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 3

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

BACK

HOME

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Vadis

Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 874
Location: USA

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:04 pm Post subject:

Brother Joe posted

Quote:

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.

This shows the fundamental mindset of the Feeneyite. A letter from the Holy Office edited by the Pope is of " dubious authority" ? And the claim is made that it teaches a novelty.........

As Pax's valiant efforts illustrate, it is almost impossible to reason with the hard nosed Feeneyite.

Pax- nice try, I found your replies most edifying.

CS Gibson
†

Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 663

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:23 pm Post subject:

Pax has pretty much covered sll the bases here. The fundamental error of Feeneyism is not so much that it denies the truth of Baptism by desire, though that is a serious error, but that it denies the authority of the Teaching Church and the universal teaching of Catholic theologians, hence calling into question the Ordinary Magisterium. On the question of UR and Dominus Jesus. A careful reading of these texts will show that they are not in contradiction with either Mystici Corporis or Pius IX's teaching. Schismatic bodies are not united to the Church, but the Church may still be operative within them. Every time a valid baptism is performed it is an act of the Church. This however does not alter the heretical nature of these bodies.

Land of the Irish
†

Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Posts: 6101

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:13 pm Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote:

Every time a valid baptism is performed it is an act of the Church. This however does not alter the heretical nature of these bodies.

A valid baptism outside the catholic church has nothing to do with the particular false church in which it was done. The most primitive, remote native in the jungles of Brazil can perform a valid baptism. A jew, a muslim, a hindu, anyone can baptize a person.
_________________
TRADIDI QUOD ET ACCEPI

Land of the Irish
†

Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Posts: 6101

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:20 pm Post subject:

Land of the Irish wrote:

CS Gibson wrote:

Every time a valid baptism is performed it is an act of the Church. This however does not alter the heretical nature of these bodies.

A valid baptism outside the catholic church has nothing to do with the particular false church in which it was done. The most primitive, remote native in the jungles of Brazil can perform a valid baptism. A jew, a muslim, a hindu, anyone can baptize a person.

CS Gibson wrote:

Schismatic bodies are not united to the Church, but the Church may still be operative within them.

I guess my point is the Catholic Church can be operative in spite of, but not within, schismatic or pagan bodies.
_________________
TRADIDI QUOD ET ACCEPI

CS Gibson
†

Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 663

Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 11:57 pm Post subject:

The Catholic Church can be operative in schismatic and heretical bodies in so far as they preserve the sacraments as well as in the degree to which their doctrine is orthodox, The Church cannot be operative in pagan or Muslim bodies. If a pagan or Muslim performs a valid baptism that is a act of the Church because one can be baptised only into the Church, but such bodies do not possess sanctifiying elements in the way that say the Eastern Orthodox do.

Land of the Irish
†

Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Posts: 6101

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 12:09 am Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote:

The Catholic Church can be operative in schismatic and heretical bodies in so far as they preserve the sacraments as well as in the degree to which their doctrine is orthodox, The Church cannot be operative in pagan or Muslim bodies.

Excluding the schismatic Orthodox, what other sacraments are preserved and operative in the other schismatic and heretical bodies besides baptism? Confession, Holy Orders, Confirmation, Extreme Unction?
_________________
TRADIDI QUOD ET ACCEPI

Michael Wilson

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

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:40 am Post subject: United to the Catholic Church.

The Church has always taught that there is no union between the Catholic Church and those false sects that are separtated from her by Faith or Government:

Quote:

3. Pius IX, Letter “Ad plurimas”, December 18, 1861, to the Bishops of Belgium:
“…he who leaves this See cannot hope to remain within the Church; he who eats of the lamb outside it has no part with God.”
Pius XI "Mortalium Animos": "For since the Mystical Body of Christ, like His physical Body, is one (ICor. 12:12), compactly and fitly joined together (Eph. 4:15), it were foolish to say that the Mystical Body is composed of disjointed and scattered members. Whosoever therefore is not united with Body is no member thereof, neither is he in communion with Christ its Head."

However Vatican II in U.R. declared that other churches not united to the Holy See and not proffesing the same faith, are "in communion" with the Catholic Church"

Quote:

This communion exists especially with the Eastern orthodox Churches, which, though separated from the See of Peter, remain united to the Catholic Church by means of very close bonds, such as the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, and therefore merit the title of particular Churches(74). Indeed, "through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature"(75), for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present(76).
(73) Cf. Decr. Unitatis redintegratio, nn. 3/a and 22; see also Const. Lumen gentium, n. 13/d.
74) Cf. Decr. Unitatis redintegratio, nn. 14 and 15/c.

As we can read from the above declaration of U.R. Schismatic sects are:
1. United to the Catholic Church "by very close bonds"
2. "Are true particular Churches"
A greater contradiction cannot be conceived, than between the quotes from Pius IX, Pius XI and that of the Conciliar Church.

The next question that comes to mind, is how deep is this "communion" between the Catholic Church and the "separated brethren"?

What the term “Communion” means when applied to a local particular Church: Congregation for the Doctrine of The Faith: Letter ….On Some Aspects of the Church Understood As Communion. May 28, 1992. Card. Ratzinger Prefect.

Quote:

In order to grasp the true meaning of the analogical application of the term communion to the particular Churches taken as a whole, one must bear in mind above all that the particular Churches, insofar as they are "part of the one Church of Christ"(38), have a special relationship of "mutual interiority"(39) with the whole, that is, with the universal Church, because in every particular Church "the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ is truly present and active"(40). For this reason, "the universal Church cannot be conceived as the sum of the particular Churches, or as a federation of particular Churches"(41). It is not the result of the communion of the Churches, but, in its essential mystery, it is a reality ontologically and temporally prior to every individual particular Church. Decr. Christus Dominus, n. 6/c.
(39) JOHN PAUL II, Address to the Roman Curia, 20-XII-1990, n. 9: "L'Osservatore Romano", 21-XII-1990, p. 5.
(40) Decr. Christus Dominus, n. 11/a.
(41) JOHN PAUL II, Address to the Bishops of the United States of America, 16-IX-1987, n. 3: as quoted, p. 555.

