Author Topic: Monsignor Fenton -- baldfaced liar. (Read 18936 times)

SJB · « **Reply #225 on:** March 25, 2010, 02:11:39 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Ladislaus
Indeed they do, SJB. They EXPLICITLY state that not everyone who's saved is Catholic, that it is not only Catholics and members of the Church who can be saved, but other people, non-Catholics, non-members of the Church who are nevertheless somehow attached to the Church based on their "wish" to follow whatever lights God gave them. That's precisely the Vatican II Lumen Gentium "subsistit" ecclesiology. They're saying that the true Church consists of Catholics AND non-Catholics.

Catechumens are not members, yet they can be saved.

So you say. If they are saved, then they are members.

Quote from: Mystici Corporis Christi

22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered -- so the Lord commands -- as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #226 on:** March 25, 2010, 02:58:35 PM »

Then catechumens can't be saved unless they are baptized, which is my position, since one cannot belong to the soul of the Church alone (in the same Mystici Corporis). Or you could argue that they have been baptized in desire.

In any case, that's a nice attempt to distract from the point which is

1) a word-for-word denial of EENS in the same catechism (therefore, heresy)

2) saying people belong to the Church by virtue of their wish to follow the lights given them by God.

And the conclusion is that there are degrees of belonging to the Church. People may be pagan, or Protestants, and Orthodox and still belong to the Church. There are both Catholics and non-Cathlics in the Church, according to the Baltimore Catechism. That's precisely the Vatican II ecclesiology in a nutshell.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #227 on:** March 25, 2010, 03:08:50 PM »

You are utterly deluded if you think that Vatican II happened in a vacuum, that it was a sudden dramatic rupture with all previous theological thought, that no traces of Vatican II ecclesiology had polluted theologians before Vatican II. All theologians were pefectly orthodox and then something magically happened at Vatican II. Perhaps the devil materialized and just wrote the docuмents himself.

Pius IX had to condemn religious liberty and religious indifferentism. Pius XI had to condemn false ecuмenism. Pius X stated that the pollution had run so deep that the Church was already in his day "naturally speaking, finished".

So you cannot just cite a theologian from the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, etc. without caution and a grain of salt.

And what is the core Vatican II error? It's that of a false ecclesiology. What are the theological and historical antecedents to this false V2 ecclesiology? It's a gradual erosion and dismantling of EENS, and a new ecclesiology based on implicit faith belonging to the Church for salvation.

Yves Congar, who could have written V2's Lumen Gentium was a student of Garrigou-Lagrange. He was just taking Garrigou's ecclesiology to the next logical step in this process of decline.

You need to get to the root theological problem of Vatican II. By believing in implicit-faith belonging to the Church and implicit-faith salvation, yet rejecting Vatican II, you are in contradiction with yourself. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You either need to look back and reject the false pre-V2 ecclesiology or else accept V2.

SJB · « **Reply #228 on:** March 25, 2010, 03:24:27 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Then catechumens can't be saved unless they are baptized, which is my position, since one cannot belong to the soul of the Church alone (in the same Mystici Corporis). Or you could argue that they have been baptized in desire.

In any case, that's a nice attempt to distract from the point which is

1) a word-for-word denial of EENS in the same catechism (therefore, heresy)

2) saying people belong to the Church by virtue of their wish to follow the lights given them by God.

And the conclusion is that there are degrees of belonging to the Church. People may be pagan, or Protestants, and Orthodox and still belong to the Church. There are both Catholics and non-Cathlics in the Church, according to the Baltimore Catechism. That's precisely the Vatican II ecclesiology in a nutshell.

I'm not trying to distract you from anything. You are distracted, for sure, but by your own ideas.

Alexandria · « **Reply #229 on:** March 25, 2010, 03:26:45 PM »

This Fr. Connell's Baltimore Catechism is written a lot like the VII docuмents. It has always troubled me.

For instance, question 166 deals with the obligation of belonging to the Catholic Church in order to be saved. It then proceeds, in a litttle explanatory note, to say that no one can be "saved without sanctifying grace, and the Catholic Church alone is the divinely established means by which grace is brought to the world and the full fruits of Our Lord's Redemption are applied to men."

Maybe it's me, but I find the above deceptively written. You get the impression that sanctifying grace can be found ONLY in the Catholic Church but that's not explicitly what he is saying. In any event, what's the purpose of the Church if in the following questions and answers the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation is dismantled?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

SJB · « **Reply #230 on:** March 25, 2010, 03:34:23 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

You are utterly deluded if you think that Vatican II happened in a vacuum, that it was a sudden dramatic rupture with all previous theological thought, that no traces of Vatican II ecclesiology had polluted theologians before Vatican II. All theologians were pefectly orthodox and then something magically happened at Vatican II. Perhaps the devil materialized and just wrote the docuмents himself.

Pius IX had to condemn religious liberty and religious indifferentism. Pius XI had to condemn false ecuмenism. Pius X stated that the pollution had run so deep that the Church was already in his day "naturally speaking, finished".

So you cannot just cite a theologian from the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, etc. without caution and a grain of salt.

And what is the core Vatican II error? It's that of a false ecclesiology. What are the theological and historical antecedents to this false V2 ecclesiology? It's a gradual erosion and dismantling of EENS, and a new ecclesiology based on implicit faith belonging to the Church for salvation.

Yves Congar, who could have written V2's Lumen Gentium was a student of Garrigou-Lagrange. He was just taking Garrigou's ecclesiology to the next logical step in this process of decline.

You need to get to the root theological problem of Vatican II. By believing in implicit-faith belonging to the Church and implicit-faith salvation, yet rejecting Vatican II, you are in contradiction with yourself. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You either need to look back and reject the false pre-V2 ecclesiology or else accept V2.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. What was done after Vatican II is the real problem. This was done by Paul VI and his successors.

