Salvation outside the church

[mgrfin]

Maybe, maybe not. Disobediance is not always schism. Lebrevre never denied the authority of the pope as the Church has always understood it and as the Church undertands it today. Lebfevre chose to disobey the directive of the pope claiming the grave necessity of a crisis situation within the Church - but he never denied the pope’s authority.

This would be different than say, a sedevacantist or an Orthodox Church position that would outright deny the pope’s authority as the Church understands it and has always understood it.

I guess an analogy would be a child refusing to listen to mom for some reason or another while still acknowledging her as his mother, and a child who claims the mom is no longer his mom but an imposter.

DustinsDad

The definition of schism does not require that someone deny the authority of the Pope.

The definition of schism is refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff, (or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him).

Lefebre was given several warnings what would happen if he acted as threatened, so it was not a ‘mistake’. He was told what would happen - that he would be excommunicated if he went ahead with the consecration. He acted contrary to the orders of the Holy Father.

After he did, the Holy Father followed through on what he promised would happen to the Archbishop and those whom the consecrated. Excommunication.

peace

 

[DustinsDad]

No, this is improper terminology. A “material heretic” is a non-Catholic who holds a heretical position without knowing it. He is one who is invincibly ignorant of the authority of the Church.

A Catholic who holds a heretical position, but not with pertinacity, is not a heretic at all…he is just in error. He may be holding a “material” element of heresy (the wrong belief) but he is not a “material heretic”.

Dr. Ludwig Ott puts it This way… See p. 311, 3. b.) :

“materials heretics” are those protestants who err in good faith.

SFD

I’d never heard that before - thanks. I have bellied up to the trough of knowledge and slurrped.



Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

The definition of schism does not require that someone deny the authority of the Pope.

The definition of schism is refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff, (or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him).

Well, one could say all schism involves disobedience. Not all disobedience involves schism.

Lefebre was given several warnings what would happen if he acted as threatened, so it was not a ‘mistake’. He was told what would happen - that he would be excommunicated if he went ahead with the consecration. He acted contrary to the orders of the Holy Father.

After he did, the Holy Father followed through on what he promised would happen to the Archbishop and those whom the consecrated. Excommunication.

While sympathizing with most if not all of ArchBishop Lefebvre’s concerns and positions and consider much of what he went through as a travesty of justice, I humbly submit to the authority of the pope in this disciplinary decision.

And I recognize that unlike infallibly defined dogma (such as the thrice-defined EENS and the beforementioned canon of the First Vatican Council), such things as disciplinary sanctions can be rexamined and revaluated at a later time.

And I observe that many lovers of “the gray area” suddenly develop a taste for the “black and white” when it comes to Lefebvre. And to be fair, the reverse is probably true as well.

DustinsDad

 

[mgrfin]

I’d never heard that before - thanks. I have bellied up to the trough of knowledge and slurrped.



Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

Is it all clear now, and adequately explained?

peace

 

[DustinsDad]

Is it all clear now, and adequately explained?

peace

What?

 

[mgrfin]

Well, one could say all schism involves disobedience. Not all disobedience involves schism.

While sympathizing with most if not all of ArchBishop Lefebvre’s concerns and positions and consider much of what he went through as a travesty of justice, I humbly submit to the authority of the pope in this disciplinary decision.

And I recognize that unlike infallibly defined dogma (such as the thrice-defined EENS and the beforementioned canon of the First Vatican Council), such things as disciplinary sanctions can be rexamined and revaluated at a later time.

And I observe that many lovers of “the gray area” suddenly develop a taste for the “black and white” when it comes to Lefebvre. And to be fair, the reverse is probably true as well.

DustinsDad

You might want to put it in writing and send it to the Holy Father:

His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI PP.
00120 Via del Pellegrino
Citta del Vaticano

peace

 

[mgrfin]

No, this is improper terminology. A “material heretic” is a non-Catholic who holds a heretical position without knowing it. He is one who is invincibly ignorant of the authority of the Church.

A Catholic who holds a heretical position, but not with pertinacity, is not a heretic at all…he is just in error. He may be holding a “material” element of heresy (the wrong belief) but he is not a “material heretic”.

