Author Topic: MHT Seminary Newsletter (February 2012) (Read 10564 times)

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #30 on:** March 12, 2012, 11:24:57 AM »

Here is something on jurisdiction that I am not sure I agree with:

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/12Lent/lent1str.htm

Here are a couple of links that I do agree with on papal elections:

http://www.sedevacantist.com/papalelections.html

http://www.sedevacantist.com/bellarm2.html

People think the idea of electing a Pope now is coo coo. I'm not so sure that is true. But it would have to be done the right way. According to the links above.

My previous points were made to see if some clarity about jurisdiction whould be shown.

I know Thuc was given authority to consecrate bishops by Pius IX. The SSPX and SVs act the same way when it comes to consecrating Bishops and ordaining Priests. Do they think they have jurisdiction? It is a good question that I have not seen really addressed. I consider John Lane to be an SV giant but I have not been convinced by his claiming there has to be a bishop on earth that was consecrated by Pius X. He never really seemed to substantiate it which leads me to believe it is not true.

I am looking to be enlightened here, not pretending to know the answers.

Are the SSPX and SVs just sacrament machines, do they have juristiction? Do we owe them obedience?

We are in times not anticipated by the great theologians which is why we are left with speculations in some instances in my opinion. I would hate to think I have created some new ecclesiology without realizing it. Please show me where I have done this and then provide the correct ecclesiology for me.

None if this has anything to do with whether a public heretic can be Pope of if a the Catholic Church can bind a heretical council or invalid Sacraments on the Catholic Church.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #31 on:** March 12, 2012, 12:24:37 PM »

I remember letting Griff Ruby know that I was not sure if I agreed with his latest article on jurisdiction. We talked on the phone for at least a couple of hours I believe. My wife was in the hospital and my baby started crying so I had to get off or we would have talked longer.

What a sad testimony of doubt and unbelief it was when someone I know once wrote, "as there is no authority in the Catholic Church, our traditionalist bishops have no papal mandate to govern, a point that was made to me by a layman three years ago at a time when I believed, yes, quite mistakenly, that obedience was owed to these bishops." Right there is a thumbnail biography of one so deceived into believing that the Church has no duly authorized shepherds. What that unfortunate soul so sinfully dismissed as a "mistake" is what the Holy Ghost had whispered in his heart and which he (formerly) knew to be true, but through the deceptive "ministrations" of this unauthorized lay teacher he was somehow persuaded to refuse any further obedience to the authorized priests and bishops of the Church.

One sees such statements cropping up time and time again in the writings of numerous self-appointed "teachers" and controversialists. Our unfortunate soul continues, thus: "Our traditionalist bishops have received the fullness of the priesthood solely for the perpetuation of the priesthood and thus of the sacraments. No traditionalist bishop has any ecclesiastical authority to grant or to withhold legitimacy to the work of other such bishops who, for one reason or another, are held in disfavor by him. People are free to associate or not to associate with a particular bishop or priest as they see fit." In the above quote

I actually agreed with the person Griff was quoting and disagreed with Griff.

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (UNAM SANCTAM, Pope Boniface VIII)

There is no doubt that we must submit to a valid Roman Pontiff should one exist. But when it comes obeying our traditional clergy who are not in union with a living valid Pontiff I doubt we are obliged to obey or accept all they try to bind on their parishioners such as:

1. Holding the SV position puts your soul in peril.

2. One cannot attend an una cuм Benedicto Mass in good conscience.

3. On can attend an una cuм Benedicto Mass in good conscience.

4. You cannot read The Four Marks.

5. The Thuc line consecrations are invalid.

6. You must not go to a Thuc-line Mass

7. You cannot read the Daily Catholic website.

Traditional clergy try to bind on this on their flock. My position is they cannot bind this on their flock.

But Griff, despite my objections which he respectfully listened to, starting making sense to me. Now Griff teaches that Paul 6 resigned from his office in November of 1964 when he redefined the Church and his own office stating that the Chuch of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church which means that the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are not one and the same as has always been taught. He believes that Paul 6 may have been a material Pope up until that time but after that time he could not be considered a valid Pope at all but rather the head of the Church of Christ which was no longer one and the same as the Catholic Church according to his teaching and therefore he was no longer the head of the Catholic Church as a valid Pope is. This "Church of Christ" which is not the same thing as the Catholic Church is what he terms as the Vatican institution. Griff teaches that there are true Catholics within the Vatican institution (though less and less as the years pass) but that the Vatican institution is no longer the Catholic Church.

