Author Topic: "Subsistit" Ecclesiology and the Trad Seminaries (Read 3512 times)

Last Tradhican · « **on:** June 28, 2016, 12:02:26 PM »

The likes of +Lefebvre, +Fellay, +Sanborn, +McKenna, and the majority of Traditional bishops and priests have said and teach in their seminaries that people like Hindus and Muslims could be saved without having to profess the Faith, and without conversion before death or intending to receive Baptism, the ecclesiological implications of this fact is a time bomb ticking inside the entire traditionalist movement's arc.

Problem with that ecclesiology for a Traditional Catholic is that, if you hold it, you must say that there's no error in Vatican II and therefore no justification for the Traditional movement. That's why this belief that anyone can be saved without the need for belief in the Christ and the Holy Trinity, (nor a need for explict desire for baptism, nor baptism of blood, nor a perfect act of contrition). is THE burning issue for Traditional Catholics. If I accepted the ecclesiology held by most Traditional Catholics, I would be forced to renounce Traditional Catholicism and accept Vatican II. I could apply a hermeneutic of continuity to V2 that makes V2 look like Trent ... again, assuming their ecclesiology. This change was inevitable for the SSPX since they have been teaching "salvation without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity" for years in their seminaries.

So if these can be saved, it must mean that they are within the Church before they die. Consequently, the Church now consists not only of true actual Catholic members of the Church but also of various Protestants, Hindus, Muslims, etc. Now you clearly have subsistence ecclesiology, where the central visible core of the Church consists not only of the actual/public (and perhaps in voto) members while you have various invisible members, not co-extensive with the Body of the Church, who are yet within it ... to varying degrees. Now suddenly you have various degrees of partial communion with this subsistent core depending on how close doctrinally you might be (materially) to the fullness of Catholic doctrine. Now these are truly separated brethren, brethren because they are within the Church (if they can be saved) and separated because of their material separation from the visible Church. Now, when their intention to do the will of God itself pleases God and becomes salvific, since they have a right to please God and save their souls, they clearly have a right to follow their even erroneous consciences (since doing so pleases God and saves their soul).

It is incomprehensible how Traditional Catholics cannot see this ... except due to some cognitive dissonance on their part.

If this implicit-faith ecclesiology is tenable, then Vatican II does NOT teach error or heresy but simply adopts this opinion as that of the Church. Since when is adopting a probable opinion tantamount to heresy?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #1 on:** June 28, 2016, 01:47:38 PM »

Agree 1000%. The watering down of EENS has been going on since the 1800s. The watering down of logic and catholic thinking has been going on since the 1500s and the dawn of protestantism. We must all pray for wisdom and humility or else we will lose the Faith.

Cantarella · « **Reply #2 on:** June 28, 2016, 02:11:55 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradican

It is incomprehensible how Traditional Catholics cannot see this ... except due to some cognitive dissonance on their part.

Just have fallen into the trap like almost anyone else...

The Judaisising of Christians by Jєωs:

http://www.fatherfeeney.org/point/57-jul.html

Quote from: Pax Vobis

The watering down of logic and catholic thinking has been going on since the 1500s and the dawn of protestantism. We must all pray for wisdom and humility or else we will lose the Faith.

Again, see link above to know how and why.

JohnAnthonyMarie · « **Reply #3 on:** June 28, 2016, 03:08:21 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican

The likes of +Lefebvre, +Fellay, +Sanborn, +McKenna, and the majority of Traditional bishops and priests have said and teach in their seminaries that people like Hindus and Muslims could be saved without having to profess the Faith, and without conversion before death or intending to receive Baptism, the ecclesiological implications of this fact is a time bomb ticking inside the entire traditionalist movement's arc.

This rhetoric is logically fallacious. You will be hard pressed to produce any evidence to support your vile accusations against these men or any of the broad and sweeping generalization that you term "majority of Traditional Bishops and Priests".

This TOPIC is displaced and belongs in the "Feeneyism" sub-category.

cathman7 · « **Reply #4 on:** June 28, 2016, 03:12:59 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican

The likes of +Lefebvre, +Fellay, +Sanborn, +McKenna, and the majority of Traditional bishops and priests have said and teach in their seminaries that people like Hindus and Muslims could be saved without having to profess the Faith, and without conversion before death or intending to receive Baptism, the ecclesiological implications of this fact is a time bomb ticking inside the entire traditionalist movement's arc.

