Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: ajpirc on July 01, 2011, 07:59:29 AM
-
As everybody knows, the Second Vatican Council was the only Ecuмenical Council in Church history that never defined dogma infallibly. Here is Pope Paul VI:
“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority."
So because the Council's words were not protected by the Holy Spirit, false doctrine, especially Modernist doctrine, can be present in the Council's docuмents.
Lumen Gentium, a Vatican II docuмent which was promulgated by Pope Paul VI, is Vatican II's teaching on the Church. Here is a part from it that gets many traditionalists riled up:
This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.
"This Church...subsists in the Catholic Church." The Church has always taught that She is this Church.
Pope John Paul II says this in Ut unum sint:
Indeed, the elements of sanctification and truth present in the other Christian Communities, in a degree which varies from one to the other, constitute the objective basis of the communion, albeit imperfect, which exists between them and the Catholic Church.
According to Vatican II and Pope John Paul II, different elements of the Church also subsist in the "Christian Communities" of our "seperated bretheren". This sounds like the Protestant teaching that the Church is made up of all who believe in Christ no matter what denomination on belongs to. Hey! weren't there Protestants at Vatican II and even some on the comitees?
My question here today is, is Lumen Gentium a heretical docuмent that Protestants and Modernists put together to bring an end to the Church?
Thank You
-
FWIW, the principal author of LG was....
Karol Wojtyla (JP2).
There have been volumes written about this issue, some defending it and some attacking it.
For my part, this is a clearly radical departure from what the Church has always taught about herself.
Pax and welcome to the site :)
-
My question here today is, is Lumen Gentium a heretical docuмent that ... Modernists put together to bring an end to the Church?
Yes :)
FWIW, even if such was NOT the express goal, the results speak for themselves.
-
Could you go into detail on what is meant by this heresy? I have a clue about it, but don't completely understand.
-
I'd be happy to do so, but I will not be able to do so today. Thank you for your patience :)
-
Could you go into detail on what is meant by this heresy? I have a clue about it, but don't completely understand.
The pantheon of Assisi.
It is an attempt to tear down the borders of the Church as a visible society and describe her as a 'semi-visible' entity in communion with the numerous sects of perdition in the world. This was the intention behind the deliberately ambigious language used.
It is a very grievous error condemned by the Catholic Church. St. Paul declared that there can be no communion possible between Christ and belial, light and darkness.
-
It is an attempt to tear down the borders of the Church as a visible society and describe her as a 'semi-visible' entity in communion with the numerous sects of perdition in the world. This was the intention behind the deliberately ambigious language used.
Was this part of Vatican II's "ecuмenism" techniques to show Protestants that we've changed and that we believe in the "church" that they believe as a federation of Christian communities?
This ecuмenism that we've shifted to to promote "Christian unity" is a joke. I don't think the Church should be involved with any Protestants to promote a so-called "Christian-unity". The only Christian unity is that where heretics rejoin the Church. I think that was Pope St. Pius X that said that, but I might be wrong.
Did the Church always call Protestants heretics up until Vatican II? I know that now we call them our "seperated bretheren" but that's probably because calling someone a heretic would be politically incorrect and could hurt their feelings.
-
Was this part of Vatican II's "ecuмenism" techniques to show Protestants that we've changed and that we believe in the "church" that they believe as a federation of Christian communities?
If I understand Joseph Ratzinger's way of thinking correctly, he would like to have a communion between what he perceives to be the catholic Church and the numerous heretical and schismatical sects that claim to be part of Christendom, with the 'catholic part' as the head of this pseudo-communion.
The thought alone is monstrous and foreign to apostolic tradition, because the Roman Catholic Church alone is the spotless Bride of Christ and she does not share her sacred chambers with bondwomen (the non-catholic sects).
-
Good topic ajpirc. I'll be tuning in for answers to your questions.
My No friends who praise LG also use this "unity" word often. A connection I just thought of.
the smart sheep
-
Does anybody know of any docuмents that explain the Church's view toward Catholic interaction with heretics, I mean "seperated bretheren"?
I know the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X tells us what we should have done when a Protestant hands us a Bible:
32 Q. What should a Christian do who has been given a Bible by a Protestant or by an agent of the Protestants?A. A Christian to whom a Bible has been offered by a Protestant or an agent of the Protestants should reject it with disgust, because it is forbidden by the Church. If it was accepted by inadvertence, it must be burnt as soon as possible or handed in to the Parish Priest.
Now-a-days, the Church probably encourages us to read the King James Version to show Protestants that we respect their religion.
-
It might help to read Mortalium animos...
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM
-
Does anybody know of any docuмents that explain the Church's view toward Catholic interaction with heretics, I mean "seperated bretheren"?
On the Unity of the Church, which defines the true concept of unity as held by the Catholic Church. This encyclical is most effective in condemning the foul concepts contained in this blashpemous docuмent. There are no separated brethren, there is no partial or imperfect communion with the Church, there are no ecclessial communities, there are only the one true Church and sects and pagans. One is in the Church, or one is out. The fact that such false and scurrulous assertions could be made in the so called council, easily proves its deficiency and un-Catholic nature.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13satis.htm
-
It might help to read Mortalium animos...
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11MORTA.HTM
+a million
Can everyone please read this if you haven't ? And even if you have, read it again to understand why "Un1tY" as proclaimed by modernists is never going to work in the Kingdom of God.
-
Thank you for the help!!
I hear many people say that subsistit in in Lumen Gentium wasn't intentional. Is this true?
-
Were there any Protestants that were involved in writing Lumen Gentium? I know there were many Protestants at the Second Vatican Council. I think there were 6 of "seperated bretheren" Novus Ordo with Fr. Bugnini.
-
I hear many people say that subsistit in in Lumen Gentium wasn't intentional. Is this true?
Did you mean to include all of the words quoted immediately above?
If so, how likely do you think it is that a word made it into such a docuмent, and has not been removed after 45 years?
FWIW, although you make mention of "many people", I hope nobody makes such an irrational claim.
-
A great part of Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum:
Another head like to Christ must be invented - that is, another Christ - if besides the one Church, which is His body, men wish to set up another. "See what you must beware of - see what you must avoid - see what you must dread. It happens that, as in the human body, some member may be cut off - a hand, a finger, a foot. Does the soul follow the amputated member? As long as it was in the body, it lived; separated, it forfeits its life. So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic - the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member" (S. Augustinus, Sermo cclxvii., n. 4).
I think this goes along with the contradictions made by Vatican II and the conciliar Church's teachings.
