Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Nishant Xavier on February 23, 2021, 07:58:44 AM
-
Understanding this topic is the key to avoiding errors during the crisis in the Church today. Where is the Church, and Her Four Marks?
Let's see what traditional sources have said about this. Here is the CE on the subject: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm
(1) First, the Catholic Encyclopedia: "Apostolicity is the mark by which the Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) of today is recognized as identical with the Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) founded by Jesus Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) upon the Apostles (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm). It is of great importance because it is the surest indication of the true (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) Church of Christ (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), it is most easily examined, and it virtually contains the other three marks, namely, Unity, Sanctity, and Catholicity (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm)."
Notice that the CE says Apostolicity "virtually contains the other three marks". Hence, if we find the Apostolic Church, we find the Church with Her Four Marks.
Next, the CE says Apostolicity requires Bishops with Jurisdiction, proving this from various Fathers and other authorities: "Billot (De Eccl. Christi, I, 243-275) emphasizes the idea (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07630a.htm) that the Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm), which is Apostolic, must be presided over by bishops (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm), who derive their ministry and their governing power from the Apostles (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm). Apostolicity, then, is that Apostolic succession (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm) by which the Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) of today is one with the Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) of the Apostles in origin, doctrine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm), and mission ... jurisdiction (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08567a.htm) is essential to the Apostolicity of mission"
Finally, the CE says the Catholic Church is manifestly Apostolic because (1) Of Her unbroken Succession from St. Peter the Apostle, and further, (2) is recognized as plainly Apostolic even by those who have left Her Communion.
"The history of the Catholic (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) from St. Peter, the first Pontiff, to the present Head of the Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm), is an evident proof (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12454c.htm) of its Apostolicity, for no break can be shown in the line of succession. Cardinal Newman (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10794a.htm) (Diff. of Anglicans, 369) says: "Say there is no church at all if you will, and at least I shall understand you; but do not meddle with a fact attested by mankind (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) ... Their appeal shows that the Catholic (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) is regarded as Apostolic even by those who have separated from her communion."
2. Second, Brunsmann Preuss, Handbook of Fundamental Theology: “In order to be able to distinguish with certainty the true Church of Christ from all false claimants, it is sufficient to establish the Apostolic Succession with regard to the primacy of Peter. For, since the primacy is the crown of the Apostolate, the Church which possesses the primacy must needs be Apostolic … Hence that Church, and that Church only, which can trace its rulers to the first primate, namely, St. Peter, is in fact and by right Apostolic in every sense. Those regional churches which are subject to the successor of St. Peter, and live in community with him, participate in this Apostolicity. All others, be it that they have separated from the one only Apostolic Church or developed independently of her, lack the note of Apostolicity and consequently cannot be the true Church of Christ.” (Brunsmann Preuss, Handbook of Fundamental Theology, Vol III).
This detailed explanation from traditional theology is clear, concise and perfect. Applying it to our times, where is the Apostolic Church.
3. Finally, for those who want a Catechism, here is that of St. Anthony Mary Claret: St. Anthony Mary Claret: "The fourth note or mark of the Church is to be Apostolic. That is to say, it was founded by the Apostles and is governed by their successors, the bishops, who. since the Apostles, have succeeded without interruption. And these bishops have a lawful mission to guard always, in their teaching and management of the Church, the unity of Faith and of communion with their head and center, the Roman Pontiff ... All of us know that the Apostles fulfilled the mission that Jesus Christ gave them. And it is sufficient to read the list of the Catholic bishops, especially of the Supreme Pontiffs of Rome as the continuing Head or principal leader of Christianity - better said, of Catholicism - in order to see that.
[Pope Bl.] Pius IX, who by the mercy of God happily governs us, have succeeded Gregory XVI, and he Pius VIII. And so, ascending from one to the other, we shall arrive at Saint Peter, who was made by Jesus Christ the Prince of the Apostles and His Vicar on earth.
If, then, any heretics come to you, my son, saying that their churches are also Apostolic, there is nothing more to say to them than what Tertullian said: "Prove the origin of your churches. Make us see that the order of your bishops has in some way through succession descended from the beginning, that the first was any of the Apostles, or had as a predecessor some of the Apostolic men who had persevered together with the Apostles."
Inasmuch as the heretical sects will never be able to show this, so it is that none of them can reasonably glory in being Apostolic. But on the other hand, since the Catholic Church is the only one that is able to trace Her origin to the Apostles, it follows from what I have said that She alone is in all truth Apostolic."
Heretical sects, as St. Anthony Mary Claret says, will never be able to prove Apostolicity. Hence the Apostolicity of the Church itself also proves that She is not in heresy. http://catholicvox.blogspot.com/2009/03/eens-saint-anthony-mary-claret-from.html
As the CE put it, "Apostolicity of mission is a guarantee of Apostolicity of doctrine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm). St. Irenæus (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm) (Adv. Haeres, IV, xxvi, n. 2) says: "Wherefore we must obey the priests (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm) of the Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) who have succession from the Apostles, as we have shown, who, together with succession in the episcopate, have received the certain mark of truth (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) according to the will of the Father; all others, however, are to be suspected, who separated themselves from the principal succession"
Where do you believe the Apostolic Church is today? Where are Her Four Marks?
-
I found this portion of the CE section interesting:
"Apostolicity of doctrine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) requires that the deposit of faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) committed to the Apostles shall remain unchanged. Since the Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) is infallible (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) in its teaching, it follows that if the Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) of Christ still exists it must be teaching His doctrine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm). Hence Apostolicity of mission is a guarantee of Apostolicity of doctrine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm)."
