Invincible Ignorance....

[AnneElliot]

Are you a theologian?

What are the qualifications that makes one a theologian? … I do possess degrees in Theology (and Philosophy), not that it matters. Education is what you make of it. And furthermore, you specifically said in your post that persons could belong to the “soul” of the Church… and I showed you how this is impossible (i.e., because the Holy Spirit is the soul of the Church, and also because the Church is a body-- the Body of Christ). You won’t be able to find a source where the Church teaches that non-Catholics (i.e., non baptized persons) can somehow belong to the ‘soul’ of the Church.

For the record, I am not a sedevacantist. Pope Benedict XVI is the true and valid Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, and I submit to him. I also attend a Novus Ordo liturgy more frequently than I attend the TLM.

 

[ncjohn]

So you can interpret Dogmas? How do you interpret the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception? Do you interpret the Dogma of Transubstantiation as well? Why when it comes to THIS dogma do we need to “interpret”?

Dogmatic “definitions” are just that—definitions. Do you look up a word in the dictionary and then say, “Oh, gee, how do I interpret this?”

I am continually amazed at why this causes problems with people. WE (Catholics) believe -KNOW- that a piece of bread can and DOES become Jesus Himself. Yet some of the same people who claim to accept this have problems with the fact that truth is necessary for salvation.

Dogmatic definitions are to be accepted in faith:

---

Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:***
“The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned[Denzinger 2022]

Yet we have the Church continually explaining her position on this topic–both in its teaching tool, the Catechisms going back for at least 500 years, and official statements such as the Feeney condemnation–while individuals continue to try to “interpret” the Church’s documents privately in opposition to what the Church–the only valid interpreter of its teachings–says they mean.

Is it really that hard to note the soul-threatening irony of quoting document after document stating how one can not find salvation while willfully separting one’s self from the Church while simultaneously and consciously separating one’s self from what the Church explicitly states it is teaching?

We may indeed have “traditionalism” at work here but it does not appear to involve the traditions of Catholicism which involve a willingness to submit to the Church’s teachings rather than indulging in forms of self-interpretation the Church has always condemned.

 

[Sirach2]

CradleCath:

My fellow posters, please put the above quote into your search engine. It will lead you to mostholyfamilymonastery sites. These will take you to sedevacantist sites. We are dealing with a bunch of sedes here who are giving Traditional Roman Catholics a horrible name & claiming false doctrines by giving partial quotes, etc.

And not only to this site, but several others that employ experts to peruse Catholic documents, seeking clauses to poison the minds of visitors to their forums. What is so obviously clear when we read the posts of those here at CAF who are in opposition certain Church teachings in agreement with these websites, is that nothing has been studied on their own as individuals seeking truth. No, their “truth” comes solely from these seducers who have managed to isolate the Church’s teachings out of context and make them appear true, or from reading other posters’ quotes and adopting their theology.

As lengthly as the Summa of St. Thomas is, don’t you think it’s laughable that this one famous passage is the only quote pulled? And if anyone questions it, we are told it agrees with the teaching of the Church. I would love to see the surrounding paragraphs of St. Thomas; i.e., that "God will inspire everyone who is invincibly ignorant of Him God and either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…” We need to see Thomas’ full teaching. The following contradicts the concept that only the intellect needs to receive “internal inspiration what is to be believed.” Knowledge in the intellect does NOT provide justification! Period.

But because justice is completed in the affections, if man were turned toward God only with his intellect, he would not be coming into contact with God by the power that receives justice, his affections.

Thus he could not be justified.

It is therefore required that not only the intellect be turned toward God but also the affections. But the first motion of the affections toward anything is the motion of love, as was explained in the question on the passions of the Soul.** This motion is included in desire as a cause in an effect; for something is desired as loved**. Hope, moreover, implies desire accompanied by the rousing of one’s spirits as tending to something arduous. Then, just as the motion of cognition is accompanied by a motion of love, so too the motion of love is accompanied by a motion of hope or desire; for love arouses desire or hope just as the object apprehended arouses love.

