Quote from: awkwardcustomer

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Adolphus

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Adolphus

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Domitilla

The thrice defined dogma that every Concilliar Pope has denied is:  "There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church."

Where is the evidence? Please cite an official docuмent where we can find this formal rejection of EENS by the Conciliar Popes.

Just one more sample, among many others:

Ut unum sint, 62

And please don't come again with the excuse of invincible ignorance.

Quote from: Ut unum sint

62. In the period following the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has also, in different ways and with greater or lesser rapidity, restored fraternal relations with the Ancient Churches of the East which rejected the dogmatic formulations of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. All these Churches sent official observers to the Second Vatican Council; their Patriarchs have honoured us by their visits, and the Bishop of Rome has been able to converse with them as with brothers who, after a long time, joyfully meet again.

The return of fraternal relations with the Ancient Churches of the East witnesses to the Christian faith in situations which are often hostile and tragic. This is a concrete sign of how we are united in Christ in spite of historical, political, social and cultural barriers. And precisely in relation to Christology, we have been able to join the Patriarchs of some of these Churches in declaring our common faith in Jesus Christ, true God and true man. Pope Paul VI of venerable memory signed declarations to this effect with His Holiness Shenouda III, the Coptic Orthodox Pope and Patriarch,103 and with His Beatitude Jacoub III, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch.104 I myself have been able to confirm this Christological agreement and draw on it for the development of dialogue with Pope Shenouda,105 and for pastoral cooperation with the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas.106

When the Venerable Patriarch of the Ethiopian Church, Abuna Paulos, paid me a visit in Rome on 11 June 1993, together we emphasized the deep communion existing between our two Churches: "We share the faith handed down from the Apostles, as also the same sacraments and the same ministry, rooted in the apostolic succession ... Today, moreover, we can affirm that we have the one faith in Christ, even though for a long time this was a source of division between us".107

More recently, the Lord has granted me the great joy of signing a common Christological declaration with the Assyrian Patriarch of the East, His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV, who for this purpose chose to visit me in Rome in November 1994. Taking into account the different theological formulations, we were able to profess together the true faith in Christ.108 I wish to express my joy at all this in the words of the Blessed Virgin: "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord" (Lk 1:46).

Ok, this is about the relations with the Orthodox, but where is the "heretic" statement here?

Adolphus, do you even know what "heresy" actually consists of?

I do.  Do you?  I ask because you quoted some paragraphs in which the same heresy is repeated several times, but you seem not to have found it.  Or maybe you believe that we, Catholics, have the same faith than those who deny the Holy Gosht proceeds from the Father and the Son and who deny the pope's authority.

I can see why the statement of sharing the same Faith in Christ with the Eastern Orthodox can be easily interpreted as an error (because of the filioque issue and the denial of the papal primacy). However, this is cited as a heretical example of denial of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus when the paragraph itself says nothing at all about salvation. Remember, we are trying to discern actual heresy here, not narrative error.

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, (this means, a de fide doctrine). Still do not see the dogma of Faith that is being denied here.  

How about this? A truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.

The Orthodox don't believe this.

And yet JP2 says that Catholics and Orthodox together profess the "common faith in Christ", the "one faith in Christ", the "true faith in Christ".

The dogma of Faith that is being denied is, in effect, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.  JP2 is making it optional.  He is saying that you can deny this truth of the Catholic Faith and still profess the same faith in Christ that a Catholic does.

The statement then should be clearly read something as " The Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Father and the Son" or a public Catholic declaration that indeed, the Orthodox are correct and the Holy Ghost only proceeds from the Father. Nothing of this is ever found.

Otherwise what it followed, it is nothing but a "personal conclusion" one arrives by "connecting the dots".

Furthermore, in Canon Law a "heresy" does require a formal process and a declaratory sentence that includes appropriate warnings in order to determine "pertinacity" if the heretic does no amend and the loss of office occurs only after the heretic defies ecclesiastical warnings.  

Quote

Canon 2314
S. 1. All Apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic:
1. Incur by that fact excommunication;
2. Unless they respect warnings, they are deprived of benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other duty that they have in the Church, they are declared infamous, and [if] clerics, with the warning being repeated, [they are] deposed;
3. If they give their names to non-Catholic sects or publicly adhere [to them], they are by that fact infamous, and with due regard for the prescription of Canon 188, n. 4. clerics, the previous warnings having been useless, are degraded.

What "personnal conclusion" do you come to, Cantarella, from JP2's statement,  which is only one of many other such statements as Adolphus pointed out.

Are you insisting that heresies be stated clearly and unequivocally, presented in bold, underlined and with arrows pointing?  What half-intelligent heretic would would make his heresies so obvious?

Come on, explain what conclusion you come to from JP2's claims that the Orthodox, who deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son,  share a "common faith", "true faith", and "one faith" in Christ with Catholics.

In your own words.  

