How is this Papal Bull not Infallible?

[DJim]

Maybe we can simply start from square one:

Does Baptism incorporate one into the Mystical Body of Christ–thus making them a member of the Church–or NOT?

DJim

 

[mgrfin]

Conciliar decrees and dogmatic constitutions are generally counted upon to teach the unadulterated truth.

And they do. Including those from the Second Vatican Council.

I might also suggest that you add to your list the great encyclical by Pope John Paul II, “Ut Unum Sint.” It deals rather directly with the same topic…

No errors in that one either…

DJim

I grew up with Pius XII and Mystici Corporis.

No errors in any of them, but some clarifications on Vat 2 docs going on by Cardinal Levada of CDF, with confirmation by Benedict XVI.

peace,
mgrfin

 

[Jerry-Jet]

DJim: Of course it does–that’s why Protestants can be informally members of the Catholic Church and can be saved.

That fact in and of itself does nothing for Protestants who Aren’t Invincibly Ignorant and learn of the truth of the Catholic Faith and Resist it!

When they do they are in a state of Mortal sin.

Absent Sacramental Confession to a Catholic priests how are those people reconciled to God?

We know they can be reconciled by perfect contrition for their sins but isn’t that quite rare?

Could God work outside the sacraments and give them the grace so that they would have perfect contrition or reconcile them in some other way unbeknownst to us?

Of course! God is not bound by the sacraments.

Does that mean that there is a great likelihood that that is what He would do or that there is a great likelihood that people who have no access to the sacraments would desire God or have Perfect contrition for their sins?

No!

Are Baptized Protestant children who die before the age of reason in Heaven? Of course! They are informally united to the Catholic Church by Baptism and do not die in a state of mortal sin.

Is anyone informally united to the Catholic Church in the whole world in Heaven if they Do Die in a state of Mortal sin?

No!

The bottom line is that there is a big difference between saying that it is possible for someone who is not a formal member of the Catholic Church and who mortally sins–that they would have the Possibility of being reconciled to God–and

saying that it is probable that they would be reconciled to God.

That just isn’t the case!

Anyone who is not formally a member of the Catholic Church beyond the age of reason has a much greaater chance of Hell because since they do not have access to hearing the Fullness of the Faith

And don’t have the sacraments to give them the grace to stay in a state of grace

then they have a much greater chance to fall in to mortal sin and go to Hell.

That’s a fact whether the Ecumenists like it or not!

 

[DJim]

I grew up with Pius XII and Mystici Corporis.

No errors in any of them, but some clarifications on Vat 2 docs going on by Cardinal Levada of CDF, with confirmation by Benedict XVI.

peace,
mgrfin

There are no errors to be found in the universal teaching of Vatican II, either.

Btw, was Pius XII in “error” when phrasing the passage in Mystici Corporis that refers to who is “actually” a member of the Church? After all, if Baptism by itself makes one a member of the Church, why did he state that only those who are baptized and “profess the true faith” are members of the Church?

Is that an “error” or is that something that needs to be understood according to the mind of the Magisterium?

Perhaps you can offer some “clarification” on Pius’s teaching?

DJim

 

[DJim]

Jerry-jet–I think we’re in agreement that the Church has continously taught the possibility of salvation to those not in full communion with the Church, but not the probability .

Further, it would seem we both agree that the Church has not changed its view regarding who is a member and who is not…

DJim

 

[Jerry-Jet]

DJi]m: Isn’t it curious that Development of the Church’s teaching is something that Protestants and some ulta-traditionalists or sedevacanists just can’t somach.

One side rejects the true teaching of the Catholic Church–the other side worships their own “Catholic” intepretation of what the true teching is!

 

[mgrfin]

There are no errors to be found in the universal teaching of Vatican II, either.

Btw, was Pius XII in “error” when phrasing the passage in Mystici Corporis that refers to who is “actually” a member of the Church? After all, if Baptism by itself makes one a member of the Church, why did he state that only those who are baptized and “profess the true faith” are members of the Church?

Is that an “error” or is that something that needs to be understood according to the mind of the Magisterium?

Perhaps you can offer some “clarification” on Pius’s teaching?

DJim

“Mystici Corporis” and Pius XII were 'de riguere" when it comes to the teaching of the Catholic Church on the Body of Christ.