1. These false churches are "part of the Church of Christ"
2. These false churches are "true particular Churches."
3. Are "part of the one Church of Christ"
4.The Catholic Church and the particular (false) church are in each other by: “mutual interiority.” (The Catholic Church is in these false sects and the false sects are "in" the Catholic Church)
5. The Catholic Church is “truly present and active” in these false Churches.

Conclusions: The unity between the Catholic Church and these false sects, is not something superficial, accidental or transient, but rather something permanent, profound and mutual.

Once again lets see what the Church taught before the Council:

Quote:

1.Jam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868, P. Pius IX: “Now, anyone who wishes to examine with care and to meditate on the condition of the different religious societies divided among themselves and separated from the Catholic Church.
…will easily be convinced that no one of these societies nor all of them together in any way constitute or are that one Catholic Church…Nor is it possible, either, to say that these same societies are either a member or a part of this same Church, since they are visibly separated from Catholic unity..”
2, “Quartus Supra, January 6, 1873, P. Pius IX: “…Whoever separates the Church from this foundation (the Pope), no longer preserves the divine and Catholic Church, but is striving to make a human church.”

1. Religious societies separated from the unity, faith and government of the Church do not form any part of the Mystical Body.
2. Neither are these societies united to the Church in any way.
3. These religious societies are purely human institutions.
Conclusion: Religious societies separated from the Church and from its Head are neither members nor parts of the Church, because they are visibly detached from unity.
_________________
MichaelW.

gpmtrad
†

Joined: 26 May 2007
Posts: 7793

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 2:13 pm Post subject:

Michael, from Heaven, Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton is smiling upon you! Along with ALL the Doctors and Fathers. Nice job! _________________ Salus animarum prima lex

gpmtrad
†

Joined: 26 May 2007
Posts: 7793

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 2:42 pm Post subject:

penitent99 wrote:

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.

I just noticed that!

Good one!
_________________
Salus animarum prima lex

CS Gibson
†

Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 663

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 5:02 pm Post subject:

Regarding the decree U.R. of Vatican II, it does not say that the Eastern Orthodox are in communion with the Catholic Church or united to it. The closest it comes to this is in saying that "These Churches, though separated from us, yet possess true sacraments...above all... the priesthood and the eucharist whereby they are joined to us in closest intimacy." This is phrased in a somewhat obscure way, but the meaning can be interpreted in a perfectly orthodox manner. I presume the other statements are all from the CDF document. At the time of the council very orthodox prelates accepted UR. Archbishop Lefebvre among them. I don't think Traditionalists should deliberately set out to find error in conciliar documents per se.

Land of the Irish
†

Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Posts: 6101

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:10 pm Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote:

Regarding the decree U.R. of Vatican II, it does not say that the Eastern Orthodox are in communion with the Catholic Church or united to it.

You can't get much more intimate or close as, "...they are joined to us in closest intimacy".
I'd be interested in your definition of "communion".
_________________
TRADIDI QUOD ET ACCEPI

Drew

Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:23 pm Post subject:

Pax Vobiscum wrote:

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.

Pax Vobiscum:

You begin each post by saying, “I don't know what I can add,” and then proceed to show that you really don’t have anything more substantial to add.

“Salvation by implicit desire” is taught by the 1949 Holy Office Letter. Look again at the pertinent words from the Letter:

1949 Holy Office Letter wrote:

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, 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 final end of the “implicit desire” is to “obtain eternal salvation.” Your confusion is that you insist that the final end of “implicit desire” is “to be united to her (the Church).” Desire is subjective. When desire is implicit, subjectively the object of desire is unknown. If it is unknown subjectively, it cannot be communicated. The object of this “implicit desire” cannot be objectively known. The 1949 Holy Office Letter affirms that the final end of this “implicit desire” is “eternal salvation.” It is appropriate to descriptively term this as “salvation by implicit desire.” If you wish to dispute the use of this phrase then produce objective criteria to distinguish between “salvation” and “membership in the Church” as objective ends of “implicit desire. That is something you or anybody else cannot do without, as you have demonstrated, looking foolish. The straw man is not the argument. It's You.

I have asked from you to produce a "Credo of implicit faith." You could have saved yourself some trouble if you had answered in the first place that there is no such thing as “implicit supernatural faith.” You now say that, “my position is,” salvation requires, as a minimum, belief in the “Trinity and the Incarnation.” This faith has a formal object and is therefore explicit.

The words “Trinity” and “Incarnation” appear nowhere in the 1949 Holy Office Letter. The letter does not go beyond ‘belief in a god who rewards and punishes.’ Fr. Fenton says regarding this “belief” that, “He must actually and explicitly accept as certain some definite truths which have been supernaturally revealed by God. 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 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.”

I discussed the problem with this in the previous post. The ‘belief in a god who rewards and punishes’ can be know by natural philosophy. The attendees at the Prayer Meeting as Assisi could profess this belief and there is no possible way to determine whether or not this faith is natural or supernatural.

You apparently agree with Fr. Fenton who said, “Now most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation. It must be noted at this point that there is no hint of any intention on the part of the Holy Office, in citing this text from the Epistle to the Hebrews, to teach that explicit belief in the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation is not required for the attainment of salvation.”

Two obvious problems: Firstly, Fr. Fenton, you, or what “most theologians teach” is really inconsequential. The 1949 Holy Office Letter does not mention a single article of divine and Catholic Faith necessary for salvation and it is nothing but a gratuitous concession to appeal to doctrines of faith that the Holy Office failed to mention but did not exclude. What is worse for your position, the quotes by Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay, JPII and Lumen Gentium, that authoritatively reference the 1949 Holy Office Letter, do not mention a single article of divine and Catholic faith that must be believed for salvation.

