- Status
C
_Christopher
Guest
Woah…
So you are a “traditionalist” Catholic? Is that the right term?
A
Apolonio
Guest
One word: Ecumenism.
Response:
Oh boy! Please go to:
lidless-eye.blogspot.com
I have dealt many times on how “traditionalists” misuse EENS.
As far as your quotes. First of all, they are Church Fathers, not the Magisterium. But my interpretation of the Church Fathers are based on Vatican 2. If you don’t like Vatican 2, then let me show you Garrigou-Lagrange, OP:
“Mystical graces improperly so called or minor mystical graces are not only possible outside the visible Church, but they can occur rather frequently in the holiest of souls in the state of grace” He then quotes Fr. Lemonnyer, “If they are born candidates for the minor mystical graces, they are unknown Catholics, members of one spiritual Church…” (Our Savior and His Love for Us, 379)
So people outside of the visible Church can somehow still be “members” of the Church. They can be members by fact or by desire as Pius XII taught. Now to your quotes:
"Saint Ambrose, Doctor, (died A.D. 397):
“The Lord severed the Jewish people from his kingdom, and heretics and schismatics are also severed from the kingdom of God and from the Church. Our Lord makes it perfectly clear that every assembly of heretics and schismatics belongs not to God, but to the unclean spirit.” (Explanation of Luke)"
Response:
Yes, heretics and schismatics does not belong to God. But it does not mean that all Jews are “Jews”. Some Jews can be “unknown Catholics”.
Saint Fulgentius (died A.D. 533):
“Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only all pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.” (To Peter on the Faith)
Response:
Yes, anyone who is outside the Church will go to hell. But it does not mean that a Jew is necessarily outside the Church.
Blessed Juliana of Norwich (died A.D. 1423):
“I knew in my faith that the Jews were accursed and condemned without end, except those who were converted.” (Sixteen Revelations of Divine Love)
Response:
Yes, except those who were “converted”. And I wouldn’t limit “conversion” to a full communion with the Church.
Saint Peter Canisius S.J., Doctor, (died A.D. 1597):
Response:
Agreed with his quote with my interpretation above.
Response:
Oh boy! Please go to:
lidless-eye.blogspot.com
I have dealt many times on how “traditionalists” misuse EENS.
As far as your quotes. First of all, they are Church Fathers, not the Magisterium. But my interpretation of the Church Fathers are based on Vatican 2. If you don’t like Vatican 2, then let me show you Garrigou-Lagrange, OP:
“Mystical graces improperly so called or minor mystical graces are not only possible outside the visible Church, but they can occur rather frequently in the holiest of souls in the state of grace” He then quotes Fr. Lemonnyer, “If they are born candidates for the minor mystical graces, they are unknown Catholics, members of one spiritual Church…” (Our Savior and His Love for Us, 379)
So people outside of the visible Church can somehow still be “members” of the Church. They can be members by fact or by desire as Pius XII taught. Now to your quotes:
"Saint Ambrose, Doctor, (died A.D. 397):
“The Lord severed the Jewish people from his kingdom, and heretics and schismatics are also severed from the kingdom of God and from the Church. Our Lord makes it perfectly clear that every assembly of heretics and schismatics belongs not to God, but to the unclean spirit.” (Explanation of Luke)"
Response:
Yes, heretics and schismatics does not belong to God. But it does not mean that all Jews are “Jews”. Some Jews can be “unknown Catholics”.
Saint Fulgentius (died A.D. 533):
“Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only all pagans, but also all Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.” (To Peter on the Faith)
Response:
Yes, anyone who is outside the Church will go to hell. But it does not mean that a Jew is necessarily outside the Church.
Blessed Juliana of Norwich (died A.D. 1423):
“I knew in my faith that the Jews were accursed and condemned without end, except those who were converted.” (Sixteen Revelations of Divine Love)
Response:
Yes, except those who were “converted”. And I wouldn’t limit “conversion” to a full communion with the Church.
