Author Topic: Do you think there are many virtuous pagans? (Read 3258 times)

BeatusRusticus · « **Reply #30 on:** August 12, 2016, 12:23:46 PM »

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: BeatusRusticus
in practice scandalize many souls by their wresting of every docuмent to try to prove that any soul who has not been baptized with water is surely and absolutely going to Hell, and with them, must go very many saints, popes, and martyrs, who committed monstrous crimes of heresy by daring to suggest that God is not bound by the rules He sets forth for man.

Well-stated. Are you prepared to be flogged and chastised and have words put in your mouth and be told you are a Cushingite and heretic, mischaracterised, and lied about? Keep trying to help them as if they are rational human beings without caving in to their beliefs for years and this what will happen. The will try to beat you down until you quite interrupting their fantasy.

More straw man argumentation. It is not about water baptism - Thomistic Baptism of Desire is Catholic and absolutely fine. What you really promote is not salvation through Thomistic BoD, but salvation without faith in Incarnation and the Trinity, which is a direct denial of Athanasian Creed and Cantate Domino. No Saint taught that - neither St. Thomas, nor St. Alphonsus, so don't hide behind their statements on Thomistic BoD to promote the Cushingite heresy of salvation without faith in Christ.

This is the question, indeed. Whether a man can be saved without explicitly believing in the formulated doctrines of the Church. Suffice it to say, this is a question that has been debated among men wiser than you and I for a long, long time. If you read doctrinal books from the turn of the century, you can find summaries of "so and so inclines to the strict position," "so and so inclines to the position that at the least they must accept the Trinity and the Incarnation," "so and so inclines to the position that a sincere love of the Creator and a hatred of sin suffices" etc. If these men could treat their opponents who disagreed with them as Catholics, and examine the question dispassionately as a theological one, then it behooves us today to do the same. After all, there are far fewer good Catholics today than a century ago, and it accomplishes nothing to set oneself up as pope and final interpreter of all Church teaching.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #31 on:** August 12, 2016, 12:46:02 PM »

Quote from: BeatusRusticus

Quote from: Arvinger
Quote from: Lover of Truth
Quote from: BeatusRusticus
in practice scandalize many souls by their wresting of every docuмent to try to prove that any soul who has not been baptized with water is surely and absolutely going to Hell, and with them, must go very many saints, popes, and martyrs, who committed monstrous crimes of heresy by daring to suggest that God is not bound by the rules He sets forth for man.

Well-stated. Are you prepared to be flogged and chastised and have words put in your mouth and be told you are a Cushingite and heretic, mischaracterised, and lied about? Keep trying to help them as if they are rational human beings without caving in to their beliefs for years and this what will happen. The will try to beat you down until you quite interrupting their fantasy.

More straw man argumentation. It is not about water baptism - Thomistic Baptism of Desire is Catholic and absolutely fine. What you really promote is not salvation through Thomistic BoD, but salvation without faith in Incarnation and the Trinity, which is a direct denial of Athanasian Creed and Cantate Domino. No Saint taught that - neither St. Thomas, nor St. Alphonsus, so don't hide behind their statements on Thomistic BoD to promote the Cushingite heresy of salvation without faith in Christ.

This is the question, indeed. Whether a man can be saved without explicitly believing in the formulated doctrines of the Church. Suffice it to say, this is a question that has been debated among men wiser than you and I for a long, long time. If you read doctrinal books from the turn of the century, you can find summaries of "so and so inclines to the strict position," "so and so inclines to the position that at the least they must accept the Trinity and the Incarnation," "so and so inclines to the position that a sincere love of the Creator and a hatred of sin suffices" etc. If these men could treat their opponents who disagreed with them as Catholics, and examine the question dispassionately as a theological one, then it behooves us today to do the same. After all, there are far fewer good Catholics today than a century ago, and it accomplishes nothing to set oneself up as pope and final interpreter of all Church teaching.

You are an intelligent, well-reasoned and factually correct man. But this will not wash with those you are dealing with.

