Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Matthew on March 10, 2011, 10:02:17 AM
-
“I was astonished at how Protestant and Evangelical he sounds,” Evan said. “I wouldn’t hesitate to give this book to my students. If it didn’t say ‘Pope Benedict’ on the cover, they might not even know it’s not a Protestant book.”
Pope says: Church should not pursue the conversion of Jєωs.
Articles below:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/church-should-not-pursue-conversion-Jєωs-pope-says
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/new-book-confirms-benedict-xvi-his-own-best-spokesperson
-
We have another going on this. Having been a former evangelical myself, I can say with 100% certainty that they will not endorse the Pope's statements, at least the conservative evangelicals. Problem with this heresy is that it will "turn off" a lot of evangelicals to the Catholic faith and will cause some NOs to leave the Faith for Evangelicalism.
It's hard to get people into the True Church when you have heretics on the outside who are professing more orthodoxy with respect to some truths than the heretics who are on the "inside" who are either denying or at least questioning those same Truths.
-
There's an inherent contradiction in such a notion. Benedict claims that we should not convert Jєωs because "Israel has it's own time." A question, your Holiness, what of all the Jєωs prior to this vague time somewhere off in the future? Are they all to be damned, until that one group of future Jєωs collectively referred to as "Israel" gets access to God's Mercy? Either he holds that they are saved currently by some means, or that they are all damned. Obviously, he would reject that latter, so he must hold the former. Thus, speaking about an eschatalogical event that negates any work today is simply a clever way to avoid the demands of the Gospel. So he holds that Israel will be converted in the future, but is already saved, ergo, the contradiction.
-
Commenting on Jesus’ prayer in the Gospel of John that “they may all be one,” Benedict XVI insists on continuing the quest for “visible unity” among the divided branches of the Christian family.
“The struggle for the visible unity of the disciples of Jesus Christ remains an urgent task for Christians of all times and places,” Benedict writes.
“The invisible unity of the ‘community’ is not sufficient,” he writes. “Unity must be visible, it must be recognizable as something that does not exist elsewhere in the world; as something that is inexplicable on the basis of mankind’s own efforts and that therefore makes visible the workings of a higher power.”
Finally, he says it explicitly. The entire ecuмenical venture rests upon this heretical notion of an underlying invisible unity. He also implicitly robs the true Church of one of her essential notes: unity, which she possesses now and has always possessed. Sure, they claim this as well, but then utter statements like this above thereby contradicting themselves.
-
This may be recommended reading for those traditionalist who still believe that he is the One True Pope. However for those who have already faced the truth about the man, I would recommend a good spiritual book, especially now that Lent is here.
The way things look is the world, who knows it may be our last Lent on Earth. Make it a fruitful one
-
The way things look is the world, who knows it may be our last Lent on Earth. Make it a fruitful one
I bet you say that every Lent! :guitar:
-
Well at my age, I do think about it for myself. lol!
With so much going on right now in the world, it does make me wonder about the rest of you youngsters.
-
I will withold final judgment till I read the actual text.
However, I must say this disturbs me more than anything he has ever said. His understanding of the apostles actions in the early Church is nothing short of insane. His view that we shouldn't worry about converting Jєωs is insane. I have no defense of this madness. But no doubt Jimmy Akin is explaining why there is nothing to worry about.
Well intended Neo Caths will simply carry on as if this didn't happen. The more educated will say this is the Pope's "private opinion". So we are supposed to follow a Pope who has a non-Catholic understanding of salvation?
I suppose I will become a further outcast and reprobate amongst my Neo Cath family and friends by becoming a more hardened Trad. What a cross. But to suffer for the Truth is what we are here for.
-
Yes, your family will tell you to stay away from those evil sedevacantist folks.
-
His view that we shouldn't worry about converting Jєωs is insane. I have no defense of this madness.
This has been the Vatican's view/teaching since V2, stevus. What did you think the visits to ѕуηαgσgυєs were all about?
So we are supposed to follow a Pope who has a non-Catholic understanding of salvation?
You do.
