Good sermon (SSPX)

[franklinf]

I think more people understand the simple word “separated” than the more techinical term “heretical” If clarity was truly the intent. Therefore I can not see this reason being more logical than the age old “tradition” of demonizing the enemy.

Why hide the fact that they follow heretical beliefs? To merely call them separated brethren can give the false impression that they follow no error in their faith, it is simply a matter of “separation.” Protestants, Muslims, etc are heretics plain and simple. It is not charity or an act of demonizing the enemy by calling them what they are. Charity would be stating what is (that they live in error by following heresy) so that they may repent and convert rather than prettying it up. Gratia_Plena sums it up pretty well.

Pnewton, this isn’t addressed specifically at your post. It was just the most recent one and easiest to quote.

 

[pnewton]

Why hide the fact that they follow heretical beliefs?

Using non-confrontational terminology does not hide any facts. But to answer your question, I do not use the term “heretic” because it brings to the mind in many burning at the stake and the darker side of religious intolerance. It is a word that is much more likely to end dialogue than encourage it; it closes doors, instead of opening them. On balance, I can’t imagine any benefit to using the term, not if our goal is evangelization instead of alienation.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The Church has always both tolerated and condemned errors. She has never taught, however, that an error is per se good or partially correct.

Gratia_Plena

No one said they did. However, when you dialogue with people, you explore what you first have in common instead of hitting with differences and condemnation.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Gratia_Plena]

Using non-confrontational terminology does not hide any facts. But to answer your question, I do not use the term “heretic” because it brings to the mind in many burning at the stake and the darker side of religious intolerance.

This only comes to mind because you don’t understand what heresy is and why it is condemned. The Church uses the terms in the proper sense and there is nothing wrong with the terms.

pnewton:

It is a word that is much more likely to end dialogue than encourage it; it closes doors, instead of opening them. On balance, I can’t imagine any benefit to using the term, not if our goal is evangelization instead of alienation.

Here is a quote from Vatican I that is condemning error, stating that those who hold this error are anathema:
Vatican I:

Vatican Council, Sess. III, de Revel., can.i.:

“If anyone shall say that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be certainly known by the natural light of human reason through created things; let him be anathema.”

And also previously quoted (and ignored, I might add):
Pius XI:

But the Only-begotten Son of God, when He commanded His representatives to teach all nations, obliged all men to give credence to whatever was made known to them by “witnesses preordained by God,”[16] and also confirmed His command with this sanction: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned.”[17] These two commands of Christ, which must be fulfilled, the one, namely, to teach, and the other to believe,

Gratia_Plena

 

[Joysong]

I see once again that document portions are used to support one’s private interpretation, which is not unusual and has been done throughout the ages of the Church. It is the very root of heresies. Why are documents the only proof that can be submitted, rather than consider the actions of Jesus Christ who is the First Divine Teacher and manifestation of God the Father?

Gratia, I ask you to look at the gospel when Jesus encountered the woman at the well - a hated Samaritan, product of racially mixed Jewish and pagan ancestry. Compare it with innocent Protestants who were born into that ancestry and understand no other truth but that which was handed down to them.

Because of their imperfect adherence to Judaism and their partly pagan ancestry, the Samaritans were despised by ordinary Jews. Rather than contaminate themselves by passing through Samaritan territory, Jews who were traveling from Judea to Galilee or vice versa would cross over the river Jordan, by-pass Samaria by going through Transjordan, and cross over the river again as they neared their destination. The Samaritans also harbored antipathy toward the Jews (Luke 9:52-53).

That the Samaritans were separated from and looked down upon by the Jews makes them important in the New Testament. Jesus indicated a new attitude must be taken toward the Samaritans when he passed through their towns instead of crossing the Jordan to avoid them (John 4:4-5), when he spoke with a Samaritan woman, contrary to Jewish custom (John 4:9), and he said a time would come when worshiping in Jerusalem or on Mount Gerazim would not be important (John 4:21-24). When asked whom to regard as our neighbor, Jesus told the story of the Good Samaritan precisely because Samaritans were despised.

The apostles recognized that in the Church Samaritans must be accepted as equal to Jews. Peter and John conducted a special mission to Samaria to confirm Samaritans who had already been baptized by Philip (Acts 8:14-17). This initiation of the Samaritans was a middle stage between the preaching of the gospel to the Jews (Acts 2) and the preaching of the gospel to full-blooded Gentiles (Acts 10).

newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock94.htm

Did Jesus approach her with condemnations and call her a heretic? Or did He castigate her for her husbands? His tone was gentle, open, willing to dialogue with her and present His truth. You may want to put yourself in the scene as one who is speaking with a modern-day Protestant or Orthodox and see how your attitude measures with Jesus’s.