The fact that supernatural Faith and perfect charity is intrinsically necessary for salvation is not good enough for them. They take that and claim that this means the devil and all his minions are saved. It is incredible.

Nowhere do we teach that false sects save. Or that "false sects are saved" as one accused me of recently, or that most in then are saved, or even can be.

The Church simply teaches that some non-members can be saved within the Church. I merely accept it. They refuse to because of varying things such as pride, blindness and ignorance or some combination of the above. Will they be judged on their ignorance as harshly as they judge others? If so they are definitely going to the Hell they send everyone else to. I speak facetiously to make a point of course.

Arvinger · « **Reply #32 on:** August 12, 2016, 12:46:57 PM »

Quote from: BeatusRusticus

If you read doctrinal books from the turn of the century, you can find summaries of "so and so inclines to the strict position," "so and so inclines to the position that at the least they must accept the Trinity and the Incarnation," "so and so inclines to the position that a sincere love of the Creator and a hatred of sin suffices" etc.

That is true, and that is exactly what paved the way to Vatican II revolution - gradual spread of the denial of absolute necessity of faith in Christ and the Incarnation and the denial of necessity of being in the Catholic Church for salvation. Watering down the dogma began long before Vatican II, the Council was merely the formal expression of it. If you can't see the connection between Suprema Haec Sacra and teachings of theologians on EENS from before Vatican II and the heretical Vatican II ecclesiology, then you don't understand the origins and nature of the crisis in the Church which we experience.

The matter has been settled with the Athanasian Creed and Cantate Domino - nobody can be saved without believing in essential mysteries of the Catholic faith, period.

Quote from: Lover of Truth

The fact that supernatural Faith and perfect charity is intrinsically necessary for salvation is not good enough for them.

That's good enough for us, the problem is that you redefine and deny the requirements for Supernatural Faith which are infallibly taught in the Athanasian Creed - that is, faith in Incarnation and the Trinity.

Quote from: Lover of Truth

The Church simply teaches that some non-members can be saved within the Church. I merely accept it.

Suprema Haec Sacra and some theologians teach it, not the Church.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #33 on:** August 12, 2016, 12:50:24 PM »

When addressing the issue of Baptism of Desire Saint Thomas Aquinas says:

Quote

In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.

The mention of the necessity of believing in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity is not mentioned here. Nor is it mentioned either way whether those in non-Christian sects can even theoretically be saved within the Church or not.

Matto · « **Reply #34 on:** August 12, 2016, 12:58:45 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

When addressing the issue of Baptism of Desire Saint Thomas Aquinas says:
Quote

In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.

The mention of the necessity of believing in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity is not mentioned here. Nor is it mentioned either way whether those in non-Christian sects can even theoretically be saved within the Church or not.

I think your quote from St. Thomas may mislead some to believe that St. Thomas thought one could be saved without believing in the Trinity and the Incarnation. He may not mention it here, but I have read other quotes from St. Thomas where he says what one must believe to be saved and he says that one must believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation to be saved.

Arvinger · « **Reply #35 on:** August 12, 2016, 12:59:29 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

When addressing the issue of Baptism of Desire Saint Thomas Aquinas says:
Quote

In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.

The mention of the necessity of believing in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity is not mentioned here. Nor is it mentioned either way whether those in non-Christian sects can even theoretically be saved within the Church or not.

The absolute necessity of believing in Chrust and the Trinity is infallibly taught in the Athanasian Creed. Deal with it.

As to St. Thomas, I have already refuted you on this - he teaches necessity of faith in Christ and the Trinity elsewhere, thus when speaking about BoD and "believing in God", by God he means the Trinity and Incarnation, otherwise he would contradict himself.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #36 on:** August 12, 2016, 01:19:14 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Lover of Truth
When addressing the issue of Baptism of Desire Saint Thomas Aquinas says:
Quote

In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance.

The mention of the necessity of believing in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity is not mentioned here. Nor is it mentioned either way whether those in non-Christian sects can even theoretically be saved within the Church or not.