SJB · « **Reply #231 on:** March 25, 2010, 03:37:31 PM »

Quote from: Alexandria

This Fr. Connell's Baltimore Catechism is written a lot like the VII docuмents. It has always troubled me.

For instance, question 166 deals with the obligation of belonging to the Catholic Church in order to be saved. It then proceeds, in a litttle explanatory note, to say that no one can be "saved without sanctifying grace, and the Catholic Church alone is the divinely established means by which grace is brought to the world and the full fruits of Our Lord's Redemption are applied to men."

Maybe it's me, but I find the above deceptively written. You get the impression that sanctifying grace can be found ONLY in the Catholic Church but that's not explicitly what he is saying. In any event, what's the purpose of the Church if in the following questions and answers the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation is dismantled?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

This is a catechism. I don't find it deceptive at all.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #232 on:** March 25, 2010, 03:48:06 PM »

Quote from: Alexandria

This Fr. Connell's Baltimore Catechism is written a lot like the VII docuмents. It has always troubled me.

For instance, question 166 deals with the obligation of belonging to the Catholic Church in order to be saved. It then proceeds, in a litttle explanatory note, to say that no one can be "saved without sanctifying grace, and the Catholic Church alone is the divinely established means by which grace is brought to the world and the full fruits of Our Lord's Redemption are applied to men."

Maybe it's me, but I find the above deceptively written. You get the impression that sanctifying grace can be found ONLY in the Catholic Church but that's not explicitly what he is saying. In any event, what's the purpose of the Church if in the following questions and answers the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation is dismantled?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Of course you're not wrong. Even if you think Father Feeney may have overreacted to the problem, the problem itself was very very real, and it set the stage for Vatican II.

We know that the enemies of the Church first attacked the Catholic institutions of higher learning. And the Jesuits controlled most of those. Once you get to the theologians, stuff gradually filters down to Miss Smith's kindergarten class and catechism. Same thing happened with evolution in the secular world. You get a hold of the college professors and evolution filters down into the elementary school textbooks and eventually comes to be presented as if it were unquestioned fact.

Some Traditional Catholics appear to think that the world would magically turn into this Catholic utopia of orthodoxy and piety if we could only time-warp back to 1962.

Alexandria · « **Reply #233 on:** March 25, 2010, 03:54:40 PM »

The Roman Catholic Church in the United States has always been diluted. I have read a lot about the nineteenth century in this country and there were always problems. Seems to me that no one then, as now, had the backbone to proclaim the true Faith - back then, for fear of the protestants - today, for fear of, well, pick one.

SJB · « **Reply #234 on:** March 25, 2010, 03:59:41 PM »

Quote

You get the impression that sanctifying grace can be found ONLY in the Catholic Church but that's not explicitly what he is saying.

It then proceeds, in a litttle explanatory note, to say that no one can be "saved without sanctifying grace, and the Catholic Church alone is the divinely established means by which grace is brought to the world and the full fruits of Our Lord's Redemption are applied to men."

What do you think he is saying then?

SJB · « **Reply #235 on:** March 25, 2010, 04:03:21 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Some Traditional Catholics appear to think that the world would magically turn into this Catholic utopia of orthodoxy and piety if we could only time-warp back to 1962.

Nobody thinks this. But 1962 was much, much better than 1972 ... and 82 ... and 92... etc.

Alexandria · « **Reply #236 on:** March 25, 2010, 04:08:47 PM »

He says "divinely established means" which infers to me that there is another means.

If I had not had the most distasteful experience of listening to what purports to be Catholic radio for several years, I wouldn't think twice about the statement. But I have learned how they get around things, so much so that, I'll say it again, they render the Church pointless and useless. Rules and regulations only for Catholics and everyone else gets a free ride.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #237 on:** March 25, 2010, 04:25:52 PM »

And I've brought that argument up as well. You have a Catholic who's too lazy to get up for Mass one Sunday, thereby commiting a single mortal sin, then dies a couple days later in a car accident. He's lost.

Then you have a Protestant who thinks he's saved by waving his hand around saying "Jesus"; he commits adultery left and right, never goes to services, sleeps in every Sunday to keep the day holy by watching football, etc.--and is saved if he's doing what HIS lights tell him he must ("accept Jesus as his savior").

So the Catholic Church would become an obstacle to salvation. Which would be blasphemous.

SJB · « **Reply #238 on:** March 25, 2010, 07:53:45 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

And I've brought that argument up as well. You have a Catholic who's too lazy to get up for Mass one Sunday, thereby commiting a single mortal sin, then dies a couple days later in a car accident. He's lost.

Then you have a Protestant who thinks he's saved by waving his hand around saying "Jesus"; he commits adultery left and right, never goes to services, sleeps in every Sunday to keep the day holy by watching football, etc.--and is saved if he's doing what HIS lights tell him he must ("accept Jesus as his savior").

So the Catholic Church would become an obstacle to salvation. Which would be blasphemous.

This has to be the most ridiculous thing you've ever said, Ladislaus.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #239 on:** March 26, 2010, 06:17:37 AM »

Quote from: SJB

What was done after Vatican II is the real problem. This was done by Paul VI and his successors.

I never thought I'd see that day when a sedevacantist implies that Vatican II itself may have been OK, that only the aftermath was bad. Maybe that's why you're so upset.

I guess you'd rather do that than ever admit that there might have been problems in the sacrosanct catechisms and theology manuals in circulation before Vatican II. So, yes, you do imply that 1962 and before was this utopia and golden age of Catholic orthodoxy.