FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: EENS and ¿Invisible? Catholics
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
This is a continuation of a thread which began here:  http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...707.0.html

(08-11-2012, 12:35 AM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]JC,

Ah, now we're getting somewhere! Language's nuances are a real PITA eh? ;)

Romans 2 sets a good foundation. Key is to read it with the understanding of the Church is Israel, and Israel was always the physical aspect of the Church prior to the arrival of Christ and the establishment of the promised covenant in the physical aspect of the Catholic Church. JC:  I'm not sure this comparison will work.  The Jewish religion, with all its practices as given on Mt. Sinai and subsequently, does not seem to have been intended by God to be universal, as the Catholic Church is by its very name:  κατα (= thoroughly) + ολος (= universal or whole).  I don't think it's even clear that there was any obligation for a Gentile to become a Jew, even if he believed their faith was true.  Certainly he ought to believe as they did, but he was not bound by the law-- as St. Paul said.  And of course, the natural law was always in effect, and primordial revelation (that is, as given to Adam and handed down), while largely obscured, was very likely still known in certain quarters-- as, presumably, with Job.  If I'm right that the Jewish religion, with all its practices, etc., was never meant to be universal, then trying to compare the OT situation with the NT situation is (surprise, surprise) apples and oranges.  Of course the Jewish religion was the most visible foreshadowing of what was to come, and could, in a certain sense, be regarded as the "One True Faith" of the day.  But again, I don't think it's clear that Gentiles were obliged, in any way, shape, or form, to enter that religion to be saved.  Certainly what St. Paul says indicates the contrary:  they can be justified by their faith (meaning, of course, true, if less complete, faith in God).  And Abraham himself, and by St. Paul's argument, likely many Gentiles, were justified by their faith, without the Law.  Now, I'm not sure if anyone here is saying that man can be saved without explicit faith-- but I am sure that if anyone is, it's not me.  And historically, the Popes, St. Thomas, etc. have agreed with me.This fulfills the Law instead of abolishing it, just as Jesus said He was there to do. This also aids in properly understanding the sort of misnomer of the words old and new in terms of the covenant, as the "old" covenant was a lot like an engagement, and the "new" is the promised wedding-- otherwise, we get into the erroneous explanation of supersessionism which has God tricking the Jews instead of promising them something He intends to fulfill. Imagine showing up at your wedding with a totally different woman while your Fiance is standing there shocked. That's pretty much what people are arguing for when they misunderstand the concept of the old and new covenant. The New was ALWAYS contained in the Old.

Otherwise, the modern Jewish accusation (which the mohammedans pounced on and adopted for further perversion), of the Church being a false cult, would be true. First time I saw the Latin Mass, I thought, "Oh wow, this is the most authentically Jewish thing ever... so THIS is what was promised". JC:  Completely different from my first experience of the TLM, which was, if anything, a turn-off (not because of the TLM as such, but because of particular circumstances surrounding the particular Mass in question.  Nevertheless, I can totally see how you would think that, and I totally agree with it. Prior, I had only been to the Novus Ordo and it all seemed to damn trite and not much different than the reverent Methodist services I'd seen as a kid, or the High Church Protestant type of things we see in the traditional Anglicans. In short, the NO is the most "Protestant" Catholic thing ever in comparison to the TLM. The TLM spoke to me whereas the NO was mute. Why? Because it's truly Biblical and not some watered-down version of what's real. SOOOO much in the Old Testament was typified and given to the Jews so those who "had eyes to see and ears to hear" wouldn't feel like the jilted fiance. Jesus never said what color suit He was gonna show up in, and they're griping about the suit because they were convinced (like women can be) that the groom would be showing up in something else when he never said he would. He just said he'd show up and there'd be a wedding at a certain place, a certain time, do certain things, and married life was going to be totally more awesome than the engagement. But they just had to have their damn picture-perfect wedding and now they're Miss Havisham in a way. It really doesn't help their conversion when Catholics are constantly poking at them and calling them old and ugly, penny-pinching hags, deceitful, and mean and saying they deserve to die alone when all they want is a loving husband. Show the love, yo.

The Jews, similarly, got all "all gentiles DIE" when that was ridiculous. Once a gentile saw the light on the hill in Physical Israel, they too were bound to follow that, including the precursor to baptism: circumcision. JC:  See, this is a point of contention for me-- though I fear it's really going a little off topic.  I'm certainly willing to admit that the Gentiles were obliged to believe what the Law taught, and to obey the moral law, but I don't think it's clear that they were ever bound to take part in the ceremonial precepts, which have been superseded since Our Lord in any case.  This became superseded as circumcision profits no man once baptism was established. Similarly, The Church, being Israel, puts us into the category the Jews previously occupied in total. Romans 11 gets into this. Ergo, anyone not visibly Catholic is now in the conceptual place of the "gentile". But Gentiles could be saved without snipping the tip and going to Temple. Job was no Jewish Israelite. He was Arab. The modern Jewish translations in English of Job's statement about seeing his Savior in his flesh conflicted with Sadducee doctrine. The pharisees' and sadducees' doctrine has become combined since the diaspora, so via the Talmud we see a hodge-podge of complete nonsense and conflicting doctrines present in modern Judaism. However, the covenant is still theirs to claim, and always has been. There is no respect of persons with God. No Jew nor Greek. As a nation, though, all bets are off. But as people and especially individuals, good to go if they meet the standard. Many are truly invincibly ignorant and won't become visible Catholics. Eventually, a remnant should be saved but they'll probably be taken to their collective knees first with most just refusing and dying in the process of the process we're about to see unfold should Iran pop off. In some Jewish circles they speculate the Holocaust was a punishment. Israel is about to see a period of time that makes the Holocaust look downright cheery, if God doesn't intervene until they just give up and cry out, "Blessed is He Who comes in the name of the Lord". Modern Israel is completely indefensible from a physical tactical perspective. Let's not occupy similarly indefensible spiritual territory against God.

