The Church of Christ and Schismatic Sects

[ready]

I can not reconcile Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement with the traditional teaching of the Church. Your help is appreciated!

Cardinal Ratzinger teaches that schismatic sects (e.g., the “Orthodox” sects) have the Church of Christ present in them, even though they reject the Papacy…

“Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.”
(Dominus Iesus #17, by Joseph Ratzinger, approved by bogus “pope” John Paul II, Aug. 6, 2000)

“There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff.”
(Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862)

“Finally, in one word, stay close to Us. For no one can be in the Church of Christ without being in unity with its visible head and founded on the See of Peter.”
(Pope Pius VI, Charitas (# 32), April 13, 1791)

 

[LightBound]

I can not reconcile Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement with the traditional teaching of the Church. Your help is appreciated!

Cardinal Ratzinger teaches that schismatic sects (e.g., the “Orthodox” sects) have the Church of Christ present in them, even though they reject the Papacy…

“Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.”
(Dominus Iesus #17, by Joseph Ratzinger, approved by bogus “pope” John Paul II, Aug. 6, 2000)

“There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff.”
(Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862)

“Finally, in one word, stay close to Us. For no one can be in the Church of Christ without being in unity with its visible head and founded on the See of Peter.”
(Pope Pius VI, Charitas (# 32), April 13, 1791)

What kind of delusional sedevacantist site did you find this quote on? WAIT!! Don’t answer that!! Any site that states or even alludes to saying that John Paul ll was “bogus” isn’t worth typing in the domain name, let alone reading their garbage!!

 

[clem456]

1Now the snake was the most cunning* of all the wild animals that the LORD God had made. He asked the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You shall not eat from any of the trees in the garden’?” 2The woman answered the snake: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; 3a it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, or else you will die.’” 4But the snake said to the woman: *“You certainly will not die!b 5God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, who know good and evil.” **

The accuser, using anyone willing, to accuse God and His Church. The battle never ends.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

I can not reconcile Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement with the traditional teaching of the Church. Your help is appreciated!

Cardinal Ratzinger teaches that schismatic sects (e.g., the “Orthodox” sects) have the Church of Christ present in them, even though they reject the Papacy…

“Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.”
(Dominus Iesus #17, by Joseph Ratzinger, approved by bogus “pope” John Paul II, Aug. 6, 2000)

“There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff.”
(Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862)

“Finally, in one word, stay close to Us. For no one can be in the Church of Christ without being in unity with its visible head and founded on the See of Peter.”
(Pope Pius VI, Charitas (# 32), April 13, 1791)

This has already been addressed forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9397959&postcount=46 ]

 

[ready]

I honestly had no idea that the word “bogus” was used in the info I provided here! Please forgive me. The website I got the info from called him “bogus”- I wouldn’t dare call him “bogus” on CAF even if I believed it.

Now back to my OP. How can I reconcile tradition with the Cardinal’s statement? Is it possible or am I to understand that he made an honest mistake?

 

[ready]

This has already been addressed forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9397959&postcount=46 ]

Thanks!

Edit: I was the one who started the post … the thread was closed because the Moderator considered the question answered. There was more I needed to ask, but the thread was closed… I still do not know how to resolve the Cardinal’s statement with the traditional teaching of the Chruch. Perhaps the Cardinal made an honest mistake?

 

[ready]

The Cardinal’s statement speaks for itself. I have no idea where it came from. Are you suggessting that the quote is bogus? I believe I can find the same quote on the link provided above.

 

[JM3]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

1. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67

 

[clem456]

I
Now back to my OP. How can I reconcile tradition with the Cardinal’s statement? Is it possible or am I to understand that he made an honest mistake?

How can you not? Are you asking rhetorical questions for the sake of argument, or do you truly not understand, or do you disagreeing with something?

 

[SanctusPeccator]

Thanks!

Edit: I was the one who started the post … the thread was closed because the Moderator considered the question answered. There was more I needed to ask, but the thread was closed… I still do not know how to resolve the Cardinal’s statement with the traditional teaching of the Chruch. Perhaps the Cardinal made an honest mistake?

