Home Forum Mortalium Animos Louie Verrecchio and Jimmy Akin

This topic contains 53 replies, has 11 voices, and was last updated by  Helenrose234 4 years, 7 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 54 total)
  • Author
  • #5249


    Use this space to discuss my examination of Mortalium Animos with Jimmy Akin.



    MA never mentions a partial vs full unity where Mr. Akin brings this term into the equation by way of UUS. The novelty seems to be that a single break from teaching still keeps one partially united to the Mystical Body of Christ. And if one, why not two or three or …?


    Indignus famulus

    Dear Louie,
    St. Thomas Aquinas once wrote,
    “Three things are necessary for the salvation of man: to know what he ought to believe; to know what he ought to desire; and to know what he ought to do.”
    We pray God blesses all you do here, with every Grace needed to enlighten the understanding of each of you, and of all who take an interest.
    In St. Thomas’ meditations, he prayed:
    “O most blessed and sweet Virgin Mary,
    Mother of God, filled with all tenderness,
    Daughter of the most high King,
    Lady of the Angels, Mother of all the faithful,
    On this day and all the days of my life,
    I entrust to your merciful heart my body and my soul,
    all my acts, thoughts, choices, desires, words, deeds,
    my entire life and death,
    So that, with your assistance, all may be ordered to the good
    according to the will of your beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.”

    Amen. God bless all.



    As I see it, the central point of the encyclical – as well as the one with the most potential for conflict with current “ecumenical” efforts – is contained in §8:

    “This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.”

    The phrase, “this being so”, needs to be explained. It is clearly referring to the subject matter of the previous paragraph, wherein Pope Pius XI expounds the various errors and false opinions held by those promoting false ecumenism by virtue of which Catholics are forbidden to join or support. If one were to claim that Pope Pius XI’s clear and categorical condemnation of participation in such ecumenical efforts does not apply to current efforts, one would need to demonstrate either a) current ecumenical efforts do not arise from and/or promote the errors described by the Pope, or b) the errors condemned by the Pope are not actually condemned errors.

    Let us, then, examine the individual errors rejected by Pope Pius XX:

    – The unity spoken of by Our Lord (John 17:21) lacks fulfillment.
    – The Church is divided in itself.
    – The Church has erred.
    – The Church has corrupted the religion of Christ by the addition of doctrines foreign to the Gospel.
    – The primacy of jurisdiction was not granted to Peter and his successors in the See of Rome.
    – The primacy of jurisdiction of the pope arises not from divine law but from the consent of the faithful.
    – The various sects of heretics and schismatics are equal partners with the Catholic Church in regards to the faith.

    Even a casual reading of the Decrees of the Council of Trent, the Syllabus of Errors of Blessed Pope Pius IX and Lamentabili Sane of Pope St. Pius X reveals that each of these propositions has, in one form or another, been condemned and proscribed by the Magisterium. Therefore, we can conclude that the errors condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos §12 are truly condemned.

    What remains to be established is whether the partners in current ecumenical efforts hold fast to these same errors. That would require a case-by-case analysis.

    What should not be in question, however, is the logic of Pope Pius XI’s central argument: If ecumenical efforts arise from, condone and/or promote condemned and proscribed errors, it is in no way lawful for Catholics to participate in or support such efforts.

    But, more importantly, we should inquire as to whether the Vatican itself still recognizes the erroneous nature of these propositions.



    “Partial Communion” is the novelty introduced at and since V2, and it is not a mere development of doctrine, it is a break, a change and a contradiction with the constant teaching of the Church. And this is what Akin will eventually have to appeal to in order to justify the obvious “problem” with Mortalium Animos (i.e. that it explicitly condemns the modern ecumenical practices as “altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion” and by which “the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.”)

    The concept of “partial communion” can only be adhered to if one rejects the constant Church teaching on the supernatural virtue of faith…i.e. that it’s a supernatural thing, a gift from God that allows those who accept it the ability to accept it all. As infallibly explained at the First Vatican Council (Session 3, Chapter 3):
    “2. This faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the Catholic Church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived…

    8. Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.