So, the Catholic Church is where the deposit of faith continues to be taught and remains unchanged.
-
Hi 2Vermont. Regarding what you quoted, if it said, "Apostolicity of doctrine is a proof of Apostolicity of mission", I'd agree with you.
But it doesn't say that: it says "Apostolicity of mission is proof of Apostolicity of doctrine". Hence, if we find the Apostolic Church, which has the Apostolic Mission and the Power of Jurisdiction, we will also find the Apostolic Doctrine. That's what the CE is saying.
Do you agree that having an unbroken succession, in St. Peter' chair, or another episcopal see, from now to the Apostles, gives evidence of Apostolic succession? Per the explanations I quoted, that is how the Apostolic Church is distinguished and identified.
Brunsmann Preuss: "In order to be able to distinguish with certainty the true Church of Christ from all false claimants, it is sufficient to establish the Apostolic Succession with regard to the primacy of Peter. For, since the primacy is the crown of the Apostolate, the Church which possesses the primacy must needs be Apostolic … Hence that Church, and that Church only, which can trace its rulers to the first primate, namely, St. Peter, is in fact and by right Apostolic in every sense."
-
SVermont, this is what I was taught back in the late '40s;Apostolicity is teaching as the apostles . Not as the mainstream Novus Ordo teaches, how dare they even go against DIVINE LAW. The breaking of the FIRST COMMANDMENT, which was written in stone, it can not change. VII teaches IDOL equality by their example. Pachamama horror.
In fact, I remember reading if ever there is a debate concerning the Deposit of Faith, we go back and obey what it say's from the beginning. That is, where Apostolicity IS.
Found this on WordPress at https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2021/02/22/the-divided-religion-of-bergoglio/ (https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2021/02/22/the-divided-religion-of-bergoglio/)
"We Catholics, who without a pope, are unified in faith because we are unified to the papal office and all the teachings thereof, but the Vatican 2 religion is divided WITH A POPE, which proves that we are right and the Vatican 2 religion of the fake pope Bergoglio is not the Catholic Church."
The four Marks of the Church are there for all to see in Tradition including APOSTOLICITY!
XavierSem
mentions on another thread today, trying to prove UNITY is missing among Sedevacantist position, he cited SSPV/CMRI, but he only proved again there is NO TRUE POPE, "When the SHEPHERD HAS BEEN STRUCK THE SHEEP WILL SCATTER." It is written.
BTW " unbroken succession, in St. Peter' chair." ??
St. Peter himself would not recognize Vatican II as the same Church he represented when he was alive.
-
XavierSem is an intellectually dishonest heretic. He pretends that we are bound to the apostate Novus Ordo hierarchy but what he really wants to do is bind us to the SSPX hierarchy. He uses the NO hierarchy as a tool to try to compel us to submit to the SSPX hierarchy. But he won't admit it. He is a deceiver.
-
Exactly Myrna. You can't have mission without the Faith. Don't let the anti sede suck you in.
-
He also binds the HANDS OF God, as if God has not provided a way to keep His promise that He will not leave us orphans.
God's promise the Church will always have a Head.
It reminds me of the Ascension of Jesus when He left but promised He would always be with us. Yet He still left because He knew it was time for the Holy Ghost to come and wrap them with His gifts. He Jesus after His Ascension into Heaven the Bible tells us in Ephesians 1; "He wrought in Christ, raising Him up from the dead, and setting Him on his right hand in the heavenly places. [21] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=56&ch=1&l=21-#x) Above all principality, and power, and virtue, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. [22] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=56&ch=1&l=22-#x) And he hath subjected all things under His feet, and hath made Him head over all the Church, [23] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=56&ch=1&l=23-#x) Which is His body, and the fulness of Him who is filled all in all.
The truth is we live in the time of the Great Apostasy; the Pope is in exile, in the sense of the word absent. As promised at the Ascension, we still have a Head. He has not left us, orphans.
The Holy Ghost is ALSO here; don't insult Him by thinking He wrought the newchurch born from the Great Apostasy and all its sins are okay with God.
-
Exactly Myrna. You can't have mission without the Faith. Don't let the anti sede suck you in.
With God's grace he won't!
-
XavierSem is an intellectually dishonest heretic. He pretends that we are bound to the apostate Novus Ordo hierarchy but what he really wants to do is bind us to the SSPX hierarchy. He uses the NO hierarchy as a tool to try to compel us to submit to the SSPX hierarchy. But he won't admit it. He is a deceiver.
But if the Novus Ordo has mission and the Faith there is no need for the SSPX.
-
No, Clemens Maria, heretics are those who deny Dogmas. I presented only the perfect and pure Catholic Dogma on Apostolicity from unimpeachable Catholic sources. You don't want to accept it, so you just resort to calumny, detraction and slander. Typical.
I quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia, Theology Manuals, and the Catechism of St. Anthony Mary Claret. Show where I'm wrong if I am.
If you had any response from those sources, you would have quoted it and made some kind of argument. But you evidently do not.
It's 63-year-SVism, and especially "Ecclesia-Vacantism" that denies Apostolicity that is heretical. That's what some of you believe.
I have presented the Truth, with clear evidence from many sources. You can believe whatever you choose to believe. That's up to you.
-
No, Clemens Maria, heretics are those who deny Dogmas. I presented only the perfect and pure Catholic Dogma on Apostolicity from unimpeachable Catholic sources. You don't want to accept it, so you just resort to calumny, detraction and slander. Typical.
I quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia, Theology Manuals, and the Catechism of St. Anthony Mary Claret. Show where I'm wrong if I am.
If you had any response from those sources, you would have quoted it and made some kind of argument. But you evidently do not.
It's 63-year-SVism, and especially "Ecclesia-Vacantism" that denies Apostolicity that is heretical. That's what some of you believe.
I have presented the Truth, with clear evidence from many sources. You can believe whatever you choose to believe. That's up to you.
You have been spreading heresy against the dogma concerning the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism for salvation. And then you hypocritically try to convince everyone that we are bound by the Novus Ordo hierarchy while you yourself refuse submission to them. So it is not a calumny to accuse you of heresy, it is my obligation. And it is my obligation to point out to others how you are trying to deceive them concerning the status of the Novus Ordo hierarchy. You yourself are a heretic so it is no wonder that you think nothing of binding Catholics to heretics.
-
Correct, Xavier, Apostolicity guarantees the other marks. That is precisely the Major of sedevacantism.
But Apostolicity (though the Petrine office) is precisely what's being disputed here.
So applying modus tollens logic.
Major: Apostolicity guarantees the other marks.
Minor: Conciliar Church lacks the other marks.
Conclusion: Conciliar Church lacks Apostolicity.
QED: sedevacantism
You're basically begging the question here. You assume Apostolicity to prove ... Apostolicity (and the other marks). It's a circular argument.
Should we consider the other marks, whether the Conciliar Church has, say, Holiness?
-
Correct, Xavier, Apostolicity guarantees the other marks. That is precisely the Major of sedevacantism.
But Apostolicity (though the Petrine office) is precisely what's being disputed here.
So applying modus tollens logic.
Major: Apostolicity guarantees the other marks.
Minor: Conciliar Church lacks the other marks.
Conclusion: Conciliar Church lacks Apostolicity.
QED: sedevacantism
You're basically begging the question here. You assume Apostolicity to prove ... Apostolicity (and the other marks).
But he denies the consequences of his conclusion! He doesn't show submission to apostolic authority. He just uses it as a tool to try to bind everyone to the SSPX hierarchy. Incredibly dishonest!
-
Catholic Encyclopedia regarding Sanctity (Holiness) Mark of the Church:
It is not difficult to show that the Catholic and Roman Church, and she alone, fulfils these conditions. In regard to her doctrines, it is manifest that the moral law which she proposes as of Divine obligation, is more lofty and more exacting than that which any of the sects has ventured to require. Her vindication of the indissolubility of marriage in the face of a licentious world affords the most conspicuous instance of this. She alone maintains in its integrity her Master's teaching on marriage. Every other religious body without exception has given place to the demands of human passion.
Amoris Laetitia anyone?
:laugh1:
We went from a tiny number of annulments per year to opening the floodgates. NO pushes NFP as a means of birth control. Now we have AL saying that it's OK to cohabitate while still being married to someone else.
-
But he denies the consequences of his conclusion! He doesn't show submission to apostolic authority. He just uses it as a tool to try to bind everyone to the SSPX hierarchy. Incredibly dishonest!
Right. I have called him out on this repeatedly. There's zero reason, given his theology, that he shouldn't be more aligned with FSSP or some similar Motarian group.
-
You're the heretic, Clemens Maria, denying what Church Doctors call de fide dogmas, and Popes have authorized as safe to teach.
You cannot debate BOD fairly. There's a separate subforum for that. Both Myrna and 2 Vermont also believe in BOD, as do the SSPV, the CMRI and all the sedevacantist groups. So it's just your selective hatred of me in particular that leads to your gravely sinful calumny.
-
More:
To show that the Church possesses the note of holiness it suffices to establish that her teaching is holy:
Sedevacantists fail to recognize the holiness of the Conciliar Magisterium, producing 60+ years of teaching religious indifferentism, and now, with Bergoglio, teaching that a married person can cohabitate (i.e. commit adultery) ... and also condoning ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.
This lack of holiness in the Conciliar teaching is precisely what sedevacantists point to to demonstrate the lack of Apostolicity, since Apostolicity would not permit such a thing ... as Xavier rightly pointed out.
Conciliar Church is a doctrinal and moral cesspool, and could not therefore be the Apostolic Church established by Our Lord.
-
You're the heretic, Clemens Maria, denying what Church Doctors call de fide dogmas, and Popes have authorized as safe to teach.
You cannot debate BOD fairly. There's a separate subforum for that. Both Myrna and 2 Vermont also believe in BOD, as do the SSPV, the CMRI and all the sedevacantist groups. So it's just your selective hatred of me in particular that leads to your gravely sinful calumny.
With regard to the BoD topic, I do disagree with Clemens (and the Dimonds) that someone who holds BoD is a heretic. Opining in favor of BoD has clearly been permitted by the Church. If the Church had declared as a Doctor of the Church someone (i.e. St. Alphonsus) who taught heresy, then that too would be a blemish on the Church's mark of Holiness.
Now, I think it's permissible to argue that BoD is in fact OBJECTIVELY heretical, but to consider someone a heretic who's outside the Church, when the Church has tolerated the opinion and even canonized and declared a Doctor someone who taught it, I believe that to be a schismatic attitude. That is the chief point on which I distance myself from the Dimonds. I don't agree with everything they argue, but on this point, I feel that they have crossed a line.