Problem with that ecclesiology for a Traditional Catholic is that, if you hold it, you must say that there's no error in Vatican II and therefore no justification for the Traditional movement. That's why this belief that anyone can be saved without the need for belief in the Christ and the Holy Trinity, (nor a need for explict desire for baptism, nor baptism of blood, nor a perfect act of contrition). is THE burning issue for Traditional Catholics. If I accepted the ecclesiology held by most Traditional Catholics, I would be forced to renounce Traditional Catholicism and accept Vatican II. I could apply a hermeneutic of continuity to V2 that makes V2 look like Trent ... again, assuming their ecclesiology. This change was inevitable for the SSPX since they have been teaching "salvation without belief in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity" for years in their seminaries.

So if these can be saved, it must mean that they are within the Church before they die. Consequently, the Church now consists not only of true actual Catholic members of the Church but also of various Protestants, Hindus, Muslims, etc. Now you clearly have subsistence ecclesiology, where the central visible core of the Church consists not only of the actual/public (and perhaps in voto) members while you have various invisible members, not co-extensive with the Body of the Church, who are yet within it ... to varying degrees. Now suddenly you have various degrees of partial communion with this subsistent core depending on how close doctrinally you might be (materially) to the fullness of Catholic doctrine. Now these are truly separated brethren, brethren because they are within the Church (if they can be saved) and separated because of their material separation from the visible Church. Now, when their intention to do the will of God itself pleases God and becomes salvific, since they have a right to please God and save their souls, they clearly have a right to follow their even erroneous consciences (since doing so pleases God and saves their soul).

It is incomprehensible how Traditional Catholics cannot see this ... except due to some cognitive dissonance on their part.

If this implicit-faith ecclesiology is tenable, then Vatican II does NOT teach error or heresy but simply adopts this opinion as that of the Church. Since when is adopting a probable opinion tantamount to heresy?

This is severe rhetoric castigating - by implication - the likes of Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton who wrote on this very question and who tried valiantly to combat the liberal teachings on Ecclesiology promoted by the champions of Vatican II.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** June 28, 2016, 04:58:49 PM »

Quote from: obscurus

This is severe rhetoric castigating - by implication - the likes of Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton who wrote on this very question and who tried valiantly to combat the liberal teachings on Ecclesiology promoted by the champions of Vatican II.

The same Msgr. Fenton who declared that Vatican II ecclesiology represented an "improvement" over previous ecclesiology?

PS -- Fenton believed that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation, so this does nothing to "castigate" Fenton.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #6 on:** June 28, 2016, 05:00:40 PM »

Quote from: JohnAnthonyMarie

This rhetoric is logically fallacious. You will be hard pressed to produce any evidence to support your vile accusations against these men or any of the broad and sweeping generalization that you term "majority of Traditional Bishops and Priests".

False. Direct quotations have been cited from all of these men ... which is why they were mentioned by name ... stating that various types of infidels can be saved.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #7 on:** June 28, 2016, 05:37:53 PM »

Quote

The likes of +Lefebvre, +Fellay, +Sanborn, +McKenna, and the majority of Traditional bishops and priests have said and teach in their seminaries that people like Hindus and Muslims could be saved without having to profess the Faith, and without conversion before death or intending to receive Baptism, the ecclesiological implications of this fact is a time bomb ticking inside the entire traditionalist movement's arc.

I forsaw the SSPX priests joining up with Rome long ago, when I discovered that they taught their seminarians that people can be saved even if they do not believe in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity, nor have an explicit desire to be baptized, nor desire to be Catholic, nor to die for Christ , nor want to confess their sins to a priest (required for a perfect act of contrition). I knew it would not be long before they could accept Vatican II in "light of tradition", a "tradition" they learned in the their seminaries.

This is all about Vatican II "Subsistit" Ecclesiology and the Trad Seminaries, it has nothing to do with BOD of St. Thomas Aquinas or the strict EENS of Fr. Feeney, both of which are rejected by those that believe in salvation for those who do not believe in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity (nor have an explicit desire to be baptized, nor desire to be Catholic, nor to die for Christ , nor want to confess their sins to a priest (required for a perfect act of contrition).

Cantarella · « **Reply #8 on:** June 28, 2016, 06:44:43 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradican

I forsaw the SSPX priests joining up with Rome long ago, when I discovered that they taught their seminarians that people can be saved even if they do not believe in the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity, nor have an explicit desire to be baptized, nor desire to be Catholic, nor to die for Christ , nor want to confess their sins to a priest (required for a perfect act of contrition). I knew it would not be long before they could accept Vatican II in "light of tradition", a "tradition" they learned in the their seminaries.