I'm on record as believing that the our last valid Pope died in 1958. But I have not seen Griff's theory refuted and do not deny the possibility that he is correct.

What I found interesting about our conversation is how he stressed the Catholic Church was still there. Paul 6 slide out of it and into a new Church as did most of the clergy and lay people with him. But the Catholic Church is still there and still functions as it always has, albeit with a visible unifying head. Therefore, in his estimation, all valid Catholic Bishops and Priests have just as much jurisdiction as they always had and therefore, in his opinion, they deserve to be obeyed as much as they always deserve to be obeyed because they are in union with Eternal Rome, and, as he claims, have just as much authority as they have always had.

Christ is still the head of the Church working through the magisterium of the Church though without its visible unifying head.

In my opinion, the Bishops are only infallible when acting in union with a living Pope. Some might claim that would be infallible if they all agreed on a point of doctrine that the Church has always taught. I do not deny that. By all the valid Bishops we are talking about the SSPX bishops along with all the SV bishops. Griff belives, as most SVs do, that the SSPX is part of the Catholic Church, providing the Catholic Sacraments and teaching the Catholic doctrine that has always been taught.

I just deny that we owe them our obedience as if they have been "sent" by a valid Pope or that that they are in union with a reigning Pope.

Griff would say if you are in an area where the traditional clergy bind crazy things on you you should move. I say it is not always easy to move. Consider military personal for instance. He says if your clergy says don't read The Four Marks that you should not read The Four Marks. If they say you cannot attend a CMRI Mass even if that is the only Mass available when you are on vacation that you should not.

I say on the contrary, we are not obliged to obey them as stated above and below:

"as there is no authority in the Catholic Church, our traditionalist bishops have no papal mandate to govern"

"Our traditionalist bishops have received the fullness of the priesthood solely for the perpetuation of the priesthood and thus of the sacraments. No traditionalist bishop has any ecclesiastical authority to grant or to withhold legitimacy to the work of other such bishops who, for one reason or another, are held in disfavor by him. People are free to associate or not to associate with a particular bishop or priest as they see fit."

What say the SVs on this forum and why?

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #32 on:** March 12, 2012, 12:43:48 PM »

I was not allowed to edit the above so I will add what I wrote here:

I say the reason why the traditional clergy do not agree with each other is because there is no visible unifying head in existence now.

I say we live in the great Apostacy which was unleashed upon us at "Vatican" "II".

I say we do not owe obedience to traditional clergy on things that they disagree with other traditional clergy on.

I say we are being sifted like wheat now and are being forced to take a stand on our beliefs right now.

I say we will not owe obedience to clergy that contradict one another until they are in union with a living reigning Pope.

I am curious to know what the other SVs think. I'm trying to learn heare rather than teach.

Nishant · « **Reply #33 on:** March 12, 2012, 01:24:15 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Except the rule of Faith for a Catholic is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium, not reading and interpreting the docuмents of an ecuмenical council. What you're saying is the rule of Faith has changed. Simply disregarding the council doesn't help in practical terms.

I concede this point, in that this is ordinarily true, but I'll note that Vatican II was unusual in that it was not called to define any new dogma. It was instead the stated intention of "the Magisterium that is predominantly pastoral in character" in the words of Pope John XXIII to "transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion". Pope Paul VI similarly said, "There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine."

So it seems to me that the series of reflections and exhortations in the docuмents do not really bind anything on anyone as such.

The same is true of Dignitatis Humanae. It implies nothing more in practice than prudential tolerance of error. I believe in the Social reign of Christ the King, I believe that all states must remain confessionally Catholic, but I don't think it's impossible to interpret DH in the light of Tradition.

The right spoken of is not the "right to be in error" but the "right to seek the truth". "Every man has the duty, and therefore the right, to seek the truth in matters religious ... all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth". So it is a right founded in truth, as you yourself say, "man's dignity is in true liberty".

