Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Membership in and Visibility of the Church  (Read 6196 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Membership in and Visibility of the Church
« Reply #95 on: February 07, 2014, 01:11:48 PM »
Incorrect.  I guess I will have to prove you wrong again when I have the time.  Perhaps I should start a file called "Stuff Bowler Conveniently Forgets and Raises Again Even Though He Has Already Been Thoroughly Refuted Countless Times"

Membership in and Visibility of the Church
« Reply #96 on: February 07, 2014, 01:16:57 PM »
Problem of the Anonymous Christian,
Fr. Karl Rahner 1976:

"There can be, and actually are, individuals who are actually justified in the grace of God who attain to supernatural salvation in God’s sight . . . , yet who do not belong to the Church . . . as a visible historical reality . . . No truly theological demonstration of this thesis can be supplied here from scripture or tradition. Such a demonstration would not be easy to make, because the optimism of universal salvation entailed in this thesis has only gradually become clear and asserted itself in the conscious faith concerning salvation for unbaptized catechumens in Ambrose, through the doctrine of baptismus flaminis and the votum ecclesiae in the Middle Ages and at the Council of Trent, down to the explicit teaching in the writings of Pius XII to the effect that even a merely implicit votum for the Church and baptism can suffice.

It was declared at the Second Vatican Council that atheists too are not excluded from this possibility of salvation . . . The only necessary condition which is recognized here is the necessity of faithfulness and obedience to the individual’s own personal conscience. This optimism concerning salvation appears to me one of the most noteworthy results of the Second Vatican Council. For when we consider the officially received theology concerning all these questions, which was more or less traditional right down to the . . . Council, we can only wonder how few controversies arose during the Council with regard to these assertions of optimism concerning salvation, and wonder too at how little opposition the conservative wing of the Council brought to bear on this point, how all this took place without any setting of the stage or any great stir even though this doctrine marked a far more decisive phase in the development of the Church’s conscious awareness of her faith, than, for instance, the doctrine of collegiality in the Church, the relationship between scripture and tradition, the acceptance of the new exegesis, etc.

There you have the wild imaginings of an heretical theologian who was a dedicated modernist. His claim for universal salvation is in direct contradiction to the dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and his statement that there was no "setting of the stage" at Vatican II is an outright lie. Notice, however, his admission that it is not possible to support his theory of universal salvation from Scripture or Tradition, but only from the gradually evolving theories about "desire" beginning with Saint Ambrose and Valentinian, to the "baptism of desire" and "desire of the Church" of the Middle Ages and Trent, and finally to the writings of Pope Pius XII — meaning, no doubt, Mystici Corporis and Protocol Letter #122/49. The reader will note that Father Rahner, often described as the most influential peritus at the Council, considered the overturning of "the officially received theology" concerning salvation — which was "more or less traditional right down to the. . . Council" — as "one of the most noteworthy results of the. . . Council." He says this change "marked a far more decisive phase in the development of the Church’s conscious awareness of her faith" than any of the other new teachings the conclave introduced".

There you have it, right from the "horse’s mouth!" Indeed, there was a "setting of the stage" to destroy the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. It was the modernists’ prime target!





Membership in and Visibility of the Church
« Reply #97 on: February 07, 2014, 01:34:58 PM »
If you can stop lying about one bowler, thing can it be about the following:

The first part of this chapter “On the Definition of the Church” is devoted to the description and the refutation of the various theories evolved by heretics to explain the composition of the true Church militant of the New Testament.  St. Robert deals with five of these theories, and then sets forth his own teaching, which is true Catholic doctrine.  This is the pertinent section of the second chapter.

   
Quote
But it is our teaching that there is only one ecclesia, and not two, and that this one and true Church is the assembly of men bound together by the profession of the same Christian faith and the communion of the same sacraments, under the rule of the legitimate pastors, and especially that of the Roman Pontiff, the one Vicar of Christ on earth.  From this definition it is easy to infer which men belong to the Church and which do not belong to it.  There are three parts of this definition; the profession of the true faith, the communion of the sacraments, and the subjection to the Roman Pontiff, the legitimate pastor.

