Condemnation of fellow Christians

[vern_humphrey]

CatholicCrusade:

Here is the general and specifics of this.

If a person is baptized, he is Catholic, IF he has a valid Baptism, which is possible (but unlikely) outside the Roman Catholic Church.

HOWEVER, if he never elicits an Act of Faith in the Catholic Church (or if he elicits an act of faith contrary to any teaching of the Church) upon having reached the age of use, then he removes himself from the Catholic Church, as he has committed an heretical act, whether or not he does so with culpable or inculpable (“invincible”) ignorance. Either way, he removes himself from the Church.

Can such a person be saved who labours in inculpable ignorance of the Truth, the Catholic Church? No, he cannot, according to Fr. Muller, theologian for the Holy See: (see next post)

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
[818](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/818.htm’) "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

 

[JGC]

CatholicCrusade:

Here is the general and specifics of this.

If a person is baptized, he is Catholic, IF he has a valid Baptism, which is possible (but unlikely) outside the Roman Catholic Church.

HOWEVER, if he never elicits an Act of Faith in the Catholic Church (or if he elicits an act of faith contrary to any teaching of the Church) upon having reached the age of use, then he removes himself from the Catholic Church, as he has committed an heretical act, whether or not he does so with culpable or inculpable (“invincible”) ignorance. Either way, he removes himself from the Church.

Can such a person be saved who labours in inculpable ignorance of the Truth, the Catholic Church? No, he cannot, according to Fr. Muller, theologian for the Holy See: (see next post)

CCC - A sure norm for teaching the faith JPII

scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
(My Bold)

To take the example of EENS, (no salvation outside the Church) the CCC is quite clear

CCC 847 - This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation

CCC 838 - The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."[322] Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”[323]

scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

 

[vern_humphrey]

JGC:

CCC - A sure norm for teaching the faith JPII

scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
(My Bold)

To take the example of EENS, (no salvation outside the Church) the CCC is quite clear

CCC 847 - This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation

CCC 838 - The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."[322] Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”[323]

scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

Thank you.

We cannot reject the Catechism and pretend to be Catholics.

 

[CatholicCrusade]

No matter how many times you repeat “a sure norm for teaching the Faith”, it’s not going to make it true.

The fact of the matter is it’s NOT sure, since it has been editted over 100 times to fix various errors.

Moreover, we CAN “reject the Catechism” (its errors) and still be Catholics, as has been shown by the countless revisions to said catechism.

Moreover, the CCC is not more authoritative than what I posted. What I posted was printed, also, by the Holy See. Furthermore, it is in line with Tradition of the Church and the teaching of the Church on Outside the Church no salvation. Whereas, the CCC contradicts Tradition in that area.

As far as “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.” – Please read what I posted. I said very clearly that those who are inculpably ignorant do not commit the sin of heresy, but they still will remain among the damned unless they repent of the sins they commit.

As far as them being “brothers” or Christians… yes, they are, UNTIL they reject a Truth of Christianity (a dogma of the Church), after which time they put themselves out of the Church, but if they are in inculpable ignorance, then they are not damned on account of the heretical beliefs but on account of those sins which cannot be forgiven outside the Church (Original Sin by Baptism, if they have an invalid Baptism outside the Church, which is the case most likely, since for Baptism to be validly administered, the minister must have the intention of the Church), or any mortal sins they commit without Confession.

 

[JGC]

CatholicCrusade:

No matter how many times you repeat “a sure norm for teaching the Faith”, it’s not going to make it true.

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
FIDEI DEPOSITUM

ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

PREPARED FOLLOWING THE SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

JOHN PAUL, BISHOP
SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD
FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY

**The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.
**

(please note the above by the current pope - are you disagreeing with him?)

and

The project was the object of extensive consultation among all Catholic Bishops, their Episcopal Conferences or Synods, and theological and catechetical institutes. As a whole, it received a broadly favorable acceptance on the part of the Episcopate. It can be said that this Catechism is the result of the collaboration of the whole Episcopate of the Catholic Church

 

[CatholicCrusade]

Even if all that is true, which I don’t necessarily agree it is, that still does not mean everything in the catechism is correct. There is not really a substantial argument here. You can’t put a fallible document up next to three infallible ones, and think that the fallible one trumps the rest. It is simply illogical.

 

[JGC]

CatholicCrusade:

Moreover, the CCC is not more authoritative than what I posted. What I posted was printed, also, by the Holy See. Furthermore, it is in line with Tradition of the Church and the teaching of the Church on Outside the Church no salvation. Whereas, the CCC contradicts Tradition in that area.
.

Your own inaccurate personal ‘interpretation’ of the documents.

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
FIDEI DEPOSITUM

ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

PREPARED FOLLOWING THE SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

JOHN PAUL, BISHOP
SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD
FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order** by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium**. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.

I think I and almost everone else will listen to the pope and the bishops and not your ‘traditionalist’ interpretation.