Another head like to Christ must be invented - that is, another Christ - if besides the one Church, which is His body, men wish to set up another.
Protestants who don't belong to Christ's True Body and have invented a new Christ and a new head do not have the True Lord. Pope Benedict XVI said something relating to an "invented Christ":
A slogan that was popular some years back, "Jesus yes, Church no," is totally inconceivable with the intention of Christ. This individualistically chosen Jesus is an imaginary Jesus.
Without the Catholic Church, we are without the Christ. Without the Catholic Church, one's Jesus is an imposter and a false prophet that the real Jesus warns us of in The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Matthew (Chapter 7):
15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
They come under the clothing of sheep, as the Lamb of God, but they are really the wolves of heresy, the wolves that take the sheep away from the flock and divide the sheep into 30,000 false flocks.
It happens that, as in the human body, some member may be cut off - a hand, a finger, a foot. Does the soul follow the amputated member? As long as it was in the body, it lived; separated, it forfeits its life.
The soul of the human body can be likened to the sanctifying Soul of Christ's Body which is the Holy Spirit. The sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit does not follow the amputated (excommunicated) members of the Body. Those "ecclesial communities" as Vatican II calls them do not have the Holy Spirit's sanctification because the soul doesn't follow an amputated body part.
These teachings of Pope Leo XIII were contradicted by Vatican II's teachings in Lumen Gentium:
This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.
[/quote]So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic - the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member.
Christians who are not Catholic do not live in the Body. They are heretics if they are seperated from the Body and they don't receive the sanctifyication of the Holy Spirit unless they reunite themselves with the Body.
As I typed this, I was thinking about other Catholic teachings that subsistit in contradicts. It sounds like it also contradicts the Church's Tradition on "no salvation outside of the Church. Prior to Vatican II, there was no sanctification of the Holy Spirit outside of the Catholic Church, now there is? I now understand how subsistit in promotes the liberal Catholic, Modernist, and Protestant teaching of "universal salvation."
If any of what I typed is wrong, please correct me.
Thank you.
-
A great part of Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum:
Another head like to Christ must be invented - that is, another Christ - if besides the one Church, which is His body, men wish to set up another. "See what you must beware of - see what you must avoid - see what you must dread. It happens that, as in the human body, some member may be cut off - a hand, a finger, a foot. Does the soul follow the amputated member? As long as it was in the body, it lived; separated, it forfeits its life. So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic - the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member" (S. Augustinus, Sermo cclxvii., n. 4).
I think this goes along with the contradictions made by Vatican II and the conciliar Church's teachings.
Another head like to Christ must be invented - that is, another Christ - if besides the one Church, which is His body, men wish to set up another.
Protestants who don't belong to Christ's True Body and have invented a new Christ and a new head do not have the True Lord. Pope Benedict XVI said something relating to an "invented Christ":
A slogan that was popular some years back, "Jesus yes, Church no," is totally inconceivable with the intention of Christ. This individualistically chosen Jesus is an imaginary Jesus.
Without the Catholic Church, we are without the Christ. Without the Catholic Church, one's Jesus is an imposter and a false prophet that the real Jesus warns us of in The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Matthew (Chapter 7):
15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
They come under the clothing of sheep, as the Lamb of God, but they are really the wolves of heresy, the wolves that take the sheep away from the flock and divide the sheep into 30,000 false flocks.
It happens that, as in the human body, some member may be cut off - a hand, a finger, a foot. Does the soul follow the amputated member? As long as it was in the body, it lived; separated, it forfeits its life.
The soul of the human body can be likened to the sanctifying Soul of Christ's Body which is the Holy Spirit. The sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit does not follow the amputated (excommunicated) members of the Body. Those "ecclesial communities" as Vatican II calls them do not have the Holy Spirit's sanctification because the soul doesn't follow an amputated body part.
These teachings of Pope Leo XIII were contradicted by Vatican II's teachings in Lumen Gentium:
This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.
[/quote]So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic - the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member.
Christians who are not Catholic do not live in the Body. They are heretics if they are seperated from the Body and they don't receive the sanctifyication of the Holy Spirit unless they reunite themselves with the Body.
As I typed this, I was thinking about other Catholic teachings that subsistit in contradicts. It sounds like it also contradicts the Church's Tradition on "no salvation outside of the Church. Prior to Vatican II, there was no sanctification of the Holy Spirit outside of the Catholic Church, now there is? I now understand how subsistit in promotes the liberal Catholic, Modernist, and Protestant teaching of "universal salvation."
If any of what I typed is wrong, please correct me.
Thank you.
-
Sorry about the deja vu with the post above.
I don't know what happened with the quotes, italics, underlines, etc.
Sorry if it's hard to read.
-
"Improved" post from ajpric...
A great part of Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum:
Another head like to Christ must be invented - that is, another Christ - if besides the one Church, which is His body, men wish to set up another. "See what you must beware of - see what you must avoid - see what you must dread. It happens that, as in the human body, some member may be cut off - a hand, a finger, a foot. Does the soul follow the amputated member? As long as it was in the body, it lived; separated, it forfeits its life. So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic - the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member" (S. Augustinus, Sermo cclxvii., n. 4).
I think this goes along with the contradictions made by Vatican II and the conciliar Church's teachings.
Another head like to Christ must be invented - that is, another Christ - if besides the one Church, which is His body, men wish to set up another.
Protestants who don't belong to Christ's True Body and have invented a new Christ and a new head do not have the True Lord. Pope Benedict XVI said something relating to an "invented Christ":
A slogan that was popular some years back, "Jesus yes, Church no," is totally inconceivable with the intention of Christ. This individualistically chosen Jesus is an imaginary Jesus.
Without the Catholic Church, we are without the Christ. Without the Catholic Church, one's Jesus is an imposter and a false prophet that the real Jesus warns us of in The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Matthew (Chapter 7):
15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
They come under the clothing of sheep, as the Lamb of God, but they are really the wolves of heresy, the wolves that take the sheep away from the flock and divide the sheep into 30,000 false flocks.
It happens that, as in the human body, some member may be cut off - a hand, a finger, a foot. Does the soul follow the amputated member? As long as it was in the body, it lived; separated, it forfeits its life.
The soul of the human body can be likened to the sanctifying Soul of Christ's Body which is the Holy Spirit. The sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit does not follow the amputated (excommunicated) members of the Body. Those "ecclesial communities" as Vatican II calls them do not have the Holy Spirit's sanctification because the soul doesn't follow an amputated body part.
These teachings of Pope Leo XIII were contradicted by Vatican II's teachings in Lumen Gentium:
This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.
So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic - the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member.
