Thinking of wearing a hair shirt or engaging in some other form of mortification? Try this:
First, read Satis Cognitum of Pope Leo XIII followed by a reading of Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI. Take a moment to let these clear and precise presentations on the immutable faith of the Holy Catholic Church sink in…
Then, read Ut Unum Sint of John Paul II.
Ouch!
There can be no doubt whatsoever that both Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI (and a list of other popes too long to recite here) would have condemned the writing of John Paul II as incompatible with the doctrine of Holy Church.
The bottom line – a place the weak, the invincibly deceived and the diabolically disoriented dare not go – is that either John Paul II or his predecessors did not hold the Catholic faith. There is no via media here.
Ut Unum Sint, as is typical of modernist screed, is very lengthy. It is, after all, an exercise in novelty, which naturally requires copious explanation in order to convince the reader (and perhaps even the writer) of its Catholicity.
Be forewarned, it’s a very painful experience, but for those willing to suffer through it, I have reproduced here just a relatively small portion of Ut Unum Sint along with commentary that draws from the authentic faith.
Feeling brave? Jump in and offer it up.
Ut unum sint! The call for Christian unity made by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council with such impassioned commitment is finding an ever greater echo in the hearts of believers, especially as the Year 2000 approaches, a year which Christians will celebrate as a sacred Jubilee, the commemoration of the Incarnation of the Son of God, who became man in order to save humanity.
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.
That a martyr for the faith can come from among those who reject Holy Mother Church, and in so doing reject Christ her Head, is preposterous.
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.
Another false premise: That one can offer their lives for the Kingdom of God and yet do so from outside of His Kingdom, the Holy Catholic Church.
Believers in Christ, united in following in the footsteps of the martyrs, cannot remain divided. If they wish truly and effectively to oppose the world’s tendency to reduce to powerlessness the Mystery of Redemption, they must profess together the same truth about the Cross.1 The Cross! An anti-Christian outlook seeks to minimize the Cross, to empty it of its meaning, and to deny that in it man has the source of his new life. It claims that the Cross is unable to provide either vision or hope. Man, it says, is nothing but an earthly being, who must live as if God did not exist.
In order to profess “the same Cross,” clearly one must also profess the one faith; i.e., the Holy Catholic faith.
Nevertheless, besides the doctrinal differences needing to be resolved, Christians cannot underestimate the burden of long-standing misgivings inherited from the past, and of mutual misunderstandings and prejudices. Complacency, indifference and insufficient knowledge of one another often make this situation worse. Consequently, the commitment to ecumenism must be based upon the conversion of hearts and upon prayer, which will also lead to the necessary purification of past memories.
Hurt feelings due to the events of previous centuries is not the issue; rather, it is the refusal of the heretic to embrace the doctrine of the faith; doctrine that is well known to all, without confusion, who wish to know it.
What is needed is a calm, clear-sighted and truthful vision of things, a vision enlivened by divine mercy and capable of freeing people’s minds and of inspiring in everyone a renewed willingness, precisely with a view to proclaiming the Gospel to the men and women of every people and nation.
A “renewed willingness” to what? Apart from a willingness on the part of heretics to embrace in faith the fullness of Catholic doctrine, unity simply is not possible for such a person.
At the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church committed herself irrevocably to following the path of the ecumenical venture, thus heeding the Spirit of the Lord, who teaches people to interpret carefully the “signs of the times.”
What is the “ecumenical venture”? We are about to find out…
I myself intend to promote every suitable initiative aimed at making the witness of the entire Catholic community understood in its full purity and consistency, especially considering the engagement which awaits the Church at the threshold of the new Millennium. That will be an exceptional occasion, in view of which she asks the Lord to increase the unity of all Christians until they reach full communion.3 The present Encyclical Letter is meant as a contribution to this most noble goal. Essentially pastoral in character, it seeks to encourage the efforts of all who work for the cause of unity.
OK, so you’re the pope. Will you tell “all Christians” how to “reach full unity” like your predecessors?
The unity of all divided humanity is the will of God. For this reason he sent his Son, so that by dying and rising for us he might bestow on us the Spirit of love. On the eve of his sacrifice on the Cross, Jesus himself prayed to the Father for his disciples and for all those who believe in him, that they might be one, a living communion. This is the basis not only of the duty, but also of the responsibility before God and his plan, which falls to those who through Baptism become members of the Body of Christ, a Body in which the fullness of reconciliation and communion must be made present.
The duty is to persist in the unity that already exists in the Catholic Church. JPII writes as if it is a human goal to somehow manufacture unity when in fact it is a attribute of the Church divinely endowed.
Taking part in this movement, which is called ecumenical, are those who invoke the Triune God and confess Jesus as Lord and Saviour. They join in not merely as individuals but also as members of the corporate groups in which they have heard the Gospel, and which each regards as his Church and, indeed, God’s. And yet almost everyone, though in different ways, longs that there may be one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and sent forth to the whole world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God”.6
That there may be one visible Church of God? Hello? There is. It’s the Catholic Church.
Unitatis Redintegratio states “they long for the one visible Church of God…” which can be read to say that it does presently exist and those outside long for it without knowing what it is.
JPII, however, writes here as if this one visible Church is as yet unrealized.
This statement of the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio is to be read in the context of the complete teaching of the Second Vatican Council. The Council expresses the Church’s decision to take up the ecumenical task of working for Christian unity and to propose it with conviction and vigour: “This sacred Synod exhorts all the Catholic faithful to recognize the signs of the times and to participate actively in the work of ecumenism.”
As JPII made clear in his inaugural encyclical, Remptor Hominis, the “deep roots” of the faith as far as he is concerned go all the way back to the Second Vatican Council. How about reading everything in context with the whole of tradition? That is the Catholic approach, and yet, for JPII, there is a new self-awareness in the Church; an awareness quite unknown previous to the Council. (ibid.)
Jesus himself, at the hour of his Passion, prayed “that they may all be one” (Jn 17:21). This unity, which the Lord has bestowed on his Church and in which he wishes to embrace all people, is not something added on, but stands at the very heart of Christ’s mission. Nor is it some secondary attribute of the community of his disciples. Rather, it belongs to the very essence of this community. God wills the Church, because he wills unity, and unity is an expression of the whole depth of his agape.
Ambiguous though it is, this approaches the faith of the Church; namely, the dogma that says that the Catholic Church possesses unity as a fundamental characteristic. Why this should now lead to 20,000+ more words on the topic, none of which will urge those outside of the Church to enter, is a sure sign that we are about to be treated to the convoluted innovations of a dyed in the wool modernist.
In effect, this unity bestowed by the Holy Spirit does not merely consist in the gathering of people as a collection of individuals. It is a unity constituted by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments and hierarchical communion.10
True; unity is not a numeric concept. Therefore, one who desires unity must profess with the Catholic Church the one faith, partake of the same sacraments, under the authority of the visible head of the Church, the pope. This is the immutable teaching found in Satis Cognitum and Mortalium Animos, and yet this pope (a saint as we are told) treats this teaching as if it is passé.
The faithful are one because, in the Spirit, they are in communion with the Son and, in him, share in his communion with the Father: “Our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 Jn 1:3).
The communion spoken of here exists in the Catholic Church alone; in such way that to break bonds with the Catholic Church is to break bonds with the Body of Christ and likewise the Father and the Spirit as they are inseparable.
In the words of Pope Leo XIII:
The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever; 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. “Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ….He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation. (Satis Cognitum 5)
For the Catholic Church, then, the communion of Christians is none other than the manifestation in them of the grace by which God makes them sharers in his own communion, which is his eternal life. Christ’s words “that they may be one” are thus his prayer to the Father that the Father’s plan may be fully accomplished, in such a way that everyone may clearly see “what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things” (Eph 3:9). To believe in Christ means to desire unity; to desire unity means to desire the Church; to desire the Church means to desire the communion of grace which corresponds to the Father’s plan from all eternity. Such is the meaning of Christ’s prayer: “Ut unum sint”.
It sounds as if JPII imagines that “communion” (common union) is something other than persisting in unity with the Catholic Church. Indeed his, and every pontificate since, has preached in such way.
In the present situation of the lack of unity among Christians and of the confident quest for full communion, the Catholic faithful are conscious of being deeply challenged by the Lord of the Church. The Second Vatican Council strengthened their commitment with a clear ecclesiological vision, open to all the ecclesial values present among other Christians. The Catholic faithful face the ecumenical question in a spirit of faith.
Read with the eyes of faith as developed in the pre-conciliar magisterium, this treatment is nonsensical. What is the challenge to the Catholic faithful as it pertains to unity? It is twofold: 1) To persist in the unity that exists in the Catholic Church alone, and 2) To invite those outside to enter.
What precisely are “ecclesial values” among the heretics? Presumably he is referring to those gifts properly belonging to the Catholic Church. (Scripture, baptism.)
What then is the “ecumenical question”? There is none other than this: When will the heretics and schismatics return to Rome. That’s it.
The Council states that the Church of Christ “subsists in the Catholic Church …
By God’s grace, however, neither what belongs to the structure of the Church of Christ nor that communion which still exists with the other Churches and Ecclesial Communities has been destroyed.
There is a fundamental and widespread error here: In truth, as it concerns the schismatics and the heretics, no communion (common union) still exists with the Church of Christ.
This is why it is so important to the ecumenical newchurch to put forth the innovation that says that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. It opens the door to the falsehood that this “Church of Christ” is also present in some sense in the communities of the schismatics and heretics such that they still enjoy some ill-defined “communion” with this Church of Christ.
They do not.
And yet those informed by the teaching of the popes over the centuries before Vatican II know that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church; therefore, those who separate from her have not communion with the Church of Christ.
Indeed, the elements of sanctification and truth present in the other Christian Communities, in a degree which varies from one to the other, constitute the objective basis of the communion, albeit imperfect, which exists between them and the Catholic Church.
Nonsense.
To the extent that these elements are found in other Christian Communities, the one Church of Christ is effectively present in them.
