity when it quotes, in
support of its teaching on the necessity of supernatural faith in all
those who are saved, the words of the Epistle to the Hebrews: 'For he who
comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder
of those who seek Him.'” The problem here is that the existence of
God who punishes evil and rewards good can be know by natural philosophy.
It is the common belief of Moslems, Jews, Aztecs, Satanists, and
countless others. Msgr. Fenton can say that, "this
salvific and supernatural faith is an
acceptance of these teachings, not as naturally ascertainable doctrines,
but precisely as revealed statements, which are to be accepted on the
authority of God who has revealed them to man" but that is
not in the Holy Office Letter 1949, and it is unknowable on what grounds
a person believes in a God who punishes and rewards.
Take a look at the Prayer Meeting at Assisi. On the dais with
JPII they all could have made their profession of faith in a God who
rewards and punishes. God has revealed and the Church has dogmatically
defined, that are formal objects of divine and Catholic faith, that
explicit faith, subjection to the Roman Pontiff, and the sacraments are
necessary for salvation. These defined dogmas been dissolved in favor of
a syncretic belief in a god who punishes and
rewards.
You cannot defend the Holy Office Letter of 1949 and ever oppose
in principle the Prayer Meeting at Assisi.
Drew
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Pax Vobiscum
Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340
|
|
Posted:
Fri Jan 14, 2011 7:05 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
wrote:
|
|
Made up the phrase? Made up the
doctrine? I admit the doctrine is “made up” but not made
up by me. As to the phrase, “salvation by implicit desire,” it is what the
1949 Holy Office Letter teaches. The pertinent sentences from the 1949
Holy Office Letter are:
“One
may obtain eternal salvation…. it is necessary that at least he be
united to (the Church) by desire and longing…. God accepts also an
implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good
disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to
the will of God.”
You have repeatedly interpreted this to say that, “The object of
explicit and implicit desire, is formal membership in the visible
society of the Church.” Is that possible?
|
Not only is it possible, but that is exactly what the letter
said.
Now, I just read through the letter you posted from DM Drew, and I
now see why you are so confused. I also see where you derived the
confused doctrine that made up and have called "salvation by
implicit desire". DM Drew has a similar doctrine that he made up,
only his has a different name. He calls his doctrine "salvation by implicity" (another term that is now found in
the 1949 letter).
Neither of these phrases appear in the letter, and the definition
you have attached to these novel phrases is not what the letter teaches.
You are arguing against a stawman. In reading
the letter from DM Drew I also saw that much of what you have written in
reply to me is either a cut and past from his
article, or simply a re-wording of what he says. You need to put aside
that worthless article by DM Drew, which has caused you so much confusion,
and read the letter itself.
I've said all that I can say. If you read the letter you will see
that what I have written is what the letter teaches. I will end by
posting all of the instances where the 1949 letter uses the word
"implicit desire" so you can see how it is used and the
context.
1949 Holy Office Letter: "Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is
not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a
member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by
desire and longing. However, this desire need not always be
explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved
in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire [to
enter the Church], so called because it is included in that good
disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to
the will of God".
1949 Holy Office Letter: "With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude
from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire…"
1949 Holy Office Letter: "But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of
entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary
that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by
perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect,
unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to
God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder
of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares
(Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation,
the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is
impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His
children"…
That last quote confirms what I said: That included with the
implicit desire to enter the Church, the person must have supernatural
faith animated by perfect charity.
The purpose of the letter is not to define what must be believed
explicitly to have supernatural faith, therefore it doesn't address it;
but it does teach that supernatural faith and perfect charity are
necessary for salvation. Therefore, the person is not saved by
"implicit desire", but by the possession of supernatural faith
and charity. The "implicit desire" is merely to be united to
the visible body of the Church.
I've said all I can say. Read the letter for yourself and stop
relying on the works of DM Drew. He doesn't know what he is talking
about.
Regarding the quotes you have produced from Archbishop Lefebvre
and Bishop Fellay, some of them are referring
to an implicit desire for baptism, which is a different issue altogether.
If you do not distinguish the implicit desire to enter the Church, from
the implicit baptism of desire, you will only become more confused than
you already are - and at this time you are very confused.
Your argument against the 1949 letter has been a strawman argument from the beginning. You made up a
term along with its definition and you have been arguing against it.
Forget what DM Drew wrote and read the 1949 letter for yourself.
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Drew
Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72
|
|
Posted:
Sat Jan 15, 2011 7:33 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Pax Vobiscum
wrote:
|
|
Drew
wrote:
|
|
Made up the phrase? Made up the
doctrine? I admit the doctrine is “made up” but not made
up by me. As to the phrase, “salvation by implicit desire,” it is what
the 1949 Holy Office Letter teaches. The pertinent sentences from the
1949 Holy Office Letter are:
“One
may obtain eternal salvation…. it is necessary that at least he be
united to (the Church) by desire and longing…. God accepts also an
implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good
disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed
to the will of God.”
