Author Topic: Is the CMRI schismatic? (Read 46000 times)

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #240 on:** December 16, 2014, 11:35:46 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Why exactly do you list Fenton and Barbara in the same list? Fenton has addressed most of Barbara's false arguments, errors, and heresies -- and would have shredded Barbara.

That's another joke about BoD. For every BoD proponent you get a completely different understanding of what it and what it is not; the only thing you all have in common is your insistence that non-Catholics can be saved.

So here's the true definition of BoD: the principle that those outside the Church can be saved somehow.

I don't see any conflict between Fr. Fenton and Fr. Barbara. Fr. Fenton was a highly regarded pre-Vatican II theologian and if Fr. Barbara disagreed with Fr. Fenton, I'm sure he would have noted that. I don't think Fr. Barbara was trying to say anything different from Fr. Fenton but I could be wrong. Please feel free to point out the specific differences.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #241 on:** December 16, 2014, 11:56:50 AM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

I accept the dogma of EENS.

Quote from: Father Wathen

Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc., and ends by denying it-while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the formula, then to weasel out of it. What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's Infallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into denying.

Since we hold the Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation, we hold all modifications, qualifications, attenuations, and denials of it to be heresy, and those who defend these positions to be material heretics at least. It is contrary to Catholic tradition to treat heresy amicably, or heretics as brothers in Christ, but rather, as His enemies. If in places the language of this writing seem acidic, it is so in order to brace dissenters with their true standing with respect to Christ, Who is the Truth.

This doctrine is the basis for the labors of all who seek to maintain and restore traditional Catholicity, though most of those who are engaged in this struggle have yet to realize the fact. Without this doctrine, assented to absolutely, Traditionalists have no cause and no argument against the current "reform" in the Church, as it is called.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #242 on:** December 16, 2014, 12:02:16 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Clemens Maria
I accept the dogma of EENS.

Quote from: Father Wathen
Almost everybody who writes or comments on this subject explains the doctrine by explaining it away, as we shall see further on. He begins by affirming the truth of the axiom, Extra Ecciesiam, etc., and ends by denying it-while continuing to insist vigorously that he is not doing so. He seems to think it a clever thing to state the formula, then to weasel out of it. What he ought to do is one of two things: either admit that he does not believe this dogma (and also in the same breath, that he does not believe in the Dogma of the Church's Infallibility); or he should allow for the possibility that there is something about the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation of which he is unaware, or which he refuses to accept, or has been misled into denying.

Since we hold the Doctrine of Exclusive Salvation, we hold all modifications, qualifications, attenuations, and denials of it to be heresy, and those who defend these positions to be material heretics at least. It is contrary to Catholic tradition to treat heresy amicably, or heretics as brothers in Christ, but rather, as His enemies. If in places the language of this writing seem acidic, it is so in order to brace dissenters with their true standing with respect to Christ, Who is the Truth.

This doctrine is the basis for the labors of all who seek to maintain and restore traditional Catholicity, though most of those who are engaged in this struggle have yet to realize the fact. Without this doctrine, assented to absolutely, Traditionalists have no cause and no argument against the current "reform" in the Church, as it is called.

I have quoted Church-approved sources. Do you believe the Church has defected?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #243 on:** December 16, 2014, 12:16:29 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

I have quoted Church-approved sources. Do you believe the Church has defected?

False dichotomy.

Nishant · « **Reply #244 on:** December 16, 2014, 12:17:17 PM »

Dear Clemens Maria, you asked what was Fr. Fenton's view, I think it might interest you to know that he believed, as many theologians still did right up until Vatican II, that explicitly believing in Jesus Christ by divine and Catholic Faith, and loving Him with divine charity or contrition, was necessary for salvation.

In the American Ecclesiastical Review, in Dec. 1952, this eminent theologian wrote, "most theologians teach that the minimum explicit content of supernatural and salvific faith includes, not only the truths of God’s existence and of His action as the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, but also the mysteries of the Blessed Trinity and the Incarnation." These two doctrines are the core mysteries of the Catholic Faith, as the Athanasian Creed for example attests, and St. Thomas with almost all the Doctors like St. Robert, St. Bernard, St. Alphonsus etc held. Based on Magisterial texts of St. Pius X, of Clement XI, and of Alexander VII, as well as the consent of the Fathers, many theologians used to argue that this Papal teaching was irreformable, even though the Church does not censure the contrary proposition. This teaching, at any rate, was almost completely disregarded in the aftermath of the Council.

