Salvation outside the church

[GerardP]

Benedict is not going to go back on his mentor, JPII, and reverse anything. What is there to reverse, and why?

B16 has already reversed a number of decisions of JPII. Primarily there is the issue of justice regards LeFebvre.

Who is Lefevre’s audience?

An ever-growing number of vibrant Catholics, raising Catholic families and showing the fruits of good Catholic living.

There is nothing to suport or change here of interest.

Sure there is. The post-conciliar Church is dying in its own “renewal.” The effects of all the false, phenomenological and mobilist, pyrrhonist philosophies is proving to be a dry well.

The Archbishop became a maverick, and deserves more punishment than he received.

How one becomes a maverick by refusing to engage in experimentation with sacred things is part of the confusion inherent in today’s disembodied thinking.

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.

The world is divided between right wing wackos and left wing wackos. It’s completely a false dichotomy to try and bring guilt by association to LeFebvre and his clear exposition of Catholic teaching and practice.

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

No. Actually in reality he was not excommunicated. But a latea sententiae excommunication on the canonical books has to be nullified.

What is left is his Traditionalist stance on the Liturgy.

The Liturgy is a doctrinal issue among other doctrinal issues. Both the defense of the Liturgy (that a Pope finally admitted was never legally abrogated) and the resistance to the modernist influenced innovations that mirror the Council of Pistoia’s condemned propositions.

We certainly don’t respect his views on Ecumenism.

LeFebvre’s views on Ecumenism are actually more in line with Vatican II than any Pope’s views since the Council. A reading of Cardinal Augustin Bea’s views as expressed in “The Unity of Christians” is more in line with Bishop Williamson of the SSPX than John Paul II. And Bea was the architect with John XXIII on the ecumenical stance of the Church.

With the return of the Latin rite use, where are his followers going to stand?

In opposition to every other dangerous novelty that has crept in under the guise of “spirit of Vatican II” or even “interpretation of Vatican II”

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

Then why did LeFebvre say that the Old Rite in the vernacular was better than the New rite in Latin or the vernacular?

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

LeFebvre condemned Communism and loathed the Rome/Moscow pact.

From Michael Davies’ Apologia Pro Marcel LeFebvre:

"Unfortunately, among those supporting him during his visit to Argentina were members of fascist and anti-semitic organizations. It was explained in Volume I that the Archbishop has never been associated with any right-wing political movement, and that if members of such movements give him public support or distribute literature outside buildings in which he is present there is nothing he can do about it. Not surprisingly, the Archbishop’s enemies used the support of these fascists as an excuse to brand him with their opinions. The report in The Citizen (Ottawa), which was very hostile to the Archbishop, admitted that he and his permanent entourage were appalled by some of the views expressed by the fascist groups. The committee which had sponsored his visit issued a statement saying that the Archbishop “is not an ex-Nazi, is not anti-Semitic nor anti anything else. He is only preaching the traditional doctrine of the Church.”

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.

Obviously he was a reactionary. He reacted to liberal actions which threatened the Church and many millions of souls that are endangered by this brand of evil thinking.

To constantly refer to LeFebvre in the left/right dialectic is to miss the point altogether. LeFebvre maintained a consistent stance and refused to be swept along by liberalism in the name of a false obedience.

The Left/Right dialectic is simply a mode of conservative liberalism compromising with a progressive liberalism in order to achieve change by incrementalism and lull the faithful by slower changes than rampant liberalism which would drive them away from the intended goal.

In other words you can drive in the wrong direction away from the constant unmoving truth either in the slow lane of the fast lane.

He’s only a reactionary in the negative sense by those who are moving away from him relatively speaking.

 

[mgrfin]

False.

Canon 1382 was specially drawn up for Lefrebre, according to the 'New Commentary of the Code of Canon Law", page 1588.

Canon 1382: “A bishop who consecrates someone a bishop without pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.”

Additionally, how can he have a ‘latae sententiae’ penalty on his books? Such penalties are ‘ferendae sententiae’

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Sure there is. The post-conciliar Church is dying in its own “renewal.” The effects of all the false, phenomenological and mobilist, pyrrhonist philosophies is proving to be a dry well.

.

What kind of gibberish is that. Speak English.

peace

 

[Namesake]

Note, I do not endorse the idea that salvation can come outside the Church. Salvation must come through the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church. What I am considering is that we cannot fathom the depths of God’s Mercy. There is no doubt that Jesus is the Judge. People that enter heaven, do so through Christ, Who IS the Church, but we may not always know who has accepted the “Church” of His unfathomable Mercy and who hasn’t.

.

That’s where we part company. Christ is not the Church. Christ is the savior of mankind. Through Christ we are saved. The Church has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

 

[mgrfin]

.