St. Thomas Aquinas taught something that was OBJECTIVELY heretical about the Immaculate Conception. So it's not impossible for a Doctor to hold an objectively heretical opinion before it has been defined. But that didn't make St. Thomas a heretic in the strict sense, because the dogma had not yet been defined. Since defined dogmas are truths that were revealed from the beginning, the position of St. Thomas was objectively heretical even when he taught it, but absent the definition, there can't be heresy in the strict sense.
So, Xavier, I disagree with you calling Clemens a heretic also. If anything, the rejection of communion with those whom the Church has not rejected (i.e. holders and teachers of the BoD position) entails schism. St. Alphonsus had the opinion that its denial was heretical, but he's in the minority among Catholic theologians, and his position also does not suffice to remove someone from the Church ... not until the Church intervenes and clearly defines that the rejection of BoD is heretical. So this does cut both ways, Xavier.
With regard to schism, however, Xavier, I feel to see how your adherence to the SSPX, a group not in communion with the Holy See, is schismatic, since you have presented no argument that prevents you in conscience from going with an FSSP, ICK, or even Eastern Rite group.
So, in my opinion, neither of you can be considered heretics in the strict sense, but both of you IMO are in danger of being schismatic.
Clemens, please reconsider whether BoD could be heretical in the strict sense. How can this be said other than in a merely OBJECTIVE way since the Church declared St. Alphonsus a Doctor? If someone (say, Duns Scotus) had told St. Thomas when he was writing that "your opinion on the Immaculate Conception is heretical," he would in fact have been correct. But had that person refused St. Thomas communion on that account, then he would have crossed over into schism. Do you see the difference here?
-
I lament the fact that the Dimonds hold (and have spread) this opinion, that BoD is heretical and puts those who hold it outside the Church. Otherwise, they have done a great service to the faith, but this poisons everything. I have tried writing them about this, but in turn they wrote back excoriating me very harshly for being a heretic. So not only am I a heretic if I believe in BoD, even if I don't believe in BoD but merely say that believing in BoD is not heretical, then I am a heretic on that count also? Where does this end? If I say someone is not a heretic for saying someone is not a heretic about BoD, does that too make me heretical? ad infinitum
I do pray for them regularly, that they be corrected on this point. Unlike many, I don't have any animosity toward them, but just pity the error they've fallen into. Given the confusion of these days, it's not hard to see anyone tripped up like this.
-
Have you ever met anyone who aggressively promotes BOD who doesn't also directly deny (by means of dishonest qualifications) a defined dogma of the Church? How many ardent preachers of BOD will allow you to state the EENS dogma without interjecting a qualification about invincible ignorance and/or BOD? Would you allow the same behavior for the Filioque? The Church teaches that heretics are outside the Church (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino - "all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jєωs or heretics and schismatics..."). And Pope Leo XIII taught that those outside the Church cannot hold ecclesiastical offices (Satis Cognitum, 15 - "No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.") In order to get around this, XavierSem and his theological master John Salza have to assert that Joe Biden is a Catholic in good standing. They can't admit that heretics can be known by both their words and deeds. Small errors lead to big consequences and the worst consequence is the loss of souls.
-
I lament the fact that the Dimonds hold (and have spread) this opinion, that BoD is heretical and puts those who hold it outside the Church. Otherwise, they have done a great service to the faith, but this poisons everything. I have tried writing them about this, but in turn they wrote back excoriating me very harshly for being a heretic. So not only am I a heretic if I believe in BoD, even if I don't believe in BoD but merely say that believing in BoD is not heretical, then I am a heretic on that count also? Where does this end? If I say someone is not a heretic for saying someone is not a heretic about BoD, does that too make me heretical? ad infinitum
I do pray for them regularly, that they be corrected on this point. Unlike many, I don't have any animosity toward them, but just pity the error they've fallen into. Given the confusion of these days, it's not hard to see anyone tripped up like this.
Well, they told me once that as long as I didn’t consider them heretics for holding the anti-BOD position then they wouldn’t consider me a heretic for holding it. :facepalm:
-
To be clear, I don’t believe those who do hold the anti-BOD position as heretics. There is too much confusion and I think that many people are in good faith.
-
I quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia, Theology Manuals, and the Catechism of St. Anthony Mary Claret. Show where I'm wrong if I am.
You have quoted all from Latin sources of non-magisterial authority. :facepalm:
How about quoting from some Greek sources?
-
Here's John Salza addressing the possibility of a cleric of the Catholic Church becoming a manifest heretic today (see 56:36) and then at 58:51 he addresses whether or not Joe Biden is a manifest heretic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwuA512YCl8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwuA512YCl8)
-
So there you have it. He thinks Joe Biden is Catholic and he thinks all sede vacantists have left the Catholic Church and are manifest heretics. Like XavierSem he just tailors his views hypocritically to fit his political position (SSPX R&R). R&R leads to absurdities like this.
-
CM, was this always your position on BOD? Or have you changed recently?
And for the record, I'm not sold on BOD, especially not the way most talk about it. Given the confusion about it these days, I would like to think we'd all give everyone the benefit of the doubt (Haha....BOD on BOD). I hope a true pope clarifies it once and for all.
-
Here's John Salza addressing the possibility of a cleric of the Catholic Church becoming a manifest heretic today (see 56:36) and then at 58:51 he addresses whether or not Joe Bıdɛn is a manifest heretic.
Right, so Biden is Catholic but Bishop Guerard des Lauriers was not.