Fr. Wathen was in many ways a good priest during a period of immense difficulties in the Church, but, as per what has been posted above, he clearly fell into error on this point. He is not in agreement with the traditional teaching of the Church, which cannot be mistaken, therefore on this point, his opinion must be rejected. It is not correct to say or to think that those who hold the doctrines of Baptism of Desire are Blood are "at least material heretics." They are nothing of the sort. Fr. Wathen should rather have made the traditional teaching of the Church, in that immutable sense in which they have always and everywhere been understood, "the basis for" his own otherwise commendable "labors" to "seek to maintain and restore traditional Catholicity."

Anyway, I will post some sources on this in another thread, perhaps with a text in the library section. It doesn't belong in this thread.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #245 on:** December 16, 2014, 12:35:13 PM »

Thanks, Nishant. I agree with Fr. Fenton's view but I read in one source (I forget which one) that there is a less stringent view which was not condemned. I think holding the other view could be grounds for criticism but I don't think it is grounds for accusations of heresy (and especially not of bad will). I understand the danger of indifferentism and I see how in the post-Vatican II crisis the dogma of EENS has been trampled on and I understand how for some folks that can be a source of frustration. But at the same time, I feel obligated to defend clergy that are clearly trying to maintain the traditional teaching of the Church. I continue to pray for the election of a traditional Catholic Pope.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #246 on:** December 16, 2014, 12:58:35 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

My point is that you can't just shoot from the hip in calling him a heretic. You have to prove it.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #247 on:** December 16, 2014, 01:23:14 PM »

Here's the progression we see:

1) Baptism and Membership in the Catholic Church Necessary for Salvation.

2) Baptism and Membership in the Catholic Church Necessary for Salvation (with the exception of martyred catechumens)

3) Baptism of Blood or explicit Baptism of Desire for catechumens only

4) Baptism of Blood or implicit Baptism of Desire for catechumens only (implicit in wanting to become a Catholic)

5) Baptism of Blood or explicit / implicit Baptism of Desire for those who explicitly believe at least in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation (but are not necessarily catechumens intending to join the Church)

6) Baptism of Blood or explicit / implicit Baptism of Desire for those who explicitly believe at least in a "god" who rewards the good and punishes the wicked albeit with a supernatural formal motive of faith

7) Baptism of Blood or explicit / implicit Baptism of Desire for those who explicitly believe at least in a "god" who rewards the good and punishes the wicked and a general desire to do what this God wants (several steps removed implicit desire for Baptism)

8) faith and desire implicit in wanting to do good and be a good person

Now let's superimpose this on the historical progression:

Most Church Fathers never went past #1.

About 9-10 Church Fathers allowed for #2 (but most of these saw Baptism of Blood as the Sacrament of Baptism, but substituting blood for water as the matter of the Sacrament and having the form "administered by angels"); many of these explicitly rejected #3.

St. Augustine and, arguably, St. Ambrose speculated very tentatively regarding #3. St. Ambrose was most likely referring to #2.

You can find more Church Fathers, about 6-7, who rejected #3 than who (tentatively or dubiously) accepted it, about 1-2.

St. Augustine later backtracked to #2.

NOTHING for about 800 years except #1 or #2.

Innocent II and Innocent III adopt #3 and #4 ... again, based on the authority of Augustine and Ambrose, exactly TWO Church Fathers (out of hundreds), one of whom retracted the opinion and the other only ambiguously MAY have believed in it (but was more likely referring to #2).

Peter Lombard, the founder of scholasticism, has to decide between the opinions of his teachers, Abelard (#2) and Hugh of St. Victor (#3 or #4). He writes to St. Bernard, who tentatively adopts #3 / #4 based on the authority of St. Augustine, not knowing that St. Augustine had backtracked to #2.