Bishop Fellay wrote:

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

If this “Hindu in Tibet” believed in the Trinity and the Incarnation, he would not be a Hindu.

Archbishop 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, 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

Buddhists are “saved in their religion but not by it.” Not a single article of divine and Catholic faith is mentioned. If this Buddhist believed in the Trinity and the Incarnation, he would not be a Buddhist.

If you want a more authoritative interpretation of the 1949 Holy Office Letter, Lumen Gentium 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 and not a single article of divine and Catholic faith is referenced.

Then there is JPII:

Pope John Paul II wrote:

“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.” JPII

Again, “they have not received the Gospel” yet “salvation is accessible.” Not a single article of divine and Catholic faith is mentioned and yet “salvation is accessible.”

You and Fr. Fenton, on your own, have read something into the 1949 Holy Office Letter that is not there. Nothing more is mentioned that a ‘belief in a god who rewards and punishes.'

Secondly, if a person believes in the Trinity and the Incarnation, it has been divinely revealed to them either directly by God or by a person teaching the Gospel truths. The person therefore has an object of his belief and the belief is therefore explicit. If a person with explicit faith is ignorant of the Church, he will not be punished for failing to fulfill the precept to enter the Church for as previously said, precepts to do not bind in cases of moral or physical impossibility and to talk about “fulfilling a precept in voto” is an abuse of language.

The 1949 Holy Office Letter affirms the possibility of salvation by implicit desire. It affirms the necessity of “supernatural faith” but mentions only the belief in a ‘god who rewards and punishes’ which can be known by natural philosophy. The is nothing here to necessarily exclude any participant of the Prayer Meeting at Assisi as being in the state of grace and temple of the Holy Ghost. Your requirement of belief in the “Trinity and Incarnation” as necessary for salvation is nothing more than your “position.” Well, your “position” may prevent you from being invited to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi but at the same time, your “position” makes any effective objection to the event impossible.

Divine revelation, dogma, the formal object of divine and Catholic faith is all that is known with absolute certitude regarding salvation. Dogma must form the boundary of your theological speculation. When your speculation calls the truth of divine revelation into question you should give up your speculation rather than give up the divine revelation.

Again, I thank God that you are not representing the SSPX in their discussion with Rome. The very idea of defending truth is not your field. You certainly are not stupid but you are blind.

Drew

Land of the Irish
†

Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Posts: 6101

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:23 pm Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote:

Regarding the decree U.R. of Vatican II, it does not say that the Eastern Orthodox are in communion with the Catholic Church or united to it.

UR wrote:

For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.

Are you saying the Eastern Orthodox either do not believe in Christ or have been truly baptized?
_________________
TRADIDI QUOD ET ACCEPI

Pax Vobiscum

Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 8:23 pm Post subject:

Drew, Will you tell me what you think the following three paragraphs from the 1949 letter are saying? These three paragraphs are found one after the other in the letter. 1949 Letter to the Holy Office: "In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807). “The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. 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, 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." (END) Will you explain how you interpret the first paragraph, the second paragraph, and then the third paragraph individually.

Pax Vobiscum

Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 8:59 pm Post subject:

Land of the Irish wrote:

CS Gibson wrote:

Regarding the decree U.R. of Vatican II, it does not say that the Eastern Orthodox are in communion with the Catholic Church or united to it.

UR wrote:

For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.

Are you saying the Eastern Orthodox either do not believe in Christ or have been truly baptized?

I think it is important to distinguish between the Eastern Orthodox as a "church", and an individual who belongs to the "church". The "church" itself is in no way united to the true Church, but it is possible that an individual in good faith could be.

CS Gibson
†

Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 663

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:09 pm Post subject:

Regarding the Eastern Orthodox I should have written Eastern Orthodox Church. The phrase from UR, #3, when speaking of individuals born in non Catholic churches who are baptized and profess faith in Christ says "in quadam cum ecclesia catholica communione, etsi imperfecta, constituuntur." This translates as " exist in some communion with the Catholic Church, even if imperfect." A more literal translation would say "are constituted in some communion etc." This is not as it stands an unorthodox statement. But I agree that it is not precisely formulated. Impaired communion would seem to me a better way of saying it. The pastoral practice of the Church has allowed Catholic priests to hear the confessions of Orthodox Christians in the past, so obviously, some kind of communion is recognized as existing.

CS Gibson
†

Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 663

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:15 pm Post subject:

Thanks Pax, you have expressed my meaning better than I have.

Land of the Irish
†

Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Posts: 6101

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 10:26 pm Post subject:

Pax Vobiscum wrote:

I think it is important to distinguish between the Eastern Orthodox as a "church", and an individual who belongs to the "church". The "church" itself is in no way united to the true Church, but it is possible that an individual in good faith could be.

Here's another quote from UR:

Quote:

Among those in which Catholic traditions and institutions in part continue to exist, the Anglican Communion occupies a special place.

Communion with a non-Catholic "church" occupies a special place.

Heck,
It seems since that since VC II, the muslims, jews, orthodox, anglicans all have a "special place".
_________________
TRADIDI QUOD ET ACCEPI

Land of the Irish
†

Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Posts: 6101

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 10:37 pm Post subject:

In the following, UR congratulates false churches on their false practice of Holy Communion.

UR wrote:

Though the ecclesial Communities which are separated from us lack the fullness of unity with us flowing from Baptism, and though we believe they have not retained the proper reality of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Orders, nevertheless when they commemorate His death and resurrection in the Lord's Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and look forward to His coming in glory.

_________________
TRADIDI QUOD ET ACCEPI

GordonG

Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 435

Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:23 pm Post subject:

Land of the Irish,

The Anglican Communion "occupies a special place" because, unlike other Protestant denominations, its original formation was not motivated by a theological commitment to sola fide or sola scriptura, and it has throughout history managed (with more success in some eras than others) to maintain certain Catholic traditions which you'd be hard-pressed to find in other Protestant denominations. The Lutherans and Calvinists have yet to give rise to an equivalent of the Oxford Movement.

