Author Topic: John Lane on the Real Cause of the Crisis (Read 10584 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #30 on:** January 20, 2014, 01:56:05 AM »

.

This is a very good post:

Quote from: Stubborn

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."

And this is a very good reply:

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

When the novus ordo publicly denied Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, that is the cause of this crisis.

When did they do that, you ask? Simple. When they declared other religions as having salvific nature and when the popes (you know which ones) publicly expressed their belief that Jєωs do not need to convert to be saved.

However, I think Fr. Feeney was WAY WAY WAY ahead of the curve on this issue because denying any portion of EENS is just like saying Our Lord was just using dramatic hyperbole when He said He was the Way, the Truth and the Light and that no one comes to the Father except thru Him.

I am the way, the truth and the light. No one comes to the Father but through me.

-- But doesn't someone come through Jesus by some vague longing even though he has never heard the Gospel, but has miraculously achieved perfect contrition and informed by charity, even though he has never heard contrition preached or charity explained?

-- But the truth is relative! Albert Einstein proved that with college algebra.

-- Certainly "the way" can have two lanes, or perhaps a detour or two!

-- Jesus is "the light," to be sure, and what then is enlightenment of the Tibetan masters? Didn't Jesus travel to the Himalayas in his early twenties?

Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life in you... For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed... If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever... The bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world... He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him.

-- But, wasn't Our Lord speaking figuratively? I mean, come ON! How are we supposed to believe THAT, literally?

-- Doesn't he really mean that he is the WORD of God, and what he SAYS is our Bread, because he said elsewhere that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.

-- Surely he does not mean we must drink his blood! What does he think we are, vampires? Chupacavras?

-- He didn't say, Except you eat the LITERAL flesh of the Son of man and LITERALLY drink his blood, did he?

-- Now how can the ignorant noble native on a desert island eat this bread and drink this blood when he has never heard of it or seen it or imagined it? Certainly God is not OPPOSED to the ignorant noble natives of the world!!

-- How can one man ABIDE inside another, unless this is like when he says that we must be BORN AGAIN, and so return into the womb of our mothers to abide there and be born another time!

-- &c.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #31 on:** January 20, 2014, 03:36:59 AM »

"The Traditional Dominicans in France ~ Interview with Father Pierre Marie, Prior of Dominican Community in Avrille."

CFN March 2013 (I typed a summary and pressed the wrong key and my post was erased.)

In this interview Fr. explains how the Council adopted the errors of the French Revolution, "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," giving them ecclesiastical camoflage: religious liberty, collegiality, ecuмenism.

Fr. goes on to identify the Council docuмents that contain these errors and contrasts them with the pre-Vat.II doctrine of the Church that condemns the same errors!

When John Lane quips that the present crisis is NOT due to anyone's denial of EENS (as if there is no one doing so!!!), but rather ONLY due to someone's (notice he can't bother to say WHOSE) "misrepresentation of the nature of the Church," he makes the mistake of trying to distinguish between two aspects of the same cause.

While he says that denial of EENS is not a cause, but misrepresentation of the nature of the Church is the only cause, he fails to see that the latter is a subset of the former. That is, you cannot have a misrepresentation of the nature of the Church without also having a denial of the doctrine EENS.

Certainly Vat.II misrepresents the nature of the Church, such as in SC 8 where it says that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. But that's not the only cause of the crisis, because it is one of the three major divisions of error, namely that of ecuмenism.

There is more to the crisis than merely a misrepresentation of the nature of the Church, as if that isn't bad enough. This is indeed a monster, but it's a monster with at least three heads!

False ecuмenism is only one category. There is also religious liberty and false collegiality.

And these things are not altogether free of touching on the misrepresentation of the Church. The power and infallibility of the Pope in his condemnation of error is inherent in false collegiality, but John Lane's "misrepresentation of the nature of the Church" makes no specific reference to that. He's probably afraid he might offend someone on his side! What's that called? False ecuмenism? Here he is saying false ecuмenism has caused the crisis, and there he goes, practicing false ecuмenism himself, practically in the same breath!

Does he deny that the abandonment of papal condemnation of error since October 11th, 1962 has been one of the causes of the current crisis in the Church? While the suspension of this power of the Keys has played a major role in the crisis, it can hardly be said that "misrepresentation of the nature of the Church" describes this suspension of this power.

But he doesn't leave it there. No, Lane has the myopic temerity to blame Fr. Feeney and his followers for all the problems of Vat.II, as if he (and they!) were the CAUSE of the crisis, and the crisis is God's way of punishing them for being so malicious as to come out in defense of the thrice-defined dogma, "outside the Church there is no salvation." Now how's that for 'creative' thinking?!?!