Saint Peter Canisius S.J., Doctor, (died A.D. 1597):
Response:
Agreed with his quote with my interpretation above.
M
MorphRC
Guest
Lol. No. Im not a traditionalist in the strictist sense as if as I recognize nothing after Vatican II. Vatican II had some good, no doubt, but it sacrificed to much, we are no more than Protestant looking, but were Christ’s Church. The Church of Christ as someone wrote ‘subsists’ in the Catholic Church. I never read a quote from the Doctors of the Church, or anyone else on that, it says. We ARE the Church of Christ. And outside us, there is no Church of God.
Also I do recognize a lot of good in Post-Vatican II teachings, for example, JpII’s book: Theokotos, Vol 5. That is brilliant, and uses a lot of the Church Fathers, and Old Church, but there are new beliefs that were never upheld, and the Church has talked against ‘Development of Dogma’ and condemned it, but many Catholics now accept it, as if its right.
I have a choice to choose between the Old Church, or the New Church that holds the same beliefs, but has added heretical ones. And Im still in a bind.
Pax.
M
MorphRC
Guest
Answer to: Apolonio:
Doctors of the Church should be ignored even though they are Saints and they’re teachings are used by the Church? Poor arguement against the quotes already Bro.
Secondly. You cannot re-interpretate the quotes, that comes under DoDogma. As stated by:
St. Vincent of Lerins (5th cent. A.D.)
…true and genuine Catholic…places nothing else ahead of the faith, neither the authority, the genius, the eloquence, nor philosophy of any man whatsoever, but is determined to hold and believe only those things whatsoever he knows the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient times. But whatsoever he shall perceive to have been introduced later by some one certain man, that which is new and unheard-of, that which is contrary to all the saints, let him know that it does not pertain to religion but rather to temptation.
Pius IX at the First Vatican Council of 1870:
We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, is by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable.
You cannot interpretate statements by the Church once a interpretation has been set!.
and also: VI 1890:
…the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention, to be perfected by human ingenuity; but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence, also, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our holy Mother the Church has once declared; nor is that meaning ever to departed from, under the pretence or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them.
Notice the word except is missing. Therefore you cannot change their meanings as you have tried.
NOTE: Bold Wording is to make key words clearer, not for interpretation.
Pax.
Doctors of the Church should be ignored even though they are Saints and they’re teachings are used by the Church? Poor arguement against the quotes already Bro.
Secondly. You cannot re-interpretate the quotes, that comes under DoDogma. As stated by:
St. Vincent of Lerins (5th cent. A.D.)
…true and genuine Catholic…places nothing else ahead of the faith, neither the authority, the genius, the eloquence, nor philosophy of any man whatsoever, but is determined to hold and believe only those things whatsoever he knows the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient times. But whatsoever he shall perceive to have been introduced later by some one certain man, that which is new and unheard-of, that which is contrary to all the saints, let him know that it does not pertain to religion but rather to temptation.
Pius IX at the First Vatican Council of 1870:
We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, is by the divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable.
You cannot interpretate statements by the Church once a interpretation has been set!.
and also: VI 1890:
…the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention, to be perfected by human ingenuity; but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence, also, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our holy Mother the Church has once declared; nor is that meaning ever to departed from, under the pretence or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them.
Notice the word except is missing. Therefore you cannot change their meanings as you have tried.
NOTE: Bold Wording is to make key words clearer, not for interpretation.
Pax.
V
Vincent
Guest
Definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable.
The question is, are the quotes from Saint Ambrose, Saint Fulgentius, Blessed Juliana of Norwich and Saint Peter Canisius definitions of the Roman Pontiff? Moreover, are quotes from Saint Ambrose, Saint Fulgentius, Blessed Juliana of Norwich and Saint Peter Canisius necessarily dogma?
If they are, then they’re irreformable. If they’re not, then we need to present definitions of the Roman Pontiff (or other dogmatic definitions from Ecumenical Councils) that deal with the controversy.