Rephrasing what JPII puts forth here according to the faith so clearly taught before Vatican II makes clear the unsustainability of this wholesale innovation:
“To the extent that these elements are found in other Christian Communities, the Catholic Church is effectively present in them.”
Who could ever accept the ludicrous notion that the Catholic Church – the Body of Christ, this perfect society and solitary way of salvation – is “effectively present” in the communities of the heretics and schismatics?
Not one, single, solitary, well-formed Catholic cold ever embrace such a novelty as this. And yet, this is what we are being sold.
It is a dogma of the Catholic faith that those who separate themselves from the Catholic Church do not, and cannot possibly, somehow take “parts” of the Church with them; the Church is one and indivisible.
It is one thing to make note of the “elements of sanctification and truth” found in such communities (e.g., Scripture, baptism, marriage); the same properly belonging to the Catholic Church and present in the heretical communities, not by legitimate right, but only by the misappropriation of said elements by those who dared to coopt them.
It is quite another to say that the Catholic Church is “effectively present” in them; a heresy to be certain.
At this, we have tortured ourselves enough for one day.
God help us.
I never read this encyclical of Pope John Paul. I think it was because I had some misgivings about what it was reported to say. I was a great admirer of some of Pope John Paul’s other encyclicals, which were, I thought quite precise and frequently referenced Scripture and Tradition. However, these quotes don’t even sound like the voice of Pope John Paul, the philosopher. It really is pervaded by a false ideology, fundamentally opposed to intrinsic truths of the Faith. I am shocked.
I was a junior in college, and a newly confirmed Catholic convert, when “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” was released. On the day it went on sale, I ran over to the Waldenbooks (remember those?) at the mall (remember those?) to get my copy. I rushed home to read what I was told was going to be a game-changing book. After about twenty minutes, I found myself utterly confused by the prose of this tome. I will admit, however, that my beer consumption in those days could have been a mitigating factor. In about 2002, I gave it another shot. I read the entire book, insomuch as I looked at each word on the page. I still didn’t understand most of it and, yes, there was still some beer consumption involved. It wasn’t until I actually took the time to read something written by a pre-Church of the New Advent pope that I realized that, historically, the only people who were unable to understand the writings of a pope were (a) illiterate people and (b) corpses, and 99% of those belonging to (a) would understand the pope if the document was read to them. I don’t drink anymore, and I still don’t get it. At least now I know that I really wasn’t meant to get it in the first place.
Infinitely sad. For more, search the net for this essay:
The Secret of Pope John Paul II’s Success, by John Vennari
We have to heartily “fourth” this motion.
John Paul II’s writings are still gathering dust on our bookshelves . We remember going over and over them, and finally giving up, doubly frustrated because he seemed so darned excited about something and for the life of us, we couldn’t tell what it was.
We had a similar experience trying to read some of Teillard de Chardin once.
__
But the pre-conciliar Popes were a breath of fresh air and inspiring.
So we wrote it off long ago to “metaphysical-retardation”.
___
It’s interesting to find out it seems we weren’t alone in that.
“Sensus Fidelium” maybe?
This is slightlly off topic, but relates to the whole issue of ecumenism as embraced by bergoglio. And his particular passion which is creating a false unity between the Catholic Church and protestant evangelical/charismatic/pentecostal groups.
–
Next week bergoglio will travel to Caserta to meet with the protestant Giovanni Traettino in order ” to offer an apology for the difficulty brought to their congregation” because “the Catholic Church, with its imposing presence, acts too much as an obstacle to the growth and witness of these communities”. Please see the highly critical article titled ” Francis’s Secret Friend in Caserta ” by Sandro Magister for more information on this upcoming meeting.
–
The question I have is: Has anyone ever heard of Matteo Calisi???
–
He appears to be the missing link between bergoglio, Tony Palmer, Traettino and I suspect much more.
–
Tony Palmer says: ” Then out of the blue, while I was working with the HIV Orphans *****Matteo Calisi***** contacted me and invited me to minister to his Community, ‘The Community of Jesus’. So my wife and I sold our house and moved to Italy and have been working with and for the Catholic Church for 4 years now.”
–
Please see the following link with information on Matteo Calisi:
http://www.united-in-christ.com/?page_id=2
–
Matteo Calisi is an international leader of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church.
–
In 1992, together with the Pentecostal Pastor Rev. Dr. *****Giovanni Traettino***** (Bishop-Chairman of the Evangelical Church of the Reconciliation), Matteo founded Consultazione Carismatica Italiana (Italian Charismatic Consultation – CCI), a joint committee of Catholic Charismatics and Pentecostal Evangelicals, which started a dialogue between Catholics and Pentecostals in Italy. Presently Matteo is Co-President of CCI together with Rev. Traettino.
–
Together with some Evangelical and Catholic Argentinean leaders, Matteo founded the Comuniòn Renovada entre Catòlicos y Evangelicos en el Espiritu Santo (CRECES). This was the first joint statement in the history of the dialogue between Catholics and Evangelicals in Argentina and obtained a great support by *****Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio*****, Metropolitan Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Primate of the Catholic Church in Argentina and President of Bishops’ Conference of Argentina.
It’s hard to believe its the same Pope who wrote Veritatis Splendor.
“Matteo also became good friends with Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul gave Matteo a letter introducing him to every Catholic parish around the world. The letter said that Matteo Calisi was given responsibility to re-evangelize the Catholic Church, introduce Catholics to the fullness of the Holy Spirit, help them understand biblical worship, and bring reconciliation between Catholics and other Christians.”
http://www.livingstreams.org/mark-buckleys-reflections/post/an-unexpected-blessing
“It is through Calisi, [Tony] Palmer was invited to Rome from where he was working for Kenneth Copeland Ministries in South Africa to work with charismatic Catholics and was then sent to do the same thing in Buenos Aires, where he became friends with then Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the future pope.”
http://www.bccatholic.ca/canadian/4067-charismatic-leaders-pursuing-unity-will-speak-at-ottawa-conference-aug-28-31
—-
Tony Palmer in his own words:
“Because of our close relationship with the Charismatic Catholic Church, my wife has returned to her Catholic faith and even our Children desire to be Catholic. I am the only one in my own family that is not Catholic. This is something I have to suffer for the sake of my Mission.”
Lou,
At the start of your fine article you seem to indicate that you hold the premise, that either one has the faith or one does not, therefore a sin against the faith is proof that one does not have the faith. Yet, according to St. Alphonsus dei Liguori, in his Theologia Moralis, there in Bk. II, Tract 1, DE PRAECEPTO FIDEI (i.e. On the Precept of Faith), he distinguishes 2 kinds of sins, sins against the faith (contra fidem) and sins apart from the faith (praeter fidem). A sin against the faith is an act directy contrary to a revealed truth: such as the profession of heresy, a doubt against a revealed truth. A sin apart from the faith, is an act which does not suppose the faith is truth, such as anything one might do while omitting what faith required or would do: e. g. not going to mass on Sunday, is a sin apart from the faith, since faith tells us to go to mass on Sunday. Reading bad books, not fulfiling one’s duty to study the faith, etc., all are actions which faith tells us not to do, but in doing them we do not give up the faith.
Therefore, take this encyclical of JP2: you have cited many passages that a Catholic who is properly instructed in the faith and who assents lively to it, would never have written let alone published. But that does not mean that in doing so, JP2 necesssarily lost the faith or consciously chose to act against the faith.
Thus, it is not true to say, that with this Encyclical, one must reason that either he had the faith and his precedessors who acted and taught the Faith did not, or that he did not have the faith and they did; rather, there is another possibility, that the preVatican2 popes had the faith, understood all that which was consequent to it, and acted and taught accordingly; whereas JP2 had the faith, did not understand all that was consequent to it, and thus did not act accordingly….
If you consider that JP2 studied at the Angelicum, then you would understand why he was a very confused thinker. The Angelicum, even in those years was a hot bed of those who taught that the Sacred Authors did not write the sacred books of the bible attributed to them by the very text of the Bible and by Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church. We have many who accept that assertion, which to one who understands his faith and its consequnces is tottaly contradictory, but to one who does not understand his faith might seem scientific and uptodate and not contrary to the faith.
I write all this, because there are some writers and even clergy who wish to push catholics into a position of denying that others have the faith, by confounding the categories of sins contra fidem and sins praeter fidem. Many who have professed to be sedevacantists have first fallen into this error.
Charity thinketh no evil; the right application of this moral principle taught by St. Paul requires that we do not shift the categoriers of presumption in moral questions such that we conclude that another does not have a virtue because of what he does, when he does things which are praeter virtutem and not just contra virtutem. Otherwise we become judges of others in the manner traditionally condemed by the Saints. Whereas, as Catholics we must stop at judging actions, not hearts, and thus must firmly hold the distinction of contra and praeter….
For anyone really interested in finding out exactly what John Paul II thought about Vatican II and ecumenism, I suggest getting your hands on a copy of his 1972 work “Sources of Renewal: Studies on Realizing Vatican II”, written while he was still known to the world as Cardinal Wojtyla. I had the opportunity to read a German-language edition over the holidays. The importance of this book is hard to overestimate. I dare say that it was instrumental in his being elected to the Papacy. Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of the book is John Paul’s uncanny ability to conceal modernism in a cloak of orthodox verbiage. If you do decide to read it, keep a copy of St. Pius’ Pascendi at hand. You’ll need it.
Thank you, Roman Watcher, and welcome! You shared some good information here. I agree entirely about refraining from judging hearts.
.
My comment was directed at the content of the documents listed and the degree to which the authors hold, or not, the Catholic faith specifically in the matters being addressed.
.
That said, Leo XIII states in Satis Cognitum:
“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.”
.
This is in itself an authoritative teaching that JPII soundly rejected in Ut Unum Sint given his assertion that “communion still exists with the other Churches and Ecclesial Communities.”
.
Pope Leo XIII, in the same document states:
“The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a tertian portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church?”
.
In his rejection of that portion of the faith under discussion regarding communion for heretics, JPII appears rather clearly to be guilty of at least material heresy.
.
Lastly, Pope Leo XIII in the same text states:
“In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy?-without separating himself from the Church?-without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching?”
