Author Topic: John Lane on the Real Cause of the Crisis (Read 16092 times)

Alcuin · « **on:** January 18, 2014, 03:38:25 AM »

Quote from: John Lane

As for your view that the present crisis is a result of the denial of the dogma that there isn't any salvation outside the Church, you are entitled to it, but I think that it is wrong. You learned that idea from Fr. Feeney or his disciples, I suppose. It was his great "discovery" back in the 1940s. But the truth, it seems to me, is that the real cause of the crisis (if we are to identify a particular doctrinal complex at its heart) is the misrepresentation of the nature of the Church. Ironically, you and all other Feeneyites actually contribute to this by misdefining the boundaries of the Church, misdefining the concepts "inside" and "outside" contrary to Tradition, and thus you add to the chaos of our time. I suppose this unwitting contribution to the crisis is apt punishment for your refusal to sit at the feet of the men that Holy Mother Church, guided by the loving Providence of Almighty God, has placed before you as your teachers. That is, the Doctors of the Church.

soulguard · « **Reply #1 on:** January 18, 2014, 04:14:28 AM »

No, he's wrong. When the church lost its exclusive product it lost the game. Simple psych.

Stubborn · « **Reply #2 on:** January 18, 2014, 04:45:31 AM »

Him saying basically that teaching EENS is a part of the problem amazes me as much as when +Sanborn said there is salvation outside the Church in his debate with Fastiggi.

This definitely applies for Lane - and to all trads who think salvation is even remotely possible outside the Church:

Quote from: Fr. Wathen

...."Traditionalists", for want of a better word, insisting the
while that their stand is necessary for the sake of salvation, do so on
the basis of this [EENS] doctrine, even if they do not realize it.

Yes, of course,they say that they believe it. But we emphasize once again, they do not unless they accept it absolutely. Their only argument for their
"Traditionalism" is this doctrine in its absolute and uncompromising
affirmation. If they qualify it in any way, their whole position
becomes inconsistent to the point of being self-contradictory.

How is it possible that anyone, particularly learned men cannot grasp the clear reality of that last sentence? "If they qualify it in any way, their whole position becomes inconsistent to the point of being self-contradictory."

bowler · « **Reply #3 on:** January 18, 2014, 05:48:11 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

How is it possible that anyone, particularly learned men cannot grasp the clear reality of that last sentence? "If they qualify it in any way, their whole position becomes inconsistent to the point of being self-contradictory."

They have no common sense. Have you tried to read Karl Rahner? You or I read one page and we throw it in the garbage. Meanwhile, the clergy ate it up, it was like chocolate to them. There is some flaw in the mind of certain people that makes them admirers of writers who write in a way that these people can't understand. They just turn themselves over to it.

Maybe we require things to be mechanically ordered, like we have an engineers mind? While they just see scattered objects? I've never figured out their idolizing of confusion and disorder.

bowler · « **Reply #4 on:** January 18, 2014, 06:14:18 AM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Stubborn
How is it possible that anyone, particularly learned men cannot grasp the clear reality of that last sentence? "If they qualify it in any way, their whole position becomes inconsistent to the point of being self-contradictory."

They have no common sense. Have you tried to read Karl Rahner? You or I read one page and we throw it in the garbage. Meanwhile, the clergy ate it up, it was like chocolate to them. There is some flaw in the mind of certain people that makes them admirers of writers who write in a way that these people can't understand. They just turn themselves over to it.

Maybe we require things to be mechanically ordered, like we have an engineers mind? While they just see scattered objects? I've never figured out their idolizing of confusion and disorder.

Here's an example:

Many years ago, I was dragged by a girlfriend to see an art exhibit in Chicago. It was a one artist exhibit. I paid to go in, and upon entering I was immediately struck by the sight of the exhibit, my eyes panned around the entire room and my jaw dropped. As we walked through the exhibit I saw the people commenting on the "paintings" and what they meant. I just walked in silence and listened to everyone talking admiringly about the paintings and the painter. Here's the catch: ALL the paintings had no color, they were ALL white!!!! They were basically trowelled stucco angles on a canvas. An entire exhibit of white troweled shapes on canvas! Now, those people talking admiringly about the paintings and the painter, THAT IS the type of person that falls for the Karl Rahners, Garrigou-Lagranges, Fentons, and makes them admirers of writers who write in a way that these people can't put together.

bowler · « **Reply #5 on:** January 18, 2014, 06:21:23 AM »

Ambrose · « **Reply #6 on:** January 18, 2014, 07:23:35 AM »

Quote from: soulguard

No, he's wrong. When the church lost its exclusive product it lost the game. Simple psych.

