Salvation outside the church

[SFD]

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

You’ve dumbed down too much.

peace

mgrfin,

Really? Coming from a man with a Theology degree fron Seton Hall who didn’t know the decalogue was divine law. Didn’t they have a remedial program for those who never learned their basic catechism?

The Ten Commandments are precepts bearing on the fundamental obligations of religion and morality and embodying the revealed expression of the Creator’s will in relation to man’s whole duty to God and to his fellow-creatures. They are found twice recorded in the Pentateuch, in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, but are given in an abridged form in the catechisms. Written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, this Divine code was received from the Almighty by Moses amid the thunders of Mount Sinai, and by him made the ground-work of the Mosaic Law. Christ resumed these Commandments in the double precept of charity–love of God and of the neighbour; He proclaimed them as binding under the New Law in Matthew 19 and in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5). He also simplified or interpreted them, e.g. by declaring unnecessary oaths equally unlawful with false, by condemning hatred and calumny as well as murder, by enjoining even love of enemies, and by condemning indulgence of evil desires as fraught with the same malice as adultery (Matthew 5). The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord’s Day. The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. xix) condemns those who deny that the Ten Commandments are binding on Christians.…

…This legislation expresses not only the Maker’s positive will, but the voice of nature as well–the laws which govern our being and are written more or less clearly in every human heart. The necessity of the written law is explained by the obscuring of the unwritten in men’s souls by sin. These Divine mandates are regarded as binding on every human creature, and their violation, with sufficient reflection and consent of the will, if the matter be grave, is considered a grievous or mortal offense against God. They have always been esteemed as the most precious rules of life and are the basis of all Christian legislation.

SFD

 

[DustinsDad]

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

Loyal dissent is not a contradiction in terms.

It is if the dissent is from Apostolic Tradition.

What do you mean, “There is only one morality - God’s morality. Anything else is immorality”.

I think that’s a pretty clear cut statement.

And, everyone has always held everything about God’s morality? Of course not.

Everything revelaed to us in Christ and handed to us in the dogmas and Apostolic Tradition of the Church is of couse God’s morality. Anything that contradicts this is immorality.

We can come to fathom it more deeply - as we will in eternity. But we will not fathom it to mean something different or contradictory to what has already been revealed.

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

And if he doesn’t come up with the same answer as the one the One True Church has taught for 2000 years, and if this is a person of “repute” - a “learned theologin” or a member of the clergy and he’s presenting these contradictory things to lay folk who trust his guidance because of his authority - then he’ll have to answer to God for leading souls astray. The greater the rank, the greater the responsibility.

Many of the dogmas of the church are not fully understood and explained.

But they are understood and explainded - any further understanding and explanation on this side of the pearly gates or the other - can and will not contradict what has already been understood and explained by Christ’s Church.

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.

Within the guidelines and parameters already laid down for us by Christ’s Church. You teetering very close to modernistic philosophical agnosticism - perhaps your theology education was tainted?

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.

But did they ever preach grave moral intrinsic evil as a good?

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’.

Off topic.

Anyhow, the allowable guidelines the Church has established (and they are wider than most folks think) for contemplating the great mystery of predestination are the same for theologins and lay folk.

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.

No, I’m afraid it couldn’t have “gone otherwise.” Good grief.

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

Any freedom I have is freedom to believe, obey, and submit to the Truth. Anytime I fail to do any of those three things, I abuse my freedom and become a slave to sin.

DustinsDad

 

[mgrfin]

mgrfin,

Really? Coming from a man with a Theology degree fron Seton Hall who didn’t know the decalogue was divine law. Didn’t they have a remedial program for those who never learned their basic catechism?

SFD

My theology degree is not from NY, NJ or CA

peace

 

[mgrfin]

DustinsDad

Your whole crtique is simplistic. And you are calling me an agnostic. How dare you.

 

[DustinsDad]

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. .

If you don’t mind, I think I’ll copy that for future use. It’s a gem.