Before I get into that, some ‘revisions’, or better, elucidations have taken place on the teaching of Vatican II. Published June 29, 2007the CDF published “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church”.

Benedict XVI has declared that Vatican 2 neither changed or intended to change the doctrine, but rather developed it, deepened it and more fully explained it.The was what John XXIII said when he inaugurated the Council, and what Paul VI said when he promulgated “Lumen Gentium”. What was, still is. Well is ‘what was, still it’ we have to go back to "Mystici Corporis find out what the what is.

Benedict clarified the terminology of “subsists in” versus ‘is’. There is no change in the definition of the “Church of Christ” being identical with the Catholic Church.

So, we have to be careful here, the Congregation of Divine Faith, formerly, the Congregation of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, with the blessing (and probably at the instigation of Benedict XVI (since that used to be his domain), has insisted there is no change in the doctrine.

So all the arguments in this tread that there is change, and what is infallible and what is not is all for naught, guys. There is no change. I’ll continue this in another post on saying what is in “Mystici Corporis”.

peace,
mgrfin

 

[mgrfin]

DJim: !

In the case of those baptized outside the Church, whether Protestants or schismatics, their admission into it - and so into the Mystical Body of Christ - depends on making profession of the Faith before a Catholic prelate or priest, and submitting to the Church’s authority. The Church is not, primarily, the society or body of the baptized but of the faithful. As very clearly stated in Mytici Corporis, (Pius XII) 'those who are divided from one another in faith or in government cannot live in the unity of such a body, and in its one divine spirit.

Does Baptism incorporate one into the Mystical Body of Christ, thus making them a member of the Church–or NOT?
No, you not only have to be baptised, but you have to be under the authority of the Church.

Pretty clear.

peace,
mgrfin

 

[DJim]

Pretty clear? Sure is. You are, unfortunately, in error.

Let’s look at the pertinent Canons of the Council of Trent regarding Baptism.

Canon 4. If anyone says that the baptism which is given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church does, is not true baptism,[12] let him be anathema.

So we know there’s no question that such baptisms are valid.

Canon 8. If anyone says that those baptized are free from all the precepts of holy Church, whether written or unwritten, so that they are not bound to observe them unless they should wish to submit to them of their own accord, let him be anathema.

So the Council dogmatically declares that all the baptized are bound by the precepts of the Church. Why, if they are not, in fact, members of the Church???

Canon 11. If anyone says that baptism, truly and rightly administered, must be repeated in the one converted to repentance after having denied the faith of Christ among the infidels, let him be anathema.

If one who is baptized outside of the Church is NOT already a member of the Church, then why this canon?

In a nutshell, do you not understand that Baptism places you under the authority of the Church??? At least it does according to the Council of Trent.

Baptism makes you automatically a member of the Body of Christ, which places you under the authority of the Church.

DJim

 

[bastion]

The Papal Bull quoted is certainly infallible.
Furthermore it is to be understood exactly as it is written, as is clearly taught here:

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess.3, Chap.2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”

This whole teaching ties in with the Bible here:
“…the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ… Nor is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name, under heaven, given to men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12).

For more study on this I recommend checking this document out.
mostholyfamilymonastery.com/2nd_edition_final.pdf

The great thing about being Catholic is that everything is simple to understand once you check out the infallible teachings (dogmas, bulls etc…), it’s just a matter of finding them!

 

[DJim]

The link above (post 308 from bastion) should be removed immediately from this forum.

DJim

PS–it takes you to sedevacantist trash–please ignore.

 

[DJim]

This from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water and in the word."5

Simple stuff. Through valid Baptism we are made subject to the authority of the Church because it makes us MEMBERS of the Church.

Flawed interpretations of “Mystici Corporis” notwithstanding, the truth is out. All it takes to be a “default member” of the Church is valid Baptism.

Now, what happens after that point is up to the individual.

DJim

 

[Ignatius]

Kaste:

Kaste

What happened to Kaste? Are you still there?

 

[bastion]

The link above (post 308 from bastion) should be removed immediately from this forum.

DJim

PS–it takes you to sedevacantist trash–please ignore.

You seem to be following me around and discounting my views out of hand with no attempt at an explanation.
Is this normal practise on these forums? Maybe it is, I’m new here - please explain?