I think your quote from St. Thomas may mislead some to believe that St. Thomas thought one could be saved without believing in the Trinity and the Incarnation. He may not mention it here, but I have read other quotes from St. Thomas where he says what one must believe to be saved and he says that one must believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation to be saved.

But this must be understood in context regarding the particular issue he is directly addressing. In this case he is addressing BOD. It coincides with what Pius IX taught and Pius XII in M.C. and the authoritative letter approved by same which all good Catholics give their ascent.

This issue itself has not be definitively settled. Supernatural Faith is what is essential. It has not been settled with what necessity and under what circuмstances belief in the Incarnation and Holy Trinity is necessary.

I have said before but people ignore, I'm inclined to believe all four are necessary but I do not insist on it because I have not seen that the Church has when addressing the issue of BOD.

This is why a theologian as revered and learned as Monsignor Fenton, who was on the Catholic side when fighting for truth on the V2 commission and was also on the "losing" side admitted as much. He knows what the creed taught, and Trent taught and everything else. He was not liber inventing new truths. Neither was Pius IX or Pius XII for that matter. We must accept what they taught in their official capacity.

Are babies saved without explicit Faith in the Trinity and Incarnation? Do they think upon these mysteries. Baptized babies have supernatural Faith yet can we call them culpably ignorant of the mysteries? Are they damned by their inculpable ignorance?

The over-reactors to the heresy of universal salvation have outsmarted themselves. Like the protestants, they trust their interpretation of everything over that of EVERYONE else no matter how authoritative and qualified they are.

Again I think all four beliefs are necessary. I do not teach they are not but merely admit that it has not be settled as to whether it is intrinsically necessary or not under every circuмstance or not. Supernatural Faith is essential. We should all agree. What constitutes the bare minimum for supernatural Faith to be possible is not up to us on this forum. We submit to the Church and impose no more on others than she does, and no less.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #37 on:** August 12, 2016, 02:53:14 PM »

Quote from: Lover of Truth

But this must be understood in context regarding the particular issue he is directly addressing.

Here he puts his hubris on display, Matto. He'll never admit he's wrong, not even on the slightest point. So explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for supernatural faith but not for Baptism of Desire. In other words, according to LoT, supernatural faith is not required for Baptism of Desire. This man needs mental and spiritual help. I'm glad that this guy keeps posting about BoD; he's the best advertisement for how badly flawed the position is. I've seen more and more people understand the EENS problem the longer this guy posts ... including comments about how it's absurd for him to be a sedevacantist when he essentially holds to V2 ecclesiology (from which all V2 errors derive). It's obvious to any sentient being that he is not intellectually honest in the least bit.

LoT discredits the positions he thinks he's defending.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #38 on:** August 12, 2016, 06:59:46 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican

Quote from: BeatusRusticus
If they didn't become a Catholic, only God can say whether their reasons were justifiable, (ignorance of the existence of the church, ignorance of the teachings of the church, bad example by Catholics who should have known differently, etc.) and only God can choose whether to extend to them the sanctifying grace to save their soul.

Are you aware that what you have written goes against the dogmatic Athanasian Creed, which is ancient and believed by all the Fathers of the Church, St. Thomas and all the saints? Ignorance of the existence of the church, ignorance of the teachings of the church, bad example by Catholics who should have known differently, have been around since the beginning and have been directly rejected as "excuses" for salvation by the Church Fathers and Saints since the beginning.

Athanasian Creed

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
[/b] 4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #39 on:** August 12, 2016, 07:02:17 PM »

Quote from: Last Tradhican

Quote from: BeatusRusticus
If they didn't become a Catholic, only God can say whether their reasons were justifiable, (ignorance of the existence of the church, ignorance of the teachings of the church, bad example by Catholics who should have known differently, etc.) and only God can choose whether to extend to them the sanctifying grace to save their soul.

