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 4


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

BACK

HOME


 

 

View previous topic :: View next topic  

Author

Message

CS Gibson



Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Sat Jan 22, 2011 10:49 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


Br Joseph,

There is no salvation by an implicit desire for salvation. Salvation would come because an individual in invincible ignorance of Catholic truth nonethless has a desire to be conformed to the will of God which necessarily includes the implicit desire to do what God wills, thus the implicit desire for baptism and to be united to the Church.

This is the teaching of Catholic theologians even before any supposed mistranslation of Mystici Corporis.

The debate about Assisi has nothing to do with this at all, but the objective reality of false religious cults and the danger of indifferentism.

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

Michael Wilson



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

PostPosted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 10:37 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote


CS Gibson wrote:

Of course, the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church are not in communion with each other, but a relationship does exist by virtue of the valid sacraments which the Orthodox dispense.


CS,
I have to disagree with this part of your reply; there is a relationship between the Catholic Church and a person who is a member of a heretical sect, but who is in the state of grace (Material Heretic), this person would be termed a "member in votum" Of the Church (Ott. pg. 311). However this does not establish any sort of "relationship" between the Catholic Church and the false sect to which this person may belong to. The Graces dispensed by the Sacraments can only be attributed to the Catholic Church; the only thing that these sects possess as truly belonging to them are their errors, which separate them from the Church.

For those who belong to a false sect and have received Baptism as infants, they are incorporated by their Baptism into the Church, and remain so until they consciously reject the Church:

Ott pg. 310 wrote:


Those childrenvalidly baptised outside the Church are members of the Churchunless and until after reaching the use of reason, they voluntarily separate themselves from the Confessin fo the Faith or from the communion of the Church.


_________________
MichaelW.

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

Michael Wilson



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

PostPosted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:07 am    Post subject: administering sacraments to non-Catholics

Reply with quote


C.S. Gibson wrote:


The Jesuits heard confessions of the Orthodox in the 17nth and 18nth Centuries. I think I can find the reference. In any case, as the commentary says, in danger of death their confessions can be heard and they can receive extreme unction if they are in good faith, this couldn't be the case if they were not in some sort of communion with the Church.


CS,
The fact that some members of religious orders where administering the Sacraments to the Orthodox, does not establish that the Church approved of the practice; the Jesuits where also allowing the use of Chinese rites in the administration of the Sacraments in China for a long time until the authorities in Rome put a stop to it. Also in Jerusalem in the 18th Century the Capuchin fathers complained to Rome about the practice of some priests that were Eastern Rite, that were administering the Sacraments to Schismatics without the abjuration of errors, the Vatican also put a stop to this practice.
_________________
MichaelW.

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 2:51 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


CS Gibson wrote:

Br Joseph,

There is no salvation by an implicit desire for salvation. Salvation would come because an individual in invincible ignorance of Catholic truth nonethless has a desire to be conformed to the will of God which necessarily includes the implicit desire to do what God wills, thus the implicit desire for baptism and to be united to the Church.

This is the teaching of Catholic theologians even before any supposed mistranslation of Mystici Corporis.

The debate about Assisi has nothing to do with this at all, but the objective reality of false religious cults and the danger of indifferentism.



CS Gibson:

So all that is necessary for salvation is an “(explicit) desire to be conformed to the will of God.” As I have already said, I have no problem with this terminology although it is not what the 1949 Holy Office Letter teaches. If it were, there would have been no reason to even discuss the unknown and unknowable objects of “implicit desire.” Be that as it may, you have taken this “explicit desire” as the necessary and sufficient material cause for salvation. You have repudiated the Catholic dogmas, formal objects of divine and Catholic Faith, the denial of which is the definition of heresy, that membership in the Church, subjection to the Roman Pontiff, explicit faith and the sacraments are necessary for salvation. You have given up everything for this novel “teaching of Catholic theologians.”

This “teaching of Catholic theologians” was dated by Fr. Fenton to the encyclical Mystici Corporis in 1943. I will accept his opinion on this but you are probably correct that this heresy is older than 1949, but you will need to produce your evidence for the authority of your claim. I want to see the references from scripture, divine and apostolic tradition, fathers, doctors, popes, councils, and saints that have taught that “(explicit) desire to be conformed to the will of God” is the necessary and sufficient material cause of salvation for the first 1949 years of the Church. As for the “supposed mistranslation of Mystici Corporis,” I have provided the original Latin text and the cited the specific mistranslation. Either I am correct or incorrect in this allegation. Your use of the term “supposed” implies that you are either to lazy to find our or simply indifferent to the truth of the matter.

What you have presented makes my point. You can offer no principled objection to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi. Since the only necessary and sufficient cause for salvation is the subjective “desire to be conformed to the will of God” you cannot exclude anyone at the Prayer Meeting as not being in the state of grace and a temple of the Holy Ghost because desire is subjective, known only privately as to its nature and effects. And since explicit faith is not part of your program, where is the “danger of indifferentism”? When you claim that “invincible ignorance of Catholic truth” does not bind truth you are treating dogmatic truths as if they were mere precepts which is a specifically condemned Modernist error.

St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane wrote:

The dogmas of the Faith are to be held only according to their practical sense; that is to say, as preceptive norms of conduct and not as norms of believing: Condemned Proposition.
St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane



So that you understand the distinction between necessity of means and necessity of precept I include this citation from Rev. Prummer’s moral theology.

Rev. Dominic Prummer wrote:

Both the habit and the act of faith are necessary both as means of salvation and by precept. A necessary means of salvation is an absolute condition without which it is impossible to attain to eternal life. A precept makes something obligatory for salvation when a special command is made by a legitimate superior who imposes something as a condition of salvation but not in such an absolute fashion that salvation could not be obtained otherwise. Therefore no excuse is permissible when there is a question of a necessary means; on the other hand, moral impossibility is usually taken to excuse from things that are necessary from precept.
Rev. Dominic Prummer, Handbook of Moral Theology



Why this distinction is a proper question for moral theology is another matter that deserves you careful consideration.

Lastly, any “theologian” who uses such terms as “extrinsic necessity of means” or “relative necessity of means” is intentionally corrupting language. Since the ends can be obtained without an “extrinsic” or “relative” necessity of means then they are not a necessity of means by definition.

There is nothing that you offer to make any serious objection to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi.

Drew

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

CS Gibson



Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 663

PostPosted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 9:28 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


Br Joseph,

As to whether the desire to conform oneself to God's will must be explicit or can be implicit is another interesting point. One could research the various opinions of theologians, but there would be little point in doing so in a discussion with you, because you have already aggregated to yourself the right to judge and interpret the approved teachings of Catholic thinkers, as well as to decide what does or does not constitute the authority of the Magisterium

In any case, if one were to adopt your opinion it would mean that the Universal and Roman Church fell into heresy some generations ago, thereby demonstrating that iit was not the True Church of Christ, so ultimately the question becomes itself meaningless, at least for Catholics.

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

numealinesimpetar



Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 503
Location: Ireland

PostPosted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 9:39 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


Drew wrote:

...The 1962 Bugnini transitional Missal was adopted by the SSPX in 1983 as their liturgical standard. ...

The SSPX have declared that the changes in the 1962 revision of the Missal did not affect the deposit of Faith and therefore were a legitimate exercise of authority, unlike the 1969 Novus Ordo.

Moderators

View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website

 

Anthony Malleus



Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 197

PostPosted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 10:24 pm    Post subject: Same old issue.

Reply with quote


Drew,

I think your hung up on Fr. Feeney's heresy. Wake up. Once more you mistake the two issues. EENS and Baptism of Desire not the same thing. Nor is Communio in sacris the same as EENS. One is a objective statement of the Church (EENS), while communio in sacris is dealing with a violation of sacred things. The Church doesn't claim to judge the internal dispositions of men. If some heretic be (by some miracle of grace) in state of grace that has nothing to do with the objective reality that by their heresy they are outside the Church and objectively not in the state of grace.

That has always been the mind of the Church on the issue.

Moderators

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

 

charles dupuy



Joined: 11 Jan 2009
Posts: 128

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 1:32 pm    Post subject: ASSISI CONTRAST:

Reply with quote


I thiknk Drew is a Feenite and a BLEEP, and a Fifth Columnist into this blog.
He should be banned from this forum.
Charles Dupuy

Moderators

View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail

 

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:08 pm    Post subject: Re: Same old issue.

Reply with quote


Anthony Malleus wrote:

Drew,

I think your hung up on Fr. Feeney's heresy. Wake up. Once more you mistake the two issues. EENS and Baptism of Desire not the same thing. Nor is Communio in sacris the same as EENS. One is a objective statement of the Church (EENS), while communio in sacris is dealing with a violation of sacred things. The Church doesn't claim to judge the internal dispositions of men. If some heretic be (by some miracle of grace) in state of grace that has nothing to do with the objective reality that by their heresy they are outside the Church and objectively not in the state of grace.

That has always been the mind of the Church on the issue.




Anthony Malleus:

I have said nothing regarding “Baptism of Desire.” This discussion regards the 1949 Holy Office Letter and its teaching of ‘salvation by implicit desire.’ This teaching holds that the only necessary and sufficient criterion for salvation is that a person who believes in a ‘god who rewards and punishes,’ “wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.” I want to know from people who think that this is an orthodox expression of Catholic faith what principled objections they can offer to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi.

The “Baptism of Desire” question was not addressed by Fr. Feeney until several years after this 1949 Holy Office Letter. The 1949 Holy Office Letter is written to address the doctrine of EENS and has nothing to do with the question of “Baptism of Desire.” So what are talking about?

Regarding “Fr. Feeney’s heresy,” I remind you that Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for discipline, he was taken back into the Church without renouncing any doctrinal positions, and his followers are in good standing in the diocese of Worcester, MA, and now in Manchester, NH, while defending his teaching and publishing his works. Furthermore, Msgr. Camille Perl, secretary for PCED in a replying to a letter sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said, “The question of the doctrine held by the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not judge it opportune to enter into this question” (N. 343/98 dated 27 October 1998).

Regarding communio in sacris,” the Prayer Meeting at Assisi is not a Catholic liturgical event. So again, I am not sure what you are referring to?

As to your appeal to “objective reality” making a judgment regarding whether “some heretic be (by some miracle of grace) in state of grace,” if you believe the 1949 Holy Office Letter to be orthodox expression of Catholic faith, there is no “objective” criteria other that asking if they “believe in a god who rewards and punishes” and “if the “wish to be conformed to the will of God.” The former is a truth that can be known by natural philosophy, the latter a subjective desire the consequences of which can be known only to God. The 1949 Holy Office Letter says that this can produce a state of grace making one a temple of the Holy Ghost.

If that is so, why not pray with them?

Drew

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:14 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


CS Gibson wrote:

Br Joseph,

As to whether the desire to conform oneself to God's will must be explicit or can be implicit is another interesting point. One could research the various opinions of theologians, but there would be little point in doing so in a discussion with you, because you have already aggregated to yourself the right to judge and interpret the approved teachings of Catholic thinkers, as well as to decide what does or does not constitute the authority of the Magisterium

In any case, if one were to adopt your opinion it would mean that the Universal and Roman Church fell into heresy some generations ago, thereby demonstrating that iit was not the True Church of Christ, so ultimately the question becomes itself meaningless, at least for Catholics.



