Salvation outside the church

[mgrfin]

1. No
2. No
3. No

I am however, an admirer of the Archbishop who enjoy’s his works. Saying he is an apostate is both a complete misapplication of the word, and a complete misunderstanding of who he was. May God have mercy on you for throwing the term so loosely around (and wrongly at that). If you think the Archbishop was an apostate, then you don’t even come come close to knowing what an actual apostate is.

I know what an apostate is.

I have quoted the Canon and its definition on this site more than once, Canon 751.

Canon law is so indifferential to the three crimes, they are all contained and defined in the same Canon. Apostacy doesn’t merit its own Canon, neither does Heresy, nor Schism.

To me they are all interrelated.

You think that schism is any less a crime in Canon Law than apostacy?

Canonically they are the same in that they merit the same punishment.

Anytime you want to argue Canon Law with me, go ahead.

Forming your own religion means to me you are throwing your old religion aside. That is a apostacy to me.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

I don’t have to do anything. Reading this thread is enough to make that apparent.

Because you can’t effectively refute it if you haven’t read their works and don’t know where they’re coming from or don’t know a thing about them.

I am not a Feeneyite as already stated, but you clearly don’t know anything about Fr. Feeney. Before he died, Pope Paul VI lifted the excommunication and he was allowed back into the Church. This is not recent news. In fact, it happened before I was born, but somehow I still know this.

My response is in Post #399

 

[Walking_Home]

I know what an apostate is.

I have quoted the Canon and its definition on this site more than once, Canon 751.

Canon law is so indifferential to the three crimes, they are all contained and defined in the same Canon. Apostacy doesn’t merit its own Canon, neither does Heresy, nor Schism.

To me they are all interrelated.

You think that schism is any less a crime in Canon Law than apostacy?

Canonically they are the same in that they merit the same punishment.

Anytime you want to argue Canon Law with me, go ahead.

Forming your own religion means to me you are throwing your old religion aside. That is a apostacy to me.

peace

---

It would be a waste of time to argue cannon law with someone who mis-interprets heresy and apostasy and applies them the way that you do.

 

[GerardP]

A Jesuit’s vow of obedience to the Holy Father is supposed to supersede any personal thoughts.

So, if the Holy Father wants you to say lies about the previous Pope a Jesuit more than anyone should obey him?

Feeney never retracted any of his errors before his death.

There were never any errors to retract. He only had to recite the Athanasian Creed.

He was fortunate that absolution in his grave illness would lift the excommunication.

Too bad he was so proud and obstinate.

He was reconciled 6 years before he died.

 

[TMC]

I just wasted a chunk of my life reading through a bunch of this thread, and it all seems to boil down to one point, stated many different ways. The point is that a small group of clerics disagree with the way the vast majority of the bishops and at least the last several Popes understand the Faith, and would rather their interpretation be given primacy. Some of them left the Church over this, some did not. Now there is an argument over what term of disapproval the Church formally applies to them.

But somehow there also seems to be this lingering argument that this small minority of the religious are really right, and that 95%+ of the Church, including all the most senior, are wrong in pretty big ways. And by right I don’t just mean right in the sense that they think the Church is wrong, but also right in the sense that the Church itself does not even know what it really teaches as truth.

How did all of these priests and theologians get so wrong? Isn’t there at least a chance that they are right? Doesn’t the Church get to say what the Church teaches? If these teachings on the very nature of salvation are so completely incompatible with the Faith, how is it that the vast majority of the Catholic leadership simultaneous became confused on the issue? What was the mechanism for this sudden implosion of faith in so many at once?

 

[mgrfin]

---

It would be a waste of time to argue cannon law with someone who mis-interprets heresy and apostasy and applies them the way that you do.

It is a waste of time to argue when none of the crimes, apostacy, heresy, and schism doesn’t even merit a sub-paragraph within canon 751. They are all crimes, and each merits the same penalty, excommunication reserved to the Holy See.

If one were lesser than the other, the penalties would be different.
They are not. The Canonists are distainful of each of these crimes, identical in penalty.