    9. Since, then, without faith it is impossible to please God and reach the fellowship of his sons and daughters, it follows that no one can ever achieve justification without it, neither can anyone attain eternal life unless he or she perseveres in it to the end.”

    The novel concept of “partial communion” presupposes partial faith, a natural faith whereby folks are convinced of some aspects of what Our Lord has revealed, and not convinced of others and therefore reject them. Therefore, they do not have supernatural faith. Objectively speaking, such folks have not accepted Supernatural Faith by the simple fact that they reject some of what God has revealed. They have put themselves in the place of God and are their own determiner of what is true and what is false. Man in the place of God, to be perfectly blunt about it.

    Mark my words, Akin will appeal to partial communion as the “development” the justifies kicking Mortalium Animos to the curb, and in doing so he will likely put forth an entirely naturalist notion of what Faith actually is.


    Indignus famulus

    The bad effects of the ecumenism of the last 50 years can be seen in the lost Faith we all know is still decimating the Church. The belief is rampant that the Roman Catholic Church reversed her doctrine after VII, and came to accept all religions as equally good, and capable of leading their adherents to heaven. While some in the Church accounts for this by extraordinary Divine intervention by God which leads them individually and grants them Baptism of desire, the general belief prevails that their salvation is by ordinary living of their beliefs still following false tenets.

    Thus, the heresy of Indifferentism is now rampantly spreading and Proselytism which missionaries once practiced diligently, is now condemned as a great,uncharitable evil. The current Pope even announces “It’s a SIN to focus on our differences” and proclaims himself a product of Vatican II and the new Civilization of love/”new” Springtime of the Church.

    The dire warnings in MA at the end of par9 and beginning ofpar. 10 have sadly and clearly been proven valid in our times.
    MA p.9: “And in what manner, We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful? WE DO KNOW THAT FROM THIS IT IS AN EASY STEP TO THE NEGLECT OF RELIGION OR INDIFFERENTISM AND TO MODERNISM.”

    The NEW thinking, which claims continuity with the old, has led to the overall rejection of Anathemas as well as any talk of ex-communication for unrepentant sinners, as “uncharitable” and is a root cause of the breakdown of Morals in Society. These corrective measures, deemed too cruel and unfeeling to be true Charity, were effective in calling sinners back to order as a last resort to save their souls from the fires of Hell, where they were headed, and to protect the flock from the ongoing scandal, which, by definition, is sin that leads others to sin.
    — The Scriptures contradict these falsely ecumenical novelties:
    [Matthew 18:15] (After a brother refuses correction from 2 faithful witnesses,)” And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.”

    [2 Thessalonians 3:6] “And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.”

    [2 St. John 8-11] “Look to yourselves, that you lose not the things which you have wrought”..Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. 10 If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. 11] For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works.”
    And The constant teaching of the Church regarding those who have rejected the Gospel and left the Faith, is well-reflected in the Writings and practices of the Fathers and Saints like
    Thomas Aquinas (and many,many others from Quaestionis quodlibetales [spontaneous questions], quodlibeto 10, q. 7, a. 1, 15, c.)
    –reasons one must not maintain relations with heretics.
    – First, because one must not have relations with excommunicated persons.
    -Second, because of their heresy– because of the danger that our relations may come to corrupt others, according to what is taught in the First Epistle to the Corinthians: ‘Evil communications corrupt good manners.’ (15: 33).
    — to not appear that one gives any approval to their perverse doctrines. [2 John] it is said: ‘If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine…
    [ Gloss comments:] ‘To talk with someone reveals communion, unless the talk is a duplicity, which should not occur among Catholics.’
    –and in order that our familiarity does not provide occasion to err for others.
    Another Gloss comments on this passage of St. John: “Even if you are not taken in by the heretic, seeing your familiarity with him, others can be fooled imagining that you take pleasure from such relations and believe in him.’
    Still a third Gloss adds: ‘The Apostles and Disciples exercised such great vigilance in religious matters that they did not even have an exchange of words with those who had removed themselves from the truth.’
    The exception to this rule is when someone speaks about salvation with a heretic with the intention to save him.
    (Admonish the sinner)
    While non-believers are not always heretics, the same or worse dangers to the Faithful exist in their company, which accounts for the warnings in MA.
    It seeems the height of arrogance for men today to assume our wisdom and charity exceed that of Our Lord and the Apostles and Saints, or our resistance to evil is somehow greater than it has been for men of all ages (especially in light of the corruption in all societies today) and to go ahead and organize prayer meetings-Such as were held at Assisi, where doctrinal differences are not mentioned, other than as “unfortunate realities that are understood, expected to remain, and can be ignored for the time being or for life.
    To even pretend, or give the impression that adherents of all false religions pray to the same God we do, or, because He is omnicient, He will hear them and be pleased by their uniting their petitions to ours, and grant them more readily; is much worse than foolish because of the damage it does to the understanding of the Faith and the importance of accepting it in its totality, to all those who witness these “events” or hear of them.
    We agree that this “partial acceptance” concept, mentioned above, needs to be addressed, as does the idea that these matters can be ignored, despite there existing no acceptance at all. Placing unity above truth.


