Was surprised to find a Bishop saying mass today.
#51
(11-15-2009, 07:28 PM)CrusaderKing Wrote:
(11-15-2009, 07:24 PM)petrelton Wrote:
(11-15-2009, 07:18 PM)CrusaderKing Wrote:
(11-12-2009, 01:48 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(11-11-2009, 05:58 PM)petrelton Wrote: One so-called modernist passage in the CCC does not make the whole CCC modernist. 


"But the fact that a fault is subtle does not excuse it in the least. Nay. It simply makes it all the more dangerous."--Petrelton on Archbishop LeFebvre.

There seems to be a double standard at work here.

It should (or really, must) also be pointed out that the current Catechism had errors when it was promulgated in 1992, then it had to be re-issued with corrections in 1994.
really. You've made this comment before. How is this relevant? What exactly were the errors of the 29 catechism. Were they spelling errors or what?

You wish they were spelling errors.

It's relevant because if there were errors found in the 1992 Catechism, who's to say there aren't errors in the current one?

I can tell you that the passage regarding capital punishment in the new Catechism is at odds with what the Church has taught about the subject for over 1900 years.
Can you tell me what was corrected in the 1994 catechism which was in error in 1992. Can you explain how the catechism is at odds with 1900 years of church teaching on capital punishment?
Reply
#52
(11-15-2009, 07:29 PM)petrelton Wrote:
(11-15-2009, 07:28 PM)CrusaderKing Wrote:
(11-15-2009, 07:24 PM)petrelton Wrote:
(11-15-2009, 07:18 PM)CrusaderKing Wrote:
(11-12-2009, 01:48 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(11-11-2009, 05:58 PM)petrelton Wrote: One so-called modernist passage in the CCC does not make the whole CCC modernist. 


"But the fact that a fault is subtle does not excuse it in the least. Nay. It simply makes it all the more dangerous."--Petrelton on Archbishop LeFebvre.

There seems to be a double standard at work here.

It should (or really, must) also be pointed out that the current Catechism had errors when it was promulgated in 1992, then it had to be re-issued with corrections in 1994.
really. You've made this comment before. How is this relevant? What exactly were the errors of the 29 catechism. Were they spelling errors or what?

You wish they were spelling errors.

It's relevant because if there were errors found in the 1992 Catechism, who's to say there aren't errors in the current one?

I can tell you that the passage regarding capital punishment in the new Catechism is at odds with what the Church has taught about the subject for over 1900 years.
Can you tell me what was corrected in the 1994 catechism which was in error in 1992



Rather than list them all, click where it says, "editio typica modifications to the Catechism of the Catholic Church."

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Reply
#53
(11-15-2009, 07:52 PM)CrusaderKing Wrote:
(11-15-2009, 07:29 PM)petrelton Wrote:
(11-15-2009, 07:28 PM)CrusaderKing Wrote:
(11-15-2009, 07:24 PM)petrelton Wrote:
(11-15-2009, 07:18 PM)CrusaderKing Wrote:
(11-12-2009, 01:48 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(11-11-2009, 05:58 PM)petrelton Wrote: One so-called modernist passage in the CCC does not make the whole CCC modernist. 


"But the fact that a fault is subtle does not excuse it in the least. Nay. It simply makes it all the more dangerous."--Petrelton on Archbishop LeFebvre.

There seems to be a double standard at work here.

It should (or really, must) also be pointed out that the current Catechism had errors when it was promulgated in 1992, then it had to be re-issued with corrections in 1994.
really. You've made this comment before. How is this relevant? What exactly were the errors of the 29 catechism. Were they spelling errors or what?

You wish they were spelling errors.

It's relevant because if there were errors found in the 1992 Catechism, who's to say there aren't errors in the current one?

I can tell you that the passage regarding capital punishment in the new Catechism is at odds with what the Church has taught about the subject for over 1900 years.
Can you tell me what was corrected in the 1994 catechism which was in error in 1992



Rather than list them all, click where it says, "editio typica modifications to the Catechism of the Catholic Church."