Romans 2:
http://www.drbo.org/chapter/52002.htm

I'll look for something that contains phrasing to plainly explain it, but now we're getting into something that does require belief beyond the 101 as concerns the efficacy of the Sacrament of Baptism and what that means. Vatican 2 documents are largely useless in this regard since they are written in such an obfuscated manner, and I take it have no real authority in your eyes.  JC:  Not entirely accurate.  So far as it is clear to me that they repeat the perennial doctrine of the Church, I am willing to accept them as authorities-- though I suspect that in the end, the Church will not ask anyone to do so, because of the confusion they have caused.  Still, for practical purposes, yes, it is probably better that you don't use them as authorities. So, I will do my best to find something older but newer than the Bible which says the same thing. ;)

I do have a question though... if you won't take Abp. Lefebvre's word on it, nor Bishop Fellay who said the same thing... if they both get this wrong, such a basic thing, how on earth are they logically fit to form and/or lead the Society? JC:  Ah, but see, whether this issue is basic or not is precisely one of our bones of contention.  You have contended all along that it is "101"; I contend that it is 600-level, graduate stuff at the least, considering the amount of confusion that has been generated surrounding these issues.  Nevertheless, to answer your question:  The only absolutely infallible authority is God, and, by his decree, His infallible Church.  When the Church lays down a doctrine, such as EENS, which I cannot reconcile, as I understand it, with what someone else says, I cannot take their word for it.  The principle of non-contradiction is at stake:  not even God can violate it.  Now, I may be missing something that makes the whole thing clear.  I may just be stupid.  The point is, I cannot, in conscience, take Abp. Lefebvre's word, or anyone else's, on this, if I can't understand how it is not a denial of Catholic doctrine.  This is after due consideration, of course.  Now, in this particular instance, I'm pretty sure I'm not just stupid.  St. Thomas Aquinas argued even more strictly than I am arguing, that God would send an angel to enlighten someone with the true Faith, rather than let a person of good will die "outside" the Catholic Faith.  The Church has never condemned that view, and I have been explicitly told by a very good priest (best spiritual director I ever had, by far) that it could be preached.  Now, the reason I also don't condemn Abp. Lefebvre as a heretic for getting it wrong (if indeed he did) is twofold.  First, the argument of his life:  he was a missionary pretty much from start to finish, and you don't do that if you don't believe EENS.  Put another way, his heterodoxy, IF there was any (because the second point suggests there was not) led to no heteropraxy.  Second, when, during my stay with the Dominicans, I accused-- to my legitimate superior, and in a private context, and because I simply could not understand it otherwise-- the head of the SSPX in France of an error very similar, if not exactly the same as this, my superior was able to show me that the Carmelites of Salamanca, highly respected Thomistic theologians, had taught likewise in the 16th century.  That being the case, it was impossible to believe the Church would not have condemned these theologians (or rather, their view) if it was really harmful for souls.  I mean, it was the time of Trent, and there have been centuries since.  That was the authority I accepted (the only absolute authority here below:  the Church)-- because frankly, I still can't wrap my reason around it.    The nuance of the SSPX's position is predicated and rests entirely on some very intricate theology and canon law which only the SSPX agrees on, excepting the sede's who agree for their own legitimacy (and then go on to attack the Society on things in which they differ). JC:  Agreed, it's a difficult issue.  I prayed and suffered over it a lot, and this is the conclusion I've come to.  I may be wrong.  I may be in need of correction.  But I would find it difficult to believe that I am willfully wrong-- my salvation is at stake!-- and besides the best my poor, limited, clouded human intellect can figure it out, this is the position most consistent with reason and God's revelation. At this point, it's like saying you're going to subscribe to the care of a Doctor who thinks shooting the patient in the face is good medicine to treat for shock, because he wears a white coat and hands you narcotic samples.

Here's a Franciscan Friar from the Franciscans of the Immaculate explaining the same thing:

[YouTube link excised; if you want it, go back to the previous thread]


Sorry for the long and probably a little over-explained post. The Summa Theologica and a whole Library hit me in my head while I was out from under the troll-bridge.

You just gonna stand there and bleed, TrentCath?

I apologize also, but I do want to explain just one more thing.  I certainly agree with you (and Abp. Lefebvre, and Bp. Fellay, and the Franciscan in the YouTube video) that everyone who is in the state of grace is Catholic (I am, however, doubtful that such persons exist outside her visible fold, which is already varied enough in its quality).  Nonetheless, Dustin's Dad brought up some very good points.  If they fall, the only way they have to get back up is an act of perfect contrition.  The common opinion is that that is not an easy or simple thing, while sinning mortally is.  For my own part, I go to confession once very two weeks, at most, when it's available-- and I'm not sure it's enough.  And I have had a lot of graces-- good (though Protestant) upbringing, strong will, a good mind, etc.  Frankly, there have been times when I have been very tempted (and of course, I recognize that it is just that, temptation) to think that keeping God's law is impossible, even WITH all the helps in the true Church.  In my mind, there is just not sufficient reason, on a doctrinal basis, to assert that there is anyone who is a "living Catholic" outside the visible fold.

All this, despite the fact that I'm tempted to say that certain Protestants have the essence of the virtue of Faith, which is to believe all that (one understands that) God has revealed.  They just happen to be utterly wrong on the question of Sacred Tradition (vs. their wretched Sola Scriptura).
From the other thread, before I knew this thread was up:

(08-11-2012, 04:28 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]A) though I loath the term 'invisible' I suppose that is one way of describing their situation

B) They may or they may not, the church never says anything other than that those in invincible ignorance about the truth of our religion have a chance of salvation

C) This question is loaded, if they went to hell it would not be because they were not visible members of the Church but because they were not members of it at all. A person who is not invincibly ignorant of the truth of the catholic faith sins mortally in not becoming Catholic. The term invincible ignorance comes from moral theology and it means a person who is so ignorant that they could not overcome their ignorance by ordinary means, it entirely eliminates the fault of sins or breaches of the law, now worshipping God in the way he wishes to be worshipped is mans most sacred duty, it therefore follows that those who are not invincibly ignorant, who are culpably ignorant fail in their most sacred duty and can be held responsible for it.

D) This is now venturing into moral theology, they may have reduced culpability but unless they are invincibly ignorant they won't be saved.

A) It's exactly what their situation is. Just like Abp. Lefebvre used the term "Protestant" in describing the physical on earth, the spiritual reality, and its implication on heaven, makes them Catholic, though invisible to anyone here on earth, subsisting in a heretical system. If reaching the age of reason, or being in it, is necessary, Abp. Lefebvre wrote a very deficient correction for confused Catholics, having not mentioned a very important caveat. It'd be like what... a few more sentences? He certainly devoted more than that to writing the Open Letter to Confused Catholics. Bishop Fellay spoke similarly in Denver in 2006.

B) You're dancing around the reality of the doctrine of Mystical Body of Christ. You also contradict your very clear statement here from page 3:


(08-09-2012, 07:13 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]And the moment they embraced heresy after the age of reason, they stop being one.


Here, also on page 3, you are misrepresenting the Mystical Body of Christ, and arguing for what amounts to two Churches by focusing, erroneously, on the physical, visible Church:

(08-09-2012, 09:15 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Ah I see what you are saying, still they are not members of the church in Common Parlance, they may be united to the soul of the Church and they may in some sense be members of the church but one could not call them Catholics. 