-
There's an inherent contradiction in such a notion. Benedict claims that we should not convert Jєωs because "Israel has it's own time." A question, your Holiness, what of all the Jєωs prior to this vague time somewhere off in the future? Are they all to be damned, until that one group of future Jєωs collectively referred to as "Israel" gets access to God's Mercy? Either he holds that they are saved currently by some means, or that they are all damned. Obviously, he would reject that latter, so he must hold the former. Thus, speaking about an eschatalogical event that negates any work today is simply a clever way to avoid the demands of the Gospel. So he holds that Israel will be converted in the future, but is already saved, ergo, the contradiction.
This was my immediate reaction and understanding.
Every day, I get closer and closer to taking the position of many on this forum.
-
I will withold final judgment till I read the actual text.
However, I must say this disturbs me more than anything he has ever said. His understanding of the apostles actions in the early Church is nothing short of insane. His view that we shouldn't worry about converting Jєωs is insane. I have no defense of this madness. But no doubt Jimmy Akin is explaining why there is nothing to worry about.
Well intended Neo Caths will simply carry on as if this didn't happen. The more educated will say this is the Pope's "private opinion". So we are supposed to follow a Pope who has a non-Catholic understanding of salvation?
I suppose I will become a further outcast and reprobate amongst my Neo Cath family and friends by becoming a more hardened Trad. What a cross. But to suffer for the Truth is what we are here for.
As to B16, what is the difference between becoming a "more hardened Trad" and the Neo-Caths.
-
Yes, your family will tell you to stay away from those evil sedevacantist folks.
I would be much more open to the sedevacantist community if they were not so "anti-Feeneyite." After all, it was Father Feeney who saw all of this heresy brewing back in the 1940s.
-
This is different from mere visits to ѕуηαgσgυєs. This is actually discouraging the converting of souls to Christ.
Hardened Trad = SSPX type even more convinced of the true crisis.
Neo-Cath = absolute obedience to whatever BXVI says, attend the NO, think there is no crisis or crisis isn't that bad, have no clue the solution is Tradition, and despise Trads as schismatics.
There is a world of difference.
The Sedes have more in common with the Neo-Caths because they share their same false premise regarding infallibility.
-
This is different from mere visits to ѕуηαgσgυєs. This is actually discouraging the converting of souls to Christ.
Hardened Trad = SSPX type even more convinced of the true crisis.
Neo-Cath = absolute obedience to whatever BXVI says, attend the NO, think there is no crisis or crisis isn't that bad, have no clue the solution is Tradition, and despise Trads as schismatics.
There is a world of difference.
The Sedes have more in common with the Neo-Caths because they share their same false premise regarding infallibility.
Who is the Pope?
Hardened Trad : Pope Benedict XVI
Neo-Caths : Pope Benedict XVI
The end result is the same.
-
This is different from mere visits to ѕуηαgσgυєs. This is actually discouraging the converting of souls to Christ.
I did not say they are the SAME, genius. They go hand in hand.
V2 has been ALL ABOUT discouraging conversion. Where the hell have you been?
The Sedes have more in common with the Neo-Caths because they share their same false premise regarding infallibility.
You might as well be commenting upon the specific gravity of dog turd. Why not DISCUSS instead of PRESUMING? Chuck what others have told you others think and learn what others think by ASKING them.
-
Uh, it may be against the law to use "others" that many times in one sentence, but you get my meaning :)
-
StevusMagnus said:
"The Sedes have more in common with the Neo-Caths because they share their same false premise regarding infallibility."
Boy, talk about a logical fallacy. Just another emotional argument that really isn't one ( an argument ).
What is this false premise? The neo-Caths believe everything that Ratzinger says, because they think he's always infallible, as you accuse us of believing? No, the sedes have the correct view of infallibility, which is that a Pope is infallible when he teaches on matters of faith and morals to the universal Church i.e. in encyclicals, but not necessarily in speeches.
You think he is infallible only when he speaks ex cathedra, correct, that means twice in the last two centuries? What kind of Church is it that you have created in your fevered imagination, Stevus?