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
what's your point? How do you know that these are not simply enhancing the paragraphs to more clearly explain the original intent of the document. What makes you judge that these are corrections of errors?
Reply
#54
(11-12-2009, 10:49 PM)petrelton Wrote:
(11-12-2009, 01:48 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(11-11-2009, 05:58 PM)petrelton Wrote: One so-called modernist passage in the CCC does not make the whole CCC modernist. 


"But the fact that a fault is subtle does not excuse it in the least. Nay. It simply makes it all the more dangerous."--Petrelton on Archbishop LeFebvre.

There seems to be a double standard at work here.
Its only a double standard if I was admitting that the passage was subtly modernist. WHICH I AM NOT. I called it a "so-called" modernist passage for the express reason of disclaiming that I personally held it to be modernist.

So can all you clowns who are giving each other high fives apologise please?


The specific passage doesn't matter if it's modernist or not.    

You say on one hand that an error in the Catechisms doesn't  make the whole CCC modernist.  

But on the other hand, you say faults are inexcusable, subtlety doesn't excuse it,  It becomes more dangerous.  

For you to be consistent, you'd have to admit that IF there is any modernism in the CCC it is all the more dangerous.

This can be born out.  People who know the faith fairly well know that the Dutch Catechism is a trainwreck of modernism.   They might not be able to tell that the CCC is a hash job and they may think it actually is a "sure norm" for knowing the faith.
Reply
#55
(11-15-2009, 08:29 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(11-12-2009, 10:49 PM)petrelton Wrote:
(11-12-2009, 01:48 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(11-11-2009, 05:58 PM)petrelton Wrote: One so-called modernist passage in the CCC does not make the whole CCC modernist. 


"But the fact that a fault is subtle does not excuse it in the least. Nay. It simply makes it all the more dangerous."--Petrelton on Archbishop LeFebvre.

There seems to be a double standard at work here.
Its only a double standard if I was admitting that the passage was subtly modernist. WHICH I AM NOT. I called it a "so-called" modernist passage for the express reason of disclaiming that I personally held it to be modernist.

So can all you clowns who are giving each other high fives apologise please?


The specific passage doesn't matter if it's modernist or not.    

You say on one hand that an error in the Catechisms doesn't  make the whole CCC modernist.  

But on the other hand, you say faults are inexcusable, subtlety doesn't excuse it,  It becomes more dangerous.  

For you to be consistent, you'd have to admit that IF there is any modernism in the CCC it is all the more dangerous.

This can be born out.  People who know the faith fairly well know that the Dutch Catechism is a trainwreck of modernism.   They might not be able to tell that the CCC is a hash job and they may think it actually is a "sure norm" for knowing the faith.
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. 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. The other difference is that  the church and the magisterium is there to expose the subtleties of deceit and error. We are not here to expose the subtleties of what we imagine to be error in the magisterium. The only judgement we can bring to the church is if they teach something which is blatantly heretical. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Reply
#56
(11-15-2009, 08:11 PM)petrelton Wrote:
(11-15-2009, 07:52 PM)CrusaderKing Wrote:
(11-15-2009, 07:29 PM)petrelton Wrote:
(11-15-2009, 07:28 PM)CrusaderKing Wrote:
(11-15-2009, 07:24 PM)petrelton Wrote:
(11-15-2009, 07:18 PM)CrusaderKing Wrote:
(11-12-2009, 01:48 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(11-11-2009, 05:58 PM)petrelton Wrote: One so-called modernist passage in the CCC does not make the whole CCC modernist. 


"But the fact that a fault is subtle does not excuse it in the least. Nay. It simply makes it all the more dangerous."--Petrelton on Archbishop LeFebvre.

There seems to be a double standard at work here.

It should (or really, must) also be pointed out that the current Catechism had errors when it was promulgated in 1992, then it had to be re-issued with corrections in 1994.
really. You've made this comment before. How is this relevant? What exactly were the errors of the 29 catechism. Were they spelling errors or what?

You wish they were spelling errors.

It's relevant because if there were errors found in the 1992 Catechism, who's to say there aren't errors in the current one?

I can tell you that the passage regarding capital punishment in the new Catechism is at odds with what the Church has taught about the subject for over 1900 years.
Can you tell me what was corrected in the 1994 catechism which was in error in 1992



Rather than list them all, click where it says, "editio typica modifications to the Catechism of the Catholic Church."