The question is, are the quotes from Saint Ambrose, Saint Fulgentius, Blessed Juliana of Norwich and Saint Peter Canisius definitions of the Roman Pontiff? Moreover, are quotes from Saint Ambrose, Saint Fulgentius, Blessed Juliana of Norwich and Saint Peter Canisius necessarily dogma?
If they are, then they’re irreformable. If they’re not, then we need to present definitions of the Roman Pontiff (or other dogmatic definitions from Ecumenical Councils) that deal with the controversy.
C
centuri0n
Guest
Are you asking if they could be saved out of Islam, or are you saying that the Muslim might be saved even if he never converts from Islam?
C
centuri0n
Guest
This is a great topic.
H
Hans_A
Guest
For starters, unless the Holy Father himself told you his reasons for offering the olive branch to the Muslims, do not assume. “So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.” (1 Chorinthians 13:13, RSV-CE)
That being said, the Qur’an makes a false statement saying that Jesus was a prophet. Jesus was one of three things: who He said He was (the Son of God), a lier or a mentally deranged person. You can not say he was a prophet, because a prophet would not say the things Jesus said about who He was (I AM). Our Lord was exactly who he said he was. Henceforth, the Qua’an cannot be inspired by God, because God is truth.
That being said, the Qur’an makes a false statement saying that Jesus was a prophet. Jesus was one of three things: who He said He was (the Son of God), a lier or a mentally deranged person. You can not say he was a prophet, because a prophet would not say the things Jesus said about who He was (I AM). Our Lord was exactly who he said he was. Henceforth, the Qua’an cannot be inspired by God, because God is truth.
M
MorphRC
Guest
Ive addressed both the heresy of Development of Dogma, and with the St. Vincent quote, the development of beliefs.
T
Tim_Hayes
Guest
The Islamic faith must be a salvation faith by itself, Many if not most muslims especially in the more repressed countries never get the opportunity to hear of Christ. This we know for a fact.
Now that we know this for a fact then we must say that their muslim faith can save them, if they are to be saved.
If they are to be saved generally speaking, and I am talking about those who earenstly lovingly try and adhere to the muslim faith, then there is no need to spread the Gospel to them, because they are saved through the Church/VChrist without ever having to hear the Church/Christ. Spreading the Gospel to them is not needed for their salvation.
That is what the Church infers, it won’t make a direct statements so we can only infer that the catholic Church believes muslims are saved withoud needing to be witnessed to about the Gospels.
In Christ
Tim hayes
Now that we know this for a fact then we must say that their muslim faith can save them, if they are to be saved.
If they are to be saved generally speaking, and I am talking about those who earenstly lovingly try and adhere to the muslim faith, then there is no need to spread the Gospel to them, because they are saved through the Church/VChrist without ever having to hear the Church/Christ. Spreading the Gospel to them is not needed for their salvation.
That is what the Church infers, it won’t make a direct statements so we can only infer that the catholic Church believes muslims are saved withoud needing to be witnessed to about the Gospels.
In Christ
Tim hayes
M
MorphRC
Guest
Pax Tim
They never hear about Christ? Hears what Muslims believe:
Surah Aal-E-Imran Ayat 3:
Yusuf Ali Translation: It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).
Surah Aal-E-Imran Ayat 45:
Yusuf Ali Translation: Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah;
Surah Aal-E-Imran Ayat 52:
Yusuf Ali Translation: When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: “Who will be My helpers to (the work of) Allah?” Said the disciples: "We are Allah’s helpers: We believe in Allah, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.
Surah Aal-E-Imran Ayat 55:
Yusuf Ali Translation: Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
Surah Aal-E-Imran Ayat 59:
Yusuf Ali Translation: The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be”. And he was.
Surah Aal-E-Imran Ayat 84:
Yusuf Ali Translation: Say: “We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam).”
Surah As-Saff Ayat 6:
Yusuf Ali Translation: Say: And remember, Jesus**, the son of Mary, said: “O Children of Israel!** I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad.” But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, “this is evident sorcery!”