.
Indeed, it is for the Lord to judge between praeter virtutem and contra virtutem relative to JPII’s rejection of the doctrine of the Church concerning the loss of communion among the heretics, but either way, (and I’m certain you agree) his false “teaching” is dangerous and continues to wound.
.
Thanks again for your comments.
dear Matthew,
excellent comment.
I know. Luciferian.
Peace be to you.
It’s never too often, generally, to reiterate that one can be an enemy of the Faith without ever meaning to be or even knowing it. But that one is still an enemy. We do not judge the interior of a man. That is not Catholic.
Michael Leon,
The last quote from “brother bishop” Palmer is very telling, in more ways than one. As is the link you posted in the Palmer thread.
______
You and Indignus Famulas have raised issues that directly address something that has been perplexing me for quite some time: i.e. the rationale behind the forced introduction of the Paul IV (read Bugnini) liturgical service. I often wondered about what was behind the hatred for the proper Catholic mass that motivated these people. To be more precise, why it had to be so brutally suppressed. It always appeared to me irrational (on the surface, the TLM didn’t or at least shouldn’t have really bothered anyone), unless of course there was a deeper (sinister) motivation behind it.
______
I understood that Bugnini’s idea was to protestantize the liturgy to the point where the protestants would recognize it as a commemoratory meal. But since the Catholic Church post VII claimed that nothing changed, I often wondered: what was the point?
______
With the Palmer incident, and the points that the two of you raised, it all becomes clearer. We know that the underlying reason for the liturgical changes was probably a ploy to get the proddies to drop their “protest” and come on board and become one big happy family again. The modernists actually thought that if they changed the liturgy, the protestants will have nothing to protest against. Case in point: There is a great line in the Palmer video where he tells the proddies that the Catholic church changed it’s dogma with respect to who is saved. The Catholic Church signed a paper in which it is claimed that all are now save because Jesus died on the cross. And then he tells them that the protest is over. Get over it, proddies….
_______
Looking at these facts (events) in this context, one can observe that the results of these out reach efforts ended in disaster, as most things the modernists tried. To mitigate that disaster, the modernists created an “ecumenical underground” alongside the VII sect, one which is working to “fool” the 33,000 different proddie sects into giving up “the protest”. And Palmer was one of the main players in this effort. This would explain the access that Palmer had to Bergoglio before his demise.
_______
Taking this logical progression further, it is no wonder why the modernist just simply hate the SP and the Tridentine Mass. They think that if the TLM becomes widely offered, it will ruin their 50+ years of ecumenical efforts by showing that under the veneer of the Bugnini liturgy, the “service” is still more than just a meal. Furthermore, they dread the thought that someone will question the logic of changing the liturgy to bring back the proddies, the proddies not coming back, but in the process destroying the Catholic Church.
_______
So what is the game plan now? On the one hand, pretend that it is the new spring time, while on the other hand, employ all these quasi protestants (Palmer, the translation lady, and probably many more) to try and fool the protestants into thinking that their “protest is over”.
_______
The above goes a long way in explaining why we are where we are.
other side to the coin is that their 50+ years of ecumenism is a total disaster. And part of the reason why they must have latched onto unsavory characters like Palmer is that they thought that through stealth, they could actually get some of the proddies to come over.
_______
First of all, I’d like to than you, Louie, for all your time and effort to share your clear thinking on all things “Catholic”. For years, Father Mitch Pawca (a Jesuit) has been hosting an EWTN program “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” (aka “NO HOPE”) in which he tries to make JP2 sound Catholic in His encyclicals.—-Nice try, Father Pacwa! If JP2 was so concerned about non-Catholic “churches” being in full communion, why did he reject SSPX? The answer is–because they are TOO Catholic!
On another note, has anyone read a comment by Bergoglio regarding the untimely death of his “brother bishop” Palmer?
So much irony. Basically Louie is arguing for the position that the SSPX is outside the Church and has no communion at all with the Roman Catholic Church. St. JP II would have the opinion that the SSPX is in an imperfect communion with the Roman Catholic Church and that negotiations(ecumenism) could potentially, one day bring about full communion.
Dear S. Armaticus. I think the plot is a bit more sinister (and cynical) than that.
–
IMO it’s not just a matter of bringing all the protestants back home to the Catholic Church. The plan is to bring all the Christians under one global organization — probably the World Council of Churches. Which by the way is closely associated with the UN and the Rockefellers, etc.
–
The first steps were signed agreements with the Lutherans. And then we have seen moves to draw closer to the Anglican/Episcopalians under Ratzinger.
–
Now it appears bergoglio is working on a signed agreement with the evangelical/charismatic/pentecostal groups.
–
If you read the encyclical Ut unum sint you’ll see “World Council of Churches” mentioned about 17 times. And JPII refers extensively to the “Bishop of Rome”. Of course bergoglio likes to use this same title of the pope.
–
So I think the deal they are trying to work out is to have the pope be one bishop among many “brother bishops”. Yes, the “bishop of rome” would be considered a more “prestigious” title, but the title would not carry with it any real authority. Perhaps, in a similar way that the Queen of England still reigns over the whole “United Kingdom” which includes Canada, Australia, etc. But it is just symbolic or ceremonial.
Here is some information I have found to back this up, but there is much much more than I can include here.
–
1. Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification 1999 — (from Wikipedia) ” a document created, and agreed to, by the Catholic Church’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU) and the Lutheran World Federation in 1999, as a result of extensive ecumenical dialogue. It states that the churches now share “a common understanding of our justification by God’s grace through faith in Christ.”[1] To the parties involved, this essentially resolves the conflict over the nature of justification which was at the root of the Protestant Reformation. ”
–
2. From United In Christ, Canada President
Dr. Bruno Ierullo July 2, 2014 ( Matteo Calisi is the world wide President of United In Christ ) — ” It has been a long upward journey for Catholics to accept the Evangelical world. There has been a greater openness with the pontificate of Pope Francis. With the last four Popes we have seen an increase of acceptance. Prior to the Second Vatican Council II the thought of having any kind of “Joint Declaration”, especially regarding Faith and Mission, was unheard of but now possible and a reality. ”
https://partnersinharvest.org/unity-diversity/
–
3. Ut unum sint (encyclical by JPII 1995) — ” It is nonetheless significant and encouraging that the question of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome has now become a subject of study which is already under way or will be in the near future. It is likewise significant and encouraging that this question appears as an essential theme not only in the theological dialogues in which the Catholic Church is engaging with other Churches and Ecclesial Communities, but also more generally in the ecumenical movement as a whole. Recently the delegates to the Fifth World Assembly of the Commission on Faith and Order of the World Council of Churches, held in Santiago de Compostela, recommended that the Commission “begin a new study of the question of a universal ministry of Christian unity”. ”
–
JPII also says in Ut unum sint, ” [ the ministry of the Bishop of Rome ] constitutes a difficulty for most other Christians, whose memory is marked by certain painful recollections. To the extent that we are responsible for these, I join my Predecessor Paul VI in asking forgiveness “.
–
So what does bergoglio do? He “apologizes” to the protestants. He’s just following in the footsteps of his “saintly” predecessor. Actually, looking at JPII through the lens of bergoglio brings some of his gibberish into sharp focus. Now we can understand what JPII “really” meant and not what he intended to fool us into thinking he meant.
–
We can only fight an enemy that we can recognize. So we can be thankful to God for opening our eyes, minds and hearts.
LOL!
—–
As Louie alludes to in this post, and as is well-known, you weren’t really supposed to “understand” it – because you’re not supposed to use your intellect with this stuff. You’re supposed to, instead, imbibe some general feel-goodism and then, like, love people more & stuff, and just stop worrying about those pesky, naughty “dividers” like doctrine (that is, truth).
—–
So, you see, there actually is an objective connection to alcohol consumption here.
Actually, I would have to say this document is very much cogent with John Paul II the philosopher, as his philosophy was very much humanist, and very much amenable to modernism (both being based in the subject[ive]).
—–
John Paul II had little, if any, interest in *the* objective philosophy of the Church – Thomism.
We threw ours away years ago. Ratzinger’s too. 🙁
What you say makes no sense whatsoever. The SSPX consists of four Catholic bishops and numerous Catholic priests, none of whom are heretics or schismatics, and, in fact, firmly hold to the *entire* Catholic Faith.
—–
Canonical irregularity does not put one outside the Church – in fact, by definition, the opposite is true.
—–
As usual, your arguments are based on either gross oversimplifications, gross misunderstandings, or – perhaps – sophistry. But, de internis ecclesia non judica.
—–
http://www.acatholicthinker.net/blog/2013/10/23/a-brief-response-to-fr-z.html
I guess I should quote from the very encyclical that Louie references in his post.
–
Bishops Separated from Peter and His Successors, Lose All Jurisdiction
15. From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone.
–
SATIS COGNITUM
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html
Ganganelli:
I believe Benedict XVI took care of that problem when he lifted the excommunications, which were problematical at best.
Ut Unum Sint reads:
“The Council states that the Church of Christ “subsists in the Catholic Church …”
This, of course, is not the precise wording of Lumen Gentium, #8, which famously states:
“This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church”.
As I read it, Lumen Gentium makes an analogy between the “Church of Christ” and the hypostatic union. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines the latter as:
“A theological term used with reference to the Incarnation to express the revealed truth that in Christ one person subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human.”
LG describes the analogy as follows:
“As the assumed nature inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a similar way, does the visible social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ, who vivifies it, in the building up of the body.”
This implies, however, that the Catholic Church – the visible society – is not one and the same thing as “the body”, even though they “form one complex reality”. This is inconsistent with the following clear teaching of Pope Pius XII (which apparently met with some resistance):
“Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.”
(Humani Generis, #27)
I find Vs to be very objective and scholastic in the reasoning on the moral act.
That’s a great article. Frankly, everyone reading this blog should subscribe to CFN and The Remnant if they haven’t already. John Vennari and Michael Matt are fighting the good fight. Both publications merit our support.
