The problem with Vatican II ecclesiology is that it treats not alien persons but alien creeds as if they were more or less equivalent to the Church of Christ.

It is possible to read it in an orthodox way,...

First of all, who give's a rat's rear end what you expect, you stupid little man?

Second, as Sunbeam mentioned on the other thread, there really aren't very many Hindus in Tibet. Tibetans are predominately Buddhist and Islamic. And since proselytism is illegal in Tibet, they have very little chance of being effectively taught the Catholic religion. That means they will all be quite damned, according to you, since they have no chance of receiving sacramental baptism. Why don't you buck the authorities, head off to Tibet, and set up a baptistery? You can congratulate yourself on your heroic sanctity while you're watching your teeth fall out in a fetid concrete cell, in between beatings by Chinese security forces and your daily pint of corn mush. Really, if it's that important to you, you had better try to save some souls instead of arguing with people on the internet, none of whom would ever counsel anyone to remain unbaptized if they could help it.

Third, do not accuse anyone here of evading you. We have entertained you and your ilk for literally hundreds of pages. We have answered your squeaking little question, and it goes like this:

The Sacrament of Baptism and EENS are not related to one another in the manner you assume. You, Bowler, Fr. Feeney and all the other purveyors of this vain ideology have built your entire house of cards on the attempt to explain each one in terms of the other, even though the dogmatic definitions provided by Holy Mother Church do not.

Those who arrogantly maintain that Baptism is useless, that this sacrament instituted by Christ has no effect, those are anathematized. That much is true. That's what the necessity of Baptism means.

Those who would maintain that one can willfully live apart from the One Church founded by Christ and still be saved, those are anathematized. That much is also true. That's what EENS means.

These canons were obviously written against heretics, schismatics, and Protestants in order to condemn their false religions. They were not written against individuals who were ignorant of the Church through no fault of their own. If the Council of Trent had meant to condemn individuals, it would have been an easy enough thing to state so explicitly; but no Council or Father of the Church has ever stated it that way. Trent specifically says "Baptism or the desire thereof," and I cannot believe that if the Council Fathers had meant otherwise they would have chosen the very terminology that provides for such a glaring and dangerous ambiguity. They weren't morons, and they were very solicitous for souls.

The problem with Vatican II ecclesiology is that it treats not alien persons but alien creeds as if they were more or less equivalent to the Church of Christ. This, of course, is a fundamental breach of fidelity to the religion and a breakdown of rationality. The term "subsist" is sufficiently ambiguous that it can be read either way. It is possible to read it in an orthodox way, but modernists can also read it through a "hermeneutic of ecuмenism." The modernists at the council intended to smuggle in the heretical meaning under the cover of the orthodox interpretation. This duplicity makes theirs an even greater defection than plain outright heresy would have been. It was an attempt to subvert the religion itself, not just to set oneself up against it.

None of this has anything to do with the case of individuals living in pagan lands who have not heard the Gospel preached. They will be judged based on their observance of the Natural Law. It is not impossible that some of these may be saved by a special dispensation of grace from God. They are not saved, if they are saved, by any false religion, but by the grace of God, just like the rest of us. This is clearly not to assert the salvific efficacy of any non-Catholic creed or worship. Really, a child could make this distinction. Why can't you?

Besides, if Vatican II ecclesiology is the only reason you have for rejecting the Council and the Conciliar Church, as you have alluded to elsewhere, then you are truly blind. The corrupt liturgy, the doubtful sacraments, the cooperation with Communists and Masons, the punishment and excommunication of faithful priests, the catastrophic breakdown in discipline - these would all have to be tolerated, but any perceived whiff of rebellion against your own unsupported interpretation of EENS, that's the deal breaker. You have written your own religion from top to bottom, and it is not the Catholic religion.

You have no intention of thinking with the mind of the Church on any subject. One of the worst aspects of this whole crisis is that it has allowed disgusting little pseudointellectual carbuncles like you to sprout in the colon of Catholic life and discourse. The Church has no immune system with which to flush you out. But there will come a day, however remote, when you will be called to answer for this. Pray God that you may convert before then, for the very anticipation of your judgment makes me shudder.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Ladislaus

Once again, the question in the OP goes unanswered.  It's why I started a new thread, Myrna, because this question always gets buried in page 45 of each BoD thread and goes unanswered.  It's a crucial question.

How is V2 "subsistence Ecclesiology" language not consistent with the BoDer model of the Church, a model wherein you have not only practicing Catholics (the subsistent core) but also catechumens, Protestants, and Hindus in Tibet?  How are these not, as Vatican II states, joined to the Catholic Church in varying degrees?

