"An Open Letter to Confused Catholics"

[Tradycja]

then it means that while they’re not part of the Body of the Church, they’re nevertheless part of the SOUL of the Church. And lest you think it’s something that “modernist” bishops, priests, and laity dreamed up after Vatican II, many pre-Vatican II catechisms say that same thing. I believe the Baltimore Catechism is one of them.

The modernists were already dreaming it up BEFORE Vatican II. Catechisms are not infallible documents.

The idea of the “soul of the Church” is erroneous. The Soul of the Church heresy is that which teaches that one can be saved in another religion or without the Catholic Faith by being united to the Soul of the Church, but not the Body. Belonging to the Body of the Church only comes with the Sacrament of Baptism.

First, this heresy stems from a misunderstanding of the true meaning of the term “Soul of the Church.”  The Soul of the Church is the Holy Ghost.  It is not an invisible extension of the mystical body which includes the unbaptized.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943: “… Leo XIII, of immortal memory in the Encyclical, “Divinum illud,” [expressed it] in these words: ‘Let it suffice to state this, that, as Christ is the Head of the Church**, the Holy Spirit is her soul**.’”

 Second, the Church is essentially (i.e., in its essence) a Mystical Body.

Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11, Dec. 19, 1516: “… the mystical body, the Church (corpore mystico)…”

Pope St. Pius X, Editae saepe (# 8), May 26, 1910: “… the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ…”

Pope Leo XII, Quod Hoc Ineunte (# 1), May 24, 1824: “… His mystical Body.”

 Therefore, to teach that one can be saved without belonging to the Body is to teach that one can be saved without belonging to the Church, since the Church is a Body.  And this is without question WRONG.

 A man can be either inside the Church or outside the Church.  He can be either inside or outside the Body.  There isn’t a third realm in which the Church exists – an invisible Soul of the Church.  Those who say that one can be saved by belonging to the Soul of the Church, while not belonging to her Body, deny the undivided unity of the Church’s Body and Soul, which is parallel to denying the undivided unity of Christ’s Divine and Human natures.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 3), June 29, 1896: “For this reason the Church is so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ… From this it follows that those who arbitrarily conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error… It is assuredly impossible that the Church of Jesus Christ can be the one or the other, as that man should be a body alone or a soul alone. The connection and union of both elements is as absolutely necessary to the true Church as the intimate union of the soul and body is to human nature. The Church is not something dead: it is the body of Christ endowed with supernatural life.”

  The denial of the union of the Church’s Body and Soul leads to the heresy that the Church is invisible, which was condemned by Popes Leo XIII (above), Pius XI and Pius XII.

 Third, the most powerful proof against the “Soul of the Church” heresy logically follows from the first two already discussed.  The third proof is that the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church has defined that belonging to the Body of the Church is necessary for salvation!  

 Pope Eugene IV, in his famous Bull Cantate Domino, defined that the unity of the ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that no one can be saved outside of it, even if he sheds his blood in the name of Christ.  This refutes the idea that one can be saved by belonging to the Soul of the Church without belonging to its Body.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics can become participants in eternal life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the flock; and that the unity of this ecclesiastical body (ecclesiastici corporis) is so strong that only for those who abide in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasts, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of a Christian soldier produce eternal rewards. No one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has persevered within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad:** whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.”**

 

[Tradycja]

NO ONE has said that ANYONE can be saved because of their false religions.

Mons. Lefebvre comes very close to saying exactly that:

Bishop Lefebvre, Address given at Rennes, France: “If men are saved in Protestantism, Buddhism or Islam, they are saved by the Catholic Church, by the grace of Our Lord, by the prayers of those in the Church, by the blood of Our Lord as individuals,** perhaps through the practice of their religion**, perhaps of what they understand in their religion, but not by their religion…”

I don’t know how you can’t see that none of this makes any sense, and all of these people who deny EENS will give you a different answer when asked the question “Is there salvation outside the Church?”

The SSPX continually says they are fighting against the confusion of modernism in the Church, when Mons. Lefebvre is ***very ***confused on such a fundamental dogma.

I mean in the statement above he says that “perhaps through the practice of their religion” and then in the same sentence he says “but not by their religion”. How can you be saved “through” something but not “by” it? This is confused modernist speak.

 

[tweet]

I’ve read it.

