M
Melchior_1
Guest
You guess is as good as mine, mate.
- Status
A
Armor_of_Light
Guest
Yes. and to Melchior…good posting.
I have a problem understanding some of the trad mindset when it comes to this issue. My modicum of study on this issue has told me that there is no real conflict between pre and post VII on this. It is worded a little bit differently, but when taken in the light of tradition it is the same teaching. I have been the good thief many times.
R
Rich_C
Guest
Good question.
But how did sedevacantism come into this?
The SSPX is not sedevacantist and more pertinent to your example, nor are they feeneyite.
There is a letter from Abp Lefebvre on the Internet where he talks about African catechumens begging for baptism from him during his mission days there in the 1950s. He says he told them not to worry, that he would baptism them when their catechesis was done, and if they died before then they would have the “baptism of desire.”
R
Rich_C
Guest
M
Melchior_1
Guest
I’ll have to re-read what I wrote, I thought the blog specifies that a conversion can happen 0.00000002 seconds before death, which to God is an eternity. Obviously if I wrote that a conversion can happen post-death, that’s manifestly incorrect and I’ll change that post haste.
Lewis may or may not fall under that category. Based on his writings, I think he’s a good candidate that if asked before his death “Peter has the keys” he’d have come running to Rome.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
My fault. The topic of Salvation of others came up, and I posted from my blog where I wrote about this topic, on the post I wrote about sede’s. I was lazy and didn’r feel like re-writing
R
Rich_C
Guest
You know, after I re-read what I thought was the “trouble line” a few more times, I see I simply misunderstood you. You never implied that people can convert after death.
My apologies!
R
Rich_C
Guest
We all do it. No harm done.My fault. The topic of Salvation of others came up, and I posted from my blog where I wrote about this topic, on the post I wrote about sede’s. I was lazy and didn’r feel like re-writing
D
dominic_aquinas
Guest
I believe the notion of ‘Eternal Rome’ is fully present in the condemnations of the Modernist errors by Pius X, among many, many other documents.
Syllabus of Modernist Errors, Pope Pius X:
- The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution.
CONDEMNED - Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ latent in the Gospel.
CONDEMNED - Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places.
CONDEMNED
Incorrect. Many, many Protestant groups baptise adults only. The reason they specifically do this is so that the person being Baptized can have FULL and complete knowledge that they are in the correct Church. The dogmas that EVERYONE is required to believe in the Council of Trent, they specifically, with full knowledge, deny.
It’s not valid to propose that entire Protestant groups have invincible ignorance when they themselves will deny it. Go into any Baptist church and ask the pastor, or the members, why they are not Catholic. They will give you a very specific detailed list of reasons along with a truckload of literature that will help explain their position.
To claim that most members of their group have invicible ignorance is simply mistaken. This applies even to members born into their group since by the time of the Council of Trent many children were already born into Protestant families. The whole point of most Protestant sects is that you must consciously understand your faith to accept it. You can’t be born into Protestantism, you must consciously convert to it. Sorry, but invicible ignorance doesn’t apply.
To say that the Divine Law revealed by the Catholic Church does not make the physical reception of Sacraments necessary to them since only Catholics are bound by this requirement has been condemned repeatedly in many, many Church documents.
Again, for convenience sake, from the Syllabus of Errors:
59. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places.
CONDEMNED
Christ taught that EVERYONE must PHYSICALLY eat his Body and Drink his Blood or they will not have life in them. Protestants are not able to do this. This is applicable to ALL people at ALL times. Some, could not accept this teaching because they thought it was too harsh. Christ let those false followers have their freedom to make that descision but they were not saved.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Then perhaps you ought to rewrite the Catechism of our Church, as you clearly disagree with the teachings of our Church on the nature of the ‘Body of Christ’ on Earth. Our Church does not hold that Protestants are outside of Salvation. Our Church does not hold that their faiths do not possess some of the Truth. Protestants are part of Christ’s Church on Earth, even if they are not in the same fullness of Truth as members of the Roman Catholic Church.