Are you aware that what you have written goes against the dogmatic Athanasian Creed, which is ancient and believed by all the Fathers of the Church, St. Thomas and all the saints? Ignorance of the existence of the church, ignorance of the teachings of the church, bad example by Catholics who should have known differently, have been around since the beginning and have been directly rejected as "excuses" for salvation by the Church Fathers and Saints since the beginning.

Athanasian Creed

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
[/b] 4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
42. and shall give account of their own works.
43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

So, after much writing by him, we find yet another dogma refiner who denies the ancient dogmatic Athanasian Creed and teaches that people can be saved without belief in Christ and the Holy Trinity. This one though sounds like he accepts Vatican II which would at least make sense.

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #40 on:** August 12, 2016, 10:25:02 PM »

Vatican II

World News
Approval for Zairian rite was a long time coming, says Congolese cardinal

By Mark Pattison • Catholic News Service • Posted August 10, 2016

WASHINGTON (CNS) — In 1969, four years after the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, the bishops of the Democratic Republic of the Congo petitioned the Vatican for permission to use a new rite that spoke to the needs of Catholics in the sub-Saharan African nation.

Nineteen years and two popes later, that permission was granted. By 1988, though, the country’s name had been changed to Zaire, so the liturgical rite became known as the Zairian rite.

Less than a decade later, the country was renamed the Democratic Republic of the Congo, better known simply as Congo. The name of the rite remains, though, said Congolese Cardinal Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya of Kinshasa, which is the capital of the country.

The biggest changes from the Roman rite known to most Catholics in the West to the Zairian rite are slight changes in order. The penitential rite follows the homily, and is followed by the sign of peace.

“We cannot ask for forgiveness until we have heard the word of God,” Cardinal Monsengwo said in his Aug. 5 address during the Aug. 5-7 Third African National Eucharistic Congress, held in Washington. “We have to know the teaching of the church first.”

The placement of the greeting of peace, he said, harks back to the biblical injunction that, if you are at odds with your brother, you must reconcile with him before bringing your gifts to the altar.

The Mass also features a moderator, an important element in Congolese culture. It also features the invocation of ancestors, which has long been part of African practices. In addition, dancing is common in Masses using the rite. Liturgical dance is far less frequent in the West, and often viewed as an oddity, if not with outright suspicion.

The rite was cited in 1989, a year after its approval, by then-Father George Stallings, a priest of the Archdiocese of Washington, as justification for the creation an African-American rite for black Catholics in the United States. During liturgies he performed before his split with the Roman Catholic Church, Father Stallings — now an archbishop in the church he founded, the African-American Catholic Congregation — incorporated calling on the intercession of ancestors, but none of the other elements of the Zairian rite.

The Zairian rite was not used in any of the Masses celebrated during the Congress, held at The Catholic University of America. The rite is approved for use only for Masses in the dioceses of Congo.

Cardinal Monsengwo was hailed as one of the last living clergy to have helped develop the rite and then advocate for its adoption by the Vatican.

Work on the rite had begun in 1961, before Vatican II had begun. Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, adopted in 1963, called for liturgical adaptation.

The Zairian rite is one of two rites particular to Africa; the Ge’ez rite has been approved for use for Catholics in Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Stubborn · « **Reply #41 on:** August 13, 2016, 06:41:02 AM »

Quote from: Arvinger

BeatusRusticus, in all charity, your post just reeks modernism.

Quote from: BeatusRusticus

...And my friend, if you yourself read it, with the mind of the Church, you would understand that you cannot selectively ignore the parts of a docuмent or teaching that you do not like. Pius IX does not contradict himself, he rather re-echoes the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. God commands all of us to be Catholic. We must be Catholic if we are to be saved. But God is not bound by the laws he gives to man (EENS) and can bestow grace where He will, so that if He wills to save someone who is not outwardly Catholic, He certainly can do so -and His mercy might compel Him to, when there is a certain pagan who through natural virtue has responded to the graces which God has sent him, but who, through the fault of Catholics, has not been shown the Catholic religion.