I don’t remember it distinctly. It is very short as I recall. Michael Davies’ 3 part series, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, and Bp. Tissier de Mallerais’ biography left a stronger impression on me. Like most folks here, I was and am afraid of disobedience to Rome. But it is very clear to anyone who studies all of the literature, Abp. Lefebvre was also very afraid of disobedience to Rome. The decision for the consecrations was agonizing for him. I don’t expect it to be easy for Traditionalists to see their way to his understanding of what he often called the crisis in the Church.

I was drawn by the Church Fathers, St. Francis de Sales, and many other compelling influences that predate my lifetime to enter the Catholic Church. If the great movement toward unification and springtimes of evangelization that were the promised fruits of the Second Vatican Council had materialized, I probably would have been on board with it. Instead, I found seminaries empty, feminism run amuck, and active homosexual priests who only had to make sure they didn’t abuse their own parishioner’s children in order to continue in sin. And then, I learned about those meetings at Assisi, to which our current Holy Father, may God preserve and strengthen him, objected also. John Paul II’s first prayer meeting for peace was perceived as diabolical. That the prayers didn’t seem to move heaven either is not without significance to me. In any case, it seems to have been the “elephant” that broke the camel’s back for Abp. Lefebvre, and I think for me too in the long run.

At best, I think that the consecration of the bishops was providentially necessary. That is what I tend to believe. At worst, it was an act of a man who subjectively perceived that he could be obedient to Eternal Rome or the Rome of Pope John Paul II, but not both, so he chose the former. Perhaps, as the title of his book might suggest to those who think ill of him, Abp. Lefebvre himself was confused. He certainly suffered. If he was confused and should have waited, I hope God will have mercy on him, and on me too. I know I just want to be Catholic like those whose writings drew me to Rome. There is nothing in the writings that drew me to the Catholic Church, or in the orthodox formation that Abp. Lefebvre received in seminary, to prepare us for the antics, inertia, and indifference to sound doctrine that characterized the episcopate and pontificate during the times of Pope John Paul II, and which are still lingering scandals to the church and to the world. I don’t picture Sts. Dominic, Alphonsus, or the Cure of Ars as acting differently than Abp. Lefebvre to the tumultuous times that disturbed and overshadowed the twilight years of a faithful priest, active missionary, and troubled prince of the Catholic Church.

Very well said. Abp. Lefebvre was a good and humble man who even suffered under his own. To those who judge him rashly do not know what they are talking about.

Tweet

 

[tweet]

I think the SSPX is just hypocritical on this point. Their whole existence is negated by their belief that people can be saved in false religions.

I think the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond said it best when refuting Father (now Bishop) Williamson, SSPX in his opposition to the dogma “No Salvation Outside the Church”:

"What difference, may I ask, does it make what Mass one goes to, if his sincerity is what determines his state of soul? Some people are very sincere about Jehovah’s Witness services! Are they, according to your theology, to be blamed? If not, why do you insist Catholics stop going to the Novus Ordo? What right do you have to disturb their conscience, if salvation depends upon sincerity? You yourself admit that the dogma “No Salvation Outside the Church” really means that there is no salvation without the Church — as if the defining Church of the past had no idea what it really meant by choosing the Latin word “extra ” rather than “sine .” You prefer to accent the general truth, which is more of a truism, and suppress the more specific truth, which is a challenge. Yet you find this same tactic abhorrent in the liturgical demolitionists who replaced the pro multis with “for all men.”
catholicism.org/father-feeney-and-catholic-doctrine.html

(By the way posting this is not an endorsement of Saint Benedict Center Richmond, I myself am a sympathizer of the approved Saint Benedict Center in Still River) I just post this because it can’t be said better.

It’s true, why bother with the SSPX, if the SSPX itself says that even Hindus, Muslims, and ANIMISTS can be saved?! So…ok, let’s get this straight…pagans can be saved, but the SSPX spend so much energy denouncing the “Novus Ordo”? Does anyone see the inconsistency here?

:banghead:

You have much to learn young one.

 

[Onegin]

In response to the original poster, yes, I have read the book and thought it was very well-written (especially since it was translated from the French).

I’d encourage anyone who is at least curious about the traditional view on modernism to pick up a copy and read it - and if you’re not too squeamish, the SSPX will send you a copy for free.