Why the SSPX Cannot Effectively Defend Catholic Tradition?

http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Culture%20Wars%20reply%20for%20web%20posting%209-10.htm

"The SSPX’s disagreement with the Vatican on Ecuмenism can only be with the means employed and not the ends, a disagreement of degree and not one of kind. Since ecuмenism is the overarching theological justification for the transmutation of every Ecclesiastical Tradition since Vatican II, and since the SSPX regards Ecclesiastical Traditions as purely disciplinary matters, and not as necessary integral elements of our Faith, they can only argue questions of policy and not principle.

With ‘salvation by implicity’, there can be no meaningful argument against Ecuмenism or Religious Liberty. The accusation of schism becomes meaningless. Pope John Paul II’s prayer meeting at Assisi makes perfect theological sense. After all, if the Holy Ghost dwells within the souls of many pagans, infidels, heretics, Jєωs, Muslims, even atheists and agnostics who are in the state of grace and secret members of the Mystical Body of Christ, why should we refuse to pray with them?"

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #9 on:** June 28, 2016, 08:42:04 PM »

Never seen that article before, excellent, it details it all, that is what this thread is about:

Here's some more:

Quote

It is, and should be, a problem for every traditional Catholic that quotations of Archbishop Lefebvre and statements made by Pope John Paul II, the Great Ecuмenist, on this question of salvation are in such close agreement because they are in principle agreeing with modern Ecuмenical Ecclesiology that presupposes that there are many invisible “Catholics” among the heretics, schismatics, infidels, and pagans of the world and that the Church of Christ in fact “subsists” in the Catholic Church and is not, in this world, co-extensive with its visibly baptized members who profess the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith.

The SSPX’s disagreement with the Vatican on Ecuмenism can only be with the means employed and not the ends, a disagreement of degree and not one of kind. Since ecuмenism is the overarching theological justification for the transmutation of every Ecclesiastical Tradition since Vatican II, and since the SSPX regards Ecclesiastical Traditions as purely disciplinary matters, and not as necessary integral elements of our Faith, they can only argue questions of policy and not principle. With ‘salvation by implicity’, there can be no meaningful argument against Ecuмenism or Religious Liberty. The accusation of schism becomes meaningless. Pope John Paul II’s prayer meeting at Assisi makes perfect theological sense. After all, if the Holy Ghost dwells within the souls of many pagans, infidels, heretics, Jєωs, Muslims, even atheists and agnostics who are in the state of grace and secret members of the Mystical Body of Christ, why should we refuse to pray with them?

Pope Benedict XVI, in December of 2005 addressing the Roman Curia on his “hermeneutics of reform,” emphasized that there is a need for “distinguishing between the substance and the expression of the faith.” That is, he holds that there is a disjunction between Catholic truth and dogmatic formulations. The SSPX expresses a similar opinion with regard to the dogmatic declarations on necessity of the sacraments in general and the sacrament of baptism in particular for salvation, as well as the dogmatic declarations on the necessity for salvation of being a member of the Catholic Church, of professing the Catholic Faith explicitly, and of being subject to the Roman Pontiff. The SSPX argues against a strict literal reading of these dogmatic formulations. Here they are in agreement with the modern Church that dogmatic formulations are open to theological refinement not necessarily in agreement with the literal meaning of the words.
The SSPX discussions with the Vatican on doctrinal and liturgical questions can go nowhere because the SSPX has taken liturgical and doctrinal positions that in principle are indistinguishable from the Modernists. Their liturgical position, grounded in the Bugnini 1962 transitional extra-ordinary form of the Novus Ordo Missal, will make it impossible to resist the Reform of the Reform. The doctrinal position that holds that dogma is not a definitive expression of our Faith, a formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith, but rather a human expression open to endless theological refinement, will undermine any possible opposition to Ecuмenical Ecclesiology.

The common end of all Modernist activity is the destruction of dogma. The SSPX in their negotiations with Rome cannot defend the Catholic Faith against Modernist errors because the only defense is the immutable universal truth of defined Catholic dogma. In accepting the 1949 Letter as normative, they have stripped themselves of the only weapon against a corrupted authority. They cannot effectively complain about the prayer meeting at Assisi because they have accepted its theological justification.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #10 on:** July 02, 2016, 09:47:04 AM »

Very profound, it explains everything:

Quote

The SSPX discussions with the Vatican on doctrinal and liturgical questions can go nowhere because the SSPX has taken liturgical and doctrinal positions that in principle are indistinguishable from the Modernists. Their liturgical position, grounded in the Bugnini 1962 transitional extra-ordinary form of the Novus Ordo Missal, will make it impossible to resist the Reform of the Reform. The doctrinal position that holds that dogma is not a definitive expression of our Faith, a formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith, but rather a human expression open to endless theological refinement, will undermine any possible opposition to Ecuмenical Ecclesiology.