Surah As-Saff Ayat 14:
Yusuf Ali Translation: O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: As said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, “Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?” Said the disciples, “We are Allah’s helpers!” then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed.
Islam Online - Search: Jesus
They know Jesus, and the Gospel. And fervently deny it everyday. Ill get some quotes from Al Hadeeth as well for you Tim.
You’ve been listening to the Western Media way to much!
Pax Iesus
They never hear about Christ? Hears what Muslims believe:
Surah Aal-E-Imran Ayat 3:
Yusuf Ali Translation: It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).
Surah Aal-E-Imran Ayat 45:
Yusuf Ali Translation: Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah;
Surah Aal-E-Imran Ayat 52:
Yusuf Ali Translation: When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: “Who will be My helpers to (the work of) Allah?” Said the disciples: "We are Allah’s helpers: We believe in Allah, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.
Surah Aal-E-Imran Ayat 55:
Yusuf Ali Translation: Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
Surah Aal-E-Imran Ayat 59:
Yusuf Ali Translation: The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: “Be”. And he was.
Surah Aal-E-Imran Ayat 84:
Yusuf Ali Translation: Say: “We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam).”
Surah As-Saff Ayat 6:
Yusuf Ali Translation: Say: And remember, Jesus**, the son of Mary, said: “O Children of Israel!** I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad.” But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, “this is evident sorcery!”
Surah As-Saff Ayat 14:
Yusuf Ali Translation: O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: As said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, “Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?” Said the disciples, “We are Allah’s helpers!” then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed.
Islam Online - Search: Jesus
They know Jesus, and the Gospel. And fervently deny it everyday. Ill get some quotes from Al Hadeeth as well for you Tim.
You’ve been listening to the Western Media way to much!
Pax Iesus
T
Tim_Hayes
Guest
MorphRC, my statements below are questions and also rhetoric.
The Church because of its completely dominant ecumenical view no longer wants people to spread the Gospel.
My point is that Moslems are no different than Protestants in this regard as to who can be saved.
The Protestants have various gifts etc, such as valid Baptism, so the Church says that in some way the Holy Spirit works in them. Now if this be true and they listen to the Holy Spirit then it must guide them to the CAtholic Church, if they are not guided to the Catholic Church then there is two options, one, they have rejected Christs Spirit hence lost salvation or secondly, the CAtholic Church is not the complete true Church of Christ.
What applies to Moslems applies the Protestants and applies to the pagans etc. Does this mean that they can’t be saved at all. NO, but what it does mean is that hardly any of them will be saved, if it is any different then as I stated, the spreading of the “catholic” gospel is in vain.
In Christ
Tim
The Church because of its completely dominant ecumenical view no longer wants people to spread the Gospel.
My point is that Moslems are no different than Protestants in this regard as to who can be saved.
The Protestants have various gifts etc, such as valid Baptism, so the Church says that in some way the Holy Spirit works in them. Now if this be true and they listen to the Holy Spirit then it must guide them to the CAtholic Church, if they are not guided to the Catholic Church then there is two options, one, they have rejected Christs Spirit hence lost salvation or secondly, the CAtholic Church is not the complete true Church of Christ.
What applies to Moslems applies the Protestants and applies to the pagans etc. Does this mean that they can’t be saved at all. NO, but what it does mean is that hardly any of them will be saved, if it is any different then as I stated, the spreading of the “catholic” gospel is in vain.
In Christ
Tim
C
centuri0n
Guest
Would you care to answer the question? The question is whether the Muslim is saved – and this passage, along with the parallel passage in the CCC – say that they have a share in the plan of salvation. Until you can definitively say that “plan of salvation” does not mean “saved by God’s plan”, you are stuck with the problem that post-Vatican II theology, in trying to make amends with Protestants and smooth out the problem of Trent’s anathemas without admitting that the Magisterium can actually be wrong, has opened the door to saying that anyone who is a monotheist who makes a claim on either Abraham of One God is inside the broader definition of “the Church”.
