Author Topic: Fr. James Wathen on the Doctrine of Exclusive Savlation (Video) (Read 15061 times)

Nishant · « **Reply #165 on:** February 03, 2015, 09:24:26 AM »

Well, Bellator Dei, if you read what Fr. Wathen wrote, he explains there is no tribunal to pass judgment on the Pope. "If the person who incurs the censure be the pope himself, since there is no tribunal within the Church with the right to pass judgment against him, he cannot be removed from his office." So he is talking about a special case. He does not deny that a layman can incur excommunication,known by all to be a public and formal heretic, and removed from office.

The case of a Pope is slightly more tricky, there are varying opinions among theologians with differing grades of probability. Suarez for example said, “I affirm: If he is a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope ceases to be Pope as soon as a declarative sentence of his crime is pronounced against him by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church ... of itself, it belongs to all the Bishops of the Church. For since they are the ordinary pastors and the pillars of the Church, one should consider that such a case concerns them.” I just post this to show there are different opinions regarding the special case of a Pope.

Obertray Immonday, all right, in fact, we can discuss it in a new thread.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #166 on:** February 03, 2015, 09:49:37 AM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: obertray imondday
However, the hierarchy that you defend denies this infallible statement.

#15 Lumen Gentium: 15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter

It doesn't say these people are WITHIN the Church, that they are Catholics, that they can be saved. It just says that there's a nebulous "link" by virtue of Baptism with these people.

Baptized persons that do not profess the faith in its entirety = Heretics
Baptized persons that do not preserve unity of communion the the successor of Peter = Schismatics

There is NO link (nebulous or not) with heretics or schismatics - as they are severed from the Church by their own admonition and are no longer Catholic; this goes back to the whole "once Catholic, always Catholic" premise. Obviously, these people are not honored with the name of Christian any longer, as you rightly point out.

That being said, by virtue of their Baptism (if valid), these non-Catholics DO have a opportunity to recant their errors and return to the Church to work out their salvation.

The statement above cannot be understood or reconciled with the teachings of the Church.

No, the term "link" (Latin conjunctam) does NOT by itself mean that they are Catholic or within the Church or anything along those lines. While I agreed with your earlier point that the Baptismal character does NOT mean that people are members of the Church, it is NOT true that the Baptismal character MEANS NOTHING. You are quite wrong.

Notice also this subtle aspect; it does not say that the baptized non-Catholics are linked with the Church, but rather that the Church is linked with them.

You also take this quote out of context and cannot analyze it that way. That phrase "in many ways" is explained by the sentences that follow. It's just a phrases that say, "we have the following things in common with them".

Stubborn · « **Reply #167 on:** February 03, 2015, 09:52:11 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

The case of a Pope is slightly more tricky, there are varying opinions among theologians with differing grades of probability. Suarez for example said, “I affirm: If he is a heretic and incorrigible, the Pope ceases to be Pope as soon as a declarative sentence of his crime is pronounced against him by the legitimate jurisdiction of the Church ... of itself, it belongs to all the Bishops of the Church. For since they are the ordinary pastors and the pillars of the Church, one should consider that such a case concerns them.” I just post this to show there are different opinions regarding the special case of a Pope.

It would seem that Vatican 1 corrected Suarez........

"Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that..... they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecuмenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff."

obertray imondday · « **Reply #168 on:** February 03, 2015, 10:12:29 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

What does it mean to be "LINKED WITH"?

How about "subsistit in", the ecclesiology of V2 that you call error in a different thread?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #169 on:** February 03, 2015, 12:54:25 PM »

Quote from: obertray imondday

Quote from: Ladislaus
What does it mean to be "LINKED WITH"?

How about "subsistit in", the ecclesiology of V2 that you call error in a different thread?

I'll be getting to that. Also, no "non-Feeneyite" Traditional Catholic can object to "subsistence ecclesiology".

obertray imondday · « **Reply #170 on:** February 03, 2015, 09:42:04 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: obertray imondday
Quote from: Ladislaus
What does it mean to be "LINKED WITH"?

How about "subsistit in", the ecclesiology of V2 that you call error in a different thread?

I'll be getting to that. Also, no "non-Feeneyite" Traditional Catholic can object to "subsistence ecclesiology".

I agree. In all fairness though, all Feeneyite's (for lack of better word) who deny the V2 ecclesiology follow a teacher who holds the subsistence error.

Stubborn · « **Reply #171 on:** February 04, 2015, 04:33:47 AM »

Quote from: obertray imondday

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: obertray imondday
Quote from: Ladislaus
What does it mean to be "LINKED WITH"?

How about "subsistit in", the ecclesiology of V2 that you call error in a different thread?

I'll be getting to that. Also, no "non-Feeneyite" Traditional Catholic can object to "subsistence ecclesiology".

I agree. In all fairness though, all Feeneyite's (for lack of better word) who deny the V2 ecclesiology follow a teacher who holds the subsistence error.

No, you fail to make the pertinent distinction that we are subject to him in what we can be without offending God, but we do not follow the conciliar popes in their heresies and errors.

The SV sects who hold to the ecclesiology of the conciliar popes while condemning the same popes for teaching it, is the real mind boggler.

obertray imondday · « **Reply #172 on:** February 05, 2015, 08:03:04 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: obertray imondday
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: obertray imondday
Quote from: Ladislaus
What does it mean to be "LINKED WITH"?

How about "subsistit in", the ecclesiology of V2 that you call error in a different thread?

I'll be getting to that. Also, no "non-Feeneyite" Traditional Catholic can object to "subsistence ecclesiology".

I agree. In all fairness though, all Feeneyite's (for lack of better word) who deny the V2 ecclesiology follow a teacher who holds the subsistence error.

No, you fail to make the pertinent distinction that we are subject to him in what we can be without offending God, but we do not follow the conciliar popes in their heresies and errors.

The SV sects who hold to the ecclesiology of the conciliar popes while condemning the same popes for teaching it, is the real mind boggler.

Sorry, I was meaning teachers (forgot the 's'). Do you know a Bishop or priest that does not defend salvation in false religion through ignorance? The non-Feeneyite traditional Catholic teachers are not the only ones manifesting this.