Also, I don't know of any "neo-Cath," whatever that is, who believes everything that Ratzinger says, simply because it's impossible for anyone to really get a bead on what he says. That is because he says everything and its opposite.
This "neo-Cath" you keep railing against, in truth, doesn't really exist. It's just some way to make you think you're fighting the good fight. There are all kinds of Catholics with all kinds of wrong beliefs, either innocently mistaken and thus not yet heretics, or believing things that aren't directly against the faith -- like that Israel is great -- and there are many who call themselves Catholics but really aren't. Among this large and varied group, I'm not sure exactly what constitutes a "neo-Cath."
The term seems very relative. And if it is, that makes you a neo-Cath relative to, say, Telesphorus, among others, since you have more error than many others on this forum ( look what you did gladius ). Take the plank out of your own eye.
-
Michael Voris also thinks he's fighting against the machine... Catch my drift?
-
How is stevus still alive on this forum? Oh yeah, because its an SSPX place, thats right. Every imbecile and their mother can get a word in. But the Truth? Na, push the Truth aside for sticking with the group and feeling comradery of the Novus Ordo/false trad ship.
Gee.
-
You think he is infallible only when he speaks ex cathedra, correct, that means twice in the last two centuries? What kind of Church is it that you have created in your fevered imagination, Stevus?
In support of ...
SECT. 31 — Papal Judgments and their Infallibility.
I. The Pope, the Father and Teacher of all Christians and the Head of the Universal Church, is the supreme judge in matters of Faith and Morals, and is the regulator and centre of Catholic Unity. His decisions are without appeal and are absolutely binding upon all. In order to possess this perfect right and power to exact universal assent and obedience it is necessary that they should be infallible. The Vatican Council, completing the definitions of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, the Second Council of Lyons, and the Council of Florence, and the Profession of Faith of Pope Hormisdas, thus defines Papal Infallibility: “The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when, in discharge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority he defines a doctrine regarding Faith or Morals to be held by the Universal Church — by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that Infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals ; and therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not from the consent of the Church.” (Concil. Vat., sess. iv., cap. 4).
II. The person in whom the Infallibility is vested is the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra; that is to say, exercising the highest doctrinal authority inherent in the Apostolic See. Whenever the Pope speaks as Supreme Teacher of the Church, he speaks ex cathedra; nor is there any other ex cathedra teaching besides his. The definition therefore leaves no room for the sophistical distinction made by the Gallicans between the See and its occupant (Sedes, Sedens). An ex cathedra judgment is also declared to be supreme and universally binding. Its subject-matter is “doctrine concerning Faith or Morals;“ that is, all and only such points of doctrine as are or may be proposed for the belief of the Faithful. The form of the ex cathedra judgment is the exercise of the Apostolic power with intent to bind all the Faithful in the unity of the Faith.
The nature and extent of the Infallibility of the Pope are also contained in the definition. This Infallibility is the result of a Divine assistance. It differs both from Revelation and Inspiration. It does not involve the manifestation of any new doctrine, or the impulse to write down what God reveals. It supposes, on the contrary, an investigation of revealed truths, and only prevents the Pope from omitting this investigation and from erring in making it. The Divine assistance is not granted to the Pope for his personal benefit, but for the benefit of the Church. Nevertheless, it is granted to him directly as the successor of St. Peter, and not indirectly through the medium of the Church. The extent of the Infallibility of the Pope is determined partly by its subject-matter, partly by the words “possessed of that Infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals.” Moreover, the object of the Infallibility of the Pope and of the Infallibility of the Church being the same, their extent must also coincide.
From the Infallibility of ex cathedra judgments, the council deduces their Irreformability, and further establishes the latter by excluding the consent of the Church as the necessary condition of it. The approbation of the Church is the consequence not the cause of the Irreformability of ex cathedra judgments.