You love to have your cake and eat it too, eh?  You denounce subsistence ecclesiology as one of the core errors in Vatican II and yet your ecclesiology is essentially identical to it, and the "subsistence" terminology is in fact an accurate and even profound way to describe this.

If you're honest, you'll say that this is not an erroneous description of the Church as you see it.

I'm actually a bit surprised that none of the BoDers have even ATTEMPTED to answer this.

Let's not derail this thread.  I expect the next post to be an answer to this question.

First of all, who give's a rat's rear end what you expect, you stupid little man?

Second, as Sunbeam mentioned on the other thread, there really aren't very many Hindus in Tibet. Tibetans are predominately Buddhist and Islamic. And since proselytism is illegal in Tibet, they have very little chance of being effectively taught the Catholic religion. That means they will all be quite damned, according to you, since they have no chance of receiving sacramental baptism. Why don't you buck the authorities, head off to Tibet, and set up a baptistery? You can congratulate yourself on your heroic sanctity while you're watching your teeth fall out in a fetid concrete cell, in between beatings by Chinese security forces and your daily pint of corn mush. Really, if it's that important to you, you had better try to save some souls instead of arguing with people on the internet, none of whom would ever counsel anyone to remain unbaptized if they could help it.

Third, do not accuse anyone here of evading you. We have entertained you and your ilk for literally hundreds of pages. We have answered your squeaking little question, and it goes like this:

The Sacrament of Baptism and EENS are not related to one another in the manner you assume. You, Bowler, Fr. Feeney and all the other purveyors of this vain ideology have built your entire house of cards on the attempt to explain each one in terms of the other, even though the dogmatic definitions provided by Holy Mother Church do not.

Those who arrogantly maintain that Baptism is useless, that this sacrament instituted by Christ has no effect, those are anathematized. That much is true. That's what the necessity of Baptism means.

Those who would maintain that one can willfully live apart from the One Church founded by Christ and still be saved, those are anathematized. That much is also true. That's what EENS means.

These canons were obviously written against heretics, schismatics, and Protestants in order to condemn their false religions. They were not written against individuals who were ignorant of the Church through no fault of their own. If the Council of Trent had meant to condemn individuals, it would have been an easy enough thing to state so explicitly; but no Council or Father of the Church has ever stated it that way. Trent specifically says "Baptism or the desire thereof," and I cannot believe that if the Council Fathers had meant otherwise they would have chosen the very terminology that provides for such a glaring and dangerous ambiguity. They weren't morons, and they were very solicitous for souls.

The problem with Vatican II ecclesiology is that it treats not alien persons but alien creeds as if they were more or less equivalent to the Church of Christ. This, of course, is a fundamental breach of fidelity to the religion and a breakdown of rationality. The term "subsist" is sufficiently ambiguous that it can be read either way. It is possible to read it in an orthodox way, but modernists can also read it through a "hermeneutic of ecuмenism." The modernists at the council intended to smuggle in the heretical meaning under the cover of the orthodox interpretation. This duplicity makes theirs an even greater defection than plain outright heresy would have been. It was an attempt to subvert the religion itself, not just to set oneself up against it.

None of this has anything to do with the case of individuals living in pagan lands who have not heard the Gospel preached. They will be judged based on their observance of the Natural Law. It is not impossible that some of these may be saved by a special dispensation of grace from God. They are not saved, if they are saved, by any false religion, but by the grace of God, just like the rest of us. This is clearly not to assert the salvific efficacy of any non-Catholic creed or worship. Really, a child could make this distinction. Why can't you?

Besides, if Vatican II ecclesiology is the only reason you have for rejecting the Council and the Conciliar Church, as you have alluded to elsewhere, then you are truly blind. The corrupt liturgy, the doubtful sacraments, the cooperation with Communists and Masons, the punishment and excommunication of faithful priests, the catastrophic breakdown in discipline - these would all have to be tolerated, but any perceived whiff of rebellion against your own unsupported interpretation of EENS, that's the deal breaker. You have written your own religion from top to bottom, and it is not the Catholic religion.

You have no intention of thinking with the mind of the Church on any subject. One of the worst aspects of this whole crisis is that it has allowed disgusting little pseudointellectual carbuncles like you to sprout in the colon of Catholic life and discourse. The Church has no immune system with which to flush you out. But there will come a day, however remote, when you will be called to answer for this. Pray God that you may convert before then, for the very anticipation of your judgment makes me shudder.

Recognizing good writing is not cheerleading.  You just do not want to hear the truth, so you attack any Catholic for defending the Faith of the Church.

First of all, who give's a rat's rear end what you expect, you stupid little man?

That means they will all be quite damned, according to you, since they have no chance of receiving sacramental baptism.

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."