Has the Catholic Church not contradicted itself already?

[salival]

I agree with you plainsworlf, I think that there really is no need to move away from scholasticism even if it may sound legalistic, it is precise as you say and it also avoides the vagueness and confusion that has been set loose since VII.

salival

plainswolf:

The greatest change I can see in the Church since Vatican II has been the new 'progressive’ theology. In the past, the Church has alway relied on Thomistic theology, or ‘scholasticism’, which was very precise and was so for a reason. However for this she is accused of being too ‘legalistic’…etc.

Scholasticism serves a very important function. It is more precise in its wording and unlike progressive theology, scholasticism does not allow one to play fast and loose with the terminology and arrive at interpretations that drift off from the true meaning of what is being stated.

Example:
The definition of a “Rock” in scholastic theology is, well, ‘rock’ or ‘stone’, which leaves little or no room for mis-interpretation.

The definition of “Rock” in progressive theology is something more vague like “Hardened earthen substance”. Which, though it is true, it can be interpreted to mean too many things.

It’s the prudence of this new theology that I question.

 

[RSiscoe]

RSiscoe:

A person who has received “grace and righteousness” is thereby incorporated into the mystical body of Christ. They would therefore be a member of the Church, and could be saved.

Damascene:

It is true to say that they are incorporated mentally, but not that they are incorporated bodily.

They are not incorporated physically, but spiritually. That is why the Catechism of Trent sais they receive “grace”. They are a member of the Church “mentally” (they have faith) and spiritually, because they possess grace.

Damascene:

Pius XII says, in Mystici Corporis: Through the waters of Baptism those who are born into this world dead in sin are not only born again and made members of the Church, but being stamped with a spiritual seal they become able and fit to receive the other Sacraments. … 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 structure of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

So, are you saying Pope Pius XII did not believe in baptism of desire? I hope that is not what you are implying. In the above quote the Pope is saying that only baptized are members of the Church, which is normally true. But the Pope understood that there are “exceptions” to the general order. Do you believe that Pope Pius XII believed in baptism of desire? You probably don’t. What would you say if I produced a quote where the Pope taught baptism of desire? Would you still hold Pope Pius XII up as an authority, or would you reject what he taught? In other words, will you only accept what Pope Pius XIII taught when he agrees with you? Or will you submit to what he taught when he teaches contrary to what you believe? Let’s find out.

Here is a quote from Pope Pius XII. It is taken from the book “Dear Newlyweds”:

“Before the altar your free will alone can join you together in the ties of the sacrament of Matrimony; no other consent can substitute for yours. In the case of other, more necessary sacraments, when the minister is lacking, he can be supplied through force of divine mercy, which will forego even external signs in order to bring grace to the heart. To the catechumen who has no one to pour water on his head, to the sinner who can find no one to absolve him, a loving God will accord, out of their desire and love, the grace which makes them His friends and children even without Baptism or actual confession” (Page 13).

Now, if you are going to persist in rejecting baptism of desire, at least be honest enough to no longer quote from Pope Pius XII, since you now know that he believed in it.

continue…

 

[RSiscoe]

Damascene:

You may find J. Fenton’s article, Questions About Membership in the Church, to be a useful reference:

Note that participation in the communion of the sacraments is considered necessary for membership: catechumens don’t have that.

That is not what the Church teaches. Virtually every Catechism since Trent has taught baptism of desire, including the Penny Catechism of Pope St. Pius X. Virtually every theological manuel since Trent has taught Baptism of desire, and, according to St. Alphonsus, who is one of only 33 doctors of the Church, baptism of desire is a de fide dogma of the faith. He said that it was de fide based on the Council of Trent. So, according to St. Alphonsus, a doctor of the Church, those who reject baptism of desire are heretics. That is very serious, since a heretic will not be saved. I am going to quote St. Alphonsus, in hopes that it will cause you to reconsider your position. You eternal salvation may indeed depend on it:
St. Alphonsus:

Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water “fluminis”], of desire “flaminis” = wind] and of blood.
We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” “flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind “flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.”

Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality “non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ…

It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ.

 

[RSiscoe]

DavidJoseph:

No, it’s not a break with tradition. The Church has never condemned ecumenism per se but rather FALSE ecumenism.

But false ecumenism is what is now practiced by vitually every leader of the Church.

In February 2001, Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, defined the current ecumenical movement when he stated: “Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of the ecumenism of return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics’… each church has its own riches and gifts of the Spirit, and it is this exchange that unity is trying to be achieved, and not in the fact that we should become ‘Protestants’, or that the others should become ‘Catholics’ in the sense of accepting the confessional form of Catholicism.”

