Good sermon (SSPX)

[Gratia_Plena]

Joysong:

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.

You must be hoping noboby actually reads the letter from The Holy Office. It does not say what you say it does; quite the opposite. It condemns both errors.

Gratia_Plena

 

[Gratia_Plena]

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

Yes, now you just need to read the rest of the letter.

Gratia_Plena

 

[Gratia_Plena]

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

Yes, and now you just need to read the rest of the letter.

Gratia_Plena

 

[Gratia_Plena]

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

Now you just need to read the rest of the letter.

Gratia_Plena

 

[pnewton]

Now you just need to read the rest of the letter.

Gratia_Plena

I did.

 

[Gratia_Plena]

I did.

You can roll your eyes all you want, but the fact is the Holy Office letter explains the correct understanding of the necessity of the Church for salvation and condemns TWO errors:
Holy Office Letter:

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).

Also, you might find this of interest:
Holy Office Letter:

Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, which is prescribed by the sacred canons.

Gratia_Plena

 

[I_Believe]

As to the other terms, “heretics” or “separated brothers:” WHy is there a desire to use the most negative term if both are accurate? Evangelism by name-calling?

i think the old adage that you attract more flys with a teaspoon of honey than with a barrel of vinegar would apply here. Harsh rhetoric drives people away, not enticing them to dialogue.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

That’s the Contemporary mindset.

“Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”

• Pope St. Felix III

That’s the Traditionalist Minset.

Tradition backs up the latter.

 

[pnewton]

You can roll your eyes all you want, but the fact is the Holy Office letter explains the correct understanding of the necessity of the Church for salvation and condemns TWO errors:

I know and I saw that. The eye roll was in reference to your assumption that I did not read the whole thing simply because I did not comment on the rest, another false assumption, I might add. I did not see it as germane because I consider it a strawman. No one here has promoted the heresy of universalism. I know I surely did not.

 

[pnewton]

That’s the Contemporary mindset.

Like:

“To the weak I became weak in order to gain the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that by all means I may save some.” St. Paul

 

[pnewton]

Also, you might find this of interest:
*

Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, which is prescribed by the sacred canons.

I think this might have been on the wrong thread. It was sent in answer to a question about St. Benedict Center and Fr. Feeney.

kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getreftext.cfm?PartNum=1&SecNum=2&ChapNum=3&FParnum=1065&FnoteNum=337&NoteText=337+LG+16%3B+cf.+DS+3866-3872.

Was it intended for this thread on that topic?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4542550#post4542550

 

[I_Believe]

Like:

“To the weak I became weak in order to gain the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that by all means I may save some.” St. Paul

Yes, but was Paul speaking of error and heresy ? Or was he speaking of those with weak Faith ?

 

[pnewton]

Yes, but was Paul speaking of error and heresy ? Or was he speaking of those with weak Faith ?

Actually both. In context of the controversy of meat offered to idols, their weakness of their faith led to error.

My point is that it was an unfair judgement upon me and Deacon Ed that we are somehow less Catholic than the traditionalists here because of this. The language used in dealing with Protestants is a matter of prudence, not dogma. No one is denying heresy by finding other terms, or else the whole of Catholicism is in trouble, as the term “separated brothers” is used in Catholic teaching.

Read you last post from our point of view. It came across to me as, “I’m better than you”, the very distasteful stereotype Traditionalist are often accused of. I know that you did not mean it that way, at least intentionally. People should not be criticized for what they considered to be a more prudent choice of words.
While the techinicality of whether Protestants are in this century schismatic has been denied, the fact of heresy has not, only the need to use the term in certain circumstances.

 

[Gratia_Plena]

I know and I saw that. The eye roll was in reference to your assumption that I did not read the whole thing simply because I did not comment on the rest, another false assumption, I might add.

When I say read, I mean with a mind to understand it, not simply find a proof text for your position against the SSPX.

pnewton:

I did not see it as germane because I consider it a strawman. No one here has promoted the heresy of universalism. I know I surely did not.

The Holy Office was not referencing the heresy of universalism, but the false ideas being promoted at the time, an indifferentism that denies the necessity of the Church.

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).

Now here is Denz. 1677, referenced above:

Indifferentism *

[From the Encyclical, “Quanto conficiamur moerore,” to the bishops of Italy, Aug. 10, 1863]

Denz. 1677 And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brothers, We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life [see n. 1717]. Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching. It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin. But, the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well-known; and also that those who are obstinate toward the authority and definitions of the same Church, and who persistently separate themselves from the unity of the Church, and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of PETER, to whom “the guardianship of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior,” * cannot obtain eternal salvation.

Pope Pius XII states one of the problems of the era, “Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”

Here is the ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII CONCERNING SOME FALSE OPINIONS THREATENING TO UNDERMINE THE FOUNDATIONS OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AUGUST 12, 1950:

1. It is not surprising that novelties of this kind have already borne their deadly fruit in almost all branches of theology. It is now doubted that human reason, without divine revelation and the help of divine grace, can, by arguments drawn from the created universe, prove the existence of a personal God; it is denied that the world had a beginning; it is argued that the creation of the world is necessary, since it proceeds from the necessary liberality of divine love; it is denied that God has eternal and infallible foreknowedge of the free actions of men – all this in contradiction to the decrees of the Vatican Council[5]
2. Some also question whether angels are personal beings, and whether matter and spirit differ essentially. Others destroy the gratuity of the supernatural order, since God, they say, cannot create intellectual beings without ordering and calling them to the beatific vision. Nor is this all. Disregarding the Council of Trent, some pervert the very concept of original sin, along with the concept of sin in general as an offense against God, as well as the idea of satisfaction performed for us by Christ. Some even say that the doctrine of transubstantiation, based on an antiquated philosophic notion of substance, should be so modified that the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist be reduced to a kind of symbolism, whereby the consecrated species would be merely efficacious signs of the spiritual presence of Christ and of His intimate union with the faithful members of His Mystical Body.

1. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith.

Gratia_Plena

 

[I_Believe]

Actually both. In context of the controversy of meat offered to idols, their weakness of their faith led to error.

My point is that it was an unfair judgement upon me and Deacon Ed that we are somehow less Catholic than the traditionalists here because of this. The language used in dealing with Protestants is a matter of prudence, not dogma. No one is denying heresy by finding other terms, or else the whole of Catholicism is in trouble, as the term “separated brothers” is used in Catholic teaching.

Read you last post from our point of view. It came across to me as, “I’m better than you”, the very distasteful stereotype Traditionalist are often accused of. I know that you did not mean it that way, at least intentionally. People should not be criticized for what they considered to be a more prudent choice of words.
While the techinicality of whether Protestants are in this century schismatic has been denied, the fact of heresy has not, only the need to use the term in certain circumstances.

No no, I was only pointing out that there are two distinct mindsets that clash here on this forum everyday. Sorry, I should not have been so brief in my post, and probably should have not quoted you both.

The thing is, traditionalists, if they were viewed as all wrong, schismatic, and as you say, pharisetical(sp?), and a danger to the Concilliar Church, why would we be seeing this return to sensibility we are seeing from BXVI ? And why wouldn’t the excommunications and suspensions of the SSPX be the final word ?

The group we are not to discuss here on the forum is ignored by Rome. But the traditionalists that accept our popes are not being ignored, and there is a reason for it. It’s because they are not in error.

Canizares, Hoyos, Ranjith, Burke, Marinni - look at who BXVI is surrounding himself by.

If Catholicism as it once was, died the day the Tiara was discarded, then the traditionaists would be to this day ignored. But they are not, because their fight is a righteous one.

**
Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ. - St. Athanasius, AD 373**

The traditionalist mindset is not a post concilliar mindset.

But still, I’m a member of a parish that does not pray the Gregorian Rite. I do try to make it to the EF Mass each Sunday, but even then, I’ll also attend the late afternoon OF Mass at my parish on the same day. I love BXI and try to balance my stance by taking his Motu Proprio to heart.

I’ll never support the SSPX while things remain as they are. But I must add, that I will never deny they are right on matters of Doctrine.

Anyhow, that’s where I stand, and seeing as though this is Advent, I’m going to refrain from participating in any more divisive topics.

I didn’t mean to seem judgemental by quoting you and Deacon. I apologize for being unclear.

 

[Gratia_Plena]

pnewton:

My point is that it was an unfair judgement upon me and Deacon Ed that we are somehow less Catholic than the traditionalists here because of this. The language used in dealing with Protestants is a matter of prudence, not dogma. No one is denying heresy by finding other terms, or else the whole of Catholicism is in trouble, as the term “separated brothers” is used in Catholic teaching.

But we are not saying the term “separated brethren” is wrong but that the separation is understood properly. Pope Pius XI uses the term as follows:
Mortalium Animos:

1. Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is “the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,”[27] not with the intention and the hope that “the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth”[28] will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, “Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,”[29] would hear us when We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of the Church! In this most important undertaking We ask and wish that others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians, that She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the much hoped-for day, when all men shall hear the voice of Her divine Son, and shall be “careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”[30]
2. You, Venerable Brethren, understand how much this question is in Our mind, and We desire that Our children should also know, not only those who belong to the Catholic community, but also those who are separated from Us: if these latter humbly beg light from heaven, there is no doubt but that they will recognize the one true Church of Jesus Christ and will, at last, enter it, being united with us in perfect charity. While awaiting this event, and as a pledge of Our paternal good will, We impart most lovingly to you, Venerable Brethren, and to your clergy and people, the apostolic benediction.

Given at Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on the 6th day of January, on the Feast of the Epiphany of Jesus Christ, our Lord, in the year 1928, and the sixth year of Our Pontificate.

A “separated brethren” who is some kind of partial member of the Mystical Body of Christ is hetrodox and condemned by the very definition of the Church as a Body.

Gratia_Plena

 

[pnewton]

---

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]
**“Outside the Church there is no salvation” **

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?[335] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. 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.[336]
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.[337]

855 The Church’s mission stimulates efforts towards Christian unity.[357] Indeed, “divisions among Christians prevent the Church from realizing in practice the fullness of catholicity proper to her in those of her sons who, though joined to her by Baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full catholicity in all its aspects.”[358]

 

[Gratia_Plena]

---

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]
**“Outside the Church there is no salvation” **

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?[335] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. 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.[336]
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.[337]

855 The Church’s mission stimulates efforts towards Christian unity.[357] Indeed, “divisions among Christians prevent the Church from realizing in practice the fullness of catholicity proper to her in those of her sons who, though joined to her by Baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full catholicity in all its aspects.”[358]

You forgot this one:

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

What does the CCC say about adherence to a heresy, apostasy, or schism?

Gratia_Plena

 

[SemperFidelis]

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.

Good to know and no I am not a Feeneyite. It seems most likely now that I misinterpreted your post. It seemed to me that you completely rejected any notion of the Dogma that is EENS. I apologize.