The Canonists who wrote the Canon are totall disrespectful of any distinction in the three crimes - they are indistinguished in Church law.

You want to be holier than the Church - go ahead, enjoy, but you don’t know what you are talking about.
peace

 

[GerardP]

The point is that a small group of clerics disagree with the way the vast majority of the bishops and at least the last several Popes understand the Faith, and would rather their interpretation be given primacy.

The vast majority of clerics and bishops also bought into the Arian heresy at one point and the Popes were not very clear all the time on that issue.

Some of them left the Church over this, some did not.

Left the Church or were persecuted by the Churchmen?

Now there is an argument over what term of disapproval the Church formally applies to them.

The Church? or the Churchmen?

But somehow there also seems to be this lingering argument that this small minority of the religious are really right, and that 95%+ of the Church, including all the most senior, are wrong in pretty big ways.

There is precedent in this with the Arians.

And by right I don’t just mean right in the sense that they think the Church is wrong, but also right in the sense that the Church itself does not even know what it really teaches as truth.

Again, the Church teaches or the Churchmen say the Church teaches? This is why we have a Magisterium and Councils. To deal with these issues. Vatican II was the only Council called by the Pope for different reasons.

How did all of these priests and theologians get so wrong?

Human weakness, bad philosophy etc.

Isn’t there at least a chance that they are right?

Any difference of opinion indicates that people are in disagreement some could be right or all could be wrong.

Doesn’t the Church get to say what the Church teaches?

The problem is Churchmen twist what the Church says to suit their own ideas.

If these teachings on the very nature of salvation are so completely incompatible with the Faith, how is it that the vast majority of the Catholic leadership simultaneous became confused on the issue?

It wasn’t simultaneous, it was gradual and larger and larger numbers of people buy into errors without knowing it.

What was the mechanism for this sudden implosion of faith in so many at once?

After the Protestant Reformation, the virtue of Obedience was stressed to the point where reason was overriden. Originally the Protestants were endangering Catholics with clever arguments from Scripture. The Catholic answers were not always clear enough for the average farmer to work through when he didn’t have the theological training. So, the Churchmen said, “Just do what we say and we’ll get you to Heaven.” As well intentioned and effective as it was in the beginning, eventually subtle errors, abuses of power and other corruptions transformed the Church into an academic exercise. “Bing Crosby Catholicism” as Bishop Williamson of the SSPX describes it.

Pope John XXIII had hoped that Vatican II would stimulate a new revival in the Church and consequently the World.

Didn’t happen. He underestimated the Devil, original sin and didn’t catch on to the fact that he himself had lapsed into a Utopianism about the World and the Church.

Paul VI was noted to have said at the Council, that both the Conservatives and the Liberals “didn’t get it” when it came to the purpose of the Council. Conservatives were fat cats who didn’t want any changes. Liberals at that point were veiled heretics imbibing in the underground modernism that had been bubbling up over the years.

Pope John and Pope Paul always sided with the liberals since they were the agents of change. What they didn’t anticipate was the lack of Catholic spirit and understanding in the liberals would be obediently absorbed by the conservatives. And after 1965 the liberals were becoming more and more strident with Paul VI being ill equipped to handle their trickery due to his own specific interests in the Council which were different from Pope John’s. Paul was interested in the political and social ramifications of the Council that would spur a growth in faith and Pope John had a more “top down” approach in which the good will and pentecostal explosion of faith would transform the outside world.

 

[mgrfin]

.

What a laughable view of Church history!

There were no councils and synods of the Church called for non- doctrinal matters? Or non-operational matters? Or, let’s get together for a party kinda Council?

What you are trying to say was that there was no real reason for Vatican 2, and for that reason, it failed?

Well, it failed as far as the ultra Traditionalists, and schismatics, heretics and apostates were concerned.

The rest of us, the Body of the Church, know the reason why it was called, and know that the Holy Spirit was there. How could it fail?

BTW Bing Crosby was one of my favorite crooners.

Too bad you didn’t come from the time of the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s. Too bad you didn’t live thru war-torn Europe, between 1939-1945.
Europe, including the Church, had a mass of destruction to repair - buildings as well as souls.