Perhaps his next wacko theory will be that the priests and Faithful of the Resistance are being PUNISHED for their whistle-blowing by the crisis in the SSPX, but the crisis itself isn't caused by the things the Resistance claims it is, oh, no!

It's caused by a misrepresentation of the nature of the Society of St. Pius X! Of course, not a word about WHO is doing the 'misrepresentation'!

.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #32 on:** January 20, 2014, 08:42:08 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Last I checked Pius XII ruled the Church, and he through the Holy Office told Catholics what to believe.

Yes, the same Pius XII who set the ball rolling on 90% of what ended up in Vatican II, from his episcopal appointments (not a few modernist V2 "Fathers" in the ranks), to his setting up Bugnini and authorizing liturgical experimentation ("Mass of the Future" anyone?), to opening the floodgates on evolution, to opening the floodgates on Natural Birth Control, to opening the floodgates on ecuмenism (Fastiggi in the Sanborn debate points to the fact that Pius XII approved several ecuмenical conferences and gatherings which were entirely like their V2 counterparts), to opening the floodgates on religious indifferentism and the denial of EENS.

Pius XII also refused to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

His was THE watershed papacy that led right up into Vatican II. Stop this silly papalatry that would have us believe that Pius XII was some kind of inspired oracle from God.

2Vermont · « **Reply #33 on:** January 20, 2014, 10:15:56 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ambrose
Last I checked Pius XII ruled the Church, and he through the Holy Office told Catholics what to believe.

Yes, the same Pius XII who set the ball rolling on 90% of what ended up in Vatican II, from his episcopal appointments (not a few modernist V2 "Fathers" in the ranks), to his setting up Bugnini and authorizing liturgical experimentation ("Mass of the Future" anyone?), to opening the floodgates on evolution, to opening the floodgates on Natural Birth Control, to opening the floodgates on ecuмenism (Fastiggi in the Sanborn debate points to the fact that Pius XII approved several ecuмenical conferences and gatherings which were entirely like their V2 counterparts), to opening the floodgates on religious indifferentism and the denial of EENS.

Pius XII also refused to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

His was THE watershed papacy that led right up into Vatican II. Stop this silly papalatry that would have us believe that Pius XII was some kind of inspired oracle from God.

Wow. According to you, Pius XII did more harm than good. With this much heresy and error, would you consider Pius XII an anti-pope? If he was the one that opened the floodgates of VII wouldn't you have to include him among the anti-popes?

Thurifer · « **Reply #34 on:** January 20, 2014, 10:34:40 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.

This statement seems to be off the the mark from the word go.

Isn't the denial of the Dogma EENS "a misrepresentation of the nature of the Church" in itself? Back to the drawing board, Mr. Lane.

Truth be told I think this dogma that is denied is a very big problem. But I don't fret over it, nor do I think I have to defend it and get into the nitty gritty. What is good enough for me is that Father Feeney taught the Faith like no one else. His biggest problem was that he was converting Brahmin elites from Harvard University.

The last think I will say is that water is pretty much everywhere. It's not some kind of rare substance like gold or uranium. My take is simple, if you desire to be baptized, God will supply the water. In that same vein, is it really necessary to pick on the Feeneyites because they suggest everyone ought to be baptized? It's a good idea, is it not?

Most would say that it is a first step. Why the resistance if the suggestion comes from the St. Benedict Center?

No need to over think this, Folks.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #35 on:** January 20, 2014, 10:48:09 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Ambrose
Last I checked Pius XII ruled the Church, and he through the Holy Office told Catholics what to believe.

Yes, the same Pius XII who set the ball rolling on 90% of what ended up in Vatican II, from his episcopal appointments (not a few modernist V2 "Fathers" in the ranks), to his setting up Bugnini and authorizing liturgical experimentation ("Mass of the Future" anyone?), to opening the floodgates on evolution, to opening the floodgates on Natural Birth Control, to opening the floodgates on ecuмenism (Fastiggi in the Sanborn debate points to the fact that Pius XII approved several ecuмenical conferences and gatherings which were entirely like their V2 counterparts), to opening the floodgates on religious indifferentism and the denial of EENS.

Pius XII also refused to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

His was THE watershed papacy that led right up into Vatican II. Stop this silly papalatry that would have us believe that Pius XII was some kind of inspired oracle from God.

Wow. According to you, Pius XII did more harm than good. With this much heresy and error, would you consider Pius XII an anti-pope? If he was the one that opened the floodgates of VII wouldn't you have to include him among the anti-popes?

