Marian T. Horvat

[TNT]

SPEAKING OF CONSCIENCE:
Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity
Apostolicam Actuositatem (18 November, 1965)
The** layman**, at one and the same time a believer and a citizen of the world, has only a single conscience, a Christian conscience; it is by this [HIS CONSCIENCE] that he must be guided continually in both domains.

Declaration on Religious Liberty
Dignitatis Humane (7 December, 1965)
#3:
It is through his conscience that man sees and recognizes the demands of the divine law. He is bound to follow this conscience faithfully in all his activity so that he may come to God, who is his last end. Therefore he must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters. The reason is because the practice of religion of its very nature consists primarily of those voluntary and free internal acts by which a man directs himself to God. Acts of this kind cannot be commanded or forbidden by any merely human authority. But his own social nature requires that man give external expression to these internal acts of religion, that he communicate with others on religious matters, and profess his religion in community. Consequently to deny man the free exercise of his religion in society, when the just requirements of public order are observed, is to do an injustice to the human person and to the very order established by God for men.

#11:
…“each of us shall give an account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:12) and for that reason is bound to obey his conscience. Like Christ, the apostles were constantly bent on bearing witness to the truth of God and they showed the greatest courage in speaking “the word of God with boldness” (Acts 4:31)

#26:
…the right to act according to the dictates of conscience and to safeguard his privacy, and rightful freedom even in matters of religion.

 

[TNT]

From bear06:

…From “We resist…” again:

So, from their very own mouths, they are resisting teachings that have been made by the past few Magisteriums because THEY feel that they are in conflict with previous Magisterium.

…

How about BECAUSE OF THEIR CONSCIENCE? RATHER THAN “THEY FEEL”?
How did you know it was just a feeling and not a dictate of conscience which they must obey?

 

[bear06]

How about BECAUSE OF THEIR CONSCIENCE? RATHER THAN “THEY FEEL”?
How did you know it was just a feeling and not a dictate of conscience which they must obey?

Good gracicious, T. How many schismatics throughout history have felt they were following their conscience? Horvat and company have said that they will resist the teachings of the Church (and they themselves termed them teachings) until they are no longer teachings.

 

[TNT]

Good gracicious, T. How many schismatics throughout history have felt they were following their conscience? Horvat and company have said that they will resist the teachings of the Church (and they themselves termed them teachings) until they are no longer teachings.

Umm,
Read the Post on CONSCIENCE above my prv post…in summary, you are to OBEY your conscience…even if it’s distorted. Yep.
Same question: How did you know it was not their conscience, but their FEELINGS?
BTW:
Where did they say “they will resist the teachings of the Church…”?
Can you cut n paste that part?

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

You’ve totally misprepresented the article. I suggest you go back and re read it.

Fr. Somerville actually doesn’t call John XXIII “an impious wretch and no priest.” He says that II Machabees describes Jason as “King Johnny” and “wore a wide brimmed hat” the conclusion about whether John also fits the description in II Machabees is left to be made by the reader.

Also there is often a charge about his autobiography containing boastful comments about his chastity. Is this true?

Your particularly spin on the Popes and speculations about JPI are no more valid than TIA’s opinions.

John Paul II never asked anyone to convert to Catholicism as far as I know. And from my experience, many people who did convert to Catholicism because of him don’t actually hold the Catholic faith on many points.

I should have mentioned that there is absolutely no evidence that JPI actually was murdered; however, of the many rumors that circulate about his death, not one of them accuses him of being involved in the corruption.

In terms of John XXIII, I don’t think that his comments about his chastity were boastful, considering that there is no evidence that they are false. The comment that TIA finds objectionable is in the context of a general examination of conscience made near the end of this holy Pope’s life that was probably not meant to be read.

Furthermore, by implying the author’s belief that the post-conciliar Popes were invalidly elected, the article reeks of closet sedevacantism.

 

[bear06]

Umm,
Read the Post on CONSCIENCE above my prv post…in summary, you are to OBEY your conscience…even if it’s distorted. Yep.

T, you know very well that you’re taking a teaching that says we can’t force our Faith on someone (DH) and making it that we won’t be held accountable when we wrongly follow our conscience.

Same question: How did you know it was not their conscience, but their FEELINGS?

It’s irrelevant

Where did they say “they will resist the teachings of the Church…”?
Can you cut n paste that part?

No I can’t cut and paste because it’s not on-line. See the quotes from “We resist…” that I cited. Again, Vatican II is part of Church teachings. No matter how they try, the Remnant folks can’t say that Vatican II, John XXIII, Paul VI and JPII weren’t part of the Church.

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

It should also be noted that TIA has adopted a flawed view of the dogma Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Bl. Pius IX himself, so praised by the group, taught that non-Catholics can be saved because of invincible ignorance, but TIA insists that anyone who is not Catholic is condemned to Hell.

This is, quite simply, not true, and if anyone wants I can supply plenty of quotes from the Church Fathers to prove this fact.

 

[GerardP]

It should also be noted that TIA has adopted a flawed view of the dogma Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Bl. Pius IX himself, so praised by the group, taught that non-Catholics can be saved because of invincible ignorance, but TIA insists that anyone who is not Catholic is condemned to Hell.