III. Ex cathedra decisions admit of great variety of form. At the same time, in the docuмents containing such decisions only those passages are infallible which the judge manifestly intended to be so. Recommendations, proofs, and explanations accompanying the decision are not necessarily infallible, except where the explanation is itself the dogmatic interpretation of a text of Scripture, or of a rule of Faith, or in as far as it fixes the meaning and extent of the definition. It is not always easy to draw the line between the definition and the other portions of the docuмent. The ordinary rules for interpreting ecclesiastical docuмents must be applied. The commonest forms of ex cathedra decisions used at the present time are the following:—
1. The most solemn form is the Dogmatic Constitution, or Bull, in which the decrees are proposed expressly as ecclesiastical laws, and are sanctioned by heavy penalties; e.g. the Constitutions Unigenitus and Auctorem Fidei against the Jansenists, and the Bull Ineffabilis Deus on the Immaculate Conception.
2. Next in solemnity are Encyclical Letters, so far as they are of a dogmatic character. They resemble Constitutions and Bulls, but, as a rule, they impose no penalties. Some of them are couched in strictly juridical terms, such as the Encyclical Quanta cura, while others are more rhetorical in style. In the latter case it is not absolutely certain that the Pope speaks infallibly.
3. Apostolic Letters and Briefs, even when not directly addressed to the whole Church, must be considered as ex cathedra when they attach censures to the denial of certain doctrines, or when, like Encyclicals, they define or condemn in strict judicial language, or in equivalent terms. But it is often extremely difficult to determine whether these letters are dogmatic or only monitory and administrative. Doubts on the subject are sometimes removed by subsequent declarations.
4. Lastly, the Pope can speak ex cathedra by confirming and approving of the decisions of other tribunals, such as general or particular councils, or Roman Congregations. In ordinary cases, however, the approbation of a particular council is merely an act of supervision, and the decision of a Roman Congregation is not ex cathedra unless the Pope makes it his own.
-
This is why I've asked in the past for there to be a separate Crisis section for non-sedes. Some sedes here reduce EVERY news item and discussion to Pope bashing, vigorously promoting their absurd "thesis", attacking other Trads, comparing them to Neo-Caths if they believe there is a Pope, etc.
It's getting really tiring and is creating an atmosphere in this subforum that kills all true discussion.
The mindset of the sede is completely different from that of an SSPX'er. The sede has already thrown the baby out with the bathwater and assumes a false reality through which he sees and interprets all events spreading his despair, rash judgment, and hopelessness through all he touches.
If you want to live in your fantasy world of your own making where BXVI doesn't exist and you run your own church and you are your own Pope like a Prot, be my guest. But keep your judgment and robotic propaganda sound bytes to yourself.
A fruitful discussion is only possible with other Traditionalists who are not living in a false reality with false premeses.
Correct me if I'm wrong but Matthew created this site and has it posted that this is a forum dedicated to the SSPX view of the crisis. Sedes are here as a courtesy. It is precisely because of this problem that hardly any other Trad forum allows sedevacantist discussion.
If I wanted to get into a sede debate EVERY TIME I post, there should be a subforum dedicated to sedevacantism I could go into.
As it stands I want to talk about issues regarding the crisis in the Church WITHOUT discussing sedevacantism. That is becoming almost impossible on this forum as some sedes turn every crisis discussion into a referendum as to who is Pope. It is toxic and fatal to this entire subforum which is one of the main purposes of the larger forum.
I again urge Matthew to please create a separate Crisis forum where sedevacantism discussion is banned and/or ban it from this subforum and create a separate Sede subforum.
Thank you.
-
The problem really is NOT bad use of the Extraordinary Magisterium of either pope or council.
The problem is that the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium is just as infallible as the Extraordinary Magisterium. The problem is that many people want to downplay individual statements that Conciliar priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes make--declaring them not to be intended as infallible declarations (which is true)--while ignoring the FACT that many of the statements are, in themselves, declarations of a belief in heretical propositions. Though it may, in some cases, simply be an erronious opinion, there comes a time (and that time was reached long ago) that one who knows his faith can see clearly that the statements being made are statements of Protestants, not Catholics.
While each and every statement of any one individuals (such as Benedict 16) does not invalidate his claims to the papacy, many of them do invalidate his claims to be a Catholic. Though I admit that many people do read into what he says at times based on other things he's said.