The Church never lost its "exclusive product." This is what the Feeneyites pretend. The teaching of Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, and that of the Holy Office in 1949 were only reinforcing the dogma, "outside the Church, no salvation."

John Lane is correct, the main threat has never been to EENS, Vatican II has been a direct attack against the nature of the Church. Vatican II makes EENS meaningless, as the Church is no longer an Ark with those inside and those outside.

Vatican II theology makes the Church like an onion, with the center being the Catholic Church, the closest layer to the center, the eastern schismatics, followed by Protestants, then by the Muslims and Jews, and then all "believers." All within the onion can be saved, but those not within the center lack the fullness of the truth.

The difference between the teaching of Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office under him is that they clearly taught the exclusivity of the Church. Baptism of Desire does not contradict with the nature and exclusivity of the Church. It is invisible, and those in this category are known only to God. The Catholic Church is the only means of salvation, all other religions are false and a means of damnation.

Stubborn · « **Reply #7 on:** January 18, 2014, 07:24:28 AM »

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Stubborn
How is it possible that anyone, particularly learned men cannot grasp the clear reality of that last sentence? "If they qualify it in any way, their whole position becomes inconsistent to the point of being self-contradictory."

They have no common sense. Have you tried to read Karl Rahner? You or I read one page and we throw it in the garbage. Meanwhile, the clergy ate it up, it was like chocolate to them. There is some flaw in the mind of certain people that makes them admirers of writers who write in a way that these people can't understand. They just turn themselves over to it.

Maybe we require things to be mechanically ordered, like we have an engineers mind? While they just see scattered objects? I've never figured out their idolizing of confusion and disorder.

It's still often strikes me as phenomenal that the dogma is obliterated by men who are otherwise supposed to have some smarts.

And I'm not talking about NOers or those who still suffer from their years of indoctrination and embracing the NO like LoT and presumably Ambrose and SJB - I'm talking about people like Lane and +Sanborn who are beating the wind with any argument they have against the NO, anti-popes, new mass, belonging to the Church and etc. because far as they're concerned, belonging to the Church means everyone who follows the dictates of their conscience makes them members of the Church by desire anyway - by that thinking, many are saved and few if any are lost.

If they only stop for just 3 short seconds out of their whole day to consider that if there is salvation outside the Church then there is no need to be concerned about if the pope is the pope or the Mass is the Mass or if heresy is heresy or anything that has anything to do with faithfully preaching and adhering to the dogma.

It's madness on their part because they remain willfully blind to the fact that "If they qualify it [the dogma] in any way, their whole position becomes inconsistent to the point of being self-contradictory."

Stubborn · « **Reply #8 on:** January 18, 2014, 07:27:13 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: soulguard
No, he's wrong. When the church lost its exclusive product it lost the game. Simple psych.

The Church never lost its "exclusive product." This is what the Feeneyites pretend. The teaching of Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, and that of the Holy Office in 1949 were only reinforcing the dogma, "outside the Church, no salvation."

John Lane is correct, the main threat has never been to EENS, Vatican II has been a direct attack against the nature of the Church. Vatican II makes EENS meaningless, as the Church is no longer an Ark with those inside and those outside.

Vatican II theology makes the Church like an onion, with the center being the Catholic Church, the closest layer to the center, the eastern schismatics, followed by Protestants, then by the Muslims and Jews, and then all "believers." All within the onion can be saved, but those not within the center lack the fullness of the truth.

The difference between the teaching of Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office under him is that they clearly taught the exclusivity of the Church. Baptism of Desire does not contradict with the nature and exclusivity of the Church. It is invisible, and those in this category are known only to God. The Catholic Church is the only means of salvation, all other religions are false and a means of damnation.