CS Gibson:

You and others who hold the 1949 Holy Office Letter as an orthodox expression of Catholic faith have been asked to provide principled objections to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi. You have provided nothing.

The 1949 Holy Office Letter requires only a “desire to conform oneself to God’s will” which by definition is explicit since it has a known object. I have not said anything about this “desire” being “implicit,” so I am not sure what you are talking about. As to doing ‘research of the various opinions of theologians’ on this question, it sounds like a real waste of time.

What I have asked from you and others is to produce “evidence to support your belief in salvation by implicit desire from all the authoritative magisterial documents, scripture, 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” as the sole necessary and sufficient criterion for salvation in a person who ‘believes in a god who rewards and punishes.” If you prefer the phrase, “salvation by explicit desire to conform oneself to God’s will,” you can substitute that phase for “salvation by implicit desire.” They mean the same thing in the context of the 1949 Holy Office Letter.

If you think that this doctrine of “salvation by implicit desire”, which Fr. Fenton dates to a mistranslated phrase in the 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis, is the “universal” teaching of the “Roman Church,” you are very mistaken. I think you will figure that out when you try to find in the sources of divine revelation anything that supports this novel teaching.

By the way, do you know what the term “universal” means?

Drew

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

charles dupuy



Joined: 11 Jan 2009
Posts: 128

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:29 pm    Post subject: MY OPINION ON DREW

Reply with quote


Br.Joseph wrote:

"Phaley,

I have never read any of your posts as far as I remember. I made no assumptions from anything other than your immediate post in reply to my question.(end quote)."

You must be lying or you have not visited this site often. Phaley is a member since 2006 and has upwards of 2000 posts. He is one of those that I see more often whenever I visit this site. By the way you have only 65 posts.

Drew said:

"HallnOates wrote:
Drew is outside the Church.


HallnOates,

I have noticed how often you post and how remarkably little you have to say.

Drew"

Yea, HallnOates writes short but concise and to the point comments. You engage in endless bizyntine writing that add nothing to the blog. Also if you notice how often HallnOates writes, how come you haven't noticed Phaley?.
Charles Dupuy

Moderators

View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail

 

Michael Wilson



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

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:50 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


Pax Vobiscum wrote:

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).


Since Bro. Joseph does is not advancing the discussion with Pax Vobiscum, I will offer my commentary on the letter, and Bro. Joseph is free to step in, if and when he wants to:
Comment: this paragraph states that God can will, that men can gain the effects necessary to gain eternal salvation which ordinarily are obtained by the means of the Sacraments. For example, a man can have his sins taken away by an act of perfect contrition; or receive Our Lord Jesus Christ by a spiritual communion.

1949 Letter to the Holy Office wrote:



“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.


Comment: In the same manner, a man may obtain to be incorporated into the Church not by the ordinary means, but by a desire and longing.

1949 Letter to the Holy Office wrote:



“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)


However, this desire need not be explicit, but when the explicit desire is impeded by an obstacle such as "invincible ignorance", then God will accept also an "implicit desire" (out of His goodness and mercy).


Bro. Joseph, since you are the one arguing so much from the basis of this letter; does my interpretation of the letter square with yours?
_________________
MichaelW.

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

numealinesimpetar



Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 503
Location: Ireland

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:58 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


Hello, Bro. Joseph.
I haven't studied the Holy Office Letter, but there was a very thorough airing of the EENS and BOD issues a couple of years ago on angelqueen. It seemed to me then, after carefully following the debate, that the Feenyites fail to make a convincing case but that they cannot be called heretical, given the weight of documents that can be cited to support their case. However, I take the Council of Trent to have infallibly taught the existence of "Baptism of Desire".

As for Assisi, the objection to it is of the same order as so many things in the post-Vatican II Church. It is all done by innuendo and silent example: there is nothing so gauche as an explicit denial of an infallible doctrine. That went out with Luther. They are cleverer now.

Our Lord when on the Earth did not tell us what happens to pagans who desire to conform to the Will of God (whoever He is): He told us what to do – namely, "Make disciples of all nations, baptizing them (etc)" [and the Council of Trent teaches that this extends to "the desire thereof"]. If God arranges, by a special and extraordinary Grace, to save an individual pagan outside this framework, that still does not authorise us to disobey the command we were given. Secondly, whatever the intentions of the Holy Father might have been, the practical effect (which in all honesty was as predictable as death and taxes) has been to give a huge boost to the indifferentist heresy. To attempt Salvation, for oneself or another, whilst knowing the truth of the Catholic Church, is nothing else than the Sin of Presumption. That is why the interfaith meetings must be condemned.

As for Peace – the catechism teaches us that it is a Fruit – one of the 12 Fruits of the Holy Ghost. Now a fruit is a result of something else (they are the same word in Irish Gaelic) – and therefore we cannot ask for it as a primary intention. In the Mass, at the Agnus Dei, we ask twice for Mercy before we dare ask for Peace. To sidestep one's religion in the interests of "Peace" is idolatry. Not that the pope worshipped idols: but he placed the Fruit above the pre-requisite. That is why it is not only to be condemned, it can be proven beforehand to be a futile endeavour.

Moderators

View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website

 

Aquila



Joined: 11 Nov 2010
Posts: 101

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 6:40 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


Quote:

CS Gibson:

You and others who hold the 1949 Holy Office Letter as an orthodox expression of Catholic faith have been asked to provide principled objections to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi. You have provided nothing.



There have been many principled objections. They simply do not agree with your own Feeneyite principles.

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

Anthony Malleus



Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 197

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:13 pm    Post subject: Objectivity.

Reply with quote


'Why not pray with them' -

- The simple answer is because objectively they are in the state of sin and outside the Church by their heresy - They are not members of the Church as such. That does not preclude the possibility of them being in the state of grace because of the question of their ignorance of the truth. Think about it, in the priority of things when it comes down to salvation, being in the state of grace has a priority over having the character of baptism. There a plenty of damned souls in hell with the character of baptism, but there are no souls in hell with the state of grace. Likewise in heaven their are many souls in heaven without the character of baptism (just considering those who died before Christ suffices to demonstrate that point) but who died in the state of grace. You seem to think that such a thing is no longer possible. God's merciful arm has somehow shrunk according to Feeney and co.

My point in all this is that while it would be false to claim to judge the internal dispositions of men, it would likewise be false on your part to presume that all heretics are malicious/pertinacious in being in their heresy.

As for the question of implicit desire and Fr. Feeney and his heresy see my next postings.

Moderators

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

 

Anthony Malleus



Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 197

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:26 pm    Post subject: Implicit desire and the Catholic teaching.

Reply with quote


What is meant by implicit desire for baptism?

Although the Church dose not judge the subjective dispositions of individuals is able to affirm the possibility for someone to obtain the state of grace by an implicit desire for baptism based on the words of Christ, "Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my heavenly father" (Matt 10:32).

This implicit faith also implies a detestation of sin (Acts 2:38) and a will to obey God (James 2:17, 2:24 -6, Jn 14:15, 1 Cor 13:2) as sin and the obstinacy to God are both incompatible to the state of grace which is essential to salvation.

By an implicit faith in God the Church does not mean a mere knowledge of God (as can be derived from reason alone) but a supernatural knowledge which is accompanied by a supernatural act of faith (Heb 11:16, Rom 5:1-5, Rom 10:13). In declaring that baptism may be had by desire or by blood, we can clearly see just how necessary it is to be baptized, since if one does not even have the efficacious desire to be baptized then he cannot be saved! This alone shows us the reality of the number of the damned since even an implicit desire for baptism requires a supernatural faith in God.

Thus, there is need of explicit faith in some article of faith. In the implicit desire of baptism, the act of Faith and hope must be explicit while it suffices for the desire of baptism itself to be implicit since he who desires the whole desires necessarily every part of that whole. For example if a Pagan is touched by the Martyrdom of some Catholic and then openly declares himself to believe in the God of this Christian who was put to death and in turn is himself put to death. This Martyr would have an explicit faith in Christ yet knowing little about Christ or the Sacraments. Our Lord has promised: "Every one that confess me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in Heaven."

St. Augustine points out that these words are as universal in their scope and import as those in which our lord taught the general necessity of baptism of water. Hence he deduces the consequence that the remission of sins is secured by death for Christ, as certainly as by the sacrament of Baptism. - De Civitate Dei, 13,7.

St. Thomas States, "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification; it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification”. - Summa Theologica III, q68, a 2
Further the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X states that "The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least IMPLICIT OF BAPTISM, and this is called Baptism of Desire".
It is for this reason that the Council of Trent teaches: "the state of grace cannot be had except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it". - DzB 796.

The word “Votum” (as used by the Council of Trent) is not some superficial wish. That is not the meaning of the word at all. In fact, we must keep in mind that the very nature of faith means that it cannot be totally implicit as it is necessary to know and believe something divinely revealed with a supernatural faith. Laboring under invincible ignorance does not prevent a person from being converted to God by contrition or by an act of perfect Charity. In this act of contrition or perfect act of charity must be contained either an explicit or implicit desire to receive baptism by water according as the notion of baptism is or is not present to the mind of the Person who has turned his heart and mind to God.

St. Alphonsus Liguori in his commentary on the Works of the Council of Trent, openly states regarding the sacrament of Baptism that" Who can deny that the act of perfect love of God, which is sufficient for justification, includes an implicit desire of Baptism, of Penance, and of the Eucharist. He who wishes the whole wishes the every part of that whole and all the means necessary for its attainment. In order to be justified without baptism, an infidel must love God above all things, and must have an universal will to observe all the divine precepts, among which the first is to receive baptism: and therefore in order to be justified it is necessary for him to have at least an implicit desire of that sacrament." St. Alphonsus Liguori on the Council of Trent, 1846, Pg. 128 -129 (published by James Duffy, Dublin, 10 Wellington Quay).

St. Augustine also distinguishes between the sacrament of Baptism and the turning of the heart to God. He teaches that if either of these conditions cannot be secured, the other will be sufficient. A baptized Child is saved, without turning its heart to God, should it die before coming to the age of reason, and a man who turns his heart to God is saved without water baptism, provided he in no way despise the sacrament. - De Baptismo, IV.25,32.

Moderators

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

 

Anthony Malleus



Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 197

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:29 pm    Post subject: Fr. Feeney a heretic?

Reply with quote


Drew,

In my personal opinion Fr. Feeney and co are heretics. I repeat this is my personal opinion which I base on objective dogmatic facts, which I have demonstrated to you previously, and to which you failed to respond.

As far as the reply of Msgr. Camille Perl it is clear that he tactfully avoided dealing with issue, which makes sense since for the conciliar clergy lets face it, before they start to deal with the Feeneyites they should start dealing with more serious issues. –

My only reason in even pressing this issue is for the sake of clarity and integrity of the faith, which is something which the conciliar Church is far from present to us today. But as for us Trads it’s disappointing for anyone with half a brain to have embraced the heresy of Fr. Feeney.