You can argue all you want about the Qu’ran being false: it’s not a Protestant who is admiring how nearly-Catholic the Muslim is. It’s Rome.
You can argue all you want about the Qu’ran being false: it’s not a Protestant who is admiring how nearly-Catholic the Muslim is. It’s Rome.
W
WanderingCathol
Guest
yes, according to the modernist church. ignorance of faith is the excuse. Even an athiest, mormon, hindu, jew can be saved. Anyone according to the modernist theology can be saved.
V
Vincent
Guest
Recall that the Church’s teaching on Muslims in Lumen Gentium is preceded by:
Preface:
Necessity of Christ, and therefore, his Body the Church for salvation: “Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.”
Order:
So everybody’s called to “this Catholic unity of the People of God,” which seems to be identified with the call to salvation. Following this the Council explains the how Catholics, non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians fit in this call:
Preface:
Necessity of Christ, and therefore, his Body the Church for salvation: “Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.”
Order:
*]Catholics are definitely in the Church, but “one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved.”
*]The desire of incorporation into the Church joins Catechumens to the Church.
*]Baptized non-Catholic Christians “are indeed in some real way joined to [the Church] in the Holy Spirit.”
And then comes the part everybody is hopping all over about. It’s best to quote it in full (I’m breaking it up into paragraphs for readability):
M
MorphRC
Guest
Pax Tim
However the Church also taught, Invincible Ignorance, utter uneducation of the Gospel, Christ and the Church.
Ok I see what your getting at. But heres the difference between a Muslim and a Protestant, and its the obvious, Muslims deny Christ no matter what, Protestants dont, however according to the Church [Ive ceased using the modernist junk thats come after VII], neither can be saved unless there in the Church of Christ, The Catholic Church, the Body of Christ where all graces are given from, and only from.
However the Church also taught, Invincible Ignorance, utter uneducation of the Gospel, Christ and the Church.
A
Apolonio
Guest
Morph
octors of the Church should be ignored even though they are Saints and they’re teachings are used by the Church? Poor arguement against the quotes already Bro.
Response:
That just shows that you didn’t actually read what I said or understood them. Where did I say that they should be ignored? All I said was that they were not magisterial documents and therefore has less weight.
Morph:Secondly. You cannot re-interpretate the quotes, that comes under DoDogma. As stated by:
Response:
I didn’t re-interpret them. All I did was interpret the word “Church” as they interpreted them. The Church Fathers, saints, and doctors never limited “Church” into the visible structure. The Church Fathers for example, had an idea of the Church as communio. And again, the dogma of EENS is not ecclesiocentric, but Christocentric. That is what the Fathers and Saints had in mind.
octors of the Church should be ignored even though they are Saints and they’re teachings are used by the Church? Poor arguement against the quotes already Bro.Response:
That just shows that you didn’t actually read what I said or understood them. Where did I say that they should be ignored? All I said was that they were not magisterial documents and therefore has less weight.
Morph:Secondly. You cannot re-interpretate the quotes, that comes under DoDogma. As stated by:
Response:
I didn’t re-interpret them. All I did was interpret the word “Church” as they interpreted them. The Church Fathers, saints, and doctors never limited “Church” into the visible structure. The Church Fathers for example, had an idea of the Church as communio. And again, the dogma of EENS is not ecclesiocentric, but Christocentric. That is what the Fathers and Saints had in mind.
A
Apolonio
Guest
B]Morph: The Church of Christ as someone wrote ‘subsists’ in the Catholic Church. I never read a quote from the Doctors of the Church, or anyone else on that, it says.