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #34 on:** March 12, 2012, 02:40:09 PM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

Quote from: SJB
Except the rule of Faith for a Catholic is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium, not reading and interpreting the docuмents of an ecuмenical council. What you're saying is the rule of Faith has changed. Simply disregarding the council doesn't help in practical terms.

I concede this point, in that this is ordinarily true, but I'll note that Vatican II was unusual in that it was not called to define any new dogma. It was instead the stated intention of "the Magisterium that is predominantly pastoral in character" in the words of Pope John XXIII to "transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion". Pope Paul VI similarly said, "There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine."

So it seems to me that the series of reflections and exhortations in the docuмents do not really bind anything on anyone as such.

The same is true of Dignitatis Humanae. It implies nothing more in practice than prudential tolerance of error. I believe in the Social reign of Christ the King, I believe that all states must remain confessionally Catholic, but I don't think it's impossible to interpret DH in the light of Tradition.

The right spoken of is not the "right to be in error" but the "right to seek the truth". "Every man has the duty, and therefore the right, to seek the truth in matters religious ... all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth". So it is a right founded in truth, as you yourself say, "man's dignity is in true liberty".

I don't think you can have an "official council" that plainly states heresy, approved by the "pope" in his "official capacity" and then just get out of it by saying it is not binding.

It is however, a way to fool the people. Teach heresy in your official capacity and then say you don't have to believe it. No one would be fooled if they did not try to get out of it that way.

I just put arsenic in your dring that I served you but you don't have to drink it. You can if you want to accept what I gave you in my official capacity, but you don't have to if you believe it will be detrimental to your health. I believe drinking arsenic can be reconciled with the traditional teaching that it will kill you. But because I am not sure, I will not bind it on you even though I have bound the council on you.

Even having the discussion is sad. It would not be a conversation we would be having were there a true pope.

Lover of Truth · « **Reply #35 on:** March 12, 2012, 02:42:20 PM »

The Great Apostacy would not be successful if no one was fooled. They have to be crafty about it as Pius X pointed out.

"The truth isn't the truth anymore but that is okay both the truth and its opposite can be accepted. Though it is a great mystery like the Holy Trinity".

Pure balderdash. They are giving us stones instead of bread. And some people are going "em em good. More please."

SJB · « **Reply #36 on:** March 12, 2012, 03:02:31 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

The same is true of Dignitatis Humanae. It implies nothing more in practice than prudential tolerance of error. I believe in the Social reign of Christ the King, I believe that all states must remain confessionally Catholic, but I don't think it's impossible to interpret DH in the light of Tradition.

The right spoken of is not the "right to be in error" but the "right to seek the truth". "Every man has the duty, and therefore the right, to seek the truth in matters religious ... all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth". So it is a right founded in truth, as you yourself say, "man's dignity is in true liberty".

No, it says man has a right to religious liberty. Religious liberty can be understood in the sense that man is free to choose what is true and good, not what is false. This business about man being free to select any religion means only that he has free-will but it gives no inherent right to select that which is false or untrue.

Quote from: SJB

Nishant, Ci riesce doesn't support Dignatatus Humanae:

Quote from: ”Monsignor Fenton, AER, CI RIESCE AND OTTAVIANI'S DISCOURSE”
The Holy Father spoke of "tolerance" and of "impeding." The concept of "tolerance" actually presupposes that of "evils," innate in the thing that is tolerated or is not impeded. Such is the teaching of St. Augustine: "Tolerantia quae dicitur ... non est nisi in malis" (Enarrat. in Ps. 31. MPL, 36 :271).

Quote from: ”Pius XII, Ci riesce”
Thus the two principles are clarified to which recourse must be had in concrete cases for the answer to the serious question concerning the attitude which the jurist, the statesman and the sovereign Catholic state is to adopt in consideration of the community of nations in regard to a formula of religious and moral toleration as described above. First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively bas no right to exist, to be spread, or to be activated. Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.

Error has no rights, and man’s dignity is in true liberty.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #37 on:** March 12, 2012, 09:23:06 PM »

Quote from: Nishant2011

Pope Paul VI similarly said, "There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine."