I never said that Fr. Feeney was officially condemned for heresy otherwise I would have stated that along with the official text documenting it. I think the way his case was resolved was a total let down both for Fr. Feeney and for the Church as a whole.

Don’t get me wrong, Fr. Feeney in my estimation was a many with many excellent quality, who had written some impressive texts, but sadly his pride got the better of him and so in my opinion his excommunication for refusing a just command by a lawful superior (the pope) was justified. But the excommunication is not the issue at all. To me it is merely a secondary issue considering the whole situation at the time. – The primary issue here is his eventual rejection of the constant teaching of the Church on a point of faith which is considered de fide. I have quoted it for you previously and will quote again - ‘It is defied that someone is able to be saved by baptism of desire’- St. Alphonsus, Doctor of the Church - (commentary on the Council of Trent Sess. 6, c. 4).


And again Fr. Marin-Sola states in his theological treaties on the sacraments: “Certain heretics have affirmed that no adult can be saved without receiving baptism itself before he dies, however much he would burn with desire for it, and that it would do him no good unless he were washed with water. He continues on to state “Against the second part (baptism of blood) there are hardly any adversaries, save for a few theologians who disagree over the manner in which martyrdom achieves its effect.” - De Sacramentis, (BAC, 1954), 69.

No theologian contested these texts or all the other previous texts on the issue until of course the great Fr. Feeney ? – Who are we to follow? The constant teaching of the Magisterium or some come along lately Fr. Feeney? I think the answer should be clear for anyone with more than half a brain.

Moderators

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

 

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:34 pm    Post subject: Re: Objectivity.

Reply with quote


Anthony Malleus wrote:

'Why not pray with them' -

- The simple answer is because objectively they are in the state of sin and outside the Church by their heresy - They are not members of the Church as such. That does not preclude the possibility of them being in the state of grace because of the question of their ignorance of the truth. Think about it, in the priority of things when it comes down to salvation, being in the state of grace has a priority over having the character of baptism. There a plenty of damned souls in hell with the character of baptism, but there are no souls in hell with the state of grace. Likewise in heaven their are many souls in heaven without the character of baptism (just considering those who died before Christ suffices to demonstrate that point) but who died in the state of grace. You seem to think that such a thing is no longer possible. God's merciful arm has somehow shrunk according to Feeney and co.

My point in all this is that while it would be false to claim to judge the internal dispositions of men, it would likewise be false on your part to presume that all heretics are malicious/pertinacious in being in their heresy.

As for the question of implicit desire and Fr. Feeney and his heresy see my next postings.




Anthony Malleus:

Again, I have said nothing regarding the sacrament of Baptism in this discussion. I have said nothing regarding the dogmatic canons regarding the sacrament of Baptism or discussed the common opinion regarding Baptism of Desire as a means of salvation. This discussion is regarding the 1949 Holy Office Letter that teaches “salvation by implicit desire.” This 1949 Letter says nothing about the sacrament of Baptism. The Letter concerns the dogma that there is “no salvation outside the Church.” It teaches that a person may be in the state of grace, be a temple of the Holy Ghost, and obtain salvation by 1) an explicit desire to be conformed to the will of God, and 2) belief in a god who rewards and punishes.

Bear in mind that Fr. Fenton dates this novel teaching to a mistranslated quotation from the 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis. The 1949 Holy Office Letter was published by Cardinal Cushing of Boston, entered in Denzinger’s by Rev. Karl Rahner, authoritatively referenced and interpreted by Vatican II’s dogmatic constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, that teaches that the “Church of Christ… subsists in the Catholic Church.” Lumen Gentium established the new ecclesiology which is the foundational principle for the pastoral decrees on religious liberty, ecumenism, and relations with non-Christian religions. And lastly, established the first principle in Rev. Rahner’s Annonymous Christian” theology.

Your post says that “we should not pray with them (heretics and pagans, infidels, Jews, etc.)” because, “objectively they are in the state of sin and outside the Church by their heresy - They are not members of the Church as such.” Well, you cannot have it both ways.

You accept the 1949 Holy Office Letter as an orthodox expression of Catholic faith. The 1949 Holy Office Letter says that they are “united to her (the Church) by (implicit) desire and longing.” The 1949 Holy Office Letter says that they must have “supernatural faith” and then mentions only the ‘belief in a god who rewards and punishes’ that can be known by natural philosophy. Apparently, that is the only requirement to subsit in the Church just like other baptized Catholics. Since there is only one “Church of Christ,” it is a matter of indifference how anyone happens to “subsist” in it. You cannot say that they are “in the state of sin” and then say, “but that does not preclude the possibility of them being in the state of grace because of the question of their ignorance of the truth.” You have people “in the state of sin” and “in the state of grace” at the same time.

As I have previously posted:
When you claim that “invincible ignorance of Catholic truth” does not bind truth you are treating dogmatic truths as if they were mere precepts which is a specifically condemned Modernist error.

St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane wrote:

The dogmas of the Faith are to be held only according to their practical sense; that is to say, as preceptive norms of conduct and not as norms of believing: Condemned Proposition.
St. Pius X, Lamentabili Sane



So that you understand the distinction between necessity of means and necessity of precept I include this citation from Rev. Prummer’s moral theology.

Rev. Dominic PrummerBoth wrote:

Both the habit and the act of faith are necessary both as means of salvation and by precept. A necessary means of salvation is an absolute condition without which it is impossible to attain to eternal life. A precept makes something obligatory for salvation when a special command is made by a legitimate superior who imposes something as a condition of salvation but not in such an absolute fashion that salvation could not be obtained otherwise. Therefore no excuse is permissible when there is a question of a necessary means; on the other hand, moral impossibility is usually taken to excuse from things that are necessary from precept.
Rev. Dominic Prummer, Handbook of Moral Theology



I have said noting regarding the “character of Baptism” and neither has the 1949 Holy Office Letter. The 1949 Holly Office Letter regards the sacrament of Baptism as a non-issue. Not only is the sacrament not necessary for salvation, neither is “baptism of desire” necessary. So, I do not see how this directly pertains to the present question.

Regarding the Prayer Meeting at Assis, the 1949 Holy Office Letter does not provide any grounds to judge that the people on the dais with Pope John Paul II are not in the state of grace and temples of the Holy Ghost. Explicit faith, visible membership in the Church, the sacraments, and subjection to the Roman Pontiff are not required for salvation, all dogmas, formal objects of divine and Catholic faith, without exception are laid aside by the 1949 Holy Office Letter.

If the 1949 Holy Office Letter is orthodox, you have no grounds to assume that these people are not in the state of grace and temples of the Holy Ghost and therefore, your reasons for not praying with them are personal and entirely subjective.

If God in fact dwells within theis souls what does that make you for failing to have communion with them?

The next question that you need to address is the nature of dogma. What is it?

Drew

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

Anthony Malleus



Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 197

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:30 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote


Drew,

You seem to be totally dishonest or seriously trying to distort what I say so as to deceive people into taking serious the trash you put out. You state for example -

‘You cannot say that they are “in the state of sin” and then say, “but that does not preclude the possibility of them being in the state of grace because of the question of their ignorance of the truth.” You have people “in the state of sin” and “in the state of grace” at the same time.’

No. You know well that is not what I am saying at all.

For example, just as I can say a person who commits suicide is objectively damned and a priest can not normally say a mass for such a person. And yet, St. John Vianney tells us a story of man who committed suicide but before he fell to his death he made a perfect act of contrition. Objectively the man is damned, but God alone can judge the subjective dispositions of a soul. Normally such a mystery of God’s goodness would be hidden to us and only revealed in the next world but sometimes he gives us a small insight before hand. The same is for non-catholics. Objectively they are outside the Church and hence in the state of sin, but God alone can judge that reality and he alone can give them the necessary grace required to die in his friendship.

Anyhow, there being in the state of grace or not is not the issue, the fact that they are not formal members of the Church suffices. Without the Character of baptism, they are not formal members of the Church.

No one is saying that just because a person by a miracle of Gods grace and mercy can obtain the state of grace outside the ordinary means, that this somehow justifies us rejecting the ordinary means or to dare to presume that all non Catholics are in the state of grace. Anymore that just because the Catholic Church clearly teaches that Catholic who commits a mortal sin can without going to confession obtain the state of grace by perfect act of contrition that this teaching some how means he can then omit going to confession and just walk up to the communion rail. What certitude does he have in this life that he has regain the state of grace (save for a special revelation from God)? – The same point applies to what I have said above.

This same point is made in the Acts of the Apostles where St. Peter concludes that Gentiles in his presence had received the Holy Ghost just as he had eventhough they hadn’t as yet been baptized But what was his conclusion? ‘well then, they are in the state of grace so all is good and well’ – That would be your erroneous logic (from what you have state above). But on the contrary his conclusion is ‘Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.’- Acts 10:47

What I have stated here is the obvious and straight forward constant position of the Church. This is why someone a great defender of the ancient faith like St. Gregory of Nazianzus, would say on the occasion of his father's death in A.D. 374:

‘He was ours even before he was of our fold. His manner of life made him one of us. Just as there are many of our own who are not with us, whose lives alienate them from the common body, so too there are many of those outside who belong really to us, men whose devout conduct anticipates their faith. They lack only the name of that which in fact they possess. My father was one of these, an alien shoot but inclined to us in his manner of life.’ (William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 2, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1979, p. 29).

St. Gregory here is only reiterating what St. Paul himself points out when writing to the Romans :

‘For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people's hidden works through Christ Jesus (Romans 2:14-16).

Thus, according to the thought of St. Paul, if a person obeys the law of God written on his heart, he is obeying Christ and is essentially accepting the Spirit of Christ. Following Romans 8:9 ("you are in the spirit, if only the Spirit of God dwells in you. Who ever does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him."), it seems reasonable to conclude that a someone outside the Church is able by his upright life to make a supernatural act of faith in God and in this way belongs to Christ and in some way shares in the membership of His Body, the Church, even without a visible manifestation of this fact. But again, this is part of the mystery of God’s goodness and mercy. We don’t operate on a subjectivist theology but on objective reality, without precluding the power of God to do as he wills.

As for your quote from Prummer if you bothered to read my post properly you will have noted that what I stated about implicit desire perfectly concurs with the point Prummer makes.

As for your question on the nature of Dogma. I am sorry but I refuse to even begin to explain that to someone who can't even understand the basic point I have made above.

Moderators

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

 

Vadis



Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 874
Location: USA

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 4:15 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote


I missed this reply to me by Bro Joseph,

Quote:

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.





He appears to stop posting the Letter at this point :

" 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"

And moves to his sophist that the Letter teaches " Salvation by implicit desire "


Perhaps posting the theological definition of "implicit" will help.


St. Thomas defines implicit as ;

" Properly speaking, that is called implicit in which many things are CONTAINED AS IN ONE, and that is called explicit in which each of the things is considered in itself. " (Of Truth 14, 11)


What starts in the soul as implicit, then moves by that good disposition toward and God grace the 'explicit"... e.g. God enlightens through grace the Faith". One must be animated by " perfect Charity" i.e. supernatural Faith "



Let's quote directly from the Letter ;

Quote:

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 Letter address those well intended souls who are laboring under invincible ignorance;

Quote:

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 wants his will to be conformed to the Will of God. T

hese things are clearly taught in the dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943 (Mystici Corporis)... he mentions those who are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer "by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation; but on the other hand, he states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church!"