Pope Pius XII could not be considered an anti-Pope without really straining all constraints but it is not unreasonable to conclude that he did do more harm than good. In fact, I think the historical record makes that conclusion to be a solid one.

Now, back on topic....

(1) EENS is dogma,

(2) Our Lord said that unless one was born with water and the Holy Ghost, then one could not enter into Heaven.

Like Thurifer said, let's not over think this. It is wisely straightforward.

The energy spent trying to find an end around EENS would be better spent praying for souls of the dead, rosaries and novenas and having masses said for the repose of their souls.

Ambrose · « **Reply #36 on:** January 20, 2014, 12:10:01 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Quote from: 2Vermont
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Ambrose
Last I checked Pius XII ruled the Church, and he through the Holy Office told Catholics what to believe.

Yes, the same Pius XII who set the ball rolling on 90% of what ended up in Vatican II, from his episcopal appointments (not a few modernist V2 "Fathers" in the ranks), to his setting up Bugnini and authorizing liturgical experimentation ("Mass of the Future" anyone?), to opening the floodgates on evolution, to opening the floodgates on Natural Birth Control, to opening the floodgates on ecuмenism (Fastiggi in the Sanborn debate points to the fact that Pius XII approved several ecuмenical conferences and gatherings which were entirely like their V2 counterparts), to opening the floodgates on religious indifferentism and the denial of EENS.

Pius XII also refused to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

His was THE watershed papacy that led right up into Vatican II. Stop this silly papalatry that would have us believe that Pius XII was some kind of inspired oracle from God.

Wow. According to you, Pius XII did more harm than good. With this much heresy and error, would you consider Pius XII an anti-pope? If he was the one that opened the floodgates of VII wouldn't you have to include him among the anti-popes?

Pope Pius XII could not be considered an anti-Pope without really straining all constraints but it is not unreasonable to conclude that he did do more harm than good. In fact, I think the historical record makes that conclusion to be a solid one.

Now, back on topic....

(1) EENS is dogma,

(2) Our Lord said that unless one was born with water and the Holy Ghost, then one could not enter into Heaven.

Like Thurifer said, let's not over think this. It is wisely straightforward.

The energy spent trying to find an end around EENS would be better spent praying for souls of the dead, rosaries and novenas and having masses said for the repose of their souls.

Captain,

No one is trying to end run EENS. Baptism of Desire is also a dogma of the Faith and must equally be believed.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #37 on:** January 20, 2014, 01:34:37 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

The energy spent trying to find an end around EENS would be better spent praying for souls of the dead, rosaries and novenas and having masses said for the repose of their souls.

Thank you. That's been the point of my last few posts. If I am asked whether non-Catholics can be saved, my answer and my thinking on the subject is an unequivocal "No." As Our Lord taught, let our speech be "Yes. Yes. No. No." Any further prevarication is from the devil.

I teach my children that only Catholics can go to heaven. Period. I don't teach them about the bzillion possible exceptions regarding baptism of this, that, or the other thing. They have no relevance to anything. These speculations do NOTHING but harm belief in EENS and lead to religious indifferentism and Vatican II ecclesiology.

Period. Simple Catholics in reading a dogmatic definition that there's "absolutely no salvation outside the Church" are not expected to regurgitate five paragraphs of "explanation" which essentially turns the dogma into nothing and a laughing-stock to non-Catholics. Whenever I am asked whether Protestants can be saved, I simply answer "No, they cannot ... not unless they convert first to the Catholic faith."

Ladislaus · « **Reply #38 on:** January 20, 2014, 01:37:04 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Baptism of Desire is also a dogma of the Faith and must equally be believed.

Bovine Excrement, Ambrose.

1) there's never been any dogmatic definition of BoD
2) it cannot be shown that BoD is either unanimously taught by the Church Fathers or derives from other Church dogma implicitly by way of syllogism (requirements for something being a dogma)

Consequently, BoD CAN NEVER BE DEFINED as dogma, even if the Church has tolerated the opinion (rooted as it is in nothing but speculative theology based on emotional reasoning).

Cantarella · « **Reply #39 on:** January 20, 2014, 01:46:41 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Captain,

No one is trying to end run EENS. Baptism of Desire is also a dogma of the Faith and must equally be believed.