:facepalm:
-
Have you ever met anyone who aggressively promotes BOD who doesn't also directly deny (by means of dishonest qualifications) a defined dogma of the Church? How many ardent preachers of BOD will allow you to state the EENS dogma without interjecting a qualification about invincible ignorance and/or BOD?
Very few, but I have met a couple. We had the poster Arvinger who argued against most BoDers and limited it strictly to catechumens.
From what I understand of Xavier's position, he said that one had to have explicit Catholic faith in order to be saved. Based on that, I would not put him in the category of heretics.
But you're not wrong, in that 99.9% of BoDers are heretical in their beliefs, either promoting Pelagianism (without knowing the term) or verbatim contradicting the dogmatic definitions of EENS. Perhaps we can call them "Anonymous Pelagians". How about that glorious CMRI article, "The Salvation of Those Outside the Church."?
BoD applied to catechumens doesn't wreck EENS, or probably even BOD applied to those with explicit Catholic faith. In the case of catechumens, one could argue that they have imperfect membership in the Church (which is what St. Robert Bellarmine thought). Msgr. Fenton however dismisses that and holds to the possibility that someone can be in the Church without being a member of the Church, or someone can be IN the "Church of the faithful" without actually being one of the, ehm, "faithful" (he agrees that the term "faithful" is a specific theological term to the exclusion of catechumens). I call this "undigested hamburger" ecclesiology, where something can be in the body but not part of it. In any case, imperfect membership is the better understanding, despite what Msgr. Fenton believes (IMO of course).
Anyway, my point is that some form of BoD CAN be held without destroying EENS. As Rahner put it, catechumens were already considered part of the visible Church ... to some extent.
99.9% of BoDers only care about BoD so they can gut the EENS dogma. Period. They could hardly care less about the isolated case of a catechumen who happened to die two weeks before his scheduled Baptism. Let's make no mistake. BoD for the most part is about gutting EENS and of setting up a new ecclesiology where non-Catholics are within the Church ... which is in fact V2 ecclesiology in a nutshell.
-
Very few, but I have met a couple. We had the poster Arvinger who argued against most BoDers and limited it strictly to catechumens.
From what I understand of Xavier's position, he said that one had to have explicit Catholic faith in order to be saved. Based on that, I would not put him in the category of heretics.
But you're not wrong, in that 99.9% of BoDers are heretical in their beliefs, either promoting Pelagianism (without knowing the term) or verbatim contradicting the dogmatic definitions of EENS. Perhaps we can call them "αnσnymσus Pelagians". How about that glorious CMRI article, "The Salvation of Those Outside the Church."?
BoD applied to catechumens doesn't wreck EENS, or probably even BOD applied to those with explicit Catholic faith. In the case of catechumens, one could argue that they have imperfect membership in the Church (which is what St. Robert Bellarmine thought). Msgr. Fenton however dismisses that and holds to the possibility that someone can be in the Church without being a member of the Church, or someone can be IN the "Church of the faithful" without actually being one of the, ehm, "faithful" (he agrees that the term "faithful" is a specific theological term to the exclusion of catechumens). I call this "undigested hamburger" ecclesiology, where something can be in the body but not part of it. In any case, imperfect membership is the better understanding, despite what Msgr. Fenton believes (IMO of course).
Anyway, my point is that some form of BoD CAN be held without destroying EENS. As Rahner put it, catechumens were already considered part of the visible Church ... to some extent.
99.9% of BoDers only care about BoD so they can gut the EENS dogma. Period. They could hardly care less about the isolated case of a catechumen who happened to die two weeks before his scheduled Baptism. Let's make no mistake. BoD for the most part is about gutting EENS and of setting up a new ecclesiology where non-Catholics are within the Church ... which is in fact V2 ecclesiology in a nutshell.
I would say the abuse of BOD is about gutting EENS, but I think this thread has gone off topic enough.
-
St. Thomas Aquinas taught something that was OBJECTIVELY heretical about the Immaculate Conception.
It’s been a while since I delved into St Thomas’ arguments, but what I remember is that he was wrong scientifically but not wrong doctrinally. He only theorized that fetal cells did not become a human being (and the soul was not infused by God) until 30-60 days after the beginning of conception. In other words, scientists of the time thought that conception was a process and was not instant. Because of this delay (and scientific error), he theorized that the fetal cells of Our Lady might be stained with original sin, but the moment that God infused Her soul with Her fetal cells, that original sin was washed away.
.
Had St Thomas lived in our times, with microscopes and technology, he wouldn’t have had the 1200s mindset on delayed conception, which was medically acceptable for the time, because of the high % of miscarriages which can occur in the first few weeks.
.
Just wanted to point out St Thomas’ error wasn’t doctrinal but only medical/scientific.
-
And Pope Leo XIII taught that those outside the Church cannot hold ecclesiastical offices (Satis Cognitum, 15 - "No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.")
What would you say about the case of Cardinal Cushing? If anyone was a heretic, it was he. "No Salvation Outside the Church? Nonsense. Nobody's gonna tell me that Christ came to die for any select group." Despite his heresies, the Holy See considered him to be "in communion". Could a priest have broken off and started his own chapel in the Boston diocese?
There is some truth to the notion of a visible communion, and I believe that the principles of sedeprivationism solve the problem nicely. Those priests in the Boston diocese would continue to receive jurisdiction through the conduit of Cushing, the material occupant of the See. Jurisdiction derives from the Pope, so it could flow through a heretic like Cushing. Cushing himself lacked any formal authority, but jurisdiction could flow through him. It's the same principle some theologians hold about how jurisdiction could flow to the Church even through an Anti-Pope through "color of title".