Yet it did. You've been ignoring people's refutations of your statement that Vatican II presented nothing new. I'm waiting for you to defend that statement. Otherwise, stop repeating it.

Quote

The right spoken of is not the "right to be in error" but the "right to seek the truth". "Every man has the duty, and therefore the right, to seek the truth in matters religious ... all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth". So it is a right founded in truth, as you yourself say, "man's dignity is in true liberty".

And what is meant by "truth"? The Catholic Church defines truth as the Catholic Faith, and what Jesus Christ and His Holy Church teach. Vatican II, on the other hand, says there is truth in all religions. That is a lie.

Caminus · « **Reply #38 on:** March 12, 2012, 10:00:21 PM »

SS, the problem is not with saying that there is truth in other religions, that is technically true, though absurd for a supposed ecuмenical council to point out. The problem lies in the fact that from this positive statement regarding false religions, it is inferred that these truths somehow make adherents of false religions part of the so-called People of God. This is a blasphemous doctrine that is contained implicitly in the docs of VII, and brought into full relief by the conciliar hierarchy. Thus, they engage in blasphemous, sacrilegious acts based upon this perverted view of false religions.

Nishant · « **Reply #39 on:** March 13, 2012, 07:54:08 AM »

I think someone brought up the Siri thesis. This theory seems self-defeating. If Cardinal Siri were ever elected Pope, then we fall into still greater difficulties, particularly if we take sedevacantist reasoning for granted. Wouldn't he have lost his office, for not only accepting Vatican II, saying the new Mass, using the new rites, and in addition to all this, giving public veneration to alleged antipopes and notorious heretics? The theory lacks positive corroboration and doesn't escape the very dilemma it was intended to solve.

He also wrote to Archbishop Lefebvre on June 22, 1988 - to ask him not to break from the Church. Would he not rather have told his underground clergy to get in touch with Archbishop Lefebvre, or others like him, inform them of the election, and work with them? I was myself favorable to it at one time, but frankly, it seems to run into one insurmountable difficulty after another.

SJB, man has no right to do wrong, to be wrong, or to teach what is wrong. I've always maintained that and never claimed man has an "inherent right to select that which is false". All moral rights are God-given, and God grants no right to error. A right to do wrong is a self-contradiction.

As for your statement "Religious liberty can be understood in the sense that man is free to choose what is true and good" that is exactly how I understand it.

Lover of Truth, I admit it is a very unusual situation, but there are difficulties for those who hold the sedevacantist position. The great apostasy does not require there to be no Pope for 54 years, many people have indeed been fooled, but they have been fooled into disbelieving the Faith. I believe the correct explanation is weak Popes who try to please the world and don't fulfil their duties, as Peter was weak during the Passion.

SS, the 1917 Code of Canon Law contains a provision to the effect that nothing is understood to be defined unless it is manifestly evident that it is meant to be. This is a standard principle, and this being the case, how can something be claimed to have been bound on us when the Church and the Popes repeatedly did the opposite, not only did they not make it evident they intended to define anything, but said repeatedly, as I quoted above, that they changed nothing, defined nothing new, and simply "transmitted" what was already defined?

Yes, the only truth is the Catholic Faith. No one has a right, strictly speaking, to be a Mohammedan, a Protestant or a Jєω.

Finally, you follow Archbishop Lefebvre, so if reading the Council in the light of Tradition is as impossible as you claim, how do you explain what he said,

Quote

"I have no reservations whatsoever regarding the legitimacy and validity of your election, and consequently I cannot tolerate there not being addressed to God the prayers prescribed by Holy Church for Your Holiness. I have already had to act with severity, and continue to do so, with regard to some seminarians and priests who have allowed themselves to be influenced by certain clerics who do not belong to the Society.

I am fully in agreement with the judgement that Your Holiness gave on the Second Vatican Council, on November 6, 1978, at a meeting of the Sacred College: 'that the Council must be under- stood in light of the whole of Holy Tradition, and on the basis of the unvarying Magisterium of Holy Mother Church."

SJB · « **Reply #40 on:** March 13, 2012, 09:01:51 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

SJB, man has no right to do wrong, to be wrong, or to teach what is wrong. I've always maintained that and never claimed man has an "inherent right to select that which is false". All moral rights are God-given, and God grants no right to error. A right to do wrong is a self-contradiction.