Like it or not, those are the teachings of our Church and you are not free to reject them and hold that your view represents Catholic teaching, just as you are not free to reject Ecumenical Councils because you don’t like what they decide.
The concept of ‘Eternal Rome’ is simply a concept fabricated to justify disobedience to Rome.
D
dominic_aquinas
Guest
Protestants deviate from many, many Divinely Revealed dogmas defined at Trent. I counted at least a dozen, just at a glance. But the problem is all you need is to CONSCIOUSLY and PERSISTENTLY deviate from just one Doctrine and you are not saved.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:
“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity.”
Just one deviation…
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“… can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by that very fact falling into heresy? – without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. … But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely REJECTS ALL FAITH, since he thereby refuses to honor God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”
And, yes, the dogmas must be believed as they were defined at the Council of Trent and by “Eternal Rome”. They can’t be re-interpreted in some Modern way.
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation, 1870, ex cathedra: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”
The Protestants say that they are not members of the Catholic Church–and they don’t want to be. What they want is for the Catholic Church to become more Protestant.
Here’s some more for reference. There are too many to list.
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:
“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”
Pope Pius IX, Ubi primum (# 10), June 17, 1847: “For ‘there is one universal Church outside of which no one at all is saved; it contains regular and secular prelates along with those under their jurisdiction, who all profess one Lord, one faith and one baptism.”
Pope Pius IX, Nostis et Nobiscum (# 10), Dec. 8, 1849: “In particular, ensure that the faithful are deeply and thoroughly convinced of the truth of the doctrine that the Catholic faith is necessary for attaining salvation.”
Unfortunately, I know the response that’s coming: I’m making the mistake of contrasting past Popes against future Popes. The problem is what the Popes and Councils of Trent, Florence and Vatican I said are still binding. I don’t need a PhD in Theology to understand their meaning. They are clear as a bell. And, I have to personally understand my faith to live it.
S
Saints_Alive
Guest
Didn’t BXVI indicate it’s ok to be a Feeneyite ?
Not in those exact words, but didn’t he say it’s ok to hold either position ?
Not in those exact words, but didn’t he say it’s ok to hold either position ?
J
JM3
Guest
First, The Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439 is a Bull of Union with the Armenians and is a decree for the Armenians (see Denzinger, 43rd edition, 1310-1328) and is, therefore, not “ex cathedra”.
Second, The sentence you quote is the first sentence of the Quicumque (the Pseudo-Athanasian Profession), (see Denzinger, 43rd edition, 75-76) which talks about the Trinity and the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and ends with “This is the Catholic faith: unless each one [one] has believed it faithfully and firmly, he will not be saved.”
It would appear that you interpretation of Church documents is incorrect.
As for the SSPX, I offer this:
Denzinger, 43rd edition, 446:
Pope Pelagius I’s Letter Adeone te to Bishop [John],
“Has the truth of your Catholic mother so failed you, who have been placed in the highest office of the priesthood, that you have not at once recognized yourself as a schismatic when you withdraw from the Apostolic Sees?..Why, therefore, did you, already most dear in Christ, fall into error by seperating from that very (See), or what hope did you have for your salvation?”
P
pnewton
Guest
Lurking here. May jump in latter. I note that the OP missed a link to the whole statement.
sspx.org/superior_generals_news/supgen_80.html
sspx.org/superior_generals_news/supgen_80.html
G
GloriaMaria
Guest
No, I thought about linking, but then thought it was against the rules. I’m glad you did. I think the whole article needs to be read. There is a lot to speak of within the article. God Bless.