DustinsDad

 

[mgrfin]

DustinsDad

The controversy regarding contraception, finally resolved by Paul VI in his letter “Humanae Vitae” was not an easy decision.

He struggled with it for two years. The minority position was the position the Church finally accepted.

FYI, I always held the ‘minority’ position against any relaxation of our moral theology relating to birth control, or contraception. Paul VI didn’t have it so easy.

The Controversy is spelled out in the following article.

Please read, and stop making judgements about people, like me, and Father Curran, et. al.

viastuas.net.au/bc/WeigelHV.html

peace

 

[DustinsDad]

Your whole crtique is simplistic.

It is as simple or as complicated as required.

And you are calling me an agnostic. How dare you.

Puu-leez. I wrote “You teetering very close to modernistic philosophical agnosticism” in response to your statements regarding our (in)ability to know and comprehend the Truth. And I stand by that…it is teetering very close to the danger zone.

And it sounds a little to close for my ears to what what Pope St. Pius X warned us about, here he is discussing the modernist approach to dogmas and such things…
…But dogma itself, they apparently hold, strictly consists in the secondary formulas .

…This will be readily perceived by anyone who holds that these formulas have no other purpose than to furnish the believer with a means of giving to himself an account of his faith. These formulas therefore stand midway between the believer and his faith; in their relation to the faith they are the inadequate expression of its object, and are usually called symbols; in their relation to the believer they are mere instruments.

…Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.
(cf Pascendi, 12)
I distance yourself from this sort of thinking. Dangerous.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[mgrfin]

DustinsDad:
Did you read the link I provided?

viastuas.net.au/bc/WeigelHV.html

peace

 

[stmaria]

stop making judgements about people, like me, and Father Curran, et. al. peace

How can you, as a Catholic, support Father Curran, Hans Kung and Edward Schillebeeckx? I have reservations about your theology degree.

Curran on the Carpet- June 2005
time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1075073,00.html?iid=sphere-inline-sidebar

“As part of Pope John Paul II’s determined campaign to enforce orthodoxy, the Vatican has taken action against a number of nonconformist theologians. First it ruled that Hans Küng of West Germany could no longer call himself a Catholic theologian; next Dominican Edward Schillebeeckx of the Netherlands was summoned to Rome for an inquiry into his theological writings…Now it is the turn of the Rev. Charles Curran, , a moral theologian at the Catholic University of America in Washington.
The church vehemently opposes all abortions; Curran argues that they might be justifiable in extreme cases. Rome rejects sterilization on any grounds; Curran does not. The Vatican insists that “every genital act must be within the framework of marriage”; Curran thinks that premarital sex is acceptable under some circumstances and that loving homosexual acts can be morally licit in the context of a permanent commitment. He believes that the church should alter its ban on remarriage after divorce.”

VATICAN TELLS PRIEST TO RETRACT VIEWS
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9A0DE5D71F38F931A25750C0A960948260

“The Vatican has ordered the Rev. Charles E. Curran, a liberal theologian at Catholic University of America, either to retract his views on birth control and other sexual issues or face the loss of his authorization to teach Roman Catholic doctrine.
The letter said Father Curran had violated Catholic teachings that artificial contraception is wrong, that abortion and euthanasia are ‘‘unspeakable crimes’’ in all circumstances, that masturbation, premarital intercourse and homosexual acts are ‘‘intrinsically immoral’’ and that marriage is an indissoluble bond between two persons.”

 

[GerardP]

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

You called Archbishop LeFebvre a heretic.

I told you to prove it or retract.

Instead you’ve ignored it.

We’ll deal with the excommunication after I’ve nailed your tail to the wall for lying about the archbishop.

Are you going to be a stand up guy and admit that he was not a heretic or are you going to run from your own word?

 

[GerardP]

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.

Yes. And it was a missapplication of that Canon because the facts did not correspond to JPII’s explanation. Ignoring the canons I cited is yet another injustice.