Quote from: Nobody

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Nobody

Nado,

Can you please tell me what would you do if ever you found out your Parish/Chapel priest were preaching an error from the pulpit ?

Would you regard him as being part of the Church or not ?

Can you explain why your principle ("the Church cannot err") applies or does not apply ?

Simply, a parish priest doesn't teach the universal Church.

"A priest" and "the Church" are hardly synonymous.

Ok, so does the Pope teach the universal Church each and every time he opens his mouth or uses his pen ?

I can hardly believe you are asking this seriously, but then I know you are infected with ex-cathedrism. The answer is, of course not. When the Pope does something official for the Church at large, then it is the Church doing it.

Instructing the ignorant is a spiritual work of mercy. Good on you for trying Nado.

Anyway, there is a reason I am asking what seems like stupid questions to you (apart from me being really stupid anyway that is).

You have stated that a priest can teach error, but remain inside the Church, because he would not be 'teaching the universal Church'. You also admit that the Pope does not always teach the universal Church every time he says or writes something.  Logic tells me that therefore he too (like the priest) can err when he is not teaching the universal Church, and still remain inside the Chuch and remain Pope. Correct ?

So, if a priest/bishop/pope can err in faith and morals, but the Church cannot err, not even apart from ex cathedra, how do we distinguish between a priest/bishop/pope teaching (and erring) and the universal Church teaching (and erring therefore not being the true Church anymore) ?

awkward:

Quote

Come on, explain what conclusion you come to from JP2's claims that the Orthodox, who deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son,  share a "common faith", "true faith", and "one faith" in Christ with Catholics.

I understand that baptism in the Orthodox Church is seen as valid by the Church.  Furthermore, I understand, one may attend Orthodox religious services if no Catholic Mass is available.  Orthodox priests are validly ordained, I understand. What is more, so I'm told, an in extremis condition allows for the administration of Last Rites by an Orthodox priest.  Orthodox marriages are recognized by the Church, as well.  So what I'm getting at, I guess, is that we do share some kind of a "common faith" on some level, don't we?  I invite correction from all but Nado, Adolphus, or any other sede nut on this forum.  Thank you. :rolleyes:

Oops, I was about to address your points.  But then I reread your nasty final sentence. :ape:

Quote from: Nobody

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Nobody

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Nobody

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Nobody

Quote from: Nado

.. And, as I said, (as corollary) Catholics are obliged to internally assent to the content of encyclicals.

I completely agree, 100%. The problem I see is that we do not all understand these encyclicals the way the Church wants us to understand them. We often read different things and put different interpretations on them, we omit the context, forget essential qualifications and conditions, .. and we end up with different theories. A bit like each protestant reading the same Bible and claiming to be inspired by the same Holy Ghost, yet all end up with a different opinion.. !?

Perhaps that is your personal problem, but that is not a problem I have.

I'm happy for you, however, I do not have that benefit and will therefore try to tread with caution (and humility).

If you have that problem, you shouldn't be arguing your viewpoint in public.

I never looked at it that way : prudence and humility being a problem..

God Bless.

Your humility is not the problem, because you admitted your trouble.

Your imprudence is the problem, because your personal trouble would oblige you to refrain from doing public harm.

Thanks for pointing out the splinter in my eye, but I'm a bit slow and don't get it yet. Am I being imprudent for trying to tread with caution, in public, and by not jumping to the same conclusion that you have jumped to ? After providing arguments from history that the Church always treads with caution and extreme patience in accusing someone of being a pertinaceous heretic, unlike many modern day sedevacantists ? Am I being imprudent for checking out quotes that are thrown at me, for verifying their context and true meaning, for asking questions and for requesting more proof ?

I wonder what the public harm is in this ? It certainly is a novel definition for the vice of imprudence..

You humbly pointed out your own splinter to us. I am giving the morality based upon your problem. If you have admitted trouble understanding Church docuмents, then you should not be involved in pushing your opinions publicly on doctrine. (You don't merely ask questions).

When I referred to the 'problem' of immediately and correctly understanding Church docuмents, I used the word 'we', indicating that it is a challenge to some degree for most (if not all) people on earth, including you. Unless of course you have infused knowledge, which I don't think is the case. Asking questions and putting forward arguments and counter arguments is a valid way of learning. Blindly taking one's word for it has never been my strength and hopefully never will be.

We don't need to judge pertinacity in order to immediately avoid, and warn others about, objective dangers to the faith.

Indeed, we can 'avoid, and warn others about, objective dangers to the faith' without declaring the culprit a heretic and outside of the Church. It is called R&R. It is only when one wants to go a step further and declare someone a heretic and outside of the Church, that pertinacity comes into the equation.

nado:

Never mind "common faith"; they do have heresies, and the Church has stated that the Orthodox are not Christians.