    Indignus famulus

    A fellow poster, Barbara, left this example on the main blog.
    It SO clearly shows the disastrous fruits of the same misplaced mercy that fuels forbidden ecumenism, that we’re reposting here a reminder of what is at stake here, when we discuss the purpose of ancient prohibitions and rules. The source was someone writing in to Fr Z’s blog:

    ” I teach religious education at at Catholic school in the UK and my department just spent an hour discussing how we can best convey to the children that we and Pope Francis are disappointed that the synod didn’t change Church teaching, and that it’s inevitable and just a matter of time before the Church allows gay marriage, female priests, etc. I was specifically told by someone high up that there is no theological reason not to have female priests. Obviously, I won’t teach anything that contradicts Church teaching, and I may well get into a lot of trouble because of it.
    ” The thing is, I’ve been worried about what’s been happening since the beginning of this pontificate and I am starting to lose hope. I know despair is a mortal sin and I’ve been trying to fight against it for months, but when I see what’s going on in, I just think ‘this isn’t the Church I went through a lot of personal difficulties to join.’ I was brought up Anglican – I know what it’s like to be in a church that changes its teaching each time a new opinion poll comes out. I’m really trying to keep up hope but I’m genuinely facing the possibility that the Church isn’t what I thought it was and perhaps I was wrong to join it. The Rod Dreher approach is looking appealing at this point. I don’t know what to do.”
    This change now, wait-for-permission later mentality, took over after VII.
    Ecumenical scandals made it far worse, giving the impression the Church had reversed itself without promulgation. So why not do it with every other issue? The Point being, that the restrictions and cautions in this document under discussion, have been proven to matter gravely, giving them even greater weight. The chaos resulting from ignoring them, demonstrates that the earliest teachings still apply, as human nature doesn’t change as years pass. “updating” without accepting that fact, is extremely harmful, we see.



    Thanks to one and all for the excellent commentary on this subject.

    I believe Mr. V and CraigV both picked up on an important point – that characterizing something as just a “church teaching” does not give the proper impression of how important the church teaching is. Mr. V identifies the teaching on unity as part of the universal and ordinary magisterium. It has been taught everywhere and at all times to the universal church so it is an infallible teaching of the Church – thus all Catholics are called to assent to the teaching.

    Our Lord’s Church has four marks and unity is one of them. Since unity is the subject of MA, we should be able to find a definition of unity in MA. MA interestingly both provides the true definition of unity and condemns an erroneous conception of unity in a single sentence:

    “A good number of them, for example, deny that the Church of Christ must be visible and apparent, at least to such a degree that it appears as one body of faithful, agreeing in one and the same doctrine under one teaching authority and government; but, on the contrary, they understand a visible Church as nothing else than a Federation, composed of various communities of Christians, even though they adhere to different doctrines, which may even be incompatible one with another.”

    Note the definition of unity contained in this sentence: “one [visible] body of faithful, agreeing in one and the same doctrine under one teaching authority and government.”

    Such formulations are the source of catechetical teachings like that, e.g., contained in the Baltimore catechism:

    “Q. 548. Has the Church any marks by which it may be known?
    A. The Church has four marks by which it may be known: it is One; it is Holy; it is Catholic; it is Apostolic.