The fact is that he cannot be trusted to speak the Catholic Faith.
-
No, the sedes have the correct view of infallibility, which is that a Pope is infallible when he teaches on matters of faith and morals to the universal Church i.e. in encyclicals, but not necessarily in speeches.
Read SJB's post above. Obviously, you do not have an adequate understanding of this doctrine or its practical application. Neo-Catholics (a legitimate term to describe Catholics who have adhered to all things new) have the same understanding of this doctrine at least in application as do the Catholic who concludes there must be no Pope. This is the common thread that joins the two extremes. One follows every word because it emanates from the "magisterium" the other rejects the person who possesses the magistracy because they detect error in the same medium. The whole thing turns on this notion, as well as the nature of the ordinary universal magisterium, which incidently, John Lane and John Daly have misunderstood as well, denying that an essential characteristic is extension in time, i.e. tradition. But it follows that if infallibility cannot be applied in practice to any of these statements, propositions or actions, the possibility of error remains, however remote. The remoteness of the thing shouldn't offend the taste for I fail to see how the remoteness of the possibility of the invalidity of a series of Pontiffs is any different.
Now if infallibility is removed from the equation, the only thing left is to demonstrate pertinacious heresy which even if accomplished amounts in the end to one's opinion. Anyone familiar with the history of theology will know that even the greatest, most learned theologians have disagreed as to what constituted an heretical proposition.
I certainly understand why some would be so scandalized by the Conciliar Popes that they feel compelled to conclude the vacancy. The problem lies soley in the fact that these same men desire to form their communion around this opinion, to make it quasi-mandatory. This is a serious mistake for the many reasons given in the past. This theoretical variety leads to even greater errors, most especially does it lead to sinning against brotherly love.
On the practical level, there is no material difference between a traditional Catholic who has refrained from discerning who remains a member of the Church whilst at the same time withdrawing, as per the command of the Apostle, to practice the traditional Catholic faith, and the sedevacantist. Morally speaking, the Popes have been absent for the last 40 years. I see no reason to venture into the canonical question.
-
This is why I've asked in the past for there to be a separate Crisis section for non-sedes. Some sedes here reduce EVERY news item and discussion to Pope bashing, vigorously promoting their absurd "thesis", attacking other Trads, comparing them to Neo-Caths if they believe there is a Pope, etc.
It's getting really tiring and is creating an atmosphere in this subforum that kills all true discussion.
The mindset of the sede is completely different from that of an SSPX'er. The sede has already thrown the baby out with the bathwater and assumes a false reality through which he sees and interprets all events spreading his despair, rash judgment, and hopelessness through all he touches.
If you want to live in your fantasy world of your own making where BXVI doesn't exist and you run your own church and you are your own Pope like a Prot, be my guest. But keep your judgment and robotic propaganda sound bytes to yourself.
A fruitful discussion is only possible with other Traditionalists who are not living in a false reality with false premeses.
Correct me if I'm wrong but Matthew created this site and has it posted that this is a forum dedicated to the SSPX view of the crisis. Sedes are here as a courtesy. It is precisely because of this problem that hardly any other Trad forum allows sedevacantist discussion.
If I wanted to get into a sede debate EVERY TIME I post, there should be a subforum dedicated to sedevacantism I could go into.
As it stands I want to talk about issues regarding the crisis in the Church WITHOUT discussing sedevacantism. That is becoming almost impossible on this forum as some sedes turn every crisis discussion into a referendum as to who is Pope. It is toxic and fatal to this entire subforum which is one of the main purposes of the larger forum.
I again urge Matthew to please create a separate Crisis forum where sedevacantism discussion is banned and/or ban it from this subforum and create a separate Sede subforum.
Thank you.
:rolleyes:
Who are you, Sungenis?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJJX123tIwA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJJX123tIwA)
If you watch the entire debate, which you may have already, Sungenis "threatens to walk out" if he is offended one more time. Doesn't that strike you as a "race card" type of move?