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
what's your point? How do you know that these are not simply enhancing the paragraphs to more clearly explain the original intent of the document. What makes you judge that these are corrections of errors?

The point is that there were errors in the translations, and errors in translations can lead to more serious errors. See the whole pro multis, "for many" vs "for all" debate. 

That was not even a Traditionalist website, yet even that site noted it was correcting the texts.
Reply
#57
(11-15-2009, 09:22 PM)CrusaderKing Wrote:
(11-15-2009, 08:11 PM)petrelton Wrote:
(11-15-2009, 07:52 PM)CrusaderKing Wrote:
(11-15-2009, 07:29 PM)petrelton Wrote:
(11-15-2009, 07:28 PM)CrusaderKing Wrote:
(11-15-2009, 07:24 PM)petrelton Wrote:
(11-15-2009, 07:18 PM)CrusaderKing Wrote:
(11-12-2009, 01:48 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(11-11-2009, 05:58 PM)petrelton Wrote: One so-called modernist passage in the CCC does not make the whole CCC modernist. 


"But the fact that a fault is subtle does not excuse it in the least. Nay. It simply makes it all the more dangerous."--Petrelton on Archbishop LeFebvre.

There seems to be a double standard at work here.

It should (or really, must) also be pointed out that the current Catechism had errors when it was promulgated in 1992, then it had to be re-issued with corrections in 1994.
really. You've made this comment before. How is this relevant? What exactly were the errors of the 29 catechism. Were they spelling errors or what?

You wish they were spelling errors.

It's relevant because if there were errors found in the 1992 Catechism, who's to say there aren't errors in the current one?

I can tell you that the passage regarding capital punishment in the new Catechism is at odds with what the Church has taught about the subject for over 1900 years.
Can you tell me what was corrected in the 1994 catechism which was in error in 1992



Rather than list them all, click where it says, "editio typica modifications to the Catechism of the Catholic Church."

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
what's your point? How do you know that these are not simply enhancing the paragraphs to more clearly explain the original intent of the document. What makes you judge that these are corrections of errors?

The point is that there were errors in the translations, and errors in translations can lead to more serious errors. See the whole pro multis, "for many" vs "for all" debate. 

That was not even a Traditionalist website, yet even that site noted it was correcting the texts.
How does errors in translations justify rejecting the catechism (which was written in Latin) or even regarding it with suspicion. Even the Bible has been subjected to errors in translation. Do we therefore regard it with suspicion also?
Reply
#58
(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.

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. 

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. 

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 full of subtlety, 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?" ) 

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. 

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. 


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"

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

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. " 


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

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



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:  "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches 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.”

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.

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.

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 WE, 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 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. 


Reply
#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 full of subtlety, 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"

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

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: 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

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



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:  "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches 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 WE, 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
#60
(11-16-2009, 01:11 AM)petrelton Wrote: OK fair enough. If you want to pin me down in that way then you are correct.

What do you mean "that way"?   I have proven you objectively employing a double standard.  There is no "way" it is what it is. 

Quote: If we perceive a subtle error in church teaching then we must yield to the magisterium submitting our opinions to the higher authority.

No. If it is in error, it is not church teaching.  It is the error or Churchmen.  If it is a question of settled doctrine, it is to be resisted whether or not the higher authority does anything or not. 

Quote: 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.

And consequently if a superior even a Pope opposes Church teaching by his actions, inaction or by his policies he should be "resisted to the face" as St. Paul did to St. Peter. 

Quote: 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.

What I call a double standard is your soft-pedaling any subtle error in the CCC and your declaration that a subtle error on Archbishop LeFebvre's part would be that much more dangerous. 

Quote: 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.

Uh...yeah.  The commentaries in the CCC suck.  Unfortunately to the unlearned, they can't tell a commentary from a doctrine. 

Quote: 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.

Please don't insult my nor anyone else's intelligence with this diversion of "the authority of the Church"   if you can't make a distinction between the policies and doctrine, Churchmen and The Church Herself, you aren't even in the conversation.   