 

[DJim]

You seem to be following me around and discounting my views out of hand with no attempt at an explanation.
Is this normal practise on these forums? Maybe it is, I’m new here - please explain?

Gladly. Your post above contains a link to a web site that is virulently anti-Catholic, claiming the sedevacantist viewpoint and giving viewers such gems as the “Heresy of the Week” from His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

The purveyors of this garbage are the Dimond brothers, with whom I am quite familiar.

It is such a disturbingly aggressive and hateful site that I felt compelled to make clear that you are–whether knowingly or not remains to be determined–promoting this agenda.

I am hardly ever this aggressive–aggressive enough to list your posts and warn people. But if there is one group that seems worthy of this type of response, it is this one.

If you have only accidentally linked to this site without full knowledge, then I ask you to accept my apology.

Have you?

DJim

 

[mgrfin]

2576184]

I don’t know whether Bastion is aware of it. He should be.
The site he references, he knows, is an heretical/schimatic web site. There is no monastery with such a name in Fillmore, NY, and the group has not relationship with the Catholic Church. All local dioceses to this area deny any connection with any catholic diocese. The Dimond brothers are not members of the Benedictines.

As a matter of fact, the group knowingly lies about who they are and their purpose. They believe the Catholic Church ended in 1958, and what they espouse as Catholic doctrine is in effect, heretical.

I guess they have some right to be on this website, but I think everyone should know who they are and what they are trying to accomplish.

peace,

mgrfin

 

[mgrfin]

You seem to be following me around and discounting my views out of hand with no attempt at an explanation.
Is this normal practise on these forums? Maybe it is, I’m new here - please explain?

I wouldn’t be paranoic about it. Everyone here is asked to defend his position, more or less. Such requests for information is for everyone’s edification.

peace
mgrfin

 

[mgrfin]

This from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Simple stuff. Through valid Baptism we are made subject to the authority of the Church because it makes us MEMBERS of the Church.

Flawed interpretations of “Mystici Corporis” notwithstanding, the truth is out. All it takes to be a “default member” of the Church is valid Baptism.

Now, what happens after that point is up to the individual.

DJim

Im not sure what are 'flawed interpretations of “Mystici Corporis”. Having grown up with Pius XII, at the time, we all thought his letter was magnificient.

It adds a lot of weight to a definition of the Mystical Body of Christ:

quote: Mystici Corporis:
22. 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. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.”[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
unquote

I’m not elucidating or quoting on the text. What do you think it means?
peace,
mgrfin

 

[mgrfin]

Pretty clear? Sure is. You are, unfortunately, in error.

Let’s look at the pertinent Canons of the Council of Trent regarding Baptism.

So we know there’s no question that such baptisms are valid.

So the Council dogmatically declares that all the baptized are bound by the precepts of the Church. Why, if they are not, in fact, members of the Church???

If one who is baptized outside of the Church is NOT already a member of the Church, then why this canon?

In a nutshell, do you not understand that Baptism places you under the authority of the Church??? At least it does according to the Council of Trent.

Baptism makes you automatically a member of the Body of Christ, which places you under the authority of the Church.

DJim

The canons quoted only state that baptism, properly administered, have the effect they signify. The canons of Session 7, regarding Baptism say nothing of membership in the Church of the Mystical Boy of Christ.

The Church is the congregation of all baptised person united in the same true faith, the same sacrifice, and the same sacraments, under the authority of the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him.

Since Baptism, according to the ruling of Christ, is the gateway to the Church, a person becomes a member of the Church on receiving this sacrament. (Including infants).
To remain a real member of the Church after Baptism, a person must profess the one true faith, and must not withdraw from the unity of the body of the Church in schism or heresy or be excommunicated by legitimate authority because of serious sins.

peace,

mgrfin

 

[bastion]

No the link was certainly no accident, after reading the material there I found it to be quite logical and charitable, certainly not anti-catholic.
If you have a problem with it thats fine, but what gives you the right to dictate to people what they can or can not read?

For those interested it is here:
mostholyfamilymonastery.com/

Surely people have a right to see other peoples views and come up with their own conclusion? Or are you on your own little crusade against peoples ‘freedom of religion’ - which is supported in Vatican II?..
What would Ben XVI say?