If the Truth offends you, stevus, then GO! Banning sedes aka Traditional Catholics from the Crisis forum (or any portion of the forum, in my opinion) would be the height of sophomoric impetuosity and a total disregard for any nature of "truth seeking".
Usualy Raoul is leading the battle cry here, but I will wave that banner once again and say What is WRONG WITH YOU!???!!
-
If you want to live in your fantasy world of your own making where BXVI doesn't exist and you run your own church and you are your own Pope like a Prot, be my guest. But keep your judgment and robotic propaganda sound bytes to yourself.
Not true Stevus! We obey over 250 true popes, we are not making new doctrines unlike B16 (YOUR POPE) and ilk. Actually I would have to say that it is they who are running a new religion, are in a fantasy world of make believe, like the Protestant who believe that all they have to do is say, Yes, Jesus saved me. Now I can sin and sin boldly as Martin Luther said.
-
If you want to debate Sede-ism there should be a forum for that. If you want to discuss the crisis without discussing sedeism, there should be a forum for that too. That's all I'm saying.
-
Is what the Pope said heretical?
Is that debating "sedeism"
-
If you want to debate Sede-ism there should be a forum for that. If you want to discuss the crisis without discussing sedeism, there should be a forum for that too. That's all I'm saying.
Answer: Start your own forum where those who do not see things as you do are not welcome.
Matthew has seen fit to allow things to function as they do. Overall, it has worked pretty well for a decent length of time (during much of which you have not really been an active participant). The crisis is NOT something we all see the same, so each naturally brings his own view to the discussion. If that bothers you, so be it.
-
If you want to live in your fantasy world of your own making where BXVI doesn't exist..
This isn't even rational, stevus -- especially when your main complaint is about the comments we DO make about a man we all clearly know exists.
Would you say those who bash BO are living in a fantasy world in which BO does not actually exist? I hope not.
-
Answer: Start your own forum where those who do not see things as you do are not welcome.
You completely missed the point, as usual, but don't let that stop you.
-
The point is you are a damn baby who feels the need to continually whine about how things are run around here. You made your pleas, telling Matthew how he should run his forum. Now...
Shut your damn mouth and take things as they are, or go somewhere else.
-
I'm not telling him how he should run his forum.
I'm presenting a different option that I don't think I mentioned before and expressing the fact, which still remains, that hardly any comment can be made on the Crisis thread without it leading into a sedevacantism debate.
If that's the way it remains fine, but I thought it my duty to bring attention to the fact that practically every relevant Crisis discussion involves sedevacatism. It is very difficult to discuss the Pope's comments and the impact they have without sedes assuming it means he is anti-pope and then name calling when one disagrees.
-
I am not going to invest the time to dig through your past posts, but you have mentioned the same idea/made similar complaints in the past.
If you review the crisis folder's recently-posted contents, you will find that you have started a lot of threads. Sure, SOME have come to include sede-ish comments, etc., but MOST have just not been responded to by anyone, sv or otherwise.
Again, roll with the punches and don't bother crying about it all. It does not become you, stevus. Do YOUR thing, leaving others to do as they will. Trust the process, such as it is. If a REAL problem arises, past experience has shown that Matthew will eventually learn of it and take the appropriate action. Godspeed.
-
This is why I've asked in the past for there to be a separate Crisis section for non-sedes.
-
I get the feeling that people who do not want sedevacantist to comment here or anywhere is because, sedevacantist make sense to them and they can't defend what their pope is doing. Therefore they want to close their ears.
Take the Feeny people here, I don't mind they comment because they make no sense to me. They can blabber all they want about God's none mercy. Of course this is just my opinion.
-
I get the feeling that people who do not want sedevacantist to comment here or anywhere is because, sedevacantist make sense to them and they can't defend what their pope is doing. Therefore they want to close their ears.
Take the Feeny people here, I don't mind they comment because they make no sense to me. They can blabber all they want about God's none mercy. Of course this is just my opinion.
A lot of modernists use the same excuse with infants who die without Baptism. Not to be belligerent but it's "Feeney," just a typo I am sure.
-
As a Catholic I believe infants who die without Baptism are not condemned, but are stained with original sin, therefore they reside in Limbo and experience a natural happiness.