Besides which all of this is may, it is not a certainty unlike with Catholics, it is a mere possibility nor are they members in the same way.

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

Ven. Pope Pius XII was writing on the Mystical Body of Christ, not the Vatican and associated organizational structure throughout the world; similarly, if one is baptized, be it water, blood, or desire, they have expressed the faith, which is in Christ, which means we gotta look at what that means in general, and not just specifically in its fullest, most directed manner. As I wrote to JuniorC, Romans 2 answers this concept. It's what keeps the proverbial savage from going to hell. It means they acknowledge God (all cultures understand deity), sin (all cultures understand sin), and need forgiveness (all cultures understand the need to expiate sin and seek favor/forgiveness from deity): the law God has written on their hearts. Romans 2. Simple. 

At that point, only mortal sin separates them, including the rejection of hearing the Church, which itself has a very nuanced understanding. Similarly, they can't have their state of Grace moment and then decide to reject that which they believe to be true knowing nothing else. No state of Grace and then commit murder and be OK. No way. All cultures punish murder, so they know it as a sin.

He's correcting/explaining the "invisible" aspect. You're hung up on the literalness of his words as pertain to the physical and discounting the Mystical Body of Christ which is truly invisible right now, to us. Otherwise, there would be not a thing about it that is Mystical. It would just be Feeneyism.

However, all this doesn't mean that all souls go to heaven and everyone gets a free pass. Sin is sin, and all cultures understand the concept of venial and mortal, though they don't particularly have that literal terminology. The person must know they're sinning mortally for it to be mortal. It doesn't matter if they are the pygmy in Africa and don't know how to word it like a Catholic theologian. Language is a good way to understand this. Madre is not mother. But it is. Verde is certainly not green. But it is. Apply this to the understanding of how they're saved, and it makes a lot of sense per BC#3 Q510-13. Now, if I'm in Mexico, and I say Mother just to be ornery and contrarian. Or say green when I know they need me to say verde, am I speaking to them in a way they understand? No. I'm just speaking English. Similarly, you're just expecting non-Catholic speakers to get mother and green when they're saying verde and madre. If they speak English and play dumb with me, they are linguistically sinning for this example's purpose. The educated Protestants sometimes do this with the Church. Vetus Ordo certainly did it here. Once they know mother=madre, they damn well better not play "Perdon, Senor, no hablo ingles" when I say "yo quiero el camesa ... um, green, para mi ... uh, mother". They hand me the red one because they don't want to acknowledge what they know I've said and they're getting no business. Shut down. No mas dólares del Los Estados Unidos para ti, Pedro!

Common parlance is the visible. The visible is very important, but it's not the end all be all. The visible is absolutely needed for best assurance of Salvation via the Sacraments. Again, as Abp. Lefebvre said per the erroneous, horrible, possible trip to hell of instructing mohammedans to be good mohammedans instead of becoming Catholic; and, the Baltimore Catechism Q513.

Right now I'm applying His Excellency's advice to my parents. I'm not haranguing them about it, but working on them slowly. Right now I'm trying to break down their aversion to the Catholic Church. The thing is, I know that they might face a more sure path to Salvation if I just let them be ignorant, but that's just a huge "might". I might actually be in the process to allow them the legitimate choice of hell via rejection, more likely. I cannot keep silent, for I'd be shirking my duty, would I not? Of course. This doctrine is a two-edged sword of truth. Jesus didn't keep silent in John 6, and many left. Sad. I can't imagine the sadness He felt.

   
C) Not loaded. If Joe Bob responds to the Hootenanny Altar Call at the First Baptist Church of Unforking Family Treeville: accepts that he's a sinner and needs the Sacrifice of Calvary to expiate him from his sinfulness and its consequence and means it: get's dunked: and is so on fire for what he thinks Jesus means: and then 3 days later, having not mortally sinned: gets creamed by a semi, has a heart attack, etc.: he certainly should be in a state of Grace. Your cut-and-dry charge has Joe Bob going to hell. One must have something to go off of to be invincibly ignorant. Simply put, your understanding of the Protestant milieu is deficient. I came from that cesspool, and know how they actually approach things.

I have no qualms about admitting I previously subscribed to the Once Saved... BS. I mortally sinned, often. I believe if I had died, I'd have had a horrific judgement. That still may take place, though I hope not. I also had no understanding of the Catholic Church. None. I only "knew" that they lied about history, were invented by Constantine, and usurped the authority of the Apostles to wield earthly authority and gain global power. I thought that some might legitimately believe they were Christians, but certainly were trapped in the system of the Beast, that Whore of Babylon, controlled by the Antichrist-in-the-future-Pope who would one day, whomever he was, be the Antichrist. In short, I was believing what you're arguing against them. I was wrong, and so are you. Many, many, many believe this way. The problem with blanket terms like Protestantism is it runs a huge gamut. This is the foundational evil of Protestantism: the lack of need for authority and the splits which result. The SSPX, specifically +Williamson and the other two, are running down this same road. I honestly believe Bishop Fellay is a good man and is being torn by many sides. I hope he makes the right decision and reunites to help fix this ridiculous crap we see from the inside. The FSSP already does this. As Protestants, we, when I was included in them, championed Luther as a liberator who finally "got it" and had the gumption to make it known. Boy was I surprised when I read the 95 Theses and Exsurge, Domine. Luther was a complete idiot... evil, actually, since he didn't have invincible ignorance that I can tell. I think he just hated authority, like Satan. I often wonder if there isn't a corollary between 1/3 of the Church falling away and Lucifer's rebellion which took a 1/3 of the angels. I can't help but wonder... 

D) Oh, you mean like being taught error, leading them to actually not knowing any Catholic doctrine despite it supposedly being taught (I mean... isn't truth+error = error; is error capable of proper instruction?). What you're describing is no different than, well, Protestantism being taught. It's already been admitted by you in your response part A that they're attached to the Mystical Body of Christ, being "invisible" Catholics. Only mortal sin would separate them at that point, in whatever method they go with. Never understanding or knowing, even after the age of reason, is not invincible ignorance as you've described in your response part D. Ven. Pope Pius XII was addressing something else a little deeper. Otherwise, he's essentially arguing a variant of Feeney's doctrine: one must be Catholic in the physical sense. Not so. But the "let them stay good mohammedans" method IS a very deficient and dangerous road to send someone walking down, since that good old "Catholic guilt" is very, very needed. I much prefer the guilt to smiling while I walk off the plank into hell.