Your entitled to your opinion. I’m concerned that someone (even one person) might believe your ‘version’ of Church teaching.

 

[JGC]

CatholicCrusade:

Even if all that is true, which I don’t necessarily agree it is, that still does not mean everything in the catechism is correct. There is not really a substantial argument here. You can’t put a fallible document up next to three infallible ones, and think that the fallible one trumps the rest. It is simply illogical.

I’m afraid its your ‘traditionalist’ interpretation of those documents against the interpretation of the Church.

 

[CatholicCrusade]

If I misintrerpret the Councils, then I say you misinterpret the Catechism… and round in circles we go again. Where do you stop saying: we need an explanation of an explanation of an explanation and so forth? The purpose of the Councils is to put forth a clear understanding of the Faith, which is in some cases an explanation of the Holy Scriptures.

 

[JGC]

CatholicCrusade:

If I misintrerpret the Councils, then I say you misinterpret the Catechism… and round in circles we go again. Where do you stop saying: we need an explanation of an explanation of an explanation and so forth? The purpose of the Councils is to put forth a clear understanding of the Faith, which is in some cases an explanation of the Holy Scriptures.

The Catechism is consistent with Scripture, Tradition and the Councils.

Your arguments, refuted by the Church, are based on a ‘traditionalist’ interpretation of isolated statements.

Readers of this forum can choose which they follow…

 

[vern_humphrey]

CatholicCrusade:

If I misintrerpret the Councils, then I say you misinterpret the Catechism… and round in circles we go again. Where do you stop saying: we need an explanation of an explanation of an explanation and so forth? The purpose of the Councils is to put forth a clear understanding of the Faith, which is in some cases an explanation of the Holy Scriptures.

Have you contacted His Holiness, to explain his errors to him?

 

[JGC]

oltyn.com/Muller-Slv.htm,

Your link follows to
cfnews.org/cfn.htm

 

[jphilapy]

JGC:

Your link follows to
cfnews.org/cfn.htm

I looked over the site and I came across this statement:
"thousands of today’s Catholics, spiritually lobotomized by the “spirit of Vatican II”, fail to see it. Forty years of post-Conciliar confusion has blurred their vision. "

So what exactly happend at the Vatican II to cause this?

Jeff

 

[vern_humphrey]

jphilapy:

I looked over the site and I came across this statement:
"thousands of today’s Catholics, spiritually lobotomized by the “spirit of Vatican II”, fail to see it. Forty years of post-Conciliar confusion has blurred their vision. "

So what exactly happend at the Vatican II to cause this?

Jeff

Basically, failure to RTFM. Most Catholics have never read the output of the Council (VC II) and hence have some erroneous ideas about it.

 

[HagiaSophia]

vern humphrey:

Basically, failure to RTFM. Most Catholics have never read the output of the Council (VC II) and hence have some erroneous ideas about it.

I think we have to admit though that various interpretations and implementations have caused some abysmal results.

 

[vern_humphrey]

HagiaSophia:

I think we have to admit though that various interpretations and implementations have caused some abysmal results.

Yes, coupled with the rather dramatic changes that followed (such as the vernacular mass) many Catholics to this day are disturbed by Vatican II.

I recall a dispute in the Gailtach (the Irish-speaking part of Ireland) about a priest who didn’t speak Irish. He said Mass in English, and the parishoners stubbornly replied in Irish – I don’t recall the final resolution, but the congregation and their pastor were definitely at odds!

 

[jphilapy]

vern humphrey:

Yes, coupled with the rather dramatic changes that followed (such as the vernacular mass) many Catholics to this day are disturbed by Vatican II.

I recall a dispute in the Gailtach (the Irish-speaking part of Ireland) about a priest who didn’t speak Irish. He said Mass in English, and the parishoners stubbornly replied in Irish – I don’t recall the final resolution, but the congregation and their pastor were definitely at odds!

I can’t help but to mention this, as an outsider it all seems somewhat odd too me. Since my interaction with folks here, I have heard alot about the infailibily of the pope. However based on some of the stuff I have being seeing, i get that folks will disagree with the infallibility of a later pope in order to hang on to the infalliblity of an earlier pope? Maybe I am just missunderstanding, but please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

jphilapy:

Reason I tend to disagree with Transubstantiation:

Jesus at the last supper never said that the bread becomes his body. He said “This is my body”. Not beomes. Now logically the bread could not have been his body because his body was already present at the table. And Jesus was in it. And since the Spirit could not come till he ascended it could not have lived in the bread. So it seems to me that Jesus is using the wine and bread symbolically to teach his disciples an important lesson. He wanted to impart to them a message that they were to partake of his body, which they do by suffering in love for one another. Which also seems to be the message of 1 cor. 11:20-34 where the main emphasis of the passage is on how believers treat one another, and in fact the main message of 1 cor. letter is about how believers treat one another specifically. In a sense Jesus message was prophetic of what was about to take place. Hence the sending of His Spirit into every single believer. Therefore the wine is symbolic of the pouring out of the Spirit and the bread is symbolic of His living body which is even now on earth and we are partaking of as believers.