After you’re done reading “Open Letter to Confused Catholics” follow that up with “This is the Faith” and you’re off to a good start.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Um, think again!
*
Pages 73-74:** “Does this mean that no Protestant, no Muslim, no Buddhist or animist will be saved?* No, it would be a second error to think that.*** Those who cry for intolerance in interpreting St. Cyprian’s formula Outside the Church there is no salvation, also reject the Creed, “I accept one baptism for the remission of sins,” and are insufficiently instructed as to what baptism is.* There are three ways of receiving it: the baptism of water; the baptism of blood (that of martyrs who confessed their faith while still catechumens); and baptism of desire.* Baptism can be explicit.* Many times in Africa I heard one of our catechumens say to me, “Father, baptize me straightaway because if I die before you come again, I shall go to hell.”* I told him, “No, if you have no mortal sin on your conscience and if you desire baptism, then you already have the grace in you…”

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Angelus Press, pp. 73-74.

How is this position any different than what the Catholics who the SSPX would label “Conciliarists” or “Novus Ordo Catholics” hold?

Tradycja, do I take it that you reject the doctrine of Baptism of Desire? Yet it was infallibly proclaimed by the Council of Trent, Session 5:

See, for example,

A Systematic Study of the Catholic Religion
BY Charles Coppens, S. J.

maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/sscr.htm

1. The effects of Baptism are the following:
2. Pardon of all sin, original and actual; for the Apostles baptised men for the remission of their sins (Acts II, 38).
3. Release from all temporal punishment due to sin. This and the first named effects are defined by the Council of Trent (Sess. 5, can. 5).
4. The Character impressed.
5. Adoption as sons of God, members of Christ (Gal. III, 27), and members of the Church (Acts II, 4m).
6. The Council of Trent declares that, since the promulgation of the Gospel, justification cannot be obtained without Baptism of water, or the desire of it: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Jo. III, 5). St. Irenaeus writes that the denial of Baptism is the suggestion of Satan (Adv. Haer. L. I, c. 21). But when the Sacrament cannot be received, pardon of sin can be obtained by the Baptism of Desire or that of Blood.

Thus, far from being a heretic, Mgr Lefebvre was following Catholic Doctrine on this point. Indeed, it will be found that at no time did he proclaim anything but “The Faith Once Given”.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Here is a link I found indicating Lefebvre was excommunicated in 2000.

cuf.org/FileDownloads/socpiusx.pdf

You might like to look at the current discussion on the CAF thread “Condoning Archbishop Lefebvre’s Consecrations – Isn’t That Sinful?”

on
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=364868

N.B Post #43:
There is a widespread misconception that Mgr Lefebvre et al were excommunicated by Pope John Paul II. In fact, the only document declaring the excommunication was a letter in the Italian newspaper “l’Osservatore Romano” signed by Cdl Gantin, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops. This letter is invalid as a decree of excommunication because
*(1) it cites certain paragraphs of the Code of Canon Law while simply ignoring canons 1323, 1324 +1321 (which indemnify against penalties). This is like getting a ticket for a parking offence that names the area where you were parked, but omits to mention that you were parked there on a Sunday, when the ‘No Parking” rule is suspended;
*(2) More seriously, the article does not carry a protocol number, which is necessary for any official, legally-binding document. This is like being given, not an official parking ticket with date and serial number, but a short informal letter in your local paper announcing that you have a parking fine!
*(3) The Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops was not the “competent authority” to carry out such a decree.
It was often stated by the less observant that Pope John Paul II had excommunicated Mgr Lefebvre et al in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta. The supporters of Lefebvre pointed out that JPII had only referred to the excommunication as an already-accomplished fact; he did not, in fact, then or afterwards, proclaim it on his own authority. This has now been confirmed by no less a personage than his Holiness Benedict XVI. In the letter from the present Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, we read the following
Quote:
… the removal of the latae sententiae excommunication formally declared with the Decree of the Prefect of this Congregation [num: i.e. Cdl Gantin, NOT the Pope] on July 1, 1988.
I note with approval the contrast between the “letter to the papers” of Cdl Gantin in 1988 with the following by Card. Giovanni Battista Re in 2009:
Quote:
Based in the faculty expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, in virtue of the present Decree, I remit to Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta the censure of latae sententiae excommunication declared by this Congregation on July 1, 1988, while I declare deprived of any juridical effect, from the present date, the Decree emanated at that date.
Rome, from the Congregation for Bishops, January 21, 2009.
Card. Giovanni Battista Re
Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops
There is nothing like this in Cdl Gantin’s letter of 1988, which simply hangs in a vacuum. Notice that Cdl Battista Re enunciates clearly
*who is issuing the decree, and in what capacity
*at what level of authority the new decree is being promulgated
*what precise document is responsible
*At what date the new legislation comes into effect.