Yes, frustrating is how I found CTTOH -‘I thought it was just me!
Sometimes, the “interior” of a man is clearly exposed to objective reason.
Leon
I think the plot is even more sinister and cynical than that . Lol
Destruction of The Faith, moving the Church under the umbrella of the satanic global Judeo/ Masonic One World Monstrosity, that’s the goal of these traitors.
Nonsense. The SSPX members are all members of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church; Protestants are not.
The bishops in the SSPX are not separated from Peter and his successors.
You really need to google the logical fallacy known as ipse dixit.
Cogently stated.
Try sticking to the issues.
Hmm…Bishop Morlino was appointed bishop by St. John Paul II. Can you tell which pope appointed Bishop Fellay?
The appointments of all four SSPX bishops were given explicit authorisation by the Holy See, albeit in retrospect.
What? Please tell me you’re not referring to the lifting of the excommunications? I would expect someone with even a basic knowledge of canon law would know that lifting of an excommunication in NO WAY provides authorization. SSPX bishops HAVE no jurisdiction. That is the teaching of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
–
Having said that, the SSPX like some protestants and other non-Catholics have a valid baptism and so have an imperfect communion with the One True Church which will hopefully one day become full communion.
I remember reading “Ut Unum Sint” many years ago, alone, in my living room, and I started to cry at the utter heresy that was written there. It took all my self-control not to run and throw up. I have no Masters in Theology, but, with all thanks to Our Lord and Our Lady , I do have a Catholic sense. And I knew that that encyclical was horrid. Contrast reading JP II’s writings or speeches with the writings of St. Alphonsus de Liguori, St. Louis de Montfort, St. John Eudes, and others, and you know we are now living in some sort of Twilight Zone. Or, as I believe, the Great Apostacy.
May God bless you all.
Which dogma of the Catholic faith has the SSPX renounced?
Our research concurs with your statement
” I think the plot is a bit more sinister (and cynical) than that”
@S.Armaticas, if Francis wanted to bring the Protestants back–even starting with the less doctrinally minded evangelicals, would we have ever uttered the words:
-’I’m not expecting any of you to join the Catholic Church. Please understand that’s not what this is about. What we are talking about is a unified position to go before the world and say we are proclaiming Christ as the only hope of salvation”
___
@Michael Leon
The idea of an underground for world unification of churches seems to be more on track with the actions of the Post VII Popes, but we doubt whether they intend to stop with Protestants–another issue. Even a secular source like wickipedia makes a connection we might not otherwise have known in
its article on Communion and Liberation:
(Remember Giussani is the priest involved in teaching it in Russia under the Bishop serving JPII when he set up 4 Dioceses )
According to Giussani, Pope Paul VI strongly encouraged Giussani’s work at a 1975 Palm Sunday youth rally at which 17,000 CL members were present.
Pope John Paul II was openly supportive of CL. In 1984 he encouraged the movement to develop a worldwide presence, and in a letter to Giussani of February 22, 2004 wrote that CL “has chosen and chooses to indicate not a road, but the road . . . The road, as you have affirmed so many times, is Christ.”[1]
___
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI … A longtime friend of Don Giussani, then-Cardinal Ratzinger personally celebrated the funeral Mass of Don Giussani, who died on the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter and whose funeral was the same day that Pope John Paul II was checked into the hospital before his subsequent death.
___
According to Vatican reporter John Allen, during this time Ratzinger told a priest of CL that Giussani “changed my life”; ___
Allen also reports that the papal household is now run by consecrated members of CL (Memores Domini) and that Pope Benedict joins them weekly for their School of Community.[2] Upon the death of Manuela Camagni, a Memor Domini who served in this capacity, in November 2011, she was referred to as a member of the papal family and the pope said Mass for her and sent condolences to the CL movement.__
Pope Francis has been linked with CL.[4]
___
Are you implying that Bishop Fellay is, in fact, not a Bishop? Never once have I seen ANY enemy of the SSPX, of any stripe, claim that Bishop Fellay and the other Society bishops are not actually bishops – because that is just plain idiocy.
—–
Of course a bishop has the power to consecrate another bishop: In fact, there are only three levels of ordination, with bishop being the highest. And, of course, the pope normally must approve such a act. In the case of the episcopal consecrations performed by Archibishop Lefebvre, canon law prepared for a “state of necessity” in the Church was invoked.
—–
One could argue that the ordinations were illicit, but they were most certainly valid.
—–
http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jmjoncas/LiturgicalStudiesInternetLinks/ChristianWorship/Texts/Centuries/Texts_1900_2000CE/RCWorshipTexts1900_2000CE/Rite_of_Ordination_of_a_Bishop.htm
Where did you get that from? Of course he is a bishop. Just like those bishops that trace their line to Archbishop Thuc. They are all valid bishops and that’s why I called him Bishop Fellay. Nevertheless, he has no canonical mission from the Holy Roman Catholic Church and therefore is only in partial communion with the Church. Traditionalists love to use the “either you’re in or you’re out” line when it comes to the Orthodox or other validly baptized non-Catholics, but strangely enough make an exception for the SSPX. Again and again I repeat, God HATES hypocrisy and that is why he gave us Pope Francis.
Of course they don’t have jurisdiction! They acknowledge that freely! They never claimed anything else. Everyone knows these things!
—–
You seem to be arguing that not having jurisdiction makes them – outside the Church? Yes, that’s exactly what you implied. Here is some news for you: there are all kinds of bishops in the Church with no jurisdiction. The two are not synonymous.
—–
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02145b.htm
—–
“Hence, there are two principal classes of bishops, the residential, or diocesan or, local, or ordinary; and the non-residential, or titular. Diocesan bishops have and exercise (de jure) full power of order and jurisdiction, in and over the diocese committed to their exclusive care by the pope. ***Titulars, as such, have not, and do not exercise, power of order and jurisdiction, in and over their titular sees.***”
—–
Ever hear of the College of Cardinals?
See reply above. If you were only talking about jurisdiction your comment – like most of them – really makes no sense. The Society Bishops have always acknowledged that they do not have jurisdiction. Their state of canonical irregularity exist due to the emergency in the Church.
—–
It IS “either you’re in or you’re out”, and baptized Catholics free of the sins of heresy and schism are IN the Church.
—–
I realize you’re probably giggling like a schoolgirl over hitting peoples’ buttons here. These latest posts of yours are the reason even Novus Ordo commenters here have called for your banning as a troll.
Ahh..the “state of emergency” excuse. I wonder what Pope Alexander VI would have thought of that excuse seeing as how he had Savonarola burned even though he was neither a schismatic or heretic.
So now you’re claiming the SSPX bishops are titulars? Gotta admit, that’s a new one for me.
Yes, the Amen corner of posters here would certainly like to see me banned because they don’t like to have their presuppositions questioned.
–
I think Louie keeps me around because I make the best case for what goes by the trad term “neo-Catholic”.
You have a point: There were times when John Paul II, just like all the post-conciliar popes (though probably to the least extent with our current supreme pontiff), could be lucidly Catholic.
—–
Heck, we came *really* close to naming our first child after him (as in “John Paul” became first name John, middle name Paul at birth), and that was only 5.5 years ago.
To use the language of today’s youth, “+1”.
There is no need to pit one encyclical against another. In fact such a thing is unheard of in the history of the Church.
–
Pope Leo was writing against the then popular Anglican branch theory which claimed that Anglicanism, Orthodoxy, and Catholicism were all branches of the One True Church. His encyclical thoroughly demolished that theory.
–
St. John Paul II never accepted the branch theory and would have agreed with everything written by Pope Leo.
–
What St. John Paul II confronted was a situation where millions of non-Catholics were validly baptized and therefore automatically incorporated into the Church. At baptism, whether they know it or not, non-Catholics become Catholics. This is the traditional teaching of the Church.
–
Listening to Christ’s call to “feed His sheep”, St. John Paul II took it upon himself to make every effort that the Church’s teaching not be misinterpreted for these validly baptized Christians. How many times have we heard that Catholics give Our Lady the worship that is due to God alone? How many time have we heard that we can buy our way into Heaven with indulgences? Ecumenism is the effort of the Holy Fathers to bring these people into full communion and I pray for its success.
Dear my2cents. I was thinking the same thing about Father Mitch. I started to get suspicious of him when he started to refer to John Paul “the great”. It was around this time that I turned off EWTN. Father Mitch likes to portray himself as being a very conservative and orthodox Catholic.But in retrospect he is a pure modernist. A very crafty one. A wolf in very finely tailored sheep’s clothing so that the disguise is imperceptible to the untrained eye. And he dresses up the novus ordo Mass so beautifully that you almost forget that it is a man-centric liturgy rather than a God-centric liturgy. It’s “conservatives” like Father Mitch that we really need to watch out for. I have little doubt that he knows exactly what he is doing and what his “mission” is.
–
” And if the watchman see the sword coming, and sound not the trumpet: and the people look not to themselves, and the sword come, and cut off a soul from among them: he indeed is taken away in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at the hand of the watchman. ”
http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=33&l=6#x
–
P.S. No, I have not seen any statement from bergoglio regarding the untimely and tragic death of Tony Palmer.
We’re currently researching Communion and Liberation around the globe, after finding Russian sources who claim it promoted indifferentism, by urging Orthodox to stay Orthodox. Most other sources so far call it conservative.
Like most global organizations it could be sabotaged by dissidents whom it unknowingly empowers, or it could be operation on an open lower level and a more secretive higher one. We’re looking for results among its vocal adherents, to see whether they are faithful Catholic or heterodox and whether they buy into the false ecumenical ideas we see everywhere today.
Having examined most of the available criticisms of Communion and Liberation, we found the great majority consist of questionable complaints due to
1. Generalizations of guilt by association: High ranking Italian government officials found to be corrupt; Wealthy Italian businessmen ditto. who all led respectably outward Catholic lives and were found guilty of crimes.
2. Accusations of cult-like structure conducive to manipulation and mind control, depression etc. which could be true of any highly structured organization. leveled by a. A “catholic” dissident priest Matthew Fox, and b. a former member of focolare who left because of his sexual orientation, and decided to write a book denouncing all Catholic cults.