Christians who are not Catholic do not live in the Body. They are heretics if they are seperated from the Body and they don't receive the sanctifyication of the Holy Spirit unless they reunite themselves with the Body.
As I typed this, I was thinking about other Catholic teachings that subsistit in contradicts. It sounds like it also contradicts the Church's Tradition on "no salvation outside of the Church. Prior to Vatican II, there was no sanctification of the Holy Spirit outside of the Catholic Church, now there is? I now understand how subsistit in promotes the liberal Catholic, Modernist, and Protestant teaching of "universal salvation."
If any of what I typed is wrong, please correct me.
Thank you.
-
I don't know what happened with the quotes, italics, underlines, etc.
It takes a little getting used to. I hope you don't mind, but I "fixed" your post.
-
Thank you gladius_veritatis
-
ajpirc, you are having some good insights into these encyclicals and I think you have a good head on your shoulders. Keep on going with this, and I really think God is working in you. Imagine if everyone in the novus ordo modern VatII church started reading about history, about what Popes of the past church have written, and what the Church has always proclaimed prior to the major publications in Vatican II... my eye grows a tear thinking of the beauty that could be in true unity of the real Faith.
Thanks gv for the editing of ajpirc's post too.
-
ajpirc, you are having some good insights into these encyclicals and I think you have a good head on your shoulders. Keep on going with this, and I really think God is working in you. Imagine if everyone in the novus ordo modern VatII church started reading about history, about what Popes of the past church have written, and what the Church has always proclaimed prior to the major publications in Vatican II... my eye grows a tear thinking of the beauty that could be in true unity of the real Faith.
Thanks gv for the editing of ajpirc's post too.
Thank you very much, PartyIsOver221.
If I posted that same thing over at Catholic Answers Forums, I'd probably be called a heretic. It's funny how they call Protestants our "seperated bretheren" because calling someone a heretic isn't the right thing to do, yet they'd call another Catholic a heretic for being traditional. They don't see anything wrong with someone being born into Protestantism, yet when someone is born into the SSPX, they call them schismatics? Very liberal views over there.
-
...there is no partial or imperfect communion with the Church...
This is also what confuses me. One enters the Church through Baptism, correct? Though a Protestant is outside of the Church, correct? How can a Protestant be baptized (enter into the Church), but still be outside of the Church?
I read on CAF earlier that Protestants are Catholics that don't know it and reject the Faith:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=577765 (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=577765) (2nd post)
-
Salvete omnes!
Sorry for intruding upon this discussion. The phrase "subsistit in" was entered into the text of Lumen Gentium at the suggestion of Sebastiaan Tromp, SJ, a Dutch thomist theologian who was Card. Ottaviani's assistant at the Council and who assisted in drafting the schemata for the Council (which were subsequently abandoned).
Hope this helps.
-
...there is no partial or imperfect communion with the Church...
This is also what confuses me. One enters the Church through Baptism, correct? Though a Protestant is outside of the Church, correct? How can a Protestant be baptized (enter into the Church), but still be outside of the Church?
I read on CAF earlier that Protestants are Catholics that don't know it and reject the Faith:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=577765 (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=577765) (2nd post)
Could I get an answer for this, please?
-
As far as I know, heretics can confect valid baptisms, but they remain fruitless until the baptised person enters the fold of the Catholic Church.
-
...there is no partial or imperfect communion with the Church...
This is also what confuses me. One enters the Church through Baptism, correct? Though a Protestant is outside of the Church, correct? How can a Protestant be baptized (enter into the Church), but still be outside of the Church?
I read on CAF earlier that Protestants are Catholics that don't know it and reject the Faith:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=577765 (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=577765) (2nd post)
Could I get an answer for this, please?
Sorry, I didn't see the question. Yes, anyone can do a valid baptism if he uses the proper form, water, and intends to do what the Church does. And such a child would be a Catholic until the age of reason, when he chooses to remain in the Church or leave for a sect etc.
The sacrament of Baptism is a Catholic sacrament. That is to say, that it belongs to, and is the property of the true Church.
When it is used illicitly outside of the Catholic Church it is valid but unlawful.
It is the Catholic sacrament abused by heretics. On the other hand if an adult is Baptized into an heretical sect then the Baptism is invalid as that is against the will of the Church and means that the intention was not to do as the Church does. Hence the person remains outside of the Church.
The use of the true Catholic sacrament obviously Baptizes one (an infant) into the Catholic Faith. That is what they are speaking to.
-
...there is no partial or imperfect communion with the Church...
This is also what confuses me. One enters the Church through Baptism, correct? Though a Protestant is outside of the Church, correct? How can a Protestant be baptized (enter into the Church), but still be outside of the Church?
I read on CAF earlier that Protestants are Catholics that don't know it and reject the Faith:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=577765 (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=577765) (2nd post)
Could I get an answer for this, please?
Sorry, I didn't see the question. Yes, anyone can do a valid baptism if he uses the proper form, water, and intends to do what the Church does. And such a child would be a Catholic until the age of reason, when he chooses to remain in the Church or leave for a sect etc.
The sacrament of Baptism is a Catholic sacrament. That is to say, that it belongs to, and is the property of the true Church.
When it is used illicitly outside of the Catholic Church it is valid but unlawful.
It is the Catholic sacrament abused by heretics. On the other hand if an adult is Baptized into an heretical sect then the Baptism is invalid as that is against the will of the Church and means that the intention was not to do as the Church does. Hence the person remains outside of the Church.
The use of the true Catholic sacrament obviously Baptizes one (an infant) into the Catholic Faith. That is what they are speaking to.
This was what I was thinking. Even though one is baptized doesn't mean they are always and forever in Christ's true Church. Once someone is baptized, they enter into the Catholic Church; at the time that they profess heresy as true faith, they leave the Church. Would this be correct?
-
...there is no partial or imperfect communion with the Church...
This is also what confuses me. One enters the Church through Baptism, correct? Though a Protestant is outside of the Church, correct? How can a Protestant be baptized (enter into the Church), but still be outside of the Church?
I read on CAF earlier that Protestants are Catholics that don't know it and reject the Faith:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=577765 (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=577765) (2nd post)
Could I get an answer for this, please?
Sorry, I didn't see the question. Yes, anyone can do a valid baptism if he uses the proper form, water, and intends to do what the Church does. And such a child would be a Catholic until the age of reason, when he chooses to remain in the Church or leave for a sect etc.
The sacrament of Baptism is a Catholic sacrament. That is to say, that it belongs to, and is the property of the true Church.
When it is used illicitly outside of the Catholic Church it is valid but unlawful.