Get with it!

Pretty soon you are going to want to canonize Cardinal Ottaviani.

Lefebreve is a condemned heretic. He has been excommunicated and is outside the Church. Hopefully, his soul can be saved.

John XXIII of blessed memory, put them all in their place.

You are expressing reationary stances against Vatican 2. I won’t bother to answer anymore of this nonsense.

peace

 

[japhy]

That’s where we part company. Christ is not the Church. Christ is the savior of mankind. Through Christ we are saved. The Church has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

What do you mean that “the Church has nothing whatsoever to do with it”? Why did Jesus found his Church, then? And why, when Saul was persecuting the Church, did our Lord Jesus Christ appear to him and accuse him of persecuting him (Jesus), not the Church?

Perhaps because as Jesus and Paul have taught us, the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, and Jesus is the Head. Surely the head and the body are not separated!

 

[mgrfin]

That’s where we part company. Christ is not the Church. Christ is the savior of mankind. Through Christ we are saved. The Church has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

You are getting overly-involved in language.

Christ is the head of his Church. He set up his Church, through which he saves us all.

“The Church has nothing whatsoever to do with it”???

Why did he bother then to set up this Church?

He is God, he could have stayed with us forever physically to be seen and worshipped.

He could have had Gabriel blow his horn on Easter Sunday. He could have ended it all then.

Instead, He placed his Church a the means of salvation for all mankind. We are saved through the merits of Jesus Christ, through his Church.

peace

 

[GerardP]

False.

No. True.

Canon 1382 was specially drawn up for Lefrebre, according to the 'New Commentary of the Code of Canon Law", page 1588.

Canon 1382: “A bishop who consecrates someone a bishop without pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.”

Tell that to Cardinal Husar who was also consecrated without a papal mandate.

Anyway, Canon 1323 and 1324 apply to LeFebvre. And it becomes apparent with each passing day how correct LeFebvre was in his resistance to JPII’s liberal allowances.

Additionally, how can he have a ‘latae sententiae’ penalty on his books? Such penalties are ‘ferendae sententiae’ peace

The incorrect assesment of the latea sententiae in Ecclesia Dei by JPII has to be nullified.

 

[japhy]

The incorrect assesment of the latea sententiae in Ecclesia Dei by JPII has to be nullified.

Could you explain what you mean by “… has to be nullified”? Do you mean there has to be official acknowledgment from Rome that the latae sententiae is no longer applicable? wasn’t correct to begin with?

What precisely do you mean?

 

[GerardP]

What kind of gibberish is that. Speak English.

peace

It is English. Either learn it or refrain from commenting on it.

Here, I’ll dumb it down for you.

The post-conciliar Church is dying in its own “renewal.”

All of the talk of the benefits of the Council have proven to be false. There is no “renewal,” except for modernism. There has been a constant decline in belief, practice and attendance. Along with all of the other disastrous indicators of Catholic practice.

The effects of all the false, phenomenological and mobilist, pyrrhonist philosophies is proving to be a dry well.

Phenomenology is subjective poetry masking itself as philosophy. It is utterly empty when it comes to understanding anything that is not “relational” It has no foundation in metaphysics.

Mobilism is the idea that everything is in motion and flux. “the process of unity, the Church reveals herself to herself” all that gobbledygook.

Pyrrhonism is the error of believing that nothing can really be known for certain. It’s a skepticism about the reality of solid beliefs.

 

[GerardP]

Get with it!

Pretty soon you are going to want to canonize Cardinal Ottaviani.

Hardly. From what I’ve read, Ottaviani was right alot of the time but he was also lacking in charity and more interested in power than principal.

Lefebreve is a condemned heretic.

This is utterly false. Prove it or retract it.

He has been excommunicated and is outside the Church.
Hopefully, his soul can be saved.

That would be contradictory. There is no salvation outside the Church.

John XXIII of blessed memory, put them all in their place.

What are you talking about?

You are expressing reationary stances against Vatican 2. I won’t bother to answer anymore of this nonsense.

It’s not “reactionary” to point out the fact that Vatican II was a bad idea pulled off badly and has no good fruit to show for it. What is reactionary is your unwillingness to bear any criticism of Vatican II it seems.

John XXIII and Paul VI both expected it to be a pentecostal moment and instead liberals were allowed to shape it’s documents and influence it’s policies and nothing beneficial has come from it.

 

[GerardP]

Could you explain what you mean by “… has to be nullified”? Do you mean there has to be official acknowledgment from Rome that the latae sententiae is no longer applicable? wasn’t correct to begin with?

What precisely do you mean?