St. Thomas, heavily influenced by Peter Lombard, appears to go to #5.

#5 opinion spreads due to the influence of St. Thomas.

It does not go past #5 until about the year 1600 when a number of theologians, predominantly Jesuits, start dabbling with #6.

From about 1600 until the 1950s, #6 still does not become the majority consensus, despite the fact that the forces of Protestant subjectivism have been urging it on since its inception. Some start also intermingling with #7.

1917 Code of Canon Law limits it to #3 / #4 only (i.e. to catechumens).

Francis, Jorge Bergoglio, MAY have implied #8.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #248 on:** December 16, 2014, 01:30:04 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: Ladislaus
My point is that you can't just shoot from the hip in calling him a heretic. You have to prove it.

You are indeed a Pelagian heretic. I have not, however, put you outside the Church for this, for the same reasons that I do not definitely conclude sedevacantism ... because your heresy isn't an explicit rejection of a defined dogma. I am quite consistent about this.

Nishant is absolutely wrong about this matter. He admits that it was taught and/or believed by all, everywhere, from the beginning of the Church until about the year 1600 that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation are necessary for supernatural faith and therefore for salvation. If THAT does not constitute an infallible teaching of the Church's Ordinary Universal Magisterium, then nothing does. Just because a few Jesuits show up at the time of the Protestant Reformation, heavily influenced by the Protestant subjectivism, and start undermining it, does not suddenly change something from being dogmatic teaching of the Church into acceptable "minority opinion".

You, furthermore, Clemens Maria, if you consider the V2 Popes to be manifest heretics outside the Church, then you condemn yourself. So you are the one who's completely inconsistent. You see, the ONLY heresy of which the V2 Popes could be convinced would be EENS-denial. Everything in Vatican II proceeds from the "Minority Opinion". So if the Minority Opinion is not heresy, then there's nothing heretical in Vatican II.

Quote from: Father James Wathen

This doctrine is the basis for the labors of all who seek to maintain and restore traditional Catholicity, though most of those who are engaged in this struggle have yet to realize the fact. Without this doctrine, assented to absolutely, Traditionalists have no cause and no argument against the current "reform" in the Church, as it is called.

Cantarella · « **Reply #249 on:** December 16, 2014, 01:34:11 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Here's the progression we see:

1) Baptism and Membership in the Catholic Church Necessary for Salvation.

2) Baptism and Membership in the Catholic Church Necessary for Salvation (with the exception of martyred catechumens)

3) Baptism of Blood or explicit Baptism of Desire for catechumens only

4) Baptism of Blood or implicit Baptism of Desire for catechumens only (implicit in wanting to become a Catholic)

5) Baptism of Blood or explicit / implicit Baptism of Desire for those who explicitly believe at least in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation (but are not necessarily catechumens intending to join the Church)

6) Baptism of Blood or explicit / implicit Baptism of Desire for those who explicitly believe at least in a "god" who rewards the good and punishes the wicked albeit with a supernatural formal motive of faith

7) Baptism of Blood or explicit / implicit Baptism of Desire for those who explicitly believe at least in a "god" who rewards the good and punishes the wicked and a general desire to do what this God wants (several steps removed implicit desire for Baptism)

8) faith and desire implicit in wanting to do good and be a good person

Now let's superimpose this on the historical progression:

Most Church Fathers never went past #1.

About 9-10 Church Fathers allowed for #2 (but most of these saw Baptism of Blood as the Sacrament of Baptism, but substituting blood for water as the matter of the Sacrament and having the form "administered by angels"); many of these explicitly rejected #3.

St. Augustine and, arguably, St. Ambrose speculated very tentatively regarding #3. St. Ambrose was most likely referring to #2.

You can find more Church Fathers, about 6-7, who rejected #3 than who (tentatively or dubiously) accepted it, about 1-2.

St. Augustine later backtracked to #2.

NOTHING for about 800 years except #1 or #2.