It is the Catholic sacrament abused by heretics. On the other hand if an adult is Baptized into an heretical sect then the Baptism is invalid as that is against the will of the Church and means that the intention was not to do as the Church does. Hence the person remains outside of the Church.
The use of the true Catholic sacrament obviously Baptizes one (an infant) into the Catholic Faith. That is what they are speaking to.
This was what I was thinking. Even though one is baptized doesn't mean they are always and forever in Christ's true Church. Once someone is baptized, they enter into the Catholic Church; at the time that they profess heresy as true faith, they leave the Church. Would this be correct?
You've got it now! From Leo XIII canonizing the words of St Cyprian in the unity of the Church:
The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ, the Lord - leaving the path of salvation they enter on that of perdition. "Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ....He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation" (S. Cyprianus, De Cath. Eccl. Unitate, n. 6).
That is the lot of the sects, and not the blather which Lumen Gentium proposes about "separated brethren".
JMJ
-
Thank you, J.Paul
-
To my understanding, Catholics are the only people inside the Church. I have been confused for many months because those on CAF say all who have been baptized are inside the Church. Of course they have fallen for Lumen Gentium's heresies. They even say that everybody is somehow in the Church. Probably because of their "invincible ignorance" and that they have been baptized by their desire. I know this is part of that Modernist/Protestant doctrine of universal salvation.
But, is it true that only Catholics are inside the Church (not including CINO)? Is Fr. Feeney's teaching that one must be Catholic to attain salvation correct?
-
One can be part of the Church by desire, but one must do everything possible to enter into her external communion. Leonard Feeney erred when he attempted to make God a prisoner of His own sacraments, and therefore his errors were condemned by the infallible Apostolic See. He started out by opposing the errors of universalism which later became accepted by 'Vatican II'. And those errors must indeed be opposed. But he went too far when he started to reject baptism of desire, which is a true teaching of the Church.
-
Could you clarify?
-
Could you clarify?
In the time before Vatican II, the libertine forces were already infiltrating to unhinge catholic sense in the minds of unwary people. One of their objectives was to get people to believe that baptism is not necessary to be saved. That they should just utter a simple, protestant 'be saved' prayer and leave it at that. These injurious errors must absolutely be rejected and opposed by faithful catholics, but Leonard Feeney strayed into the other extreme with his rigid proposition that even those who desire to receive baptism, but are struck with unforeseen death before receiving it, are not saved, despite having had perfect charity and contrition for sin.
While it is of absolute necessity not to be lax in receiving the sacraments, one must not consider in hell those who were by an unforeseen death prevented from receiving water baptism. Otherwise pastors would not wait so long in order to instruct adults before they can receive baptism.
-
I'm still not quite understanding you Exile.
-
There are no separated brethren, there is no partial or imperfect communion with the Church, there are no ecclessial communities, there are only the one true Church and sects and pagans. One is in the Church, or one is out.
Those on CAF always talk about Protestants being in the Church because of their baptism. I know, from what we've been talking about, that one who is baptized is in the Catholic Church until he professes heresy, then he is not in the Church anymore.
I think that those who accept Vatican II believe that the Church is not only the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church but also the invisible of all who have been baptized (by water or desire/ignorance) this puts everyone into the Church (universal salvation)! J.Paul, you mention that one is in the Church, or one is out. Who are those that are in the Church? I know we've talked about this but I've been brainwashed about what they called "Catholic dogma."
-
There are no separated brethren, there is no partial or imperfect communion with the Church, there are no ecclessial communities, there are only the one true Church and sects and pagans. One is in the Church, or one is out.
Those on CAF always talk about Protestants being in the Church because of their baptism. I know, from what we've been talking about, that one who is baptized is in the Catholic Church until he professes heresy, then he is not in the Church anymore.
I think that those who accept Vatican II believe that the Church is not only the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church but also the invisible of all who have been baptized (by water or desire/ignorance) this puts everyone into the Church (universal salvation)! J.Paul, you mention that one is in the Church, or one is out. Who are those that are in the Church? I know we've talked about this but I've been brainwashed about what they called "Catholic dogma."
Baptized Catholics who hold the Faith of Christ are members of the body of Christ(The Church). Protestants, Orthodox,Jews, Muslims, Pagans and all others are in no way connected to the Church. The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Satan. If you are not in the former, then by default you are in the latter.
Most who believe the liberalized view of Vatican II have been indoctrinated,corrupted or misled by those in authority over the last fifty years.
There is no dogmatic teaching in VaticanII, save those excerpts which they repeat from earlier times. It can, and should be wholly ignored. All of those who think that almost anyone is in the Church and hence are saved will have a rude awakening when they come before the Just Judge.
-
There are no separated brethren, there is no partial or imperfect communion with the Church, there are no ecclessial communities, there are only the one true Church and sects and pagans. One is in the Church, or one is out.
Those on CAF always talk about Protestants being in the Church because of their baptism. I know, from what we've been talking about, that one who is baptized is in the Catholic Church until he professes heresy, then he is not in the Church anymore.
I think that those who accept Vatican II believe that the Church is not only the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church but also the invisible of all who have been baptized (by water or desire/ignorance) this puts everyone into the Church (universal salvation)! J.Paul, you mention that one is in the Church, or one is out. Who are those that are in the Church? I know we've talked about this but I've been brainwashed about what they called "Catholic dogma."
Baptized Catholics who hold the Faith of Christ are members of the body of Christ(The Church). Protestants, Orthodox,Jews, Muslims, Pagans and all others are in no way connected to the Church. The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Satan. If you are not in the former, then by default you are in the latter.
Most who believe the liberalized view of Vatican II have been indoctrinated,corrupted or misled by those in authority over the last fifty years.
There is no dogmatic teaching in VaticanII, save those excerpts which they repeat from earlier times. It can, and should be wholly ignored. All of those who think that almost anyone is in the Church and hence are saved will have a rude awakening when they come before the Just Judge.
Would this correspond with Feeney's view that only Catholics are saved?
-
Those on CAF always talk about Protestants being in the Church because of their baptism. I know, from what we've been talking about, that one who is baptized is in the Catholic Church until he professes heresy, then he is not in the Church anymore.
Let me quote a post-Vatican II catechism.
The Catholic Catechism: A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church by John A. Hardon, S. J., pgs. 509-510.
Incorporation into Christ. Through baptism we become united to Christ as head of the Mystical Body. This is the dominant theme of the Pauline letters, which remind the faithful of their organic union with Christ in the one body, which is the Church, and of which they are truly members, comparable to the limbs of a human body, whose direction depends on the head and whose animation derives from the same soul.
