Author Topic: "Subsistit" Ecclesiology and the Trad Seminaries (Read 4912 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #20 on:** July 09, 2016, 06:50:26 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

2. Now, with regard to those excused by invincible ignorance from the sin of heresy or schism, we must consider first separated Christians who believe in Christ and the Triune God. If they are excused from sin by an ignorance which is inculpable, they are not formal heretics or schismatics, and consequently can belong to the soul of the Church by implicit desire, if they believe in and love God One and Triune with all their heart, and strive sincerely to do His will as best they can, Pope St. Pius X and several others bearing witness. Thus, they can be incorporated in the Church.

Secondly, with regard to non-Christians, the doctrine that there is no salvation without the Catholic Faith (which requires, at a minimum, explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation), together with the fact that "God wills all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth" means that He will provide for the sincere non-Chrstian who seeks the truth with his whole heart the means to come to the knowledge of Christ and be saved. Fr. Mueller, in a catechism approved by Rome, expressly teaches this.

As per usual, you begin by affirming the truth of the dogma EENS, and end by denying it.

This is the trademark stamp of learning from what 20th century theologians teach, imo.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #21 on:** July 09, 2016, 09:16:18 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Nishant

2. Now, with regard to those excused by invincible ignorance from the sin of heresy or schism, we must consider first separated Christians who believe in Christ and the Triune God. If they are excused from sin by an ignorance which is inculpable, they are not formal heretics or schismatics, and consequently can belong to the soul of the Church by implicit desire, if they believe in and love God One and Triune with all their heart, and strive sincerely to do His will as best they can, Pope St. Pius X and several others bearing witness. Thus, they can be incorporated in the Church.

Secondly, with regard to non-Christians, the doctrine that there is no salvation without the Catholic Faith (which requires, at a minimum, explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation), together with the fact that "God wills all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth" means that He will provide for the sincere non-Chrstian who seeks the truth with his whole heart the means to come to the knowledge of Christ and be saved. Fr. Mueller, in a catechism approved by Rome, expressly teaches this.

As per usual, you begin by affirming the truth of the dogma EENS, and end by denying it.

This is the trademark stamp of learning from what 20th century theologians teach, imo.

Stubborn, you misinterpret Nishant's comments the same way almost everyone misinterprets Pius IX. Nishant wrote that for the sincere non-Christian God will provide "the means to come to the knowledge of Christ" ... and be saved (with explicit knowledge of Christ). There's nothing non-Catholic or EENS-denying about this at all ... any more than there was in Pius IX's similar statements. Nishant simply believes that people can in some circuмstances receive Baptism in voto.

Also, unlike our pal LoT, Nishant realizes that the body of the Church and the soul must be co-extensive so that belonging to the soul necessarily means incorporation into the body.

I have zero problem with anything Nishant says here. He's perfectly consistent with the Church's Doctors on this point. I personally don't believe there's any such thing as BoD and that it's rooted in mere speculative theology, but I consider that a mere academic disagreement regarding the theological note attached to BoD. But, overall, I have zero problem with Nishant's position on EENS/BoD. LoT is a different matter entirely. He's a Pelagian who also denies Trent's dogmatic teaching regarding the necessity of the Sacraments for salvation.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #22 on:** July 09, 2016, 09:23:37 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

1. Wrong premise and wrong conclusion. What is true firstly is that there is no strict heresy in Vatican II's ecclesiology and that, therefore, the errors in the Church today coming from it can and should be resisted from within, that is, with canonical standing in the Church, like the SSPX now has.

Well, I disagree here about Vatican II. I've dissected the docuмents over and over, and there are clearly statements that reject traditional Catholic ecclesiology. But that's an extremely broad topic. I'm glad that you realize that there's absolutely no justification whatsoever for not being in canonical submission to Rome if you come to that conclusion. I don't agree that SSPX has any "canonical standing" ... just because Rome has authorized their Confessions and Ordinations. There's more to canonical submission than that.