(Of course these accusation may be true despite the likely bias, but again, more questionable than reliable.)
3. Protestant groups in South America who claim the Catholics in CL agreed not to proselytize them if they agreed to do the same in return, and then broke the agreement. (Doesn’t sound like the Russian sell-out at all)
___
Conclusion: Russia may have been a separate case, which is no small matter, but overall we don’t see a genera trend of misuse of this group for the false evangelization being evidenced now, so that brings into question whether the Vatican was even fully aware of the situation in Moscow at the time. .
Though it may seem to be completely exposed, it is forbidden by God for us to judge the soul of another, and a tremendously tempting thing to do when the person in question appears to be harming countless gullible souls.
___
But more reason to resist it, as one of the few chinks in our otherwise sound Catholic armor which Satan will gladly use to drag us down to Hell.
Right on cue the clowns move to center stage and the bergoglio circus starts its next act…. da da DA-da-DA-da da da DAAA-da…
–
“The Pope plans to reform the papacy and this will benefit relations with the Orthodox,” says the Prior of the monastic community of Bose, Enzo Bianchi. Yesterday Pope Francis appointed Bianchi as one of the new consultors of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity…
–
Speaking about ecumenism, the Prior of Bose said: “I think the Pope has one main concern: unity is not created with the spirituality of unity, it is a command we must follow as it is Christ’s command. It is a commitment, which he sees as a priority. He sees unity with the Orthodox Church as an urgent goal. I think the Pope wants to achieve unity also through the reform of the papacy. A papacy which his no longer feared….
–
A reform of the papacy means “a new balance between synodality and supremacy…. This would help create a new style of papal primacy and episcopal government…. In the future, however, there is the possibility of creating “an episcopal organization that assists the Pope in leading the Church without calling papal primacy into question.”
–
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/ecumenismo-ecumenism-ecumenismo-35400/
–
April fools? In July? Just wait until the Oktober revolution. Can you even begin to imagine what that will be like?
–
Kyrie Eleison!
Dear Ganganelli, Oh, that we could join in your prayers. Unfortunately, what you describe as ecumenism is merely good old-fashioned Catholic teaching the truths of the Faith to those who don’t know it, aka proselytizing, whereas this Holy Father calls that “solemn nonsense” and takes an indifferentist attitude:.
____
He assures those in need of missionary help:” I’m not expecting any of you to join the Catholic Church. Please understand that’s not what this is about. What we are talking about is a unified position to go before the world and say we are proclaiming Christ as the only hope of salvation”
____
As this is a condemned error, it would be a very bad idea for you to pray for the success of it, as it has been solemnly taught by
************************
Pope Gregory XVI Encyclical and Syllabus of 1864
… this perverse opinion spread everywhere by the devious action of bad men. According to it, one could achieve eternal salvation by any profession of faith, as long as the customs are upright and honest.
___
…drive so fatal an error from the midst of the peoples under your care. Indeed, since the Apostle had warned us that “there is but one God, one faith, one baptism” …according to the testimony of the Savior Himself, “those who are not with Christ are against Him” (Luke 11:23)… Consequently, there is no doubt that “they who do not profess the Catholic Faith and maintain it whole and inviolate will be eternally lost” …
***********************
Pope Pius XI ( Encyclical Mortalium animos, of January 6, 1928
Knowing perfectly that there exist few men who are entirely devoid of the religious sense, they [the men who are trying to introduce a sentiment of universal fraternity into the Church] nourish the hope that all the peoples, despite their religious differences, may yet, without great difficulty, be united in the profession of certain doctrines admitted as a common basis of the spiritual life.
___
With this object, they promote congresses, meetings, and conferences, attended by a considerable number of hearers. To join in the discussion they invite all, without distinction, unbelievers of every kind as well as the faithful, and even those who have disgracefully separated themselves from Christ or rudely and obstinately denied the divinity of His nature and mission. Such efforts can meet with no kind of approval among Catholics, because they support the erroneous opinion that all the religions are more or less good and praiseworthy. .
____
Those who hold such a view fall into an open error; they also reject the true Religion; they distort its tenets and fall gradually into Naturalism and Atheism. Therefore, it is perfectly evident that one who joins with the partisans and propagators of similar doctrine abandons entirely the divinely revealed Religion.”
**************************
Pope Pius IX (Encyclical Singulari quidem …. among the many deplorable evils which disturb and afflict ..ecclesiastical and civil society,
.. the demonic system of indifference between the different religions.
According to this system, those who have strayed from the truth, who are enemies of the true Faith and forget their own salvation, and who teach contradictory beliefs which never had stable doctrine, admit no distinction among the different creeds. Rather, they make a pact with everyone, and defend that the haven of eternal salvation is open to the followers of all religions, whatever they might be.
____They do not care about the diversity of their doctrines.
… You see, Beloved Sons and Venerable Brethen, how much vigilance is needed to keep the disease of this terrible evil from infecting and miserably killing your flocks. Do not cease to diligently defend your people against these pernicious errors.
*************************
Our lady of Fatima said many sinners go to Hell because they have no one to pray for them…She asked for Russia’s Consecration.
THESE are good things to pray for.
Here are some more ideas-pray in reparation for the Popes apparent sins:
“If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meeting-houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.” (Second Council of Constantinople)
____
“We decree that those who give credence to the teachings of the heretics, as well as those who receive, defend or patronize them, are excommunicated. …If anyone refuses to avoid such accomplices after they have been ostracized by the Church, let them also be excommunicated.” (Fourth Lateran Council)
____
from the Council of Laodicea:
“No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics.”
____
Pope Pius XI:
.” There is only one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of Christ for those who are separated from her.”
____
“To judaize, namely to observe Saturday, or other Jewish ceremonies, is mortal [sin]: because that pertains to the superstition of a false divine cult, according to Cajetan, in his summa. .
—-… because this would cause too great a familiarity, and consequently a danger of subversion, as supra. to do all of that is mortal.
____
“It is, after all, an exercise in novelty, which naturally requires copious explanation in order to convince the reader (and perhaps even the writer) of its Catholicity.” ——- JPII, like his brethren, are dissolvers of Christ. They are interested in every kind of reconciliation so long as it doesn’t require reconciliation to the Truth and His narrow Way. Normal Catholics would once have called this stuff fork-tongued fare of the of the father of lies.
–
someone said there’s ‘no need to pit one encyclical against another. In fact such a thing is unheard of in the history of the Church.’ Tell that to Roncalli and his sons – they have pitted their new ecclesiology against the Tradition God-given Truth for half a century now.
–
If anyone would like to know just how Roncalli et al have pitted the new ecclesiology against the old – this answers the question:
–
http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/Triple%20Column%20Ecclesiology.pdf
For anyone too lazy to read the above text on the new ecclesiology this is where things end up:
–
https://mobile.twitter.com/Lydia63/status/434366871832244224/photo/1#!/Lydia63/status/434366871832244224/photo/1
If I were you I wouldn’t speculate as to why Louie “keeps you around”. (Though you might recall that I myself voted to not ban you.)
—–
You make the best case for neo-Catholicism? I’d like to say that you do, because to say that would be to say that there is no case at all for neo-Catholcism. But, the fact is, good Novus Ordo Catholics do not argue for hours that the Church changes Her official moral teachings, at will, yet pretends not to, as you did. Even good neo-Catholics recognize such a position as completely incompatible with the faith.
—–
Neither have I ever met any neo-Catholic who describes them self as both a “proud old-school liberal” as well as having been a “Traditionalist” for 15 years.
Obviously I did not say they are titular bishops: I used such as another example of a bishop with no jurisdiction. You are a troll and will say absolutely anything to “win” a debate, but actually you rarely do anything other than make yourself sound like a complete fool.
@Ganganelli: After reading Ut Unum Sint and Satis Cognitum, I am not convinced by several of your claims. Perhaps the easiest claim you make to refute is that Pope JP II would have agreed with everything stated in Satis Cognitum.
——-
In Satis Cognitum 9 Pope Leo states the following:
–
“It is then undoubtedly the office of the church to guard Christian doctrine and to propagate it in its integrity and purity. But this is not all: the object for which the Church has been instituted is not wholly attained by the performance of this duty. For, since Jesus Christ delivered Himself up for the salvation of the human race, and to this end directed all His teaching and commands, so He ordered the Church to strive, by the truth of its doctrine, to sanctify and to save mankind. But faith alone cannot compass so great, excellent, and important an end. There must needs be also the fitting and devout worship of God, which is to be found chiefly in the divine Sacrifice and in the dispensation of the Sacraments, as well as salutary laws and discipline. All these must be found in the Church, since it continues the mission of the Saviour for ever. The Church alone offers to the human race that religion-that state of absolute perfection – which He wished, as it were, to be incorporated in it. And it alone supplies those means of salvation which accord with the ordinary counsels of Providence.”
——-
In Ut Unum Sint, Pope JPII stated the following:
–
“The Council states that the Church of Christ ‘subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him’, and at the same time acknowledges that ‘many elements of sanctification and of truth can be found outside her visible structure. These elements, however, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, possess an inner dynamism towards Catholic unity’.
–
‘It follows that these separated Churches and Communities, though we believe that they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and value 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’ . . .
–
The Constitution Lumen Gentium, in a fundamental affirmation echoed by the Decree Unitatis Redintegratio, states that the one Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. The Decree on Ecumenism emphasizes the presence in her of the fullness (plenitudo) of the means of salvation. Full unity will come about when all share in the fullness of the means of salvation entrusted by Christ to his Church.”
——-
A comparison of these texts indicates that Pope JPII likely did not agree with Pope Leo XIII’s statement “And it [the Catholic Church] alone supplies those means of salvation which accord with the ordinary counsels of Providence” since JPII quotes Lumen Gentium which states “For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [protestant sects] as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.”
——
Your claim about JPII’s apparent rejection of the branch theory is also effectively refuted by his citation to VII since he believed that the protestant sects are means of salvation.