This is, quite simply, not true, and if anyone wants I can supply plenty of quotes from the Church Fathers to prove this fact.

That is not what Pius IX says. He says that God will not punish those not guilty of deliberate sin with eternal punishment. They won’t be punished for not entering the Church if they had no opportunity. That means they will be punished for what they were guilty for.

How someone can live a sinless life being subject to original sin and without the sacraments is not a likely scenario.

But that doesn’t mean that God won’t provide for those few “invincible ignorant” who follow the natural law and are honest.
He will provide knowledge (light) and a real Baptism (grace) to save them.

And Pius IX had to clarify what he meant in the Syllbus of Errors

Condemned:

“Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those **who are not at all **in the true Church of Christ.”

 

[cameron_lansing]

That is not what Pius IX says. He says that God will not punish those not guilty of deliberate sin with eternal punishment. They won’t be punished for not entering the Church if they had no opportunity. That means they will be punished for what they were guilty for.

How someone can live a sinless life being subject to original sin and without the sacraments is not a likely scenario.

But that doesn’t mean that God won’t provide for those few “invincible ignorant” who follow the natural law and are honest.
He will provide knowledge (light) and a real Baptism (grace) to save them.

And Pius IX had to clarify what he meant in the Syllbus of Errors

Condemned:

“Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those **who are not at all **in the true Church of Christ.”

The Syllabus at that point appears to reference his earlier encyclical of 1863, Quanto conficiamue moerore, which may be consulted to obtain a context for his statement that is pertinent to your discussion on this point.

“7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.”

This translation is available from ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9quanto.htm

He does not appear to comment on either the relative number of people in this category or indicate that they will have led sinless lives.

 

[santiago1]

This is her website: Tradition in Action. They have just recently moved in the realm of heretics by claiming the New Mass is illegitimate. They generally make huge mountains out of nothing, such as Benedict wearing sunglasses means he is modernist. All in all, I read them, but only for laughs, and have written several letters to them pointing out their lies.
It is best to just stay away from them, however.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

P.S.
Here are links to their articles on Mother Teresa:
traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A154rcJPII-MotherTeresaGandhi.htm
traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A067rcMadreTeresaBudha.htm
traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a013htMotherTeresa.htm (I see this one was already posted)

P.P.S
Here is here Bio at “Daily Catholic”: dailycatholic.org/mhorvbio.htm. She has reasoned in the past that associating with heretics makes one guilty of heresy. If that is true, she is a heretic by her own definition, as “Daily Catholic” is a heretical organization that is sedevacentist.

I have read many of Dr Horvat’s article. I found them quite enlightening. I really think her articles do make sense. Her article on Mother Teresa just echoes my opinion --when I read 1 of Mother Teresa’s books I was really shocked with her opinions on other religions. And she always loved to say she doesn’t wish to convert Hindus or Muslims, just let them keep their own religion. I really find such opinions of Mother Teresa quite shocking.

 

[LightBound]

I have read many of Dr Horvat’s article. I found them quite enlightening. I really think her articles do make sense. Her article on Mother Teresa just echoes my opinion --when I read 1 of Mother Teresa’s books I was really shocked with her opinions on other religions. And she always loved to say she doesn’t wish to convert Hindus or Muslims, just let them keep their own religion. I really find such opinions of Mother Teresa quite shocking.

Hello James,

I see that you are “new”, so I wanted to let you know a couple of things.

First, it’s against forum rules to resurrect old threads and this one is ancient. Next, it’s also against forum rules to promote sites or publications of a sedevacantist mindset and the author you are singing the praises of is most definitely of that mindset.

 

[RPRPsych]

And she always loved to say she doesn’t wish to convert Hindus or Muslims, just let them keep their own religion. I really find such opinions of Mother Teresa quite shocking.

To understand this, you need to understand the specific mission, or charism, of the Missionaries of Charity. I’ve been privileged to observe their good works at fairly close quarters, so here’s what I can say:

1. They believe in converting by example and by good deeds, rather than by traditional evangelization.
2. Many of their inmates are mentally disabled, ill, or dying. In such circumstances, a forced conversion (such as, say, Baptism of an adult when his consent cannot be assumed) is not on the cards; in fact, Church Tradition is against it. (I can’t recall the exact passage in Denzinger, but it’s there.) The children they take in - who are often abandoned and left to die, or physically and mentally disabled - are baptised.
3. They are quite strong on traditional Catholic imagery and forms of prayer, and teach the Rosary to those inmates who can join in. I’ve never seen an image of a Hindu god, a secular politician, or anything else even remotely objectionable in the place I’ve been to.
4. Their example has inspired lukewarm Catholics to grow stronger in their faith, and has even won over some people from other “denominations”. More importantly, their good works have raised the image of the Church in many parts of India; it’s the secular-atheists, such as Aroup Chatterjee and Christopher Hitchens, who have bashed her. Even the most venal of Indian politicians has never picked on the Missionaries, who would otherwise be the easiest of targets.

Also keep in mind that Bl. Teresa was not a theologian, and to expect theological exactitude out of her is a bit unfair.