Kasper is the President of the Council for promoting Christian Unity. If anyone would know how to define the current ecumenical movement it would be him. And he was John Paul II’s point man for ecumenism. He was made Cardinal under John Paul II and kept his position as leader of “ecumenism” under John Paul II, who easily could have removed him. The kind of “ecumenism” practice for many years within the Church is one that seeks to unite all relgions into one. The goal is a One Worl Church, which the Bible calls “the great harlot” (Apoc 17).

Like it or not, the ecumenism practiced by virtually everyone in leadership positions within the Church IS false ecumenism.

 

[JGC]

RSiscoe:

The Church teaches two things: One is that it is necessary for salvation; the other is that “outside of the Church there is no salvation”.

So yes, you are right: The Church is necessary for salvation, but don’t forget that “outside” of the Church there is no salvation.

Yes, you should beleive what the magesterium teaches. The following is an infallible quote from the Magesterium:

Pope Eugene IV ( A.D. 1441 ) " The most Holy Roman Church believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatic’s cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart " into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" ( Matt. 25:21), unless before the end of life the same has been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasting’s, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

web.archive.org/web/20040218182856/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ232.HTM

 

[JGC]

“Traditionalist” and Schismatic Catholics

ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ389.HTM

A good primer for understanding those ‘traditionalists’ out there…

 

[RSiscoe]

JGC,

If you disagree with something I wrote, tell me what it is. I skimmed through the 1st link you provided. One thing I want to point out is that, although St Thomas said that someone who is “invncibly ignorant” of the truth has not sinned agianst faith (which is obviously true), he did not say they can be saved while they are in that state of ignorance.

On the contrary, what he said was that if they are ignorant, yet have believed all the truth God has revealed to them, God will either enlighten them internally, or send a missionary to them, so that their “invincible ignorance” is cured.

Some, such as St. Alphonsus and Pope Pius IX, have taught that it is possible for a person who is “invincibly ignorant” to somehow obtain salvation, but St. Thomas did not teach that. He taught the exact opposite. He said that if a person is “invincibly ignorant” it is a punishment for some other sin they have committed.

 

[JGC]

RSiscoe:

JGC,

If you disagree with something I wrote, tell me what it is.

I simply posted the link for information. I have taken the excellent advice of a friend to stop debating EENS and associated issues with so called 'traditionalist’s and simply ensure the Church’s position is avaliable for reading in such threads. (generally by linking to the CCC) Others can then decide for themselves…

 

[RSiscoe]

JGC:

I simply posted the link for information. I have taken the excellent advice of a friend to stop debating EENS and associated issues with so called 'traditionalist’s and simply ensure the Church’s position is avaliable for reading in such threads. (generally by linking to the CCC) Others can then decide for themselves…

Did you read my above posts - #47 and #48?

 

[JGC]

RSiscoe:

Did you read my above posts - #47 and #48?

I have now and as usual agree with some of your thoughts and disagree with others

 

[TNT]

DavidJoseph:

No, it’s not a break with tradition. The Church has never condemned ecumenism per se but rather FALSE ecumenism.

“In all its modern forms”…was a way of saying the same thing.

 

[DavidJoseph]

RSiscoe:

But false ecumenism is what is now practiced by vitually every leader of the Church.

In February 2001, Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, defined the current ecumenical movement when he stated: “Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of the ecumenism of return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics’… each church has its own riches and gifts of the Spirit, and it is this exchange that unity is trying to be achieved, and not in the fact that we should become ‘Protestants’, or that the others should become ‘Catholics’ in the sense of accepting the confessional form of Catholicism.”

Kasper is the President of the Council for promoting Christian Unity. If anyone would know how to define the current ecumenical movement it would be him. And he was John Paul II’s point man for ecumenism. He was made Cardinal under John Paul II and kept his position as leader of “ecumenism” under John Paul II, who easily could have removed him. The kind of “ecumenism” practice for many years within the Church is one that seeks to unite all relgions into one. The goal is a One Worl Church, which the Bible calls “the great harlot” (Apoc 17).

Like it or not, the ecumenism practiced by virtually everyone in leadership positions within the Church IS false ecumenism.

I never said Kasper’s ideas were orthodox. But I’m not going to speculate why he’s a cardinal now. One might as well speculate on why Jesus chose Judas as one of the apostles. However, here’s an article on events such as Assisi, which many claim is an example of false ecumenism: matt1618.freeyellow.com/assissi.html

 

[Damascene]

RSiscoe:

That is not what the Church teaches. Virtually every Catechism since Trent has taught baptism of desire, including the Penny Catechism of Pope St. Pius X.