With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally as well in every religion.




In Xto,

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 4:23 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


Anthony Malleus:

You still want it both ways. Dogmas are regarded as universal objective truths for Catholics and then reduced to simple “perceptive norms” for everyone else.

Anthony Malleus wrote:

“Anyhow, there being in the state of grace or not is not the issue, the fact that they are not formal members of the Church suffices. Without the Character of baptism, they are not formal members of the Church.”

 

Anthony Malleus wrote:

“It seems reasonable to conclude that someone outside the Church is able by his upright life to make a supernatural act of faith in God and in this way belongs to Christ and in some way shares in the membership of His Body, the Church, even without a visible manifestation of this fact. But again, this is part of the mystery of God’s goodness and mercy. We don’t operate on a subjectivist theology but on objective reality, without precluding the power of God to do as he wills.”



Your first quote is a dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. It is a truth that has been revealed by God. The second quotation is not. It accords with the 1949 Holy Office Letter that teaches the novel doctrine of “salvation” by being “united to her (the Church) by (implicit) desire and longing” by one who believes in a god who rewards and punishes. This has not been revealed by God.

The 1949 Holy Office Letter reduces Catholic dogmas to "perceptive norms". God has revealed, and the Church has dogmatically affirmed this revelation, that explicit faith, membership in the Church, subjection to the Roman Pontiff, and the sacraments are necessary for salvation, not just as a necessity of precept, but moreover, as a necessity of means. Dogmas are categorical propositions that admit of being true or false. Precepts are commands. Preceptive norms” only have a secondary and accidental relationship with truth. When dogmatic truths are reduced to “perceptive norms,” they do not bind in cases of physical or moral hardship. God is not bound by “perceptive norms” but He has bound Himself to His revealed truth. “Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away.”

The 1949 Holy Office Letter teaches that a person may be in the state of grace, be a temple of the Holy Ghost, and "obtain salvation" by 1) an explicit desire to be conformed to the will of God, with 2) belief in a god who rewards and punishes. The perverse irony is that this 1949 Holy Office Letter that throws Catholic dogma out the window has itself become the ‘new dogma’ that underpins the Prayer Meeting at Assisi.

Those who regard the 1949 Holy Office Letter as an orthodox expression of Catholic faith have undermined all dogmas as infallible articles of divinely revealed objective truth. With that, any objection in principle to the Prayer Meeting at Assisi is impossible.

Drew

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

Anthony Malleus



Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 197

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 6:10 pm    Post subject: Get a brain.

Reply with quote


Drew,

You are a totally dishonest nit wit and heretic who fails to admit the obvious.

I cited for you the very clear example of St. Peter and solid teaching of St. Paul and the Patristic view on the issue and you still want to deny the obvious. It is interesting to note that you conveniently ignored what I wrote, failing to answer the points made.

Again, is there a contradiction in saying that someone can obtain the state of grace without going to confession who has committed a moral sin? No ! And the same applies to receiving the state of grace without baptism, for he who desires the whole desire every part of the whole. Reality is hard to admit. It is obvious to see why the Feeneyites are heretics. You make up your own religion and magisterium under the guise of distorting basic facts of the Catholic faith.

If you haven’t anything intelligent to write please refrain from posting trash.

Moderators

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

 

Anthony Malleus



Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 197

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 6:31 pm    Post subject: Some help for the blind.

Reply with quote


Drew.

Here are some articles that might help you out of your heresy:

http://www.the-pope.com/BOB_BOD.html

Moderators

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

 

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Get a brain.

Reply with quote


Anthony Malleus wrote:

Drew,

You are a totally dishonest nit wit and heretic who fails to admit the obvious.

I cited for you the very clear example of St. Peter and solid teaching of St. Paul and the Patristic view on the issue and you still want to deny the obvious. It is interesting to note that you conveniently ignored what I wrote, failing to answer the points made.

Again, is there a contradiction in saying that someone can obtain the state of grace without going to confession who has committed a moral sin? No ! And the same applies to receiving the state of grace without baptism, for he who desires the whole desire every part of the whole. Reality is hard to admit. It is obvious to see why the Feeneyites are heretics. You make up your own religion and magisterium under the guise of distorting basic facts of the Catholic faith.

If you haven’t anything intelligent to write please refrain from posting trash.



Anthony Malleus:

“You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God” Matt. 22:29. You affirm one quote from scripture to deny another. And nowhere in any citation that you provided does it affirm salvation without explicit faith, membership in the Church, submission to the Roman Pontiff and the sacraments. Not one of them.

The 1949 Holy Office Letter says nothing about the sacrament of Baptism, whether sacramental, or by implicit or explicit desire. I have kept the discussion focused on the 1949 Holy Office Letter while you have done nothing but beg the question. You do not know what dogma is and you have shown an inability to distinguish between dogmatic truths and precepts. And not knowing dogma, I do not understand how you can call anyone a heretic.

As long as you can confirm that you want to be conformed to the will of God, and you believe in a god that rewards and punishes, I see no reason why you cannot attend the Prayer Meeting at Assisi.

Drew

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

Vadis



Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 874
Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 1:15 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote


The Letter states ;

Quote:

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"



Those in this state after meeting true Catholics will be explicity drawn to the Holy Catholic Church.


Will there be true Catholics at Assisi for these few souls to meet? That is the real question............................................................

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

numealinesimpetar



Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 503
Location: Ireland

PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 8:47 am    Post subject: Re: Get a brain.

Reply with quote


Drew wrote:

Anthony Malleus wrote:

Drew,

You are a totally dishonest nit wit and heretic who fails to admit the obvious.

I cited for you the very clear example of St. Peter and solid teaching of St. Paul and the Patristic view on the issue and you still want to deny the obvious. It is interesting to note that you conveniently ignored what I wrote, failing to answer the points made.

Again, is there a contradiction in saying that someone can obtain the state of grace without going to confession who has committed a moral sin? No ! And the same applies to receiving the state of grace without baptism, for he who desires the whole desire every part of the whole. Reality is hard to admit. It is obvious to see why the Feeneyites are heretics. You make up your own religion and magisterium under the guise of distorting basic facts of the Catholic faith.

If you haven’t anything intelligent to write please refrain from posting trash.



Anthony Malleus:

“You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God” Matt. 22:29. You affirm one quote from scripture to deny another. And nowhere in any citation that you provided does it affirm salvation without explicit faith, membership in the Church, submission to the Roman Pontiff and the sacraments. Not one of them.

The 1949 Holy Office Letter says nothing about the sacrament of Baptism, whether sacramental, or by implicit or explicit desire. I have kept the discussion focused on the 1949 Holy Office Letter while you have done nothing but beg the question. You do not know what dogma is and you have shown an inability to distinguish between dogmatic truths and precepts. And not knowing dogma, I do not understand how you can call anyone a heretic.

As long as you can confirm that you want to be conformed to the will of God, and you believe in a god that rewards and punishes, I see no reason why you cannot attend the Prayer Meeting at Assisi.

Drew

I hate to poop the party, but you are trying to derail the thread, Bro. Joseph (What Order do you belong to?).
Over the years I have seen BLEEPS! and Feenyites on other forums beside this one, and noted they (like you) have certain clearly-defined characteristics: jumping into a related, but not relevant topic; sending vastly long posts, and liberally sprinkling their post with red and/or bold typeface.

As for Feenyism, having encountered it through these web forums, it seems to me that Hilaire Belloc's dictum holds fast for this modern one: when we read in the school history books of some ancient heresy, it all seems very theological. But when we look at the real facts, we see that the whole thing was hopelessly mixed up with nationalism, personalities, and Money. So, I have seen, it was with Feenyism. BOD was never the real issue. It was the jealousy of the other priests in his diocese. But they latched onto a minor glitch in his theology, and made THAT the ostensive issue, just as had been done in other controversies for 18 centuries. Feenyites, please concentrate on clearing his name, and forget about his strict (and untenable) statements on baptism by water!

Moderators

View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website

 

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340

PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 9:38 am    Post subject: Re: Get a brain.

Reply with quote


Anthony Malleus wrote:

Drew,

You are a totally dishonest nit wit and heretic who fails to admit the obvious.



I couldn't have said it better myself.

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

charles dupuy



Joined: 11 Jan 2009
Posts: 128

PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 1:06 pm    Post subject: MY NOT SO HUMBLE OPINION

Reply with quote


Let me give Drew the benefit of the doubt and summarize the subject thus:
1-He has demonstrated with good logic that the Holy Office letter is erroneous when it upholds "salvation by implicit desire", which I myself do not attach to. Likewise if that served as the basis for Lumen Gentium and the doctrine of "anonymous Christianity" by Karl Rahner, which the majority in this forum do not adhere to, it would be sufficient reason to make it doubtful. But this would not be something new, i.e.: the Holy Office has erred before such as in the case of the condemnation of Galileo.

2-However, if some Catholics, as many in this thread accept in good faith the validity of the letter by the H.O., it does not mean that they have to to accept the legitimacy of praying with heretics and pagans.

3- Drew is fixated in relating the H.O. letter to the meeting at Assisi, but those are totally unrelated issues. His reasoning goes that if someone is saved by implicit desire, then no one is excluded from the possibility of being in a state of grance and from there he asserts that those attending the Assisi encounter, can be joined in prayer on the basis of this possibility.
The foregoing can be regarded as getting at definite conclusion based on indeterminate facts, which betrays Thomistic logic, of which he should be a follower on account of his membership of the Dominican Third Order.

4-Drew himself stated that those at Assisi might or might not be in state of grace : "take your pick"... In other words there is a 50-50 chance of them being so.
Due that we cannot judge someone except by objective means, they are not, because they reject Christ and he who rejects Him "rejects the One Who sent Him..."
Besides, the fact of them being in a state of Grace because of "implicit desire", does not suffice, because salvation is attained both by faith (implicit desire) and deeds, as the letter of St. James says: "faith without deeds is dead".

5-Since Drew places the fact of their being in a state of grace in the realm of possibilities, he should know that the number of possibilities is infinite and therefore the probability of ony one of them happening is zero, in other words the possibility of their being in such state is nill.

6-In summary heathen and heretics attending Assisi are not in a state of grace and therefore we should not pray with them.

Moderators

View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail

 

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340

PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:04 pm    Post subject: Re: MY NOT SO HUMBLE OPINION

Reply with quote


charles dupuy wrote:

Let me give Drew the benefit of the doubt and summarize the subject thus:
1-He has demonstrated with good logic that the Holy Office letter is erroneous when it upholds "salvation by implicit desire", which I myself do not attach to.



Can you provide the quote from the Holy Office letter showing where it teaching salvation by implicit desire? And since the Holy Office letter does not use the term "salvation by implicit desire", if you interpret it as teaching this, please quote, not only one or two sentences, but several paragraphs in order to demonstrate the context to support your interpretation.

Lastly, please tell us what the term "salvation by implicit desire" means. Since the term does not appear in the letter, and is not a common theological term, please define it.

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

Vadis



Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 874
Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 3:44 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


Perhapswe are stubmling towards the " linch-pin" error of Br. Joesph of whihc is term " slavation by implict desire" stems from....