Jesuit theologian Fr. Timothy Zapalena, De Ecclesia Christi:
For the rest, if you figure those three popes [of the Great Western Schism] to be null, you ought to admit that jurisdiction is supplied (on account of color of title) not indeed by the Church, which lacks the supreme power, but by Christ Himself, who would confer jurisdiction on each of these antipopes, as much as was necessary.
So I think that a fortiori Cushing would have continued to have jurisdiction pass through him by virtue of his title.
-
It’s been a while since I delved into St Thomas’ arguments, but what I remember is that he was wrong scientifically but not wrong doctrinally. He only theorized that fetal cells did not become a human being (and the soul was not infused by God) until 30-60 days after the beginning of conception. In other words, scientists of the time thought that conception was a process and was not instant. Because of this delay (and scientific error), he theorized that the fetal cells of Our Lady might be stained with original sin, but the moment that God infused Her soul with Her fetal cells, that original sin was washed away.
.
Had St Thomas lived in our times, with microscopes and technology, he wouldn’t have had the 1200s mindset on delayed conception, which was medically acceptable for the time, because of the high % of miscarriages which can occur in the first few weeks.
.
Just wanted to point out St Thomas’ error wasn’t doctrinal but only medical/scientific.
Well, I didn't want to digress. It's just the example of how someone could cite something objectively heretical that would not be strictly heretical until it was defined. So, for instance, quite a few pre-Vatican I theologians rejected papal infallibility. That was objectively heretical before the definition but those who held it were not heretics until it was later defined. Most of them then retracted and were never heretics.
-
Agree. Sorry to digress.
-
Agree. Sorry to digress.
Since you did digress, fetal cells remind me of my meditation I had about the Visitation.
"And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren: [37] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=1&l=37#x) Because no word shall be impossible with God. [38] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=1&l=38#x) And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. [39] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=1&l=39#x) And Mary rising up in those days, went into the hill country with haste into a city of Juda. [40] (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=1&l=40#x) And she entered into the house of Zachary, and saluted Elizabeth."
Elizabeth was already in her 6th month, while Mary was just beginning her first month. The fact that the Mother of God during this visit, a living tabernacle, carrying Our Lord Jesus, caused St.John to be sanctified immєdιαtely. Just by being in His presence speaks volumes, regarding BOD (How God can do all things)
I have wondered could it be a pious belief that ordinary women who are pregnant but suffered a miscarriage; these women who received the Living Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity while they were pregnant; perhaps the Blessed Sacrament and the closeness to the unborn also sanctified the child before it was miscarried? Just my pious belief!
-
Agree. Sorry to digress.
No worries. I've heard that argument being made also.
-
I found this portion of the CE section interesting:
"Apostolicity of doctrine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) requires that the deposit of faith (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) committed to the Apostles shall remain unchanged. Since the Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) is infallible (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) in its teaching, it follows that if the Church (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) of Christ still exists it must be teaching His doctrine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm). Hence Apostolicity of mission is a guarantee of Apostolicity of doctrine (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm)."
So, the Catholic Church is where the deposit of faith continues to be taught and remains unchanged.
Yes...which also means that the Church is visible. "Where" is a place, for those inclined to challenge the aspect of visibility.
-
CM, was this always your position on BOD? Or have you changed recently?
And for the record, I'm not sold on BOD, especially not the way most talk about it. Given the confusion about it these days, I would like to think we'd all give everyone the benefit of the doubt (Haha....BOD on BOD). I hope a true pope clarifies it once and for all.
No, this was not always my position. I was baptized in the Catholic Church during V2. I was brought up in the NO sect. I was fallen away from that in the 1990s. I returned in 1998. In 1999 I entered a NO seminary in Boston. While in the seminary I was exposed to the Latin Mass via the FSSP. Also while in the seminary I learned about the St Benedict Center Mass of Fr Feeney's followers who started a Benedictine Monastery after Fr Feeney's death. Some of their monks were studying at the seminary. So I visited them in the summer and that was the first I learned about the EENS controversy. I read a Remnant article about it and I became sympathetic to Fr Feeney's position after learning that the popes have defined EENS solemnly at least 3 times. I left the seminary in 2004. Less than a month later I decided to go to the Boston indult Latin Mass exclusively. A few months after that, I found out about the Latin Mass at the St Benedict Center about 1500 ft up the street from the NO St Benedict Center Monastery in Still River/Harvard, Massachusetts. So I started going there on First Saturdays and other days as well. I learned more about the EENS doctrine. I believed it was a doctrine of the Church. But they had a NO "priest" who told me the brothers were wrong about the necessity of baptism. So while I believed EENS, I thought BOD must be compatible with it. In 2008 I started going to an SSPX chapel exclusively and I read some of their material against Fr Feeney. I still believed EENS was Catholic doctrine but I continued to think BOD was possible. In 2011 I joined CathInfo after lurking for a year after Angelqueen was reduced to a blog. I started to learn a little more about the EENS/BOD controversy due to Ladislaus and Cantarella. She was R&R in the beginning and Ladislaus was sede doubtist and I was R&R. They helped me to realize that BOD wasn't a sure thing or at least that the way most people defined it was heretical. But I didn't form a firm belief in the necessity of the sacrament of baptism. In December of 2013 I became convinced of the sede vacantist position after less than a year of Frank's nonsense and a few months of studying the issue. On the first Sunday of 2014, I started attending Mass exclusively at the CMRI chapel. I became aware (thanks to Ladislaus and Cantarella) that the CMRI actually printed an article titled "The Salvation of those Outside the Church". I was embarrassed by that but I didn't think they should be attacking the CMRI over it. So I bitterly opposed them. I'm sorry about that now. I learned about Most Holy Family Monastery while I was going to the SSPX chapel. I didn't really study all of their material. I just got exposed to some of it little by little over a long period of time. I started to appreciate them more after I became sede because I thought their sede material was spot on. I was also impressed by the fact that they were the first to notice the Sister Lucy imposter (which I didn't believe at first). Gradually I started watching some of their videos and I was always impressed. Last year I decided to study the BOD issue as thoroughly as I could. And after a few months of watching all the MHFM videos (almost 1000) and reading their books, I became convinced that BOD can't be reconciled with the Church's teaching. Everyone who lived after the promulgation of the Gospel and made it to Heaven is baptized. I'm still a little shaky on how to deal with heresy. I think we are required to break communion with manifest heretics but I'm not sure what the procedure is for determining who is a manifest heretic and who is a Catholic in error. Sometimes it is obvious and other times it's not so clear. I also am not sure about whether we have to break communion with those who are in communion with heretics. I'm still learning.
