Was surprised to find a Bishop saying mass today.
#59
(11-15-2009, 11:37 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(11-15-2009, 09:18 PM)petrelton Wrote: Quite incorrect. Subtlety is only incorrect if it is concealing a lie and seeks to introduce it by subterfuge. Subtlety is quite acceptable when trying to explain mysteries of the faith.
I certainly agree that if modernism is sculking in the catechism by subtley and subterfuge then that is dangerous and evil.

The difference is though that I DO NOT ADMIT that such modernism exists.

Whether you admit to modernism in the catechism or not is irrelevant.  You are back-pedaling on your original statement. 

"One so-called modernist passage in the CCC does not make the whole CCC modernist. "   In that statement, you are stipulating that  if a modernist passage did exist in the CCC, it would not corrupt the catechism itself.  It can't mean anything else and make sense.  One non-modernist passage in the CCC does not make the CCC modernist can't be what you meant to say. " 

But a subtle error on the part of Archbishop LeFebvre was extremely dangerous and moreso than overt modernism.

You have one set of standards for the orthodoxy of a Catechism and another set of standards for the orthodoxy of a successor of the Apostles.   According to your original position, subtle error is tolerable in one and  intolerable in another.
OK fair enough. If you want to pin me down in that way then you are correct. If we perceive a subtle error in church teaching then we must yield to the magisterium submitting our opinions to the higher authority. Whereas if we perceive a subtle error in those who oppose church teaching then we should reject them for the same reason, that their authority is greatly inferior to that of the Pope and his sacred offices. If you want to call that a double standard then go ahead. In fact it is not. It is a proper discernment of ecclesiastical authority. In fact it is our duty to appeal to the ordinary magisterium for judgement in such matters and to avoid the judgement of those who place themselves outside the magisteriums purview.

(11-15-2009, 11:37 PM)Gerard Wrote:
Quote: If it is then it so subtle that I am placing myself as a judge over the church to find fault and error with the church. This is inadmissable.

Why?  A Catechism is not infallible.  An error whether subtle or not requires you make a judgement.   In fact you are a judge over the Church everytime you submit to one of its teachings.  What counts is how just you are in your judgement. 
You are correct insofar as that private judgement relates to matters which are dogmatic pronouncements of the church. In these matters we may not hold a contrary opinion or belief. However the catechism teaches many things that are not de fide which we may hold personal opinions to the contrary. However what we may not do is take those personal opinions and noise them about in public in such a way as to undermine and call into question the authority of the church even to the point of accusing the church of being driven by sinister modernist objectives. Its not even appropriate to blather a personal opinion on a forum. The correct approach is to write a private letter in the most respectful tone to your bishop, or even to the Pope. This kind of language that goes on here is destructive of unity.

Nor is it to correct to scrap the entire catechism or call it into doubt or suspicion simply because you hold a private opinion which is contrary to the official teachings of the church. This is because we are more likely to be incorrect than is the ecumenical council. In fact ABL was vastly outvoted at the council by the vast majority of bishops who ratified the council documents.

(11-15-2009, 11:37 PM)Gerard Wrote:
Quote:The other difference is that  the church and the magisterium is there to expose the subtleties of deceit and error.

That's an ancillary duty.  Churchmen all the way up to the Pope can ignore an error and choose not to invoke the magisterium of the Church for centuries. 

Quote:We are not here to expose the subtleties of what we imagine to be error in the magisterium.

But we are here to expose errors subtle or not from the Churchmen if they are there.  They are not the magisterium.  The CCC is not magisterial other than getting authentic (therefore fallible) magisterial approval. 
Huh? Run that by me again. Churchmen are not the magisterium. How do you figure that? How do you figure that the CCC is not magisterial? You even contradict yourself. How can the CCC be approved by the magisterium and not be magisterial? I think you are confused. The fact is that the CCC is magisterial and you do not want to yield to the authority of the magisterium because in you consider your judgement to be superior to that magisterium.

(11-15-2009, 11:37 PM)Gerard Wrote:
Quote: The only judgement we can bring to the church is if they teach something which is blatantly heretical.

No.  Some errors are not blatantly heretical because they have not been condemned as heresies yet.  Or they are old heresies recycled. 

Quote: The scripture talks about a great falling away which even denies that Christ is come in the flesh. This kind of blatant heresy is warrant to reject those who teach it but not subtleties where it is a matter of conjecture and debate as to whether it is heretical or not.

St. Pius X warned in Pascendi that  "...the number of the enemies of the cross of Christ has in these last days increased exceedingly, who are striving, by arts, entirely new and <b> full of subtlety, </b> to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly Christ's kingdom itself. "  So you can't pawn off the responsibility for ignoring subtle heresy on Rome.