Yes. The declarations of excommunications were invalid and as a matter of justice need to be addressed.

LeFebvre has been vindicated on the issue of the Mass by Pope Benedict in Summorum Pontificum when he stated that the mass had never been abrogated. Archbishop LeFebvre, Fr. Schmidberger and Bishop Fellay spent decades trying to get the official word from the Popes stating that the suppression of the TLM was never legal.

The SSPX has requested two concessions before doctrinal discussions on Vatican II can begin. One has just occurred with Summorum Pontificum. The second is the nullification of the excommunications.

After that clarifications need to be made on Religious Liberty, EENS, Ecumenism and rampant humanism.

 

[mgrfin]

Tell that to Cardinal Husar who was also consecrated without a papal mandate. .

Archbishop Husar is an Eastern Rite bishop, and the Eastern church has its own canon law. The canon in reference to Lefebre does not apply to Cardinal Husar, since the Eastern code doesn’t have the requirement of Papal approval.

Of course, I continue to see twisting by the reactionary group against JPII.

Archbishop Husar was consecrated bishop by Patriarch Josyf Slipyj; it was a valid and licit consecration.

John Paul II appointed him - Cardinals are not consecrated, and the position is an appointment - as Cardinal Priest.

Keep swinging away at JP II until he is canonized, and thereafter.

peace

 

[SFD]

You have a serious reading comprehension problem. The subject is Baptism of Desire/Blood, It can’t be “theologically certain” and “de fide” at the same time. You’ve claimed it was “de fida” by citing St. Alphonsus. Now, you think it’s “at least theologically certain.”

No, I said St. Alphonsus taught it and classified it as de fide. They all taught it and all those who classified it…did so with a “note” deserving CENSURE.

GerardP:

The “theological note” that you give supreme authority to is far far far from unanimously agreed upon. Your whole premise is shot.

The “note” does not have to be unanimously agreed upon by the theologians…but if it is a note with an attached censure…then you must give your intellectual assent. This is exactly what Pius IX teaches in Tuas Libenter:

“But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.” Tuas Libenter (1863), Denz. 1684.

GerardP:

You simply don’t know what you’re talking about. You’ve got your conclusion and your scrambling around to support it.

You describe yourself here, my friend.

GerardP:

False. As explained above. You didn’t comprehend the subject. Now you’re setting up a straw man.

And you were incorrect in your “explanation” above.

GerardP:

I’ve provided numerous reasonable rebuttals. But your attempts to reframe the argument are simply your own avoidance of the main point.

No, actually you have provided no explanation of why the postion you hold to…infallible definitions only need be assented to…is not what is condemned in Quanta Cura and Tuas Libenter.

GerardP:

You place fallible authorities over infallible definitions.

Pope Pius IX placed those “fallible” authorities ABOVE YOU! When they teach in moral unanimity…that teaching is TRUE…because of the infallibility of the Church". Read Cardinal Manning again:

"This spirit began in Germany. It says: ‘I believe everything which the Church has defined. I believe all dogmas; everything which has been defined by a General Council.’ This sounds a large and generous profession of faith; but they forget that whatsoever was revealed on the Day of Pentecost to the Apostles, and by the Apostles preached to the nations of the world, and has descended in the full stream of universal belief and constant tradition, though it has never been defined, is still matter of Divine faith. Thus there are truths of faith which have never been defined because they have never been contradicted. They are not defined because they have not been denied.** The definition of the truth is the fortification of the Church against the assaults of unbelief. Some of the greatest truths of revelation are to this day undefined. The infallibility of the Church has never been defined. The infallibility of the Head of the Church was only defined the other day. But the infallibility of the Church, for which every Catholic would lay down his life, has never been defined until now; the infallibility of the Church is at this moment where the infallibility of the Pope was this time last year; an undefined point of Christian revelation, believed by the Christian world, but not yet put in the form of a definition**. When, therefore, men said they would only believe dogmas, and definitions by General Councils, **they implied, without knowing it, that they would not believe in the infallibility of the Church. **(From, “Four Great Evils of the Day”.)

GerardP is apparently a Feeneyite and as such, he denies that he must believe anything but revealed truths guaranteed by the Church - that is, dogmas, or truths of the Faith. He accepts that some truths have not been solemnly defined but are nevertheless taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium, but he denies that he must believe other truths besides those directly revealed or guaranteed by infallible authority.

GerardP rejects the principles that Pius IX laid down, principles that form the basis for the whole science of theology. He who rejects these criteria rejects the foundations of Catholic theology and constructs a peculiar theology of his own — one where his own interpretation of papal pronouncements is no less arbitrary than a Protestant’s interpretation of Scripture.