-
But if the Novus Ordo has mission and the Faith there is no need for the SSPX.
The Sspx has joined the novus Ordo in phases.
-
With regard to the BoD topic, I do disagree with Clemens (and the Dimonds) that someone who holds BoD is a heretic. Opining in favor of BoD has clearly been permitted by the Church. If the Church had declared as a Doctor of the Church someone (i.e. St. Alphonsus) who taught heresy, then that too would be a blemish on the Church's mark of Holiness.
Now, I think it's permissible to argue that BoD is in fact OBJECTIVELY heretical, but to consider someone a heretic who's outside the Church, when the Church has tolerated the opinion and even canonized and declared a Doctor someone who taught it, I believe that to be a schismatic attitude. That is the chief point on which I distance myself from the Dimonds. I don't agree with everything they argue, but on this point, I feel that they have crossed a line.
St. Thomas Aquinas taught something that was OBJECTIVELY heretical about the Immaculate Conception. So it's not impossible for a Doctor to hold an objectively heretical opinion before it has been defined. But that didn't make St. Thomas a heretic in the strict sense, because the dogma had not yet been defined. Since defined dogmas are truths that were revealed from the beginning, the position of St. Thomas was objectively heretical even when he taught it, but absent the definition, there can't be heresy in the strict sense.
So, Xavier, I disagree with you calling Clemens a heretic also. If anything, the rejection of communion with those whom the Church has not rejected (i.e. holders and teachers of the BoD position) entails schism. St. Alphonsus had the opinion that its denial was heretical, but he's in the minority among Catholic theologians, and his position also does not suffice to remove someone from the Church ... not until the Church intervenes and clearly defines that the rejection of BoD is heretical. So this does cut both ways, Xavier.
With regard to schism, however, Xavier, I feel to see how your adherence to the SSPX, a group not in communion with the Holy See, is schismatic, since you have presented no argument that prevents you in conscience from going with an FSSP, ICK, or even Eastern Rite group.
So, in my opinion, neither of you can be considered heretics in the strict sense, but both of you IMO are in danger of being schismatic.
Clemens, please reconsider whether BoD could be heretical in the strict sense. How can this be said other than in a merely OBJECTIVE way since the Church declared St. Alphonsus a Doctor? If someone (say, Duns Scotus) had told St. Thomas when he was writing that "your opinion on the Immaculate Conception is heretical," he would in fact have been correct. But had that person refused St. Thomas communion on that account, then he would have crossed over into schism. Do you see the difference here?
I honestly think the evidence that SSPX is in fact in communion with Rome is overwhelming. Whether that justifies their doctrinal position is another matter. All that said I saw someone state, effectively, if there's faith in the NO there's no need for SSPX. That doesn't seem to leave room for there being deficient amounts of faith in the NO. Either they're *all* heretics or they're *all* orthodox?
-
I honestly think the evidence that SSPX is in fact in communion with Rome is overwhelming. Whether that justifies their doctrinal position is another matter. All that said I saw someone state, effectively, if there's faith in the NO there's no need for SSPX. That doesn't seem to leave room for there being deficient amounts of faith in the NO. Either they're *all* heretics or they're *all* orthodox?
That was me and what I wrote was:
But if the Novus Ordo has mission and the Faith there is no need for the SSPX.
That is not the same thing you wrote.
-
This is what XavierSem's portrait is of: https://www.holylove.org/
Be sure to at least watch the 5 minute intro video.
What do you all make of this place? Seems demon-infested to me. Even has its own prophetic cult leader who talks with God. :facepalm:
No wonder he's such a heretic. Beware whenever he posts, Satan lurks.
-
I honestly think the evidence that SSPX is in fact in communion with Rome is overwhelming.
Only if you believe in the notion of partial Communion. All we have in concession by Francis, for the good of the faithful, to give jurisdiction to their Confession and some marriages.
-
On the first Sunday of 2014, I started attending Mass exclusively at the CMRI chapel. I became aware (thanks to Ladislaus and Cantarella) that the CMRI actually printed an article titled "The Salvation of those Outside the Church".