   By reason of the first part all infidels, both those who have never been in the Church, such as Jews, Turks, and pagans; and those who have been in it and have left it, as heretics and apostates, are excluded.  By reason of the second part catechumens and excommunicated persons are excluded, because the former are not yet admitted to the communion of the sacraments, while the latter have been sent away from it.  By reason of the third part there are excluded the schismatics who have the faith and the sacraments, but who are not subject to the legitimate pastor and who thus profess the faith and receive the sacraments outside [of the Church].  All others are included [within the Church in the light of the definition] even though they be reprobates, sinful and impious men.

   Now there is this difference between our teaching and all the others [the “definitions” offered by the various heretics, and discussed in the first section of this second chapter of the De ecclesia militante], that all the others require internal virtues to constitute a man “within” the Church, and hence make the true Church invisible.  But, despite the fact that we believe that all the virtues, faith, hope, charity, and the rest, are to be found within the Church, we do not think that any internal virtue is required to bring it about that a man can be said absolutely to be a part of the true Church of which the Scriptures speak, but [that what is required for this] is only the outward profession of the faith and the communion of the sacraments, which are perceptible by the senses.  For the Church is as visible and palpable an assembly of men as the assembly of the Roman people or the Kingdom of France or the Republic of the Venetians.

   We must note what Augustine says in his Breviculus collationis, where he is dealing with the conference of the third day, that the Church is a living body, in which there is a soul and a body.  And the internal gifts of the Holy Ghost, faith, hope, charity, and the rest are the soul.  The external profession of the faith and the communication of the sacraments are the body.  Hence it is that some are of the soul and of the body of the Church, and hence joined both inwardly and outwardly to Christ the Head, and such people are most perfectly within the Church.  They are, as it were, living members in the body, although some of them share in this life to a greater extent, and others to a lesser extent, while still others have only the beginning of life and, as it were, sensation without movement, like the people who have only faith without charity.

   Again, some are of the soul and not of the body, as catechumens and excommunicated persons if they have faith and charity, as they can have them.

   And, finally, some are of the body and not of the soul, as those who have no internal virtue, but who still by reason of some temporal hope or fear, profess the faith and communicate in the sacraments under the rule of the pastors.  And such individuals are like hairs or fingernails or evil liquids in a human body.

   Consequently, our definition takes in only this last way of being in the Church, because this is required as a minimum in order that a man may be said to be a part of the visible Church.  [De ecclesia militante, c. 2.]


   In the passage just quoted, St. Robert Bellarmine sets out to explain and to define the thesis he is going to defend and explain throughout the rest of the book De ecclesia militante.  The outstanding talent of this great Doctor of the Church is precisely his power of forceful and clear exposition.  In the section we have just cited, that talent was exercised as perfectly as it is in any section of his works.  

   St. Robert contends that the one and only supernatural kingdom of God on earth, the ecclesia spoken of in the Scriptures, has been constituted by God as a society composed of members or parts whose appurtenance [going with and belonging – J.G.] to this company is manifest to all men.  He asserts that the factors by which a man is constituted as a member or a part of this company are the profession of the true Christian faith, access to the sacraments, and subjection to the Roman Pontiff.  The group which is God’s one and only ecclesia in this world is actually the company of men who have these factors of unity.

   He acknowledges the presence within the Church of faith, hope, charity, and the other supernatural virtues.  Furthermore he realizes that these infused virtues themselves constitute another bond of unity with Our Lord and among His disciples.  Nevertheless he insists that this spiritual or inward bond of unity is not the factor which constitutes a man as a part or a member of the Church militant of the New Testament.

   Yet despite the perfection of St. Robert’s teaching and the clarity of his exposition, this section of the second chapter of his De ecclesia militante was destined to be the source of serious and highly unfortunate misunderstanding by subsequent theologians.  The weak part of this, perhaps the most important single passage in the writings of any post-Tridentine theologian, was St. Robert’s use of the terms “soul” and “body” with reference to the Church. Fenton