It cannot be maintained that Pope John Paul II either issued, or confirmed, Cdl Gantin’s irregular promulgation. If the Church were functioning better there would be no doubt about what is and what is not mandated. But Canons 1321 - 4 give the opinions of Mgr Lefebvre et al. legal force. His correct invoking of the protection of the law was never contradicted by any pope. All that happened was that Cdl Gantin’s decree (which, being without a protocol number, was invalid) was never publicly repudiated. The only official action taken so far has been that of Pope Benedict, when he remitted (through express permission of Cdl Battista) what he identified as the decree of the Congregation for Bishops. I often heard it urged against the SSPX that they had been excommunicated by the pope. We always replied that it was by Cdl Gantin, not the pope. It is good to see Pope Benedict clear this up.

Students of Recent Church History (and we greybeards with long memories) know that in the 70s there was a strong movement in the Church against what was described as ‘the excessive legalism of the past’. In reply it was always countered that this ‘legalism’ is nothing more than a straighforward statement of the facts of the case, without which it is impossible to do business. It is with tremendous relief that I see a return in recent years to the former practice.

 

[AnneElliot]

Trent did not infallibly define Baptism of Desire. The Council didn’t even mention it!

 

[iluvburpees]

Tradycja, do I take it that you reject the doctrine of Baptism of Desire? Yet it was infallibly proclaimed by the Council of Trent, Session 5:

I’m interested in this, I never knew that. Could you link me to the exact section in the Council where it says this? Thanks.

Thus, far from being a heretic, Mgr Lefebvre was following Catholic Doctrine on this point. Indeed, it will be found that at no time did he proclaim anything but “The Faith Once Given”.

Ditto.

 

[MarthaTherese]

I’ve read it.

I don’t remember it distinctly. It is very short as I recall. Michael Davies’ 3 part series, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, and Bp. Tissier de Mallerais’ biography left a stronger impression on me. Like most folks here, I was and am afraid of disobedience to Rome. But it is very clear to anyone who studies all of the literature, Abp. Lefebvre was also very afraid of disobedience to Rome. The decision for the consecrations was agonizing for him. I don’t expect it to be easy for Traditionalists to see their way to his understanding of what he often called the crisis in the Church.

I was drawn by the Church Fathers, St. Francis de Sales, and many other compelling influences that predate my lifetime to enter the Catholic Church. If the great movement toward unification and springtimes of evangelization that were the promised fruits of the Second Vatican Council had materialized, I probably would have been on board with it. Instead, I found seminaries empty, feminism run amuck, and active homosexual priests who only had to make sure they didn’t abuse their own parishioner’s children in order to continue in sin. And then, I learned about those meetings at Assisi, to which our current Holy Father, may God preserve and strengthen him, objected also. John Paul II’s first prayer meeting for peace was perceived as diabolical. That the prayers didn’t seem to move heaven either is not without significance to me. In any case, it seems to have been the “elephant” that broke the camel’s back for Abp. Lefebvre, and I think for me too in the long run.

At best, I think that the consecration of the bishops was providentially necessary. That is what I tend to believe. At worst, it was an act of a man who subjectively perceived that he could be obedient to Eternal Rome or the Rome of Pope John Paul II, but not both, so he chose the former. Perhaps, as the title of his book might suggest to those who think ill of him, Abp. Lefebvre himself was confused. He certainly suffered. If he was confused and should have waited, I hope God will have mercy on him, and on me too. I know I just want to be Catholic like those whose writings drew me to Rome. There is nothing in the writings that drew me to the Catholic Church, or in the orthodox formation that Abp. Lefebvre received in seminary, to prepare us for the antics, inertia, and indifference to sound doctrine that characterized the episcopate and pontificate during the times of Pope John Paul II, and which are still lingering scandals to the church and to the world. I don’t picture Sts. Dominic, Alphonsus, or the Cure of Ars as acting differently than Abp. Lefebvre to the tumultuous times that disturbed and overshadowed the twilight years of a faithful priest, active missionary, and troubled prince of the Catholic Church.