Quote: I am not familiar with the Dutch Catechism. However the CCC is a higher authority. regional councils and documents have always been subject to Rome. I am happy to leave Rome to deal with the Dutch particularly given the fact that I am not Dutch.

You are dodging the point.  Besides your completely selfish attitude of leaving the Dutch to go to Hell because you are not one of them,  (Dicken's quote in A Christmas Carol comes to mind, "Are they not of the human race?" ) 
How absurd. You expect me to save the Dutch do you. I do care about the Dutch and pray for the apostate Europeans but its simply not my place to correct their catechism.


(11-15-2009, 11:37 PM)Gerard Wrote: Now, getting back to the point.  The Dutch Catechism was mentioned because it is blatantly full of error.   You expect that to be taken care of but you'll accept error provided that it's subtle as in the CCC. 
I never said I would accept error, nor have I conceded that there is error in the CCC subtle or otherwise. What I said was that I would submit what I perceived to be a subtle error to the higher authority of the magisterium. You however believe that you can reject whatever you like out of the CCC. All you have to do is detect in your mind an error and you are excused to abandon it. This is a protestant viewpoint. We are taught as catholics to submit to the higher authority in all things. Also what do you mean by "accept error". If I were to not "accept error" I would quietly hold a contrary opinion and pray for revelation so that I may be restored to complete unity with the church. I would seek endorsed teachers of the church to privately explain to me why there is a discrepancy of my opinion with the teaching of the church. Your idea of not "accepting error" is to reject the CCC as infected with modernism, accuse the church of a modernist agenda to destroy the church, latch on to organisations who exhibit a schismatic mentality and generally make a big racket about it on the Internet.

(11-15-2009, 11:37 PM)Gerard Wrote:
Quote: I have never ceased to admit that there are appalling examples of modernism and heresy amongst the magisterium of the church in various places of the world.

No. You mean Churchmen.  The Magisterium of the Church is the teaching authority invoked not the men invoking it. 
What are you on about? What is this churchmen / magisterium divide you are constructing here? This is a concept you have dreamed up in your head. The clergy is the magisterium of the church.  Even the false bishops who tear at the flock are the magisterium. Sometimes we must hide from false bishops and priests and seek out true ones in a time of crisis such as this. And always we have recourse to Rome. And if the Pope is corrupt then we have the promise of Jesus that he cannot damage the church to the extent that it will fail. Therefore there is never any need to rebel. And lets make no mistake about it. That is what is at the heart of these accusations against the CCC. It is pure rebellion and dissidence. I hope fisheaters will have nothing to do with it. You dress it up as if you are driven by the purest attachment to tradition. But which dissident ever said anything different. They all claimed that they were restoring the church of the apostles.

(11-15-2009, 11:37 PM)Gerard Wrote:
Quote: I am just yet to concede that such examples exist in the ecumenical council of the church or the holy offices of the Pope. There are many things that I disagree with the modern church however my disagreements only amount to opinions.  To actually state that the catechism is modernist and worthy of suspicion is a judgement against the highest authority of the church and is unwarranted.

No it isn't.  It's common sense.  This is pure modernist gobbledygook right out of Rahner's "anonymous Christian garbage" 

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

<i> 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335<b> Re-formulated positively,</b> it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: </i>

Sorry, but that is blatently avoiding the exclusivity of the Church for Salvation.  It is not a "positive re-formulation."  It is a distortion and error.  A positive re-formulation  of "Outside the Church there is no salvation."  is  "Only inside the Church is there salvation. " 
It is almost impossible to conceive how you could have been reading my posts and the posts of others. Here you have expressed a hyper-feeneyist denial of the doctrines of invincible ignorance and baptism of desire and baptism of blood. Have you been reading Michael Dimond Most Holy Family Monastery have you? All Vatican 2 does is flesh out these concepts a little more to counter the tendancy which clearly still exists in people such as yourself to send everyone to hell who does not belong visibly to the Catholic church. Ironically the very people who make these kinds of claims are the very ones who have deliberately seperated themselves from the church. I tell you, that there harsh words will come back upon their heads.

(11-15-2009, 11:37 PM)Gerard Wrote: <i> Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336</i>

<i> 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338 </i>


Notice how the sublte "Council teaches...that The Church..."  What's that?  Why not "The Church teaches..." ? 

