Author Topic: Vatican II Errors: ImperfectPartial Communion (Read 5181 times)

Ladislaus · « **on:** February 10, 2015, 08:48:22 AM »

I just wanted to spin this off from the other thread; it was getting too long and was digressing onto the various "responses" to purported error(s) in Vatican II. Indeed, I submit that we Traditional Catholics spend too much time arguing about the responses while simply taking for granted that there are indeed grave positive errors in the Vatican II "Magisterium". We often throw out buzzwords like "Ecuмenism", "Religious Liberty", and, for the more theologically-sophisticated, "False Ecclesiology". In terms of Ecuмenism and Religious Liberty, most Traditional Catholics who throw the terms out really can't define these things theologically but have a vague notion of them derived from the scandalous heteropraxis of the Vatican II authorities. We think of Buddhas on tabernacles and anointings with cow dung, of course, but what does Vatican II actually teach?

So, on the other thread, where we had left off is in noticing that in Lumen Gentium, even from my strict "Feeneyite" perspective on ecclesiology, I could find no direct POSITIVE error. There were several statements which IMPLIED but did not directly teach the notion of partial communion or membership in or belonging to the Church. I can summarize and recap these shortly.

It's not until the Decree on Ecuмenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, that Vatican II directly teaches the notion of an "imperfect communion" (as opposed to "full communion") with the Church. With the teaching of UR, then, the implied concepts in LG also come out in relief.

What is "imperfect" or "partial" communion? Is it in any way compatible with Traditional Catholic ecclesiology? That's what I want to explore in this thread. In a different thread, after we have gone through this problem, we should tackle the problem of Religious Liberty.

I actually have no preconceived conclusions. I have gone through this thinking process many times now, but it's very helpful to make this "journey" along with others here on CI. I always learn a lot that doesn't occur to me when I'm thinking things through on my own. If it leads me back into submission to the Vatican II hierarchy, then if that is the will of God, so be it. Later today I will post the excerpts for UR regarding the new ecclesiology.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #1 on:** February 10, 2015, 09:59:20 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

What is "imperfect" or "partial" communion? Is it in any way compatible with Traditional Catholic ecclesiology?

"Imperfect communion" is a completely novel idea. This is why it is a new ecclesiology. The Catholic Church has never been widely defined with such terms. A Catholic is one who believes in all the dogmas of the Catholic Church. If you deny one article of the Faith then you deny all the Faith. This is the Traditional teaching on Catholic communion. There is no such thing as an "imperfect catholic"or "partial catholic". One would think that the novelty of these ideas are obvious, but today we see it even among some who consider themselves to be Traditionalist (Ecclesia Dei groups) who parrot that the SSPX is "lacking full communion". For that matter, they must also believe that Orthodox and protestants are lacking "full communion". The errors have no end. It will extend so far that the Novus Ordo sect will need to be declared non-catholic by some future prelate as a logical result of their having swallowed V2 hook, line, and sinker with their Ecclesia Dei co-religionists.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** February 10, 2015, 11:23:10 AM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: Ladislaus

What is "imperfect" or "partial" communion? Is it in any way compatible with Traditional Catholic ecclesiology?

"Imperfect communion" is a completely novel idea. This is why it is a new ecclesiology. The Catholic Church has never been widely defined with such terms. A Catholic is one who believes in all the dogmas of the Catholic Church. If you deny one article of the Faith then you deny all the Faith. This is the Traditional teaching on Catholic communion. There is no such thing as an "imperfect catholic"or "partial catholic". One would think that the novelty of these ideas are obvious, but today we see it even among some who consider themselves to be Traditionalist (Ecclesia Dei groups) who parrot that the SSPX is "lacking full communion". For that matter, they must also believe that Orthodox and protestants are lacking "full communion". The errors have no end. It will extend so far that the Novus Ordo sect will need to be declared non-catholic by some future prelate as a logical result of their having swallowed V2 hook, line, and sinker with their Ecclesia Dei co-religionists.

I'll come back to your arguments after I've had a chance to quote from UR itself.