Thus in the justification of sinners free choice is moved toward God by the motion of faith, of charity, and of hope; for the one justified must be turned toward God by loving Him with the hope of pardon. These three motions are counted as a single complete motion inasmuch as they are included in one another. Yet that motion takes its name from faith because faith contains the other motions virtually and is included in them.

Since affective love is the motivation for repentence and turning to God, we hear the words of Jesus to the penitent woman in scripture, “Many sins are forgiven her because she has loved much.”

My guess as to why the first quote of St. Thomas is cited so frequently is to further justify the EENS position and eliminate all possibility of BOD or BOB.

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

I would suggest to all posters to take a deep breath, relax, stay off the thread for a day or two and re-think your arguments.

It seems to me that there are posters here that are making accusations without having all the facts, and this is uncharitable.

There are posters accusing others of being sedevacantists, defending certain websites, certain priests, certain positions, preaching false doctrine, trying to scare away non -catholics, lying, etc. I would suggest that if you are going to accuse someone of these things, you get your facts straight before making an attempt in trying to discredit someone.

This thread was started to discuss invincible ignorance… It was not started so that certain posters could falsely accuse others in order to try to discredit their positions. It is a sad day when we have Catholics accusing other Catholics without having all the facts.

Fact 1 - I am not a sedevacantist
Fact 2 - I am not here to defend Fr. Feeney. I have enough intellect to read and develop my own conclusions on this particular subject.
Fact 3 - I believe that there are certain contradictions pertaining to certain teachings in the Church today. I believe that some modern positions cannot be reconciled with positions of the past. I do not believe that the pope is an anti-pope and that everyone is going to hell.

Friends, this debate has turned into a name calling fiasco as opposed to a fact based discussion. It has turned nasty due to some postings and again, falsely accusing someone without all the facts is just plain wrong.

I would enjoy to continue the debate, but I will not partake or condone false and malicious accusations on a thread that I have started.

It is healthy to have such debates and there is nothing wrong with having an opposing viewpoint. If this thread is to continue, I would ask that if you are going to post something about another poster, please have your facts straight.

God Bless

 

[CradleCath]

Saint Peter Canisius (died A.D. 1597): “Outside of this communion - as outside the ark on Noah - there is absolutely no salvation for mortals: not for Jews or pagans who never recieved the faith of the Church, nor for heretics who, having recieved it, corrupted it; neither for the excommunicated or those who for any other serious cause deserve to be put away and separated from the body of the Church like pernicious members…for the rule of Cyprian and Augustine is certain: he will not have God for his Father who would not have the Church for his mother.”

Well, well…look at this. Put this quote into your search engine & look what you find:

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecumenism/nonsalus.htm

The Popes and Saints On:
The Catholic Doctrine of No Salvation Outside the Church

By Raymond Taouk

Put “Raymond Taouk” into your search engine & you will be taken to splinter groups, the SSPX, Hutton Gibson (& Mel). I’m done with this & hope that this thread it closed soon.

 

[Sirach2]

Before you go, CradleCath,

Thank you for your good (name removed by moderator)ut here. I have another reference from the Saint/Doctor Thomas Aquinas who is cited rather frequently with the quote I previously mentioned. I fully believe it was out of context, and not even logical with the great mind that this saint had. He refers to both BOB and BOD here, proving that the Church always held belief in both. It should put to rest this false representation of EENS that is being promoted.

Reply to Objection 2. No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom “contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism,” i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment.

Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without “faith that worketh by charity”), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, “but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire” as is stated 1 Corinthians 3:15.

Reply to Objection 3. The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; “which, with God, counts for the deed”.
newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article2

 

[Sirach2]

bump …
ncjohn to AnneElliott:

so we get back to the real question. Are you claiming that these are not authentic teachings of the church and are in contradiction with doctrine? We seem to keep dancing around the question without being able to get an answer to it.