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

Actually it is Christ that rules the Catholic Church. Canon law is a human invention that is very sensible when applied correctly and with justice. In the case of LeFebvre it was not. JPII’s application of Canon Law was unjust. It is self-evident, your appeal to authority fallacy notwithstanding. By your understanding, you would think it just for a man who enters a burning building and saves an entire family should be charged with trespassing.

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

Yes, but unfortunately the Holy Father was the problem that necessitated the consecrations. So, objectivity on the part of JPII can’t be considered anymore than someone can claim the trial of Pope Formosus was a righteous act.

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

Seems you didn’t even read it. JPII does not say that LeFebvre created a church. But I suppose you can add what you want to bolster your agenda.

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

There’s nothing traditional about the Holy See crushing prelates trying to save souls while turning a blind eye to Apostates. Abuse of papal power is the only thing regarding LeFebvre that has a precedent in history.

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

It would be sad if it were true but it’s not. The really sad thing is the heretics who don’t believe who believe they are in good standing in the Church, when mystically they are cut off.

 

[GerardP]

Your whole crtique is simplistic. And you are calling me an agnostic. How dare you.

What’s a “crtique?”

Do you mean “critique?”

If that’s the case, you need to spell it with an “i” after the “r” and before the “t.”

 

[GerardP]

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.

Wait a minute. I thought you cited St. Alphonsus because you believed he was correct in declaring it de fida? Are you saying it’s de fida or that it’s theologically certain? Which one? We’ll deal with the “censure” issue after you’ve clarified where you come down on this. Was St. Alphonsus wrong in declaring it de fida? A Saint and Doctor of the Church? Because if it’s only theologically certain, that’s a whole different ball game by your rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

But with a note of theologically certain, dissent is permissable. Your own notes say that and they’re the final word on it.

You can’t have it both ways on this. Even if I were to accept your premise (which I don’t) the law of non-contradiction prevents your system of fallible having the authority over infallible from making sense.

 

[mgrfin]

You called Archbishop LeFebvre a heretic.

I told you to prove it or retract.

Instead you’ve ignored it.

We’ll deal with the excommunication after I’ve nailed your tail to the wall for lying about the archbishop.

Are you going to be a stand up guy and admit that he was not a heretic or are you going to run from your own word?

You are going to 'nail my tail to the wall"? Really.

Archbishop Lefebreve took his followers into schism. He was excommunicated, along with his co-consecrators, and those who were made bishop.

You should read “Ecclesia Dei” before you ‘nail my tail’ to the wall.
The excommunication to Lefebreve was automatic, that is, ‘latae sententiae’. His excommunication, further, was ‘ferendae sententiae’.

Nice talk from you from one Christian to another, from one Catholic to another.

I will not apologize for a schimatic/heretic. I pray for his immortal soul. He died ‘outside of the Church’ where he claimed, like us, there is no salvation’.

peace

 

[GerardP]

You are going to 'nail my tail to the wall"? Really.

I already have. unless of course, you can prove archbishop LeFebvre guilty of heresy.

Archbishop Lefebreve took his followers into schism.

Then why are they asking for the false charges to be removed? Why are they appealing to the Pope to straighten out the Church? Schismatics don’t think the Pope has the power to do those things.

He was excommunicated, along with his co-consecrators, and those who were made bishop.

Again, it was intrinsically invalid. He had only one co-consecrator by the way.

You should read “Ecclesia Dei” before you ‘nail my tail’ to the wall.

I’ve read it many times. Do you think it has an accusation of heresy in it?

I will not apologize for a schimatic/heretic.

I can let the schism thing go because it’s a common mistake. But the heresy thing is just a lie.

I pray for his immortal soul.

Good.

He died ‘outside of the Church’ where he claimed, like us there is no salvation’.

False.

Again, what heresy is he guilty of?

This is the third time I’ve asked you to prove it and the third time you’ve been afraid to answer it.

Anytime you reply and don’t back up your false accusation is just more proof that you’re a charlatan and that you don’t have the intestinal fortitude to make reparations for your own public sin.