What about being told their whole lives Catholics aren't Christians (much like we explain to our kids that Mormons aren't Christians), or never having heard of anything but there's another Christian group called Catholics who violate the Bible's "very clear message", or who just find themselves too stupid, uneducated, or... IGNORANT to understand? But the Protestants can and do mortally sin, and that leads to hell. The Once-Saved-Always-Saved "doctrine" is insidious and evil, from the pit of hell. It often leads to acedia which finds them then fornicating at will, cheating on their wives, etc. Because hey, once saved...


Jesusbrea, please explain then how Abp. Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay are wrong. Because that's what you're saying. Again, the POPES often write encyclicals with certain foundations and often in the context of writing to address specific things or clarify points such as doctrines being misunderstood outside of their application. Such an example might include a person who is Protestant, baptized, learns the Catholic faith and doctrine, and rejects; or, otherwise rejects the Holy Ghost pushing them to the visible Church. Again, see Baltimore Catechism 510-513. Did Heresy skip by generations of Traditional Catholics? Why is there no warning on certain questions or a full redaction?

CP/Dustin'sDad- see my explanation to Jesusbrea; and, TrentCath, in full and re: Mystici Corporis Christi

Freakin' A... this was long. I had to edit for phrasing a few times. Hopefully I didn't miss anything.
(08-11-2012, 08:40 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]This is a continuation of a thread which began here:  http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...707.0.html

(08-11-2012, 12:35 AM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]JC,

Ah, now we're getting somewhere! Language's nuances are a real PITA eh? ;)

Romans 2 sets a good foundation. Key is to read it with the understanding of the Church is Israel, and Israel was always the physical aspect of the Church prior to the arrival of Christ and the establishment of the promised covenant in the physical aspect of the Catholic Church. JC:  I'm not sure this comparison will work.  The Jewish religion, with all its practices as given on Mt. Sinai and subsequently, does not seem to have been intended by God to be universal, as the Catholic Church is by its very name:  κατα (= thoroughly) + ολος (= universal or whole).  I don't think it's even clear that there was any obligation for a Gentile to become a Jew, even if he believed their faith was true.  Certainly he ought to believe as they did, but he was not bound by the law-- as St. Paul said.  And of course, the natural law was always in effect, and primordial revelation (that is, as given to Adam and handed down), while largely obscured, was very likely still known in certain quarters-- as, presumably, with Job.  If I'm right that the Jewish religion, with all its practices, etc., was never meant to be universal, then trying to compare the OT situation with the NT situation is (surprise, surprise) apples and oranges.  Of course the Jewish religion was the most visible foreshadowing of what was to come, and could, in a certain sense, be regarded as the "One True Faith" of the day.  But again, I don't think it's clear that Gentiles were obliged, in any way, shape, or form, to enter that religion to be saved.  Certainly what St. Paul says indicates the contrary:  they can be justified by their faith (meaning, of course, true, if less complete, faith in God).  And Abraham himself, and by St. Paul's argument, likely many Gentiles, were justified by their faith, without the Law.  Now, I'm not sure if anyone here is saying that man can be saved without explicit faith-- but I am sure that if anyone is, it's not me.  And historically, the Popes, St. Thomas, etc. have agreed with me.This fulfills the Law instead of abolishing it, just as Jesus said He was there to do. This also aids in properly understanding the sort of misnomer of the words old and new in terms of the covenant, as the "old" covenant was a lot like an engagement, and the "new" is the promised wedding-- otherwise, we get into the erroneous explanation of supersessionism which has God tricking the Jews instead of promising them something He intends to fulfill. Imagine showing up at your wedding with a totally different woman while your Fiance is standing there shocked. That's pretty much what people are arguing for when they misunderstand the concept of the old and new covenant. The New was ALWAYS contained in the Old.

Otherwise, the modern Jewish accusation (which the mohammedans pounced on and adopted for further perversion), of the Church being a false cult, would be true. First time I saw the Latin Mass, I thought, "Oh wow, this is the most authentically Jewish thing ever... so THIS is what was promised". JC:  Completely different from my first experience of the TLM, which was, if anything, a turn-off (not because of the TLM as such, but because of particular circumstances surrounding the particular Mass in question.  Nevertheless, I can totally see how you would think that, and I totally agree with it. Prior, I had only been to the Novus Ordo and it all seemed to damn trite and not much different than the reverent Methodist services I'd seen as a kid, or the High Church Protestant type of things we see in the traditional Anglicans. In short, the NO is the most "Protestant" Catholic thing ever in comparison to the TLM. The TLM spoke to me whereas the NO was mute. Why? Because it's truly Biblical and not some watered-down version of what's real. SOOOO much in the Old Testament was typified and given to the Jews so those who "had eyes to see and ears to hear" wouldn't feel like the jilted fiance. Jesus never said what color suit He was gonna show up in, and they're griping about the suit because they were convinced (like women can be) that the groom would be showing up in something else when he never said he would. He just said he'd show up and there'd be a wedding at a certain place, a certain time, do certain things, and married life was going to be totally more awesome than the engagement. But they just had to have their damn picture-perfect wedding and now they're Miss Havisham in a way. It really doesn't help their conversion when Catholics are constantly poking at them and calling them old and ugly, penny-pinching hags, deceitful, and mean and saying they deserve to die alone when all they want is a loving husband. Show the love, yo.

The Jews, similarly, got all "all gentiles DIE" when that was ridiculous. Once a gentile saw the light on the hill in Physical Israel, they too were bound to follow that, including the precursor to baptism: circumcision. JC:  See, this is a point of contention for me-- though I fear it's really going a little off topic.  I'm certainly willing to admit that the Gentiles were obliged to believe what the Law taught, and to obey the moral law, but I don't think it's clear that they were ever bound to take part in the ceremonial precepts, which have been superseded since Our Lord in any case.  This became superseded as circumcision profits no man once baptism was established. Similarly, The Church, being Israel, puts us into the category the Jews previously occupied in total. Romans 11 gets into this. Ergo, anyone not visibly Catholic is now in the conceptual place of the "gentile". But Gentiles could be saved without snipping the tip and going to Temple. Job was no Jewish Israelite. He was Arab. The modern Jewish translations in English of Job's statement about seeing his Savior in his flesh conflicted with Sadducee doctrine. The pharisees' and sadducees' doctrine has become combined since the diaspora, so via the Talmud we see a hodge-podge of complete nonsense and conflicting doctrines present in modern Judaism. However, the covenant is still theirs to claim, and always has been. There is no respect of persons with God. No Jew nor Greek. As a nation, though, all bets are off. But as people and especially individuals, good to go if they meet the standard. Many are truly invincibly ignorant and won't become visible Catholics. Eventually, a remnant should be saved but they'll probably be taken to their collective knees first with most just refusing and dying in the process of the process we're about to see unfold should Iran pop off. In some Jewish circles they speculate the Holocaust was a punishment. Israel is about to see a period of time that makes the Holocaust look downright cheery, if God doesn't intervene until they just give up and cry out, "Blessed is He Who comes in the name of the Lord". Modern Israel is completely indefensible from a physical tactical perspective. Let's not occupy similarly indefensible spiritual territory against God.