Of course Pope Pius IX does not contradict himself. His stamements on invincible ignorance understood in context and in light of Catholic dogma mean that these invincibly ignorant people who strive to live upright life can receive graces from God to find the Catholic faith, be converted and saved. That does not mean that they can be saved in the state of invincible ignorance.

And again, just like many Cushingites, you introduce the notion that someone "could not become Catholic faith becaue he has not been shown Catholic religion". So apparently God is bound by efforts of missionaries and can't provide faith to His elect in other ways whenever He pleases. This is denial of God's providence.

Quote from: BeatusRusticus
This is really all that need be said on the subject. If the early Fathers seem more "simple and straightforward," "staunch," "austere," however you want to put it, it is not because "liberals have softened the doctrine since the high Middle Ages," (liberals have softened the doctrine, but this has taken place in the mid-20th century to today, not in the 19th) but because all their writings assume the context of a completely Christianized world, so they did not need to verbalize apparent "exceptions" about "invincible ignorance," etc. They write for the Catholic, and for a literate world that knew Christ. If a man knew Latin or Greek, or knew people who knew these languages, then he knew the Church and therefore needed to be reminded that his salvation depended on being a Christian. It's hard for us to understand this today, but in, let's say, A.D. 400, until the 1400s when seafaring began to open new lands, it was simply impossible to conceive of a wider world of many continents and nation states, as we do now. It was a long journey of days between cities that we can now zip between in our cars in 20 minutes. It could take months to travel from Italy into France. Ireland was a mysterious land on the very edge of the world. Most people never in their entire lives travelled more than 20 miles from their birthplace. The Sahara and the empty steppes of Central Asia, and the frozen wastelands of the north, meant that beyond the Mediterranean region of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East (as we now call it, with our knowledge of China, India, etc. Back then it was just "the east") comprised the whole world, and anything beyond that was merely legends, wild stories, and fables.

Perfect and truly modernist example of explaining the dogma away through historical criticism. Apparently the dogma does not mean what it says, we need to know all historical circuмstances to understand what it actually means (which turn out to be opposite to what the dogmatic pronouncements actually say). People use the same methodology to explain away Unam Sanctam, saying that Pope Boniface VIII wrote that against the French king to discipline him and that thus it cannot be treated as infallible statement binding on all Christians till the end of time.

The understanding of Catholic dogma cannot change because we discovered new lands with millions of pagans, so that suddenly an alternative way of salvation ("invincible ignorance" etc.) has to be invented for them. You articulate the heresy condemned by Vatican I - the meaning of the dogmas cannot change and they have to be understood as the Church understood them when they were defined. According to you, the meaning Cantate Domino, which teaches that all who die as pagans go to hell, has changed because of geographical discoveries etc.

Quote from: BeatusRusticus
In this context, it makes perfect sense that most of the earlier statements (e.g. the Athanasian Creed) don't become 20 page theological treatises explaining every apparent "exception" -that's not their purpose. The purpose of that creed is to contradict those who think that the Trinity is false, and secondly, for our purposes, to contradict those who think that a man has just as much chance of enjoying paradise after death if he worships Apollo or Sol Invictus, or follows the false teaching of a heretic like Arius.

More modernism. The Athanasian Creed says that those without the Catholic faith without a doubt shall perish in eternity. No exceptions are even hinted at. According to you, what it actually means is "it is best to hold the Catholic faith, but it is possible to be saved without it under certain circuмstances" - directly opposite of what the Athanasian Creed says.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

JezusDeKoning · « **Reply #42 on:** August 13, 2016, 09:47:58 AM »

Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey

Vatican II

World News
Approval for Zairian rite was a long time coming, says Congolese cardinal

By Mark Pattison • Catholic News Service • Posted August 10, 2016

WASHINGTON (CNS) — In 1969, four years after the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, the bishops of the Democratic Republic of the Congo petitioned the Vatican for permission to use a new rite that spoke to the needs of Catholics in the sub-Saharan African nation.

Nineteen years and two popes later, that permission was granted. By 1988, though, the country’s name had been changed to Zaire, so the liturgical rite became known as the Zairian rite.