Agreeing with Paul VI that the "smoke of Satan has entered into the Church and gone into the Sanctuary itself and to the highest levels of the Church"  is not forbidden.   Agreeing with St. Pius X that Modernism had found its way into the "ranks of the priesthood itself"  is not forbidden.  Ignore these moments of clarity and truth at your own peril.

"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. "

Prudence and experience dictates that, that approach doesn't work.  I don't want unity with heretics.  I WANT THEM OUT!  The sooner the BAD BISHOPS get their stiff-necked selves booted out by a Pope with some integrity, the better.  The floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of rotten bishops and Hell is probably getting a whole makeover because of the crew installed since the 1950's alone. 

Quote: 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.


2+2=4 is not a private opinion.  I have no opinions that are contrary to the official teachings of the Church.  I just know that the CCC has commentaries that are not based in fact and are some nameless, faceless clerics, useless meanderings trying to undermine the teachings that the commentaries follow. 


Quote: Huh? Run that by me again. Churchmen are not the magisterium. How do you figure that?

The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church.  It sits with the office of the Pope.  The Pope is not speaking as Peter when he writes his books "Jesus of Nazareth"  he is simply a theologian when he does that.  They could be filled with error. 

He must invoke the Magisterium.  There are 3 levels to that Magisterium.  The Extraordinary as defined by Vatican I,  the Ordinary (which is divided into the Ordinary Infallible and the Ordinary Authentic Magisterium)   Ordinary infallible is understood by being taught consistently by the Popes throughout history.  Ordinary Authentic is completely fallible and can be correct or incorrect depending on the facts, but it's authentic because it's the opinion of the Pope.   JPII closing the door on female ordinations is an exercise in the Ordinary infallible Magisterium.  His opinions on the Death Penalty are his Authentic opinions and are quite incorrect. 

Quote: How do you figure that the CCC is not magisterial?

I'll clarify, It is not infallible meaning it doesn't invoke the Ordinary or Extraordinary infallibility of the Church.  JPII's preface was only his opinion and therefore "Authentic" in the Magisterial sense but not in the sense that it carries any weight beyond the fact that he's the Pope and it's his personal opinion.

[/quote] You even contradict yourself. How can the CCC be approved by the magisterium and not be magisterial? [/quote]

It's approved by those who are charged with invoking the Magisterium.  But they didn't and couldn't because half the book would go up in smoke. 

Quote: 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. 

No.  I yield to the Magisterium of the Church, not the commentators of the CCC who undermine the doctrines they purport to "explain." 






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: 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.

No.  According to your approach.  You aren't even free to criticize the Dutch Catechism.  They are under their local ordinary, under the Pope.  Therefore in your eyes, there is no problem. 

How dare you call those Europeans Apostates.   It's not your place to do that. 

Quote: 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.

Provided that you catch it.  If you don't, you are lead into heresy. 


Quote: You however believe that you can reject whatever you like out of the CCC.

Oh that's not creating a strawman argument  is it?   Oh sure.  I've been trumpeting how I can reject whatever I like.   Is your position so weak that you can't even deal with what I'm stating honestly? 

Quote: All you have to do is detect in your mind an error and you are excused to abandon it.

No. I don't have to do that.  I simply have to point out objectively that something is not what it purports to be.   The law of non-contradiction is not "in my mind." 

Quote: This is a protestant viewpoint.

No it isn't and trying to set up a "guilt by association" works both ways.   You are just behaving as a Protestantized Catholic who takes the caricature of the Pope as expressed on EWTN and their band of Proto-Converts and takes the slur of Pope-worship and simply accepts it as an enjoyable appreciation of the "fullness of Catholic teaching." 

Quote: We are taught as catholics to submit to the higher authority in all things.

No "WE" aren't.   A priest tells you to drop your drawers, he is not to be obeyed unless you are literally on fire and he's got a bucket of water. 

Only God commands absolute submission.  All others are to be submitted to according to the conditions of the state of life and according to the principals of perfect, true and false obedience. 

Quote: 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.

That doesn't make any sense.  If you've accepted an error on the instruction of  a clergyman, you've already broken your communion with the Church.   If you hold fast to what has been taught by the Church from the beginning, you can't break unity with the Church no matter what any clergyman says. 

