Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: AnthonyPadua on August 20, 2023, 11:46:28 PM
-
https://youtu.be/JlUssXWh3n4
A short video by mhfm that shows non-catholics cannot have 'partial communion' with the body of Christ.
-
If a Catholic who has reached the age of reason and has been instructed in the truths of the Faith and doesn’t realize this is heretical, he’s probably a heretic himself.
-
Unfortunately, however, many Traditional Catholics also believe in partial communion.
If it's possible for non-Catholics to be saved, they must be considered to be inside the Church. But they are not fully inside the Church due to their adherence to heretical doctrines, lack of the Sacraments, etc. So they must be in some partial communion with the Church.
Everything in Vatican II derives from the new ecclesiology invented in order to gut EENS dogma.
-
I’m wondering whether there is a distinction to be made between “partial communion” and “partial membership?”
-
There is only one Faith, one fold, one shepherd, and one baptism. There is no “partial” anything. There can’t be any distinction between membership and communion since one of the four Marks of the Church is Her Unity.
-
There can’t be any distinction between membership and communion since one of the four Marks of the Church is Her Unity.
But there are three elements of unity:
1) Faith,
2) Governance,
3) Sacraments.
If a man be lacking in any of the three, he cannot be a member.
But what if he has one or two of the three?
Many of the saints, Fathers, and Doctors (eg., St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Bellarmine et al) spoke of such being in communion with the Church, even as they remained outside it).
This implies to me that “communion” and “membership” could be two different things, which are incessantly conflated.
-
But there are three elements of unity:
1) Faith,
2) Governance,
3) Sacraments.
If a man be lacking in any of the three, he cannot be a member.
But what if he has one or two of the three?
Many of the saints, Fathers, and Doctors (eg., St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Bellarmine et al) spoke of such being in communion with the Church, even as they remained outside it).
This implies to me that “communion” and “membership” could be two different things, which are incessantly conflated.
Pope Leo XIII said both expertem (no part of communion) and extorrem (exiled from the Church).
These incessant "nuances" and "distinctions" are the mark of a modernist mind. Sound doctrine is simple. You're either outside or you're inside.
-
Pope Leo XIII said both expertem (no part of communion) and extorrem (exiled from the Church).
These incessant "nuances" and "distinctions" are the mark of a modernist mind. Sound doctrine is simple. You're either outside or you're inside.
OK, well, here’s one such “modernist mind” making precisely such distinctions, here:
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~Sent.III.D13.Q2.A2.qa2.C
And here:
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.III.Q8.A3
-
But there are three elements of unity:
1) Faith,
2) Governance,
3) Sacraments.
If a man be lacking in any of the three, he cannot be a member.
But what if he has one or two of the three?
Many of the saints, Fathers, and Doctors (eg., St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Bellarmine et al) spoke of such being in communion with the Church, even as they remained outside it).
This implies to me that “communion” and “membership” could be two different things, which are incessantly conflated.
I could be mistaken, but the word "communion" as a descriptor of one's relationship to the Church and its members isn't something I've seen except among post-conciliar writers.
That said, there is a longstanding tradition of identifying some people who have a certain union with Christ and His Church while not being a member of the Church. This relationship has been described in a plethora of different ways and with different types of jargon, but all those different ways point to the same reality: a person whose soul is animated by supernatural faith, hope, and charity but who fails to satisfy the threefold criteria of membership (baptism, profession of faith, and not being excluded by Church government).
The pre-conciliar authors who discuss this manage to do so without leaning on the term "communion," at least so far as I have read.
-
Unfortunately, however, many Traditional Catholics also believe in partial communion.
If it's possible for non-Catholics to be saved, they must be considered to be inside the Church. But they are not fully inside the Church due to their adherence to heretical doctrines, lack of the Sacraments, etc. So they must be in some partial communion with the Church.
Everything in Vatican II derives from the new ecclesiology invented in order to gut EENS dogma.
Let's say a baby was baptized by their Anglican parents in the Anglican church. Assuming the baptism was valid, it would mean the baby is actually Catholic and part of the Catholic Church, because even non-Catholics can validly administer baptism. However, on the surface they would be seen as non-Catholics. When the child reaches the age of reason and adheres to the errors of Anglicanism, only then is that person considered separated from the Catholic Church.
-
But there are three elements of unity:
2) Governance,
Well, that would be a problem for trads.
-
I could be mistaken, but the word "communion" as a descriptor of one's relationship to the Church and its members isn't something I've seen except among post-conciliar writers.
That said, there is a longstanding tradition of identifying some people who have a certain union with Christ and His Church while not being a member of the Church. This relationship has been described in a plethora of different ways and with different types of jargon, but all those different ways point to the same reality: a person whose soul is animated by supernatural faith, hope, and charity but who fails to satisfy the threefold criteria of membership (baptism, profession of faith, and not being excluded by Church government).
The pre-conciliar authors who discuss this manage to do so without leaning on the term "communion," at least so far as I have read.
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." -Shakespeare
-
Well, that would be a problem for trads.
"Necessity carries within itself its own dispensation."
-
OK, well, here’s one such “modernist mind” making precisely such distinctions, here:
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~Sent.III.D13.Q2.A2.qa2.C
And here:
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.III.Q8.A3
I already read this when a Novus Ordite was trying to demonstrate eastern schismatics were inside the Church.