You claim the document "congratulates false churches on their false practice", but this is patently untrue. The passage you quote is simply descriptive. Where Vatican II documents do recognise the existence outside of the Church of elements which properly pertain to, and point to, her, they're doing nothing which wasn't done by St Augustine many centuries before:

Quote:

Outside the Catholic Church there can be everything except salvation. He can hold office, he can have sacraments, he can sing "alleluia," he can respond "amen," he can hold to the gospel, he can have faith and preach in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But never except in the Catholic Church can he find salvation.

Was St Augustine congratulating those outside the Church?

Pax Vobiscum

Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340

Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:13 am Post subject:

Land of the Irish wrote:

Pax Vobiscum wrote:

I think it is important to distinguish between the Eastern Orthodox as a "church", and an individual who belongs to the "church". The "church" itself is in no way united to the true Church, but it is possible that an individual in good faith could be.

Here's another quote from UR:

Quote:

Among those in which Catholic traditions and institutions in part continue to exist, the Anglican Communion occupies a special place.

Communion with a non-Catholic "church" occupies a special place.

Heck,
It seems since that since VC II, the muslims, jews, orthodox, anglicans all have a "special place".

Just to be clear, I'm certainly not defending UR as being orthodox. Even if there is a way to interpret it "in light of tradition" by twisting its words and seemingly taking it out of context, no one can deny that the document is not only ambiguous, but it actually lends itself to an heretical interpretation. In order to interpret it in a way that is not heretical, it takes real effort.

The same is true with the new Catechism. Even though it is usually possible to interpret certain misleading parts in accord with what the Church teaches, to do so is not easy. If you don't already know the faith before you begin reading it, and simply intepret it according to its seemingly-obvious meaning, you will be led into error. The exact same is true with much contained in the Vatican II documents.

It is amazing what God has permitted to happen to His Church. It's not surprising why people are inclined to buy into the Siri Theory. At least it provides an answer to the mystery that we are living through.

I know Serv has recently mentioned closing down AQ. While the dissipation caused by the internet is not good, it is good to have somewhere to come to discuss these matters. The humor on AQ is nice, but I find more satisfaction in the theological disussions. I think we're all trying to sort things out to one degre or another, and AQ is a good venue for doing so. It's also good to see people like St. Joseph every now and then, so we can see the dangers of over reaction to errors, and the consequent result of falling into error in the other direction. I don't know about you, but reading people like St. Jospeh actually makes me a little more humble. Seeing someone reject the teaching of the Holy Office, St. Robert Bellarmine, the Catechism of Trent, and completely disregard such a great theologian as Fr. Fenton, shows me the kind of person I don't want to become. Indeed, this crisis has many victims, not only on the left, but also on the "right". May God help us all to get through this crisis.

Pax Vobiscum

Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340

Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:01 pm Post subject:

In my last post I meant to say "Drew", not St. Joseph.

Drew

Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:35 pm Post subject: Assisi-Contrast: Lefebvre and Benedict XVI

I have yet to hear a principled objection to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi from those who hold that the 1949 Holy Office Letter, the Letter that teaches the novel doctrine of salvation by implicit desire, is an orthodox expression of Catholic faith. The relationship between the 1949 Holy Office letter to Lumen Gentium is evident but maybe it is not so evident how the pastoral documents of Vatican II are dependent upon Lumen Gentium. This may help elucidate the problem.

Unitatis Redintegratio, the Vatican II decree on Ecumenism, Nostra Aetate, the declaration in the Church’s relations with non-Christian religions and Dignitatis Humanae, on Religious Liberty are pastoral documents that are predicated upon Lumen Gentium, the dogmatic constitution on the Church, which is the authoritative source for the new ecclesiology.

Cardinal Walter Kasper wrote:

Regarding Unitatis Redintegratio:
When the Decree on Ecumenism was promulgated at the end of the third session (together with, Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church), Pope Paul VI said that the Decree explained and completed the Constitution on the Church: "ea doctrina, explicationibus completa in Schemate 'De Oecumenismo' comprehensis...". Thus, with regard to theological importance, he closely linked this Decree to the Constitution on the Church…..Just as it is not permissible to separate Unitatis Redintegratio from Lumen Gentium or to interpret the Decree in the sense of dogmatic relativism or indifferentism, Unitatis Redintegratio likewise indicates the approach to take in explaining the assertions of Lumen Gentium (an attitude of openness on more than one point): that is, a sense of theologically responsible ecumenical openness…..It will be hard to dispute that the first chapter of Unitatis Redintegratio (in which the "Catholic principles on ecumenism" are expounded) contains binding affirmations that either sum up or develop further the corresponding assertions in Lumen Gentium.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, On the 40th Anniversary of Unitatis Redintegratio L'Osservatore Romano, February 25, 2004

Most Reverend Kevin John Patrick McDonald wrote:

Regarding Nostra Aetate:
Nostra Aetate is a very short document but its implications and repercussions have been enormous. It has to be seen in the context of the overall renewal of Vatican II since it focuses and symbolises the spirit and the direction of that renewal. …. Yet Nostra Aetate is integral to the whole direction of conciliar teaching. Crucially it is organically linked to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, and is very specifically related to the Declaration on Religious Liberty.
Lumen Gentium provided a new articulation of the Church's self-understanding, one that is in some way inclusive of other Christians, of other religions and of all people of good will…..[i]Nostra Aetate[/i] built on these dogmatic principles of Lumen Gentium, and in order to implement this body of teaching, Pope Paul VI set up the body which is now called the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue. And there has been nothing token about the mandate and the responsibility given to this department. Moreover, the present Pope (John Paul II) has given this office his full support. His initiatives and his developing teaching in this area have been among the most remarkable features of this papacy. Indeed the very profile of the papacy has changed through these initiatives. Archbishop Runcie, the then Archbishop of Canterbury, said that only one Church and only one Church leader could have convened the historic gathering of religious leaders in Assisi in 1986. So the Church can be justly proud of what it has achieved over the last forty years.
Most Reverend Kevin John Patrick McDonald, BA, STL, STD, Archbishop of Southwark, Nostra Aetate: Forty Years On