You really could have done with reading the article I gave you, or what I quoted from it: “There are those who imagine, in spite of the clear teaching of the Suprema haec sacra, that the dogma which teaches that no one at all can be saved outside of the Catholic Church means that a man has to be a member of the Church at the moment of his death in order to attain to the possession of the Beatific Vision”. I even made reference to the Letter of the Holy Office against Fr. Feeney in my previous post at 04:01 AM, where I said:

Damascene:

Their situation is analogous to the catechumen: they are in the Church, connected by the bonds of faith, hope, and charity and by their very intention to join her, even though implicit. That this doctrine was the intention of Vatican II is made quite clear by the footnote to the Letter of the Holy Office, Suprema Haec Sacra, which teaches precisely this: “no salvation outside the Church” does not exclude those who, infused with the supernatural virtues, are connected to the Church by desire, even if implicit.

Now if they are not excluded, then that must be from salvation. Hence they can be saved. So much for demonstrating my orthodoxy on baptism of the Spirit.

But you are simply wrong in saying that catechumens are members of the Church. Suprema Haec Sacra says the same thing, and moreover interprets Mystici Corporis precisely as I did:

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. … For in this letter (Mystici Corporis) 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.

 

[RSiscoe]

Damascene:

You really could have done with reading the article I gave you, or what I quoted from it: “There are those who imagine, in spite of the clear teaching of the Suprema haec sacra, that the dogma which teaches that no one at all can be saved outside of the Catholic Church means that a man has to be a member of the Church at the moment of his death in order to attain to the possession of the Beatific Vision”. I even made reference to the Letter of the Holy Office against Fr. Feeney in my previous post at 04:01 AM, where I said:

Now if they are not excluded, then that must be from salvation. Hence they can be saved. So much for demonstrating my orthodoxy on baptism of the Spirit.

But you are simply wrong in saying that catechumens are members of the Church. Suprema Haec Sacra says the same thing, and moreover interprets Mystici Corporis precisely as I did:

Did I say catechumens are members of the Church? If so, let me correct that statement: Catechumens are not members of the Church until they are baptized.

Should they happen to die before receiving the sacrament, they could be incorporated into the Church (spiritually), and thus be saved.

After reading your post, I don’t think we are in disagreement.

What was the intent of your initian post to me?

OK, I just re-read your initial post, and I think I understand what you meant. You meant that a Catechumen who dies before receiving baptism, but who desire baptism and thus received “grace and righteousness” was not a physical member of the Church, but only a member spiritually. I agree.

If I said they were a member of the Church, I meant spiritually.

It sounds like we are in agreement.

 

[Damascene]

RSiscoe:

It sounds like we are in agreement.

I think we are.

 

[twf]

So Cardinal Walter Kasper is a heretic? Is this what we are saying? If that is true, what was the Holy Father (May God give rest to his soul) thinking? No one can accuse John Paul II of being unorthodox…

Thanks for your thoughts RSiscoe and Jim. I do pray for my family! I think my mom is slowly seeing the light…as well as a couple friends…but many of my families members, especially those I don’t talk to that often, have not really heard the Catholic position yet. How aggressive is too aggresive in your experience? I sometimes wonder whether or not I should send ‘apologetic’ emails out to the family at large…

 

[GAssisi]

Permit me to humbly give my (name removed by moderator)ut. I have covered much of what is discussed here in other threads. I will address two specific issues.

1. Someone said that the canons of ecumenical councils are infallible. This is false. Canons of ecumenical councils are not infallible; the doctrines upon which they are based, however, are indeed infallible. Canons have come and gone in the Church today and in the Church undivided. The thing to keep in mind is that Canons have a DISCIPLINARY intent. For example, a canon might state: “HE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE THIS TEACHING IS ANATHEMA.” The canon itself is not infallible, but the TEACHING on which it is based is indeed infallible.
2. Someone stated that Vatican II made no infallible statements. This is false. Vatican II did not make any DOGMATIC pronouncements, but that is far from saying they did not make any infallible statements.
3. Someone expressed the apparent conflict over the statement that even if one were to shed one’s blood for Christ, if that person was outside the Church, he would not be saved. The principle, the teaching, behind this statement is infallibly and eternally true – that is, outside the Church there is no salvation. However, the circumstance needs to be considered. At this time in the Church was groaning to be one, and there was indeed a great possibility that they could be one (East and West). For all practical purposes, the Church was indeed one. So everyone was Catholic. It was presumed that EVERYONE KNEW AND BELIEVED that the one true Church was the Catholic Church, and that salvation could only be obtained through and within this Church. Indeed, as noted, there was really only ONE Church at the time since reunion was such a great possibility and had in fact been achieved temporarily. Now, if you left the Church at this stage, even still believing in Christ, you have WILLFULLY committed a grievous, mortal sin. Since the general mindset of ALL Christians was that there was one, true Church, there was no excuse that could be accommodated by the principle of invincible ignorance. If one was a Christian and not a member of the Church at this time, it could only mean that one WILLFULLY left the Church in contempt. If you died in this state of contempt for the Church, even for the sake of your faith in Christ, you could not be saved, for indeed you still died in the WILLFUL sin of contempt for the Church; you have WILLFULLY and with FULL KNOWLEDGE rent the seamless robe of Christ.