Dr. Ludwig Ott puts it This way… See p. 311, 3. b.) :

“materials heretics” are those protestants who err in good faith.

SFD

Protestants are not heretics. Only Roman Catholics are. We have been through this before.

peace

 

[DustinsDad]

“Toto, I don’t think we’re in Kansas anymore.”

 

[SFD]

Protestants are not heretics. Only Roman Catholics are. We have been through this before.

peace

 

[rinnie]

I havent read any of the responses because they seem pretty long. so if im repeating something im sorry. But the way i understand if a person is catholic and turn their back on the faith (truely lies about it) they can be in grave sin. As well as Salvation, the Pope, the CHurch all have taught no one can say what God will do to each individual person. All we know is that He is a mercyful God. And we each hope he will have mercy on each and every one of us. But we are also taught if you love me Keep my word, the ten commandmants. And yes to try to live the faith the best you can. And that is the best you can do. To be honest I never hear anyone in the Catholic Church every really degrade or talk about other religions. Priests the Pope all of the clergy is too busy teaching the faith and helping us all get into heaven. by teaching us the truth… We just know that we must try to be God like. Do what he would do. Respect and Love one another.

 

[DustinsDad]

You might want to put it in writing and send it to the Holy Father:

His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI PP.
00120 Via del Pellegrino
Citta del Vaticano

peace

He’s a very busy man. I’d prefer rather, to send my prayers for the Holy Father to heaven:
V. Oremus pro Pontifice nostro Benedicto.

R. Dominus conservet eum, et vivificet eum, et beatum faciat eum in terra, et non tradat eum in animam inimicorum eius.

V. Fiat manus tua super virum dexterae tuae.

R. Et super filium hominis quem confirmasti tibi.

Oremus.
Deus, omnium fidelium pastor et rector, famulum tuum Benedictum, quem pastorem Ecclesiae tuae praeesse voluisti, propitius respice: da ei, quaesumus, verbo et exemplo, quibus praeest, proficere: ut ad vitam, una cum grege sibi credito, perveniat sempiternam. Per Christum, Dominum nostrum.
Amen.

(translation)
**
V. Let us pray for our Pope Benedict.

R. May the Lord preserve him, and give him life, and make him blessed upon the earth, and deliver him not up to the will of his enemies.

V. May Thy hand be ever upon the man of Thy right hand.

R. And upon the son of man whom Thou hast confirmed unto thee.

Let us Pray.
O God, Shepherd and Ruler of all Thy faithful people, look mercifully upon Thy servant Benedict, whom Thou hast chosen as shepherd to preside over Thy Church. Grant him, we beseech Thee, that by his word and example, he may edify those over whom he hath charge, so that together with the flock committed to him, may he attain everlasting life. Through Christ our Lord.
Amen.

 

[Just_a_Thought]

You are incorrect. An ipso facto excommunication does exactly this.

I’ve given you canons from Constance and CIC/17 to show that publication is necessary for the ipso facto excommunication for lawful action to proceed against the person. What is your source for believing otherwise?

It is often argued that we “cannot judge.” But a heretic is one who is self-judged, and who has left the Church by his own action. It is a visible fact that he is not a member. To observe and state this fact is not to “judge” in a legal sense, any more than to observe that someone is dead. In Scripture and the law of the Church, we are gravely obliged to avoid heretics. This would largely be impossible if it were restricted only to individuals formally condemned by name by the Holy See, and there is no basis in the tradition of the Church for this view.

This does not agree with the rule of law, which means that an accused person has his deeds investigated and tried before he is convicted and punished. You are advocating ecclesiastical vigilantism (i.e. anarchy).

 

[Just_a_Thought]

Agreed…as would most traditional folks. Problem is, the language spoken nowadays leads one to one of two conclusions:

1. 
   *]That the judgement has already been made and known, and that all Jews are hereby judged inculpable for rejection/ignorance.
   *]That OT covenant is sufficient in and of itself, and that there is no need of conversion to Christ for the salvation of their souls and for the glory of God.
   Now you can say that that is not the intent of the authors (which may or may not be true, depending on who is using this language), and that such interpretations are not consistent with the teaching of the Church (which is true, as such interpretations are impossible to reconcile with the deposit of faith, which is what the traditional folks keep harping on) but the resulting confusion and catostrophic consequences of using such language is undeniable to anyone with two eyes and an ounce of common sense.
   