Less than a decade later, the country was renamed the Democratic Republic of the Congo, better known simply as Congo. The name of the rite remains, though, said Congolese Cardinal Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya of Kinshasa, which is the capital of the country.

The biggest changes from the Roman rite known to most Catholics in the West to the Zairian rite are slight changes in order. The penitential rite follows the homily, and is followed by the sign of peace.

“We cannot ask for forgiveness until we have heard the word of God,” Cardinal Monsengwo said in his Aug. 5 address during the Aug. 5-7 Third African National Eucharistic Congress, held in Washington. “We have to know the teaching of the church first.”

The placement of the greeting of peace, he said, harks back to the biblical injunction that, if you are at odds with your brother, you must reconcile with him before bringing your gifts to the altar.

The Mass also features a moderator, an important element in Congolese culture. It also features the invocation of ancestors, which has long been part of African practices. In addition, dancing is common in Masses using the rite. Liturgical dance is far less frequent in the West, and often viewed as an oddity, if not with outright suspicion.

The rite was cited in 1989, a year after its approval, by then-Father George Stallings, a priest of the Archdiocese of Washington, as justification for the creation an African-American rite for black Catholics in the United States. During liturgies he performed before his split with the Roman Catholic Church, Father Stallings — now an archbishop in the church he founded, the African-American Catholic Congregation — incorporated calling on the intercession of ancestors, but none of the other elements of the Zairian rite.

The Zairian rite was not used in any of the Masses celebrated during the Congress, held at The Catholic University of America. The rite is approved for use only for Masses in the dioceses of Congo.

Cardinal Monsengwo was hailed as one of the last living clergy to have helped develop the rite and then advocate for its adoption by the Vatican.

Work on the rite had begun in 1961, before Vatican II had begun. Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, adopted in 1963, called for liturgical adaptation.

The Zairian rite is one of two rites particular to Africa; the Ge’ez rite has been approved for use for Catholics in Ethiopia and Eritrea.

When whites came to Africa, they brought the MASS. They didn't tell them "keep worshiping your jungle ancestors like they're the saints". They're not real Catholics if they need ancestor worship and jungle dance to worship God.

Everyone and anyone who's ever participated in the creation or worship of that rite needs to be excommunicated with the ability to lift it reserved to the bishop alone.

OHCA · « **Reply #43 on:** August 13, 2016, 12:09:25 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Ladislaus
So the Sacraments and the Church are the "ordinary means" of salvation and the Church offers a lot of helps to salvation, making it easier. That's not what Catholic dogma teaches. Besides, if morals are subjective, then fornication is not against natural law and so pagans who fornicate on a regular basis do so without mortal sin while Catholics could go to hell after one sin? Prots who don't think they have a strict obligation to attend church services on Sunday commit no sin but Catholics who sleep in one time from Mass are subject to hellfire? So much for being a "help" to salvation.

Apply this picture to every single doctrine and moral teaching constituting the Catholic religion. When you make everything subjective, at the expense of the objective truth revealed by God, then no dogma of the Faith is ever safe....nothing else matters.

If EENS (as written) does not matter, then absolutely nothing in Catholicism really does.

In light of the creative spin by which LoT weaves EENS & BoD together, albeit amid screeching-grating-clanging-banging-and sparks and parts flying every which way, he may be able to grasp the grand reconciliation of the Vatican II docuмents with true Catholicism by way of Ratzinger's mental, verbal, aspiritual, and quantum gymnastics known as hermeunetic continuity.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #44 on:** August 13, 2016, 02:33:34 PM »

Quote from: OHCA

In light of the creative spin by which LoT weaves EENS & BoD together, albeit amid screeching-grating-clanging-banging-and sparks and parts flying every which way, he may be able to grasp the grand reconciliation of the Vatican II docuмents with true Catholicism by way of Ratzinger's mental, verbal, aspiritual, and quantum gymnastics known as hermeunetic continuity.

Yep, LoT's ecclesiology differs in no way from that of Vatican II. There's little hermeneutic even required.