Quote:

6-In summary heathen and heretics attending Assisi are not in a state of grace and therefore we should not pray with them.



We do not know which Catholics are not in the state of grace either. let alone the priest ovferring Holy Mass.. .......He seems to place being in the state of grace s as a precuser to being able to pray with them.....

But the matter is moot I think, since I doubt Benedict is going to "Pray with" them, I think they are praying in sperate areas of Assisi.

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

charles dupuy



Joined: 11 Jan 2009
Posts: 128

PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 4:23 pm    Post subject: MY ANSWER

Reply with quote


Pax:
This has been the object of your back and forth with Drew, and he has in my opinion, shown that "salvation by implicit desire" is what it means. I regret that the Cardinals and bishops on this subject tried to sidestep the subject with "fuzzy" language, but it does not help the faithful who want clear teaching from the Church authorities.
Charles Dupuy

Moderators

View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail

 

numealinesimpetar



Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 503
Location: Ireland

PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:11 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


Vadis wrote:

The Letter states ;

Quote:

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"

Those in this state after meeting true Catholics will be explicitly drawn to the Holy Catholic Church.

That depends how accurately these Catholics they meet present the Faith. Some would give a wholly misleading impression of the Faith. It could contribute towards an eventual state of invincible ignorance, if they made a very negative emotional impact on the non-Catholic such as to interfere with a rational analysis of the message.

Moderators

View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website

 

Vadis



Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 874
Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:18 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


Quote:

and he has in my opinion, shown that "salvation by implicit desire" is what it means. I regret that the Cardinals and bishops on this subject tried to sidestep the subject with "fuzzy" language, but it does not help the faithful who want clear teaching from the Church authorities.



Bro Joe has not demonstrated that is what the Letter means,,,,,, so now we have the Holy Office circa 1949 of which Pope Pius XIIth is the Prefect teaching Universal Salvation..... NOT

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

numealinesimpetar



Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 503
Location: Ireland

PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:23 pm    Post subject: Re: MY NOT SO HUMBLE OPINION

Reply with quote


charles dupuy wrote:

Let me give Drew the benefit of the doubt and summarize the subject thus:
1-He has demonstrated with good logic that the Holy Office letter is erroneous when it upholds "salvation by implicit desire", which I myself do not attach to. Likewise if that served as the basis for Lumen Gentium and the doctrine of "anonymous Christianity" by Karl Rahner, which the majority in this forum do not adhere to, it would be sufficient reason to make it doubtful. But this would not be something new, i.e.: the Holy Office has erred before such as in the case of the condemnation of Galileo.

I don't dispute the mischievous nature and effect of this Holy Office letter, but I must take issue about Galileo. I recommend Arthur Koestler's books on this, e.g. "the Sleepwakers". He was not, I think, a Catholic, but he was very incisive in his analysis of these episodes of history, when certain individuals "sleepwalk" into the right answer to something without seeming to realise it themselves, or by methods which were actually erroneous. Such was Galileo. Quite apart from his highly abrasive personality, the actual arguments he gave to support the thesis that the earth rotates and is not stationary were all fallacious. I am not sure how widely this was realised at the time, but at the very least, his insights were premature, and the Holy Office was fully justified in telling him to keep the lids on pending further investigation, considering the disturbance to souls that could (and did) result. Of course, JPII's 'apology' was widely taken as a formal admission that Galileo was right and the Church was wrong. Yet another gratuitous Own Goal.

Moderators

View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website

 

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340

PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:28 pm    Post subject: Re: MY ANSWER

Reply with quote


charles dupuy wrote:

Pax:
This has been the object of your back and forth with Drew, and he has in my opinion, shown that "salvation by implicit desire" is what it means. I regret that the Cardinals and bishops on this subject tried to sidestep the subject with "fuzzy" language, but it does not help the faithful who want clear teaching from the Church authorities.
Charles Dupuy



Let me try to clear this up. First of all, the Holy Office letter does not teach salvation by implicit desire. That's a term Drew made up and never bothered to define.

When the Holy Office letter uses the term "implicit desire", it is referring to the desire for visible external membership in the Church. Implicit desire for visible membership in the Church is not the same as implicit desire for salvation.

Consider this example.

Let's say a man turns on the radio and hears someone speaking about the fall of Adam, the promise of a Redeemer, the coming of Jesus, etc. The person on the radio explains the Trinity and Incarnation, and the means to obtain the forgiveness of sins and the state of grace. It is a very thorough and solid exposition of the truth. The person listening to the radio is receiving actual graces from God and is corresponding with them.

The listener first becomes afraid that he will go to hell if he dies. He then begins to consider what Jesus suffered for his sins, and becomes sorrowful. At this point, the man on the radio explains that through baptism, a person can have all their sins forgiven. The listener wants nothing more than to be baptized. Therefore, he opens up the phone book and locates the nearest Church. He has no idea of the difference between a Catholic Church and a Protestant sect; he only knows that he wants to be baptized. He believes in the Trinity, the Incarnation, and is truly sorry for his sins. Therefore he calls the nearest church and asks if they would please be willing to Baptize him. The person who answers the phone tells him to come to the Church and he will be glad to baptize him at once and make him a member of his heretical sect. The man arrives, gets baptized, obtains the state of grace, and then dies in a car wreck on the way home.

This is an example of a person who would qualify as implicitly desiring to join the Catholic Church as a formal and visible member. At this point, the man is not a visible and external member of the Catholic Church. He’s a Protestant who has been validly baptized. In order to become a visible external member of the Church, he would need to go through the normal process to be received into the Church; nevertheless, he believes the necessary truths, has been baptized, and is in the state of grace. Since he was invincibly ignorant of the Church, and desired with all his heart to do God’s will, this person would qualify as belonging to the Church by implicit desire, since he did all he knew to do in order to be saved, and is so disposed that he would also join the Catholic Church at once if he knew of it.

Now, would this person qualify as someone who merely "implicitly desired to be saved"? Of course not. How could he when he explicitly desires to be saved?

The man in this scenario was ignorant of the Catholic Church. His explicit faith, and supernatural charity (which he received through baptism), along with his desire to do God's will, sufficed for the precept requiring visible external membership in the Catholic Church. As such, his membership in the Church is said to be "implicit".

This is an example of how someone can explicitly desire to be saved, while only implicitly desiring to me a visible and external member of the Church.

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

numealinesimpetar



Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 503
Location: Ireland

PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:47 pm    Post subject: Re: MY ANSWER

Reply with quote


Pax Vobiscum wrote:

charles dupuy wrote:

Pax:
This has been the object of your back and forth with Drew, and he has in my opinion, shown that "salvation by implicit desire" is what it means. I regret that the Cardinals and bishops on this subject tried to sidestep the subject with "fuzzy" language, but it does not help the faithful who want clear teaching from the Church authorities.
Charles Dupuy



Let me try to clear this up. First of all, the Holy Office letter does not teach salvation by implicit desire. That's a term Drew made up and never bothered to define.

When the Holy Office letter uses the term "implicit desire", it is referring to the desire for visible external membership in the Church. Implicit desire for visible membership in the Church is not the same as implicit desire for salvation.

Consider this example.

Let's say a man turns on the radio and hears someone speaking about the fall of Adam, the promise of a Redeemer, the coming of Jesus, etc. The person on the radio explains the Trinity and Incarnation, and the means to obtain the forgiveness of sins and the state of grace. It is a very thorough and solid exposition of the truth. The person listening to the radio is receiving actual graces from God and is corresponding with them.

The listener first becomes afraid that he will go to hell if he dies. He then begins to consider what Jesus suffered for his sins, and becomes sorrowful. At this point, the man on the radio explains that through baptism, a person can have all their sins forgiven. The listener wants nothing more than to be baptized. Therefore, he opens up the phone book and locates the nearest Church. He has no idea of the difference between a Catholic Church and a Protestant sect; he only knows that he wants to be baptized. He believes in the Trinity, the Incarnation, and is truly sorry for his sins. Therefore he calls the nearest church and asks if they would please be willing to Baptize him. The person who answers the phone tells him to come to the Church and he will be glad to baptize him at once and make him a member of his heretical sect. The man arrives, gets baptized, obtains the state of grace, and then dies in a car wreck on the way home.

This is an example of a person who would qualify as implicitly desiring to join the Catholic Church as a formal and visible member. At this point, the man is not a visible and external member of the Catholic Church. He’s a Protestant who has been validly baptized. In order to become a visible external member of the Church, he would need to go through the normal process to be received into the Church; nevertheless, he believes the necessary truths, has been baptized, and is in the state of grace. Since he was invincibly ignorant of the Church, and desired with all his heart to do God’s will, this person would qualify as belonging to the Church by implicit desire, since he did all he knew to do in order to be saved, and is so disposed that he would also join the Catholic Church at once if he knew of it.

Now, would this person qualify as someone who merely "implicitly desired to be saved"? Of course not. How could he when he explicitly desires to be saved?

The man in this scenario was ignorant of the Catholic Church. His explicit faith, and supernatural charity (which he received through baptism), along with his desire to do God's will, sufficed for the precept requiring visible external membership in the Catholic Church. As such, his membership in the Church is said to be "implicit".

This is an example of how someone can explicitly desire to be saved, while only implicitly desiring to me a visible and external member of the Church.

Sorry, but I don't think that's valid. "There is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism". Whoever is validly baptised is baptised into the Catholic Church – he is a Catholic. He may be a badly-instructed Catholic, but he is still a Catholic. Only later, if he hears a condemnation of the Church of Rome & knowingly rejects it, can he be said to be outside the Church.

Moderators

View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website

 

Pax Vobiscum



Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 340

PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:55 pm    Post subject: Re: MY ANSWER

Reply with quote


numealinesimpetar wrote:

Pax Vobiscum wrote:

charles dupuy wrote:

Pax:
This has been the object of your back and forth with Drew, and he has in my opinion, shown that "salvation by implicit desire" is what it means. I regret that the Cardinals and bishops on this subject tried to sidestep the subject with "fuzzy" language, but it does not help the faithful who want clear teaching from the Church authorities.
Charles Dupuy



Let me try to clear this up. First of all, the Holy Office letter does not teach salvation by implicit desire. That's a term Drew made up and never bothered to define.

When the Holy Office letter uses the term "implicit desire", it is referring to the desire for visible external membership in the Church. Implicit desire for visible membership in the Church is not the same as implicit desire for salvation.

Consider this example.

Let's say a man turns on the radio and hears someone speaking about the fall of Adam, the promise of a Redeemer, the coming of Jesus, etc. The person on the radio explains the Trinity and Incarnation, and the means to obtain the forgiveness of sins and the state of grace. It is a very thorough and solid exposition of the truth. The person listening to the radio is receiving actual graces from God and is corresponding with them.