    Q. 549. How is the Church One?
    A. The Church is One because all its members agree in one faith, are all in one communion, and are all under one head.

    Q. 552. How is it evident that the Church is one in worship?
    A. It is evident that the Church is one in worship because all its members make use of the same sacrifice and receive the same Sacraments.

    Q. 553. How is it evident that the Church is one in faith?
    A. It is evident the Church is one in faith because all Catholics throughout the world believe each and every article of faith proposed by the Church.

    Q. 554. Could a person who denies only one article of our faith be a Catholic?
    A. A person who denies even one article of our faith could not be a Catholic; for truth is one and we must accept it whole and entire or not at all.”

    So the Baltimore Catechism clearly echoes the description of unity set forth in MA: the oneness (unity) of the Church is evidenced by the fact that the Church is one in faith, communion, leadership and worship.

    This is hardly surprising that a pre-VII catechism of the Church echoes a papal encyclical on the “marks” of church unity. What may be surprising to those who think that VII would avoid a clear confirmation on the nature of church unity is that it does not; in fact, Lumen Gentium 14 echoes these orthodox definitions of unity:

    “14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

    They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.”(12*) All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)”

    There it is in the second paragraph – an orthodox reaffirmation on the nature of unity: “The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion.” Interestingly. this paragraph also confirms that the Catholic Church is the unique ark of salvation: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”

    Note, also, that this paragraph from Lumen Gentium has a seed contained in it that is the source of all the resulting controversy on false ecumenism. Listen to the video that Mr. V just posted. The seed is right there at the beginning of the second paragraph of Lumen Gentium 14: “They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops.” This formulation – that some are fully incorporated – implies that some may only be partially incorporated. Thus the genesis of those within the Church thinking that it is possible for certain faith communities to be in partial communion with the Church. See Unitatis Redintegratio for a further discussion of this subject.

    But hasn’t the Church already spoken about “partial communion”? Yes it has on manifold occasions. Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum rejected the idea that those who deviate in any way from an article of faith can still nonetheless be in the Church:

    “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

    Note the way Pope Leo XIII phrases this sentence: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers.”

    The Encyclical at issue here – MA – condemns false notions of unity, but perhaps the most comprehensive condemnation is this one:

    “A good number of them, for example, deny that the Church of Christ must be visible and apparent, at least to such a degree that it appears as one body of faithful, agreeing in one and the same doctrine under one teaching authority and government; but, on the contrary, they understand a visible Church as nothing else than a Federation, composed of various communities of Christians, even though they adhere to different doctrines, which may even be incompatible one with another.”

    So, the documents that proceed VII – e.g., Mortalium Animos and Satis Cognitum – already foreclose the development of doctrine following VII that would claim that there can be such a thing as a partial communion among those who differ on, e.g., matters of faith or papal primacy. The fact that Lumen Gentium 14 may or may not imply that there can be such a thing as people who are only “partially” incorporated in the Church because other people are “fully” incorporated doesn’t change the outcome – such a proposition has already been explicitly condemned by the Church.

    Now, if this is in fact true and that it is condemned error to assert that there can be such a thing a partial communion (e.g., “unity in diversity”), is it open for anyone in the Church to nonetheless propose that Church doctrine can evolve so that, e.g., “unity in diversity” is possible and the prior condemnations become dead letters?

    The practice of the Church is that it is not possible for doctrine to change meaning, e.g., a complete 180 degree change in meaning. In fact, VI anathematizes those who even suggest this as a possibility:

    “If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.”

    It is hoped that during this discussion Mr. Akin restricts himself to propositions which do not run afoul of this anathema, regardless of whether or not certain Churchmen in the recent past may have acted in a manner or submitted a proposition that apparently does run afoul of this anathema.