You have repeatedly interpreted this to say that, “The object of
explicit and implicit desire, is formal membership in the visible
society of the Church.” Is that possible?
|
Not only is it possible,
but that is exactly what the letter said.
Now, I just read through
the letter you posted from DM Drew, and I now see why you are so
confused. I also see where you derived the confused doctrine that made
up and have called "salvation by implicit desire". DM Drew
has a similar doctrine that he made up, only his has a different name.
He calls his doctrine "salvation by implicity"
(another term that is now found in the 1949 letter).
Neither of these phrases
appear in the letter, and the definition you have attached to these
novel phrases is not what the letter teaches. You are arguing against a
stawman. In reading the letter from DM Drew I
also saw that much of what you have written in reply to me is either a
cut and past from his article, or simply a
re-wording of what he says. You need to put aside that worthless
article by DM Drew, which has caused you so much confusion, and read
the letter itself.
I've said all that I can
say. If you read the letter you will see that what I have written is
what the letter teaches. I will end by posting all of the instances
where the 1949 letter uses the word "implicit desire" so you
can see how it is used and the context.
1949 Holy Office Letter: "Therefore, that one may obtain eternal
salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into
the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least
he be united to her by desire and longing. However, this
desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but
when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also
an implicit desire [to enter the Church], so called because it
is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes
his will to be conformed to the will of God".
1949 Holy Office Letter: "With these wise words he reproves both
those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church
only by implicit desire…"
1949 Holy Office Letter: "But it must not be thought that any
kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be
saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the
Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire
produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith:
"For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6).
The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the
beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all
justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain
to the fellowship of His children"…
That last quote confirms
what I said: That included with the implicit desire to enter the
Church, the person must have supernatural faith animated by perfect
charity.
The purpose of the letter
is not to define what must be believed explicitly to have supernatural
faith, therefore it doesn't address it; but it does teach that
supernatural faith and perfect charity are necessary for salvation.
Therefore, the person is not saved by "implicit desire", but
by the possession of supernatural faith and charity. The "implicit
desire" is merely to be united to the visible body of the Church.
I've said all I can say.
Read the letter for yourself and stop relying on the works of DM Drew.
He doesn't know what he is talking about.
Regarding the quotes you have
produced from Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay,
some of them are referring to an implicit desire for baptism, which is
a different issue altogether. If you do not distinguish the implicit
desire to enter the Church, from the implicit baptism of desire, you
will only become more confused than you already are - and at this time
you are very confused.
Your argument against the
1949 letter has been a strawman argument from
the beginning. You made up a term along with its definition and you
have been arguing against it. Forget what DM Drew wrote and read the
1949 letter for yourself.
|
Pax Vobiscum:
I have been “arguing against a straw man” – and that is You! You
have not produced one substantive objection of fact or conclusion from
facts in any of my posts. Msgr. Fenton’s dating the origin of this novel
teaching of salvation by implicit desire to a mistranslation in a 1943
encyclical is of no interest to you and neither is its direct linkage to Lumen
Gentium and Fr. Rahner’s
“Anonymous Christian” and ultimately to
the Prayer Meeting at Assisi.
You have not gone beyond internal criticism of the 1949 Holy
Office Letter, and in that critique you repeatedly use terms
inappropriately and make nonsensical statements with an air of
pretension. You have thrown divine revelation, dogma, the formal object
of divine and Catholic faith out the window for a document of dubious
authority whose novel proposition of salvation by implicit desire is
grounded in a lie.
You are a babbler. Take this for example from your last post: “Regarding the quotes you have produced from Archbishop
Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay, some of them are
referring to an implicit desire for baptism, which is a different issue
altogether. If you do not distinguish the implicit desire to enter the
Church, from the implicit baptism of desire, you will only become more
confused than you already are - and at this time you are very confused.”
Implicit desire for baptism and implicit desire to enter the
Church, and we might add, implicit desire for salvation, are meaningless
propositions. Desire is subjective. Seen from the perspective of the
subject, implicit desire does not have a known object of thought and what
is unknown cannot be communicated to others. It is not possible for a
person with implicit desire to distinguish these various objects of
thought. Seen from the objective perspective, a man’s desires are
unknown. I may be confused about a lot of things but I am not such a fool
as to babble about nonsense like distinguishing between the indistinguishable
or discussing square circles.