The listener first becomes afraid that he will go to hell if he dies. He then begins to consider what Jesus suffered for his sins, and becomes sorrowful. At this point, the man on the radio explains that through baptism, a person can have all their sins forgiven. The listener wants nothing more than to be baptized. Therefore, he opens up the phone book and locates the nearest Church. He has no idea of the difference between a Catholic Church and a Protestant sect; he only knows that he wants to be baptized. He believes in the Trinity, the Incarnation, and is truly sorry for his sins. Therefore he calls the nearest church and asks if they would please be willing to Baptize him. The person who answers the phone tells him to come to the Church and he will be glad to baptize him at once and make him a member of his heretical sect. The man arrives, gets baptized, obtains the state of grace, and then dies in a car wreck on the way home.

This is an example of a person who would qualify as implicitly desiring to join the Catholic Church as a formal and visible member. At this point, the man is not a visible and external member of the Catholic Church. He’s a Protestant who has been validly baptized. In order to become a visible external member of the Church, he would need to go through the normal process to be received into the Church; nevertheless, he believes the necessary truths, has been baptized, and is in the state of grace. Since he was invincibly ignorant of the Church, and desired with all his heart to do God’s will, this person would qualify as belonging to the Church by implicit desire, since he did all he knew to do in order to be saved, and is so disposed that he would also join the Catholic Church at once if he knew of it.

Now, would this person qualify as someone who merely "implicitly desired to be saved"? Of course not. How could he when he explicitly desires to be saved?

The man in this scenario was ignorant of the Catholic Church. His explicit faith, and supernatural charity (which he received through baptism), along with his desire to do God's will, sufficed for the precept requiring visible external membership in the Catholic Church. As such, his membership in the Church is said to be "implicit".

This is an example of how someone can explicitly desire to be saved, while only implicitly desiring to me a visible and external member of the Church.

Sorry, but I don't think that's valid. "There is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism". Whoever is validly baptised is baptised into the Catholic Church – he is a Catholic. He may be a badly-instructed Catholic, but he is still a Catholic. Only later, if he hears a condemnation of the Church of Rome & knowingly rejects it, can he be said to be outside the Church.



He's a member of the Church in the internal forum (which God alone sees) since he possesses supernatural faith and grace, combined with an implicit desire to be a member of the visible society of the Church; but in the external forum (what appears to man) he is not a Catholic. In the external forum he is a member of a Protestant group. That's why it would be necessary for him to be received into the Church formally in order to receive the other Sacraments.

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

Anthony Malleus



Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 197

PostPosted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:03 pm    Post subject: Nothing new . . .

Reply with quote


Pax vobiscum,

What you have written is precisely the constant teaching of the Church on the issue. It is plain and simple for any idiot to understand. The Popes, saints and theologians have understood it precisely like that. For this reason the very saints who teaching EENS also affirm the BOD & BOB. – The external forum is what the Church can judge, not the internal forum (as such); the internal forum is God’s prerogative.

The fundamental problem with the conciliar theology and ecumenical movement is that it operates on a subjectivist presumptive theology taking the place of God, who alone knows the hearts of men, and presumes that all are in the state of grace.

Fr. Feeney took advantage of this in order promote (perhaps as a knee jerk reation) the other extreme, which takes away God’s merciful work to those outside the Church, and presumes to know with absolute certitude that all outside the Church are in mortal sin (and that it could not possibly be any other way) - But as the old saying goes ' the two extreme meet' - (in this case) in heresy.

Moderators

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

 

numealinesimpetar



Joined: 28 Sep 2005
Posts: 503
Location: Ireland

PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 4:27 am    Post subject: Re: MY ANSWER

Reply with quote


Pax Vobiscum wrote:

numealinesimpetar wrote:

...

He's a member of the Church in the internal forum (which God alone sees) since he possesses supernatural faith and grace, combined with an implicit desire to be a member of the visible society of the Church; but in the external forum (what appears to man) he is not a Catholic. In the external forum he is a member of a Protestant group. That's why it would be necessary for him to be received into the Church formally in order to receive the other Sacraments.


Agreed. He would not necessarily need Conditional Baptism.

Moderators

View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website

 

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 2:22 pm    Post subject: Re: MY NOT SO HUMBLE OPINION

Reply with quote


charles dupuy wrote:

Let me give Drew the benefit of the doubt and summarize the subject thus:
1-He has demonstrated with good logic that the Holy Office letter is erroneous when it upholds "salvation by implicit desire", which I myself do not attach to. Likewise if that served as the basis for Lumen Gentium and the doctrine of "anonymous Christianity" by Karl Rahner, which the majority in this forum do not adhere to, it would be sufficient reason to make it doubtful. But this would not be something new, i.e.: the Holy Office has erred before such as in the case of the condemnation of Galileo.

2-However, if some Catholics, as many in this thread accept in good faith the validity of the letter by the H.O., it does not mean that they have to to accept the legitimacy of praying with heretics and pagans.

3- Drew is fixated in relating the H.O. letter to the meeting at Assisi, but those are totally unrelated issues. His reasoning goes that if someone is saved by implicit desire, then no one is excluded from the possibility of being in a state of grance and from there he asserts that those attending the Assisi encounter, can be joined in prayer on the basis of this possibility.
The foregoing can be regarded as getting at definite conclusion based on indeterminate facts, which betrays Thomistic logic, of which he should be a follower on account of his membership of the Dominican Third Order.

4-Drew himself stated that those at Assisi might or might not be in state of grace : "take your pick"... In other words there is a 50-50 chance of them being so.
Due that we cannot judge someone except by objective means, they are not, because they reject Christ and he who rejects Him "rejects the One Who sent Him..."
Besides, the fact of them being in a state of Grace because of "implicit desire", does not suffice, because salvation is attained both by faith (implicit desire) and deeds, as the letter of St. James says: "faith without deeds is dead".

5-Since Drew places the fact of their being in a state of grace in the realm of possibilities, he should know that the number of possibilities is infinite and therefore the probability of ony one of them happening is zero, in other words the possibility of their being in such state is nill.

6-In summary heathen and heretics attending Assisi are not in a state of grace and therefore we should not pray with them.




charles dupuy:

charles dupuy wrote:

“Drew is fixated in relating the H.O. letter to the meeting at Assisi, but those are totally unrelated issues.”



They are necessarily related. Lumen Gentium, the Vatican II dogmatic constitution on the Church which establishes the new ecclesiology, authoritatively references the 1949 Holy Office Letter. Those who hold the 1949 Holy Office Letter as an orthodox expression of Catholic faith may not have to “accept the legitimacy of praying with heretics and pagans,” but they can offer no principles objection to the event.

It really is not a question whether they are, or are not, in the state of grace. The potential for sanctifying grace in their current condition is the essential quality. Consider the problem from another perspective.

When you attend Mass on Sunday, you have no special knowledge whether the persons around you are in the state of grace or not. You are joined with them in public worship through objective standards the can be know. It is through sacramental union that you enter the Church, you stand in profession of a common and explicit faith, and you kneel in common prayers for the Pope and local ordinary. These objective acts are grounded in dogmas, propositions of absolute truth, formal objects of divine and Catholic faith, that are necessary as a necessity of means for salvation.

In the new ecclesiology these objective standards are reduced to simple precepts that no longer bind because of physical or moral hardships. They are replaced with new “dogmatic creed” that binds only belief in a ‘god who punishes and rewards’ with a moral ethic of “desire to be conformed to the will of God.” This quote of Pope John Paul II is an example of moral hardship excusing a person who may “outwardly reject (the Church)” and still “receive the grace.”

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 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



Now suddenly, people that were previously considered outside the Catholic Church are within the fold of the new Church of Christ. The Pope on the dais at the Prayer Meeting at Assisi was not just the head of the Catholic Church, he was head of the new Church of Christ, a larger more encompassing entity. As long as the new “objective standards” are met, there is no reason not to pray with them leaving the internal forum to God just as you do every Sunday at Mass.

It is the new ecclesiology established in Lumen Gentium, which authoritatively referenced the 1949 Holy Office Letter that establishes the first principles for the pastoral decrees on Religious Liberty, Ecumenism and the relations with non-Christian religions which make the Prayer Meeting at Assisi possible.

The only objection to the new ecclesiology is the old dogma.

Drew

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

GordonG



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 435

PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 4:25 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


Joseph wrote:

The Pope on the dais at the Prayer Meeting at Assisi was not just the head of the Catholic Church, he was head of the new Church of Christ, a larger more encompassing entity.



This is drivel. Whatever the wrongs of Assisi I, the Holy Father never claimed to be acting has "head of the new Church of Christ, a larger more encompassing entity". Indeed, Dominus Iesus, issued during his pontificate and with his approval, is very clear on this point:

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”. With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”, that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.

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.



To say that the Church is operative in other communities INSOFAR AS THEY POSSESS ELEMENTS OF SANCTIFICATION AND TRUTH DERIVED FROM THE CHURCH is not to say that there exists a "Church of Christ" which is larger than, or more encompassing than, the Catholic Church. Nor, for that matter, is it to affirm that salvation exists outside the Church. As St Augustine preached in his sermon to the people at Caesarea,

St Augustine wrote:

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.

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

charles dupuy



Joined: 11 Jan 2009
Posts: 128

PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:15 pm    Post subject: MY RESPONSE

Reply with quote


Drew wrote:
"It really is not a question whether they are, or are not, in the state of grace. The potential for sanctifying grace in their current condition is the essential quality. Consider the problem from another perspective."

This is nonsense: the potential for sanctifying grace is not the same as actual sanctifying grace. The potential of course exists within every human being, and if this were the necessary condition, every individual "could" be in a state of grace. As with every subjective proposition, we are faced with the disjunctive either might or might not. But this does not suffice to consider an individual, not beside me at mass, but belonging to a foreign cult, that he could be in a state of grace. The burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate that the probability that this person be in a state of grace, not the potential for such, is greater or equal to 50 pct.; that is, that the positive proposition has a greater probability. As with every sujective conjecture the probability of the positive outcome is nill. To prove that this result is more than not probable, you would have to add addicional information that illustrate their manner of thinking and their good disposition to consider sanctifying grace. As far as I know, none of the attendants at Assisi 1986, of whom a number of them may have passed away, has made any gesture of conversion to the Cacholc Church, or even spoken favorably about Her. None of them can allege invincible ignorance, because if the age of the information every one has heard or read of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Your commentaries on the deficiencies of the New Ecclessiology and Lumen Gentium, as well as the doctrine of Universal Salvation, subtly proposed by JPII, do not bind the majority of the readers of this blog, who do not partake of this theology. Consequently, none of them that I know, would accept to pray with heretics and agnostic people.
Charles Dupuy

Moderators

View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail

 

St. Elmo



Joined: 29 Jul 2008
Posts: 1804

PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 9:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Assisi III

Reply with quote


Land of the Irish wrote:


1) Cardinal Ratzinger boycotted Assisi I
2) Cardinal Ratzinger participated in Assisi II
3) Pope Benedict has now called for an Assisi III to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Assisi I that he had boycotted as then Cardinal Ratzinger.



Maybe he's celebrating the 25th anniversary of his boycott of Assisi I.
Homer
_________________
Adrian, how did everything that was so good get so bad?

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:35 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


GordonG wrote:

Joseph wrote:

The Pope on the dais at the Prayer Meeting at Assisi was not just the head of the Catholic Church, he was head of the new Church of Christ, a larger more encompassing entity.