Romans 2:
http://www.drbo.org/chapter/52002.htm

I'll look for something that contains phrasing to plainly explain it, but now we're getting into something that does require belief beyond the 101 as concerns the efficacy of the Sacrament of Baptism and what that means. Vatican 2 documents are largely useless in this regard since they are written in such an obfuscated manner, and I take it have no real authority in your eyes.  JC:  Not entirely accurate.  So far as it is clear to me that they repeat the perennial doctrine of the Church, I am willing to accept them as authorities-- though I suspect that in the end, the Church will not ask anyone to do so, because of the confusion they have caused.  Still, for practical purposes, yes, it is probably better that you don't use them as authorities. So, I will do my best to find something older but newer than the Bible which says the same thing. ;)

I do have a question though... if you won't take Abp. Lefebvre's word on it, nor Bishop Fellay who said the same thing... if they both get this wrong, such a basic thing, how on earth are they logically fit to form and/or lead the Society? JC:  Ah, but see, whether this issue is basic or not is precisely one of our bones of contention.  You have contended all along that it is "101"; I contend that it is 600-level, graduate stuff at the least, considering the amount of confusion that has been generated surrounding these issues.  Nevertheless, to answer your question:  The only absolutely infallible authority is God, and, by his decree, His infallible Church.  When the Church lays down a doctrine, such as EENS, which I cannot reconcile, as I understand it, with what someone else says, I cannot take their word for it.  The principle of non-contradiction is at stake:  not even God can violate it.  Now, I may be missing something that makes the whole thing clear.  I may just be stupid.  The point is, I cannot, in conscience, take Abp. Lefebvre's word, or anyone else's, on this, if I can't understand how it is not a denial of Catholic doctrine.  This is after due consideration, of course.  Now, in this particular instance, I'm pretty sure I'm not just stupid.  St. Thomas Aquinas argued even more strictly than I am arguing, that God would send an angel to enlighten someone with the true Faith, rather than let a person of good will die "outside" the Catholic Faith.  The Church has never condemned that view, and I have been explicitly told by a very good priest (best spiritual director I ever had, by far) that it could be preached.  Now, the reason I also don't condemn Abp. Lefebvre as a heretic for getting it wrong (if indeed he did) is twofold.  First, the argument of his life:  he was a missionary pretty much from start to finish, and you don't do that if you don't believe EENS.  Put another way, his heterodoxy, IF there was any (because the second point suggests there was not) led to no heteropraxy.  Second, when, during my stay with the Dominicans, I accused-- to my legitimate superior, and in a private context, and because I simply could not understand it otherwise-- the head of the SSPX in France of an error very similar, if not exactly the same as this, my superior was able to show me that the Carmelites of Salamanca, highly respected Thomistic theologians, had taught likewise in the 16th century.  That being the case, it was impossible to believe the Church would not have condemned these theologians (or rather, their view) if it was really harmful for souls.  I mean, it was the time of Trent, and there have been centuries since.  That was the authority I accepted (the only absolute authority here below:  the Church)-- because frankly, I still can't wrap my reason around it.    The nuance of the SSPX's position is predicated and rests entirely on some very intricate theology and canon law which only the SSPX agrees on, excepting the sede's who agree for their own legitimacy (and then go on to attack the Society on things in which they differ). JC:  Agreed, it's a difficult issue.  I prayed and suffered over it a lot, and this is the conclusion I've come to.  I may be wrong.  I may be in need of correction.  But I would find it difficult to believe that I am willfully wrong-- my salvation is at stake!-- and besides the best my poor, limited, clouded human intellect can figure it out, this is the position most consistent with reason and God's revelation. At this point, it's like saying you're going to subscribe to the care of a Doctor who thinks shooting the patient in the face is good medicine to treat for shock, because he wears a white coat and hands you narcotic samples.

Here's a Franciscan Friar from the Franciscans of the Immaculate explaining the same thing:

[YouTube link excised; if you want it, go back to the previous thread]


Sorry for the long and probably a little over-explained post. The Summa Theologica and a whole Library hit me in my head while I was out from under the troll-bridge.

You just gonna stand there and bleed, TrentCath?

I apologize also, but I do want to explain just one more thing.  I certainly agree with you (and Abp. Lefebvre, and Bp. Fellay, and the Franciscan in the YouTube video) that everyone who is in the state of grace is Catholic (I am, however, doubtful that such persons exist outside her visible fold, which is already varied enough in its quality).  Nonetheless, Dustin's Dad brought up some very good points.  If they fall, the only way they have to get back up is an act of perfect contrition.  The common opinion is that that is not an easy or simple thing, while sinning mortally is.  For my own part, I go to confession once very two weeks, at most, when it's available-- and I'm not sure it's enough.  And I have had a lot of graces-- good (though Protestant) upbringing, strong will, a good mind, etc.  Frankly, there have been times when I have been very tempted (and of course, I recognize that it is just that, temptation) to think that keeping God's law is impossible, even WITH all the helps in the true Church.  In my mind, there is just not sufficient reason, on a doctrinal basis, to assert that there is anyone who is a "living Catholic" outside the visible fold.

All this, despite the fact that I'm tempted to say that certain Protestants have the essence of the virtue of Faith, which is to believe all that (one understands that) God has revealed.  They just happen to be utterly wrong on the question of Sacred Tradition (vs. their wretched Sola Scriptura).

JC,

I find it hard to respond via your method of quotation and response due to formatting... dunno if there's enough colors for us to respond this way should it go back and forth.

