Salvation outside the church

[GerardP]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GerardP
It’s actually just a power grab (saints or not, good intentions or not) for extending their own authority and undermining the Magisterium of the Church.

No. Once again, you’ve read Pius IX wrong. The power belongs in the Magisterium of the Church. Theologians claiming to have the authority over the Pontifical Congregations and constant teaching of the Church are the ones grabbing for power. The fact that Trent did not adopt St. Thomas’ speculation on Baptism of Desire does not give theologians the rite to claim magisterial authority binding it to the faithful. The fact that Trent did not equivocate the fact that dogmatically it is to be held that true and natural water are necessary for Baptism and anyone (no exceptions) who tries to turn that truth into some kind of metaphor is anathema does not give fallible theologians the right to add to that definition and reduce it to a meaningless formula.

 

[mgrfin]

In other words, Vatican II can’t “undefine” Trent or add ambiguity to what has been defined.

Vatican 2 can add fuller meaning to what has been previously been defined at any previous Council.

So can a dogma intentionally defined by a Pontiff speaking ex cathedra.

Benedict XVI can issue an encyclical letter, a motu proprio, an Apostolic Bull clarifying the confusion that seems to exist on this thread regarding salvation outside the Church, baptism of desire, and baptism of blood, etc.

He can ‘de sede’ define intentionally this issue ‘de fide definita’ if he so wishes. All previous statements will then fall into line, and there will be no confusion.

All previous ‘theological notes’ will be put aside, and there will be one: ‘de fide definita’.

peace

 

[GerardP]

Vatican 2 can add fuller meaning to what has been previously been defined at any previous Council.

So can a dogma intentionally defined by a Pontiff speaking ex cathedra.

My understanding of a definition is that it sets limits on something. Also the Church has always taught that certain things are irreformable.

Can you cite some kind of “fuller meaning” that has expanded the limits that were previously placed? I can’t.

Benedict XVI can issue an encyclical letter, a motu proprio, an Apostolic Bull clarifying the confusion that seems to exist on this thread regarding salvation outside the Church, baptism of desire, and baptism of blood, etc.

I’d suggested this earlier and was attacked for it.

He can ‘de sede’ define intentionally this issue ‘de fide definita’ if he so wishes. All previous statements will then fall into line, and there will be no confusion.

That’s the guarantee of infallibility right? So, anything less than that that appears in contradiction will contribute to the confusion.

 

[GerardP]

Gerard, you can’t answer the below simply because IT CONDEMNS YOUR MISTAKEN IDEAS. That is clear.
SFD

That’s false. I am not a minimalist. I’m also not expanding infallibility to the fallible.

 

[GerardP]

Btw, have you found even one theologian who dissented from this teaching (other that mgrfin’s previously censured “heros” of theology)?

St. Ambrose
And thus you have read that three testimonies in baptism are one, water, blood and the Spirit; since, if you remove one of these, the sacrament of baptism does not stay. For what is water without the Cross of Christ? A common element, without any effect of sacrament. Nor again is the mystery of regeneration without water; for “unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Now, a catechumen also believes in the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ, by which he also signs himself, but unless he be baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot receive remission of his sins, nor can he receive the gift of spiritual grace.

St. Gregory Nazianzan

“If you are able to judge a man who intends to commit murder solely by his intention and without there having been any act of murder, then you can likewise reckon as baptized one who desired Baptism without having received Baptism. But if you cannot do the former, how the latter? I cannot see it. If you prefer, we will put it like this: if in your opinion desire has equal power with actual Baptism, then make the same judgment in regard to glory, as if that longing itself were glory. Do you suffer any damage by not attaining the actual glory, as long as you have a desire for it?”

Even if we would (wrongly) assume that these teachings were just “common”…then what exactly would be your “proportionately grave reason” for dissenting?

The undermining of infallible definitions from the Magisterium of the Church. True and Natural water is NECESSARY. And as Fr. Feeney rightly pointed out, it contributes to the “de-incarnationalization” of Christ.

Oh, sorry, I forgot that you reject all teaching that is not “proposed by the infallible judgement of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of the faith” … just like condemned proposition #22 in Quanta Cura:

Why are you lying about me?

Re: Fr. Cekada

And I suppose you think you are?