No mistake was made. Joseph Alois Cardinal Ratzinger merely summarized Magisterial teaching that Christ’s redemptive influence extends beyond the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church. How else would the prominent figures from the Old Testament be acknowledged as saints in the liturgical calendar when they lived before Our Lord established His Church?

 

[ready]

Yes, I understand, context is important. Perhaps I could reconcile things for myself if I read the Cardinal’s statement within context. Thanks for pointing that out. But what do I read to get his statement within context?

But still, pehaps the Cardinal should have reworded his statement. Perhaps he should not have said what he said. His words directly contradict the other Pope’s words. Are you saying that his statement doesn’t means what it says? Please answer this last question. Your help is appreciated!

 

[clem456]

But still, pehaps the Cardinal should have reworded his statement. Perhaps he should not have said what he said. His words directly contradict the other Pope’s words. Are you saying that his statement doesn’t means what it says? Please answer this last question. Your help is appreciated!

Perhaps…
Perhaps silent prayer and discernment should accompany the reading of Church teaching and scripture, with a bias toward acceptance of, and obedience to, the work of the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps…

 

[ready]

Perhaps…
Perhaps silent prayer and discernment should accompany the reading of Church teaching and scripture, with a bias toward acceptance of, and obedience to, the work of the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps…

Thanks.

 

[MarkThompson]

Yes, I understand, context is important. Perhaps I could reconcile things for myself if I read the Cardinal’s statement within context. Thanks for pointing that out. But what do I read to get his statement within context?

But still, pehaps the Cardinal should have reworded his statement. Perhaps he should not have said what he said. His words directly contradict the other Pope’s words. Are you saying that his statement doesn’t means what it says? Please answer this last question. Your help is appreciated!

No, there is no contradiction. The earlier statements were simply overgeneralized and misleading. Cardinal Ratzinger is simply adumbrating the solution to a severe tension that exists in pre-Vatican II thought.

Let me explain what I mean by way of a concrete example. The Church has long believed and taught that (among others) the Orthodox retain valid sacraments – among them, baptism. So let us suppose that an Orthodox baby is baptized, and then dies shortly after. The baptism has washed away all stain of original sin and filled the child with sanctifying grace; and the child, of course, had no personal sin of his own. We therefore believe that such a baby is saved and would go to Heaven. Ah, but wait – extra ecclesiam, we are told dogmatically, nulla salus! No salvation outside the Church!

So it seems we must admit that either (1) such a baby, despite being validly baptized and having no original or personal sin, will for some reason be condemned by God to Hell, or else (2) he is in some way inside the Church. Since we reject position (1), we conclude that in fact the graces which God makes available through his Church have, in some measure, been operating through the Orthodox. This becomes even more apparent when we consider that the Eucharist is valid in Orthodox churches – the quintessential sacrament of redemption and unity.

It is true, then, as Pius IX said, that “all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey” the Pope. But this does not answer the broader question of whether any of the graces of the Church are present elsewhere in the world. And we know that they are. To give still another example, traditional Catholics are sometimes found saying that the Protestant sects were founded by Satan do his diabolical work and no good fruit can come of that evil seed. Yet we know by experience that many people are brought from paganism or unbelief to faith in Christ through the evangelism of Protestants – and no small share of those wind up as converts to Catholicism itself. If we believe that preaching Christ and baptizing the heathen is a work of Christ’s Church, which we do, then we must confess that Protestants are engaged in the Church’s work, however imperfectly.

That is what it means to say, as did Lumen Gentium, that although Christ’s Church “subsists in the Catholic Church,” nevertheless “many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.” To be sure, the farther one gets from the Catholic Church the less good and sanctification one finds, and the more error and evil is mixed in with it. But the “Fortress Catholicism” mentality which was sometimes present in older writers and preachers, according to which everything inside the Catholic Church is good and everything outside is uniformly evil or at best “secular,” cannot stand up to the truth that many of the things we find outside the Catholic Church – valid baptisms, preaching the name of Christ, encouraging sound morals according to the natural law, even the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist – are good, and are among the graces that God has bestowed on mankind flowing through his Church.