This is also thematic in the new baptismal liturgy, which reminds parents, godparents, and the neophytes (or children) that through baptism we are incorporated twice over, once into Christ and once again into his Church, although both are really two aspects of the same incorporation. He has identified himself with the body, which is the Church so that in becoming members of the latter we are joined with him in that mystical union of which the baptismal character is the indelible sign.
It is here, too, that the ecuмenical movement finds its most solid doctrinal foundation. Catholics can now affirm with full security that they are closely joined "with those who are baptized and have the honor of the name Christian, yet do not profess the faith in its entirety." Why so? Because they are "marked by baptism and thereby joined to Christ." Because, since they are incorporated into Christ, they have "a real union in the Holy Spirit, for he is at work among them too with the power of sanctification in gifts and graces; he has given some of them strength to the extent of shedding their blood." Consequently, it is the same Spirit of Christ, dwelling in the hearts of all Christians, in those who profess Roman Catholicism and in those who do not. He is "rousing in all Christ's disciples desire and action, in the hope that all men may be united peacefully, in the manner that Christ appointed, in one flock under one shepherd."
There is an ecuмenical movement in Christendom today only because one and the same Christ already mysteriously unites all who have been baptized in his name. He is active in his members and is urging them to become more fully united among themselves.
This is the reason for impartial communion. With subsists in, it seems that according to Vatican II the Church of Christ is not specifically identified as the Catholic Church, but is a larger body diffused mostly in the Catholic Church but also is present in non-Catholic ecclesiastical communities, on account of baptism.
-
Those on CAF always talk about Protestants being in the Church because of their baptism. I know, from what we've been talking about, that one who is baptized is in the Catholic Church until he professes heresy, then he is not in the Church anymore.
Let me quote a post-Vatican II catechism.
The Catholic Catechism: A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church by John A. Hardon, S. J., pgs. 509-510.
Incorporation into Christ. Through baptism we become united to Christ as head of the Mystical Body. This is the dominant theme of the Pauline letters, which remind the faithful of their organic union with Christ in the one body, which is the Church, and of which they are truly members, comparable to the limbs of a human body, whose direction depends on the head and whose animation derives from the same soul.
This is also thematic in the new baptismal liturgy, which reminds parents, godparents, and the neophytes (or children) that through baptism we are incorporated twice over, once into Christ and once again into his Church, although both are really two aspects of the same incorporation. He has identified himself with the body, which is the Church so that in becoming members of the latter we are joined with him in that mystical union of which the baptismal character is the indelible sign.
It is here, too, that the ecuмenical movement finds its most solid doctrinal foundation. Catholics can now affirm with full security that they are closely joined "with those who are baptized and have the honor of the name Christian, yet do not profess the faith in its entirety." Why so? Because they are "marked by baptism and thereby joined to Christ." Because, since they are incorporated into Christ, they have "a real union in the Holy Spirit, for he is at work among them too with the power of sanctification in gifts and graces; he has given some of them strength to the extent of shedding their blood." Consequently, it is the same Spirit of Christ, dwelling in the hearts of all Christians, in those who profess Roman Catholicism and in those who do not. He is "rousing in all Christ's disciples desire and action, in the hope that all men may be united peacefully, in the manner that Christ appointed, in one flock under one shepherd."
There is an ecuмenical movement in Christendom today only because one and the same Christ already mysteriously unites all who have been baptized in his name. He is active in his members and is urging them to become more fully united among themselves.
This is the reason for impartial communion. With subsists in, it seems that according to Vatican II the Church of Christ is not specifically identified as the Catholic Church, but is a larger body diffused mostly in the Catholic Church but also is present in non-Catholic ecclesiastical communities, on account of baptism.
So would this "impartial communion" be true?
-
No, it's a novelty, it's to be rejected.
-
Those on CAF always talk about Protestants being in the Church because of their baptism. I know, from what we've been talking about, that one who is baptized is in the Catholic Church until he professes heresy, then he is not in the Church anymore.
Let me quote a post-Vatican II catechism.
The Catholic Catechism: A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church by John A. Hardon, S. J., pgs. 509-510.
Incorporation into Christ. Through baptism we become united to Christ as head of the Mystical Body. This is the dominant theme of the Pauline letters, which remind the faithful of their organic union with Christ in the one body, which is the Church, and of which they are truly members, comparable to the limbs of a human body, whose direction depends on the head and whose animation derives from the same soul.
This is also thematic in the new baptismal liturgy, which reminds parents, godparents, and the neophytes (or children) that through baptism we are incorporated twice over, once into Christ and once again into his Church, although both are really two aspects of the same incorporation. He has identified himself with the body, which is the Church so that in becoming members of the latter we are joined with him in that mystical union of which the baptismal character is the indelible sign.
It is here, too, that the ecuмenical movement finds its most solid doctrinal foundation. Catholics can now affirm with full security that they are closely joined "with those who are baptized and have the honor of the name Christian, yet do not profess the faith in its entirety." Why so? Because they are "marked by baptism and thereby joined to Christ." Because, since they are incorporated into Christ, they have "a real union in the Holy Spirit, for he is at work among them too with the power of sanctification in gifts and graces; he has given some of them strength to the extent of shedding their blood." Consequently, it is the same Spirit of Christ, dwelling in the hearts of all Christians, in those who profess Roman Catholicism and in those who do not. He is "rousing in all Christ's disciples desire and action, in the hope that all men may be united peacefully, in the manner that Christ appointed, in one flock under one shepherd."
There is an ecuмenical movement in Christendom today only because one and the same Christ already mysteriously unites all who have been baptized in his name. He is active in his members and is urging them to become more fully united among themselves.
This is the reason for impartial communion. With subsists in, it seems that according to Vatican II the Church of Christ is not specifically identified as the Catholic Church, but is a larger body diffused mostly in the Catholic Church but also is present in non-Catholic ecclesiastical communities, on account of baptism.
So would this "impartial communion" be true?
No, as I told you, one is either in the Church or out side of the Church. There is no such thing as this degree of communion, or that degree of communion. That is a lie meant to confuse the faithful into accepting these abberant ideas.
Nothing which is not part of Catholic unity can provide forgiveness of sin, sanctification, or salvation. Hence, the need to maintain that these sects are somehow part of the True Church, in order to justify the heretical idea that people can be saved in these sects. Once again, they are not separated in the sense that they are still in some way connected to the Church. They are entirely and completely severed from the Church and salvation. That is it, black or white, in or out.
JMJ
-
No, it's a novelty, it's to be rejected.