By the way, only one quote from Archbishop Lefebvre and one quote
from Bishop Fellay were provided in this
thread. What do mean by saying, “some of them are
referring to implicit desire for baptism…” Well, what are you
talking about?
Even if I accept your interpretation of the 1949 Holy Office
Letter where does it go? You believe that implicit desire to enter the
Church and supernatural faith, hope and charity will produce a state of
grace, indwelling of the Holy Ghost by grace and salvation. There can be
no supernatural hope and charity without supernatural faith. And the only
“faith” you require is belief in a “god who
rewards and punishes,” something that can be known by natural philosophy.
How do you distinguish between natural faith and supernatural faith? That
is unknown and unknowable both subjectively and objectively. The same
holds for the object of “implicit desire to enter
the church.” This whole theological construct is a bag of air. I
thank God that you are not representing the SSPX in the theological
discussions at Rome. You can offer no principled objecting to the new
ecumenical ecclesiology. You might like to choreograph the Assisi event a
little differently but that is the most substantive contribution you can
make.
For the next Prayer Meeting at Assisi, pick out a nice potted
plant. There is a place for you on the dais. You have traded divine
revelation, dogma, the formal object of divine and Catholic faith, for a
mess of pottage. You are a bigger fool than Esau.
Drew
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
GordonG
Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 435
|
|
Posted:
Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:45 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
REGINALD
GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE
in The Theological Virtues, I: On Faith
Second part of the third opinion. John of St. Thomas is aligned with us in supporting the following
proposition as probable. The medial necessity we have analyzed as binding
per se may not always be verified. It is probable that exception may
occur in territories where the Gospel has not been sufficiently preached.
This, however, is per accidens. It is 'an
exception that proves the rule.' For this reason the rule is couched in a
manner that provides for it, through the modifying phrase: 'After the
sufficient promulgation of the Gospel.' ...An infidel dwelling among
Mohammedans, for instance, and habitually doing what his conscience
judges to be right, may have no better help than an interior inspiration
to keep good. He may have no knowledge whatever of revelation strictly so
called, nor of an immediate intervention bordering on the miraculous. He
simply follows along that traces of a lost revelation that still survive,
and trusts in a God 'who is, and who rewards.' Implicitly the infidel
would be making room for faith in Christ. ...We may join with the Salmanticenses (De Fide, n. 79) and Suarez in
maintaining that 'it is possible for a catechumen to have had nothing
proposed to him for belief but God, the supernatural author and end of
man. No explicit knowledge of Christ the Lord has reached his ears.
Nevertheless, the catechumen conceives a definite faith in God as his
supernatural author and supernatural end, not believing explicitly in
Christ of whom he has never heard. For the fact that his new faith is
firm in God as supernatural beginning and end, he is capable of loving
God through charity, and therefore may be justified. Therefore, under the
New Law, it is only per accidens, that is, a
pure contingency, that an individual adult may attain to justification
without having explicit faith in Christ.'
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Pax Vobiscum
Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340
|
|
Posted:
Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:26 am Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
Drew,
I don't know what I can add to what I have already written. For some
reason you are unable to understand that the 1949 letter does not
teaching "salvation by implicit desire" - which is a term you
made up; nor does it teach "salvation by impliciti"
which is the term DM Drew made up and used in his article. No one is saved
by merely having an implicit desire to be saved. That is the stawman doctrine that you made up, and are presenting
as the teaching of the letter from the Holy Office - which it is not.
What the letter does teach is that a person who has aquired supernatural faith and perfect charity, can
be saved if they are invincibly ignorant of the visible organization of
the Church. Such a person must be so disposed that they would join the
Church if they were aware of it. The implicit desire to join the visible
society of the Church is what the letter refers to when it uses the term
"implicit desire". The letter does not speak of an implicit
desire for salvation, but an implicit desire to join the visible society
of the Church.
You keep arguing the letter teaches that a person can be saved
without supernatural faith. On the contrary, the letter explicitly states
that a person must have supernatural faith (and perfect charity) to the
saved. The letter also does not deny that in order to obtain supernatural
faith the person must believe in the Trinity and Incarnation, which was
the common belief of theologians when the letter was written. And just
so you know, my position is that supernatural faith does require that a
person know and accpet the doctrines of the
Trinity and Incarnation. My opinion is that these are two of the
basic truths that must be believe explicitly.
Your entire argument is against the strawman
that you constructed, and for some reason you are completely unable to
see it. For you, the letter teaches "salvation by implicit
desire" and you won't hear other wise. At
this point, I really don't know what more I can say.
By the way, are you DM Drew? If so, that would explain much.
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Wilson
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 814
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas
|
|
Posted:
Sat Jan 15, 2011 11:23 am Post subject: Salvation through
other "churches"?
|
|
|
|
|
Salvation
through other “churches”?