Cantarella · « **Reply #3 on:** February 10, 2015, 11:31:44 AM »

The error in UR is found here:

Quote

Unitatis Reditingratio
DECREE ON EcuмENISM

5. UR 3
3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecuмenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)
Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem

So far I have not found a satisfactory way of interpreting this in light of Tradition. Of course, the ones who believe in invincible ignorance and non Catholics belonging to the "soul of the Church", could easily reconcile these paragraphs.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** February 10, 2015, 11:35:27 AM »

Quote from: Unitatis Redintegratio

3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly condemned. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecuмenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.
...
Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches, and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
...
4.
...
This is the way that, when the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion have been gradually overcome, all Christians will at last, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, be gathered into the one and only Church in that unity which Christ bestowed on His Church from the beginning. We believe that this unity subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.
...
8.
...
Yet worship in common (communicatio in sacris) is not to be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of Christian unity. There are two main principles governing the practice of such common worship: first, the bearing witness to the unity of the Church, and second, the sharing in the means of grace. Witness to the unity of the Church very generally forbids common worship to Christians, but the grace to be had from it sometimes commends this practice. The course to be adopted, with due regard to all the circuмstances of time, place, and persons, is to be decided by local episcopal authority, unless otherwise provided for by the Bishops' Conference according to its statutes, or by the Holy See.
...
11.
When comparing doctrines with one another, they should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists a "hierarchy" of truths, since they vary in their relation to the fundamental Christian faith.
...
15. Everyone also knows with what great love the Christians of the East celebrate the sacred liturgy, especially the eucharistic celebration, source of the Church's life and pledge of future glory, in which the faithful, united with their bishop, have access to God the Father through the Son, the Word made flesh, Who suffered and has been glorified, and so, in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, they enter into communion with the most holy Trinity, being made "sharers of the divine nature". Hence, through the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in each of these churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature and through concelebration, their communion with one another is made manifest.

In this liturgical worship, the Christians of the East pay high tribute, in beautiful hymns of praise, to Mary ever Virgin, whom the ecuмenical Council of Ephesus solemnly proclaimed to be the holy Mother of God, so that Christ might be acknowledged as being truly Son of God and Son of Man, according to the Scriptures. Many also are the saints whose praise they sing, among them the Fathers of the universal Church.

These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. Therefore some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circuмstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to be encouraged.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** February 10, 2015, 11:38:56 AM »

Quote from: Cantarella

The error in UR is found here:

Quote
It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Even that sentence by itself isn't enough. If an infant gets baptized in an Orthodox church and dies before reaching the age of reasons, didn't the Orthodox Church act materially as a means of salvation for that child? And the efficacy derived from the Catholic Church.

Cantarella · « **Reply #6 on:** February 10, 2015, 11:39:51 AM »

There we found the novels of full communion vs partial communion with non Catholics (Orthodox and Protestants) and later on, this partiality has extended to traditional Catholics who are not in juridical union with the Holy See and have not been granted canonical status within the Church, such as SSPX

Cantarella · « **Reply #7 on:** February 10, 2015, 11:44:22 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Cantarella
The error in UR is found here:

Quote
It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Even that sentence by itself isn't enough. If an infant gets baptized in an Orthodox church and dies before reaching the age of reasons, didn't the Orthodox Church act materially as a means of salvation for that child? And the efficacy derived from the Catholic Church.

Yes, it only when it extents beyond the age of reason that is incorrect. All baptized babies and children in heretical and schismatic sects are considered Catholic until the age of reason when separation from the Church occurs via heresy or schism. Remember we are talking here about non Catholic BAPTIZED CHRISTIANS.

Cantarella · « **Reply #8 on:** February 10, 2015, 11:47:49 AM »

Now this is the part that does not make any sense for full grown adults who although Christian, are still heretics and schismatics beyond the age of reason:

Quote

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #9 on:** February 10, 2015, 11:48:28 AM »

Now let's shrink it down a little. I gave the broader quotes just for context, to make sure we're not taking something out of context.