So would you agree with what was stated earlier that those who are baptized, enter the Catholic Church, but once they accept heresy they leave?
Also, do you know of a past catechism that is contradicted by the new one, specifically on this topic?
-
No, it's a novelty, it's to be rejected.
So would you agree with what was stated earlier that those who are baptized, enter the Catholic Church, but once they accept heresy they leave?
Also, do you know of a past catechism that is contradicted by the new one, specifically on this topic?
The Catechism of Trent is THE Catechism. I have not read the new one, but this is the one that matters.
http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tindex.htm
-
This was what I found who is in the Church and who isn't:
The Members Of The Church Militant
The Church militant is composed of two classes of persons, the good and the bad, both professing the same faith and partaking of the same Sacraments, yet differing in their manner of life and morality.
The good are those who are linked together not only by the profession of the same faith, and the participation of the same Sacraments, but also by the spirit of grace and the bond of charity. Of these St. Paul says: The Lord knoweth who are his. Who they are that compose this class we also may remotely conjecture, but we can by no means pronounce with certainty. Hence Christ the Saviour does not speak of this portion of His Church when He refers us to the Church and commands us to hear and to obey her. As this part of the Church is unknown, how could we ascertain with certainty whose decision to recur to, whose authority to obey?
The Church, therefore, as the Scriptures and the writings of the Saints testify, includes within her fold the good and the bad; and it was in this sense that St. Paul spoke of one body and one spirit. Thus understood, the Church is known and is compared to a city built on a mountain, and visible from every side. As all must yield obedience to her authority, it is necessary that she may?be known by all.
That the Church is composed of the good and the bad we learn from many parables contained in the Gospel. Thus, the kingdom of heaven, that is, the Church militant, is compared to a net cast into the sea, to a field in which tares were sown with the good grain, to a threshing floor on which the grain is mixed up with the chaff, and also to ten virgins, some of whom were wise, and some foolish. And long before, we trace a figure and resemblance of this Church in the ark of Noah, which contained not only clean, but also unclean animals.
But although the Catholic faith uniformly and truly teaches that the good and the bad belong to the Church, yet the same faith declares that the condition of both is very different. The wicked are contained in the Church, as the chaff is mingled with the grain on the threshing floor, or as dead members sometimes remain attached to a living body.
Those Who Are Not Members Of The Church
Hence there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church's pale: infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons. Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments. Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematised. Finally, excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.
But with regard to the rest, however wicked and evil they may be, it is certain that they still belong to the Church: Of this the faithful are frequently to be reminded, in order to be convinced that, were even the lives of her ministers debased by crime, they are still within the Church, and therefore lose nothing of their power.
-
Here is one that confuses me though:
Among these figures the ark of Noah holds a conspicuous place. It was built by the command of God, in order that there might be no doubt that it was a symbol of the Church, which God has so constituted that all who enter therein through Baptism, may be safe from danger of eternal death, while such as are outside the Church, like those who were not in the ark, are overwhelmed by their own crimes.
It says that they enter the Church through Baptism. How does someone leave the Church because you can't be "unbaptized?" If one wants to re-enter the Church, how can they if baptism is the door into the Church? We can't be re-baptized either. I don't understand this.
-
I always talk about those neo-Catholics from CAF here on CathInfo and I'm going to talk a little bit more about them in this next post. I actually got suspended for two weeks for apparently telling Catholics to avoid reading the new Catechism of the Catholic Church. But anyway, they always talk about how our Protestant "seperated bretheren" aren't heretics because they were born into heretical communities through no fault of their own without knowing and doubting the true Faith. I had always believed them. Why do traditionals call those Protestants heretics if they were born into these communities?
-
I always talk about those neo-Catholics from CAF here on CathInfo and I'm going to talk a little bit more about them in this next post. I actually got suspended for two weeks for apparently telling Catholics to avoid reading the new Catechism of the Catholic Church. But anyway, they always talk about how our Protestant "seperated bretheren" aren't heretics because they were born into heretical communities through no fault of their own without knowing and doubting the true Faith. I had always believed them. Why do traditionals call those Protestants heretics if they were born into these communities?
Good question. I'd also like to know what we're supposed to call the Mohammedans and the Jews and so on if we can't call them heretics (because they're not Christian and don't pretend to be), schismatics (because they were never part of the Church to separate) or apostates (because they couldn't have left a faith that they never had).
Calling them Satan worshipers isn't always accurate either. Some of them do appear to be worshiping something that is clearly not God, but the conventional wisdom says otherwise so... :reading:
-
I always talk about those neo-Catholics from CAF here on CathInfo and I'm going to talk a little bit more about them in this next post. I actually got suspended for two weeks for apparently telling Catholics to avoid reading the new Catechism of the Catholic Church. But anyway, they always talk about how our Protestant "seperated bretheren" aren't heretics because they were born into heretical communities through no fault of their own without knowing and doubting the true Faith. I had always believed them. Why do traditionals call those Protestants heretics if they were born into these communities?
Well, are the claims of the Church and the Holy Religion unavailable to them?
Does not God give each man an intellect and the ability to discern the truth?
And does He not place the obligation upon men that they are to use these gifts and the grace which he initially gives them to find Him and His Church?
Most who remain Protestant are those who refuse God's grace and will not investigate the Church because Protestantism suits them. They may not be causally hertical but they are effectively heretics in that they claim to be Christian but have created "another Christ" for themselves.
Every man who is born is obliged to find God and to obey Him. Those who do not end up outside of His Church and salvation.
-
I always talk about those neo-Catholics from CAF here on CathInfo and I'm going to talk a little bit more about them in this next post. I actually got suspended for two weeks for apparently telling Catholics to avoid reading the new Catechism of the Catholic Church. But anyway, they always talk about how our Protestant "seperated bretheren" aren't heretics because they were born into heretical communities through no fault of their own without knowing and doubting the true Faith. I had always believed them. Why do traditionals call those Protestants heretics if they were born into these communities?
Well, are the claims of the Church and the Holy Religion unavailable to them?
Does not God give each man an intellect and the ability to discern the truth?
And does He not place the obligation upon men that they are to use these gifts and the grace which he initially gives them to find Him and His Church?
Most who remain Protestant are those who refuse God's grace and will not investigate the Church because Protestantism suits them. They may not be causally hertical but they are effectively heretics in that they claim to be Christian but have created "another Christ" for themselves.
Every man who is born is obliged to find God and to obey Him. Those who do not end up outside of His Church and salvation.
So even though one practices heresy, does that make them a heretic?