——
Further, JPII’s claim that the protestant sects are “means of salvation” already undercuts his argument for unity. Why should protestants concern themselves with “unity” and the “fullness of the means of salvation” that would be available to them through unity if their sects are already “means of salvation”?
Encyclicals such as the one under discussion were indeed previously unheard of in the history of the Church, as this crisis is also wholly unprecedented.
—–
There’s no way your vague hand-waving could come from someone who read & honestly considered the previous encyclicals Louie quoted from along with Ut Unum. Unless, I suppose, one simply didn’t understand either one or the other.
—–
As evidence for that is the fact that the new-churchers themselves acknowledge this is new territory; there have been scores of implicit and explicit acknowledgements that what is taught now regarding ecumenism and religious liberty is not what what taught before – in the objective sense, free of particulars or context. Heck, the pope’s right-hand man himself declared publicly that the Church no longer opposes “modernism”, that “synthesis of all heresies” that previous pontificates battled with all the might available to the Vicar of Christ.
—–
You said that “Ecumenism is the effort of the Holy Fathers to bring these people into full communion…” – Where have you been? What are you talking about? How can you possibly believe this is the case? There is a mountain of documentation demonstrating the fact that the New Orientation no longer sees conversion to Catholicism as the goal of “ecumenism” – CARDINAL KASPER HIMSELF SAID EXACTLY THAT.
—–
John Paul II may not have been quite there himself personally but, as Louie has herein demonstrated, he was imbibed with the same errors thoroughly. (Material modernists at least often do not see the logical consequences & logical ends of their own positions and praxis.)
I disagree with your interpretation of the documents.
–
Just one example should suffice. It is an ancient heresy condemned by the Church long ago that baptism conferred by heretics is invalid.
–
Now baptism is the means of salvation par excellence.
–
So it logically and clearly follows that protestants and other non-Catholics(heck, even atheists) who baptize validly are being used by “the Spirit of Christ as a means of salvation.” BUT, in opposition to the branch theory advocates, this efficacy is derived from the “very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.
–
Frankly, if this is denied, I don’t see how a person wouldn’t fall into the heresy that baptisms performed by non-Catholics are invalid.
Again, you ignore or don’t understand the issues.
—–
There is only one baptism and it is Catholic. If a heretic baptizes someone that person is then a Catholic in a state of grace unless and until he formally accepts some heresy. Once he does this he is in a state of mortal sin and thus lost. *All* non-Catholic sects teach *some* heresy – that’s why they’re not Catholic. Thus to be present among them for one past the age of reason is at the least gravely dangerous.
—–
Further, only the Catholic can avail himself of the Eucharist and Penance, the two Sacraments most critical for salvation.
—–
The two greatest Doctors of the Church both taught directly that the greater number of adult *Catholics* are lost. Of course, a liberal cannot begin to get his mind around such a thing, but there it is. To hold to the true Faith uncorrupted and to avail oneself of the great fonts of grace that flow from the Sacraments are vital.
—–
So, your novel take on these things simply ignores Catholic doctrine & praxis.
I will admit that there are some off the cuff unofficial ‘statements’ that seem to imply what you are saying. Nevertheless, I have not found this to be the case in any official document of the post-conciliar magisterium.
–
If you can find a quote from even Cardinal Kasper, nevermind the Pope, that says that when full communion happens, a man will not have to accept say the immaculate conception of Our Lady, your case would be a lot stronger.
I neglected to speak to a critical point above.
—–
No one denies that people outside the visible Church *can* be saved – of course not. The grave error in theology comes in asserting that God saves not *in spite of* a false religion but *through* it.
—–
A person baptized by a heretical sect and then saved was NOT saved via any efficacy whatever present in that sect or body, in any sense, period: He was saved by grace transmitted via the Catholic Sacrament of Baptism.
—–
That’s the theological error present here. But there is more to it than that: there is the practical realm. And, the fact is, if one has the proper respect for Augustine & Aquinas (and, heck, of course a great many today don’t), it is unlikely – if we take their words at face value we have to say exceedingly unlikely – for an adult (one past the age of reason) to be saved living in a Protestant sect.
—–
Thus, if one is a Catholic who really holds the faith, it is madness, utter diabolical madness, to tell people it is not “necessary” to accept the True Faith. And this is exactly what the Vatican has beed doing for a good, long time now. And it goes even beyond the telling into making it intentionally difficult for groups and even individuals to enter the Church.
——
The Society now as a priest in Italy who tried to convert as a Protestant minister for years and was essentially denied by the Powers That Be. Don’t think this happens? Then your head is in the sand.
I have no disagreement with what you just wrote. In fact, I made the same point in my earlier postings.
–
But you seem to pass over quickly a very important point you made. You said that a lutheran for example is actually a Catholic until he FORMALLY accepts some heresy. That is exactly correct. And it is precisely for this reason, the Pope has not just the right but the duty to engage in intensive ecumenism so that such Lutherans(who as you say, are really Catholic) NEVER formally accept heresy.
Again, your theology here is exactly correct.
–
So now, what you have to do is show where the Roman Catholic Church in her official teachings denies anything that you wrote above.
–
I’m not interested in rumors, hearsay, etc. Show me from the official teachings.
Ganganelli: If I synthesize your teaching and that of ACT, then the statement made in Ut Unum Sint which appears to be a blanket statement on its face – that protestant sects are means of salvation – is really only a reference to a special case – that of infant baptism where the person baptized is saved if he/she dies before reaching the age of reason and accepting heresy.
——
When viewed from this perspective, the quote from Lumen Gentium reproduced in UUS is thoroughly misleading and harmful to souls because most souls would interpret the statement in the blanket sense – that a sect can be a means of salvation in ordinary cases and not just the special case of infant baptism. Further, if we are to understand this statement in your narrow sense it is also inaccurate since it is the Catholic Church through its Catholic sacrament of baptism that is the means of salvation and the sect has nothing to do with it.
——
In addition, your statement that we are to understand the claim in Lumen
Gentium that protestant sects are means of salvation only in the special case of infant baptism is not how it has been interpreted by leaders of the Church including the Popes. Both BXVI and Francis are on record as either counseling those wishing to convert to remain in their sect, or as denying the necessity to convert.
——
You really need to start thinking these issues through and keeping up on how these documents have actually been interpreted in practice because otherwise you will give readers a false impression.
Dear Ganganelli,
There is such a thing as preponderance of evidence, which , in this case includes far more than a “few quotes”. Don’t hold your breath for Dogmatic statements of this subterfuge.
___
Don’t know where you’ve been lately, but on OUR planet over the past
55 years or so, the Vatican change-artists have been employing the suggest and ignore tactic, rather than Promulgating anything dogmatically which would have immediately alerted a whole lot more people who care.
Their weapon of choice: talk and write in ways that suggest people break with existing tradition, and then follow up by ignoring their duty to correct such errors while they become fixed in practice, then granting “reluctant” approval to changes mandated by fixed practices while continuing to ignore less visible errors.
___
Communion in the hand, altar girls, Eucharistic ministers, lay homilists, general confessions in non-emergency situations, moving the Tabernacle out of the Church, removing Marian statues and novenas, introducing sex-ed in classrooms and notorious new-age religious materials; ignoring politicians who support anti-life, anti-family anti-moral agendas, giving them Communion; saying “who are we to judge”, Fighting the government with religious freedom arguments rather than speaking out for Christ and in defense of Natural Law and Moral decency;. .on and on all the way to suggesting we put issues like gay marriage and abortion on the back burner and just hug people instead, while denying non-believers and heretics the Sacraments and Truth they need to save their souls..
___
Dear salvemur,
He didn’t limit it to the old, he pitted his novelties against Our Blessed Mother and Our Lord Himself, when he opened the council saying (paraphrased) that man was about to demonstrate to those “prophets of doom and gloom” just how wrong they are, thus bringing about God’s mysterious plan, without listening to them. He sealed up the third secret and called in the Protestants to advise him on all the things he needed to rid the Church of to make them feel comfortable,
while shoving The Blessed Mother in the closet, so they wouldn’t be able to accuse us of “worshipping” her.
___
Father forgive them, for they know not how gravely they have offended You and all who love her.
If only the definition of ecumenism you imply, were anything like what the Pope engages in, the Lutheran’s might benefit from it.
Dear Ganganelli,
Re-read what you just wrote, please, to see how ridiculous it sounds.
A Catholic Thinker states the Truth about what the Church teaches and what the Pope should be doing, but isn’t. You ask him in reply, to show you where, in official Church Teaching, denies those Truths he just mentioned?
Maybe you need a good night’s sleep?
And don’t wait for a Vatican Press release to announce what you don’t want to face, just go listen to Mike Voris, and Be Happy…..
Dear Michael,
Thanks for the detail. However, it still doesn’t answer my question, i.e. why the modernists hate the proper Catholic Mass, and why they are so obsessed with it not spreading throughout the wider church. Think FFI.
______
If we are just talking about an artificial :”coming together” of Christendom, then what is the problem with having a proper Catholic rite, an invented quasi protestant N.O. rite along with the other smorgasbord of Protestant services?
_______
It would appear that their is another dynamic at work here. The Palmer incident indicates that it is actually an attempt to “fool” the evangelical protestants into dropping their “protest”. And those were the words of Palmer.
______
Any ideas?
Looks like “pile on the SSPX” time. 😉
_____
I guess the subject matter of Mr. V. post cuts too close to the bone, so we need a diversion.
_____
And IANS/TT type shows up right on cue.
_____
Here is a link that should help: http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/avoiding-false-prophets-doing-good-works-4514.
_____
I quote:
“Which are the spiritual works of mercy?
Those that are performed for the good of the soul: to admonish sinners; to teach the ignorant; to counsel the doubtful; to console the afflicted; to suffer injustice patiently; to forgive all injuries, and to pray for the living and the dead.”
____
Doesn’t sound like anything Messrs. Parker of Bianchi would say. 🙂
Dear Cyprian,
Thank you for this. Good clarifications.
Maybe this is why those people who pray the rosary in front of abortion clinics have ” expressionless faces”. It’s called shock!