I'll answer as if your response is numbered:

1) This corresponds to Q513 of the BC#3 in a limited manner. They were proof of God as God, and not Molech or Baal, or Ungabunga. They provided proof so people who knew would follow God. See King Solomon and the attention he attracted from afar. Certainly not universal, as we both agree it was better classified as a typification, rather than what we see now. Salvation is of the Jews and they were to have first dibs. So many reject(ed). To move too deep into this understanding, which I see you've taken me as saying, leads us to Judaizing and St. Paul was obviously unimpressed with St. Peter for tacitly doing this when he didn't sup with the gentile converts. St. Paul answered much of these issues... after Christ. That's the key. Once the New was established, the Old profits none. But beforehand, under the established Law, if one acknowledged it, they had to participate. I'm still unclear how accepted they became, but Gentiles did have a court at the Temple for this very purpose. Again, given it's a type, they had to be subject to the Law if understood and acknowledged but that doesn't necessarily mean they got to be adopted into the Tribe of Levi for a Priestly vocation. This is why Ethiopia has Jews. They accepted the religion from, as far as I can tell, back around Solomon's time. I certainly welcome correction on that example, but if I'm wrong it doesn't undercut what I'm saying. St. Paul (are you referring to Romans 2? my response to this is assuming you are), talking about justification of faith, is addressing the random heathen who never knew anything specifically Jewish as I read it. He never specified the gentiles who'd been properly "catechized" by a Rabbi, but said gentiles. Again, the Jews got into a very proto-Feeney sort of view and it basically led them down a road of telling God He is what amounts to a favoritism playing evil God; this probably has a corollary in what amounts to proto-Calvinism.


2) Noted. No need for a reply to an agreement.


3) It's extremely hard to find specific citations on this, given the fact that searching "Gentile convert to Judaism", "Gentile convert to Judaism before Christianity", etc. Bring up a slew of anti-Jewish results, or results about Jewish evangelizing not taking place or commanded per se.

This site has some interesting Christian-style conversion processes, specifically the Mikveh which is like baptism, but not... I'd have to do more study on it, but so much, like Catholicism, was handed through tradition. It mentions the need to circumcise; the noahide laws are not pertinent, since Noah was not Jewish: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/gentiles.htm

This site provides some scriptural examples, but take it with a grain of salt, given the source: http://askthepastors.wordpress.com/2012/...-be-saved/


4) Agree it's not entirely accurate insofar as what is truly contained as just a repeat of sound and immutable doctrine, but since I'd be hard-pressed to find anyone here to say, "aha! Nostra Aetate! Yes! Of course and Deo gratias"... for here, it works. You might take something as authoritative, but not every reader will. I am still navigating the confusion in them as I can. I'd rather just stick with Trent, etc.

5) See my above post which delves into the nitty-gritty of Mystical Body of Christ... which is to say, the Church and along with Her, the Catholic faith. St. Thomas Aquinas had never heard of Martin Luther or the follow on of Protestantism, which is what is being addressed. The only claim to the Church really was the Catholic Church unless we want to go East to the Orthodox schismatics. I don't know if we want to get into the completely crazy obstacle course that would have us navigating, unless we find ourselves having 3 threads linked to each other. LOL. Such a position by St. Thomas Aquinas isn't problematic, but rather becomes more complicated once we see the Protestant movement emerge from hell.

6) To a point I agree, mainly because to disagree would leave my other position hanging by a rope of hypocrisy. But unless one is a sedevacantist, what's occurring is just a sort of schism. The Vatican II documents are worded in a deficient manner. Certain documents, as I understand it, are not even binding and doctrinal in the true sense, but a sort of suggestion or something I still can't place my finger on. Useless? Perhaps teaching truth but not correctly wording it?  Vatican II is one of those things you have to reallllllly pull its teeth to get tradition as phrased for the modern mind, especially in light of very unequivocal language in previous councils. Even those councils have phrasing which is archaic and misunderstood by many. Phrasing can be totally true, but appear totally insane depending on the way it's read, disposition of the reader (Protestants reading Encyclicals have a field day with failure), etc. The FSSP currently works within the Church but recognizes issues. I've listened to many SSPX sermons. When just hitting doctrine, they're doppelgangers FSSP sermons I've heard. You should have heard the sermon a Transitional Deacon gave on Modernism and Freemasonry at an FSSP parish that I heard in person. I was ready to start shouting "Amen!". After Mass, at coffee and donuts time, everyone was just smiles. He was a rockstar. It totally embarrassed him. I see no reason the SSPX can't just do the same thing. I honestly believe the ones influencing the no to reconciliation are adopting an Alamo mentality, and are teetering on having to eventually admit a sede position unless they want to look ridiculous. The sedes do a great job of addressing that, though I don't believe sedes are correct, obviously.
jonbhorton Wrote:Ven. Pope Pius XII was writing on the Mystical Body of Christ, not the Vatican and associated organizational structure throughout the world.

"Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation" (Humani Generis, 27).

"The Church of Christ, protected not only by the Roman Pontiff, but by the unity of communion as well as of the profession of the same faith is one flock under the one highest shepherd" (Vatican Council, Sess. IV, c. 3: Denz. 1827).

"We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life" (Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 7).

Come again?
(08-11-2012, 10:27 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
jonbhorton Wrote:Ven. Pope Pius XII was writing on the Mystical Body of Christ, not the Vatican and associated organizational structure throughout the world.

"Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation" (Humani Generis, 27).

"The Church of Christ, protected not only by the Roman Pontiff, but by the unity of communion as well as of the profession of the same faith is one flock under the one highest shepherd" (Vatican Council, Sess. IV, c. 3: Denz. 1827).

"We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life" (Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 7).

Come again?

Sure. That was insufficiently explained on my part. They are not separate, but show me the soul(invisible) in the body (physical). You look at me... do you see my soul? Nope. You see my body(visible) and it represents my soul(invisible). If my soul is no longer in my body, is my body living and of use to my soul? No. What if my body was still moving around like a zombie? There is no Zombie Church.  I mean exactly what was said in these things you quoted... but will you admit what that means?

The key is "true Church"... Mystical Body of Christ.

There is no Protestant Church in heaven. There is no Muslim Church in heaven. Abp. Lefebvre explained this. Bishop Fellay explained this. The Church, explains this. God gave this truth.

What you might be inferring by meaningless formula, in terms of my explanation, is in fact doctrine. The use of meaningless formula is not this thing which I espouse, but rather a meaningless formula would be to say there is salvation outside the Church.

If the Church were a color, would it be mauve, or pink? Some say it's blue.  That's untrue. What about you?
Thing is, there is no kinda-sorta doctrine on this stuff. Once you stop espousing doctrine, it can move extremely left or extremely right of center. Left, being liberal, says that the muslims go to heaven for being muslims and worship the same God. CCC#841 is not incorrect per se, but the way it's posited in the CCC is dangerous as can be. Very dangerous. The liberal CAF types who get all bent when you explain the truth, and say the koran is holy (no bloody way), etc, have an erroneous few of EENS, or outright reject it because they've been convinced it is supposed to mean the Feeney view and they know it's wrong, but they run the other way past center. They turn the Mystical Body of Christ into a grotesque freak show, as if the MBoChrist is based out of Chernobyl. They take it extremely left.  Similarly, the far right, Feeney, is also wrong because it similarly says Christ is MISSING limbs, instead of growing them out of the neck like a goiter with fingers as the liberal crowd posits. 2 arms, 2 legs. Torso. Head. Body. Complete.