-
All Protestants are heretics insofar as they deny the true Church of Christ and her Magisterium. There is not a doubt in my mind that the vast majority of Protestants will go to Hell because their religion bears no grace whatsoever. After they are baptised and are justified for the very first time, if they commit even 1 mortal sin they lose the state of grace and will go straight to Hell if they die.
The most horrible thing about this is that, as someone else said, Protestants don't care to find the truth because Protestantism suits them. It is much harder to be a Catholic than it is a Protestant, because the Protestant false religion encourages and teaches spiritual lethargy. Most Protestants don't seem to care about whether or not our faith is true. All they want is to say 1 stupid prayer that means virtually nothing to Christ and then they're "saved". They've sprung forth many heresies and historical fables about the Church, indicating that they don't care about the Church.
-
Here is one that confuses me though:
Among these figures the ark of Noah holds a conspicuous place. It was built by the command of God, in order that there might be no doubt that it was a symbol of the Church, which God has so constituted that all who enter therein through Baptism, may be safe from danger of eternal death, while such as are outside the Church, like those who were not in the ark, are overwhelmed by their own crimes.
It says that they enter the Church through Baptism. How does someone leave the Church because you can't be "unbaptized?" If one wants to re-enter the Church, how can they if baptism is the door into the Church? We can't be re-baptized either. I don't understand this.
Could you answer this for me, Daegus?
-
The definition of no salvation outside the Catholic Church:
Does it mean that one must fully be inside the Church?
or
Does it mean that salvation only comes from Christ, through the Catholic Church?
-
The definition of no salvation outside the Catholic Church:
Does it mean that one must fully be inside the Church?
or
Does it mean that salvation only comes from Christ, through the Catholic Church?
What the phrase Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus means is that, if anyone dies while they are outside of the Church, they will go to Hell. No exceptions. Even aborted children go to Hell, but the kind of Hell they go to is devoid of suffering and is what is referred to as Limbo. Limbo is a doctrine that cannot be denied, and I believe that the denial of Limbo was condemned by a certain Pope.. Can't remember who though..
Anyways, outside the Church there is no grace. Without grace there is no salvation. Therefore, outside the Church, there is no salvation. To hold that you can obtain grace outside the Church is a condemned heresy. Baptism of desire/blood are things that happen to put you inside of the Church before God allows you to die to meet His Supreme Justice. Therefore, it all still works. There are only Catholics in heaven.
At the same time, let us not say or even be convinced that any significant amount of people, compared to those who claim to profess the Christian faith, are going to be saved by baptism of blood/desire. To obtain a baptism of blood or desire one would have to be very sincere about their faith, which most people lack-- true sincerity.
-
All Protestants are heretics insofar as they deny the true Church of Christ and her Magisterium. There is not a doubt in my mind that the vast majority of Protestants will go to Hell because their religion bears no grace whatsoever. After they are baptised and are justified for the very first time, if they commit even 1 mortal sin they lose the state of grace and will go straight to Hell if they die.
The most horrible thing about this is that, as someone else said, Protestants don't care to find the truth because Protestantism suits them. It is much harder to be a Catholic than it is a Protestant, because the Protestant false religion encourages and teaches spiritual lethargy. Most Protestants don't seem to care about whether or not our faith is true. All they want is to say 1 stupid prayer that means virtually nothing to Christ and then they're "saved". They've sprung forth many heresies and historical fables about the Church, indicating that they don't care about the Church.
I found a quote from St. Augustine. I found it in a NO Catholic's post on CAF. They were refuting that Protestants are heretics.
"But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics."
-
Any comment?
-
The Novus Ordo sectarian religion is far from being Catholic itself, so it wouldn't surprise me if they could successfully "refute" (in their own minds) no salvation outside of the Church. See, it's easy to refute something regarding the faith when you don't realize that it's condemned to do so and all of your opinions are heresies. That is what N.O. Catholics do. They condemn you and call you a heretic, schismatic, etc. and deny your Catholicity, all the while maintaining the heresies of "imperfect" communion with heretics.
Quite frankly, I'm astonished at how anyone can talk about "imperfect" communion. Are the Protestant heretics INSIDE of the Church or not? No? Then they are not "in communion" with the Church, PERIOD. To be in communion with the Church, you have to be INSIDE of it. No one would ever say that excommunicants are in communion with the Church. That's ridiculous. They are not in the Church (because they have been cast out of it and into the outer darkness), so therefore they must be outside of it. It's basic logic that doesn't register in the minds of many N.O. Catholics who don't dare question the multitude of heresies they've been fed by Vatican II.
With regards to the quote from Augustine, we see here how Augustine maintains that VII followers themselves tend to be manifest heretics. I've tried exposing the VII false religion to N.O. Catholics before, but they don't listen and use weak and ambiguous arguments to try and beat me down. They do not want to hold that Protestants are heretics because that is anti-(false)Ecuмenism. Sometimes, they even have the audacity to say that because the saints aren't infallible, we can just ignore them! How exceedingly pretentious.
Anyways.. You see, therefore, because they are obstinate in their heresies we cannot do anything but assume that they (many of them) are, in fact, heretics.
There are so many people who have more than what it takes to be elevated to sainthood when they die.. and yet they are held back and damned by heresies that they do not want to let go of.. It's very sad.. Pray for mother Church. :cry:
-
I still don't understand when someone (Protestant) is baptized (entrance into the Church), how they aren't part of the Church because they can't be unbaptized, but that if they re-enter the Church (become Catholic or re-become Catholic since they've already been baptized into the Church) they can't be re-baptized.
Someone said something earlier on, I think it was J.Paul, that Baptism is a Catholic sacrament (of course) that is abused by the Protestants. Shouldn't one being baptized have to profess the Catholic Faith for the Baptism to be valid? I mean they are being baptized into the Catholic Church, but profess heresy and hate the Catholic Faith.
-
When Protestants baptise their infants, they do so validly but illicitly. Every time they do so they incur damnation upon themselves because they do so out of disobedience to lawful Church authority--- that is to say, the Magisterial authority. The reason as to why they can't be re-baptised is because we believe in only ONE baptism, and the Catholic Church does hold that they baptise correctly even if illicitly.
Also, while their children ARE technically being baptised into the Catholic Church regardless of whether or not the people baptising them believe that, once they reach the age of reason they are likely automatically outside of it because of the years of indoctrination and their identity as Protestants. Even 1 mortal sin will send their child straight to Hell. Simply praying that Jesus will save them is useless because their religion bears no grace. They would need very deep and true contrition and a very special grace from God to be able to be saved from their imminent demise.