There’s a crowd, and some of them on this Board would like you to think that there was no purpose to Vatican 2 (just like there was no purpose to Vatican I), or that it failed. They espouse this notion, erroneously.

They hate to read the Acta of the Council, or the Conciliar documents, and tell us of ‘plots’, and back-room deals, and battles going on. Tell me, what Council of the Church didn’t have such contests, each and every one of them.

Just like Trent failed, and just like Nicea failed, or Chalcedon failed, so too Vatican 2 failed. Not so.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t operate failed ventures, including the Roman Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit doesn’t throw a party, and no one shows up. The Church was there, and we celebrate it.

peace

 

[Walking_Home]

It is a waste of time to argue when none of the crimes, apostacy, heresy, and schism doesn’t even merit a sub-paragraph within canon 751. They are all crimes, and each merits the same penalty, excommunication reserved to the Holy See.

If one were lesser than the other, the penalties would be different.
They are not. The Canonists are distainful of each of these crimes, identical in penalty.

The Canonists who wrote the Canon are totall disrespectful of any distinction in the three crimes - they are indistinguished in Church law.

You want to be holier than the Church - go ahead, enjoy, but you don’t know what you are talking about.
peace

---

Bah – Bah – and Bah. You have entitled yourself to apply heresy and apostasy to where it does not exist. You — in doing what the Church has not done -----have made yourself the authority above the Church. So it would be to your benefit – to quit throwing stones.

 

[GerardP]

What a laughable view of Church history.

Why exactly is it?

There were no councils and synods of the Church called for non- doctrinal matters?

Allow me to clarify, I meant among the 21 Ecumenical Councils. I didn’t say anything about local Councils or Synods

Or not operational matters? Or, let’s get together for a party kinda Council. What you are trying to say was that there was no real reason for Vatican 2, and for that, it failed.

Cardinal Manning said in the early part of the 20th Century that to call a council without an absolute necessity is to tempt the Holy Ghost.

Well, it failed as far as the ultra Traditionalists, and schismatics, heretics and apostates were concerned.

That’s silly.

The rest of us, the Body of the Church knew the reason why it was called.

I hope you’re not going to say the Holy Ghost rang up John XXIII and “inspired” him to do it. Because there is too much evidence against it and Catholics are not obliged to believe it, even if John XXIII believed it.

BTW Bing Crosby was one of my favorite crooners.

He was a generally pleasant singer but his portrayal of priests in the movies was less than Catholic and more Hollywoods desire for what Catholic priests should be like.

Too bad you didn’t come from the time of the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s.

I know enough people from the 20’s through today that don’t disagree with me one bit.

There’s a crowd, and some of them on this Board would like you to think that there was no purpose to Vatican 2 (just like there was no purpose to Vatican I), or that it failed.

This is a very dishonest mode of argumentation. It’s very similar to the, “If you don’t agree with me, it’s because you are unpatriotic.” or whatever else you can hurl at someone that will have the proper effect of “poisoning the well.”

By trying to make claims that Vatican II bears the same dogmatic weight of Trent or Vatican I is going against the explicit instruction and will of Popes John XXIII and Paul VI who deliberately witheld invoking the solemn Magisterium of the Church.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t operate a failed venture, the Roman Catholic Church.

Who is making that argument? Or is this a straw man argument that is easier to make than actually getting into the nitty gritty of the facts?

 

[mgrfin]

I just wasted a chunk of my life reading through a bunch of this thread, and it all seems to boil down to one point, stated many different ways. The point is that a small group of clerics disagree with the way the vast majority of the bishops and at least the last several Popes understand the Faith, and would rather their interpretation be given primacy. Some of them left the Church over this, some did not. Now there is an argument over what term of disapproval the Church formally applies to them.

But somehow there also seems to be this lingering argument that this small minority of the religious are really right, and that 95%+ of the Church, including all the most senior, are wrong in pretty big ways. And by right I don’t just mean right in the sense that they think the Church is wrong, but also right in the sense that the Church itself does not even know what it really teaches as truth.