No person is saved by their false -ism. No one is going to heaven because they believe "la illah ila allah muhammad rasul allah", as if that's a magic formula. That gets into pluralism/syncretism. You can't dump pebbles and a dirty shoe in a cake mold and expect heavenly angel food cake, as if the recipe doesn't matter. Rather, the muslim, if they make it, inshallah, do so in spite of that, though in it-- making it through Christ. All salvation is through Christ. From Adam to the last person who will be saved, all saved, are saved through Christ. The person baking with rocks and reeboks, when their life-timer is done, if they pull out angel food cake, is through the Master Chef, not their Cooking-for-Crackheads recipe book. No magic on the part of rocks and reeboks. Rather, they pull out angel food cake, God willing, because they met the onus for salvation-- through Christ.

It's a picture of God's mercy, not ineffectiveness of truth. It's not relativism, but realizing that while the thing visibly held was false, and objectively untrue, they responded to what truth was there. There IS some truth in systems which are in total false. Respond to truth, and voila. The error comes in saying they are saved by error, and not in it. Or similarly (the Feeney version), saying truth doesn't matter if present in error, if it ain't stamped with an Imprimatur and wrapped in Italian Customs tape.

A good understanding of this via Our Lady was.. oh gosh, now I'm drawing a blank, oh, Our Lady of Guadalupe! She was still Our Lady... but if you ever read the intricate Aztec things contained in the symbolism of OLG's appearance, it was through Aztec understanding to point to the Catholic Church. In Japan, it was found to be effective to explain her Perpetual Virginity and lack of sin via calling her the "Sinless Mother", along with changing the artistic appearance to being Japanese. Religion is cultural. Culture, once converted, must conform to the Church in total. However, there will be Pre-Christian and Post-Spaniard Aztecs in heaven in all likelihood, if they met the standard of Romans 2 having never been a part of the Catholic Church visibly.

It's all connected. Start pulling threads out and you end up without a Tent... err, Church...sinews in the Mystical Body of Christ... errrrr...not Catholic. Heresy at best, and a cousin of Protestantism.
In my limited understanding, it goes like this:

One must belong to the body of the Church by a necessity of means, in re or in voto.  A person who is invincibly ignorant of the necessity of entering the Church may do so by acquiring theological faith (which includes explicit belief in the Trinity and Incarnation) and perfect charity/contrition.  Those outside the Church "still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (Mystici Corporis Christi, 103).
You're basically on point, but I think you're still misusing Mystici Corporis Christi. I agree with the document in total.

Here's a pertinent section from New Advent's Catholic Encyclopedia, which states the exact concept I've repeated over and over in this thread, the previous thread, and other threads... to the point I'm almost at the stage I can begin copying/pasting my own writing about it without sitting here writing again:
Quote:It should be observed that those who are thus saved are not entirely outside the pale of the Church my note: this is what I said in the other thread about being 3 feet North of the US/Mexico Border. It's still not Mexico, but US boundaries... close, but not Mexico; there is no American territory outside of America in a manner of speaking. EENS, no if's, and's, or but's. :). The will to fulfill all God's commandments is, and must be, present in all of them. Such a wish implicitly includes the desire for incorporation with the visible Church: for this, though they know it not, has been commanded by God. They thus belong to the Church by desire (voto). Moreover, there is a true sense in which they may be said to be saved through the Church. In the order of Divine Providence, salvation is given to man in the Church: membership in the Church Triumphant is given through membership in the Church Militant. Sanctifying grace, the title to salvation, is peculiarly the grace of those who are united to Christ in the Church: it is the birthright of the children of God. The primary purpose of those actual graces which God bestows upon those outside the Church is to draw them within the fold. Thus, even in the case in which God saves men apart from the Church, He does so through the Church's graces. They are joined to the Church in spiritual communion, though not in visible and external communion. In the expression of theologians, they belong to the soul of the Church, though not to its body. Yet the possibility of salvation apart from visible communion with the Church must not blind us to the loss suffered by those who are thus situated. They are cut off from the sacraments God has given as the support of the soul. In the ordinary channels of grace, which are ever open to the faithful Catholic, they cannot participate. Countless means of sanctification which the Church offers are denied to them. It is often urged that this is a stern and narrow doctrine. The reply to this objection is that the doctrine is stern, but only in the sense in which sternness is inseparable from love. It is the same sternness which we find in Christ's words, when he said: "If you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin" (John 8:24). The Church is animated with the spirit of Christ; she is filled with the same love for souls, the same desire for their salvation. Since, then, she knows that the way of salvation is through union with her, that in her and in her alone are stored the benefits of the Passion, she must needs be uncompromising and even stern in the assertion of her claims. To fail here would be to fail in the duty entrusted to her by her Lord. Even where the message is unwelcome, she must deliver it.

It is instructive to observe that this doctrine has been proclaimed at every period of the Church's history. It is no accretion of a later age. The earliest successors of the Apostles speak as plainly as the medieval theologians, and the medieval theologians are not more emphatic than those of today. From the first century to the twentieth there is absolute unanimity. St. Ignatius of Antioch writes: "Be not deceived, my brethren. If any man followeth one that maketh schism, he doth not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walketh in strange doctrine, he hath no fellowship with the Passion" (Philadelphians 3). Origen says: "Let no man deceive himself. Outside this house, i.e. outside the Church, none is saved" (Hom. in Jos., iii, n. 5 in P.G., XII, 841). St. Cyprian speaks to the same effect: "He cannot have God for his father, who has not the Church for his mother" (Treatise on Unity 6). The words of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran (1215) define the doctrine thus in its decree against the Albigenses: "Una est fidelium universalis Ecclesia, extra quam nullus omnino salvatur" (Denzinger, n. 357); and Pius IX employed almost identical language in his Encyclical to the bishops of Italy (10 August, 1863): "Notissimum est catholicum dogma neminem scilicet extra catholicam ecclesiam posse salvari" (Denzinger, n. 1529).