In your world, aside from Trads and those who profess EENS, who else is outside of the Church through no fault of their own?

SJB · « **Reply #9 on:** January 18, 2014, 09:15:01 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: bowler
Quote from: Stubborn
How is it possible that anyone, particularly learned men cannot grasp the clear reality of that last sentence? "If they qualify it in any way, their whole position becomes inconsistent to the point of being self-contradictory."

They have no common sense. Have you tried to read Karl Rahner? You or I read one page and we throw it in the garbage. Meanwhile, the clergy ate it up, it was like chocolate to them. There is some flaw in the mind of certain people that makes them admirers of writers who write in a way that these people can't understand. They just turn themselves over to it.

Maybe we require things to be mechanically ordered, like we have an engineers mind? While they just see scattered objects? I've never figured out their idolizing of confusion and disorder.

It's still often strikes me as phenomenal that the dogma is obliterated by men who are otherwise supposed to have some smarts.

And I'm not talking about NOers or those who still suffer from their years of indoctrination and embracing the NO like LoT and presumably Ambrose and SJB - I'm talking about people like Lane and +Sanborn who are beating the wind with any argument they have against the NO, anti-popes, new mass, belonging to the Church and etc. because far as they're concerned, belonging to the Church means everyone who follows the dictates of their conscience makes them members of the Church by desire anyway - by that thinking, many are saved and few if any are lost.

If they only stop for just 3 short seconds out of their whole day to consider that if there is salvation outside the Church then there is no need to be concerned about if the pope is the pope or the Mass is the Mass or if heresy is heresy or anything that has anything to do with faithfully preaching and adhering to the dogma.

It's madness on their part because they remain willfully blind to the fact that "If they qualify it [the dogma] in any way, their whole position becomes inconsistent to the point of being self-contradictory."

From your posts here, it is certain that you do not have an engineer's mind.

Also, you still have no concept of what membership means nor are you able to make proper distinctions.

Alcuin · « **Reply #10 on:** January 18, 2014, 09:24:04 AM »

Quote from: SJB

you still have no concept of what membership means nor are you able to make proper distinctions.

What does membership mean?

2Vermont · « **Reply #11 on:** January 18, 2014, 09:38:11 AM »

Why can't it be both?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #12 on:** January 18, 2014, 12:38:34 PM »

Sorry, but Lane doesn't know what he's talking about. Soteriology and Ecclesiology are basically inseparable.

Ambrose · « **Reply #13 on:** January 18, 2014, 01:23:54 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: soulguard
No, he's wrong. When the church lost its exclusive product it lost the game. Simple psych.

The Church never lost its "exclusive product." This is what the Feeneyites pretend. The teaching of Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, and that of the Holy Office in 1949 were only reinforcing the dogma, "outside the Church, no salvation."

John Lane is correct, the main threat has never been to EENS, Vatican II has been a direct attack against the nature of the Church. Vatican II makes EENS meaningless, as the Church is no longer an Ark with those inside and those outside.

Vatican II theology makes the Church like an onion, with the center being the Catholic Church, the closest layer to the center, the eastern schismatics, followed by Protestants, then by the Muslims and Jews, and then all "believers." All within the onion can be saved, but those not within the center lack the fullness of the truth.

The difference between the teaching of Pope Pius XII and the Holy Office under him is that they clearly taught the exclusivity of the Church. Baptism of Desire does not contradict with the nature and exclusivity of the Church. It is invisible, and those in this category are known only to God. The Catholic Church is the only means of salvation, all other religions are false and a means of damnation.

In your world, aside from Trads and those who profess EENS, who else is outside of the Church through no fault of their own?

When did I say "trads" and those who profess EENS are outside the Church? If I believed that believing in EENS made one outside the Church, then I would have to believe that of myself, as I have constantly believed and defended this truth.

Your question is absurd.

Ambrose · « **Reply #14 on:** January 18, 2014, 01:25:08 PM »

Quote from: Alcuin

Quote from: SJB
you still have no concept of what membership means nor are you able to make proper distinctions.

What does membership mean?

Have you ever read Mystici Corporis of Pope Pius XII?