I don’t expect that anyone is going to change your mind any more than you are going to change mine. I’m truly just trying to understand exactly what you and sgt rock are actually trying to say.

Can we just have a simple “yes” or “no”?

 

[Sirach2]

Sgt Rock 33:

Fact 3 - I believe that there are certain contradictions pertaining to certain teachings in the Church today. I believe that some modern positions cannot be reconciled with positions of the past. I do not believe that the pope is an anti-pope and that everyone is going to hell.

You are entitled to your belief, but you are attempting to impose it on others by continuously repeating the same old rhetoric, regardless of how many factual rebuttals are presented for your consideration. They are all rejected by you. It is your right to oppose the teachings of the Magisterium interiorly, or if someone might ask for your opinion. Why not keep your opinion and let it rest? Why the rush to proselytize?? Why not graciously accept the opinions of others and move on, rather than override them with your repetitious quotes?

Nevertheless, holding these beliefs does put you outside of communion with Rome, and does irreparable harm by spreading your opinion to innocent Catholics via this forum.

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

Nevertheless, holding these beliefs does put you outside of communion with Rome, and does irreparable harm by spreading your opinion to innocent Catholics via this forum.

Obviously, I will have to disagree with you. You are in no position to judge whether or not I am outside of communion with Rome.

I don’t believe that I have done any harm to anyone. I have put forth an excellent argument showing the contradictions of prior teachings with modern teachings. Whether you decide to accept these facts is entirely up to you, of course. But, the facts are the facts. For, as the then-Cardinal Ratzinger put it:

“The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council;…” Message delivered on July 13, 1988 to the bishops in Chile.

This being the case, your documents you cite from Vatican II carry no weight in this debate as they have not defined any dogma.

Also, why has the CCC gone through more than one edition? Are we to discard prior editions?

God Bless

 

[AnneElliot]

So we get back to the real question. Are you claiming that these are NOT authentic teachings of the Church and are in contradiction with doctrine? We seem to keep dancing around the question without being able to get an answer to it.

I don’t expect that anyone is going to change your mind any more than you are going to change mine. I’m truly just trying to understand exactly what you and Sgt Rock are actually trying to say.

Can we just have a simple “yes” or “no”?

Before I can respond, I need to know what ncjohn means by “these” (i.e., I’m assuming, since it came up in a discussion regarding the Catechism, he has particular statements from the Catechism in mind… but I’m not a mind reader) but I really don’t know for certain to what he is referring to be able to give a definitive answer.

I can’t answer so simply without specifics.

 

[AnneElliot]

CradleCath,

You are so concerned (and rightly so!) about sedevacantists and schismatics… but I don’t think anyone defending EENS in this thread falls into either category, so whatever rad-trad fears you are trying to connect the defense of EENS with are unfounded. Whether a quote is cited on some crazy man’s site is irrelevant, since people can post whatever they want on their own personal website. Do you have concrete evidence that a poster is a sedevacantist or schismatic? (… which would be the epitome of irony with regards to EENS!)

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

CradleCath,

You are so concerned (and rightly so!) about sedevacantists and schismatics… but I don’t think anyone defending EENS in this thread falls into either category, so whatever rad-trad fears you are trying to connect the defense of EENS with are unfounded. Whether a quote is cited on some crazy man’s site is irrelevant, since people can post whatever they want on their own personal website. Do you have concrete evidence that a poster is a sedevacantist or schismatic? (… which would be the epitome of irony with regards to EENS!)

I completely agree…

We cannot throw those terms around loosely.

God Bless

 

[Sirach2]

:banghead: Here we go again. I presented arguments that this was an “ecumenical coucil,” which is ALWAYS infallible, even though it addressed pastoral concerns. Once again, you do not accept the truth when it is square in front of you. Perhaps if I present ten more proofs you might listen? I seriously doubt it, and you will come back again with your stance. Maybe the logic is that if you repeat it often enough, we might believe you. And as for being out of communion, whenever we reject any teachings of an ecumenical council solemnly voted upon by 2300 bishops, ratified and promulgated by the pope, yes, generally speaking, that puts you out of unity. I’m not judging your soul, only speaking what the Church teaches, and I know you have the ability to use the search engine. I won’t spend another minute trying to debate your illogic.