As for your statement "Religious liberty can be understood in the sense that man is free to choose what is true and good" that is exactly how I understand it.

Except we’re not interested in how you understand it or what you think it means, and I mean no disrespect in saying this. Religious liberty can be understood in many ways, but the way that should interest us here is what the drafters of the docuмent Dignitatis Humanae meant by it.

The best way to see the problem is to sit down intending to be taught by the Catholic Church via Dignitatis Humanae. That way you will actually read all that is there and try to believe it. But you can't, unless you abandon the truths you already know (or should know).

SJB · « **Reply #41 on:** March 13, 2012, 10:08:05 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

SS, the problem is not with saying that there is truth in other religions, that is technically true, though absurd for a supposed ecuмenical council to point out. The problem lies in the fact that from this positive statement regarding false religions, it is inferred that these truths somehow make adherents of false religions part of the so-called People of God. This is a blasphemous doctrine that is contained implicitly in the docs of VII, and brought into full relief by the conciliar hierarchy. Thus, they engage in blasphemous, sacrilegious acts based upon this perverted view of false religions.

Agreed. This may also assist, some commentary on Lumen Gentium:

Quote

Quote from: Lumen Gentium
This Church (the only Church of Christ) constitutes and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is govered by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Neverthteless, many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside its visible confines. Since there are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity.

Prior to Vatican II it was said of the sects that what properly belongs to them are their errors. That is what defines them. That is what distinguishes them from each other and from the Church.

This is similar to the Jєωs, who are properly defined as "that body of men who were called by God to know the truth before Our Lord's birth, and who rejected Him." This distinguishes them from those men who were called by God to know the truth before Our Lord's birth, and who accepted Him (e.g. Our Lady, St. Peter, et al.). We all know that there is something wrong with merely defining the Jєωs as "the descendants of the ancient Israelites." Well, this is why.

So, what is it which makes the Anglican sect the Anglican sect? That is, what defines it? Certainly it is not the belief of Anglicans that Our Lord Jesus Christ is divine and human, or that He will come again on the last day to judge heaven and earth, etc. No, these things are not "proper" to the Anglican sect, because they belong properly to the Catholic Church and also because they do not distinguish the Anglican sect from many other bodies. What defines the Anglican sect is its own particular heresies, including the rejection of the Roman Pontificate, the Mass, etc.

At Vatican II this whole sane approach was turned on its head, and instead the non-distinguishing truths retained by the sects were focused on, and the entirely indemonstrable claim was made that the Holy Ghost had used those elements of truth found (also) outside the Church "as means of salvation." Depending on the manner in which this claim is understood, it is either erroneous or heretical. In any case, it is no part of Divine Revelation and it produces utter confusion of thought about a vital matter.

Now it is theoretically possible for a man to make an act of supernatural Faith in some truth of the Catholic Church which he receives accidentally via a sect. Understood correctly, that is, by making the correct distinctions and seeing things in their causes, the truth which such a man accepts is proposed to him by the Catholic Church, which has promulgated it to the entire world by her preaching, and its transmission to him by the sect to which he (externally at least) belongs is accidental, not essential. If this is grasped, it can be seen that the text of Vatican II focuses on the accidental, not the essential, and thus throws everything into confusion.

Nishant · « **Reply #42 on:** March 13, 2012, 10:31:15 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Except we’re not interested in how you understand it or what you think it means, and I mean no disrespect in saying this.

None taken. As for "what the drafters of the docuмent Dignitatis Humanae meant by it", that was what I was in fact addressing. It comes down to this, is there any statement that it is absolutely impossible to interpret in the light of Tradition?

To return to the example, where does the docuмent say "Men have a moral right to adhere to error" or something to that effect? Is not the statement, "On their part, all men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and His Church, and to embrace the truth they come to know, and to hold fast to it" the exact negation of that? This is clearly saying men have an obligation to be Catholic, which means they cannot have a right to be non-Catholic. As for the rest of the docuмent, it only speaks about freedom from coercion, that is, what Pope Pius XII called, "failure to impede error with civil legislation" being justified for a greater good.