It's contradictory heretical gobbledygoop that flies in the face of Cantate Domino:  "<b>The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches </b> that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”
Yep. Definately Most Holy Family Monastery here. I implore everybody to utterly avoid this website. You think you are strong enough to resist this kind of material. You probably will not be. We surely need an Index of Prohibited websites. This site is drawing men to their eternal deaths. You must avoid it. I implore you all. Do not take coals of fire to your bosom. Guard your souls and keep away from sharks and wolves.

(11-15-2009, 11:37 PM)Gerard Wrote: That IS the voice of THE Magisterium of the Church.  That is not to be contradicted by a Catechism, a Pope or anything under the Sun.  IT is irreformable and a Magisterial, infallible definition is sufficient on its own to provide its meaning.  That's what a definition is.  Not opinions of  Card. Schonborn, not JPII and not even St. Charles Borromeo or St. Pius V in the Roman Catechism.
No its the opinions of Michael and Peter Dimond. Its a distorted rendering of Catholic teaching by selecting all the hardline passages and quoting them out of context. It assumes that the church has not been growing in the revelation of the Holy Spirit at all since the 1400's. Nevertheless you are pointing out what appears to be two irreconcilable positions. This is not new in the church. Debates raged for hundred of years within the church as to whether men had free will to choose salvation or whether their fate was decided by predestination. Both positions appear to be irreconcilable. How can three persons be one God. In fact there is no dispute between these positions because we are discussing a mystery. In the NT time the mystery was how could the gentiles be saved. The Apostle Paul answered that question. Now today the question is being asked. How can the vast hordes of the world be condemned to hell simply because they had no opportunity to hear the gospel or to enter into the church? The church has proposed the answer that in some invisible way the invincibally ignorant are members of the church just like Abraham was. Men who obey God to the extent that they understand him and believe him. So as Abraham was justified by belief then so may men like him who have lived throughout the ages. Was Abraham not part of the church because he never knew Christ or the church? Certainly not because he is the father of the faithful. But we know that if he had known about Christ and him crucified and of the Holy church that he would have embraced the whole gospel in an instant and with joy. If we know that how much more can God know such a thing?

This idea of an invisible attachment of members of  the church outside the visible structure might seem like a protestant corruption. However it is in fact quite different because protestants use this notion to reject the visible structure of the church whereas the invincibly ignorant are simply unaware of the visible structure of the church.

(11-15-2009, 11:37 PM)Gerard Wrote:
Quote: If we find that our local magisterium appears to be at fault then we have a recourse to Rome. But if there is a problem in Rome then we have no recourse and must wait in prayer for God to correct what we believe to be the fault. 9 times out of 10 we will find that it is we who are at fault and have not properly understood what the church is teaching.

On what distorted understanding of authority do you believe this?  It's utter nonsense and completely non-Catholic.  Inferiors correcting superiors when necessary for the faith is required on the faithful.
It is you with the distorted view of what it is to be Catholic. Catholics do not publicly correct their superiors. The apostle Paul might have. If any of us think of us as an Apostle that they may correct their superior publicly with a rebuke then they are a braver man than I. Do none of us have any fear of God. Inferiors do not correct their superiors. They humbly petition theirs superiors to examine an error. Martin Luther also publicly corrected his superior and look where that got us. Aaron and Miriam publicly corrected Moses and they ended up with plagues of the flesh and other disasters.

(11-15-2009, 11:37 PM)Gerard Wrote:
Quote: This is why all of our concerns about the Vatican and her documents especially those coming from the Pope must be tempered with the most extreme humility even to the point of prayer and fasting before we come out in criticism of these highest levels of the church.

But though <b> WE, </b>or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

Prayer and fasting are always good, but they are often used as muzzles by people who are "resisting the known truth" (sin against the Holy Ghost)   And don't be fooled into thinking that just because something comes from "the Vatican" that it invokes the "highest levels of authority" in the Church.   
The church is not teaching a different doctrine or a different gospel. It is only your wrong head which twists the purpose of this verse to suit your own schismatic tendencies.

(11-15-2009, 11:37 PM)Gerard Wrote: "The Vatican " is loathe to invoke the Magisterium on points of Vatican II because it will create enemies in the areas of Ecumenism (which is merely a policy, and a bad one at that) and not a doctrine of the Church.  We are in a time when Policy is more important than doctrine in the Vatican.  That's why the full power of the Magisterium has been muted for so long. 
Again. Utter rubbish. This is hearsay opinion and you have no evidence to prove or assert this. The doctrinal underpinnings of invincible ignorance and baptism of desire are not only found in scripture but have been constantly expressed throughout the history of the church.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Was surprised to find a Bishop saying mass today. - by petrelton - 11-16-2009, 01:11 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)