Some even theorize they may be given a chance at the end of time, a test. This is not dogma but a theory. I myself have no opinion about it, it is in God's hands.
The unbaptized babies have expeirenced the mercy of God.
Thanks for the correction about Feeney, I appreciate it, I am not the best at spelling
-
As a Catholic I believe infants who die without Baptism are not condemned, but are stained with original sin, therefore they reside in Limbo and experience a natural happiness.
Some even theorize they may be given a chance at the end of time, a test. This is not dogma but a theory. I myself have no opinion about it, it is in God's hands.
The unbaptized babies have expeirenced the mercy of God.
Thanks for the correction about Feeney, I appreciate it, I am not the best at spelling
If you are going to "theorize they may be given a chance at the end of time, a test," then you might as well embrace all of Vatican II as well as at least the possibility of universal salvation. This is, however, where traditional Catholics such as myself and modern ones part company, for the Council of Carthage (418) declared this:
"It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: 'In my father’s house there are many mansions' (John 14:2): that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal life, let him be anathema. For when the lord says :'Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God' (John 3:5), what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a co-heir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left." (Canon 3.1, Council of Carthage, Denzinger 102 fn.2; 30th edition)
Even though the Council of Carthage was a regional Council and, therefore, technically not binding upon the universal Church, St. Pope Zosimus published Carthage’s canons as his own, which made them infallible and binding upon the universal Church. This is referred to in the Council of Ephesus. Pope Zosimus' Tractoria was sent to the whole world:
”…Pope Zosimus of blessed memory directs us, when writing to the bishops of the whole world…” (Ephesus; Denzinger 134)
"The same teacher Zosimus trained us, who, when spoke to the the bishops of the whole world….” (Ephesus; Denzinger 135)
"We[Zozimus], however, by the inspiration of God…have referred all things to that of our brothers and co-bishops." (Ephesus; Denzinger 134)
This is the beginning of his Tractoria and it tells us all things are referred to the African bishops, which is why the Council of Carthage received this great praise:
"Furthermore that which was determined in the decrees of the synod of Cathage [418 AD], we have embraced as the Apostolic See’s own…” (Ephesus; Denzinger 136), and,
"But although we do not dare to esteem lightly the deeper and more difficult parts of the questions which they [Augustine and Zozimus] have treated in more detail who have restrained the heretics, we do not consider it necessary to add what their writings, according to the aforementioned regulation of the Apostolic See, have taught us…" (Ephesus; Denzinger 142)
So, if you are going to abandon Carthage, you might as well abandon everything that came before and after it.
-
If you are going to "theorize they may be given a chance at the end of time, a test," then you might as well embrace all of Vatican II as well as at least the possibility of universal salvation. This is, however, where traditional Catholics such as myself and modern ones part company, for the Council of Carthage (418) declared this:
First, it is not my theory, I only stated that because I read or heard early theologians thought it might be that way.
Until something is pronounced a dogma, Catholics are free to think about things that are unknown to us, as long as we don't start teaching them as dogmatic. Before Our Lady was pronounced the Immaculate Conception, good and holy Catholics would discuss this issue. When the pope pronounce it as dogma, there was no room for debate anymore.
I believe everything the Catholic church teaches, and C.M.R.I. teaches the same way I was taught. Prior to Vatican II, it might interest you to know that in Catholic school, at least my Catholic school, taught that everyone can fall from grace, even a pope. If the pope started teaching heresy, he would no longer be pope. Although a true pope can be in mortal sin and still be pope, I am not saying he has to be without sin.
-
The way things look is the world, who knows it may be our last Lent on Earth. Make it a fruitful one
This is very wise. The recent cataclysms in the Pacific Ocean have made these words unnervingly insightful.
Another thought that is good to have is to receive every Holy Communion with the same fervor and devotion wherewith you would receive Holy Viaticuм, because every Holy Communion may very well be one's Viaticuм (with traditional Priests so few and far between, chances are we won't be able to receive the Sacraments in case we die far away from a traditional Priest or if a widespread calamity assails our locality and the Priest has so many souls to tend).