How did all of these priests and theologians get so wrong? Isn’t there at least a chance that they are right? Doesn’t the Church get to say what the Church teaches? If these teachings on the very nature of salvation are so completely incompatible with the Faith, how is it that the vast majority of the Catholic leadership simultaneous became confused on the issue? What was the mechanism for this sudden implosion of faith in so many at once?

Gee, and I thought I wrote a beautiful treatise on Justification, Merit and Grace.

And I expounded on Canon Law, to define sins against faith.

And to you, it was a waste of time?

Have you contributed anything to the discussion?

peace

 

[mgrfin]

SIZE=“2”]*

Cardinal Manning said in the early part of the 20th Century that to call a council without an absolute necessity is to tempt the Holy Ghost.

I hope you’re not going to say the Holy Ghost rang up John XXIII and “inspired” him to do it. Because there is too much evidence against it and Catholics are not obliged to believe it, even if John XXIII believed it.

By trying to make claims that Vatican II bears the same dogmatic weight of Trent or Vatican I is going against the explicit instruction and will of Popes John XXIII and Paul VI who deliberately witheld invoking the solemn Magisterium of the Church. *

Your view of the history of the Catholic Church is simplistic.

As for Cardinal Manning, he died in 1892, years before Vatican 2.
Please provide a citation for that blasphemous statement.

Papa John didn’t have to have a special dove appear over his head to justify calling the Council, and like the Holy Spirit had other things to do than to guide His Church?

Vatican 2 was just as important as Trent. Why, because the Vicar of Christ on earth convoked it. Maybe your problem is that you fail to understand the Conciliar documents, or infallibility, or the Magisterium, or the teaching authority of the Holy Father, or his independent authority as Vicar of Christ over the whole Church, or all of these things.

To John, the weight of the Magisterium was in all the documents produced at Vatican 2. None of them is any less than the Canons of the Council of Trent condemning Protestant Justification.

Show me one statement of John XXIII saying that this Council was just a party to see his old friends. He expected the Council to solve the problems within the Church and to move it forward, and any documents produced contain his signature, or that of his successors, and that of the Council of bishops, making them part of the Magisterium of the Church.

Only arch-conservatives argue that what was said or accomplished was unimportant, like Lefebreve, who was to become excommunicated later on. Or that the Pope has no authority unless it is exercised with his Bishops. That’s heretical.

Even the grand inquistor, Cardinal Ottaviani was silenced. The Holy Spirit produced the result intended by the Spirit, just as He did in what may have been considered at first an inconsequential council, the Council of Florence, which was not even an ecumenical, or General Council.

The Spirit moves as He will.

peace.

 

[mgrfin]

---

Bah – Bah – and Bah. You have entitled yourself to apply heresy and apostasy to where it does not exist. You — in doing what the Church has not done -----have made yourself the authority above the Church. So it would be to your benefit – to quit throwing stones.

I throw no stones at Lefebrve, or Feeney. They attacked the Primacy of Peter. Lefebreve set himself up as Pope, since he didnt think that the actual Vicar of Christ on earth didn’t know what he was doing.

Im a small, inconsequential pebble on the beach at Long Beach. I didn’t disobey direct orders from the Pope, and consecrated a hierarchy, and received latae, and ferendae sententiae penalties. I didn’t say to the Pope, ‘you are wrong’, ‘you don’t speak for Christ’, ‘you are nothing and I am everything, and I set up my own church, which I think better reflects what Jesus did and wanted’.

Throw stones at them, not at me, cause your stones at me only land in the vast Pacific, harmlessly.

peace

 

[TMC]

Gee, and I thought I wrote a beautiful treatise on Justification, Merit and Grace.

And I expounded on Canon Law, to define sins against faith.

And to you, it was a waste of time?

Have you contributed anything to the discussion?

peace

Well, I guess it wasn’t too much of a waste of time, because I jumped in. I am not sure I can contribute, because it doesn’t seem like a discussion. I am not trying to denigrate anything that anyone has written, and you have put out some good posts, but I see two sides saying the same things over and over, and it boils down to my Bishop is righter than your Bishop. Nonetheless, I will stop and chat a while.