    Very good points everyone.
    maybe Akin will justify partial communion via the notion of “Soul of the Church”, which I believe is also present in the Baltimore Catechism you just quoted from.
    Here is a clarification on what it is supposed to be (taken from a BOD apologetics site):

    The definition of “Soul of the Church” in the “New Catholic Dictionary” (1929) provides an explanation for the origins of this term:

    Soul of the Church: “From the 16th century, the Catholic theologians expressed more definitely the theological doctrine of the distinction between the Soul and Body of the Church. . . This distinction. . . is formally expressed by Bellarmine in his study on the members of the Church. According to him, men belong to the Body of the Church by virtue of external profession of the faith, and participation in the sacraments; and to the Soul of the Church through the internal gifts of the Holy Ghost, faith, hope, and charity. He draws three general conclusions relative to the members of the Church. There are those: (a) Who belong always to both the Body and Soul of the Church; (b) Who belong to the Soul without belonging to the Body; (c) Who belong to the Body but not to the Soul. This teaching has generally been followed by Catholic theologians.”


    Indignus famulus

    —POPE EUGENE IV Council of Florence 1400’s wrote:
    “…the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it, are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other..exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and NO ONE, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, EVEN IF HE HAS SHED HIS BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, CAN BE SAVED, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
    —POPE JOHN PAUL II Ut Unum Sint wrote: 1. PAR2
    “The courageous witness of so many MARTYRS OF OUR CENTURY, INCLUDING members of Churches and Ecclesial Communities NOT IN FULL COMMUNION with the Catholic Church, gives new vigour to the Council’s call and reminds us of our DUTY to listen to and put into practice its exhortation. THESE BROTHERS AND SISTERS OF OURS, united in the selfless offering of their lives for the Kingdom of God, ARE the most powerful PROOF that EVERY FACTOR OF DIVISION CAN BE TRANSCENDED and overcome in the total gift of self for the sake of the Gospel.”
    10 “The churches and separated communities, ALTHOUGH WE ONCE BELIEVED that they suffered from deficiencies, they are not totally deprived of importance and value in the mystery of salvation. The Spirit of Christ does not refuse TO USE THEM AS A MEANS OF SALVATION, THROUGH the STRENGTH deriving FROM THE FULLNESS OF THE GRACE AND TRUTH WHICH HAS BEEN CONFERRED ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
    The above from Pope John Paul II seems to say:
    The Church no longer believes what it once believed, about those who reject the Church or the Faith. Once we thought they lacked the Graces necessary to participate in the Church’s work of saving souls, But I am now saying the opposite is true, that Jesus Christ DOES make use of them to save souls, (and they can also be Martyrs)through STRENGTH that come from the Graces and Truths they have rejected, which only the Catholic Church possesses in its fulness.
    We’re wondering how the STRENGTH he speaks of gets transferred from the Church they reject, into their souls? If it’s through the prayers of the Faithful, wouldn’t that only provide the Graces necessary for their conversion and repentance, which they have so far rejected? And
    without those, if they are willful heretics, the Church Catechism teaches that unrepentant Mortal sinners cannot merit any rewards for their good actions, and even their Guardian Angels withdraw to a distance from them.
    Pope John Paul II also wrote
    P.3 “At the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church committed herself irrevocably to following the path of the ecumenical venture”
    So it seems dogma from the Council of Florence is revocable, but the non-dogmatic “venture” from VII is irrevocable. — Scary stuff.



    Thanks to all for the thoughtful commentary.


    Thank you for bringing up that quote from Leo XIII’s Satis Cognitum, as it is key to the entire discussion.


    As I understand it, that’s the theological dimension of the “new ecclesiology” as presented in Lumen Gentium. Unitatis Redintegratio and Ut Unum Sint, i.e. that there already exists a partial communion with heretics and schismatics in the Holy Spirit:

    – “The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium stressed that the Catholic Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with these Communities by a true union in the Holy Spirit.” (UUS §11)

    – “Likewise, we can say that in some real way they [i.e. heretics and schismatics] are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them also he gives his gifts and graces, and is thereby operative among them with his sanctifying power.” (UUS §12) [more on this passage below]

    Further, John Paul II claims there is already partial communion with heretics and schismatics in the Communion of Saints:

    – “Albeit in an invisible way, the communion between our Communities, even if still incomplete, is truly and solidly grounded in the full communion of the Saints – those who, at the end of a life faithful to grace, are in communion with Christ in glory. These Saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities which gave them entrance into the communion of salvation.” (UUS §84)

    There is also a rather pronounced failure to distinguish between actual grace and sanctifying grace:

