Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: SJB

Membership in the Church, as defined by Pius XII, is NOT implicit.

Quote

22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jєωs or Gentiles, whether bond or free." [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered -- so the Lord commands -- as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

Outside of which no one at all will be saved.  But, he doesn't say that, does he?  I am still waiting for my pre-1800 source.

What error was Pius XII addressing here? Do you even know, Mr. Historian?

It was written during WWII as the h0Ɩ0cαųst was swinging into high gear.  Perhaps Pius XII wanted to distance himself from nαzιsm yet appear orthodox in his beliefs.

as you have been reading Cornwall?.......orthodox as far as most of us can tell (except you and CM)

No, I have not been reading him -- never heard of him.

why the year 1800, have we had a vacant seat since then, now???

how about "show me...prior to 1850..."?

If the "teaching" that I highlighted in bold above were true, then one could find it in the writings of the Fathers or the scholastics.  It, like so many of the "innovations" of Vatican II, is a product of modernistic theology, which attempts to retain Catholic "spirituality" while jettisoning the theology of the Church.  Thanks, but no thanks.  Remember, John Dominic Crossan is a professing Catholic, as are many of the "Catholic" scholars of the Jesus Seminar.  If you think that modernism entered the Church at the Second Vatican Council and not before, I think that you are naive.

Quote from: Belloc

why the year 1800, have we had a vacant seat since then, now???

how about "show me...prior to 1850..."?

If the "teaching" that I highlighted in bold above were true, then one could find it in the writings of the Fathers or the scholastics.  It, like so many of the "innovations" of Vatican II, is a product of modernistic theology, which attempts to retain Catholic "spirituality" while jettisoning the theology of the Church.  Thanks, but no thanks.  Remember, John Dominic Crossan is a professing Catholic, as are many of the "Catholic" scholars of the Jesus Seminar.  If you think that modernism entered the Church at the Second Vatican Council and not before, I think that you are naive.

um...no, Modernism has been around long before, V2 was a open the hatch, release....never said anything about v2 as you seem to indicate.....I and my parents fighting for Tradition and the Church since late 70's, when some here at this site were not born yet or were asleep at the wheel.....thanks for the lecture.....but.

again, why the yr 1800??? you did not address this, you note recent events/people and the Fathers,etc....

did 1800 just become arbitrary line in sand? a example?

There is no conflict here. Because you believe you actually are a theologian, you've convinced yourself that there is a conflict. It's so obvious to you...yet nobody else ever noticed it. You have no humility, Jehanne...or you're just really stupid.

I do hope, for your sake, it's the latter.

Wow, I had to read this one twice.  No doubt you have heard of Father Feeney, no?

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: SJB

There is no conflict here. Because you believe you actually are a theologian, you've convinced yourself that there is a conflict. It's so obvious to you...yet nobody else ever noticed it. You have no humility, Jehanne...or you're just really stupid.

I do hope, for your sake, it's the latter.

Wow, I had to read this one twice.  No doubt you have heard of Father Feeney, no?

Yes, and I have no reason to attack him. But he is hardly a significant figure in the resistance to Vatican II. In your world, he died a heretic. Isn't that right?

Not sure where you got that one from?!  As everyone knows, Father Feeney died in full communion with the Church.

Pius XII was a heretic...but Fr. Feeney died in "full communion" with the Church?

Does anybody else want to comment on this?

I am sure that CM will want to comment!  Pius XII denied infallible Catholic dogma which Father Feeney affirmed.  Not the first time in the history of the Church, just consider Pope John XXII.