FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren (/showthread.php?tid=58322)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22


Re: Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren - VoxClamantis - 10-23-2012

(10-23-2012, 05:26 AM)TrentCath Wrote: i'm sorry vox but i'm confused, what is the difference between protestants and these heretics? You do realise that there were validly baptised heretics back then right? Regardless have you not seen the numerous authors and no less than three theological manuals which claim that heretics are cut off from the church, validly baptised or not, unless they are in good faith i.e invincibly ignorant? Can anyone bring up any pre conciliar sources to support these assertions? i, for one, would like to read them, as the leading manualists i.e tanquerey, ott etc... clearly state otherwise

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, written around 1910: "The fact of having received valid baptism places material heretics under the jurisdiction of the Church, and if they are in good faith, they belong to the soul of the Church. Their material severance, however, precludes them from the use of ecclesiastical rights, except the right of being judged according to ecclesiastical law if, by any chance, they are brought before an ecclesiastical court. They are not bound by ecclesiastical laws enacted for the spiritual well-being of its members, e.g. by the Six Commandments of the Church."

Protestants aren't "members" of the Church (I misspoke in an earlier post), but there is some level of communion with them by virtue of valid Baptism. It's just that simple. Some Protestants are even a part of the "Soul of the Church" (see "Mystici Corporis" about the Body and Soul of the Church). Most serious Protestants are good-willed (as good-willed as most Catholics are, anyway) and are ignorant of what the Church teaches. They've been lied to, misled, and are pretty clueless as a group (if they understood, they'd be Catholics, assuming they're good-willed). This just isn't hard to understand, and what the Pope said in the text that brought all this one, is fine. You might dislike often hearing that sort of talk, even if true, while rarely hearing anything about the dangers of heresy, the need to become formally Catholic, etc. (I do, too), but that's no reason to impugn the Holy Father's words. He even said they are "outside the community" ("For this reason the members of the Church must not be jealous but rejoice if someone outside the community does something good in Christ’s name") and invoked Our Lady, which a lot of Prots wouldn't appreciate ("dear friends, through the intercession of Mary Most Holy, let us pray that we might know how to rejoice in every good deed and initiative"). There's not one word in that text that is wrong, expressive of "indifferentism," or scandalous, let alone "clearly scandalous."

Someone said earlier --
Quote: If being a Catholic means being a naive little child who has no use for his brain and reasoning skills and is to ignore clearly scandalous writings and speeches by the Vicar of Christ in a time of Crisis and just assume "he means authentic Catholic teaching" while actually only muddling up the waters, well.... I don't know what to think then.

That doesn't jive with me having reason.

Why bother thinking if all I have to do is assume his intentions are good?

-- but, as I said, that isn't what I am saying at all. I am not saying that people should turn off their brains. The problem is the opposite: people's brains going into overdrive, apparently just dying to find something so they can call the Pope's words "clearly scandalous." What the Holy Father said is accurate and completely innocuous, but some people seem to want to find "indifferentism" and "clear scandal."  If, instead of jumping to the keyboard to type that sort of thing, people would take a few minutes to get clear on their ecclesiology, things like this wouldn't happen.

Besides which, there is something to be said for having a childlike trust: Matthew 18:3 "And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." I don't think Jesus would be pleased at what is said around here of His Vicar. At the very least, there should be no apparent satisfaction in expressing the idea that the Holy Father is mistaken or, worse, being intentionally misleading.

Further, yes, one should always assume the Pope's intentions are good. If there is real evidence to show otherwise, then that's another story, but the assumption should be that his intentions are good. That's how you're supposed to deal with everyone, not just His Holiness. But for some folks here, the assumption is just the opposite, and perfectly kosher text is twisted and jumped on. That's what's scandalous.



Re: Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren - VoxClamantis - 10-23-2012

More from the Catholic Encyclopedia, my emphasis:


Members of the Church

The foregoing account of the Church and of the principle of authority by which it is governed enables us to determine who are members of the Church and who are not. The membership of which we speak, is incorporation in the visible body of Christ. It has already been noted (VI) that a member of the Church may have forfeited the grace of God. In this case he is a withered branch of the true Vine; but he has not been finally broken off from it. He still belongs to Christ. Three conditions are requisite for a man to be a member of the Church.

In the first place, he must profess the true Faith, and have received the Sacrament of Baptism. The essential necessity of this condition is apparent from the fact that the Church is the kingdom of truth, the society of those who accept the revelation of the Son of God. Every member of the Church must accept the whole revelation, either explicitly or implicitly, by profession of all that the Church teaches. He who refuses to receive it, or who, having received it, falls away, thereby excludes himself from the kingdom (Titus 3:10 sq.). The Sacrament of Baptism is rightly regarded as part of this condition. By it those who profess the Faith are formally adopted as children of God (Ephesians 1:13), and an habitual faith is among the gifts bestowed in it. Christ expressly connects the two, declaring that "he who believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16; cf. Matthew 28:19).