Rev. Regis Scanlon, O.F.M. Cap wrote:

Regarding Dignitatis Humanae:
The principles governing religious liberty in relation to the Church are set down in Lumen Gentium, not in Dignitatis Humanae. This point is absolutely crucial for understanding the Council’s teaching on religious liberty and the misunderstanding of this teaching since the close of Vatican II.
Rev. Regis Scanlon, O.F.M. Cap., Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Did Vatican II reverse the Church’s teaching on religious liberty?

Without the new ecclesiology, there is no ecumenism, there is no religious liberty, no dialogue with non-Christian religions, no Prayer Meeting at Assisi. Lumen Gentium provides the theoretical doctrinal foundation, and Unitatis Redintegratio, Dignitatis Humanae, and Nostra Aetate, provide the practical pastoral applications of that doctrine in specific areas.

The major criticism of Lumen Gentium has focused on the claim that the “Church of Christ…subsits in the Catholic Church.” The use of the word “subsist” in place of “is” was done because, as the Council explained, it is “an expression more harmonious with the affirmation of ecclesial elements which are elsewhere.” This is a denial of idenity. This coupled with the assertion 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,” identifies others who also “subsist” in the “Church of Christ.”

This last quotation authoritatively references the 1949 Holy Office Letter that introduced the novelty of salvation by implicit desire. The 1949 Holy Office Letter bases the novel teaching of salvation by implicit desire on a mistranslated quotation from the encyclical Mystici Corporis. In brief, the 1949 Holy Office Letter is grounded in a lie.

This lie was given general circulation when the 1949 Holy Office Letter was published by Cardinal Cushing of Boston in 1952. It was added to the 1962 edition of Denzinger’s by Rev. Karl Rahner, its editor, and then authoritatively referenced as supporting evidence for Lumen Gentium’s assertion 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.” Thus in one sentence the dogmas, formal objects of divine and Catholic faith, that membership in the Church, that subjection to the Roman Pontiff, that explicit profession of the Catholic faith, and that the sacraments are necessary for salvation are uniformly set aside.

The manner in which they were set aside is explained in the Open Letter to Dr. Jones. The dogmas, which are categorical propositions of divine revelation, formal objects of divine and Catholic faith, were reduced to mere precepts and then declared, like all precepts, to be not binding in cases of physical or moral impossibility. This is a condemned modernist proposition by St. Pius X. It is noteworthy to remember that this quote from Lumen Gentium is the foundation for Rev. Karl Rahner’s “Annonymous Christian” theology.

Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay and Pope John Paul II accepted the theoretical doctrinal claims of the 1949 Holy Office Letter and Lumen Gentium on salvation by implicit desire as evidenced by their own statements:

Bishop Bernard Fellay wrote:

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

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, 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

Pope John Paul II wrote:

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.
John Paul II

Yet, Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay, while agreeing with Pope John Paul II in principle, have refused to follow him in the practical pastoral application of those principles which necessarily lead to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi. In the discussions with Cardinal Ratzinger before the episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre wrote that he and the SSPX were ready to accept the texts of the Council “in accordance with the criterion of Tradition”, that is, “according to the Traditional Magisterium of the Church.” He said, “Considering that the ‘Declaration of Religious Liberty’ is contrary to the Magisterium of the Church, we ask for a wholesale revision of the text. We consider likewise indispensable noteworthy revisions of documents like ‘The Church in the Modern World’, ‘Non-Christian Religions’, ‘Ecumenism’, and clarifications of numerous texts presently tending toward confusion. Similarly on several points of prime importance, the new Code of Canon Law is unacceptable by it opposition to the definitive Magisterium of the Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to Cardinal Ratzinger of April 17, 1985)

There is no mention of the problems of Lumen Gentium or evidence that recognizes that Lumen Gentium is the source document of Vatican II for the pastoral errors that are the focus in his complaint. It is interesting that the Prayer Meeting at Assisi was taken by Archbishop Lefebvre and a sign from God that he should proceed with the Episcopal consecrations.

No one in this discussion has offered a principled objection to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi. The 1949 Holy Office Letter’s teaching of salvation by implicit desire is the root of the Vatican II weed and, unless that is recognized, no effective objection can be mounted against the new ecclesiology, ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue, religious liberty, and the consequent destruction of our ecclesiastical traditions, most important of which is, the traditional Roman rite of the Mass.

Which brings me to the next question. What is dogma?

Drew

Vadis

Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 874
Location: USA

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 8:39 pm Post subject:

as an aside, but at the core of this discussion is Fr. Feeney's false position;

Quote:

“But, let us suppose an act of perfect love has occurred in a man’s soul. Can this man be said to be freed from original sin by this perfect act of love of God? He cannot, in the true and full sense. There has not been imprinted on his soul, by reason of this perfect act of love of God, the character which Baptism imprints, to seal him as redeemed, and outfit him for the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.
Therefore, I should be inclined to say that this man, by his perfect act of love of God, was freed from one of the effects of original sin, namely, the absence of sanctifying grace, but was not freed from the obligation to go on and secure a title to the Beatific Vision."(Bread of Life, Chapter VII, The Waters of Salvation)

Of course this very position was condemned:

"To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity, some other union is needed. [Condemned]" (Council of Basel)

Pax Vobiscum

Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:13 pm Post subject: Re: Assisi-Contrast: Lefebvre and Benedict XVI

Drew wrote:

I have yet to hear a principled objection to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi from those who hold that the 1949 Holy Office Letter, the Letter that teaches the novel doctrine of salvation by implicit desire...