I’m a clearer thinker than some, less so than others. But I am clear enough thinking to know that Fr. Cekada is not intellectually consistent. His support of killing Terri Schiavo was one example.

 

[DustinsDad]

Vatican 2 can add fuller meaning to what has been previously been defined at any previous Council…

With this understanding of course:
If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.
**(****Vatican I, Session III, Canon IV, #3) **
Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[stmaria]

=mgrfin;3281134]Fr. Curran, a heretic? No. Don’t believe everything you read from the radical right. He might be controversial, and he believes in the legitimacy of dissent within the Catholic Church. However, Charles is committed to the Catholic Church.

He was stripped of his right to teach as a Catholic theologian, but as far as I know, he is still a priest on leave from the Rochester diocese to teach. He remains a loyal dissident.

You are a strange one mgrfin. You said you have a theology degree and you support Curran? The only job he could find was teaching at Southern Methodist University.

Father Charles Curran
hli.org/features_millstone_award_curran.html

“Shortly after Pope John Paul II was elected, the Holy Father launched a detailed investigation of Father Curran’s teaching, and found that he consistently ignored and denounced Church teachings on every aspect of sexuality, including marriage, abortion, in-vitro fertilization, euthanasia, masturbation, contraception, fornication, and homosexual acts. Father Curran has done incalculable damage to souls and to the Faith”.

Hans Kung is a priest in good standing. He just doesn’t teach dogmatic theology.

He says papal infallibility is man made. Yes he is in good standing. And that is amazing. He should have been excommunicated.
.

Where are all the great minds within the Church, learned theologians we love to read? There are almost none left.

They all existed before Vatican II.

Freedom of thought has been crushed, and men of intellect in the Church are afraid to speak.

Freedom of thought requires a well informed conscience. Men of intellect have spoken. Men like Archbishop Lefebvre.

 

[mgrfin]

Can you cite some kind of “fuller meaning” that has expanded the limits that were previously placed? I can’t.

I’d suggested this earlier and was attacked for it.

.

Sure, there are tons of examples, and don’t pay attention to the right wing crowd who appear here, quoting their ‘theological notes’.

This is why we have have Councils, and Synods in the Catholic Church.

Take the example of the Council of Nicea, in 325, from which we get the Nicene Creed. Then we have the Creed of 381. It expanded the article of the Church dealing with the Holy Spirit.

“With the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified”.

Then in 589, we get the “Filoque clause” which states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, not the Father only.

This is not a development of theology, a building on what had been defined before?

Ask the Easterners what they think of the “Filoque”.

People in the Church should be thinkers about what has been revealed to us, that maybe there are lots of deeper meanings to it, for sure.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

You are a strange one mgrfin. You said you have a theology degree and you support Curran? The only job he could find was teaching at Southern Methodist University.

Father Charles Curran
hli.org/features_millstone_award_curran.html

“Shortly after Pope John Paul II was elected, the Holy Father launched a detailed investigation of Father Curran’s teaching, and found that he consistently ignored and denounced Church teachings on every aspect of sexuality, including marriage, abortion, in-vitro fertilization, euthanasia, masturbation, contraception, fornication, and homosexual acts. Father Curran has done incalculable damage to souls and to the Faith”.

He says papal infallibility is man made. Yes he is in good standing. And that is amazing. He should have been excommunicated.
.
They all existed before Vatican II.

Freedom of thought requires a well informed conscience. Men of intellect have spoken. Men like Archbishop Lefebvre.

Who is to say that the only job he could get is at SMU? BTW, teaching Catholic theology at a major Protestant University - Hooray for him!

So, after John Paul II was elected, HE launched an investigation into Curran? Like he didn’t have anything else to do? As a Cardinal from Poland, from behind the Iron Curtain, JPII didn’t even know who Curran was. Get real!

Hans Kung should have been excommunicated? But he wasn’t, else Benedict wouldn’t have anyone of intellect to have lunch with.

Lefebrevre was excommunicated. He should have been tried as a heretic. He set himself up as Pope, because all you nutty sedevacantists think that the Popes are heretics, and that the Church has fallen into apostacy.

Crackpots, all!

peace

 

[stmaria]

=mgrfin;3283445]Who is to say that the only job he could get is at SMU? BTW, teaching Catholic theology at a major Protestant University - Hooray for him!

I doubt he is teaching what the Church teaches. He is teaching the very things that got him banned.