Response:
Subsistence simply mean to possess a nature as a whole and not as part of another. [1] This means that the Catholic Church possess the Church of Christ fully as its own. But does it mean that the Church of Christ can also subsist in other non-Catholic churches? The answer is simply no since there is only one Church of Christ. As Cardinal Ratzinger said, “there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church.”[2] He also said that it is contrary to Vatican 2 to believe that the Church of Christ also subsists in non-Catholic churches. [3] What is the development or improvement from changing the word “is” to “subsist”? Cardinal Ratzinger says, “The word subsistit derives from the ancient philosophy as later developed in Scholastic philosophy…Subsistere is a special case of esse. It is being in the form of a subject who has an autonomous existence.”[4] Simply, when Pope Pius XII used the word “is”, he spoke of the Church as a being and her nature. When Vatican 2 used “subsist”, she spoke of the Church as a subject and that the nature is actualized in the Catholic Church for it is not the nature which exists, but in the subject.[5] What is a subject? A subject is basically the “I” rather than the “it” (object). Jacques Maritain says, “…subsistence adds something utterly real, most real of all, to the quidditative order–outside the proper line of this order. It makes such, to be I; it makes a certain depth of reality and intelligibility to be also a depth for itself.”[6] There is also something which we have to understand about subsistence. Subsistence is the metaphysical root, the ontological foundation of personality.[7] Vatican 2 taught that the Church is a Person. The Church, the Body of Christ, is only one person because Jesus is only one person, which is a Divine Person. This Person is that "which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth.”[8] Those who are in communion with Peter are part of the Person, the Church. Those who are not, are outside it. But they too can contain elements of the Church. Ratzinger says, “The Council instead chose the word subsistit precisely to clarify that there exists only one ‘subsistence’ of the true Church, while outside her visible structure there only exist elementa Ecclesiae, which — being elements of that same Church — tend and lead toward the Catholic Church.” This means that churches, ecclesial communites[10], and other religions in some way possess some nature of the Church, but not fully. They reflect the person, but do not act in the person of the Church since “personality supposes a nature that is whole in its proper order (or to which there is lacking nothing essential) which it completes in the line of subsisting and existing in itself.”[11] For example, the Eastern Orthodox churches possess almost all the nature of the Church, but she is not part or act in the person of the Church because she is missing an element, which is the Papacy.
[1]Summa Theologiae 1a, 21, 2
[2] Dominus Iesus, 17
[3] Footnote 56 of Dominus Iesus says, “The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of Christ could subsist also in non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen gentium.”
[4] The Ecclesiology of the Constitution of the Church
[5] Christian Personalism of Jacques Maritain by Donald Demarco. Nature is that which something is and subject is what which has an essence, that which subsists. [6] The Degrees of Knowledge by Jacques Maritain, 4th ed., trans. Gerald B. Phelan , Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995, pg. 457
[7] Ibid, pg. 246 (cf, Our Savior and His Love for Us by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books, 1998, pgs 92-100) John Saward also says, To say that the one true Church of Christ ‘subsists in’ the Catholic Church means that the latter alone is, in Father von Balthasar’s phrase, a ‘theological person’.(Christ The Light of the Nations)
[8] Lumen Gentium, 8. Dominus Iesus, 17 also says, “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.”
[9] Dominus Iesus, fn. 56
[10] Ecclesial communities are basically Protestant sects or those which has a valid baptism and scripture.