Except that now the modernists want to make membership in the Church, something vague, abstract, and invisible. Typical liberal modernist mindset where there is no absolute truths but everything is relative. As a result, those in false religions can also be saved! An absurdity that is in direct opposition to what it has been infallibly defined throughout the centuries: The Catholic dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

THE INFALLIBLE DOGMA OF EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

"There is only one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved." (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215)

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, in the bull, Unam Sanctam, 1302)

"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches, that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but Jєωs, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire 'prepared for the devil, and his angels' (Mt. 25:41)., unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church; also that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is such that the Church's sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church, and that fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of piety which play their part in the Christian combat are in her alone productive of eternal rewards; moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Mansi, Concilia, xxxi, 1739; Pope Eugene IV, in the bull, Cantate Domino, 1441).

The implications of these pronouncements, taken together, are as follows:

1. All three of these statements are ex cathedra definitions of the Church and of the Pontiffs who made them. (Ex cathedra means that these are infallible teachings of the Church which all persons must believe in order to be saved. These teachings are not subject to change as the popes in making these declarations of faith were guided by the Holy Ghost, Who is unchangeable.)

2. Let the reader accept the reasonable fact that the Pontiffs who pronounced these decrees were perfectly literate and fully cognizant of what they were saying. If there were any need to soften or qualify their meanings, they were quite capable of doing so. They were not regarded as heretics or fanatics at the time of their pronouncements, and have never been labeled such by the Church to this very day. It is an easy thing for the people of this "enlightened" age to fall into the modern delusion that the men of former times, especially those of the Middle Ages, were not as bright as we are, so that they sometimes said they know not what.

3. Since the aforementioned formula (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus) is a doctrine of Catholicity, it is the standard of orthodoxy on the subject of salvation; which is to say, all writers, whether they be saints and/or Doctors, of old or of late, all popes and theologians, of whatever era, and their pronouncements are reliable in their treatment of this subject, if they accept and support it. Their testimony or opinions are useless (at best), if they do not, this regardless of any other contribution they may have made to Catholic erudition. The same must be said of the works of all Catholic writers.

4. Such a dogmatic statement is not to be colored, or reduced, or altered, by reference to the Sacred Scriptures. On the contrary, it is in terms of such a statement that all the Scriptures are to be read and understood.

5. The doctrine determines who has good will and who has bad will. Those who have bad will are in the state of sin. In rejecting God's accredited word and work, they reveal their true selves: They choose not to be among those of whom Christ spoke when he said: "I know mine, and mine know me." (Jn. 10:14). When it is responded that certain individuals do not know that what they are hearing is God's word, the reply is: What is being said demands that careful inquiry be made. If the inquiry is made with the disposition of humility, integrity, and courage, the inquirer will find that the word cannot be denied. No argument or evidence has ever been discovered which will leave the honest man free of the revealed word's imperative.

6. It is important that the reader who thinks he disagrees with the literal reading of these decrees not throw his hands up in indignation and put this paper aside. It should be obvious that the reason Catholics regard heresy with such horror and alarm is this very doctrine. For if there is salvation outside the Church, what difference does it make whether one is in the Church or out of It, whether one is a heretic in the judgment of the Church or not? Really, if to deny this doctrine is not heresy, there is no such thing as heresy, and it would have been pointless, as well as illogical, for the Church to attach such severe censures to the denial of this or any other doctrine.

7. This dogma rules out the possibility of simple invincible ignorance concerning the matter of salvation; those who die in ignorance of the Church as the only course of salvific grace must be adjudged to have been culpably so. In a word, they did not know because they did not want to know.

From http://www.olrl.org/doctrine/execnusa.shtml

bowler · « **Reply #40 on:** January 20, 2014, 02:24:37 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ambrose
Last I checked Pius XII ruled the Church, and he through the Holy Office told Catholics what to believe.

From another thread where Ambrose is also bringing up the same identical subject of Pius XII and Fr. Feeney:

Quote from: bowler

Quote from: Ambrose
Their duty was not to call into question the approved catechisms of the Church or cause Catholics to doubt the constant teaching of the Church on Baptism of Desire and Blood. Their duty was not to set up a compound in Still River, MA outside of the jurisdiction of the local ordinary.

Their actions were scandalous and the Holy Office noticed it: they were harming souls inside and outside of the Church.

That's just your opinion. This is one of those subjects that any idiot can chime in on and discuss forever, for it requires no education or study. It has nothing to do with EENS, it just gives no nothings end runners like yourself a chance to feel good about "contributing evidence" and avoiding the real threads on the subject like the threads:

- Quotes that BODers Say Must Not be Understood as Written
- Justification by BOD and Being Born Again
- St. Alphonsus BOD Defide Canard

SJB · « **Reply #41 on:** January 20, 2014, 02:35:14 PM »

Quote from: CMcQ

The energy spent trying to find an end around EENS would be better spent praying for souls of the dead, rosaries and novenas and having masses said for the repose of their souls.