It is further necessary to acknowledge the authority of the Church and of her appointed rulers. Those who reject the jurisdiction established by Christ are no longer members of His kingdom. Thus St. Ignatius lays it down in his Letter to the Church of Smyrna (no. 8): Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be; even as where Jesus may be there is the universal Church". In regard to this condition, the ultimate touchstone is to be found in communion with the Holy See. On Peter Christ founded his Church. Those who are not joined to that foundation cannot form part of the house of God.

The third condition lies in the canonical right to communion with the Church. In virtue of its coercive power the Church has authority to excommunicate notorious sinners. It may inflict this punishment not merely on the ground of heresy or schism, but for other grave offences. Thus St. Paul pronounces sentence of excommunication on the incestuous Corinthian (1 Corinthians 5:3). This penalty is no mere external severance from the rights of common worship. It is a severance from the body of Christ, undoing to this extent the work of baptism, and placing the excommunicated man in the condition of the heathen and the publican". It casts him out of God's kingdom; and the Apostle speaks of it as "delivering him over to Satan" (1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Timothy 1:20).


Regarding each of these conditions, however, certain distinctions must be drawn.

Many baptized heretics have been educated in their erroneous beliefs. Their case is altogether different from that of those who have voluntarily renounced the Faith. They accept what they believe to be the Divine revelation. Such as these belong to the Church in desire, for they are at heart anxious to fulfill God's will in their regard. In virtue of their baptism and good will, they may be in a state of grace. They belong to the soul of the Church, though they are not united to the visible body. As such they are members of the Church internally, though not externally. Even in regard to those who have themselves fallen away from the Faith, a difference must be made between open and notorious heretics on the one hand, and secret heretics on the other. Open and notorious heresy severs from the visible Church. The majority of theologians agree with Bellarmine (de Ecclesiâ, III, c. x), as against Francisco Suárez, that secret heresy has not this effect. [Vox:  Here the Encyclopedia even uses the word "member" to pertain to certain Protestants. But that's an individual thing, not a corporate one. I.e., no one would say that "Southern Baptists are members of the Church" -- but it is quite possible that a given Southern Baptist, validly baptized, good-willed, and simply ignorant of Christ's desire that he become a Catholic formally, may well be a "member" of the Soul of the Church. That is up to Christ, and Christ alone, to judge. The Church is bigger than She appears, and God is merciful. He knows very well the hearts of men, knows who is good-willed, knows to whom much is given and much is required, etc.]

In regard to schism the same distinction must be drawn. A secret repudiation of the Church's authority does not sever the sinner from the Church. The Church recognizes the schismatic as a member, entitled to her communion, until by open and notorious rebellion he rejects her authority.

Excommunicated persons are either excommunicati tolerati (i.e. those who are still tolerated) or excommunicati vitandi (i.e. those to be shunned). Many theologians hold that those whom the Church still tolerates are not wholly cut off from her membership, and that it is only those whom she has branded as "to be shunned" who are cut off from God's kingdom (see Murray, De Eccles., Disp. i, sect. viii, n. 118). (See EXCOMMUNICATION.)



Re: Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren - Whitey - 10-23-2012

(10-23-2012, 06:41 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: ...Further, yes, one should always assume the Pope's intentions are good. If there is real evidence to show otherwise, then that's another story, but the assumption should be that his intentions are good. That's how you're supposed to deal with everyone, not just His Holiness. But for some folks here, the assumption is just the opposite, and perfectly kosher text is twisted and jumped on. That's what's scandalous.

I agree. It's an acquired bad habit. Every homily or address the pope makes is subject to ridicule by some trads. And most always followed by back pats from the same. It's become so common here, that it fouls most every discussion.


Re: Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren - TrentCath - 10-23-2012

(10-23-2012, 06:41 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(10-23-2012, 05:26 AM)TrentCath Wrote: i'm sorry vox but i'm confused, what is the difference between protestants and these heretics? You do realise that there were validly baptised heretics back then right? Regardless have you not seen the numerous authors and no less than three theological manuals which claim that heretics are cut off from the church, validly baptised or not, unless they are in good faith i.e invincibly ignorant? Can anyone bring up any pre conciliar sources to support these assertions? i, for one, would like to read them, as the leading manualists i.e tanquerey, ott etc... clearly state otherwise

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, written around 1910: "The fact of having received valid baptism places material heretics under the jurisdiction of the Church, and if they are in good faith, they belong to the soul of the Church. Their material severance, however, precludes them from the use of ecclesiastical rights, except the right of being judged according to ecclesiastical law if, by any chance, they are brought before an ecclesiastical court. They are not bound by ecclesiastical laws enacted for the spiritual well-being of its members, e.g. by the Six Commandments of the Church."