Thank you so much for this beautiful and well-stated apologetic for Traditionalism. I, to am a Roman Catholic convert, and was drawn to the Church by the writings of Traditonal saints and Doctors of the Church. There are some of us who are alienated by our local Catholic churches where we see ALL Traditions of the Church ditched and denied. I get sick to my stomach (literally) when I go to church and see all the shorts and t-shirts, no kneelers, no Communion rail, and a liturgy that only seems a dim remberance of what was once Holy.
One of my worst experiences was 3 years ago when I dropped in to a Catholic church in my area in the middle of the week, middle of the day. I just wanted a little time for prayer and consolation in my Lord, and when I dipped my fingers in the recepticle for Holy Water near the door, all I came up with was a muddy smudge. I went to the large steel recepticle of Holy Water in the corner and had a little bottle to fill. I pressed the button on the spigot and NOTHING came out.
I had to assume the priest there had no care for his parishoners, and that is the main problem I see. The priests seem to have no care for the obligation they have to minister to us, so we turn to Traditionalist priests in the CERTAIN knowledge that they will fullfill their duties to us and to God.
May God bless you all.
Your sister in Christ,
Martha Therese

 

[TMC]

You might like to look at the current discussion on the CAF thread “Condoning Archbishop Lefebvre’s Consecrations – Isn’t That Sinful?”

on
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=364868

N.B Post #43:
There is a widespread misconception that Mgr Lefebvre et al were excommunicated by Pope John Paul II. In fact, the only document declaring the excommunication was a letter in the Italian newspaper “l’Osservatore Romano” signed by Cdl Gantin, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops. This letter is invalid as a decree of excommunication because
*(1) it cites certain paragraphs of the Code of Canon Law while simply ignoring canons 1323, 1324 +1321 (which indemnify against penalties). This is like getting a ticket for a parking offence that names the area where you were parked, but omits to mention that you were parked there on a Sunday, when the ‘No Parking” rule is suspended;
*(2) More seriously, the article does not carry a protocol number, which is necessary for any official, legally-binding document. This is like being given, not an official parking ticket with date and serial number, but a short informal letter in your local paper announcing that you have a parking fine!
*(3) The Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops was not the “competent authority” to carry out such a decree.
It was often stated by the less observant that Pope John Paul II had excommunicated Mgr Lefebvre et al in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta. The supporters of Lefebvre pointed out that JPII had only referred to the excommunication as an already-accomplished fact; he did not, in fact, then or afterwards, proclaim it on his own authority. This has now been confirmed by no less a personage than his Holiness Benedict XVI. In the letter from the present Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, we read the following
Quote:
… the removal of the latae sententiae excommunication formally declared with the Decree of the Prefect of this Congregation [num: i.e. Cdl Gantin, NOT the Pope] on July 1, 1988.
I note with approval the contrast between the “letter to the papers” of Cdl Gantin in 1988 with the following by Card. Giovanni Battista Re in 2009:
Quote:
Based in the faculty expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, in virtue of the present Decree, I remit to Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta the censure of latae sententiae excommunication declared by this Congregation on July 1, 1988, while I declare deprived of any juridical effect, from the present date, the Decree emanated at that date.
Rome, from the Congregation for Bishops, January 21, 2009.
Card. Giovanni Battista Re
Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops
There is nothing like this in Cdl Gantin’s letter of 1988, which simply hangs in a vacuum. Notice that Cdl Battista Re enunciates clearly
*who is issuing the decree, and in what capacity
*at what level of authority the new decree is being promulgated
*what precise document is responsible
*At what date the new legislation comes into effect.

It cannot be maintained that Pope John Paul II either issued, or confirmed, Cdl Gantin’s irregular promulgation. If the Church were functioning better there would be no doubt about what is and what is not mandated. But Canons 1321 - 4 give the opinions of Mgr Lefebvre et al. legal force. His correct invoking of the protection of the law was never contradicted by any pope. All that happened was that Cdl Gantin’s decree (which, being without a protocol number, was invalid) was never publicly repudiated. The only official action taken so far has been that of Pope Benedict, when he remitted (through express permission of Cdl Battista) what he identified as the decree of the Congregation for Bishops. I often heard it urged against the SSPX that they had been excommunicated by the pope. We always replied that it was by Cdl Gantin, not the pope. It is good to see Pope Benedict clear this up.

Students of Recent Church History (and we greybeards with long memories) know that in the 70s there was a strong movement in the Church against what was described as ‘the excessive legalism of the past’. In reply it was always countered that this ‘legalism’ is nothing more than a straighforward statement of the facts of the case, without which it is impossible to do business. It is with tremendous relief that I see a return in recent years to the former practice.