First, the letter from the Holy Office does not teach salvation by implicit desire.

Second, here's the principled objection to the prayer meeting at Assisi: I am opposed, in principle, to those who commit an object mortal sin against the first commandment by offering false worship. There's your principled objection.

If you ever learn to understand what you read, you will find that the Holy Office letter does not teach "salvation by implicit desire". That's your doctrine, not that of the Holy Office letter.

A few days ago I posted three paragraphs from the 1949 letter and asked you to please interpret them. Did you miss that post, or are you unwilling to provide us with your interpretation?

CS Gibson
†

Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 663

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:17 pm Post subject:

Karl Rahner's theory of the anonymous Christian I believe predates Vatican II. In any case, Fr Feeney rejected the 1949 letter long before Vatican II, so discussion of the latter is not relevant. What Feeneyites refuse to admit is that the 1949 letter is in full accord with the teaching of Catholic theologians. There is nothing 'novel' about it. The problem with them is that they reject the teaching of Catholic theologians which itself is a part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church. If they were intellectually honest they would also state that they consider Pius XII to have been in theological error in approving the doctrinal statement of 1949 which he did personally.

CS Gibson
†

Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 663

Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:27 pm Post subject:

Vadis, Thank you for the citation. it is interesting that Fr Feeney admits that an unbaptized person can be 'freed from the absence of sanctifying grace" which presumably means that the unbaptized can receive sanctifying grace. Yet he says this is not sufficient for salvation. This seems to put him at odds with the Church's teaching on grace too.

Drew

Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 2:41 pm Post subject: Re: Assisi-Contrast: Lefebvre and Benedict XVI

Pax Vobiscum wrote:

Drew wrote:

I have yet to hear a principled objection to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi from those who hold that the 1949 Holy Office Letter, the Letter that teaches the novel doctrine of salvation by implicit desire...

First, the letter from the Holy Office does not teach salvation by implicit desire.

“Salvation by implicit desire” is taught by the 1949 Holy Office Letter. Look again at the pertinent words from the Letter. This time, read it slowly and give it some considered reflection:

1949 Holy Office Letter wrote:

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, 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 final end of the “implicit desire” is to “obtain eternal salvation.” Your confusion is that you insist that the final end of “implicit desire” is “to be united to her (the Church).” Desire is subjective. When desire is implicit, subjectively the object of desire is unknown. If it is unknown subjectively, it cannot be communicated. The object of this “implicit desire” cannot be objectively known. The 1949 Holy Office Letter affirms that the final end of this “implicit desire” is “eternal salvation.” It is appropriate to descriptively term this as “salvation by implicit desire.” If you wish to dispute the use of this phrase then produce objective criteria to distinguish between “salvation” and “membership in the Church” as objective ends of “implicit desire. That is something you or anybody else cannot do without, as you have demonstrated, looking foolish. The straw man is not the argument. It's You.

Pax Vobiscum wrote:

Second, here's the principled objection to the prayer meeting at Assisi: I am opposed, in principle, to those who commit an object mortal sin against the first commandment by offering false worship. There's your principled objection.

You principled objection against the Prayer Meeting at Assisi is that it is “an objective mortal sin against the first commandment by offering false worship.” Well that would be a principle objection if you knew for certain that the person you were praying with was not in the state of grace and temple of the Holy Ghost, and that his prayer was not pleasing to God. How do you know that the people on the dais with the Pope are not in the state of grace? What possible “objective” criteria are you using? The 1949 Holy Office Letter, the core dogma of your religion, affirms the possibility of salvation by implicit desire. It affirms the necessity of “supernatural faith” but mentions only the belief in a ‘god who rewards and punishes’ which can be known by natural philosophy. Fr. Fenton dates this novel teaching to a citation in the 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis and this citation was mistranslated.

There is nothing here to necessarily exclude any participant of the Prayer Meeting at Assisi as not being in the state of grace and a temple of the Holy Ghost. Your personal subjective requirement that belief in the “Trinity and Incarnation” are necessary for salvation is nothing more than your “position.” Even Bishop Fellay acknowledges that explicit faith is not necessary.

Bishop Bernard Fellay wrote:

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

Apparently God is pleased with this Hindu in the practice of his religion. How can praying with this Hindu be a “mortal sin”? Apparently the only thing God requires of anyone for salvation is to “live according to his conscience” and you have no way of knowing if that is or is not the case with this Hindu or anyone else. The Catholic dogmas, formal objects of divine and Catholic faith, that explicit faith, subjection to the Roman Pontiff, membership in the Church and the sacraments are necessary for salvation have been thrown to dogs by the 1949 Holy Office Letter and now by you.

You cannot accept the 1949 Holy Office Letter as an orthodox expression of Catholic Faith and object in principle to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi.

Pax Vobiscum wrote:

If you ever learn to understand what you read, you will find that the Holy Office letter does not teach "salvation by implicit desire". That's your doctrine, not that of the Holy Office letter.

Then produce objective criteria to distinguish between different objects of implicit desire. Desire is subjective and the object of implicit desire in subjectively unknown by definition. So, tell me exactly how you distinguish between 'implicit desire to enter the Church' and 'implicit desire to obtain salvation?' The 1949 Holy Office Letter affirms that the end of “implicit desire” is “to obtain eternal salvation.” The descriptive definition for this is "salvation by implicit desire."

If you are going to believe it, you might as well know what you are believing.

Pax Vobiscum wrote:

A few days ago I posted three paragraphs from the 1949 letter and asked you to please interpret them. Did you miss that post, or are you unwilling to provide us with your interpretation?

This is of course just one big begging of the question. You believe in salvation by implicit desire. A novel doctrine taught in the 1949 Holy Office Letter. Why don’t you produce some evidence to support your belief in salvation by implicit desire from all the authoritative magisterial documents, accepted traditions, papal teachings, writings of the fathers and doctors of the Church, and saints during the first 1949 years of the Church history that teach salvation by implicit desire.