Quote from: Unitatis Redintegratio

The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. ... But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.
...
The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches, and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
...
8.
...
Yet worship in common (communicatio in sacris) is not to be considered as a means to be used indiscriminately for the restoration of Christian unity. There are two main principles governing the practice of such common worship: first, the bearing witness to the unity of the Church, and second, the sharing in the means of grace. Witness to the unity of the Church very generally forbids common worship to Christians, but the grace to be had from it sometimes commends this practice. The course to be adopted, with due regard to all the circuмstances of time, place, and persons, is to be decided by local episcopal authority, unless otherwise provided for by the Bishops' Conference according to its statutes, or by the Holy See.
...
15.
...
These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy. Therefore some worship in common (communicatio in sacris), given suitable circuмstances and the approval of Church authority, is not only possible but to be encouraged.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #10 on:** February 10, 2015, 12:11:06 PM »

What we have here is the ecclesiology of Imperfect/Partial communion. Is this an error? Certainly it does not sound like anything ever openly taught by the Magisterium or by Catholic theologians.

For those who think that this teaching is erroneous, answer the following question:

Can an Orthodox "Christian" who errs in good faith be saved?

99.999% of Traditional Catholics will answer, "Yes, such a one can be saved."

Well, OK, then.

But there can be no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

If this Orthodox person is to be saved, then that must mean that he is inside the Church somehow.

So one way to look at this would be to say that the person is formally but not materially a Catholic.

So, Catholic in one sense but non-Catholic in another sense.

So, by virtue of being Catholic, one of our "brethren", but by virtue of the material separation, "separated brethren".

So, by virtue of being Catholic, in communion, but by virtue of the material separation, the obstacles that divide us, not in "full" communion.

But matters of "good faith" and "sincerity", etc. belong to the internal forum, and not even the Church declares Herself competent to judge the internal forum (de internis ecclesia non judicat).

In the past, before Vatican II, the Church simply made a PRESUMPTION, then, in the external forum, that those materially separated from the Church were in fact not within the Church.

After Vatican II, in the interests of better relations with the "separated brethren", with the desire and intent of bringing them closer to the "fullness of truth" in the Catholic Church, so, for pastoral reasons, the Church now makes a PRESUMPTION in the external forum, of "good faith" on the part of the separated brethren due to their having grown up in these non-Catholic groups and so therefore not being guilty of the actual "sin of separation".

Is this, then, anything more than the spirit of being "positive" that "Good Pope John" wanted to promote? Is this, then, anything more than taking a "glass half full" rather than "glass half empty" perspective upon the same reality? In the past, our PRESUMPTION was pessimistic; now our PRESUMPTION should be optimistic. In both cases it's just a presumption.

In many ways the Church operates on presumption with regard to the external/internal forum problem. So, for instance, the Church gives Holy Communion to many, many people who are not in a state of grace, and so participates in sacrilege, based on the PRESUMPTION that they ARE in a state of grace. So, then, what's so different about offering Holy Communion (communicatio in sacris) to Orthodox based on the PRESUMPTION that they are in good faith (similar to the person in mortal sin kneeling at the communion rail)?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** February 10, 2015, 12:17:57 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: Ladislaus

What is "imperfect" or "partial" communion? Is it in any way compatible with Traditional Catholic ecclesiology?

"Imperfect communion" is a completely novel idea. This is why it is a new ecclesiology. The Catholic Church has never been widely defined with such terms. A Catholic is one who believes in all the dogmas of the Catholic Church. If you deny one article of the Faith then you deny all the Faith. This is the Traditional teaching on Catholic communion. There is no such thing as an "imperfect catholic"or "partial catholic". One would think that the novelty of these ideas are obvious, but today we see it even among some who consider themselves to be Traditionalist (Ecclesia Dei groups) who parrot that the SSPX is "lacking full communion". For that matter, they must also believe that Orthodox and protestants are lacking "full communion". The errors have no end. It will extend so far that the Novus Ordo sect will need to be declared non-catholic by some future prelate as a logical result of their having swallowed V2 hook, line, and sinker with their Ecclesia Dei co-religionists.

Please read my previous post now.