-
Jehanne, do you believe in limbo?
Myrna, what on Earth do you mean about a test at the end of time for dead unbaptized babies? That is heretical, it's given to man to die once, and then the judgment. You're suggesting some kind of alternate life, an alternate dimension. You say early theologians believed in this? Would you happen to have a quote?
The babies are in limbo and have a natural happiness, as you said, leave it at that.
-
Jehanne said:
"It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: 'In my father’s house there are many mansions' (John 14:2): that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal life, let him be anathema. For when the lord says :'Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God' (John 3:5), what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a co-heir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left." (Canon 3.1, Council of Carthage, Denzinger 102 fn.2; 30th edition)
Limbo is not part of the kingdom of heaven, so it doesn't contradict the Council of Carthage.
You haven't figured something out that no one figured out before you, Jehanne. I hope that doesn't wound your pride. Lots of Popes knew a lot more than you and saw no contradiction. If you can't accept this, you're in trouble.
Stop reading about baptism of desire, and get some books about the saints, St. Gemma, St. Bernard, St. Alphonsus, St. Catherine, learn how the saints thought, talked and acted, that is the cure for the scrupes. This is DEFINITELY a trap of the devil, all this Feeneyism stuff, it's a direct attack on intellectual pride, it relies on people who just have to know who is saved and who is damned, i.e. people who are playing God.
-
It's amusing in a kind of perverse way how Stevus doesn't see how he is precisely like those he decries, the "Neo-Caths" on Catholic Answers, constantly attempting to stifle debate, afraid of hearing another angle on the crisis that isn't his own.
-
The babies are in limbo and have a natural happiness, as you said, leave it at that.
Perfect.
-
Jehanne said:
"It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: 'In my father’s house there are many mansions' (John 14:2): that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal life, let him be anathema. For when the lord says :'Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God' (John 3:5), what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a co-heir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left." (Canon 3.1, Council of Carthage, Denzinger 102 fn.2; 30th edition)
Limbo is not part of the kingdom of heaven, so it doesn't contradict the Council of Carthage.
You haven't figured something out that no one figured out before you, Jehanne. I hope that doesn't wound your pride. Lots of Popes knew a lot more than you and saw no contradiction. If you can't accept this, you're in trouble.
Stop reading about baptism of desire, and get some books about the saints, St. Gemma, St. Bernard, St. Alphonsus, St. Catherine, learn how the saints thought, talked and acted, that is the cure for the scrupes. This is DEFINITELY a trap of the devil, all this Feeneyism stuff, it's a direct attack on intellectual pride, it relies on people who just have to know who is saved and who is damned, i.e. people who are playing God.
Once again, you are putting words into my mouth. No, I am not "prideful," and from my perspective, I am not advocating anything whatsoever that is new. I have posted this before:
Baltimore Catechism -- Question 510:
Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?
Answer: It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church provided that person (I) has been validly baptized; (2) firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and (3) dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.
If Catholics (myself included) are interested in getting Jєωs, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., into Paradise, a perfectly orthodox mechanism exists for doing just that -- Baptism in infancy. We can hope that the One and Triune God, in His Providence over His Creation, had such "good people" baptized when they were too young to remember it, that they lived good and decent lives even though their lives were lived in a false religion, and when they died, they died without mortal sin. For there, off to Purgatory they would go to find the real truth.
The above should be enough to end, forever, all discussion about salvation "outside" of the Roman Catholic Church, but I suspect that we will keep discussing it.
-
Raoul, NO! I don't have a quote and it is not heretic since it is not considered a dogma, just a THEORY. I also said my feeling about this THEORY, was neutral, not something I believe or even wonder about. This is what I was taught as a child in Catholic school, that some theologians THINK, it might be possible that God has a test after the END OF TIME, for unbapitzed infants. END OF TIME, meaning this so-called test would happen in eternity, therefore nothing like a reincarnation type of life.
It would be interesting if those reading here, might ask their priests and post back. Ask Fr. Dominic, if he ever heard of such a theory.