I didn't mean to say that communion and membership are the same thing, obviously, they're two different words. But I did mean to say that there can be no such distinction for those OUTSIDE the Church. If one is outside the Church he has no part with us, he is alien to us, he is exiled, excommunicated, in schism, anathematized, reprobate, etc. I'm sorry for not expressing myself clearly enough.
-
"Necessity carries within itself its own dispensation."
So the necessity is because they (the conciliar church) possesses governance, but not the faith, correct? While the resistors do not possess the governance, but do have the faith? Together, they check off all the boxes, but separated do not?
-
So the necessity is because they (the conciliar church) possesses governance, but not the faith, correct?
Yes.
While the resistors do not possess the governance, but do have the faith?
Yes.
Together, they check off all the boxes, but separated do not?
Yes. Except that the necessity acquires the power of governance on a case-by-case (howsoever sustained) need. +de Mallerais teaches that this supplied jurisdiction pertains to all aspects of the apostolate, since if it did not, the faithful would be paralyzed.
Responses in red above.
-
Responses in red above.
So how do we know +de Mallerais's novel application of epikeia is infallible?
-
So how do we know +de Mallerais's novel application of epikeia is infallible?
I don't believe I made that claim.
On the other hand, I'm not so sure its novel.
-
I’m wondering whether there is a distinction to be made between “partial communion” and “partial membership?”
Possibly, if you believe that a certain communion could be attained without membership in the Church, but what's certain is that membership is more restrictive than communion, and anyone who believes that infidels, heretics, and schismatics can be saved, must also then believe that infidels, heretics, and schismatics are within the Church (since there can be no salvation outside the Church). So that means they can be in communion with the Church, and, since they're not actual Catholics, the communion can only be a partial one.
-
Let's say a baby was baptized by their Anglican parents in the Anglican church. Assuming the baptism was valid, it would mean the baby is actually Catholic and part of the Catholic Church, because even non-Catholics can validly administer baptism. However, on the surface they would be seen as non-Catholics. When the child reaches the age of reason and adheres to the errors of Anglicanism, only then is that person considered separated from the Catholic Church.
OK? Until that individual reaches the age of reason, he's fully Catholic and not in any partial communion. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
-
On the other hand, I'm not so sure its novel.
So there has been a theologian who has speculated that a group of clergy could set up priories, schools, seminaries, monasteries, convents, 3rd orders, etc. without the permission of the pope or the bishop of the diocese all the while recognizing their rightful governance?
-
So there has been a theologian who has speculated that a group of clergy could set up priories, schools, seminaries, monasteries, convents, 3rd orders, etc. without the permission of the pope or the bishop of the diocese all the while recognizing their rightful governance?
More than that:
They consecrated bishops and gave them jurisdiction in other Sees, without any permission from the pope (e.g., St. Eusebius of Samasota during the Arian heresy).
-
More than that:
They consecrated bishops and gave them jurisdiction in other Sees, without any permission from the pope (e.g., St. Eusebius of Samasota during the Arian heresy).
Wow. So Vatican I, Satis Cognitum, Etsi Multa were novel.
-
Wow. So Vatican I, Satis Cognitum, Etsi Multa were novel.
You're not a very lucid thinker, are you?
-
You're not a very lucid thinker, are you?
Coming from a bullsh*t artist such as yourself, that's rich.
-
Trento: Cardinal Newman, conditionally baptized A.A.Curtis. A.A. Curtis was a methodist baby, Episcopalian in his youth, and Anglican in his maturity of age 40.
-
But there are three elements of unity:
1) Faith,
2) Governance,
3) Sacraments.
If a man be lacking in any of the three, he cannot be a member.
But what if he has one or two of the three?
Many of the saints, Fathers, and Doctors (eg., St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Bellarmine et al) spoke of such being in communion with the Church, even as they remained outside it).
This implies to me that “communion” and “membership” could be two different things, which are incessantly conflated.
What about the eastern (un)orthodox? I've heard novus ordo catholics say that they aren't a false religion and that they just don't have the 'fullness of truth'...
-
What about the eastern (un)orthodox? I've heard novus ordo catholics say that they aren't a false religion and that they just don't have the 'fullness of truth'...
Also I recently read that there was issue with bishops for 30 years in portagual when they made their own King instead of accepting a Spanish king which is the agreement they had with the church.
I briefly saw this on a comment section in YouTube but I forgot the full details.
-
Trento: Cardinal Newman, conditionally baptized A.A.Curtis. A.A. Curtis was a methodist baby, Episcopalian in his youth, and Anglican in his maturity of age 40.
I do not know the specifics of that case but perhaps Cardinal Newman judged A.A. Curtis' initial baptism has positive doubt to have a conditional baptism.
-
I do not know the specifics of that case but perhaps Cardinal Newman judged A.A. Curtis' initial baptism has positive doubt to have a conditional baptism.
Hmm... But did the jew Cardinal ever renounce the Anglican books he wrote before his high profile conversion?
-
Hmm... But did the jew Cardinal ever renounce the Anglican books he wrote before his high profile conversion?
Pope St. Pius X:
"For, if in the things he had written before his profession of the Catholic faith one can justly detect something which may have a kind of similarity with certain Modernist formulas, you are correct in saying that this is not relevant to his later works. Moreover, as far as that matter is concerned, his way of thinking has been expressed in very different ways, both in the spoken word and in his published writings, and the author himself, on his admission into the Catholic Church, forwarded all his writings to the authority of the same Church so that any corrections might be made, if judged appropriate."
https://novusordowatch.org/2019/10/pope-pius10-on-cardinal-newman/