 

[pnewton]

This only comes to mind because you don’t understand what heresy is and why it is condemned. The Church uses the terms in the proper sense and there is nothing wrong with the terms.

I most certainly do! Please try not to exercise your erroneous discernment with me. I get sick and tired of people here telling me what I do and do not know. I know the Church uses the term, as it should to accurately describe doctrine. What I was referring to is common usage in American society. That is why I do not use the word in dealing with people, lest I win an argument and lose a soul.

 

[Gratia_Plena]

I see once again that document portions are used to support one’s private interpretation, which is not unusual and has been done throughout the ages of the Church. It is the very root of heresies. Why are documents the only proof that can be submitted, rather than consider the actions of Jesus Christ who is the First Divine Teacher and manifestation of God the Father?

I’m not quite sure what you mean here. Are you suggesting that the quote from Mortalium Animos is out of context?

It looks also as if the source you quote is an unapproved apologetics site where the writer uses quotes from scripture to “prove” his unauthorized writings. Protestants always look to the scriptures as they step over the official documents of the Church; that seems to be what you are advocating here.

Joysong:

Gratia, I ask you to look at the gospel when Jesus encountered the woman at the well - a hated Samaritan, product of racially mixed Jewish and pagan ancestry. Compare it with innocent Protestants who were born into that ancestry and understand no other truth but that which was handed down to them.

Protestantism was already quite old when Pius XI wrote the encyclical I quoted (which may be found at papalencyclicals.net).

Joysong:

Did Jesus approach her with condemnations and call her a heretic? Or did He castigate her for her husbands? His tone was gentle, open, willing to dialogue with her and present His truth. You may want to put yourself in the scene as one who is speaking with a modern-day Protestant or Orthodox and see how your attitude measures with Jesus’s.

Pius XI was speaking to “modern-day Protestants and Orthodox”; it was the Vicar of Christ speaking to them!

Gratia_Plena

 

[Joysong]

I am saying that Vatican 2 documents expand and clarify former teachings and are the current “mind of the Holy Spirt” set forth to instruct the Church. Both Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio are very clear about accepting these separated brethen as part of the Mystical Body of Christ, although imperfectly, due to their baptism. They are not referred to as heretics to be shunned, as you are subtly suggesting.

If you can dismiss the scripture about the woman at the well because it was not contained in a church document, then oh well, I can only pray that the Lord will give you light regarding this. The Church teaches us how to interpret these very scriptures and draws from Christ’s example.

Protestantism was a nuance over set terminologies regarding sola scripture and sola fides – NOT the examples of Jesus. You are stretching beyond limits here to include the Lord Himself.

It was a problem also with St. Peter when he did not wish to associate with anyone “unclean.” God sent him a vision three times to correct his wrong thinking, as we find concerning Cornelius in Acts Chapter 10. Cornelius was devout and God-fearing along with his whole household, who used to give alms generously to the Jewish people and pray to God constantly. Most importantly, we know that Cornelius, a gentile, received the gift of the Holy Spirit PRIOR to receiving Peter’s baptism, and was the very sign by which Peter recognized God’s acceptance of this gentile.

Clearly, there are many God-fearing devout people in other non-Catholic religions who are favored and loved by God and have the gift of the Holy Spirit. We simply cannot judge their hearts and decide to shun them as heretics or believe they will not attain salvation as some EENS people still radically believe and teach.

 

[Joysong]

Gratia_plena:

It looks also as if the source you quote is an unapproved apologetics site where the writer uses quotes from scripture to “prove” his unauthorized writings.

I forgot to address this earlier. The link was newadvent (Catholic Encyclopedia) and is NOT an unapproved apologetics site. The article is written in a special section in their archives and apparently was found in “This Rock” … featured here at Catholic Answers.’ It really amazes me how often people misread others’ posts, but claim they can rightly interpret exhaustive theological material in church documents.

 

[SemperFidelis]

or believe they will not attain salvation as some EENS people still radically believe and teach.

It is impossible to remain a Catholic and not believe in EENS. I hope you are not advocating such a position.

 

[Joysong]

SemperFidelis:

It is impossible to remain a Catholic and not believe in EENS. I hope you are not advocating such a position.

Joysong:

Clearly, there are many God-fearing devout people in other non-Catholic religions who are favored and loved by God and have the gift of the Holy Spirit. We simply cannot judge their hearts and decide to shun them as heretics or believe they will not attain salvation as some EENS people still radically believe

and teach.

No, I’m addressing the erroneous radical belief that some hold and promote due to a wrong understanding of the document. They are commonly known as “feeneyites.” Hopefully, you are familiar with the Holy See’s support of Abp. Cushing’s condemnation of Fr. Feeney’s erroneous beliefs. Here’s the letter, in case you are unaware.