Protestants aren't "members" of the Church (I misspoke in an earlier post), but there is some level of communion with them by virtue of valid Baptism. It's just that simple. Some Protestants are even a part of the "Soul of the Church" (see "Mystici Corporis" about the Body and Soul of the Church). Most serious Protestants are good-willed (as good-willed as most Catholics are, anyway) and are ignorant of what the Church teaches. They've been lied to, misled, and are pretty clueless as a group (if they understood, they'd be Catholics, assuming they're good-willed). This just isn't hard to understand, and what the Pope said in the text that brought all this one, is fine. You might dislike often hearing that sort of talk, even if true, while rarely hearing anything about the dangers of heresy, the need to become formally Catholic, etc. (I do, too), but that's no reason to impugn the Holy Father's words. He even said they are "outside the community" ("For this reason the members of the Church must not be jealous but rejoice if someone outside the community does something good in Christ’s name") and invoked Our Lady, which a lot of Prots wouldn't appreciate ("dear friends, through the intercession of Mary Most Holy, let us pray that we might know how to rejoice in every good deed and initiative"). There's not one word in that text that is wrong, expressive of "indifferentism," or scandalous, let alone "clearly scandalous."

Someone

a) I'm sorry but the catholic encylopedia doesn't trump the teaching of the manualists or actual theologians i.e St Robert Bellarmine etc... and it definitely doesn't trump the teaching of popes such as pius ix

b) I disagree, I do not believe most protestants are in bona fide, if that term is synonymous with invincible ignorance, it is dangerous to presume such a thing and there is no justification or authority for doing such a thing. The fact is that prima facie protestants are not in the church, they may actually be in the church, but we cannot know such a thing, there is therefore no justification for treating or referring to them as such without make this distinction, there is no justification whatsoever for corporately referring to them as in the church. While individual non catholics may or may not be in the Church, there are no multiple churchs, eclessial groups or whetever new and wonderful phrase is used, there is only ONE Church throughout this address, as throughout modern teaching non catholics are corporately referred to, this is theologically unjustifiable.

c) You have addressed nothing written by me pointing out the clearly indifferentist parts of the popes speech, the fact is and remains that the pope essentially claims that the Catholic Church and those outside are just two different tools God uses to achieve the same end.


Re: Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren - TrentCath - 10-23-2012

(10-23-2012, 07:10 AM)Whitey Wrote:
(10-23-2012, 06:41 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: ...Further, yes, one should always assume the Pope's intentions are good. If there is real evidence to show otherwise, then that's another story, but the assumption should be that his intentions are good. That's how you're supposed to deal with everyone, not just His Holiness. But for some folks here, the assumption is just the opposite, and perfectly kosher text is twisted and jumped on. That's what's scandalous.

I agree. It's an acquired bad habit. Every homily or address the pope makes is subject to ridicule by some trads. And most always followed by back pats from the same. It's become so common here, that it fouls most every discussion.

If a person continously makes unorthodox statements, was an unorthodox theologian and openly promotes and allows unorthodoxy it would seem to me, to be unreasonable not to be very wary of that persons words and actions and subject them to intense scrutiny for ones own protection, if not that of others.


Re: Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren - Whitey - 10-23-2012

(10-23-2012, 07:30 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(10-23-2012, 07:10 AM)Whitey Wrote:
(10-23-2012, 06:41 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: ...Further, yes, one should always assume the Pope's intentions are good. If there is real evidence to show otherwise, then that's another story, but the assumption should be that his intentions are good. That's how you're supposed to deal with everyone, not just His Holiness. But for some folks here, the assumption is just the opposite, and perfectly kosher text is twisted and jumped on. That's what's scandalous.

I agree. It's an acquired bad habit. Every homily or address the pope makes is subject to ridicule by some trads. And most always followed by back pats from the same. It's become so common here, that it fouls most every discussion.

If a person continously makes unorthodox statements, was an unorthodox theologian and openly promotes and allows unorthodoxy it would seem to me, to be unreasonable not to be very wary of that persons words and actions and subject them to intense scrutiny for ones own protection, if not that of others.

I agree we have a duty as Roman Catholics to defend the Faith, but the way some discredit the pope is rather excessive.