I’m not asking you to apologize for calling him a heretic. I’m saying you’ve got to prove it.

Now just do it, or we’ll know you’re dishonest person breaking the 8th commandment.

 

[mgrfin]

QUOTE]

You doubt my theology degree? Really? It’s hanging on my wall. How can you doubt it?

"Edward Schillebeeckx

of the Netherlands was summoned to Rome for an inquiry into his theological writings" So, after the inquiry, there was no condemnation, or proscribing his writings.

You can be a great theologian, and have lots of enemies. Nothing came of the examination, except he received a clean bill of health.

Hans Kung went on to hold a position teaching Ecumenical Theology. He continued as a priest to this day.

You have painted both of these good men with the brush of heresy, unlike the kind of heresy of Archbishop Lefebreve, who, in his pride, took his followers into apostacy. I don’t hear you condemning him.

As for Fr. Curran, I don’t know how old you are, or that you remember the 1960’s. Hundreds of theologians urged the Holy Father to make some change in the church’s stance on birth control for married couples. Pope Paul VI held the 'miniority position". It was a very difficult time in the Church.

Read this analysis, then tell me you would condemn such as Fr. Curran.

viastuas.net.au/bc/WeigelHV.html

peace

 

[mgrfin]

QUOTE]

Archbishop Lefebreve received a ‘latae sententiae’ and a ‘ferendae sententiae’ penalty for the unauthorized consecrations of four bishops.

Read “Ecclesia Dei” available on the Vatican site.

He lead his people into apostacy, schism, and heresy. The history record is clear. You can research it yourself.

As an American, forget about him being a clergyman, he supported the Petain government in France, Hitlerites, Franco in Spain, Mussolini in Italy, Salazar, and Peron. All these were Fascists, or communists. Our favorite kind of people?

peace

 

[GerardP]

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.

Again, as I’ve explained and you’ve ignored. I don’t believe that ONLY infallible definitions require assent. I am not a minimalist.

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".

Again, that is a false reading of Pius IX. “Catholics” does not mean exclusively “theologians.” You once again have to add to magisterial documents to get your way.

Theologians do not have the right nor the authority to reinterpret infallible definitions and twist their meanings away from the plain statements of the definitions.

Read Cardinal Manning again:

Irrelevant.

GerardP is apparently a Feeneyite…

blah…blah…blah…back to your pre-recorded attempt at character assassination.

Again Pius XII in Humani Generis:

But for this reason even positive theology cannot be on a par with merely historical science. For, together with the sources of positive theology **God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority ****to elucidate **and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly…

Get that? Not to theologians. But to the teaching Authority of the Church given by God. If you need further proof…

This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, **not even to theologians, but only **to the Teaching Authority of the Church.

But if the Church does exercise this function of teaching, as she often has through the centuries, either in the ordinary or in the extraordinary way, **it is clear how false is a procedure which would attempt to explain what is clear by means of what is obscure. Indeed, the very opposite procedure must **be used.

What is clear: True and Natural water is Necessary

What is obscure: Theologians arguing about Necessity of precept or necessity of means when they are introducing contingencies that are nowhere in the magisterial documents.

Hence Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, teaching that the most noble office of theology **is to show how **a doctrine defined by the Church is contained in the sources of revelation, added these words, and with very good reason: “in that sense in which it has been defined by the Church.”

Notice how Pius XII is stating how Pius IX was mandating theologians to remain faithful to what Catholics have been taught by the Magisterium not by theologians.Pius IX is not “endowing them” with authoritity that they do not have.

 

[GerardP]

He lead his people into apostacy, schism, and heresy. The history record is clear. You can research it yourself.

Just back up your accusation and prove the heresy.

That’s four times now.

 

[GerardP]

You have painted both of these good men with the brush of heresy, unlike the kind of heresy of Archbishop Lefebreve, who, in his pride, took his followers into apostacy. I don’t hear you condemning him.

Again, what heresy? That’s five times now.