After having examined all the documents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of “St. Benedict Center” explain their opinions and complaints, and also many other documents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, “outside the Church there is no salvation,” was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

 

[pnewton]

It really amazes me how often people misread others’ posts, but claim they can rightly interpret exhaustive theological material in church documents.

You notice that too? The reason is because many do not so much interpret things themselves as are fed interpretation through dissident groups, be it SSPX or Catholics for a Free Choice. We must remember the absolute importance of the authority structure of the Catholic Church and the role it plays in preserving us from error. Without it, we are actually worse off than Protestants who have splintered into bits as each interprets the Bible for themselves. I say we are worse because we have far more material to disagree over.

 

[Gratia_Plena]

Joysong:

It really amazes me how often people misread others’ posts, but claim they can rightly interpret exhaustive theological material in church documents.

You notice that too? The reason is because many do not so much interpret things themselves as are fed interpretation through dissident groups, be it SSPX or Catholics for a Free Choice. We must remember the absolute importance of the authority structure of the Catholic Church and the role it plays in preserving us from error. Without it, we are actually worse off than Protestants who have splintered into bits as each interprets the Bible for themselves. I say we are worse because we have far more material to disagree over.

newadvent.org/library/

Quick Questions. Dozens of questions excerpted from Catholic Answers’ This Rock magazine.

The point is that you treat it like an authoratative text; while dismissing magisterial document quotations. It’s from This Rock magazine. Somebody else quotes from The Remnant and you claim it is a condemned publication, and condemned by another unauthorized website, Catholicculture.org.

Gratia_Plena

 

[Joysong]

Gratia_plena:

The point is that you treat it like an authoratative text; while dismissing magisterial document quotations. It’s from This Rock magazine. Somebody else quotes from The Remnant and you claim it is a condemned publication, and condemned by another unauthorized website, Catholicculture.org.

I did not treat it as authoritative text, but simply saved myself a lot of typing by using the information from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and humbly did not want to plagiarize the work as my own. Had it been false information, the website would not have obtained permission from This Rock to reprint it. Quite frankly, I could have used any one of a dozen references, because it is the holy gospel and the facts are well supported by biblical scholars. This is a sorry attempt to discredit the C.E., This Rock, and my post recalling Our Lord’s personal example. But then again, this has been my past experience with you, S.M.

 

[pnewton]

newadvent.org/library/

The point is that you treat it like an authoratative text; while dismissing magisterial document quotations. It’s from This Rock magazine. Somebody else quotes from The Remnant and you claim it is a condemned publication, and condemned by another unauthorized website, Catholicculture.org.

Gratia_Plena

It is the private interpretation and application of magisterial documents that is more often dismissed than the documents themselves. I for one understand The Remnant is not unbiased when it comes to certain topics. You may feel the same way about Catholic Answers, which, of course, raises the question of your motive in maintaining a presence here if you think they are so far off. You are posting on* their* forum, you know.

 

[Gratia_Plena]

I am saying that Vatican 2 documents expand and clarify former teachings and are the current “mind of the Holy Spirt” set forth to instruct the Church. Both Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio are very clear about accepting these separated brethen as part of the Mystical Body of Christ, although imperfectly, due to their baptism. They are not referred to as heretics to be shunned, as you are subtly suggesting.

This appears to be in contradiction to the definition by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. This is also referred to in the Holy Office letter you just cited and I have quoted in another thread:

Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:

We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (, n. 1792).

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).

Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory.

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

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

**These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter 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.

Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”**

Gratia_Plena

 

[Gratia_Plena]

Holy Office Letter on EENS:

Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition “in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church” (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). **With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion **(cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, , in , n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, , in , n. 1677).

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: “For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): “Faith is the beginning of man’s salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children” (, n. 801).

If you actually read the letter, you’ll find that it is saying that there are those who are not members of the Mystical Body but who are united by a longing or desire. Within the Church by desire is the traditional terminology. It does not say that anyone who has been baptised and is a member of a sect is therefore a partial member of the Church. Perfect Charity is required:

But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith…

Gratia_Plena

 

[Gratia_Plena]

It is the private interpretation and application of magisterial documents that is more often dismissed than the documents themselves. I for one understand The Remnant is not unbiased when it comes to certain topics. You may feel the same way about Catholic Answers, which, of course, raises the question of your motive in maintaining a presence here if you think they are so far off. You are posting on* their* forum, you know.

No, the point is that none of these websites or magazines are authortative. Joysong quotes some of them as if they are authorities.

Gratia_Plena

 

[pnewton]

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.

This has frightening implication for the SSPX who swear up and down that they recognize the papacy and the Holy Father.

 

[Joysong]

Gratia_plena, (S.M.)

:yawn:

Been round this maypole a time or two -