P
pnewton
Guest
It’s a little twitchy, for sure. I am here all the time and even then I sometimes have a hard time keeping up. For now, SSPX recruitment is a big no-no, as is linking sedevantist or unapproved revelations. I think Mr. Casey has explained the boundries earlier. Obviously this link is just to facilitate context
J
JM3
Guest
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13satis.htm
SATIS COGNITUM
ON THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
JUNE 29, 1896
“5…The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same forever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ, the Lord - leaving the path of salvation they enter on that of perdition.” (Denzinger 3304)
“15…But the Episcopal order is rightly judged to be in communion with Peter, as Christ commanded, if it be subject to and obeys Peter; otherwise it necessarily becomes a lawless and disorderly crowd. It is not sufficient for the due preservation of the unity of the faith that the head should merely have been charged with the office of superintendent, or should have been invested solely with a power of direction. But it is absolutely necessary that he should have received real and sovereign authority which the whole community is bound to obey.” (Denzinger 3308)
(Paragraph numbers for Denzinger are from the 43rd edition)
J
JReducation
Guest
This is true. I’ve read that letter.
We have to be very careful here. Pope John Paul explained this in one of his catechesis a long time ago. In philosophy the idea of invincible ignorance goes beyond not having heard something. In other words, just as I can hear what Muslims believe and not be able to wrap my head around it through no fault of my own, so too a non Catholic can hear what the Catholic Church holds and be unable to wrap his head around it, because to his ears, the Catholic proposal sounds sinful or at the very least, not part of Christian tradition. The person is not simply rejecting something, because it’s an inconvenient truth, but just the opposite. He’s rejecting something because it does not sound true. In this case, the person is not to blame if something does not sound true. The person is choosing in faith. He or she is truly convinced that his choice to reject a proposition is a choice consistent with the will of God. He’s being very honest in his desire to please God, even though he’s mistaken.
As far as Florence was concerned, theologians and Church historians have stated that the Council of Florence was making a pastoral statement and was trying to speak to Catholics not to non-Catholics. Those Jews, Protestants, and Muslims to which Florence refers are former Catholics who converted, very often for economic or political reasons of the time.
Pope Leo XIII was also writing to Catholics. The dissenters about whom he speaks are Catholics. You can’t call a Protestant, Jew, Orthodox or Muslim a dissenter, since he was never a Catholic. What’s he dissenting from? He disagrees with the Catholic position, but it’s illogical to call him a dissenter. One would have to belong first and then dissent. Dissent is almost synonymous with treason. I can’t betray a country that has never been mine in the first place.
We can’t apply what was written to Catholics for Catholics to someone who was never a Catholic. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI clarified this in a number of ways, not just words. The way that they dealt with the non-Catholic speaks loudly of how we should deal with them and think about them. It’s a shame that we have these wonderful popes and we can’t bring ourselves to imitate their intelligence, kindness, and scholarship in these matters.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
So the Council of Trent is supreme above all subsequent Ecumenical Councils? Any subsequent Council must defer to the Council of Trent?
Vatican II was a valid Ecumenical Council in all its status and infallibility. Declaring it as some sort of ‘modernist’ false interpretation is a position counter to the Sacred Tradition of our Church.
As to the concept of “Eternal Rome” defining dogma, “Eternal Rome” is a modern interpretation that was born as a result of Catholics wanting to justify their disobedience to Rome. How can a concept that is nothing more than a convenient interpretation define anything? You quite rightly include “Eternal Rome” in parenthesis as it nothing more than a concept in the minds of those it suits.
J
JReducation
Guest
There is some problem with the Council of Trent. Not everything that the Council of Trent said was infallible. It certainly did clarify some dogma and moral questions. It also made many pastoral statements. These are all being lumped together with those that are binding. In addition, because there was no unified code of canon law, trent made some laws as well. These too are often thrown into the mix.
Every pastoral statement made by a council and every law made by a council remains in force until another council or a pope changes it.
Every dogma and moral truth taught by a council remains in force forever. However, one must understand that these truths are not proper to the council. They always existed. The council simply stated them in a formal statement. There is nothing in tradition or in practice that says that these truths cannot be restated by future popes or council in different words. There is nothing in our Catholic tradition that says that truth cannot be better understood later than before.