Quote: 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.

Some of them might even be dead.  You could crack open a book written in the 1200's and find your answer there. 

Quote: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.

Oh here with go with all the "buzzwords" from not-so-Catholic Answers.  "Schismatic Mentality" always sounds great and means nothing. 

Plenty of people got to Heaven without the floating down from the clouds CCC.  I bought my copy and came to the same conclusion as Fr. Malachi Martin described it.   "I went through and underlined in red everything that was doctrinally correct.  Everything that Innocent III or Gregory XVI or Pius IX would agree with.  And it's all there.  But then you have to ask, "Whats the other stuff?"  And it's a dizzying series of explanations that destroys the clarity of the faith.  It's the same fine hand that was at Vatican II, like trying to fool old Isaac, I hear the voice of Jacob but it feels like the hand of Esau. " 


Quote: What are you on about? What is this churchmen / magisterium divide you are constructing here?

I'm not constructing anything.  That's what it is.  You have confused the Churchmen and the Magisterium of the Church as the Magisterium is the "Congress" of the Church. 

Quote: This is a concept you have dreamed up in your head. The clergy is the magisterium of the church. 

No. The clergy is the clergy.  The Magisterium is the teaching authority given to the offices of the clergy.

Quote: Even the false bishops who tear at the flock are the magisterium.


No they aren't.  That's like calling the Pope "the Infallilbility" of the Church.  The Infallibility said Mass this morning.  The Infallibility ate egg for breakfast. etc. 

Quote: Sometimes we must hide from false bishops and priests and seek out true ones in a time of crisis such as this.

Crisis?  What crisis?  How do you know when there's a false bishop or priest?  Do you write a letter to the Vatican and ask them to clarify? 


Quote:And always we have recourse to Rome.

No. Not always.  The Maronites were cut off for over a century from Rome.  The Great Schism produced 3 claimants to the papacy and Saints took opposing sides at times. 

Quote:  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.

You don't have a promise from Jesus that you won't fail though. 

Quote: Therefore there is never any need to rebel.

False conclusion.  There is never any need for a Pope to rebel against the Tradition of the Church, but when he does, there is a need to rebel against the Pope. 

Are you new to this?  Haven't you seen the teachings of the Doctors of the Church?  Augustine? Aquinas?  St. Robt. Bellarmine?  They all teach about licit resistance. 

Quote:  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.

No it's not.  It's about errors in the CCC.  Which despite the propaganda the late Pope heaped upon it, is not a sure norm for learning the Catholic faith.

Quote: 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.

That would be archaeologism which was condemned by Pius XII.  It's the dissidents who ignored that condemnation and gave us the Novus Ordo and Cardinal Schonborn with his silly blasphemous and sacrilegious masses who put together the CCC. 

Quote: 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.

I just quoted an infallible document from a Pope in an ecumenical Council.   A quote that is flatly contradicted by the CCC.   As far as Feeney goes, he did not deny anything.  God gives everyone sufficient grace to find Him and His Church.  St. Thomas teaches that should this be difficult, He will send an Angel to instruct him if necessary. (And yes, Angels can Baptize)  Any kind of Baptism of Blood or Desire would be accompanied by a gratuitous and miraculous Baptism.  There is no denial of anything.

Quote: Have you been reading Michael Dimond Most Holy Family Monastery have you?

No.  Not a particular fan of the Dimond Bros. 

Quote:  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.

Yeah.  That's yet another strawman argument set up to say what Vatican II "counters."  This canard about "visibly" belonging to the Catholic Church is a complete fiction put out to slam Fr. Feeney. 
Unless of course you can provide a quote that Fr. Feeney thought that the parish register was the way to Salvation.  But I doubt you've ever actually read anything by the man to find out what the story was. 

Quote: 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.

Now, you are just trailing off into hyperbole.   You deny the infallible Cantate Domino and you believe the errors of the CCC.  Good luck with that. 

Quote: Yep. Definately Most Holy Family Monastery here.

Hah.  That's like ignoring the Bible because Protestants or Orthodox use it.   As if it's not a magisterial document. 

Quote: 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.