[11] On the Church of Christ by Jacques Maritain Chapter 10
Response:
Subsistence simply mean to possess a nature as a whole and not as part of another. [1] This means that the Catholic Church possess the Church of Christ fully as its own. But does it mean that the Church of Christ can also subsist in other non-Catholic churches? The answer is simply no since there is only one Church of Christ. As Cardinal Ratzinger said, “there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church.”[2] He also said that it is contrary to Vatican 2 to believe that the Church of Christ also subsists in non-Catholic churches. [3] What is the development or improvement from changing the word “is” to “subsist”? Cardinal Ratzinger says, “The word subsistit derives from the ancient philosophy as later developed in Scholastic philosophy…Subsistere is a special case of esse. It is being in the form of a subject who has an autonomous existence.”[4] Simply, when Pope Pius XII used the word “is”, he spoke of the Church as a being and her nature. When Vatican 2 used “subsist”, she spoke of the Church as a subject and that the nature is actualized in the Catholic Church for it is not the nature which exists, but in the subject.[5] What is a subject? A subject is basically the “I” rather than the “it” (object). Jacques Maritain says, “…subsistence adds something utterly real, most real of all, to the quidditative order–outside the proper line of this order. It makes such, to be I; it makes a certain depth of reality and intelligibility to be also a depth for itself.”[6] There is also something which we have to understand about subsistence. Subsistence is the metaphysical root, the ontological foundation of personality.[7] Vatican 2 taught that the Church is a Person. The Church, the Body of Christ, is only one person because Jesus is only one person, which is a Divine Person. This Person is that "which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth.”[8] Those who are in communion with Peter are part of the Person, the Church. Those who are not, are outside it. But they too can contain elements of the Church. Ratzinger says, “The Council instead chose the word subsistit precisely to clarify that there exists only one ‘subsistence’ of the true Church, while outside her visible structure there only exist elementa Ecclesiae, which — being elements of that same Church — tend and lead toward the Catholic Church.” This means that churches, ecclesial communites[10], and other religions in some way possess some nature of the Church, but not fully. They reflect the person, but do not act in the person of the Church since “personality supposes a nature that is whole in its proper order (or to which there is lacking nothing essential) which it completes in the line of subsisting and existing in itself.”[11] For example, the Eastern Orthodox churches possess almost all the nature of the Church, but she is not part or act in the person of the Church because she is missing an element, which is the Papacy.
[1]Summa Theologiae 1a, 21, 2
[2] Dominus Iesus, 17
[3] Footnote 56 of Dominus Iesus says, “The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of Christ could subsist also in non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen gentium.”
[4] The Ecclesiology of the Constitution of the Church
[5] Christian Personalism of Jacques Maritain by Donald Demarco. Nature is that which something is and subject is what which has an essence, that which subsists. [6] The Degrees of Knowledge by Jacques Maritain, 4th ed., trans. Gerald B. Phelan , Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995, pg. 457
[7] Ibid, pg. 246 (cf, Our Savior and His Love for Us by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books, 1998, pgs 92-100) John Saward also says, To say that the one true Church of Christ ‘subsists in’ the Catholic Church means that the latter alone is, in Father von Balthasar’s phrase, a ‘theological person’.(Christ The Light of the Nations)
[8] Lumen Gentium, 8. Dominus Iesus, 17 also says, “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.”
[9] Dominus Iesus, fn. 56
[10] Ecclesial communities are basically Protestant sects or those which has a valid baptism and scripture.
[11] On the Church of Christ by Jacques Maritain Chapter 10
U
UnworthySoul
Guest
Islam is a pagan religion focused on Allah. Allah is derived from an Arabic Moon god and has no relation to the God of Abraham. Don’t think me a bigot for saying this, I have read the Quran and the Hadith and have been to Saudi Arabia seeing it firsthand. I encourage all of my fellow catholics to read both the Quran and Hadith. You MUST read the Hadith if you intend to read the Quran because without it, the Quran has NO timeline and becomes a jumbled mess. If you actually READ the Quran you will see that Allah and Yahweh are NOT the same God.
Look at Mohammed himself, he was a pedophile, epilieptic, murderer, liar, and cheat amongst other things. Mohammed made himself the center of his newfound religion from which comes all “truth” about God, there is no denying this. He paid a Jewish scribe to read him Jewish Scripture (truth, it’s in the book) because he himself couldn’t read and modified it to suit his purposes.
If you actually read the books of their faith it is as obvious as night and day as to what the Muslims worship. To say that Allah is the same as the God of Abraham is intellectually dishonest.
Look at Mohammed himself, he was a pedophile, epilieptic, murderer, liar, and cheat amongst other things. Mohammed made himself the center of his newfound religion from which comes all “truth” about God, there is no denying this. He paid a Jewish scribe to read him Jewish Scripture (truth, it’s in the book) because he himself couldn’t read and modified it to suit his purposes.
If you actually read the books of their faith it is as obvious as night and day as to what the Muslims worship. To say that Allah is the same as the God of Abraham is intellectually dishonest.
- Status