Innocent II and Innocent III adopt #3 and #4 ... again, based on the authority of Augustine and Ambrose, exactly TWO Church Fathers (out of hundreds), one of whom retracted the opinion and the other only ambiguously MAY have believed in it (but was more likely referring to #2).

Peter Lombard, the founder of scholasticism, has to decide between the opinions of his teachers, Abelard (#2) and Hugh of St. Victor (#3 or #4). He writes to St. Bernard, who tentatively adopts #3 / #4 based on the authority of St. Augustine, not knowing that St. Augustine had backtracked to #2.

St. Thomas, heavily influenced by Peter Lombard, appears to go to #5.

#5 opinion spreads due to the influence of St. Thomas.

It does not go past #5 until about the year 1600 when a number of theologians, predominantly Jesuits, start dabbling with #6.

From about 1600 until the 1950s, #6 still does not become the majority consensus, despite the fact that the forces of Protestant subjectivism have been urging it on since its inception. Some start also intermingling with #7.

1917 Code of Canon Law limits it to #3 / #4 only (i.e. to catechumens).

Francis, Jorge Bergoglio, MAY have implied #8.

CMRI, most traditionalists, and liberal Vatican II curia all share the version of EENS described in number 8. Modernists they really are, they affirm the EENS dogma but then twist the real meaning of the words until there is nothing left. They mask behind the genuine teaching in Baptism of Desire to continue doing so but they all believe that even a pagan can be saved, while totally ignorant of the Catholic Faith.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #250 on:** December 16, 2014, 01:36:46 PM »

Anything past #5 is heretical.

#6 is Semi-Pelagianism.

#7 and #8 are full-blown Pelagianism.

Thus the accusation of heresy.

Nishant leaves off at #5. You'll note that I do not accuse him of heresy, even though I disagree.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #251 on:** December 16, 2014, 01:39:20 PM »

I should also have added that neither St. Robert Bellarmine, nor the Council of Trent, nor the Catechism of Trent went past #4 (just as the Code of Canon Law never went past #4) ... even if I were to concede that Trent dealt with BoD.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #252 on:** December 16, 2014, 01:44:49 PM »

You can see the insidious progression; it's a gradual boiling of the frog.

Now let's look at the stark contrast by juxtaposing the opposite poles.

Quote

1) Baptism and Membership in the Catholic Church Necessary for Salvation.

2) Baptism and Membership in the Catholic Church Necessary for Salvation (with the exception of martyred catechumens)

......

7) Baptism of Blood or explicit / implicit Baptism of Desire for those who explicitly believe at least in a "god" who rewards the good and punishes the wicked and a general desire to do what this God wants (several steps removed implicit desire for Baptism)

8) faith and desire implicit in wanting to do good and be a good person

It is OBVIOUS when looked at from this perspective that the Church Fathers who believed in #1-#2 would never have recognized modern Catholics (including most "Trads"), believers of #7-#8, as having the same faith that they did.

So how do we explain this short of some modernist "development of doctrine" theory? That's in fact how Karl Rahner describes the progression, that there was a growing awareness or consciousness regarding a hope for the salvation of non-Catholics as time went on.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #253 on:** December 16, 2014, 01:47:10 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

CMRI, most traditionalists, and liberal Vatican II curia all share the version of EENS described in number 8. Modernists they really are, they affirm the EENS dogma but then twist the real meaning of the words until there is nothing left. They mask behind the genuine teaching in Baptism of Desire to continue doing so but they all believe that even a pagan can be saved, while totally ignorant of the Catholic Faith.

Some trads, like LoT, will articulate #7. But you're right, 90% of trads actually do believe in #8; they're flaming Pelagians.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #254 on:** December 16, 2014, 04:49:02 PM »

Fr. Barbara quoted the entire 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (Suprema Haec Sacra). Obviously he intends his article to be in conformity with the Holy Office. Where do you place that letter on your spectrum? Also, Fr. Barbara actually complemented Fr. Feeney while still maintaining that Fr. Feeney was wrong. But as for JP2, Fr. Barbara quoted several statements that appear to show that JP2 was denying EENS. That presents a problem for you since you call Fr. Barbara a heretic while you say JP2 is not a heretic (or am I wrong about that?).