Can Orthodox and Protestants be saved?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #12 on:** February 10, 2015, 12:30:34 PM »

I have been attacked, including by Matthew, for making too much of "Feeneyism" and of the "EENS" problem. Can you see now why I have said that everything about Traditional Catholicism hinges on this question? Really the only thing that remains is "Religious Liberty", and I will address that one also. "Collegiality" is a non-issue. If I am not a "Feeneyite", then I have ZERO opposition to anything in Vatican II except to say that certain emphases should not have been made due to the climate of religious indifferentism in our day (I would be simply an "inopportunist" when it comes to V2).

Cantarella · « **Reply #13 on:** February 10, 2015, 02:02:32 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I have been attacked, including by Matthew, for making too much of "Feeneyism" and of the "EENS" problem. Can you see now why I have said that everything about Traditional Catholicism hinges on this question? Really the only thing that remains is "Religious Liberty", and I will address that one also. "Collegiality" is a non-issue. If I am not a "Feeneyite", then I have ZERO opposition to anything in Vatican II except to say that certain emphases should not have been made due to the climate of religious indifferentism in our day (I would be simply an "inopportunist" when it comes to V2).

No doubt, everything boils down to who is actually inside vs. outside the Church. The sold idea in Vatican II is that the ones in partial communion, namely Orthodox and Protestants, can somehow belong to the Church and thus, achieve salvation. Something 99% of " traditional " Catholics believe in anyway

So what is the big deal?

Centroamerica · « **Reply #14 on:** February 10, 2015, 02:55:01 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Centroamerica
Quote from: Ladislaus

What is "imperfect" or "partial" communion? Is it in any way compatible with Traditional Catholic ecclesiology?

"Imperfect communion" is a completely novel idea. This is why it is a new ecclesiology. The Catholic Church has never been widely defined with such terms. A Catholic is one who believes in all the dogmas of the Catholic Church. If you deny one article of the Faith then you deny all the Faith. This is the Traditional teaching on Catholic communion. There is no such thing as an "imperfect catholic"or "partial catholic". One would think that the novelty of these ideas are obvious, but today we see it even among some who consider themselves to be Traditionalist (Ecclesia Dei groups) who parrot that the SSPX is "lacking full communion". For that matter, they must also believe that Orthodox and protestants are lacking "full communion". The errors have no end. It will extend so far that the Novus Ordo sect will need to be declared non-catholic by some future prelate as a logical result of their having swallowed V2 hook, line, and sinker with their Ecclesia Dei co-religionists.

Please read my previous post now.

Can Orthodox and Protestants be saved?

You raise some valid questions, and I have read all of these docuмents a decade or so ago. I believe in Invincible Ignorance as taught by Blessed Pius the Ninth and implicit baptism of desire as taught by Archbishop Lefebvre deriving itself from the Catechism and popes before him. The UR docuмent I had always considered one of the worse. The best solution is to seek a dogmatic clarification of the Council. A future pope will have to condemn, once more, these errors coming from the Council. No heretic is saved in his own "church" but through implicitly willing to do all that Christ desires. I would not even say that this happens often, but rather that it simply exists. On this earth, while they remain Protestants and Orthodox they are not members of the ecclesia miltans, but I am unsure if this is stated correctly. I hold to the opinion that they would only become members of the ecclesia padecent or ecclesia triumphans after having been judged by Christ, who knows the hearts of men. If they are material catholics I do not know. It is something that is beyond our comprehension, I believe. Outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation. The judgement of God is not within my understanding. I have always held the opinion that the new ecclesiology is heretical, there are no degrees of communion. One is Catholic or simply one is not Catholic. Subjectively only God can judge one's heart, but objectively speaking all Protestants, heretics, and schismatics will perish. The meat and potatoes of your question is if a material heretic not formally a heretic could be considered a material catholic and if so would this justify the new ecclesiology? I say that I do not believe that it would justify the new ecclesiology as it is employed. Very few cases would actually involve the hypothetical situations in my opinion and I am unsure if "material catholic" is a correct term to apply in the case of what you have described.