Several generations from that time, imagine that a Christian community had been established that did not accept the Catholic Church as the true Church. Would these Christians be under the condemnation of Pope Eugene’s statement? NO!!! Why? Because these particular Christians had never grown up with the belief that the Catholic Church is the true Church. Since they had never grown up with this belief, their present state dictates that they have never REJECTED the Church. These particular Christians are considered invincibly ignorant, and are not condemned thereby.

Now imagine a fresh new conflict arose in the Church several centuries hence and, at this point, certain other Christians decided to leave the Church. Would these Christians be under the condemnation of Pope Eugene’s statement? YES!!! Why? Because these particular Christians indeed had been raised and acknowledged the true faith and THEN rejected it – that is, left the Church.

Is this beginning to make sense to people? Do people see how it is that there is no contradiction between the infallible statement “no salvation outside the Church”, and the infallible statement “there are those outside the Church that may be saved”? In short, the first statement refers to those who have WILLFULLY and with FULL KNOWLEDGE left the Church or were planning to leave the Church, given in the context of averting a schism between East and West. The latter statements applies to those in invincible ignorance (a principle that was, by the way, also in effect when the first statement was made)

For more info, please see my post entitled “INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE” in the “Non-Catholic” Forum.

God bless

 

[RSiscoe]

GAssisi:

Permit me to humbly give my (name removed by moderator)ut. I have covered much of what is discussed here in other threads. I will address two specific issues.

1. Someone said that the canons of ecumenical councils are infallible. This is false. Canons of ecumenical councils are not infallible; the doctrines upon which they are based, however, are indeed infallible.

I am sure that you honestly believe that, but it is not correct. The canons - the words used to express the dogma - are what is infallible. One of the tactics of the modernists, who seek to change everything, is that they claim that the Canons (dogmas) are not infallible, but only the doctrine that the canon is based upon. That is completely false. It is the canon itself - the words used to express the doctrine - that is protected in infallibility.

If that was not the case, every dogma of the faith could be “re-expressed” so that it no longer had the same meaning. In that case “the divinity of Christ” could be re-expressed to mean that Our Lord merely was a “partaker of the Divine Nature” (1st Peter), as we are, and not truly God. The doctrine of transubstantiation could be “re-expressed” so that it merely mean Christ is present spiritually alone with the bread and wine.

No, the actual words used by the Popes, or Council, is what is protected by infallibility, not merely a doctrine that is behind them.

 

[Axion]

What people who quote the original 1441 statement fail to do, is remember its CONTEXT.

It was promulgated at the end of the Council of Florence, which was set up to bring **about the Reunion of the Western and Eastern Churches. ** At the end of the Council, agreement was reached on reunion between the Catholic and Orthodox delegates.

Believing the church was at last reunited, the 1441 pronouncement was made, in order to reaffirm the universality of the re-united church. Those who did not belong to the reunited church were outside the realm of salvation.

Unfortunately when the Orthodox delegates returned to the East their agreement was rejected and the reuniting of the Church never took place. Therefore the situation for which the statement was designed (of there being only one universal and united church) never came to pass. The statement was designed for a particular situation where there were no other Christians outside the Catholic Church.

 

[Thal59]

What goes around, comes around. Allow me to quote myself from my post #2 of two weeks ago.

Papal infallibility does not mean that everything the Pope says is perfect. It means that when he speaks “ex cathedra” or “in the spirit” on matters of dogma and doctrine, the Holy Spirit will guide him to make a decision that at that time is the best, most perfect decision possible.

Your problem is that you are covering two very distinct and varied time frames. The world of 1441 was enormously different from the world that produced the version of the cathechism you quoted from.<<

If infallibility meant orations that were perfect once and for all, then there would be nothing new that could be said or decided upon today. After 2,000 years of infallible decrees, all possible scenarios would have been addressed.

Infalliblity is the Lord’s promise through the guidance of the Holy Spirit that His vicar, when the situation demands it, will make at the crucial time, the best or most perfect solution for that time. Though God does not change, the times do, and man changes with them. God, in His infinite wisdom, made provisions for this - allowing man to grow and for doctrine to develop. Though the most primal dogmas stay the same, such as the trinity or the divine/human nature of Christ, the relationship of humanity to the church can fluxuate for better or worse, depending on the circumstances.

The Holy Spirit is the Lord’s promise to expose those primal dogmas to us, infallibility is the Lord’s promise that the church will be ever able to adapt to a changing world without corrupting its core beliefs.

Thal59