 

[TMC]

The vast majority of clerics and bishops also bought into the Arian heresy at one point and the Popes were not very clear all the time on that issue.

Left the Church or were persecuted by the Churchmen?

The Church? or the Churchmen?

There is precedent in this with the Arians.

Again, the Church teaches or the Churchmen say the Church teaches? This is why we have a Magisterium and Councils. To deal with these issues. Vatican II was the only Council called by the Pope for different reasons.

Human weakness, bad philosophy etc.

Any difference of opinion indicates that people are in disagreement some could be right or all could be wrong.

The problem is Churchmen twist what the Church says to suit their own ideas.

It wasn’t simultaneous, it was gradual and larger and larger numbers of people buy into errors without knowing it.

After the Protestant Reformation, the virtue of Obedience was stressed to the point where reason was overriden. Originally the Protestants were endangering Catholics with clever arguments from Scripture. The Catholic answers were not always clear enough for the average farmer to work through when he didn’t have the theological training. So, the Churchmen said, “Just do what we say and we’ll get you to Heaven.” As well intentioned and effective as it was in the beginning, eventually subtle errors, abuses of power and other corruptions transformed the Church into an academic exercise. “Bing Crosby Catholicism” as Bishop Williamson of the SSPX describes it.

Pope John XXIII had hoped that Vatican II would stimulate a new revival in the Church and consequently the World.

Didn’t happen. He underestimated the Devil, original sin and didn’t catch on to the fact that he himself had lapsed into a Utopianism about the World and the Church.

Paul VI was noted to have said at the Council, that both the Conservatives and the Liberals “didn’t get it” when it came to the purpose of the Council. Conservatives were fat cats who didn’t want any changes. Liberals at that point were veiled heretics imbibing in the underground modernism that had been bubbling up over the years.

Pope John and Pope Paul always sided with the liberals since they were the agents of change. What they didn’t anticipate was the lack of Catholic spirit and understanding in the liberals would be obediently absorbed by the conservatives. And after 1965 the liberals were becoming more and more strident with Paul VI being ill equipped to handle their trickery due to his own specific interests in the Council which were different from Pope John’s. Paul was interested in the political and social ramifications of the Council that would spur a growth in faith and Pope John had a more “top down” approach in which the good will and pentecostal explosion of faith would transform the outside world.

I don’t know when you think the Church went astray, but the VII documents were all approved by overwhelming majorities. So at least by that time most of the top “Churchmen” held beliefs that you appear to find heretical. (I am speaking here specifically of salvation outside the Church)

You say the Church didn’t do this, the “Churchmen” did. I don’t know what that means. More accurately, I know what you mean by that, but I don’t know how to tell what the Church is doing except by reference to the Churchmen and to the sensus fidelum. That is, after all, the whole idea behind infallibility. We can trust the Church not to get too out of whack. How do you know what the ‘Church’ divorced from both clergy and people, is doing?

That said, I agree that at times Churchmen twist things to suit their purposes and that the Church went through a very long period of not really trying to teach certain classes of laymen. But isn’t this the argument for the other side, not your side?

During a very long period the Church enforced obedience by twisting the meaning of salvation through the Church so that it came to be understood as salvation by obeying the clergy. Isn’t that what you are saying? If not I apologize, but I believe there is a lot of truth in that. Now that the Church has finally realized it must really educate modern Catholics, it is way behind and not doing enough to catch up. An important part of catching up is to explain what salvation through the Church really means. I think that Vatican II and the later documents did a good job of that. But it seems to me that you are advocating going back to the days when we did not educate people and merely told them that the key to salvation was being Catholic and obeying the Church and that was all they needed to know.

 

[mgrfin]

Well, I guess it wasn’t too much of a waste of time, because I jumped in. I am not sure I can contribute, because it doesn’t seem like a discussion. I am not trying to denigrate anything that anyone has written, and you have put out some good posts, but I see two sides saying the same things over and over, and it boils down to my Bishop is righter than your Bishop. Nonetheless, I will stop and chat a while.