Cardinal Ratzinger will propose the
following doctrine in an official commentary on Lumen Gentium,
which will help to shed light on the real signification of "Unitatis Redintegratio"
3:
1.The Mystical Body of Christ Does not = The Catholic Church:
2. “Subsist In” does not = “is”
3. There exist "true local Churches" and ecclesiastical
communities that are not Catholic.
4. L.G. Contradicts Mysticy Corporis (and the traditional teaching of the Church
on Ecclesiology).
Ratzinger Cardinal Joseph, The Ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium
|
Quote:
|
|
Council: 'Subsistit In' Explains Church As
Concrete Subject
At this point it becomes necessary to investigate the word subsistit somewhat more carefully. With this
expression, the Council differs from the formula of Pius XII, who said in
his Encyclical Mystici Corporis
Christi: "The Catholic Church "is" (est)
the one mystical body of Christ". The difference between subsistit and est
conceals within itself the whole ecumenical problem. The word subsistit derives from the ancient philosophy as
later developed in Scholastic philosophy. The Greek word hypostasis
that has a central role in Christology to describe the union of the
divine and the human nature in the Person of Christ comes from that
vision. Subsistere is a special case of esse. It is being in the form of a subject who has
an autonomous existence. Here it is a question precisely of this. The
Council wants to tell us that the Church of Jesus Christ as a concrete
subject in this world can be found in the Catholic Church. This can take
place only once, and the idea that the subsistit
could be multiplied fails to grasp precisely the notion that is being
intended. With the word subsistit, the
Council wished to explain the unicity of the
Catholic Church and the fact of her inability to be multiplied: the
Church exists as a subject in historical reality.
The difference between subsistit and est however contains the tragedy of ecclesial
division. Although the Church is only one and "subsists"
in a unique subject, there are also ecclesial realities beyond this
subject — true local Churches and different ecclesial communities.
Because sin is a contradiction, this difference between subsistit and est cannot
be fully resolved from the logical viewpoint. The paradox of the
difference between the unique and concrete character of the Church, on
the one hand, and, on the other, the existence of an ecclesial reality
beyond the one subject, reflects the contradictory nature of human sin
and division.
|
Next, Cardinal Ratzinger will explain
to us the following:
1. The Catholic Church and non-Catholic sects are "united in
the closest bonds.
2. The "Church of Christ" is present and operative in
these false religions.
Cardinal Ratzinger, Dominus Jesus :
|
Quote:
|
|
17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists
in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the
Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing
in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by
means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a
valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the
Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even
though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do
not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according will
of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the
entire Church.[Dominus Iesus]
|
So the meaning of U.R. # 3 has been further clarified by the
post-conciliar teachings.
1. The Mystical Body of Christ is not exclusively the Catholic
Church as taught (erroneously) by Mystici Corporis.
2. The Mystical Body of Christ is also present and operative in
other non-Catholic Churches.
3. The Catholic Church is united “by means of the closest bonds,”
to these false churches.
4. The Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these false
churches as means of salvation:
Therefore we see that U.R. 3 does not teach that false religions
are accidentaly means of salvation, but that
these religions are operative instruments of salvation, in and of
themselves:
|
Quote:
|
|
I t follows that the separated
Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to
be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of
significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit
of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation
which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth
entrusted to the Church.
|
I might further point out that the statement: “though we believe
them to be deficient in some respects” contained in U.R. 3, should tell
us everything; for non-Catholic churches are not just “deficient in some
respects” but are human institutions with no power or efficacy whatsoever
in the Supernatural order.
_________________
MichaelW.
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Wilson
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 814
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas
|
|
Posted:
Sat Jan 15, 2011 11:34 am Post subject: United to non-Catholic
sects
|
|
|
|
|
Here
is just a couple of quotes about what other Popes have thought about the
Catholic Church being united to other sects:
1. Pius IX, Jam Vos Omnes,
13 Sep 1868:
|
Quote:
|
|
"No non-Catholic sect or “all of them together in any way constitute
or are that one Catholic Church which Our Lord founded and established and
which He willed to create….Nor is it possible, either to say that
these societies are either a member or a part of this same Church.”
|
2. Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 29 Jun 1943:
|
Quote:
|
|
They stray from divine truth “who
imagine the Church to be something which can neither be touched nor
seen, that it is something merely ‘spiritual,’ as they say, in which
many Christian communities, although separated from one another by
faith, could be joined by some kind of invisible link.”
|
Note that Pius XII says that "They stray from divine
truth" who claim that non-Catholic sects can be united to the
Catholic Church.
_________________
MichaelW.
|
|
|
Moderators
|
|
|
|
|
Display posts from previous:
|
|
|