You want to move on to my next question? What is dogma?

Drew

Pax Vobiscum

Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340

Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 3:40 pm Post subject: Re: Assisi-Contrast: Lefebvre and Benedict XVI

Drew wrote:

Pax Vobiscum wrote:

A few days ago I posted three paragraphs from the 1949 letter and asked you to please interpret them. Did you miss that post, or are you unwilling to provide us with your interpretation?

This is of course just one big begging of the question. You believe in salvation by implicit desire. A novel doctrine taught in the 1949 Holy Office Letter. Why don’t you produce some evidence to support your belief in salvation by implicit desire from all the authoritative magisterial documents, accepted traditions, papal teachings, writings of the fathers and doctors of the Church, and saints during the first 1949 years of the Church history that teach salvation by implicit desire.

Drew

The reason I asked you to interpret those three paragraphs is because, as I've been saying, you have misinterpreted the 1949 letter. I tried repeatedly to explain what the document is teaching, but you ignored what I wrote and continued to make the same argument.

Therefore, rather than tell you one more time what the document is referring to when it uses the term "implicit desire", I asked you to read three paragraphs from the 1949 letter and give me your interpretation.

Here they are again.

1949 Letter to the Holy Office: "In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807).

“The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. 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, 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." (END)

CS Gibson
†

Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 663

Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 4:05 pm Post subject:

Re the so-called novel doctrine of the 1949 letter: Ott writes regarding invincible ignorance " actual membership of the Church can be replaced by the desire (votum) for the same. This need not be expressly present but can also be included in the moral readiness to fulfil the will of God (votum implicitum). " Tanqueray and Zubizarreta say the same thing. These three theologians teach exactly the same doctrine as that of the 1949 letter. Many others could be cited. This in fact demonstrates the status quaestionis and is the common teaching of theologians from which Fr Feeney dissented.

Drew

Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 4:21 pm Post subject: Re: Assisi-Contrast: Lefebvre and Benedict XVI

Pax Vobiscum:

You have said nothing the would indicate that you have grasped the problems with the first citation of 1949 Holy Office Letter regarding salvation by implicit desire that has been explained in detail with authoritative references. It is pointless to move onto secondary matters when you have not addressed the essential argument.

If you cannot understand the issue then let someone else try to explain how it is possible to accept the 1949 Holy Office Letter as an orthodox expression of Catholic faith and still offer any principled objection to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi.

You have not done it and I do not think you will.

Pax Vobiscum wrote:

Drew wrote:

I have yet to hear a principled objection to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi from those who hold that the 1949 Holy Office Letter, the Letter that teaches the novel doctrine of salvation by implicit desire...

First, the letter from the Holy Office does not teach salvation by implicit desire.

“Salvation by implicit desire” is taught by the 1949 Holy Office Letter. Look again at the pertinent words from the Letter. This time, read it slowly and give it some considered reflection:

1949 Holy Office Letter wrote:

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, 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 final end of the “implicit desire” is to “obtain eternal salvation.” Your confusion is that you insist that the final end of “implicit desire” is “to be united to her (the Church).” Desire is subjective. When desire is implicit, subjectively the object of desire is unknown. If it is unknown subjectively, it cannot be communicated. The object of this “implicit desire” cannot be objectively known. The 1949 Holy Office Letter affirms that the final end of this “implicit desire” is “eternal salvation.” It is appropriate to descriptively term this as “salvation by implicit desire.” If you wish to dispute the use of this phrase then produce objective criteria to distinguish between “salvation” and “membership in the Church” as objective ends of “implicit desire. That is something you or anybody else cannot do without, as you have demonstrated, looking foolish. The straw man is not the argument. It's You.

Pax Vobiscum wrote:

Second, here's the principled objection to the prayer meeting at Assisi: I am opposed, in principle, to those who commit an object mortal sin against the first commandment by offering false worship. There's your principled objection.

You principled objection against the Prayer Meeting at Assisi is that it is “an objective mortal sin against the first commandment by offering false worship.” Well that would be a principle objection if you knew for certain that the person you were praying with was not in the state of grace and temple of the Holy Ghost, and that his prayer was not pleasing to God. How do you know that the people on the dais with the Pope are not in the state of grace? What possible “objective” criteria are you using? The 1949 Holy Office Letter, the core dogma of your religion, affirms the possibility of salvation by implicit desire. It affirms the necessity of “supernatural faith” but mentions only the belief in a ‘god who rewards and punishes’ which can be known by natural philosophy. Fr. Fenton dates this novel teaching to a citation in the 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis and this citation was mistranslated.

There is nothing here to necessarily exclude any participant of the Prayer Meeting at Assisi as not being in the state of grace and a temple of the Holy Ghost. Your personal subjective requirement that belief in the “Trinity and Incarnation” are necessary for salvation is nothing more than your “position.” Even Bishop Fellay acknowledges that explicit faith is not necessary.

Bishop Bernard Fellay wrote:

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

Apparently God is pleased with this Hindu in the practice of his religion. How can praying with this Hindu be a “mortal sin”? Apparently the only thing God requires of anyone for salvation is to “live according to his conscience” and you have no way of knowing if that is or is not the case with this Hindu or anyone else. The Catholic dogmas, formal objects of divine and Catholic faith, that explicit faith, subjection to the Roman Pontiff, membership in the Church and the sacraments are necessary for salvation have been thrown to dogs by the 1949 Holy Office Letter and now by you.

You cannot accept the 1949 Holy Office Letter as an orthodox expression of Catholic Faith and object in principle to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi.

Pax Vobiscum wrote:

If you ever learn to understand what you read, you will find that the Holy Office letter does not teach "salvation by implicit desire". That's your doctrine, not that of the Holy Office letter.