Look at how the devil makes you panic when you come face to face with actual Catholic Dogma.  He's got you so comfortable in your Novus Ordo neo-Catholicism-lite.  That you are running from the grace of knowing the truth. 

You deny the teaching of the Church on the levels of the Magisterium, you deny the Papal Bull Cantate Domino which spells out very clearly and with a higher level of authority than the CCC just what the Church teaches.   You are resisting the known truth. 


Quote: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.

There was not a word from the Dimond bros. in that quote.  It was all the Pope.   The context was sufficient.  He professed what the Church teaches.

Quote:  It assumes that the church has not been growing in the revelation of the Holy Spirit at all since the 1400's.

Now we come to the evolution of dogma, modernist junk.   Have you never read the anti-Modernist oath or the Syllabus of Errors? 

Quote:  Nevertheless you are pointing out what appears to be two irreconcilable positions.

No. They aren't.  And I demonstrated it above. 

Quote:  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?

Because they stopped believing that what happened to the Ethiopian Eunuch could still happen and they ignored St. Thomas' teaching.    Where men of good will are, God will get them into the Church.  God is not a failure.  The Church teaches that all men recieve the grace to get into the Church.  Whether Angels infuse them with knowledge and Baptize them and how many times that happens is not my concern.  I only care about what the Church has actually taught. 

Quote: The church has proposed the answer that in some invisible way the invincibally ignorant are members of the church just like Abraham was.

Abraham was not ignorant and he was saved under the Old Covenant. (Which was made with him personally.)

Churchmen have proposed something.  Nothing has been revealed.   Our Lord even said and numerous saints have spoken of the few that would be saved. 

And a certain man said to him: Lord, are they few that are saved? But he said to them: 24 Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able. 25 But when the master of the house shall be gone in, and shall shut the door, you shall begin to stand without, and knock at the door, saying: Lord, open to us. And he answering, shall say to you: I know you not, whence you are.

Quote:  Men who obey God to the extent that they understand him and believe him.

This is Karl Rahner, not the Catholic Church. 

Quote: 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?

The Old Covenant is closed.  No one got to Heaven before the Resurrection of Our Lord.  He made Baptism obligatory after the Resurrection.   It's easier to get to Heaven after Christ than it was before, so arguing based on Abraham doesn't work well. 

Quote: 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?

I don't get it, are you saying that prior to the 1400's the Church didn't acknowledge the Old Testament saints? 

Quote: 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.

The invisible attachment is called the Church Suffering and the Church Triumphant.  You are taking the fact that Baptism can be valid outside the parish registry and children who die before the age of reason and are Baptized are part of  the Church due to the Sanctifying Grace of the Sacrament.  This is what Card. Bea was using as his basis for the ecumenical movement for the Church.  Of course, it quickly got blown out of proportion with Rahner's "anonymous Christian" garbage. 

Quote: 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.

The Apostle Paul was a Catholic.

Quote: 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.

As Augustine and Aquinas state, Paul set and example to be followed.  The very fact that God specifically wanted that episode recorded in Scripture should be enough to tell us that.

Quote: 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.

Martin Luther was corrected and chose to ignore that correction.  Martin Luther rejected Catholic doctrine to make things easier on himself (so he thought)  But Luther had the courtesy to be clear and the Hierarchy had the guts to correct him and bounce him out with clarity.  Ever since John XXIII's opening speech that is no longer done and truth and error are allowed to co-exist in the "visible Church"

Quote: 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.

That's an assertion without any facts to back it up.   Why would Paul even say it, if it were not a possibility? 

Quote: Again. Utter rubbish. This is hearsay opinion and you have no evidence to prove or assert this.

There are volumes of evidence and the public breaking of the first commandment at the Assisi gatherings is more than enough proof. 

Quote: 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.

Let's not exaggerate.  The mentally ill and handicapped are by our standards invincibly ignorant.  God can always give them a help before the end.  Tradition has it that the Holy Innocent were enlightened and willingly accepted their deaths prior to their martyrdom. Trent infallibly stated that true and natural water was necessary.  It didn't say it had to be witnessed by a human or that an Angel or Saint or Padre Pio bi-locating couldn't administer it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)