I know that many people read into such docuмents what they wanted to, that is, indifferentism and license and a revoke of all prior Tradition, but God never promised anything about any of that.

Quote

The best way to see the problem is to sit down intending to be taught by the Catholic Church via Dignitatis Humanae.

I have read it entirely before. It is not as clear as one would like, but it is not impossible to reconcile it with Tradition.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #43 on:** March 13, 2012, 10:38:54 AM »

Well, Arcbishop LeFebvre also said "if they excommunicate us, we shall consider ourselves excommunicated from Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ". Again Nishant, you prove that ABL was not a sede, but he still said time and time again that Vatican II was an act of the counterfeit church. So I can't accept what you said.

Malleus 01 · « **Reply #44 on:** March 13, 2012, 10:57:31 AM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Caminus
SS, the problem is not with saying that there is truth in other religions, that is technically true, though absurd for a supposed ecuмenical council to point out. The problem lies in the fact that from this positive statement regarding false religions, it is inferred that these truths somehow make adherents of false religions part of the so-called People of God. This is a blasphemous doctrine that is contained implicitly in the docs of VII, and brought into full relief by the conciliar hierarchy. Thus, they engage in blasphemous, sacrilegious acts based upon this perverted view of false religions.

Agreed. This may also assist, some commentary on Lumen Gentium:

Quote
Quote from: Lumen Gentium
This Church (the only Church of Christ) constitutes and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is govered by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Neverthteless, many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside its visible confines. Since there are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity.

Prior to Vatican II it was said of the sects that what properly belongs to them are their errors. That is what defines them. That is what distinguishes them from each other and from the Church.

This is similar to the Jєωs, who are properly defined as "that body of men who were called by God to know the truth before Our Lord's birth, and who rejected Him." This distinguishes them from those men who were called by God to know the truth before Our Lord's birth, and who accepted Him (e.g. Our Lady, St. Peter, et al.). We all know that there is something wrong with merely defining the Jєωs as "the descendants of the ancient Israelites." Well, this is why.

So, what is it which makes the Anglican sect the Anglican sect? That is, what defines it? Certainly it is not the belief of Anglicans that Our Lord Jesus Christ is divine and human, or that He will come again on the last day to judge heaven and earth, etc. No, these things are not "proper" to the Anglican sect, because they belong properly to the Catholic Church and also because they do not distinguish the Anglican sect from many other bodies. What defines the Anglican sect is its own particular heresies, including the rejection of the Roman Pontificate, the Mass, etc.

At Vatican II this whole sane approach was turned on its head, and instead the non-distinguishing truths retained by the sects were focused on, and the entirely indemonstrable claim was made that the Holy Ghost had used those elements of truth found (also) outside the Church "as means of salvation." Depending on the manner in which this claim is understood, it is either erroneous or heretical. In any case, it is no part of Divine Revelation and it produces utter confusion of thought about a vital matter.

Now it is theoretically possible for a man to make an act of supernatural Faith in some truth of the Catholic Church which he receives accidentally via a sect. Understood correctly, that is, by making the correct distinctions and seeing things in their causes, the truth which such a man accepts is proposed to him by the Catholic Church, which has promulgated it to the entire world by her preaching, and its transmission to him by the sect to which he (externally at least) belongs is accidental, not essential. If this is grasped, it can be seen that the text of Vatican II focuses on the accidental, not the essential, and thus throws everything into confusion.

Well Said. In Essence , the progressive mentality seeks to divide Catholicism not to unite it. As Our Lord clearly said - "He who is not with me is against me. " One cannot pick and choose which commandment one seeks to believe in for if we are guilty of one we are guilty of all. The same mentality is necessary in all things Catholic. We can think of it this way - the good thief Dismas on the cross was not saved because he was a thief - but rather because he converted and AT THAT INSTANT - he was converted Catholic. The same holds true of those considered "Outside the Church" - they are destined for Hell should they remain "Outside" the Church upon their death and they become members upon their conversion - even if its a death bed conversion. There Heresy being the false notion that they can remain OUTSIDE - believe and act in a heretical manner and still save their soul merely because they have a few things in common with Catholics.