   Case in point: Who are the most offended by Pope Benedict’s renewing and slightly revising the the prayer for the conversion of the Jews…why it’s the people most closely involved with Catholic/Jewish relations! Jews who are arguably the people most culpable for the rejection of Her since they are dealing specifically and tangibly with Her, along with the very members of the hierarchy responsible for engaging in dialogue with these folks. This is scandalous!

1. 
   I think it’s probably by design. The revision of the prayer does two things. (1) In keeping the substance of the prayer the same (“enlighten Jewish hearts to recognize Jesus Christ as the savior of all mankind”), it throws a necessary complication into the dialogue between Jews and Catholics. (2) In changing the prayer it state whether traditionalists are willing to accept even the most minor papally approved changes to the TLM. It “outs” both groups, forcing ecumenists to reveal or renounce their bi-covenantal error, forcing traditionalists to reveal or renounce their anti-magisterial error.
   
   This being said, releasing the prayer through the Secretary of State, who has authority in international relation and over the Vatican city-state means that the prayer itself isn’t binding in very many ways. Therefore it “outs” these groups without actually requiring any real change. Benedict XVI has left anyone determined to not use these prayers has a legal reason to do so.
   

   Which just goes to show that the church was not bigoted, unmerciful, and uncharitable for the centuries before VII - comments such as the above were always an addemen to and a nuanced sidenote to the direct and explicit call to conversion for the salvation of souls and for the glory of God. And while it is possible that some people inculpably ignorant of Christ’s Church may be saved - we are never to “assume” that the majority outside are saved or even present such an exception to the rule as if it were or could be the norm. Remember, Pope Pius IX listed these as condemned errors:15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.-Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

   1. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.-Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.

   1. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.-Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
      (Syllabus, Pope Pius IX, 1864)

   These certainly puts the abovemented quote into context.

   Yes. I agree. And the opposite is also true: The above mentioned quotes put these into context as well. Many people hold positions with regard to the syllabus that do not reflect the truth.
   

   And failing to heed Pope Pius IX (and the rest of the pre-counciliar popes, councils, etc.) in the new “ecumenical” approach, even though binding no formal error, certainly has lead us to where we are today…debating whether or not Jews need to convert.

   Agreed. It has proven to cause more harm than good.
   

   If someone is pointing a gun to their head, three chambers loaded, three chambers unloaded, and preparing to pull the trigger…do we try to stop them, or do we tell them what a nice revolver they have?

   Actually, you try to calm him down by talking about things that won’t upset him and, only after you establish a connection and some trust, you ask him to put the gun down. Unfortunately, your analogy favors some form of ecumenism.
   

   There is such a thing as sin of omission. What we don’t say might leave them in ignorance - thus lessening their culpability, but in the process might just be damning ourselves. We *are *our brother’s keeper.

   Agreed, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with the doctrinal dispute between us over whether the Old Covenant is revoked or not and in what sense. Are we in agreement about these things?

 

[mgrfin]

I’ve given you canons from Constance and CIC/17 to show that publication is necessary for the ipso facto excommunication for lawful action to proceed against the person. What is your source for believing otherwise?

This does not agree with the rule of law, which means that an accused person has his deeds investigated and tried before he is convicted and punished. You are advocating ecclesiastical vigilantism (i.e. anarchy).

The authority and power of the Pope is SUPREME, and there never was a canon or law of the Church to which he must obey.
I have asked this 50 times, what law of the Church impinges on his freedom? Absolutely none. He answers to no one but to Jesus Christ himself.

Believing anything else is pure vanity.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

I think it’s probably by design. The revision of the prayer does two things. (1) In keeping the substance of the prayer the same (“enlighten Jewish hearts to recognize Jesus Christ as the savior of all mankind”), it throws a necessary complication into the dialogue between Jews and Catholics. (2) In changing the prayer it state whether traditionalists are willing to accept even the most minor papally approved changes to the TLM. It “outs” both groups, forcing ecumenists to reveal or renounce their bi-covenantal error, forcing traditionalists to reveal or renounce their anti-magisterial error.