1)Their liturgical position - grounded in the Bugnini 1962 transitional extra-ordinary form of the Novus Ordo Missal, will make it impossible to resist the Reform of the Reform.

2) The doctrinal position- that holds that dogma is not a definitive expression of our Faith, a formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith, but rather a human expression open to endless theological refinement.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #11 on:** July 02, 2016, 10:47:15 AM »

Last Tradhican,

Forgetting for a moment the large-scale changes to the Holy Week liturgy, I don't see how the 1962 missal leads, in any way, to the novus ordo or modernist rome. I'm a big fan of Fr Wathen (and it seems you are too) and he 'wrote the book' (pun intended) on the evils of the novus ordo, yet he didn't have any (major) problems with the 1962 missal. Even one of his 'email sermons' covered this direct topic: Is the 1962 missal wrong to use? He said, basically, no. It's not perfect but it's not a danger to the Faith, as there are bigger things to worry about.

If you disagree, why? I'm curious.

Cantarella · « **Reply #12 on:** July 02, 2016, 10:52:34 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis

Last Tradhican,

Forgetting for a moment the large-scale changes to the Holy Week liturgy, I don't see how the 1962 missal leads, in any way, to the novus ordo or modernist rome. I'm a big fan of Fr Wathen (and it seems you are too) and he 'wrote the book' (pun intended) on the evils of the novus ordo, yet he didn't have any (major) problems with the 1962 missal. Even one of his 'email sermons' covered this direct topic: Is the 1962 missal wrong to use? He said, basically, no. It's not perfect but it's not a danger to the Faith, as there are bigger things to worry about.

If you disagree, why? I'm curious.

This article may be of interest:

The Missal Crisis of 1962:

"Look at it this way: All of these changes were masterminded by Annibale Bugnini, a proven Freemason, whose intention as a member of that secret society planted within the very highest echelons of the Vatican was to do as much damage as possible to the Church, Her Faith, and the faith of Her members. Although he would accomplish this most effectively later on with the advent of the Novus Ordo Missae, the changes already introduced into the 1962 Missale were nonetheless intended for that same purpose. The 1962 Missale is corrupted, and substantially discordant with the Missale Romanum as promulgated in fulfillment of the commands of the Council of Trent by Pope Saint Pius V. Neither can the claim that none of these changes is heretical in content be used as an argument in favor of its use, for neither is the employment of hula girls, fireworks, and mariachis strictly speaking heretical in itself, but they belong to that class of novel and profane things that do not belong in the Mass."

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f014ht_MissalCrisis_Perez.htm

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #13 on:** July 02, 2016, 11:12:08 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis

Last Tradhican,

Forgetting for a moment the large-scale changes to the Holy Week liturgy, I don't see how the 1962 missal leads, in any way, to the novus ordo or modernist rome. I'm a big fan of Fr Wathen (and it seems you are too) and he 'wrote the book' (pun intended) on the evils of the novus ordo, yet he didn't have any (major) problems with the 1962 missal. Even one of his 'email sermons' covered this direct topic: Is the 1962 missal wrong to use? He said, basically, no. It's not perfect but it's not a danger to the Faith, as there are bigger things to worry about.

If you disagree, why? I'm curious.

I agree with Fr. Wathen (in bold).

I also agree with the article I posted: "SSPX liturgical position, grounded in the Bugnini 1962 transitional extra-ordinary form of the Novus Ordo Missal, will make it impossible to resist the Reform of the Reform".

As Fr. Wathen said: "there are bigger things to worry about", so let's keep this thread on the subject of: "The doctrinal position that holds that dogma is not a definitive expression of our Faith, a formal object of Divine and Catholic Faith, but rather a human expression open to endless theological refinement, will undermine any possible opposition to Ecuмenical Ecclesiology".

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** July 02, 2016, 12:01:07 PM »

I'm not sure that I have any problem with the 1962 Missal ... except for the fact that Bugnini was behind it. If Cranmer or Bugnini were to have composed a Mass verbatim identical to the Tridentine Mass, I still would not want to use it just because it came from their hand.