Lefebrevre was excommunicated. He should have been tried as a heretic. He set himself up as Pope, because all you nutty sedevacantists think that the Popes are heretics, and that the Church has fallen into apostacy.

Crackpots, all!

There are only two sedevacantists on this forum that I am aware of. and no one else believes that the Popes are heretics. Archbishop Lefebvre did not set himself up as Pope and you know that.

 

[DustinsDad]

Who is to say that the only job he could get is at SMU? BTW, teaching Catholic theology at a major Protestant University - Hooray for him!

I don’t think anyone has accused Curran of teaching Catholic theology.

DustinsDad

 

[mgrfin]

I doubt he is teaching what the Church teaches. He is teaching the very things that got him banned.

There are only two sedevacantists on this forum that I am aware of. and no one else believes that the Popes are heretics. Archbishop Lefebvre did not set himself up as Pope and you know that.

Lefebvre illicitly consecrated four bishops, and set up his own church. For this, he was excommunicated.

The sedevacantists on site are like termites. They multiply, eating at the foundation of the church. They should be excommunicated, and condemned as heretics.

As for what Curran teaches, have you ever read anything he has written, or, are you just spitting out what some Traditionalist has published in Wikipedia?

peace

 

[mgrfin]

I don’t think anyone has accused Curran of teaching Catholic theology.

DustinsDad

You have to understand that Fr. Curran considers himself a ‘loyal dissident’. He wrote when all feared a mass exodus from the Catholoc Church in America before issuance of “Humanae Vitae”.

The exodus occured, as anyone who lived during those times can attest.

Are you aware of how many priests and religious left the ministryh after Humanae Vitae? Maybe 40%. It was an enormous event.

Fr. Curran’s works reflect his deep thought, and his conscience, which, as we all know, is the guide for one’s personal morality.
He knows that his time has passed, and that there can no returning to the issue.

His works are published by Georgetown Univeristy Press (a Jesuit outfit), and his works are worth reading: "Memoirs of a Catholic theologian (2006), and “The moral theology of John Paul II”.

Of course he teaches Catholic Theology. Everything is not centered around birth control.

He comes from my favorite school of theology, the Gregorianum.

peace

 

[DustinsDad]

You have to understand that Fr. Curran considers himself a ‘loyal dissident’.

Contradiction in terms.

He wrote when all feared a mass exodus from the Catholoc Church in America before issuance of “Humanae Vitae”.

And what did he write?

The exodus occured, as anyone who lived during those times can attest. Are you aware of how many priests and religious left the ministryh after Humanae Vitae? Maybe 40%. It was an enormous event.

And what role did the likes of Curran play in regards to people making shipwrecks of their faiths? I’ve got a Scripture passage on the tip of my tounge…something about a millstone…hmmm .

Fr. Curran’s works reflect his deep thought, and his conscience, which, as we all know, is the guide for one’s personal morality.

There is only one morality - God’s morality. Anything else is immorality.

This Truth is the guide and the rule for one’s personal morality, and it is one’s responsibility to conform one’s conscience to this Truth.

BTW - one’s conscience can be well formed or malformed or dead. And a malformed conscience can lead to Hell. A dead conscience certainly does.

He knows that his time has passed, and that there can no returning to the issue.

Better late than never - has he taken to wearing sackcloth and ashes yet?

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[fhansen]

Freedom of thought requires a well informed conscience. Men of intellect have spoken. Men like Archbishop Lefebvre.

The problem I have with this is that all of the above-named people-Curran, Kung, and Lefebvre- have placed themselves above the “law” in some way or another. And should we consider JPII and our current pope to be stupid post-V2 puppets? I consider them to be some of the most enlightened teachers the Church has ever known.

 

[mgrfin]

The problem I have with this is that all of the above-named people-Curran, Kung, and Lefebvre- have placed themselves above the “law” in some way or another. And should we consider JPII and our current pope to be stupid post-V2 puppets? I consider them to be some of the most enlightened teachers the Church has ever known.

I don’t know what you expect of thinkers within the Church.

Loyal dissent is not a contradiction in terms.

What do you mean, “There is only one morality - God’s morality. Anything else is immorality”. And, everyone has always held everything about God’s morality? Of course not.