Re: Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren - Scriptorium - 10-23-2012

The problem is the selective memory here. We've discussed much of this before with the same interlocutors. The Church as communion teaching is relatively new conceptually, as was the Trinity, transubstantiation, the immaculate Conception, and any other conceptual novelty which the Church worked out in time to our benefit in the past. In the short it is draws its roots from Johann Möhler. In the years preceding Vatican II is was discussed quite widely. There were debates about the "negative notes/marks" of the non-Catholic Christians. Looking at that history, Vatican II fits neat and clean into it, but as with their other problematic statements put emphasis on what unites us to other Christians. Any concession in their direction is verboten in these people's minds.

The problem here I find is not debating church communion, but the total tangent it is. People can't deal with the fact that the original address was short, simple, and orthodox. This has been decisively proven here, just go back and read the numerous posts, but some people just can't say "I'll take that to heart," and let it lie.


Re: Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren - VoxClamantis - 10-23-2012

(10-23-2012, 07:26 AM)TrentCath Wrote: a) I'm sorry but the catholic encylopedia doesn't trump the teaching of the manualists or actual theologians i.e St Robert Bellarmine etc... and it definitely doesn't trump the teaching of popes such as pius ix

b) I disagree, I do not believe most protestants are in bona fide, if that term is synonymous with invincible ignorance, it is dangerous to presume such a thing and there is no justification or authority for doing such a thing. The fact is that prima facie protestants are not in the church, they may actually be in the church, but we cannot know such a thing, there is therefore no justification for treating or referring to them as such without make this distinction, there is no justification whatsoever for corporately referring to them as in the church. While individual non catholics may or may not be in the Church, there are no multiple churchs, eclessial groups or whetever new and wonderful phrase is used, there is only ONE Church throughout this address, as throughout modern teaching non catholics are corporately referred to, this is theologically unjustifiable.

c) You have addressed nothing written by me pointing out the clearly indifferentist parts of the popes speech, the fact is and remains that the pope essentially claims that the Catholic Church and those outside are just two different tools God uses to achieve the same end.

a) The Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't have to "trump" the teachings of theologians, because theologians agree with what I am saying.

b) It isn't dangerous to believe the Truth, and the Truth is that the Church is bigger than She appears. It would be dangerous to not preach the full Truth, which includes the fact that Christ set up a Church and wants Christians united in Her, but it is still a fact that some folks who are outside Her visible community are a part of the Soul of the Church. No one here has referred to Protestants as "corporately" in the Church. Neither has the Holy Father. I'm the one that's been stressing that there is only ONE Church when I encounter those who like to talk about the Conciliar Church, as if it isn't the Catholic one.

c) There isn't anything in the Pope's words to indicate indifferentism. You're seeing what you want to see. And God does use things outside the Church for His Good. He can even bring Good from Evil if He wants (not that we are allowed to do evil for a good end). For reference, this is what the Pope said. Without characterizing it -- without saying "this is heretical" or "this is indifferent" or "this is not good" -- point out the line that is theologically incorrect or just untrue:

Midday Angelus, Sept 30,  Castel Gandolfo.

Dear brothers and sisters!

The Gospel of this Sunday presents one of those episodes of the life of Christ that, although, reported “in passing,” so to speak, contain a profound meaning (cf. Mark 9:38-41). It tells that someone, who was not one of Jesus’ followers, cast out demons in Jesus’ name. The Apostle John, young and zealous as he was, wanted to stop him but Jesus did not permit it; on the contrary, he takes the occasion to teach his disciples that God can do good and even wondrous things outside of their circle, and that it is possible to work together in the cause of the Kingdom of God in different ways, even offering a simple glass of water to a missionary (9:41).

St. Augustine writes in this regard: “Just as in the ‘Catholica,'” that is in the Church, “we can find that which is not Catholic, so also outside of the ‘Catholica’ there can be something Catholic” (“On Baptism Against the Donatists,” PL 43, VII, 39, 77). For this reason the members of the Church must not be jealous but rejoice if someone outside the community does something good in Christ’s name, as long as he does it with the right intention and with respect. It can also occur that in the Church herself sometimes there is a failure to value and to appreciate, in a spirit of profound communion, the good things done by various ecclesial groups. We must all, however, be always able to appreciate and esteem each other, praising the Lord for the infinite “imagination” with which he works in the Church and in the world.

In today’s liturgy there also echoes the Apostle James’ invective against the dishonest rich, who place their trust in the security of wealth gained unjustly (cf. James 5:1-6). In this connection Caesarius of Arles states: “While riches cannot harm a good man because they make him merciful, they cannot help a bad man inasmuch as he holds on to them greedily or wastes them in dissipation” (Sermons 35, 4). The Apostle James’ words, while they warn against the vain pursuit of material goods, constitute a powerful call to use them with a view to solidarity and the common good, acting always with equity and morality at all levels.

