Quantcast

Angelqueen.org Forum Index

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


Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Back

HOME


 

 

 

View previous topic :: View next topic  

Author

Message

dona nobis pacem



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 212

PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:34 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

GordonG



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 435

PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:56 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote


Angelus Press have kindly made available, for free, Fr Francois Laisney's book titled, Is Feeneyism Catholic?. It is worth reading.

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

David Mueth



Joined: 26 Dec 2007
Posts: 243
Location: St. Clair, Missouri

PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:14 pm    Post subject: Not related

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's website

 

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:05 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:23 pm    Post subject: Re: 1949 letter

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

dona nobis pacem



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 212

PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:52 pm    Post subject: Re: 1949 letter

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

MICK



Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 504

PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:23 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

penitent99



Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 3831
Location: Novus Ordo Hell

PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:12 pm    Post subject: Re: 1949 letter

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

gpmtrad



Joined: 26 May 2007
Posts: 7793

PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:54 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

penitent99



Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 3831
Location: Novus Ordo Hell

PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:09 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


Okay, I get it. Br Joseph is playing it cute and heavy handed at the same time. Silly me.

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340

PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:58 pm    Post subject: Re: 1949 letter

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 814
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:30 pm    Post subject: Drew

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:57 pm    Post subject: Re: 1949 letter

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:07 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

penitent99



Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 3831
Location: Novus Ordo Hell

PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:15 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:27 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

dona nobis pacem



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 212

PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:36 pm    Post subject: Re: 1949 letter

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:02 pm    Post subject: Re: Drew

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

dona nobis pacem



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 212

PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:34 pm    Post subject: Re: Drew

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340

PostPosted: Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:11 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 9:44 am    Post subject: Re: 1949 letter

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:46 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340

PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 8:11 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:07 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

penitent99



Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 3831
Location: Novus Ordo Hell

PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 12:58 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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, "Br Joseph," 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

View user's profileSend private message

 

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:46 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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, "Br Joseph," 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

View user's profileSend private message

 

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340

PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:28 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

cindy



Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 2871
Location: Canada

PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 11:38 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote


http://sspx.org/news/assisi_iii.htm

NEW! Mortalium Animos
Pope Pius XI's 1928 encyclical against false ecumenism [VATICAN]
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

Vadis



Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 874
Location: USA

PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 3:46 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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.

Br Joseph 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..
Smile

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:18 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340

PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:35 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 814
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:26 pm    Post subject: Salvation through other religions.

Reply with quote


Bro. Joseph 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?


Bro. Joseph,
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

View user's profileSend private message

 

CS Gibson



Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:57 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

CS Gibson



Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:14 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340

PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:25 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

CS Gibson



Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 8:36 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340

PostPosted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 9:01 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

CS Gibson



Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:37 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

LordBridey



Joined: 26 Dec 2005
Posts: 280

PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 2:02 am    Post subject: Re: Loyal opposition

Reply with quote


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. Homer



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

View user's profileSend private message

 

Vadis



Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 874
Location: USA

PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 2:40 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

penitent99



Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 3831
Location: Novus Ordo Hell

PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 1:55 pm    Post subject: Re: Salvation through other religions.

Reply with quote


Michael Wilson wrote:


Bro. Joseph,
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

View user's profileSend private message

 

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 4:57 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340

PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 7:05 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 7:33 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

GordonG



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 435

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:45 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:26 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 814
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 11:23 am    Post subject: Salvation through other "churches"?

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

Michael Wilson



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 814
Location: Saint Marys, Kansas

PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 11:34 am    Post subject: United to non-Catholic sects

Reply with quote


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

View user's profileSend private message

 

Display posts from previous:   

 

 


Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Back

HOME

Page 2 of 5