This is now the second time in this thread that I'm hearing of this. Did you read it? Did anyone provide a copy of or link for it? I can't find it on their website. In fact, anything I could find on their website regarding EENS has been either directly from the Baltimore Catechism or from papal statements.
-
This article came up years ago, and at that time I put the article in the library here, but that was years back when I was posting here daily. The Dimond people found the article and as usual, their method of operation was exaggerated. Dimond also likes recording people then editing their words, much like the media today does.
The search here on Cathinfo, is hard to figure out, I tried to find the article in the library but it was a complicated system at least for me. Perhaps someone else will find it, if it is still there, or write to CMRI or better call them.
CMRI believes in No Salvation Outside the Church, I know I have heard many sermons about it, and this article proves again you can't judge a book by its cover.
-
This article came up years ago, and at that time I put the article in the library here, but that was years back when I was posting here daily. The Dimond people found the article and as usual, their method of operation was exaggerated. Dimond also likes recording people then editing their words, much like the mєdια today does.
The search here on Cathinfo, is hard to figure out, I tried to find the article in the library but it was a complicated system at least for me. Perhaps someone else will find it, if it is still there, or write to CMRI or better call them.
CMRI believes in No Salvation Outside the Church, I know I have heard many sermons about it, and this article proves again you can't judge a book by its cover.
I found it Myrna, but unfortunately your scans are missing from the text of your post. I can only surmise that when Matthew went to the new platform(?) it got lost somehow.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/salvation/msg308708/#msg308708
-
I found it Myrna, but unfortunately your scans are missing from the text of your post. I can only surmise that when Matthew went to the new platform(?) it got lost somehow.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/salvation/msg308708/#msg308708
Okay, thank you so much, it is good to know that it is still there.
-
Okay, thank you so much, it is good to know that it is still there.
Well, it is, but it really isn't.
-
Only if you believe in the notion of partial Communion. All we have in concession by Francis, for the good of the faithful, to give jurisdiction to their Confession and some marriages.
I mean... anyone from a diocesan parish can show up at the SSPX and receive communion from her priests. And anyone from the SSPX could show up at a diocesan parish and commune if they wanted to.
This is explicitly different from, say, the SSPV, where the SSPV has stringent requirements to receive communion besides just being Catholic. The SSPV is *not* in communion with Rome (I'm just describing the facts here, not making a moral judgment.)
Rome has also explicitly said Catholics are allowed to attend SSPX chapels (they discourage it, but do not disallow it), and has explicitly authorized confessions and marriages. The main thing I guess would be whether SSPX *priests* are actually allowed to say mass. They're clearly Catholic, but if you wanted to make the "Rome is definitively right" argument, you could make the argument that the priests themselves aren't allowed to offer the masses, Rome not having said otherwise explicitly or clearly.
I think there's good evidence, for what its worth, that Rome tacitly allowed SSPX confessions pre 2016: https://onepeterfive.com/fact-checking-certain-claims-about-the-sspx/?fbclid=IwAR0A5cAwNLAnl7PrpFYJgjTdg5f8Kd70Yd80b8L_4tg8k6ZtOWl1LErl1pI
As an aside, if partial communion can *never* be a thing, I'm curious how you'd explain the melatian schism? (If you actually know what I'm asking about here, this is something I learned about fairly recently in church history.)
Leaving that tangent aside, I can understand if you're a Sedevacantist looking at the above and being like "well this isn't how ecclesiology is supposed to work, so *both* modern Rome and the SSPX are "breaking the rules so to speak." I can also see the various forms of the "infallible safety" arguments being used against certain doctrinal positions of the SSPX, though I'm not sure those claims are actually provable. But I don't see how you can meaningfully argue the SSPX is in schism. I know Voris and Burke try to argue this and they seem to go against Rome by doing so even while they chastize the SSPX for being disobedient, and that combination doesn't make a whole lot of sense IMO
-
Hi 2Vermont. Regarding what you quoted, if it said, "Apostolicity of doctrine is a proof of Apostolicity of mission", I'd agree with you.
But it doesn't say that: it says "Apostolicity of mission is proof of Apostolicity of doctrine". Hence, if we find the Apostolic Church, which has the Apostolic Mission and the Power of Jurisdiction, we will also find the Apostolic Doctrine. That's what the CE is saying.
Do you agree that having an unbroken succession, in St. Peter' chair, or another episcopal see, from now to the Apostles, gives evidence of Apostolic succession? Per the explanations I quoted, that is how the Apostolic Church is distinguished and identified.
Brunsmann Preuss: "In order to be able to distinguish with certainty the true Church of Christ from all false claimants, it is sufficient to establish the Apostolic Succession with regard to the primacy of Peter. For, since the primacy is the crown of the Apostolate, the Church which possesses the primacy must needs be Apostolic … Hence that Church, and that Church only, which can trace its rulers to the first primate, namely, St. Peter, is in fact and by right Apostolic in every sense."
It would make practical sense to say that where we find apostolicity of mission, we also find apostolicity of doctrine, but that's not the practical reality of what is happening in the Church today. The present Crisis is a mystery, as Archbishop Lefebvre rightly pointed out. It doesn't make sense that the Church, which should possess the Four Marks, could now have doctrine which conflicts with doctrine before the Vll council.
Archbishop Lefebvre said that the Church is occupied by s Modernist sect. Pope St. Pius X warned in his encyclicals about the dangers of Modernism in the Church. The saintly Pope was aware that Modernism had infiltrated the Church. I only wish that he had called a council to address the problem, before it was too late. But maybe God had other plans.