But there's also more to the picture that you're not really taking into account, Nishant. You have the NOM and you have the Novus Ordo canonizations. We see the fruits of all this (which clearly do not emanate from them merely per accidens) and I cannot see any of this as being the work of the Holy Spirit. I'm guessing, though, that you now pray every day to St. John Paul II. There's also the entire body of work from the Post Vatican II "Magisterium" which is thoroughly polluted with modernism. I believe all this to be incompatible with the Church's overall indefectibility.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #23 on:** July 09, 2016, 09:27:52 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

The dogma is speaking about formal heretics and not about so called "material schismatics" who are not really schismatics at all since the will, and therefore the sin, of schism is not really present with regard to its interior effects. And so, likewise, for heresy and infidelity.

Take infidelity out of the equation, first of all. There's no such thing as a "material" infidel because they do not have the material minimum to be able to have formal faith.

Vatican II, however, clearly (and I've quoted it) makes a presumption of pure materiality in the external forum and thus treats these "separated brethren" for all intents and purposes as effectively part of the Church.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #24 on:** July 09, 2016, 09:37:43 AM »

My comments in red, by not reading the dogmas on EENS as they are written, you are only different than the believer in a rewarder God by degree, and it is your opinion against theirs, that is all you have.

Quote from: Nishant

1. Wrong premise and wrong conclusion. What is true firstly is that there is no strict heresy in Vatican II's ecclesiology and that, therefore, the errors in the Church today coming from it can and should be resisted from within, that is, with canonical standing in the Church, like the SSPX now has. Your personal opinion, the sedes have their personal opinions, you two will argue without end

With regard to EENS, in the first place, the dogma states this (no it does not state that, that is your own interpretation. I read dogma as it is written, you do not, other people who interpret dogmas like you do, conclude that Hindus and Muslims.... can be saved) - heretics, schismatics and infidels who finish this life obstinate and unrepentant in the mortal sin of heresy, schism and infidelity respectively die outside the Church and are lost. It states this much and this much only. It doesn't state - no matter how much Dimond/Feeneyites and other rigorists wish it - that those also, for instance, in material heresy or schism are also schismatics and heretics properly and formally so called. Sacred theology, going back to St. Thomas, also distinguishes positive (which is self-willed and mortally sinful) and negative infidelity (which is not) just like material and formal heresy.

2. Now, with regard to those excused by invincible ignorance from the sin of heresy or schism, we must consider first separated Christians who believe in Christ and the Triune God. If they are excused from sin by an ignorance which is inculpable, they are not formal heretics or schismatics, and consequently can belong to the soul of the Church by implicit desire, if they believe in and love God One and Triune with all their heart, and strive sincerely to do His will as best they can, Pope St. Pius X and several others bearing witness. Thus, they can be incorporated in the Church.

Secondly, with regard to non-Christians, the doctrine that there is no salvation without the Catholic Faith (which requires, at a minimum, explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation), together with the fact that "God wills all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth" means that He will provide for the sincere non-Chrstian who seeks the truth with his whole heart the means to come to the knowledge of Christ and be saved. Fr. Mueller, in a catechism approved by Rome, expressly teaches this.

3. None of this denies the literal sense of the dogma, which is that all who die as heretics, schismatics and infidels properly and formally so called are lost. The dogma is speaking about formal heretics and not about so called "material schismatics" who are not really schismatics at all since the will, and therefore the sin, of schism is not really present with regard to its interior effects. And so, likewise, for heresy and infidelity. (that is your interpretation, others believe the invincible ignorant will be saved by their belief in a God that rewards)

I like how the most stubborn Feeneyite/Dimondite posters here nonentheless say, "If I am wrong (about the Pope/modern crisis etc), I hope God judges me to be sincere and inculpable, because I sincerely love Him and desire to do His will" while denying precisely the same to those far less guilty than they. An Orthodox Christian, born in a separated Church, but nonetheless desiring to serve the Triune God and belong to His true Church with all his heart, is within the Church by virtue of that very desire. In a similar state exactly, are sedevacantists, Feeneyite/Dimondites and other modern heretics/schismatics/dissenters, if, known to God, they err in good faith and are not obstinate in their error. But since God judges every man by his own standard, as St. James admonishes, and if you insist that every person in heresy or schism is a formal heretic or formal schismatic, then you yourselves risk being judged by God as exactly that, as formal heretics and schismatics yourself. (again, all just your opinions)