Well, the Sedevacantists, the followers of Lefebrve, and Feeneyites have to get out their ultra conservative agenda. They hang out on these threads consistly pushing these narrow, if not non-Catholic views.

I push for the Catholic stances of the Holy Roman Pope, the Vicar of Christ on earth, the Bishops, and the Councils of the Church, and the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church.

My message is always the same, the message of the Roman Church of Jesus Christ.

I keep it interesting because they rail against me, call me names, impugn my name and my intelligence.

I keep a sense of humor about them all. And urge them ‘to bring it on’!

peace

 

[Walking_Home]

I throw no stones at Lefebrve, or Feeney. They attacked the Primacy of Peter. Lefebreve set himself up as Pope, since he didnt think that the actual Vicar of Christ on earth didn’t know what he was doing.

Im a small, inconsequential pebble on the beach at Long Beach. I didn’t disobey direct orders from the Pope, and consecrated a hierarchy, and received latae, and ferendae sententiae penalties. I didn’t say to the Pope, ‘you are wrong’, ‘you don’t speak for Christ’, ‘you are nothing and I am everything, and I set up my own church, which I think better reflects what Jesus did and wanted’.

Throw stones at them, not at me, cause your stones at me only land in the vast Pacific, harmlessly.

peace

---

Again —Bah–bah–and bah.

 

[mgrfin]

I

During a very long period the Church enforced obedience by twisting the meaning of salvation through the Church so that it came to be understood as salvation by obeying the clergy. Isn’t that what you are saying? If not I apologize, but I believe there is a lot of truth in that. Now that the Church has finally realized it must really educate modern Catholics, it is way behind and not doing enough to catch up. An important part of catching up is to explain what salvation through the Church really means. I think that Vatican II and the later documents did a good job of that. But it seems to me that you are advocating going back to the days when we did not educate people and merely told them that the key to salvation was being Catholic and obeying the Church and that was all they needed to know.

The message has always been salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ, his life, cross and resurrection, redemption through the forgiveness of sin, life and holiness through living the sacramental life of the church, prayer through the communion of saints, to God the Father, in the name of the Lord Jesus.

It is the Holy Spirit who is leading this Church. Where could it go wrong?

peace

 

[mgrfin]

---

Again —Bah–bah–and bah.

To the tables down at Morey’s
To the place where Louie dwells
To the dear old temple bar we love so well . . .
Sing the Whiffenpoofs assembled
With their glasses raised on high
And the magic of their singing casts it’s spell . . .
Yes, the magic of their singing
Of the songs we love so well
Shall I Wasting and Mavourneen and the rest
We will serenade our Louie
While life and voice shall last
Then we’ll pass and be forgotten with the rest . . .
We’re poor little lambs
Who have lost our way

Baa Baa Baa

We’re little black sheep
Who have gone astray
Baa Baa Baa
Gentlemen songsters off on a spree
Doomed from here to eternity
Lord, have mercy on such as we

Baa Baa Baa

Gentlemen songsters off on a spree
Doomed from here to eternity
Lord, have mercy on such as we

Baa Baa Baa

Fortunately, this is not Morey’s, and we are not sheep

peace

 

[Walking_Home]

To the tables down at Morey’s
To the place where Louie dwells
To the dear old temple bar we love so well . . .
Sing the Whiffenpoofs assembled
With their glasses raised on high
And the magic of their singing casts it’s spell . . .
Yes, the magic of their singing
Of the songs we love so well
Shall I Wasting and Mavourneen and the rest
We will serenade our Louie
While life and voice shall last
Then we’ll pass and be forgotten with the rest . . .
We’re poor little lambs
Who have lost our way

Baa Baa Baa

We’re little black sheep
Who have gone astray
Baa Baa Baa
Gentlemen songsters off on a spree
Doomed from here to eternity
Lord, have mercy on such as we

Baa Baa Baa

Gentlemen songsters off on a spree
Doomed from here to eternity
Lord, have mercy on such as we

Baa Baa Baa

Fortunately, this is not Morey’s, and we are not sheep

peace

---

Sing as many little ditties as you want—fire you have placed yourself in a compromising situation. Speaking what the Church has not.