This is drivel. Whatever the wrongs of Assisi I, the Holy Father never claimed to be acting has "head of the new Church of Christ, a larger more encompassing entity". Indeed, Dominus Iesus, issued during his pontificate and with his approval, is very clear on this point:

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”. With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”, that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.

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.



To say that the Church is operative in other communities INSOFAR AS THEY POSSESS ELEMENTS OF SANCTIFICATION AND TRUTH DERIVED FROM THE CHURCH is not to say that there exists a "Church of Christ" which is larger than, or more encompassing than, the Catholic Church. Nor, for that matter, is it to affirm that salvation exists outside the Church. As St Augustine preached in his sermon to the people at Caesarea,

St Augustine wrote:

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.




GordonG:

In Dominus Iesus it is not certainly clear what Cardinal Ratzinger means by subsit in.”

Pope Benedict XVI has made the major theme of his pontificate the 'hermeneutics of continuity/discontinuity'. His efforts in that direction began before his elevation to the papacy and that is evident in Dominus Iesus.

There is a broader question before commenting on the word “subsist.” What do you think of Vatican II? Is it a break with Catholic tradition or was it hijacked by a modernist hermeneutic that simply needs to be corrected? Or could it be that the hermeneutics continuity/discontinuity is nothing more that a modernist effort to consolidate their apparent victory by claiming an historical unity with received tradition?

Archbishop Lefebvre, who dealt with Cardinal Ratzinger, initially agreed to accept the council with the understanding that it be entirely interpreted in light of Catholic tradition. He 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 then later 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).

Archbishop Lefebvre, in asking for a “wholesale revision of the text,” and “noteworthy revisions of documents,” rejected the concept that the problem was a simply matter of hermeneutics but primarily a problem with the text itself. I agree with the judgment of Archbishop Lefebvre.

It is matter of concern when comparing previous statements of Cardinal Ratzinger, you find comments that seem to contradict one another. Take for example the Novus Ordo. Cardinal Ratzinger said in the preface of the French edition to Msgr. Klaus Gamber’s book:

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

What happened after the Council was altogether different: instead of a liturgy, the fruit of continuous development, a fabricated liturgy was put in its place. A living growing process was abandoned and the fabrication started. There was no further wish to continue the organic evolution and maturation of the living being throughout the centuries and they were replaced -- as if in a technical production -- by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, from his introduction in the French edition of Monsignor Klaus Gamber’s book, The Reform of the Roman Rite



This introduction was removed from other publications of the book.

Compare this to what Pope Benedict said about the Novus Ordo in the Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum, where the hermeneutics of continuity is employed to describe the Novus Ordo as the “ordinary form” of the one Roman rite, organically developed from the usus antiquior,” the "extra-ordinary form", expressing a "single lex orandi/lex credendi." In the comments provided you would never know that he was talking about the same thing.

The problem with “subsist” is serious. Cardinal Ratzinger had a direct part in placing the words “subsist in” in Lumen Gentium. As the peritus for Cardinal Frings of Cologne, he was approached by Cardinal Bea and the Protestant minister, Pastor Schmidt, whom Cardinal Bea had invited to the Council. Pastor Schmidt objected to the word “is” and proposed the words “subsist in” be used. Together they were able to bring Fr. Ratzinger to their side who in turn got Cardinal Frings to propose the change at the Council. The author of "subsist in" was a Protestant minister.

Cardinal Ratzinger said in the same year Dominus Iesus was published:

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

"Vatican II did not use Pius XII’s expression according to which ‘the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church of Christ.’ Instead it preferred the expression ‘The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church…’ because, he said, ‘it wished to affirm the being of the Church as such is a larger identity than the Roman Catholic Church.’" Cardinal Ratzinger’s remarks made in an interview he gave in 2000 to the German newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine



This statement is consistent with comments by other liberal theologians. Why it was important to drop the word “Roman” is explained by Cardinal Yves Congar.

Yves Cardinal Congar wrote:

The problem remains if Lumen Gentium strictly and exclusively identifies the Mystical Body of Christ with the Catholic Church, as did Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. Can we not call it into doubt when we observe that not only is the attribute "Roman" missing, but also that one avoids saying that only Catholics are members of the Mystical Body. Thus they are telling us that the Church of Christ and of the Apostles subsistit in, is found in the Catholic Church. There is consequently no strict identification, that is exclusive, between the Church of Christ and the "Roman" Church. Vatican II admits, fundamentally, that non-Catholic Christians are members of the Mystical Body and not merely ordered to it. Yves Cardinal Congar

 

Avery Cardinal Dulles wrote:

Church of Christ is not exclusively identical to the Roman Catholic Church. It does indeed subsist in Roman Catholicism but it is also present in varying modes and degrees in other Christian communities. (Bold face in original). Avery Cardinal Dulles, a member of the International Theological Commission

 

Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx wrote:

It is difficult to say that the Catholic Church is still one, Catholic, apostolic, when one says that the others (other Christian communities) are equally one, Catholic and apostolic, albeit to a lesser degree. ---- at Vatican Council II, the Roman Catholic Church officially abandoned its monopoly over the Christian religion. Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx

 

Fr. Gregory Baum wrote:

Concretely and actually the Church of Christ may be realized less, equally, or even more in a Church separated from Rome than in a Church in communion with Rome. This conclusion is inescapable on the basis of the understanding of Church that emerges from the teaching of Vatican Council II. Fr. Gregory Baum



Also, for what it is worth, the word “Roman” is not used in Dominus Iesus.

Further confirmation that subsitsimplies the Church of Christ is a broader entity than the Roman Catholic Church is evident in the new policy of seeking “convergence” with non-Catholics rather than their “conversion” to the Catholic Church. Below is an excerpt for John Vennari’s article, The Secret of Pope John Paul II’s Success. Cardinal Ratzinger’s comment is pertinent.

John Vennari, The Secret of Pope John Paul II’s Success wrote:

The landmark event that removed this dogma (Outside the Church there is no salvation) from circulation was the Second Vatican Council. It was at Vatican II that this dogma was buried alive, and Catholic churchmen have been dancing on its grave ever since. True, nowhere in the documents does one find the sentence, “The dogma ‘outside the Church there is no salvation’ no longer holds”, but the entire ecumenical thrust of Vatican II implied it countless ways; particularly through the calculated use of ambiguous language in the Council documents. After the Council, Catholic churchmen in the highest places, by their words and actions, continued to transmit the false idea that this central dogma is now a thing of the past.

The documents of Vatican II were, by the admission of their drafters, drawn up to favor the new ecumenical spirit. Father Joseph Ratzinger, a liberal Council peritus, explained one of the many ways in which Vatican II undermined this core truth.

In his 1966 book Theological Highlights of Vatican II, Father Ratzinger, said that the Council document Lumen Gentium was purposely constructed along ecumenical lines to lay the foundation for Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism. Father Ratzinger says that according to Lumen Gentium:

Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

The Catholic Church has no right to absorb the other Churches... [A] basic unity — of Churches that remain Churches, yet become one Church — must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it.



Father Ratzinger wrote this book during the Council. As a co-worker with Father Karl Rahner, he was heavily involved in drafting the documents. He is in a position to tell us what were the true intentions of the architects at Vatican II. And he declares that the true teaching of Vatican II, according to its authors, was that conversion is an option. The non-Catholic need not convert to the true Church for unity and for salvation. The principle of conversion of non-Catholics is replaced with the new principle of convergence with non-Catholics.

Everything since the Council follows this new model; the principle of conversion of non-Catholics is replaced by the new notion of convergence with non-Catholics.

Father Edward Schillebeeckx, another liberal Council peritus, likewise celebrated Vatican II’s modernist orientation. He said,
“At Vatican II, the Catholic Church officially abandoned its monopolies over the Christian religion.”

Dr. Robert McAfee Brown, a Protestant observer at Vatican II, was quick to praise this new approach. Dr. Brown is well aware of the traditional Catholic teaching against Protestantism, and rejoices in the drastic change of attitude that Vatican II wrought. In his 1967 book, The Ecumenical Revolution, he applauds the Council’s Decree on Ecumenism:

Dr. Robert McAfee Brown wrote:

The document makes clear how new is the attitude that has emerged. No more is there talk of ‘schismatics and heretics’ but rather of ‘separated brethren’. No more is there an imperial demand that the dissidents return in penitence to the Church who has no need of penitence; instead there is recognition that both sides are guilty of the sins of division and must reach out penitentially to one another. No more are Protestants dismissed merely as ‘sects’ or psychological entities alone; instead it is acknowledged that there is a measure of ‘ecclesial reality’ to be found within their corporate life.



This is a revolutionary approach to false religions that every Pope before Vatican II would rightly condemn. The Catholic Church had always dealt with Protestants as individual heretics. It never recognized them as a valid religious group, because their so-called “church” or “ecclesial community” is actually a fiction. A group of Protestants is simply a gathering of individuals who have become interiorly convinced of their salvation in Christ. They do not really constitute a “church”.
John Vennari, Editor Catholic Family News, The Secret of Pope John Paul II’s Success




Convergence is only possible if the Church of Christ is a broader entity than the Roman Catholic Church.

There exists a theoretical justification for the Prayer Meeting at Assisi that is derived from the theology of Vatican II. I do not mean to say that the Pope “claimed to be acting as the ‘head of the new Church of Christ’, a larger more encompassing entity" but that is the practical reality of what happened. 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.” And quotations have been provided that consider these “ecclesial elements” can be means of salvation. The quote previously provided by Pope John Paul II referencing his own encyclical refers to grace and salvation for those who objectively reject the Catholic Church.

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



This is only possible if other things "subsist" in the "Church of Christ" besides the Roman "Catholic Church."

Drew

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

Vadis



Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 874
Location: USA

PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:12 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote


Brother Joseph,

When you move to the debacle of the post-Vatican II error, you will find few who disagree. However, you have not proven that the Letter from the Holy Office circa 1949 is the start of this slide.


The Letter is traditional Catholic theology.

Regards,

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

GordonG



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 435

PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:59 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote


Drew wrote:

There is a broader question before commenting on the word “subsist.” What do you think of Vatican II? Is it a break with Catholic tradition or was it hijacked by a modernist hermeneutic that simply needs to be corrected? Or could it be that the hermeneutics continuity/discontinuity is nothing more that a modernist effort to consolidate their apparent victory by claiming an historical unity with received tradition?



I think Vatican II was an ecumenical council of the Church that defined no new dogma, and cannot be read as isolated from preceding Church teaching. Where its texts are ambiguous, Catholics have an obligation to look for those readings which are compatible with settled teaching. Pope Benedict's papacy has been marked by a desire to clarify some of these ambiguities, and one of those clarifications addressed the very point you seem not to understand. I refer to the CDF's 2007 document on the subject of the Church's teaching about herself:

Quote:

FIRST QUESTION

Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?

RESPONSE

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

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

SECOND QUESTION

What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?

RESPONSE

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

In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

GordonG



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 435

PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:03 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote


Just so we're clear:

Drew wrote:

This is only possible if other things "subsist" in the "Church of Christ" besides the Roman "Catholic Church."

 

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote:

The word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.