This being said, releasing the prayer through the Secretary of State, who has authority in international relation and over the Vatican city-state means that the prayer itself isn’t binding in very many ways. Therefore it “outs” these groups without actually requiring any real change. Benedict XVI has left anyone determined to not use these prayers has a legal reason to do so.

Yes. I agree. And the opposite is also true: The above mentioned quotes put these into context as well. Many people hold positions with regard to the syllabus that do not reflect the truth.

Agreed. It has proven to cause more harm than good.

Actually, you try to calm him down by talking about things that won’t upset him and, only after you establish a connection and some trust, you ask him to put the gun down. Unfortunately, your analogy favors some form of ecumenism.

Agreed, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with the doctrinal dispute between us over whether the Old Covenant is revoked or not and in what sense. Are we in agreement about these things?

Not many Catholics take the Syllabus of Errors seriously. It is not a definitive statement, and I don’t accept it.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

SFD:
The terms heresy, apostasy and schism are no longer used of those born and baptized outside the Catholic Church. The offenses can be ascribed only to Catholics, those baptised into the Catholic Church or later received into it.

“But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)”
UR 3.

BTW, don’t Sedevacantists believe that they have separated themselves from the Roman Catholic Church, that they too are outside the Mystical Body of Christ?

Just asking…

peace

 

[fix]

The Ten Commandments pertain to Christians. They are not enscribed in the hearts of mankind as Divine law.

How is that true?

This is from the CCC:

1955 The “divine and natural” law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature…

1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men.

Are we saying non catholics do not have engraved on their heart the natural law like prohibition regarding murder?

 

[DustinsDad]

I think it’s probably by design…

That’s alot of speculation on things I really have no idea of. I really don’t think it was necessary - but it retains a direct call for conversion, so that’s good. I don’t think any of us have any idea what sort of internal battles the Holy Father faces with all that he is doing…gotta keep praying for him!

IYes. I agree. And the opposite is also true: The above mentioned quotes put these into context as well. Many people hold positions with regard to the syllabus that do not reflect the truth.

Some do of course, I just don’t think it’s as widespread as folks think. Just mention EENS and most folks accuse you of being a “Feeneyite”…

Actually, you try to calm him down by talking about things that won’t upset him and, only after you establish a connection and some trust, you ask him to put the gun down. Unfortunately, your analogy favors some form of ecumenism.

Well sure, but somewhere in all that ecumenising, you’ve got to mention conversion to Christ’s Church for the salvation of souls and for the glory of God. Now, I think the tendancy is to just “talk-talk-talk” and let the Holy Spirit “mysteriously” issue the call to conversion. But I think the Holy Spirit might just want use our mouths and voices to do it. Have we grown afraid to cast the seeds for fear of them not sprouting?

Agreed, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with the doctrinal dispute between us over whether the Old Covenant is revoked or not and in what sense. Are we in agreement about these things?

Well, if we hadn’t grown so silent - “ommitted” the explicit and direct call to conversion - I don’t think the doctrinal debate on the Old Covenant being superceded by the New would even be taking place. The confusion, I think, is a side effect of inaction. It boggles my mind that such a thing is even debated.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[mgrfin]

How is that true?

This is from the CCC:

1955 The “divine and natural” law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature…

1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men.

Are we saying non catholics do not have engraved on their heart the natural law like prohibition regarding murder?

The natural law is enscribed in the hearts of mankind: “do good, avoid evil”. ‘do unto others as I would have them do unto me’.

But specifics of these generalities differ as there are nations on the earth.

It is not true to say that the 10 commandments are inscribed in the hearts of men. The Decalogue is revealed truth, not natural truth. God gave the Decalogue to Moses on Mt. Sinai.

peace

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The natural law is enscribed in the hearts of mankind: “do good, avoid evil”. ‘do unto others as I would have them do unto me’.

But specifics of these generalities differ as there are nations on the earth.

It is not true to say that the 10 commandments are inscribed in the hearts of men. The Decalogue is revealed truth, not natural truth. God gave the Decalogue to Moses on Mt. Sinai.

peace

My understanding is that all of the commandments but the one about the sabbath are part of the natural law.