Also, you may want to note that children under the age of reason do not need to profess any faith. They can't profess any faith because there's no way they can understand it without the use of reason. This is why we have baptismal sponsors. To profess the faith on behalf of the children.
-
The definition of no salvation outside the Catholic Church:
Does it mean that one must fully be inside the Church?
or
Does it mean that salvation only comes from Christ, through the Catholic Church?
The first is true, thesecond as understood by the Conciliar Church means that they can be saved in their heretical religions but, it is through the grace of the Catholic Church. That is a false and misleading statement .
A Protestant can be saved only by renouncing his false religion and entering into the sole ark of salvation, the Catholic Church. Until he does this he remains outside of the Church and salvation.
-
Can somebody find the original Latin for Pope Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum?
-
I found this website (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/ecclesiology.pdf) that explains the heresy of Vatican II's "New Ecclisiology." I was just reading along and, in the tenth paragraph of the commentary column, it talks about invincible ignorance. Here's what it said:
So those who are members of the “adulteress Churches”
will go to hell, unless they are excused from fault by
invincible ignorance.
I didn't think traditional Catholics believed in invincible ignorance. Could someone explain the traditional Catholic view on invincible ignorance?
-
I found this website (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/ecclesiology.pdf) that explains the heresy of Vatican II's "New Ecclisiology." I was just reading along and, in the tenth paragraph of the commentary column, it talks about invincible ignorance. Here's what it said:
So those who are members of the “adulteress Churches”
will go to hell, unless they are excused from fault by
invincible ignorance.
I didn't think traditional Catholics believed in invincible ignorance. Could someone explain the traditional Catholic view on invincible ignorance?
I am more then willing to be corrected on this, so get a couple opinions first, since I am not a theologian and this is high theology.
From what I understand Invincible ignorence would be the Native Americans before the Europeans arrived. In which they had no possiblity of knowing the true faith they would have invicible ignorence and if they lived according to the natural law that is ingrained in them at birth and lived a good noble altruistic life then perhaps God might allow them into heaven. It is not a guarentee.
The concillar church would have you believe anyone can have invicible ignorence, wherefore I may be slightly wrong on what constitutes it, I do know the concillar church has warped it into something it is not.
-
I found this website (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/ecclesiology.pdf) that explains the heresy of Vatican II's "New Ecclisiology." I was just reading along and, in the tenth paragraph of the commentary column, it talks about invincible ignorance. Here's what it said:
So those who are members of the “adulteress Churches”
will go to hell, unless they are excused from fault by
invincible ignorance.
I didn't think traditional Catholics believed in invincible ignorance. Could someone explain the traditional Catholic view on invincible ignorance?
I am more then willing to be corrected on this, so get a couple opinions first, since I am not a theologian and this is high theology.
From what I understand Invincible ignorence would be the Native Americans before the Europeans arrived. In which they had no possiblity of knowing the true faith they would have invicible ignorence and if they lived according to the natural law that is ingrained in them at birth and lived a good noble altruistic life then perhaps God might allow them into heaven. It is not a guarentee.
The concillar church would have you believe anyone can have invicible ignorence, wherefore I may be slightly wrong on what constitutes it, I do know the concillar church has warped it into something it is not.
Wouldn't this contradict Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus?
-
I found this website (http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/ecclesiology.pdf) that explains the heresy of Vatican II's "New Ecclisiology." I was just reading along and, in the tenth paragraph of the commentary column, it talks about invincible ignorance. Here's what it said:
So those who are members of the “adulteress Churches”
will go to hell, unless they are excused from fault by
invincible ignorance.
I didn't think traditional Catholics believed in invincible ignorance. Could someone explain the traditional Catholic view on invincible ignorance?
I am more then willing to be corrected on this, so get a couple opinions first, since I am not a theologian and this is high theology.
From what I understand Invincible ignorence would be the Native Americans before the Europeans arrived. In which they had no possiblity of knowing the true faith they would have invicible ignorence and if they lived according to the natural law that is ingrained in them at birth and lived a good noble altruistic life then perhaps God might allow them into heaven. It is not a guarentee.
The concillar church would have you believe anyone can have invicible ignorence, wherefore I may be slightly wrong on what constitutes it, I do know the concillar church has warped it into something it is not.
Wouldn't this contradict Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus?
I believe this falls under extraordinary circuмstances, wherein normal circuмstances would be Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, when it is not possible for one to have ever entered the Church God MAY reprieve him in his infinite mercy.
Naturally he is not bound to do so and one should not bank on this, of course attempting to bank on it would entail knowing about the church and would thusly negate the infallible ignorence and thus not apply.
-
A Protestant can be saved only by renouncing his false religion and entering into the sole ark of salvation, the Catholic Church. Until he does this he remains outside of the Church and salvation.
That is by becoming Catholic, correct?
-
AJ,
"Subsistit in" is not heretical when properly understood according to the Church's Magisterium.
In 2007 the CDF declared that, "“The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church.”
Source: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of The Doctrine on the Church (2007), Response to Third Question.
The CDF makes clear that this phrase and others were subject to misunderstanding and, with the 2007 explanations, sought to clear the air.
"Given the universality of Catholic doctrine on the Church, the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate."
Thus the term "subsistit in" is congruent with previous Catholic teaching.
I hope this helps.
God bless.
-
"Subsistit in" is not heretical when properly understood according to the Church's Magisterium.
In order for Lumen Gentium to be in line with Catholic Tradition, subsistit in must be taken out. Where in Catholic Tradition (prior to Vatican II) does it say that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church and also in heretical sects? It doesn't. You can try to bring this heresy in line with Catholic dogma, but it won't work.
In 2007 the CDF declared that, "“The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church.”
And Pope Benedict XVI said unbaptized infants can be in Heaven that same year, contradicting Church teaching on the necessity of water Baptism for salvation and Original Sin. Not everything that comes out of Rome is infallible, in fact, I don't think it's even possible for the CDF to speak infallibly.
The CDF makes clear that this phrase and others were subject to misunderstanding and, with the 2007 explanations, sought to clear the air.
Again, not everything that comes out of Rome is infallible. Why would the CDF under a Pope that was at Vatican II want to disagree with Vatican II's doctrines? The Pope is only enforcing the new teachings that Vatican II created.
Thus the term "subsistit in" is congruent with previous Catholic teaching.
It is, is it? Where so? Catholic teaching doesn't say that the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are two separate entities with on subsisting in the other. Or that the Church of Christ subsists also in heretical sects making them equal with the Catholic Church and taking away her authority over Christians. If it does say this somewhere, please point it out.