Here is a simple example. The Apostles knew that Jesus was God and man. This is truth. However, it was not for another 400 years that this truth was explained to everyone’s satisfaction. Until Nicea, this truth was articulated in many ways and each articulation was found to be deficient. The problem was not the truth, but the language.
This is also the case with truths taught by Trent, Pius X and others before us. This is what John Henry Newman called the development of Christian doctrine. Doctrine does not change, but it’s like a morsel of corn. If you add humidity and heat, it pops and you can see the inside. Is it still the same morsel of corn? Of course it is. However, it looks different and tastes different. It has a smoother texture, which makes it easier to eat. Who wants to eat a hard grain of corn?
So, as Bl. John Newman explains, the same thing happens with doctrine as with pop corn. The same grain of truth was present in the early Church, at the Council of Trent and at Vatican II. The appearance changes as we try to find language that clearly explains what the Church believes. There is nothing wrong with this.
As far as “Eternal Rome”, I have found this to be a rather dubious expression. When I first heard it, I had no idea what they SSPX was talking about. After asking several theologians, I leaned that the term comes from literature, not from theology or ecclesiology. It doesn’t really describe the Catholic Church for a number of reasons.
First, it’s not a term that the Church has ever applied to herself.
Second, it’s a term that is offensive to the Eastern Catholics. It seems to imply that Catholicism is Roman, which it is not. The Diocese of Rome is the mother of all Catholic Churches, but the Catholic Church is not the Diocese of Rome. The Catholic Church is not even the Latin Church.
The key is not Rome, but the Bishop of Rome. If I’m faithful to “Eternal Rome” but am not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, I’m in a rather irregular position. At the end of the day the Bishop of Rome will always be who he is and the Church will always depend on him, not on me. It is I who has to move toward him if I want to move toward the whole Church.
Every pastoral statement made by a council and every law made by a council remains in force until another council or a pope changes it.
Every dogma and moral truth taught by a council remains in force forever. However, one must understand that these truths are not proper to the council. They always existed. The council simply stated them in a formal statement. There is nothing in tradition or in practice that says that these truths cannot be restated by future popes or council in different words. There is nothing in our Catholic tradition that says that truth cannot be better understood later than before.
Here is a simple example. The Apostles knew that Jesus was God and man. This is truth. However, it was not for another 400 years that this truth was explained to everyone’s satisfaction. Until Nicea, this truth was articulated in many ways and each articulation was found to be deficient. The problem was not the truth, but the language.
This is also the case with truths taught by Trent, Pius X and others before us. This is what John Henry Newman called the development of Christian doctrine. Doctrine does not change, but it’s like a morsel of corn. If you add humidity and heat, it pops and you can see the inside. Is it still the same morsel of corn? Of course it is. However, it looks different and tastes different. It has a smoother texture, which makes it easier to eat. Who wants to eat a hard grain of corn?
So, as Bl. John Newman explains, the same thing happens with doctrine as with pop corn. The same grain of truth was present in the early Church, at the Council of Trent and at Vatican II. The appearance changes as we try to find language that clearly explains what the Church believes. There is nothing wrong with this.
As far as “Eternal Rome”, I have found this to be a rather dubious expression. When I first heard it, I had no idea what they SSPX was talking about. After asking several theologians, I leaned that the term comes from literature, not from theology or ecclesiology. It doesn’t really describe the Catholic Church for a number of reasons.
First, it’s not a term that the Church has ever applied to herself.
Second, it’s a term that is offensive to the Eastern Catholics. It seems to imply that Catholicism is Roman, which it is not. The Diocese of Rome is the mother of all Catholic Churches, but the Catholic Church is not the Diocese of Rome. The Catholic Church is not even the Latin Church.
The key is not Rome, but the Bishop of Rome. If I’m faithful to “Eternal Rome” but am not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, I’m in a rather irregular position. At the end of the day the Bishop of Rome will always be who he is and the Church will always depend on him, not on me. It is I who has to move toward him if I want to move toward the whole Church.
- Status