Then produce objective criteria to distinguish between different objects of implicit desire. Desire is subjective and the object of implicit desire in subjectively unknown by definition. So, tell me exactly how you distinguish between 'implicit desire to enter the Church' and 'implicit desire to obtain salvation?' The 1949 Holy Office Letter affirms that the end of “implicit desire” is “to obtain eternal salvation.” The descriptive definition for this is "salvation by implicit desire."

If you are going to believe it, you might as well know what you are believing.

Pax Vobiscum wrote:

A few days ago I posted three paragraphs from the 1949 letter and asked you to please interpret them. Did you miss that post, or are you unwilling to provide us with your interpretation?

This is of course just one big begging of the question. You believe in salvation by implicit desire. A novel doctrine taught in the 1949 Holy Office Letter. Why don’t you produce some evidence to support your belief in salvation by implicit desire from all the authoritative magisterial documents, accepted traditions, papal teachings, writings of the fathers and doctors of the Church, and saints during the first 1949 years of the Church history that teach salvation by implicit desire.

You want to move on to my next question? What is dogma?

Drew

CS Gibson
†

Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 663

Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 4:51 pm Post subject:

As the Letter and theologians have said the implicit desire to be united to the Church is contained in the desire to conform to the will of God. That is the crux of the matter. Salvation is a consequence of the individual's desire to be conformed to God's will, this is not the same thing as an "implicit desire for salvation" which is in itself a meaningless statement

Pax Vobiscum

Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340

Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 5:33 pm Post subject:

Drew, Why won't you simply interpret these three paragraphs one at a time? I understand what you are saying, but what your saying is based on a misinterpretation of the letter. Let's stick with the interpretation of the letter itself for now. There are only about six or seven paragraphs from the letter that directly deal with the issue at hand. I began by quoting three of them and asked you to interpret the each, individually. Since you would not accept my interpretation, I'm asking for you to interpret it. Here are the three paragraphs one more time. 1949 letter of the Holy Office: In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (<Denzinger>, nn. 797, 807). "The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. 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, 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". Once we clarify what these three paragraphs are teaching, then we can conclude with the next three or four paragraphs.

Drew

Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 6:49 pm Post subject:

Vadis wrote:

as an aside, but at the core of this discussion is Fr. Feeney's false position;

Quote:

“But, let us suppose an act of perfect love has occurred in a man’s soul. Can this man be said to be freed from original sin by this perfect act of love of God? He cannot, in the true and full sense. There has not been imprinted on his soul, by reason of this perfect act of love of God, the character which Baptism imprints, to seal him as redeemed, and outfit him for the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.
Therefore, I should be inclined to say that this man, by his perfect act of love of God, was freed from one of the effects of original sin, namely, the absence of sanctifying grace, but was not freed from the obligation to go on and secure a title to the Beatific Vision."(Bread of Life, Chapter VII, The Waters of Salvation)

Of course this very position was condemned:

"To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity, some other union is needed. [Condemned]" (Council of Basel)

Vadis:

Two problems:

1) You believe the teaching of the 1949 Holy Office Letter that affirms salvation by implicit desire. Consequently, you deny the defined Catholic dogmas, formal objects of divine and Catholic faith, that membership in the Church, subjection to the Roman Pontiff, explicit faith, and the sacraments are necessary for salvation. Having already denied the authority of dogmatic truth, you cannot very well quote dogma in your defense. You have already burned that bridge.

2) Your argument presupposes that you know all the attributes that are essential components in the “bond of charity,” and that membership in the Church, subjection to the Roman Pontiff, explicit faith, and the sacraments are not essential attributes of the “bond of charity.” That presupposition is, well, presumptuous.

“For this is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not heavy” (1 John 5:3). “If you love me, keep my commandments” (John 15:15). “If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; as I also have kept my Father's commandments, and do abide in his love” (John 15:10). “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me” (John 14:21). The last quote places two conditions for the love of God; you must ‘have the commandments’ and ‘you must keep them.’ You have presupposed that a “bond of charity” exists in those who do not have, or who do have and have not kept the commandments of God. His commandments “are not heavy.”

You have distorted and corrupted one dogmatic truth to deny another.

Just what do think dogma is?

Drew

Drew

Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 7:35 pm Post subject:

CS Gibson wrote:

As the Letter and theologians have said the implicit desire to be united to the Church is contained in the desire to conform to the will of God. That is the crux of the matter. Salvation is a consequence of the individual's desire to be conformed to God's will, this is not the same thing as an "implicit desire for salvation" which is in itself a meaningless statement

CS Gibson:

I have already covered this in a previous post (Jan 14, 2011, 4:57 PM)which was subsequently denied by Pax Vobiscum. You are actually agreeing with a point I previously made. The “desire to conform to the will of God” is an explicit object of thought. It is then becomes the material cause of salvation. It is a presupposition that this explicit object of thought includes an implicit desire to be “united to the Church,” for the final end to “obtain eternal salvation.”

Desire is subjective and the object of implicit desire is unknown to the subject by definition. It does not matter what the '1949 Holy Office and the theologians have said,' the object of implicit desire is unknown and unknowable. The 1949 Holy Office Letter claims that “desire to be conformed to the will of God” is the only and necessary cause of salvation in someone who 'believes in a god who rewards and punishes,' which can be known by natural philosophy.

The “crux of the matter” is that this novel teaching, which Fr. Fenton attributes to mistranslation in the encyclical Mystici Corporis published in 1943 and eventually authoritatively referenced in Lumen Gentium, the Vatican II dogmatic constitution on the Church that established the first principles for the pastoral decrees, can be predicated about everyone at the Prayer Meeting at Assisi.

So why not pray with them?

If you find "salvation by implicit desire" a problem, we could just as easily, as I said before, use "salvation by explicit desire to be conformed to the will of God." They mean the same thing in the context of the 1949 Holy Office Letter.

Drew

Display posts from previous:

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

BACK

HOME

Page 3 of 5