    – Where there is a sincere desire to follow Christ, the Spirit is often able to pour out his grace in extraordinary ways.” (UUS §84)

    – “In spite of fragmentation, which is an evil from which we need to be healed, there has resulted a kind of rich bestowal of grace which is meant to embellish the koinonia.” (UUS §85)

    – “The Christian way of life of these brethren is nourished by faith in Christ. It is strengthened by the grace of Baptism and the hearing of God’s Word.” (UUS §68)

    – “Nor should we forget that whatever is wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of our separated brothers and sisters can contribute to our own edification.” (UUS §48)

    – “Likewise, we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them also he gives his gifts and graces, and is thereby operative among them with his sanctifying power.” (UUS §12)

    Here, and particularly in the last passage quoted, the distinction between actual grace and sanctifying grace is virtually obliterated. Indeed, it must be overlooked in order to get this “new ecclesiology” off the ground. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would mean that, because all men are given actual grace by the Holy Spirit, all men are essentially already joined to the Church, and thus saved. Which, unsurprisingly, is what many prelates are saying today. Thus, while the “new ecclesiology” was purportedly devised to help bring others into the Church, it in fact explodes the very concept of the Church, making conversion entirely superfluous. And we see the results all around us.


    Indignus famulus

    Dear Matthew,
    It’s hard to comprehend the expanse of this whole thing, but that makes it seem even more diabolical, because no single human could have come up with it and implemented it so craftily over so many years.
    And it’s so “kind and loving” sounding, it deceives even the elect “if that were possible”. We really do seem to be in the “end-times”.
    We can’t help but think of all the missionaries who gave their all, including their blood for Christ, only to be now written off as dupes of an unnecessary and erroneous or misunderstood vocation to convert the world, directed by “un-enlightened” Popes of the past. It’s criminal.
    Thank you and all the others, for helping to highlight these points of rupture with the past. We need to keep sounding the alarm until the Lord rescues us from this calamity. God Bless.



    Very clear exposition of the Dominical and ecclesiastical doctrine on Communion of the Church and Her essential Unity. The Baltimore Catechism is great, and understandable by all who have attained the age of reason. What it says on this matter can only be accepted or rejected. Partial communion or partial unity is a necessary falsehood, a contradiction in terms. Further, it can not be posited as a fuller or more detailed understanding, or logical inference, of the doctrine as set down in, inter alia, MA, because it clearly contradicts it.



    UUS 84 – On the contrary, the Communion of Saints are all members of Christ’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. One cannot be saved from damnation without entering into communion with the Church, which can occur only before death. Extra Ecclesium Nulla Salus. Of course, it is a mystery how Christ, the Head of the Church might effect such entry other than in the normal way as required, or by martyrdom for the One, True Faith. One cannot presume that anyone has avoided Hell other than those who have been found to have attained Heaven by the Church. What we do know is that one cannot be saved without communion (and there is no partial communion, or communion with reservations) with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.



    Matthew et Cyprian:
    I’ve read up some more on the concept of “Soul of the Church”.
    It seems to have been present in some theological treaties (for instance in Bellarmine’s) and then adopted in the Cathechism of St.Pius X, Baltimore Catechism and even 1917 Codex Canon Law:
    “Canon 2258: “The relation of the individual Catholic to the body of the Church is sometimes styled external communion, whilst his connection with the soul of the Church is called internal communion. This latter communion is not per se severed by excommunication, as grace and charity can not be taken away by the penal sword of the Church, but are lost only through grievous personal guilt. And as this guilt can be repaired by perfect contrition, it may happen that one is excommunicated and yet lives in the friendship of God. Besides, faith and hope may coexist with mortal sin.” ”

    However it seems to be relevant only for:
    -those previously part of the BODY (physical membership in the Church) =excommunicated
    -those aspiring/on the path of officially becoming part of the Body= Catechumens

    It looks like it is a theoretical TEMPORARY situation, entirely dependant on past and future membership, as a concept itself.

    Recently having being deforme into encompassing everyone basically, even those who knowingly REJECT Catholicism, or those who have no idea it even exists (invincibly ignorant)

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 54 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.