_______
https://catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2014/07/24/funeral-in-new-orleans-for-unborn-baby-killed-by-abortion/
______
Sed libera nos a malo.
Apologies in advance in case this seems too absurd, but…
Reviewing a bit: we had a council, which tried to alter the understood meaning of the ages old teachings, attempted to bypass what was too hard to change, and urged the faithful to forget her Dogmas, toss her beautiful culture, wreckovating her buildings replacing them with social halls, shelving all that pre Vatican II Popes taught, alienating old-time religionists or marginalizing them into oblivion, in an attempt to purge her.
—
Meanwhile they got busy indoctrinating the next generations with aversion for the past and hatred for the battle to preserve it, blaming all the divisions and unpleasant labels on those old pelagian self-centered TLM loving Sacramentalists– and replacing all that unpleasantness with excitement over the new-age global, earth loving hug everyone, no judge no sin no evil, all happy-speak sit down and have a meal utopian church; where we gather to share the bread and wine and read a few lines of the Acts of the Apostles to recall how they shared everything in common, while we plan how to end poverty and war and save mama earth, and talk about how to unselfishly reduce our consumption so the global crop will suffice to feed all.
—
Once the old fogeys began dying out and the rest were to weary to fight, the only thing that stood in the way were those pesky wanna-be converts, who kept asking to come in -so on fire for the Dogmas and doctrines and practices that everyone had worked so hard to eradicate that they threaten to undermine the master plan. So we turn them away, telling them to go back and be Christ to their old congreagations, until the time of the universal joining–which will come very soon. (maybe they’ll be dead by then?)
___
So what’s next? the tolerance of every filthy beast and bird had emptied the parishes of the old guard, and the annoucement comes: Everyone stay right where you are, support your local communities and buildings, while you tithe to the Mother Church who gave you birth, to support her in her old age who now has nothing within her to offend or hurt anyone and you all can truly belong.?.
—
She in turn will reach out to all her children across the globe, and with all your wonderful contributions, and the help of the UN, provide clean water of life and housing, food, shelter, medicine and love to everybody on earth creating a man-made garden of eden (without the Angel with the fiery sword or the rosary or the Consecration of Russia or the TLM or anything to remind us of the old ways) that created the sin of divisions that led to all those wars and devastations.
—- And the time of the great rebuilding- has come?.
As a monument to the new universal peace, we will all help build a great tower in the worst of the formerly war-torn areas of Iraq. Where war and Babel used to be, as a symbol of the glorious man-made time of Peace?
—
And the Prince of this world will then reign over the earth from sea to sea, bringing worldly peace and joy to all who pledge their allegiance by taking his permanent mark, thus showing their love for all mankind, and ensuring that no one is left out of the free distributions and no one is tempted to greed by taking too much. And the kindly old Pope will smile broadly at his side, as he kisses and carresses the babies brought to him by adoring fans, for his signs of affection.
And they will all lived happily ever after?….
( alternate ending…when enough faithful Prayed and made sacrifices.and the time for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart had finally come. The woman prostrated herself in front of the tabernacle, a long-awaited Consecration was completed….and suddenly….)
yes ! The basic transcript of the you know who & Fastiggi debate.
molte gracie, muchas gracias & thanks a million,
dear salvemur
That & some Puerto Rican coffee and you made my day. One Ave for my eldest, please?
A Catholic Thinker,
So now we have two reasons to pray we don’t ever get
a Pope Anastasia? 🙂
Dear Catholic Thinker,
Your exposition of the possibility of salvation outside the Church is incomplete and needs further points added to faithfully represent Catholic doctrine.
First, there is no good hope of the salvation of anyone outside the Church.
Second, baptism is not sufficient for salvation.
Third, faith is necessary for salvation, which faith is not the fiducial faith espoused by Protestants, or the pick and choose faith professed by those Apostolical Churches who are not incommunion with the Catholic Church, but a full and sincere confession of all that the Roman Church has infallibly taught.
Thus, in practice, no man can say that anyone who dies outside the Church, even with the Sacraments, is saved, nor can we hope that he has, if our hope is of the supernatural kind. If we hope with the fairyland kind of a wish, we could hope all kinds of improbable things or impossible things. But that is not saving hope.
Finally, charity without which one cannot be saved, required under grave obligation that we remain in communion with the Apostolic See, this this is an ordinance which comes from the Lord Himself who is Charity.
Thus, we are perfectly right to say that Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. As for those who want to be catholic and for no fault of their own and not out of any merited punishment die with the faith and charity and yet not as received by a local pastor in a catholic church, no one has denied that they can be saved, because they by their profession are Catholic in all things.
Yet if such were to so much as to say, I am an Anglican, a Methodist, a Calvinist, a Muslim, a whatever, at his death; he is certainly damned for he has broken the profession which the Catholic Faith requires….that is, he has taken another master, identified himself with another body, and thus broken faith and charity and hope with Christ Our Lord.
Dear S. Armaticus. I’m glad you asked. Why do the modernists hate the true Catholic Mass?
–
First let me state that the ultimate goal of modernism is the total destruction of the Catholic Church. Why? Because on both a spiritual and physical level the Church is the greatest obstacle to the plans of the diabolical masonic/socalist/atheist revolutionary conspiracy.
–
What is the role of the modernist? Like in all masonic style conspiracies there are different “degrees” of modernists. The low level modernists are not privy to the secrets of the inner circle. The true modernist is anti-Christian and actively seeks to destroy Christ’s Church. These are the Bugnini’s, etc.
–
Where does bergoglio fit in? There are many signs from him that he has strong ties to the masonic world and that he is fully aware of their goals and is actively working towards achieving those goals.
–
Why the Mass? Christ is present in the Mass. So the modernist have detonated their spiritual equivalent of an atomic bomb over “ground zero” which is at the very heart of the Church.
–
The military analogy is a good one because this is a military style campaign to conquer territory for the masonic forces and their allies.
–
Part of the conquest is to subdue the conquered people. Take a look at what is happening in Mosul. They destroy the churches so as to erase any sign of Christianity. They need to replace a whole culture which is 2000 years old so that future generations will have no memory that there were ever Christians living in this land. For this they need to destroy the laws, the language, the names of places… the history. And replace them with anti-Christian laws, language, names of places… history.
–
At one level the Mass must be destroyed because it is an obstacle (stumbling block) to ecumenism. But ecumenism is just a ploy. The real goal is the total destruction of Christianity as explained above.
–
The introduction of the novus ordo mass established a spiritual conquest over the Catholic Church. The masonic forces will not give up any of the spiritual ground that they have conquered. They will fight tooth and nail to hold on to these conquered territories and to further expand their anti-Christian spiritual empire. Again, take a look at what is happening in Iraq to see how this operates on the physical plane. The same principles apply on the spiritual plane.
–
The modernist views the resurgence of the traditional Mass as a threat to their revolution — and in this they are correct.
Quickly, for now, I denied none of those things (in my comments, which hardly serve as an “exposition”). I merely spoke to what is essentially the BEST case to speak to G’s concentration on valid baptisms outside the visible Body, and what I said is quite true: an infant or child who baptized (validly, obviously) by a Protestant sect WILL BE SAVED should he perish before the age of reason – before he is capable of any mortal sin (such as heresy, which is a sin against the theological virtue of Faith).
“Ganganelli: If I synthesize your teaching and that of ACT, then the statement made in Ut Unum Sint which appears to be a blanket statement on its face – that protestant sects are ***means of salvation*** – is really only a reference to a special case – that of infant baptism where the person baptized is saved if he/she dies before reaching the age of reason and accepting heresy.”
—–
Well, that’s not what *I* said – in such a case the means of salvation was grace provided by the *Catholic* Sacrament of Baptism. The sect administering it is an “accident” that has nothing to do with that grace and nothing to do with salvation. In such a case that soul is saved in spite of its association with this sect, which itself is *not* being used by the Holy Ghost.
@ACT: You are prideful about your supposed knowledge of the faith. What exactly are you trying to do here? Establish yourself as the “foremost defender of the faith” here on this blog by trying to give readers the impression that I didn’t understand your comment and misrepresented it?
–
You felt the need to say this:
“Well, that’s not what *I* said – in such a case the means of salvation was grace provided by the *Catholic* Sacrament of Baptism. The sect administering it is an “accident” that has nothing to do with that grace and nothing to do with salvation. In such a case that soul is saved in spite of its association with this sect, which itself is *not* being used by the Holy Ghost.”
–
How exactly does my statement reproduced here misrepresent or confuse what you said so that it needed pedantic clarification:
“When viewed from this perspective, the quote from Lumen Gentium reproduced in UUS is thoroughly misleading and harmful to souls because most souls would interpret the statement in the blanket sense – that a sect can be a means of salvation in ordinary cases and not just the special case of infant baptism. Further, if we are to understand this statement in your narrow sense it is also inaccurate since it is the Catholic Church through its Catholic sacrament of baptism that is the means of salvation and the sect has nothing to do with it.”
Dear Catholic Thinker,
Excuse me, I would have understood what you just said, if in the previous post you made you said “should he perish before the age of reason”, because obviously without that, what I said was necessary….
Remember what the mortal sin of heresy is. It is the “obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.
–
This is obstinacy is VERY important. Imagine going up to an illiterate 15th century Irish farmer and giving him a multiple choice test on the nature of the trinity say monothelitism vs. monophysitism. He wouldn’t have committed the sin of heresy just for getting the question wrong. He would only commit the sin of heresy if he was obstinate.
–
This is very important when dealing with our baptized separated brethren.
@ACT: If you wanted to embarrass me you should have pointed out that the statement reproduced below I attributed to Lumen Gentium is actually from
Unitatis Redintegratio:
–
“It follows that these separated Churches and Communities, though we believe that they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and value 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.”
Remember what the mortal sin of heresy is. It is the “obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.
–
This is obstinacy is VERY important. Imagine going up to an illiterate 15th century Irish farmer and giving him a multiple choice test on the nature of the trinity say monothelitism vs. monophysitism. He wouldn’t have committed the sin of heresy just for getting the question wrong. He would only commit the sin of heresy if he was obstinate in his error.