Dear friends, through the intercession of Mary Most Holy, let us pray that we might know how to rejoice in every good deed and initiative, without envy and jealousy, and to use earthly goods wisely in the continuous pursuit of eternal goods.


Re: Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren - Scriptorium - 10-23-2012

Reposted to supply a "cogent" argument with new meditation.

Life is a series of acts, some good, some bad, which taken together form a whole, and defined solely by its position in the present. Some are here attempting to deny a good act, by appealing to the whole at this point in someone's life. I think we are worried too, that if we gave praise, we'd be compromising some core position. These people do good works in the name of Jesus, however filled with confusion and error they may be. The fact that we cannot find in ourselves to "come down" and take joy in that shows that we lack charity for our neighbor. Now some will come back and say that really what matters is going to heaven. And that on its face will look charitable, will look like the real optimum Catholic position, but they won't actually have charity in any concrete way that will get them there. It's this sort of abstract wish, this ideal while no position between heresy and complete conversion can be conceded (because all they can do is "scatter"). It's sort of like looking for a wife, but she has to be perfect. No physical flaws. No behavioral foibles. Etc. I won't settle for anything less, or for someone "on the way". Not seeing the good that can be harnessed and developed, and the transforming power of love. Before the good act of conversion to Christ, comes a good act of a heretic "going to hell". Notice the contrast of such willingness to criticize and stand in the position of judgement when finding wrong, but such reluctance to make light of good amongst one's enemies, which must be mitigated and qualified until in the end it really just brings us back to a criticism and fault finding. Note how we can't take joy because ultimately they're going to hell. No middle vision of their life. Only hell or conversion. A story without a middle. And notice how the Pope has to always be criticized. If he says the Church needs "a renewed enthusiasm in her faith in Jesus Christ, the only Savior of the world" we can't take joy even in that. We have to quote this text and that text, and look at, again, the "whole" which negates what he says. Good savior statement + bad Luther statement = bad Pope. Notice how whatever positive input there is in this and similar equations, he never gets to a positive. (I am sure even if he consecrated Russia just as our Lady said, no few will have internet postings showing what was wrong with it.) Although, in contradiction, we can't look at the whole of JPII. We have to overly focus on a few events. Funny how that always fits the argument one is making. My mind understands that someone doesn't have strong faith in their position when they are unable to concede something against their position.

Maybe the next address by the Pope should be titled "Take Joy in the Good of our Pope". Just to get us to loosen up enough to recognize these things to bring us into a holistic viewpoint. Or as Fox News would put it "Fair and Balanced". That's why I user the words "rigor" and "rigorism" so much. It's like some tensed up person. He ain't changin' his mind for nothin'. I worry mostly, honestly, about the most rigorist, who may not be able to accept when Jesus actually gives them a solution, because it may not be in line with their views, and he won't have the suppleness of mind to see it and make the shift. (In fact, shift is antithetical to such a person.)

Today's meditation: "I sent you to reap what you have not worked for; others have done the work, and you are sharing the fruits of their work."


Re: Benedict: Take Joy in the Good of our Separated Brethren - TrentCath - 10-23-2012

(10-23-2012, 08:06 AM)Whitey Wrote:
(10-23-2012, 07:30 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(10-23-2012, 07:10 AM)Whitey Wrote:
(10-23-2012, 06:41 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: ...Further, yes, one should always assume the Pope's intentions are good. If there is real evidence to show otherwise, then that's another story, but the assumption should be that his intentions are good. That's how you're supposed to deal with everyone, not just His Holiness. But for some folks here, the assumption is just the opposite, and perfectly kosher text is twisted and jumped on. That's what's scandalous.

I agree. It's an acquired bad habit. Every homily or address the pope makes is subject to ridicule by some trads. And most always followed by back pats from the same. It's become so common here, that it fouls most every discussion.

If a person continously makes unorthodox statements, was an unorthodox theologian and openly promotes and allows unorthodoxy it would seem to me, to be unreasonable not to be very wary of that persons words and actions and subject them to intense scrutiny for ones own protection, if not that of others.

I agree we have a duty as Roman Catholics to defend the Faith, but the way some discredit the pope is rather excessive.

I don't see anyone discrediting the pope  :shrug:

I guess ultimately the problem is that there are two groups here, or rather at last two groups:

i) Group A sees the pope as basically orthodox but he sometimes makes statements that are ambigous
ii)Group B sees the pope as basically unorthodox and thus all of what he says is likely suspect