Someone is examining, questioning, proposing, explaining, considering, expounding, espousing…he doesn’t always come up with the same answer as everyone else.

Many of the dogmas of the church are not fully understood and explained. It is up to us to think about the mysteries of our religion and do the best we can to fathom the truths God has laid before us.

After all, in the Beatific Vision we shall begin to understand all, but we have all eternity to examine.

We condemn great theological and philosophical minds, like Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Venerable Bede, Alphonsus, Origen, Bernard, and hundreds of minds and intellects? No, but they weren’t always accepted.

Did they all agree? What is wrong with holding an opinion that is not the same as everyone else’s?

When the Church finally decides and determines, well it is another matter.

Examine for example the question of Predestination. The church has laid out for us what must be held by Catholic theologians, but for the rest of the question, they say ‘go to it’. And we have several stances on this important question, yet, holding to the line on ‘catholic predestination’.

Fr. Curran was doing his best to come to the truth on the question of birth control. Not everyone agreed with Paul VI on Humane Generis, but it didn’t mean we were heretics. We had a differnce of opinion. It could have gone otherwise.

Yet, we have traditionalists who want to burn Curran at the stake for what he thought out through his conscience. What he currently thinks, now, about this subject, noone here has been able to say because they haven’t read anything he has ever written, but quote Wikipedia.

When you have read what he holds, come back again with your critiques, and your understanding of freedom of conscience.

peace

 

[stmaria]

=mgrfin;3284084]
Fr. Curran was doing his best to come to the truth on the question of birth control. Not everyone agreed with Paul VI on Humane Generis, but it didn’t mean** we **were heretics. ** We **had a differnce of opinion. It could have gone otherwise.

So you disagreed with Pope Paul on birth control? Do you still?

When you have read what he holds, come back again with your critiques, and your understanding of freedom of conscience.

I don’t have a theology degree like you but how does freedom of conscience play into this? What is your understanding of freedom of conscience and the acceptance of birth control?

 

[mgrfin]

So you disagreed with Pope Paul on birth control? Do you still?

I don’t have a theology degree like you but how does freedom of conscience play into this? What is your understanding of freedom of conscience and the acceptance of birth control?

I never disagreed with Pope Paul VI on the issue of birth control.

peace

 

[GerardP]

Lefebvre illicitly consecrated four bishops, and set up his own church. For this, he was excommunicated.

Actually the case of LeFebvre is far more complicated than that. LeFebvre didn’t set up his own church. He was declared to have excommunicated himself. A de facto false accusation, but in any case, the final ruling on this has not been determined.

One of the interesting strategies for how B16 can solve the question is utilizing the fact that LeFebvre was entitled to appeal the decision and didn’t (for his inability to find a consensus of terms with the Curia) make the appeal.

So, B16 has the option to rule on an appeal and overturn JPII without actually having to condemn JPII’s fallacious actions.

 

[mgrfin]

Actually the case of LeFebvre is far more complicated than that. LeFebvre didn’t set up his own church. He was declared to have excommunicated himself. A de facto false accusation, but in any case, the final ruling on this has not been determined.

One of the interesting strategies for how B16 can solve the question is utilizing the fact that LeFebvre was entitled to appeal the decision and didn’t (for his inability to find a consensus of terms with the Curia) make the appeal.

So, B16 has the option to rule on an appeal and overturn JPII without actually having to condemn JPII’s fallacious actions.

You’re right. Lefebre situation is more complicated than that.

Benedict is not going to go back on his mentor, JPII, and reverse anything. What is there to reverse, and why? Who is Lefevre’s audience? There is nothing to suport or change here of interest. The Archbishop became a maverick, and deserves more punishment than he received.

As an American, and supporting him you are supporting all the right wing wachos of the world: the Vichy government in France (Petain), Franco, Pinochet, Salazar.

As far as his excommunication, yes, he was excommunicated. He excommunicated himself? Whatever that means.

What is left is his Traditionalist stance on the Liturgy. We certainly don’t respect his views on Ecumenism. With the return of the Latin rite use, where are his followers going to stand?

If you think the Mass in Latin is more valuable than in English, go ahead, and enjoy.

His American followers forget where he stood backing Communists, Fascists and Hitlerites.

His excommunication is not a matter of doctrine (although, he stands to the right of right), but of disobedience to the Holy See. He was a catholic reactionary.

peace