–
This is very important when dealing with our baptized separated brethren.
@Ganganelli: That raises the issue of exactly what constitutes “obstinacy”.
–
The new Catechism states the following:
–
“846 How are we to understand this affirmation [EENS], often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
–
‘Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.'”
–
Are those in the protestant sects, who know that the Catholic Church claims that “the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ” for salvation damned for obstinately persisting in their sects in spite of their knowledge of this claim by the Church? Or are they excused because although they are aware of this claim by the Church, they have not arrived at the point where they believe it to be true and are thus still caught in “invincible ignorance”?
That’s a very good question. My personal take is that those people are in a very dangerous situation. Regardless, in my opinion, we shouldn’t take any chances and should make every effort to show them that the Roman Catholic Church is the ONLY true Church of Our Lord.
The ongoing discussion is a perfect example of why the average lay person in the Catholic Church today, were they even aware of the proscriptions of the past Popes regarding ecumenism and indifferentism and association with heretics, should feel utterly incapable of shouldering the burden the post conciliar popes have force upon us all to “evangelize the world”.
___
It also demonstrates why so many lay persons would rather take the murderous easier route they offer, of just celebrating what we can find we have in common with others, regardless of their theologies, and leaving the rest to the higher authorities to sort out.
___
We’re not speaking of any of the rest of you who are dialoging here, but of ourselves, who have read re-read the last several posts, and only with difficulty, now “think” we understand their intended meanings, but are still not sure.
___
We looked at one of the references mentioned, and found this further source of the world’s confusion in a discussion of Unitatis Redintegratio in Wikipedia:
“Among the groups not considered to be separated brethren are “Jews, Mormons, Christian Scientists, Muslims, Buddhists, and other groups”.
___
“By the 21st century, within the Roman Catholic faith, Jews are described as and considered elder brothers in the faith.”
___
Even IF we all had the time to educate ourselves on the past teachings as well as the past controversies, we then need to understand the current ones and how they relate to arguments about the past ones, and then sort out the truth from those and all the confusion available on the internet.
WHAT a mess the devil has managed to create.
___
We’ve been reading “The Catholic Controversy” and can see from what St. Frances had to go through with the Calvinists, why the Church expected missionary work among the Protestants to be conducted by her well-informed clergy, and would never have dreamed of commissioning a simple lay person with that task? So why have they done so to us today, when things are twice as confusing, and most of us are not only uneducated, but misinformed?
____
typo correction St. Francis (de Sales) in The Catholic Controversy
Indignus,
–
I totally agree with you. And think what it would be like without the internet! God didn’t expect laymen to parse the subtleties of theology. That’s why he gave us the papacy.
I’m going to print this out and frame it; it has to be the longest comment you’ve ever posted here that makes sense.
—–
The problems, though, with where you go with this are:
—–
1) Being in a Protestant sect makes obstinate heresy quite likely, eventually – for those that stay in them.
—–
2) Even without formal heresy a soul still has a very difficult time achieving salvation without the benefits of the Sacraments – not to mention the witness of the saints on proper living and all the other treasures of the true faith.
Fair enough. 🙂
Actually it doesn’t like like you followed IF’s statement.
From where I sit, you seem the prideful one, but I’m certainly not going to play that game. (I swear here on my soul, however, that I had no desire whatsoever to “embarrass” you.)
—–
I felt the need for my clarification when I noticed that you approached this subject by attempting to “synthesize your [Gangenelli’s] teaching and that of ACT”, when the two of us were on nearly opposite sides here.
—–
However, I did read your post a bit hastily – I was very short on time this morning before work – and it seems to me now that I did misread your intent. In fact, I agree completely with your conclusion that “When viewed from this perspective, the quote from Lumen Gentium reproduced in UUS is thoroughly misleading and harmful to souls because most souls would interpret the statement in the blanket sense – that a sect can be a means of salvation in ordinary cases and not just the special case of infant baptism. Further, if we are to understand this statement in your narrow sense it is also inaccurate since it is the Catholic Church through its Catholic sacrament of baptism that is the means of salvation and the sect has nothing to do with it.”
—–
I’m sorry I offended you. It wasn’t my intent. Regarding my misreading, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa – honestly.
Please scratch my statement about you being “the prideful one” – I meant to take that out. Again, in retrospect, I misread your post the first time; I was reacting to your “synthesis” of our two positions which I found odd, but it was a misunderstanding.
P.S.
May we ask why it is you always seem to insist on the proof of the current and last few Popes’ contradictions of prior Church teachings being put in writing, while refusing to acknowledge their actions and words as gravely harmful?
___
After all, we are not judging their eternal souls or even saying we know their dispositions, only what is indicated by what they do and say, and how harmful it is to the faithful–from personal experience with it for a lifetime, and seeing loved ones crash and burn in such great numbers. We have plenty of reason to be extremely frustrated as well as on guard to help others who are less aware of the dangers. As you should be, knowing as much as you obviously must from the discussions we have followed so far.
Compare Saint Pope Pius X’s Catechism with the Catechism issued during Saint Pope John Paul II.
I prefer the former.
That should read “issued during Saint Pope John Paul II’s pontificate”
Dear Ganganelli,
Your comment serves as a good example of the current cause of the confusion we were bemoaning.
___
The reason the internet relates information that the Jews are now, (since the 21st century–and not since any necessary conversion) considered by the Catholic Church as elder “brothers”, put where that comment is, –in a discussion about which people we do or do not consider brothers in Christ–
is a direct result of the misstatements and contradictions of the past 55 years from so-called ecumenical outreaches with the Jews, which were forbidden by the Popes of the past. IN WRITINGS.
___
The confusion includes the USCCB’s false declaration that they have no need to convert, –later corrected –which correction was then ignored followed by much greater confusion when Rabbis declared the same and went uncorrected, and later further confused by the news that .Pope Benedict XVI said in his book “Jesus of Nazareth” in 2011 –writing “as a private theologian” and not as Pope, ” Until God’s plan comes to fruition, the “particular task” of the disciples of Christ is to carry the faith to the Gentiles, not to the Jews.”
____
This is the kind of direct contradiction of the past, promoted by the Popes, while claiming not to be promoted AS Pope , i.e. Officially by the Church, which puts us right where we find ourselves at this moment in time. None of this will be cleared up until those in error, repent.
___
Jesus said the Jews would die in their sins “because you do not believe that I am”, and told His disciples to go first to the house of Israel, and if they reject His teachings, they condemn themselves.
Going against the direct mandates of Christ seems to be commonplace among the Vatican II Popes, in our opinion.
Heck, have a look at that Dutch Catechism while you’re at it. Now THERE’S some penance. Don’t keep that where the kiddies might find it.
While there is likely more to it than this, it may be a lot more difficult to grasp where someone is headed when promoting a novelty, than to understand what someone is condemning when writing against an error that endangers the faithful-which explains the ease with which the pre-VII Popes can be comprehended..
You have a lot of good things to say – I poked fun at myself for misattributing the quote to highlight that we all have our moments.
Dear Ganganelli,
Can you cite any examples in the recent past–especially from Pope Francis’ sojourns into “ecumenism” which demonstrate in any way, shape, or form an
“‘effort to show them that the Roman Catholic Church is the ONLY true Church of Our Lord.”?
It’s easy to tell the good ones. Just look up the Moslem god, and see if it says it’s the same one we Catholics worship.
We were recently thinking about this very topic “by their fruits”…
and the great difficulty in making the connection between the vast audiences of modern Popes and the results their teachings have over time, on those that fall victim to their bad ones.
__
In a way they remain invisible, till they suddenly show up over time in polls and statistics that demonstrate the corruption of morals and values, the subsequent emptying of churches;increased disregard for human life and all the laws of God, and the misguided notions that lead whole nations to elect tyrannical leaders, etc.
___ We who see with eyes of faith get that connection readily, but still have a very hard time proving it to anyone blinded by sin, who will point to many other indirect causes like “poverty” and ” joblessness” which are really just causes of stress, not of sin..
Dear Lake Erie
Couldn’t agree more. Great alternative reading choices, by the way. 🙂
Hey. de Maria. Ave’s – will do. The three columns lay it out so clearly that even a nincompoop like moi can get it.
i would like not for us to forget to include the errors of the modernist endorsment of NFP , married incontinent clergy. and the divorced and remarried receiving communion.
@ACT: Just so you understand the situation, the goal I was working toward was to make the point about how misleading that quote from UR reproduced in UUS is. It is harmful to souls! You actually did the set-up work by making several important points about baptism, the sects and baptism, etc. You made my job a lot easier so thank you.
Dear Anastasia,
We disagree with your attempt to add these particular three items to our above list of known errors.
___
Although the 3rd one on your list, (sacrilegious communion), obviously goes against known Church doctrine, your first and second (NFP and married incontinent priests), are subjects which, as you know, were under discussion under paragraph #2, of Louie’s previous Blog post (“The Pope’s Mother-is expecting”);were highly contested, and in our opinion not proven by your arguments. After several posters suggested it was too big an “off topic” issue and should be in a forum, you wrote:
“…I will consider following your kind directives and write on this on the other forum that Louie provides”.
___
Though you are obviously free to retain and express your opinions, under these circumstances, we feel they should be presented by you as such, and in a forum for discussion, rather than as if they are known, proven, generally accepted “errors”.
___
We say this mainly for the sake of others( converts who were married priests and their families, and families who were taught NFP not with a contraceptive mentality) , who might otherwise be confused by your opinions, made to feel unnecessarily guilty or unwittingly complicit in the commission of sinful acts, which your statements imply they are.
___
We think you might benefit as well, from opening a forum, from what you might learn from the exchanges.. If you teach your opinions so dogmatically and they prove to be erroneous, you will later have to account to God for those you have misled and thus abused, and these are serious matters, affecting life decisions. (We realize that is the cause of your zeal, but you are not a magisterium unto yourself, and these matters have not been decided).
God Bless you.