Likewise does Christ Dwell in Wafers? Or doesn’t he rather dwell in us?

In a nutshell we as His body Indwelt by Hist Spirit are Christ incarnate.

Jeff

Jeff,

The Greek in the Gospels, from all I’ve been told by multiple scholars, is quite clear on the issue. When Jesus picked up the BREAD (probably a Passover Matzos), and said the words, “This is my BODY, Broken for you…” He meant that the BREAD was his BODY. The same goes for when Our Lord said, “This is my BLOOD, the BLOOD of the New Covenant…” I’m sorry that you can’t swallow this, but this is the PLAIN MEANING of the Scripture IN CONTEXT, and this is what the undivided Church believed for the 1,000 years before the Schism of Lateran, and what the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, various Unitate Churches, and various Anglican Churches believe and teach.

The Doctrine itself is really quite plain. Jesus comes to us in the Eucharist under the appearance of Bread and Wine, and allows us to eat his BODY and BLOOD. The terms “Substancia” (Latin) and “Ousia” (Greek) have to do with the essential nature of what we’re eating and drinking, and may simply be beyond this discussion or beyond this human’s comprehension (unless I use the simple explanation).

Although why are you denying yourself the most intimate form possible in your relationship with Our Lord Jesus Christ? Why are you denying yourself that union with Christ that is only posssible in the Eucharist?

Have you considered simply praying the Rosary in front of the Holy Sacrament and asking God to make up the deficit in your faith?

In Him, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

CatholicCrusade:

If I misintrerpret the Councils, then I say you misinterpret the Catechism… and round in circles we go again. Where do you stop saying: we need an explanation of an explanation of an explanation and so forth? The purpose of the Councils is to put forth a clear understanding of the Faith, which is in some cases an explanation of the Holy Scriptures.

My problem is this: If I accept you and Fr. Muller’s interpretation o fthe Doctrine of the Church, then I must conclude that most of the victims of History’s worst Genocide weren’t only slaughtered by the NAZIS, but consigned to Hell by God.

I cannot see how a loving God who asked people to call Him, “Abba,” “Daddy,” could do that. And, I get the distinct feeling that Pope John Paul II agrees with me on this one…

Your interpretation of the JUSTICE of God must at some point run up against the LOVE and the MERCY of God.

In Him, Michael

 

[jphilapy]

Traditional Ang:

Although why are you denying yourself the most intimate form possible in your relationship with Our Lord Jesus Christ? Why are you denying yourself that union with Christ that is only posssible in the Eucharist?

Have you considered simply praying the Rosary in front of the Holy Sacrament and asking God to make up the deficit in your faith?

In Him, Michael

I don’t pray the rosary because I’m not RC. This is my first time exploring catholic doctrines so I am going to challenge and search them. And it is incorrect to infer that I have little faith because I don’t believe Christ becomes the bread. In fact it takes more faith to believe that Christ actually dwells in us by His Spirit. This is not an issue of having enough faith, this is an issue of mechanics. I don’t believe that we partake in the Life of Christ in that way. I don’t deny my self union with Christ. Christ dwells in me by His Spirit as a result of my Faith as scripture so well affirms. Based on the straight forward wording of the scriptures it is by faith that we receive the Spirit. Never once does scripture say we receive the Spirit of Christ by eating the wafer. To put it another way it is by me believing the Gospel that Christ was crucified on the cross for my sins and was dead, buried, resurrected and ascended to the right hand of the Father. Just by beliving the Gospel do I receive His Spirit.

*Gal 3:1 O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth: before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been set forth, crucified among you? *

*Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith?
*
Gal 3:5 He therefore who giveth to you the Spirit and worketh miracles among you: doth he do it by the works of the law or by the hearing of the faith?

ANd in fact His crucifixion does bring Life and eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood does bring life, but this is all done by faith and obedience.

As I stated above we receive His Spirit by faith. It is the receiving of the Spirit that is symbolized by drinking of wine hence as said:

1Co 12:13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free: and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink.

So by receiving the Spirit do we drink His blood.

And as is also said:

Mat 4:4 Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in everyword that proceedeth from the mouth of God.

So by obeying his Word do we eat his flesh. When Jesus said in John 6 that we are to eat his flesh he most certainly meant that statement to refer to the idea that we are to eat of the Word as is stated in Mat 4:4 eating is inferred when it says that we live by the words that preceede from the mouth of God. And who is the words or better yet the Word? Christ is the Word.

And as is also said by Jesus:

Joh 6:63*(6:64) It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.*

So how do we have union with Christ? By believing and obeying as is said by Paul and Christ both. For the words of Christ are spirit and life. That is what the communion meal represents.
What I want to know is why catholics want to replace that fact by saying Christ turns into the bread and wine?

Jeff