Archbishp Lefebvre was excommunicated and no amount of beaucratic doublespeak can deny that. Your account seriously misstates the contents of Ecclesia Dei which says:

In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)

Ecclesia Dei

Thus, the Pope not only affirmed the excommunication, he also explained that even if had said nothing Archbishop Lefebvre would have been excommunicated latae sententiae. If that wasn’t clear enough, the Pope went on to say:

In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.

 

[otjm]

Actually such a person is denying the Dogma. If someone is a “non-Catholic” that means that they are outside the Church (otherwise they wouldn’t be a “non-Catholic”). The dogmatic definition says ALL who are outside the Church “cannot share in eternal life”.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews [aut] or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Yes, they CAN be saved, but they need to come to receive the Faith first. Are you saying someone is saved without the Faith?

Actually we DO know that it NEVER happens:

Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which** nobody at all **is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

what you are doing is called “proof texting” which is a thoroughy Protestant approach to both documents and the Bible.

 

[AnneElliot]

what you are doing is called “proof texting” which is a thoroughy Protestant approach to both documents and the Bible.

So you know of a Papal or Conciliar statement that claims non-Catholics will be saved?

 

[otjm]

So you know of a Papal or Conciliar statement that claims non-Catholics will be saved?

Will be, or can be? Try reading the documents of Vatican 2. I don’t recall saying anywhere that anyone - Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, LDS, animist or pagan or anyone else will be saved.

My comment was to the quoter, who took one statement by one pope as if it encompassed the sum and substance of the issue.

Doctrine does not change, but our understanding of doctrine can grow and become more nuanced. Taking a statement from a document from centuries ago out of its entire context - which includes not only the document itself but what the document was addressing and the historical context - is text proofing. The quoter ignored all that came before and all that has come since. They do not appear to have a degree in theology and given their approach, may not be capable of obtaining one.

Either the Holy Spirit guides the Church in all matters of doctrine and dogma, and protects the Church from error, or the Holy Spirit doesn’t. The Church has spoken in an official teaching document about a doctrinal matter. If the Holy Spirit was not guiding the Church in this matter, we can shut down this thread, go home, and do something else. The Church is not a literalist Church, but a contextualist Church; there can be and are nuances in doctrinal matters. And the nuance of this issue is that if anyone is saved, they are saved by Christ and through His Church, and how exactly that occurs is not completely understood.

But then, neither are a whole lot of other issues.

Pardon me, but I tire of self proclaimed, self anointed and self taught individuals who feel they need to save the Cathoic Church from itself - and by extension, to save Christ from Himself (where two or three are gathered in My Name…).

Two Popes, both brilliant men, have confirmed that the documents of Vatican 2 are the documents of the Church, and need to be interpreted in light of the Church’s 2000 year history of thought, doctrine and dogma.

It would appear that is not sufficent for the person to whom I replied. I would hope it would be sufficient for you.

 

[AnneElliot]

Whoa. Hold up. I never once said anything about Vatican II… or not accepting it. I attend a diocesan parish that celebrates both the TLM and the NO. I accept the Second Vatican Council. And I have read the Conciliar (and many of the post-conciliar) documents and not one of them states that a non-Catholic can be saved without joining the Catholic Church. If you think Vatican II nuances EENS, I’d like to see the texts of the Council that support such a claim.

The divinity of Christ, the perpetual virginity of Mary, etc. were also defined “centuries ago”-- even longer ago than EENS. Age does not make doctrine, or doctrinal interpretations by Popes less relevant. There is a continuity within the Church that would be disastrous to try and do without, so I’d caution against dismissing something because of “age”.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

Thank you so much for this beautiful and well-stated apologetic for Traditionalism. I, to am a Roman Catholic convert, and was drawn to the Church by the writings of Traditonal saints and Doctors of the Church. There are some of us who are alienated by our local Catholic churches where we see ALL Traditions of the Church ditched and denied. I get sick to my stomach (literally) when I go to church and see all the shorts and t-shirts, no kneelers, no Communion rail, and a liturgy that only seems a dim remberance of what was once Holy.
One of my worst experiences was 3 years ago when I dropped in to a Catholic church in my area in the middle of the week, middle of the day. I just wanted a little time for prayer and consolation in my Lord, and when I dipped my fingers in the recepticle for Holy Water near the door, all I came up with was a muddy smudge. I went to the large steel recepticle of Holy Water in the corner and had a little bottle to fill. I pressed the button on the spigot and NOTHING came out.
I had to assume the priest there had no care for his parishoners, and that is the main problem I see. The priests seem to have no care for the obligation they have to minister to us, so we turn to Traditionalist priests in the CERTAIN knowledge that they will fullfill their duties to us and to God.
May God bless you all.
Your sister in Christ,
Martha Therese

I am of course pleased that my feeble attempts to defend what I believe are appreciated by at least two people.