There's no point in praying for a soul that is lost, and it could be a source of real scandal. If a person must die as a formal member of the Church (baptised, not subject to excommunication, not separated by heresy or schism), then you cannot pray for them as they are certain to be lost.

So why do you suggest this?

Quote from: Pope Pius XII

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.

Alcuin · « **Reply #42 on:** April 14, 2014, 06:48:52 AM »

Quote from: Alcuin

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Alcuin
Quote from: Alcuin
Quote from: Ambrose
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?

Yes, in particular para.30:

Quote
On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head of His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles";[38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members; it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been untied to this Mystical Body through the waters of Baptism except by the salutary virtue of the Cross, by which they had been already brought under the complete sway of Christ.

36. Jerome and Augustine, Epist. CXII, 14 and CXVI, 16: Migne, P.L., XXII, 924 and 943; St. Thos., I-II, q. 103, a. 3, ad 2; a. 4; ad 1; Council of Flor. pro Jacob.: Mansi, XXXI, 1738.

37. Cf. II Cor., III, 6.

38. Cf. St. Thos. III, q. 42, a. 1.

Christ's Church are the members of His Mystical Body.

The word member is from the Latin membrum meaning limb or part.

And if you can be inside the Church without being a member than the Church can no longer be referred to as a body.

Quote
One wondered if the image of the Mystical Body might be too narrow a starting point to define the many forms of belonging to the Church now found in the tangle of human history. If we use the image of a body to describe "belonging" we are limited only to the form of representation as "member". Either one is or one is not a member, there are no other possibilities. One can then ask if the image of the body was too restrictive, since there manifestly existed in reality intermediate degrees of belonging.

The Ecclesiology of Vatican II
Ratzinger 2001

The Church is a body, it is a visible society of those who are baptized and profess the true Faith. Only those who meet this definition are members.

Yes, the Church is a body and only her members are parts of it. There's no other way of being inside the Church. If there is then the concept of a body is found wanting as Ratzinger pointed out.

Therefore non-members are outside the Church.

Nishant · « **Reply #43 on:** April 14, 2014, 07:38:03 AM »

The classic example of those who are saved as non-members while being internally united are the Gentile just in the age before Christ, non-members of Israel (which prefigured the Church) but internally united to Her. St. Augustine and other Fathers teach this expressly.

Both MCC and the Holy Office Letter clearly indicate those "by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer" are inside the Church and that grace interiorly moves them, since the Pope asks "each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace" though desire does not give the assurance that sins have been forgiven, "that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation". How do you explain, Alcuin, how those who are related to the Mystical body only by desire can have an interior movement of grace, if they are not in the state of grace? And if they are in the state of grace, how can they be outside the Church?

Ambrose · « **Reply #44 on:** April 14, 2014, 01:03:57 PM »

Quote from: Alcuin

Quote from: Alcuin
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Alcuin
Quote from: Alcuin
Quote from: Ambrose
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?

Yes, in particular para.30:

Quote
On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head of His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles";[38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members; it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been untied to this Mystical Body through the waters of Baptism except by the salutary virtue of the Cross, by which they had been already brought under the complete sway of Christ.

36. Jerome and Augustine, Epist. CXII, 14 and CXVI, 16: Migne, P.L., XXII, 924 and 943; St. Thos., I-II, q. 103, a. 3, ad 2; a. 4; ad 1; Council of Flor. pro Jacob.: Mansi, XXXI, 1738.

37. Cf. II Cor., III, 6.

38. Cf. St. Thos. III, q. 42, a. 1.

Christ's Church are the members of His Mystical Body.

The word member is from the Latin membrum meaning limb or part.

And if you can be inside the Church without being a member than the Church can no longer be referred to as a body.

Quote
One wondered if the image of the Mystical Body might be too narrow a starting point to define the many forms of belonging to the Church now found in the tangle of human history. If we use the image of a body to describe "belonging" we are limited only to the form of representation as "member". Either one is or one is not a member, there are no other possibilities. One can then ask if the image of the body was too restrictive, since there manifestly existed in reality intermediate degrees of belonging.

The Ecclesiology of Vatican II
Ratzinger 2001

The Church is a body, it is a visible society of those who are baptized and profess the true Faith. Only those who meet this definition are members.

Yes, the Church is a body and only her members are parts of it. There's no other way of being inside the Church. If there is then the concept of a body is found wanting as Ratzinger pointed out.

Therefore non-members are outside the Church.

No, not necessarily, if they meet the conditions of Baptism of Desire, they are then united through BoD.