Perhaps you could clarify whether you're actually in communion with Rome. A Catholic who feels competent to judge, and reject, the unambiguous teaching of the Holy Office of the 1940s and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of the 2000s strikes me as a peculiar phenomenon.

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

charles dupuy



Joined: 11 Jan 2009
Posts: 128

PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 3:52 pm    Post subject: MY TURN TO OPINE

Reply with quote


Again, let's give Drew the benefit of the doubt.
It is clear from the conciliar periti and modernist bishops and Cardinals, that the object of Lumen Gentium was to do away with the dogma of EENS.
Now, the Hermeneutics of Continuity by Pope BXVI is a futile effort to lay a bridge between Pre-VII and Post VII Church, not so much in praxis but in her purpose and objectives.. There is clearly a break between the pre-and post VII Church and this is clearly ascertained by the introduction of a new Catechism, a New Code of Canon Law, a New Ecclesiology and a New Theology. In other words an attempt to break with the past. The very same JPII, the Pope that was intent on overhauling the Church and who hated tradition and Pre-Conciliar teaching, expressed in one of his writings, that "the Pre-Vatican II Church was left forever behind..."
So while the Pope is still the Head of the Church, and the Popes post VII are also legitimate Popes, one cannot sit comfortably contemplating the auto-demolition of the Church brought upon by VII teaching.
I still cannot give a definite opinion on the 1949 document by the H.O., because contrary to what Gordon G affirms it is not quite unambiguous, but that does not causes me a trepidation of conscience, because the H.O. erred before historically.

Moderators

View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail

 

Drew



Joined: 05 May 2008
Posts: 72

PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 5:39 pm    Post subject:

Reply with quote


GordonG wrote:

Drew wrote:

There is a broader question before commenting on the word “subsist.” What do you think of Vatican II? Is it a break with Catholic tradition or was it hijacked by a modernist hermeneutic that simply needs to be corrected? Or could it be that the hermeneutics continuity/discontinuity is nothing more that a modernist effort to consolidate their apparent victory by claiming an historical unity with received tradition?



I think Vatican II was an ecumenical council of the Church that defined no new dogma, and cannot be read as isolated from preceding Church teaching. Where its texts are ambiguous, Catholics have an obligation to look for those readings which are compatible with settled teaching. Pope Benedict's papacy has been marked by a desire to clarify some of these ambiguities, and one of those clarifications addressed the very point you seem not to understand. I refer to the CDF's 2007 document on the subject of the Church's teaching about herself:

Quote:

FIRST QUESTION

Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?

RESPONSE

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

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

SECOND QUESTION

What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?

RESPONSE

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

In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the “one” Church); and this “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.






GordonG:

We are living in the greatest apostasy in the history of the Church. In has been remarkable, completely unparalleled, in its precipitousness and extension within the Roman rite. It has affected every single aspect of our faith in its profession and practice. My personal opinion is that it is extremely naïve to attribute this to a simple lack of precision in the documents of Vatican II. If you doubt my assessment of our current crisis, spend an evening reading Index of Leading Catholic Indicators by Kenneth C. Jones. It does not take a special competency in statistics to see that if the current trends continue, the Church will cease to exist in another generation.

Archbishop Lefebvre, in asking for a “wholesale revision of the text,” and “noteworthy revisions of documents,” rejected the concept that the problem was a simple matter of hermeneutics. He saw that it is primarily a problem with the text itself and the problem is primarily a matter of faith. I agree with the judgment of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Regarding the meaning of “subsist” in the following facts need to be addressed:

1) The author of this term is Pastor Wilhelm Schmidt, a Protestant minister who made the suggestion to Cardinal Augustin Bea, the ecumenist, modernist biblical scholar, patron of Fr. Annibale Bugnini, and confessor to Pope Pius XII, who in turn recruited the support of Fr. Ratzinger who then convinced Cardinal Frings to bring it to the Council.
This story has been personally verified by Fr. Franz Schmidberger by contacting Pastor Schmidt. Do you think Pastor Schmidt considers “subsist” as a term of identity?

2) The meaning and intent of subsits has been provided by the principles who brought it to the Council, including Fr. Ratzinger. They are all in agreement as to its intended meaning that the “Church of Christ” is a larger entity than the “Catholic Church.” Are they all wrong? Was Fr. Ratzinger lying then or is Pope Benedict XVI lying now? They both cannot be telling the truth.

3) If you insist that subsit is a term of identity, then you can equally as well say, “the Catholic Church subsists in the Church of Christ.” Do you agree that it is a matter of indifference to invert the terms?

4) The problem of not seeking “conversion” but rather “convergence” must be explained.

In a noteworthy quote, Pope Benedict XVI used the word, “subsist” in the same paragraph in which he denies the necessity of conversion. He said:

Pope Benedict XVI wrote:

“And we now ask: What does it mean to restore the unity of all Christians?... This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (Unitatis Redintegratio) the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world. On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!”
Pope Benedict XVI, addressing Protestants at World Youth Day, August 19, 2005



Explain, in detail, how the Protestants can be faithful to “one’s own faith history,” not needing an “ecumenism of the return,,? If they do not have to “return” to the Church, then they must already be there. Where? In the “Church of Christ” that the Catholic Church "subsists" in. The “unity” is proposed as a goal to be obtained by both Protestants and Catholics. It is what John Vennari calls the repudiation of “conversion” in favor of “convergence,” and Mr. Vennari argues that this is a denial of the dogma of “no salvation outside the Catholic Church.”

At the World Youth Day in Sydney in the crypt of St. Mary’s Cathedral, Pope Benedict declared to an ecumenical assembly that, “The road of ecumenism ultimately points towards a common celebration of the Eucharist… we can be sure that a common Eucharist one day would only strengthen our resolve to love and serve one another in imitation of our Lord.” The ecumenical movement has, the Pope observed, "reached a critical juncture. To move forward, we must continually ask God to renew our minds with the Holy Spirit, Who speaks to us through the scriptures and guides us into all truth. We must guard against any temptation to view doctrine as divisive and hence an impediment to the seemingly more pressing and immediate task of improving the world in which we live…. As ‘fellow citizens’ of the ‘household of God,’ Christians must work together to ensure that the edifice stands strong so that others will be attracted to enter and discover the treasures of grace within.”

So all schismatics and heretics are “fellow citizens of the household of God” that must have a “common celebration of the Eucharist,” indifferent to doctrine and dedicated to “improving the world in which we live.” How are these Protestants and Orthodox schismatics, who are not in the Catholic Church, be “fellow citizens of the household of God” unless the “household of God” is greater entity than the Catholic Church?

A brief sampler of other obvious problems with Vatican II hermeneutics of continuity:

ON CATHOLIC UNITY

Quote:

Vatican II pastoral opinion:
And we now ask: What does it mean to restore the unity of all Christians?... This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (Unitatis Redintegratio) the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world. On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!
Pope Benedict XVI, addressing Protestants at World Youth Day, August 19, 2005

Catholic Doctrine:
… the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it…
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos



ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

Quote:

Vatican II pastoral opinion:
The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person... This right to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right.
Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae

Catholic Doctrine:
And from this wholly false idea of social organization they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by our predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity, namely that the liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man, and should be proclaimed by law in every correctly established society... Each and every doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe and condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected by all the sons of the Church.
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura



ON SALVATION

Quote:

Vatican II pastoral opinion:
The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, 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 Catholic Church.
Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio

Catholic Doctrine:
The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her...
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence



ON ACCOMMODATION OF CATHOLIC TRUTH TO THE WORLD

Quote:

Vatican II pastoral opinion:
May the faithful, therefore, live in very close union with the men of their time. Let them strive to understand perfectly their way of thinking and feeling as expressed in their culture. Let them blend modern science and its theories and the understanding of the most recent discoveries with Christian morality and doctrine.... Thus their religious practice and morality can keep pace with their scientific knowledge and with an ever - advancing technology...
Decree on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes

Catholic Doctrine:
The Roman pontiff can and must reconcile himself with human progress, with liberalism and with modern and human culture. – condemned
Blessed Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors



ON RELATIONS WITH FALSE RELIGIONS

Quote:

Vatican II pastoral opinion:
Upon the Moslems, too, the Church looks with esteem...They adore the one God...though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God they revere Him as a prophet.... In addition they await the day of judgment when God will give each man his due.... and give worship to God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
Decree on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate

Catholic Doctrine:
...that false opinion which considers all religions more or less good and praiseworthy... Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism...from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold on these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos



The question is not one of simple hermeneutics, it is one of apostasy from the faith.

Pope Pius XII wrote:

“That the mystical body of Christ and the Catholic Church in communion with Rome are one and the same thing, is a doctrine based on revealed truth” Pius XII, Humani Generis.



It is a dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith. No one, no one whatsoever, of whatever office or personal ecclesiastical dignity, has the authority to change the word “is” in this dogma to the equivocal term, subsit,” under the pretext that it “developed, deepened and more fully explained it.” That is a formally condemned error of modernism.

Consider this reply from CDF that, “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church.” Most Protestants make a regular profession of faith in the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic.” It is obvious that the Methodists and Lutherans do not give the same meaning to the word “catholic” as we do. Is the CDF giving a Catholic or Protestant understanding to the word, “catholic?

As for your question, “Perhaps you could clarify whether you're actually in communion with Rome. A Catholic who feels competent to judge, and reject, the unambiguous teaching of the Holy Office of the 1940s and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of the 2000s strikes me as a peculiar phenomenon.,” well, these are “peculiar” times, however, I pray for Pope Benedict XVI and my local ordinary daily. I have found that BLEEP!-vacantists and conservative Catholics share the same distorted conception of the papacy. But that is another question. When it is a question of defending the faith every Catholic has a strict moral obligation to do so even at the price of his life. Remember, the two greatest trials that God has placed before His faithful, the angelic test in heaven between Lucifer and St. Michael, and the acceptance or rejection of the person of Jesus Christ by the Jews, required the faithful to oppose God’s constituted authority. In the trials during the last times they “shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect” Matt 24:24.

We must defend dogma and only by the repeated appeal to dogma, the formal object of divine and Catholic Faith, can the current apostasy be addressed.

I thank God that you are not representing the SSPX in the discussions currently taking place in Rome, and I pray to God that those who are doing so are not taken in by these prevarication.

Drew

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

Michael Wilson



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

PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:14 am    Post subject:

Reply with quote


Bro. Joseph stated:

Quote:

1) The author of this term is Pastor Wilhelm Schmidt, a Protestant minister who made the suggestion to Cardinal Augustin Bea, the ecumenist, modernist biblical scholar, patron of Fr. Annibale Bugnini, and confessor to Pope Pius XII, who in turn recruited the support of Fr. Ratzinger who then convinced Cardinal Frings to bring it to the Council.
This story has been personally verified by Fr. Franz Schmidberger by contacting Pastor Schmidt. Do you think Pastor Schmidt considers “subsist” as a term of identity?


Bro. Joseph, where did you get this information on the origin of the "subsist" term?
BTW, I agree with you (and Cardinal Ratzinger) that there is a contradiction between the term "Is" and "Subsists In".
_________________
MichaelW.

Moderators

View user's profileSend private message

 

Display posts from previous:   

 

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

BACK

HOME

  

Page 4 of 5