It's the last two paragraphs right before the section titled "Visibility of the Church".
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

It says exactly what Abp. Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay, mutliple Popes, and the Bible says-- all of which I am merely repeating. Nothing new here. Just doctrine. This misunderstanding is exactly why Abp. Lefebvre said he didn't come up with it, but rather Jesus, meaning God did and as Priests they must state that truth. Fr. Gaudron's (SSPX theologian) attacking of Bishop Muller on that point was in violation of this doctrine. He's useless to me as a theologian, and has zero credibility in attacking Bishop Muller as I far as I can tell.
jonbhorton,
Please tell me how I've misused Mystici Corporis Christi.  What section of it do you think I misunderstand or am in conflict with?
(08-11-2012, 10:20 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: [ -> ]I find it hard to respond via your method of quotation and response due to formatting... dunno if there's enough colors for us to respond this way should it go back and forth.

Agreed, this method is better.  I just didn't know how to deal with breaking up Abp. Lefebvre's quote, and then making it clear that I was picking it back up inside his quote.

Quote:Certainly not universal, as we both agree it was better classified as a typification, rather than what we see now. Salvation is of the Jews and they were to have first dibs.

To clarify, I was saying that it's not clear to me that the Jewish Law, as regards its ceremonial practices, was intended as universal-- it's clear that it wasn't actually universal, as we agree, but my initial thought was that it wasn't even intended that way.  The more I think about it, the more I think you're likely to be correct that for the properly catechized Gentile, there was an obligation to take part in the ceremonial practices-- because they foreshadow the Incarnation.  Nevertheless, it seems pretty clear that God never intended this religion, as such, to be universal.  The natural law and primordial revelation was to be sufficient in, e.g., ancient China, the Americas, etc.  Now, by Christ's time much of the world was blessed to know of the Jewish faith, but it still wasn't universal.

Quote:St. Paul (are you referring to Romans 2? my response to this is assuming you are), talking about justification of faith, is addressing the random heathen who never knew anything specifically Jewish as I read it.

I did read Romans 2.  I thought it was clear that you were referring to a letter-spirit dichotomy, which I'm still not sure really applies here.  Now, some of the references I made were to what follows-- Abraham being justified by faith is in Romans 4, and is, I believe, part of the same discussion in Romans.

Quote:5) See my above post which delves into the nitty-gritty of Mystical Body of Christ... which is to say, the Church and along with Her, the Catholic faith. St. Thomas Aquinas had never heard of Martin Luther or the follow on of Protestantism, which is what is being addressed. The only claim to the Church really was the Catholic Church unless we want to go East to the Orthodox schismatics. I don't know if we want to get into the completely crazy obstacle course that would have us navigating, unless we find ourselves having 3 threads linked to each other. LOL. Such a position by St. Thomas Aquinas isn't problematic, but rather becomes more complicated once we see the Protestant movement emerge from hell.

I'll have to take a look at the other post, and address it separately.  As to St. Thomas Aquinas, I don't see how his position is any more problematic before or after the Protestant revolt.  You still have the Eastern schismatics to deal with, in addition to pagans who were still known to live in Russia (IIRC)-- the master of his order, St. Dominic, had planned an expedition to preach to them a mere 50-some years before St. Thomas went to his reward.  One of St. Thomas' greatest works is the Summa Contra Gentiles.  Put simply, he was nowise unaware of the "problem" of "invincible" ignorance.

By the by, the best understanding of invincible ignorance I have is this:  If one lives in a culture where the Catholic Church is not present, then one can be presumed to have invincible ignorance.  However, invincible ignorance just means that they cannot be condemned for failing to enter the Church.  They still cannot be saved, because without faith, no sin can be remitted.

Also, the traditional practice of the Church has emphatically NOT been to ascribe invincible ignorance to anyone within a culture where the one true Church is present, or maybe even heard of.  This is despite the fact that we know it can be difficult for people who were brought up in strict opposition to the one true Church.  Now, my position is that the perennial practice of the Church is informed by and illustrates her perennial doctrine-- and I think that's a pretty reasonable POV.

Quote:But unless one is a sedevacantist, what's occurring is just a sort of schism.

I can't agree with you there-- I'm pretty sure that even the Roman authorities do not.  What I'm absolutely sure of is that any putative "schism" by the SSPX is nothing compared to the effective schism of entire episcopates in certain countries, which in English, at least, shall remain unnamed (*cough*Deutschland*cough*).  These schismatics go unpunished, and the SSPX is flayed as if Satan's ministers were afraid they might miss a spot on the Mystical Body of Christ.  Bizarre, to say the least.

Quote:The FSSP currently works within the Church but recognizes issues. I've listened to many SSPX sermons. When just hitting doctrine, they're doppelgangers FSSP sermons I've heard. You should have heard the sermon a Transitional Deacon gave on Modernism and Freemasonry at an FSSP parish that I heard in person. I was ready to start shouting "Amen!". After Mass, at coffee and donuts time, everyone was just smiles. He was a rockstar. It totally embarrassed him. I see no reason the SSPX can't just do the same thing.

But perhaps you can at least understand why, in my process of conversion, I was drawn to the SSPX.  The guy who started me on my path to conversion was one I barely knew on the internet, and hardly ever got to know any better.  Nonetheless, he went to an FSSP mass, and knew his Faith.  When I told him about my RCIA class, he said, "wow, that's terrible.  I wish the FSSP were in your area."  But they weren't.  They were roughly 8 hours away, and moving was out of the question for me.  There was, however, this tiny SSPX chapel-- still an hour and a half away, which constituted a real adventure for the little boy I was at the time (I was 20, but in many ways still a little boy).

In any case, I didn't just jump in.  I studied.  A lot.  And what I found was, that the FSSP would not exist without the SSPX.  The Roman authorities did their best to prevent either from ever existing, and when they couldn't shut the operation down entirely, they settled for bringing it under their control and denying the FSSP the bishops they needed to be guaranteed a succession.  This they do even to this day-- a demonstration of the "good faith" of the NO apparatus in general.  But the point is, the FSSP would not exist without the SSPX, because the SSPX fought, against all odds, to save traditional Catholicism.  If they hadn't, you probably would still never have seen a TLM.  I recommend reflecting on that.  If the fruit (the FSSP) is good, the tree (the SSPX) is good.  That's the best I can make out of it.  I feel like that's rational, 101 level reasoning, without having to resort to the 600-level sorting out of all the doctrinal nuances to which you refer (I tried to do so, but got my mind so utterly whirled around I couldn't see straight anymore).  As I said, this is the solution that the effort to live a life consistent with reason and revelation has brought me to, and I think it is a good one-- even though it occasionally exposes me to accusations of schism, heresy, rank stupidity, etc.

You can't please all the people all the time.  But Deo juvante, you can please God all the time.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18