For the benefit of our lurkers, all versions of the Catechism are valid and useful for teaching, including the several issues of Baltimore. An analogy might apply to the missal changes throughout the centuries. Since the Church has promulgated many new missals, does that render the old ones was problematic? Rather, does the Church not have the Divine Authority to make worthier editions to better enhance one’s understanding? Many traditionalists still use the Baltimore Catechism, and one of the 4 versions happens to be very useful for teaching children due to its simplicity.

Do you see why you antagonize people, Sgt? You object to Vatican II which is dear to most Catholics, and now you plant a seed that her Catechism is faulty. Attack the Church, then her instruments of teaching, and you have a good probability of promoting apostacy.

Lest you misconstrue the intentions of the posters here, please know that those who love God and the Church, love her members. It is the Spirit indwelling us that prompts us to reject errors and to desire perfection and holiness for all. Publicly asking questions and seeking is always encouraged and responded to, but it is grievous to see continual carping without a resolution. You will just have to agree to disagree, let it rest, and move on, since you are not really seeking. PLEASE!

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

Do you see why you antagonize people, Sgt? You object to Vatican II which is dear to most Catholics, and now you plant a seed that her Catechism is faulty. Attack the Church, then her instruments of teaching, and you have a good probability of promoting apostacy.

I have not antogonized anyone. I merely pointed out a quote from Cardinal Ratzinger. Was he lying when he said this? I wouldn’t take that debate up with me, rather I would take that up with him, as I did not say it, obviously.

God Bless

 

[DavidJoseph]

And furthermore, you specifically said in your post that persons could belong to the “soul” of the Church… and I showed you how this is impossible (i.e., because the Holy Spirit is the soul of the Church, and also because the Church is a body-- the Body of Christ).

No you didn’t.

You won’t be able to find a source where the Church teaches that non-Catholics (i.e., non baptized persons) can somehow belong to the ‘soul’ of the Church.

Oh, but I can and have:

The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X states:
%between%

If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can, such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.

While I’m at it, the Baltimore Catechism states:

If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell.

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X states:

This is directly off of EWTN’s website:

“*It was not, however, prescribed for use throughout the universal church.” *Concerning the Catechism of St. Pius X

Interesting…

God Bless

 

[DavidJoseph]

This is directly off of EWTN’s website:

“*It was not, however, prescribed for use throughout the universal church.” *Concerning the Catechism of St. Pius X

Interesting…

Relevance please?

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

Here are some quotes from the Foreword of the Catechism of St. Pius X:

“After the Second Vatican Council, a number of new catechisms appeared which did not present Catholic Doctrine as it should be presented, and these new publications even included some very grave errors.”

and:

“The American edition in 1974 has further been “adapted according to the Second Vatican Council”, thus losing much of the value of the original text…”

This was all taken off of EWTN’s website…

It also looks as though there are a variety of editions to this Catechism…

God Bless

 

[SGT_ROCK_33]

Relevance please?

I would pose the same question to you concerning your post…

God Bless

 

[DavidJoseph]

Here are some quotes from the Foreword of the Catechism of St. Pius X:

“After the Second Vatican Council, a number of new catechisms appeared which did not present Catholic Doctrine as it should be presented, and these new publications even included some very grave errors.”

and:

“The American edition in 1974 has further been “adapted according to the Second Vatican Council”, thus losing much of the value of the original text…”

This was all taken off of EWTN’s website…

It also looks as though there are a variety of editions to this Catechism…

Nope, sorry, the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X dates back to 1910, and the quote I cited is from that same year – LONG BEFORE Vatican II.