Oh really?  Please cite scripture and verse.  Are not the Orthodox to be included among our "separated brethren?"  But enough!  Just refer us all to a dogmatic statement from a recognized catechism of the Church, or some other recognized authority within the Church to the effect.  Mind you, nado, I think you're a fanatic and a nut- but nevetheless, a statement from a pope, a genuine Council of the Church, a papal encyclical, a letter, anything acceptable to all confessing and practicing Catholics which would indicate clearly and unambiguously that "the Orthodox are not Christians."

Nobody said,

Quote

.......that is not what the discussion is about, It is about the line between 'suspect of heresy' and 'pertinacious heresy'.

Here is one of many quotes by John Paul II referring to universal salvation. Does it cross the line?

Quote

In his zeal for mission, the Bishop should be seen as the servant and witness of hope. Mission is the sure index of our faith in Christ and his love for us: men and women of all times are thereby inspired to a new life motivated by hope. In proclaiming the Risen Lord, Christians present the One who inaugurates a new era of history and announce to the world the good news of a complete and universal salvation which contains in itself the pledge of a new world in which pain and injustice will give way to joy and beauty. At the beginning of a new millennium marked by a clearer awareness of the universality of salvation and a realization that the Gospel daily needs to be proclaimed anew, the Synodal Assembly raised an appeal that our commitment to mission should not be lessened but rather expanded, through ever more profound missionary cooperation.

Pastores gregis, para 65.

Do Christians announce to the world "the good news of a complete and universal salvation"?

Is this millenium marked by "a clearer awareness of the universality of salvation"?  Or is this an example of the Modernist heresy of the development of doctrine?

Perhaps the line that Nobody refers to is a false one.  If it looks like a dog, barks like a dog and wags its tail like a dog, the chances are it's a dog.  Heresy is heresy.  The relevant question is - do the above statements by JP2 fall into that category or not?

It seems to me that if he had used the word "redemption" instead of "salvation" the whole meaning would change.

awkward:

Quote

Come on, explain what conclusion you come to from JP2's claims that the Orthodox, who deny that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son,  share a "common faith", "true faith", and "one faith" in Christ with Catholics.

I understand that baptism in the Orthodox Church is seen as valid by the Church.  Furthermore, I understand, one may attend Orthodox religious services if no Catholic Mass is available.  Orthodox priests are validly ordained, I understand. What is more, so I'm told, an in extremis condition allows for the administration of Last Rites by an Orthodox priest.  Orthodox marriages are recognized by the Church, as well.  So what I'm getting at, I guess, is that we do share some kind of a "common faith" on some level, don't we?  I invite correction from all but Nado, Adolphus, or any other sede nut on this forum.  Thank you. :rolleyes:

You are confusing sacraments with the faith of the ministers.  A priest could become a heretic and even an atheist, but that would not make him to loose the priesthood.  He will be priest for eternity, no matter what.  Therefore, such a priest could administer some sacraments which would be valid.  That, of course, does not mean that we would share some kind of a common faith...

Nobody said,

Quote

.......that is not what the discussion is about, It is about the line between 'suspect of heresy' and 'pertinacious heresy'.

Here is one of many quotes by John Paul II referring to universal salvation. Does it cross the line?

Quote

In his zeal for mission, the Bishop should be seen as the servant and witness of hope. Mission is the sure index of our faith in Christ and his love for us: men and women of all times are thereby inspired to a new life motivated by hope. In proclaiming the Risen Lord, Christians present the One who inaugurates a new era of history and announce to the world the good news of a complete and universal salvation which contains in itself the pledge of a new world in which pain and injustice will give way to joy and beauty. At the beginning of a new millennium marked by a clearer awareness of the universality of salvation and a realization that the Gospel daily needs to be proclaimed anew, the Synodal Assembly raised an appeal that our commitment to mission should not be lessened but rather expanded, through ever more profound missionary cooperation.

Pastores gregis, para 65.

Do Christians announce to the world "the good news of a complete and universal salvation"?

Is this millenium marked by "a clearer awareness of the universality of salvation"?  Or is this an example of the Modernist heresy of the development of doctrine?

No, it does not cross the line between 'suspect of heresy' and 'pertinacious heresy'.

Perhaps the line that Nobody refers to is a false one.  If it looks like a dog, barks like a dog and wags its tail like a dog, the chances are it's a dog.

Yes, the chances are it is a dog. But the Church does not work with chances, and she certainly does not consider one a heretic on the chance that he is one, no matter how big that chance is. That is where the difference between 'suspect of heresy' (chances) and 'pertinacious heresy' (certitude) comes into the picture.

Do you agree there is a difference between 'suspect of heresy' and 'pertinacious heresy' ?

Heresy is heresy.  The relevant question is - do the above statements by JP2 fall into that category or not?

Not according to the Church. She does make distinctions (formal, material, suspect, pertinacious..). I know, it is annoying those little details, but please don't blame me for that, it's the Church's 'fault'.