I don’t expect to convince GerardP of anything here… because he does not accept the criteria on which a theological issue must be judged. He has a copy of The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent and a copy of Denzinger…he interprets them as he pleases and sees fit. If the unanimity of authorised theologians teach differently than he interprets Trent of Denzinger…he claims that THEY ARE WRONG.

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

This is utterly false. Prove it or retract it.

There is no salvation outside the Church.

.

Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated, automatically (latae sententiae) by the consecration of four bishops without authorization to do so by the Holy Father. The canon was previously quoted.

It is the Code of Canon Law which rules our Church, and he clearly disobeyed seriously that matter.

In addition, He was personally warned by the Holy Father, and the Holy Office.

By virtue of the Apostolic Letter of John Paul II, “Ecclesia Dei” it was declared that he formally took his church into schism.

The irony of the matter is that ‘traditionalist’ was out-traditionalized by the Holy See.

He died outside the Church, which is sad for a man who believed that ‘outside the Church there is no salvation’.

We should all pray for his immortal soul. R. I. P.

peace

 

[SFD]

mgrfin,

Are all excommunicants outside the Church? Cite your sources.

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

mgrfin,

Are all excommunicants outside the Church? Cite your sources.

SFD

I’ve already done this for you.

One source is necessary, The Code of Canon Law. That is the law of the Church, and where all crimes, penalties, and censures mentioned.

So, Archbishop Lefebrve is excommunicated (what does the word mean: ex-communicate, means not in communication with the Church.)

He was excommunicated because he consecrated four bishops without authorization from the Roman Pontiff. The penalty for that is a ‘latae sententiae’ penalty of excommunication, specially reserved to the Holy See. He violated Canon 1382.

The ‘latae sententiae’ excommunication of Archbishop Lefebreve for consecrating without a pontifical mandate and the similar penalty for schism of his co-consecrator were formally declared by the CFB on July 1, 1988." Page 1589 Note 140 “The New Commentary of the Code of Canon Law” Paulist Press.

Also, refer to The Apostolic Bull “Ecclesia Dei” available on the Vatican web site.

For the coup d’etat, I have to quote to you Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII:

Quote
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. **

peace

 

[SFD]

I’ve already done this for you.

Actually, you haven’t…I don’t see any sources…other than yourself.

One source is necessary, The Code of Canon Law. That is the law of the Church, and where all crimes, penalties, and censures mentioned.

So, Archbishop Lefebrve is excommunicated (what does the word mean: ex-communicate, means not in communication with the Church.)

Cite the section.

He was excommunicated because he consecrated four bishops without authorization from the Roman Pontiff. The penalty for that is a ‘latae sententiae’ penalty of excommunication, specially reserved to the Holy See.

Yes, we know that’s what happened.

For the coup d’etat, I have to quote to you Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII:
Quote
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.

I’ve highlighted a different part above…that means non-Catholics are not members of the Church. Btw, you didn’t quote the entire section of Mystici Corporis found in Denz. 2286:
Mystici Corporis - Denz. 2286:

1. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration 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 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.

Those divided in faith or government…meaning they must share the same faith and sacraments nor government…and submit to the same authority.

Protestants do not share the same faith or government and they do not submit to the same authority…therefore they are NOT members of the Church.

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

Hardly. From what I’ve read, Ottaviani was right alot of the time but he was also lacking in charity and more interested in power than principal.

.

What principal (sic)? From the local elementary school, or do you mean, ‘principle’?

You’ve dumbed down too much.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Actually, you haven’t…I don’t see any sources…other than yourself.

I’ve highlighted a different part above…that means non-Catholics are not members of the Church. Btw, you didn’t quote the entire section of Mystici Corporis found in Denz. 2286:

Those divided in faith or government…meaning they must share the same faith and sacraments nor government…and submit to the same authority.

Protestants do not share the same faith or government and they do not submit to the same authority…therefore they are NOT members of the Church.

SFD

Mystici Corporis is available on the Vatican website. You know they have a website, don’t you?

Yes, when I realized I left a portion out, it was to late for me to edit the text.

What I left out, which you quoted only makes matters worse for Lefebreve.

I’m talking about the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebre, you are talking about something else.

He is outside the Mystical Body of Christ because of his specific excommunication for consecrating four bishops without the authority from the Holy See.

Otherwise, does it come as news to you that non-Catholics are not members of the Church. Where have you been since Pius XII?

I guess you haven’t heard about “Unam Sanctam”?
(Unam sanctam ecclesiam catholicam et ipsam apostolicam urgente fide credere cogimur et tenere, nosque hanc frmiter credimus et simpliciter confitemur, extra quam nec salus est, nec remissio peccatorum… )

peace