The old statements you have found about “belonging” to the Church, although true in the limited sense in which they are written, do not exhaust the discussion about how far the work and sanctification of the Church is or can be operative outside the ecclesial walls of the Catholic Church – to which, it must be re-emphasized, God does indeed want to draw all his faithful. Resolving this tension, and especially doing so while avoiding indifferentism, is not easy, and if there is one thing we can be sure of it is that the Church has not said everything on the matter that there is to be said.

 

[pbr7w6]

MarkThompson, I always enjoy reading you eloquently worded responses. They are very informative and thought inspiring. I have learned a lot from them. I do have one question to add to this example:

So let us suppose that an Orthodox baby is baptized, and then dies shortly after. The baptism has washed away all stain of original sin and filled the child with sanctifying grace; and the child, of course, had no personal sin of his own. We therefore believe that such a baby is saved and would go to Heaven. Ah, but wait – extra ecclesiam, we are told dogmatically, nulla salus! No salvation outside the Church!

What if a child born into the Baptist religion to a heretic and a protestant dies shortly after birth. It was never baptized, since that is not the way of the Baptists. What becomes of its soul?

Second, would it be wrong for a Catholic to perform an emergency baptism on this child?

 

[pbr7w6]

Will obviously all of these questions are. I was just curious if the church held a position on this, since it falls into the category of what we are discussing: No Salvation with out the Church.

 

[MarkThompson]

What if a child born into the Baptist religion to a heretic and a protestant dies shortly after birth. It was never baptized, since that is not the way of the Baptists. What becomes of its soul?

The fate of unbaptized infants has been discussed many times on this board. I personally hope that God provides them with a potential path to salvation, but we do not know this for certain. However, I do not see why the outcome would be different for an infant who is born to non-Catholic parents versus to Catholic parents – it is hard to see, for example, why the result in the case of a baby miscarried by even the most devout Catholic mother should be different from that in the case of a baby born to Baptists or Wiccans who dies in his cradle. In any event, the question is tied more closely to the issue of the necessity of baptism for salvation than it is to the subject matter generally referred to under the heading of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Second, would it be wrong for a Catholic to perform an emergency baptism on this child?

I do not think that the Church has ever taught that it is right to forcibly baptize the children of non-Catholics. This is, for instance, one of the things that made the case of Edgardo Mortara unique, even in the Papal States in the 1850s. Nevertheless, I am not an expert on the Church’s practices in this regard.

 

[pbr7w6]

Thank you. I in no way meant to imply that a child born to non Catholics was in any way inferior to one born to Catholics. I was just making the case as to why the child would not be baptized. Thank you again.

 

[Dirt]

Pope Leo XIII. Satis Cognitum

" It is so evident from the clear and frequent testimonies of Holy Writ that the true Church of Jesus Christ is one, that no Christian can dare to deny it. But in judging and determining the nature of this unity many have erred in various ways. Not the foundation of the Church alone, but its whole constitution, belongs to the class of things effected by Christ’s free choice. For this reason the entire case must be judged by what was actually done. We must consequently investigate not how the Church may possibly be one, but how He, who founded it, willed that it should be one. But when we consider what was actually done we find that Jesus Christ did not, in point of fact, institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: “I believe in one Church.” “The Church in respect of its unity belongs to the category of things indivisible by nature, though heretics try to divide it into many parts…We say, therefore, that the Catholic Church is unique in its essence, in its doctrine, in its origin, and in its excellence…Furthermore, the eminence of the Church arises from its unity, as the principle of its constitution - a unity surpassing all else, and having nothing like unto it or equal to it” (S. Clemens Alexandrinus, Stronmatum lib. viii., c. 17). For this reason Christ, speaking of the mystical edifice, mentions only one Church, which he calls His own - "I will build my church; " any other Church except this one, since it has not been founded by Christ, cannot be the true Church. This becomes even more evident when the purpose of the Divine Founder is considered. For what did Christ, the Lord, ask? What did He wish in regard to the Church founded, or about to be founded? This: to transmit to it the same mission and the same mandate which He had received from the Father, that they should be perpetuated. This He clearly resolved to do: this He actually did. “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you” (John xx., 21). “Ad thou hast sent Me into the world I also have sent them into the world” (John xvii., 18). "

Please read the entire document here:
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html

 

[ready]

Thanks, guys, for your feedback!

Dirt, I’ll read the encyclical. Peace!