But I have misgivings about one thing I said. This:

There is nothing in the writings that drew me to the Catholic Church, or in the orthodox formation that Abp. Lefebvre received in seminary, to prepare us for the antics, inertia, and indifference to sound doctrine that characterized the episcopate and pontificate during the times of Pope John Paul II, and which are still lingering scandals to the church and to the world.

From his biographers, it would seem that the seminarian Marcel Lefebvre retained a training that enabled him to understand the unthinkable in the 1920’s, that it could theoretically become necessary to question the policies of a reigning pope. He knew that if a choice had to be made, there was no reason to accord one reigning pope more credence than a couple of hundred dead ones.

I have no wish to engage in a discussion with those who maintain that John Paul II’s policies were compatible with those of Bl. Pius IX through Pius XII and those who preceded them. However anyone is persuaded, follow your conscience and God bless you. I do not say that Abp. Lefebvre established discontinuity, but I do insist that if one subjectively thinks there is discontinuity, the weight of Catholic authority lies with 1900 years of dead popes rather than a a couple dozen years of one live pope. If I have to make the choice, I follow the dead.

 

[Tradycja]

Doctrine does not change, but our understanding of doctrine can grow and become more nuanced.

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”

Taking a statement from a document from centuries ago out of its entire context - which includes not only the document itself but what the document was addressing and the historical context - is text proofing.

The Church is not a literalist Church, but a contextualist Church; there can be and are nuances in doctrinal matters. A.

Dogmas of the faith are truths fallen from heaven; they are not interpretations. They are DEFINITIONS that are true in ALL contexts. To accuse one who adheres faithfully to these truths fallen from heaven of engaging in “private interpretation” is error. The very point of a dogmatic DEFINITION is to DEFINE precisely and exactly what the Church means by the very words of the formula. If it does not do this by those very words in the formula or document (modernism) then it has failed in its primary purpose – to define – and was pointless and worthless.

Those who say DEFINITIONS must be interpreted by non-infallible statements (from theologians, catechisms, etc.) are denying the whole purpose of the Chair of Peter. They are subordinating the dogmatic teaching of the Chair of Peter (truths from heaven) to the re-evaluation of fallible human documents, thereby inverting their authority and denying their purpose.

 

[wanner47]

Lefebvre was a cafeteria Catholic. He wanted to pick and choose from the Church doctrines / practices that he liked and discard the rest. Just because his motives were allegedly good does not make his actions acceptable. He promised obedience to the Church and he failed in that obedience.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Archbishop Lefebvre was himself confused - as pointed out in the full article at jloughnan.tripod.com/vacilate.htm

On the one hand:- Apr. 5, 1983
"…we do not see any other solutions to the problem than:

1. Freedom to celebrate the Old Rite according to the edition of Liturgical Books authorised by Pope John XXIII." Lefebvre Letter to Sovereign Pontiff,

But, then, on the other hand:-
Oct. 3, 1984
On the Decree of the Roman Congregation for Divine Worship (released 15/10/84) to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences, Fr (later Bishop) Richard Williamson stated: “While acknowledging that a Pope may legitimately introduce a new rite of Mass, we can never admit that a rite, departing so far from Tradition as the Novus Ordo Missae is, as such, legitimate or doctrinally sound.” “THE VATICAN DECREE” “Catholic”, Dec 84, p.4.

1986
“All these Popes have resisted the union of the Church with the revolution; it is an adulterous union and from such a union only bastards can come. The rite of the new mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or do not give it. The priests coming out of the seminaries are bastard priests, who do not know what they are. They are unaware that they are made to go up to the altar, to offer the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ and to give Jesus Christ to souls.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “An Open Letter to Confused Catholics” Chapter: “The Marriage of the Church and the Revolution” , p. 116

1986
In a rather imprecise manner, Archbishop Lefebvre expressed his opinions regarding a “valid” though “sacrilegious” Mass (limiting himself to a “valid though sacrilegious” Novus Ordo Mass), and as to whether it can satisfy the Sunday obligation. “… may I assist at a sacrilegious mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these masses cannot be the object of an obligation…” (“An Open Letter To Confused Catholics”, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Fowler Wright Books Ltd for The Society of St Pius X, p. 36, 1986.

Sept. 4, 1987 “Rome has apostacised, the Roman churchmen are quitting the Church, their program of de-christianising society is an abomination.” Lefebvre "in a conference to Society priests at Ecône. “Catholic”, Dec 87, p1.

On the one hand:- May 5, 1988
Lefebvre signed a PROTOCOL OF ACCORD for himself and Society Members:
“3) Regarding certain points taught by Vatican Council II or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which do not appear to us easily reconcilable with Tradition, we pledge that we will have a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics.” (Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, Father François Laisney, p.77).
But, then, on the other hand:-
June 30, 1988
Lefebvre consecrated 4 bishops: “Operation Survival”. “Catholic”, Aug/Sep 88, p1.

On the one hand:- May 5, 1988
The Protocol, however, was accepted by both parties! “The Cardinal informed us that we would now have to allow one New Mass to be celebrated at St Nicholas du Chardonnet. He insisted on the one and only Church, that of Vatican II. In spite of these disappointments, I signed the Protocol on May 5th…” (A Statement by Archbishop Lefebvre, signed June 19, 1988 - as recorded in Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p.207, by Fr. François Laisney, who was then Editor of The Angelus Press. It is to be noted here that Archbishop Lefebvre signed the protocol “to allow one New Mass to be celebrated…”- a Mass that Fathers Violette and Peek would later describe as “intrinsically evil”. Was Vatican Council II Voided by Pope Pius II’s “Execrabilis”? - A Commentary on Mr D.J. McDonnell’s Article in Oct. 1998 “Catholic”), by F John Loughnan
But, then, on the other hand:-
May 6, 1988
That he would allow himself to be almost immediately dissuaded, (from honouring his word and signature relative to the Protocol) and the 1965 event (relative to repudiating his signing of Dignitatis Humanae) be shown not to be an isolated event, is history - Fr. Harrison wrote (The Latin Mass of Spring 1997): “Those who remember the events of May-June 1988 will not find this sudden about-face on the part of Lefebvre to be out of character; after all, he retracted almost immediately the agreement he had signed on May 5 with Cardinal Ratzinger which would have given legitimacy to the SSPX. Also, it seems that former members of the SSPX have testified that in private, the Archbishop vacillated between a sedevacantist outlook and acceptance of John Paul II as being a true pope.” Was Vatican Council II Voided by Pope Pius II’s “Execrabilis”? (A Commentary on Mr D.J. McDonnell’s Article in Oct. 1998 “Catholic”) by F John Loughnan. See Spring 1997 at top.
etc.

 

[Sean_O_L]

In reply to Tradycja and AnneElliot - Roniel Aledo, Captain US Army (Ret). Points to:
–1. Catholic Dictionary, Attwater (Imprimatur/Nihil obstat 1946): “. .Those NON-Catholics who are saved are in life outside the visible body of the Church, but are joined invisibly to the Church by charity and by that implicit desire of joining the Church which is inseparable from the explicit desire to do God’s will.”

–2. THE CATECHISM EXPLAINED, Rev. Francis Spirago, Professor of Theology(c) 1899, 1921, by Benziger Bros. (Printers to the Apostolic See) Nihil Obstat: Scanlon. Imprimatur: Archbishop Hayes, D.D.NY: “If, however, a man, through no fault of his own, remains outside the Church, he may be saved if he lead a God-fearing life; for such a one is to all intents and purposes a MEMBER of the Catholic Church.”

–3.Baltimore Catechism No.3, (IMPRIMATURS: Archbishop John McCloskey of New York 1885,Archbishop Gibbons Baltimore 1885, NIHIL OBSTATS: Rev. Remigius LaFort, Censor Librorum 1901)
”Q. 512. How are such persons said to belong to the Church?
A. Such persons are said to belong to the “SOUL of the church”; that is, they are really MEMBERS of the Church without knowing it.”

–4.THE SUPREME SACRED CONGREGATION OF THE HOLY OFFICE, August 8, 1949: “For in this letter –(June 29, 1943, “On the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.”)- the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who ARE UNITED to the Church only by desire.”

–5. THE CATECHISM OF ST. PIUS X, 172 : “ If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit DESIRE of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as BEST HE CAN such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to THE SOUL of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation” (172)
See jloughnan.tripod.com/aledo02#assisi