ORthodox perspective of Traditionalist Catholics
#31
(05-13-2012, 11:05 PM)Silouan Wrote:
(05-13-2012, 10:36 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(05-13-2012, 09:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: "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" - Pope Eugene IV

"For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation." - Pope John Paul II

So which of your infallible pontiffs do you follow on this...

Actually, those two are easy to reconcile.  If you keep reading Cantate Domino of Pope Eugene it says "unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

John Paul II, whether he knew it or not, or was trying to hide it, was describing infused knowledge and a direct, gratuitous gift of God in an effort to gain them entrance into the Church necessarily before death. .  St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that if none are around to instruct someone an Angel of God will show up to instruct them.  Salvation is accessible because direct action by God to give them knowledge and access to the Church is accessible through a special grace and action of God.

Pope Eugene clearly established the parameters.  JPII was not able to cross them even though he wrote something ambiguous that people without  a sacramental understanding or Thomistic knowledge would believe mistakenly was  in opposition to the previous statement. 

You can follow Pope Eugene without difficulty.  You can't follow JPII without Pope Eugene before him and positively be sure of the orthodox understanding.   JPII is actually unnecessary in his explanation of things.  He simply covered non-infallibly an explanation of already infallibly defined matters in a confused manner.  But he didn't actually state anything heretical or bind anyone to his formula or anathematize the Cantate Domino definition. 



Spoken like a true modern Roman Catholic. I spent years on CAF with Catholics explaining to me that various papal statement don't really mean what they say. The funny thing is they would normally come up with the opposite actual meaning from you. 8)

How is Gerard being modern?  He gave a perfectly sensible answer in a succinct manner and you resort to being sarcastic.  What does that say about you?

Regarding CAF, they are mostly 'former' Protestants who went through RCIA with piss poor instruction conducted by an assortment of weird people, heretics, and portly bearded men lacking in masculinity (not to mention authentic Catholic teaching.)  CAF is not even an official organ of the Church in America so who cares what some random confused people/electronic robots are saying?

Silouan, I'm not expecting you to turn 180 degrees now, but between Gerard, CP, and me, you have been given very good answers.  I invite you to sit back, crack open a few Blue Moons and seriously consider what we are providing.  I believe you are earnestly seeking truth- pull back a bit, pray and light will shine.
Reply
#32
(05-13-2012, 11:05 PM)Silouan Wrote: Spoken like a true modern Roman Catholic. I spent years on CAF with Catholics explaining to me that various papal statement don't really mean what they say. The funny thing is they would normally come up with the opposite actual meaning from you. 8)

That's not my fault that you spent years on CAF with those idiots.  I was eventually kicked off of there for explaining Catholicism correctly.  They don't like non-modernist explanations that fit with perennial teaching over there.  Infallibility doesn't guarantee clarity, it prevents error from being imposed.  The fact that liberal Popes try to dance around the hard truths is an aspect of bad character, not a fault of the institution of the papacy.

I pointed out objectively that there was no contradiction.  If you can point out the contradiction objectively go ahead.  "Access to salvation" is not "Salvation"  Pope Eugene drew the line as 'Before death."  One year, one hour, one second it could be. I know qualifiers are difficult things to deal with but deal with them we must. 

You can't just put a veil over everything and blow smoke around it  till you forget the question all the time. 
Reply
#33
(05-13-2012, 11:38 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(05-13-2012, 11:05 PM)Silouan Wrote: Spoken like a true modern Roman Catholic. I spent years on CAF with Catholics explaining to me that various papal statement don't really mean what they say. The funny thing is they would normally come up with the opposite actual meaning from you. 8)

That's not my fault that you spent years on CAF with those idiots.  I was eventually kicked off of there for explaining Catholicism correctly.  They don't like non-modernist explanations that fit with perennial teaching over there.  Infallibility doesn't guarantee clarity, it prevents error from being imposed.  The fact that liberal Popes try to dance around the hard truths is an aspect of bad character, not a fault of the institution of the papacy.

I pointed out objectively that there was no contradiction.  If you can point out the contradiction objectively go ahead.  "Access to salvation" is not "Salvation"  Pope Eugene drew the line as 'Before death."  One year, one hour, one second it could be. I know qualifiers are difficult things to deal with but deal with them we must. 

You can't just put a veil over everything and blow smoke around it  till you forget the question all the time. 

Gerard, I hate to take the "wrong side" here, but the VII BS has officially created half (more) of a generation of Catholics (if not more generations) who believe that you get to heaven by "being a good person" (basically, not be a murderer or rapist) because an angel will visit you the second you're dying, because God "loves everyone".

Whether Eugene was right or not (I believe he was) is not the point. 

Our recent popes, blessed allegedly with the charism of infallibility have let us down to say the least.
Reply
#34
(05-13-2012, 09:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: And what to do when those solemn pronouncements clearly contradict each other?

Well, the authority of the Church cannot give us error, even when some people have seemingly foisted error on to the people. If you want to know my take on this, as well as that of many other Catholics, please see the Cornfield.

(05-13-2012, 09:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: Not according to the infallible Magisterium of the Catholic Church as expressed in papal statements and conciliar documents from Vatican II onward.

Distinguo. See the above.

(05-13-2012, 09:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: "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" - Pope Eugene IV

"For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation." - Pope John Paul II

So which of your infallible pontiffs do you follow on this teaching?

Eugene IV. See above.

[
(05-13-2012, 09:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: Yes, but many do. What do you think of them? Do you not see a fundamental inconsistency in their position?

I think they are mistaken, and that their position is fundamentally inconsistent.

(05-13-2012, 09:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: That it is. I suppose that means you're only able to criticize each other? Either way, the rest of this statement is nothing but an excuse to throw insults. It certainly has nothing to do with the point I was making.

What is your point? I will absolutely criticize anyone who comes onto this message, especially non-Catholics, those are are outside of the bosom of Holy Mother Church, the Ark of Salvation, and say that the Roman Catholic faithful rolled over "like sheep."

(05-13-2012, 09:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: What in the world are you talking about? Pretty sure we're still here and going strong.

[Image: 172832808.jpg]

Sure. Nice vestments, nice churches, even liturgical piety. This cannot make up for heresies and schism.
Reply
#35
(05-13-2012, 11:52 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(05-13-2012, 09:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: And what to do when those solemn pronouncements clearly contradict each other?

Well, the authority of the Church cannot give us error, even when some people have seemingly foisted error on to the people. If you want to know my take on this, as well as that of many other Catholics, please see the Cornfield.

(05-13-2012, 09:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: Not according to the infallible Magisterium of the Catholic Church as expressed in papal statements and conciliar documents from Vatican II onward.

Distinguo. See the above.

(05-13-2012, 09:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: "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" - Pope Eugene IV

"For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation." - Pope John Paul II

So which of your infallible pontiffs do you follow on this teaching?

Eugene IV. See above.

[
(05-13-2012, 09:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: Yes, but many do. What do you think of them? Do you not see a fundamental inconsistency in their position?

I think they are mistaken, and that their position is fundamentally inconsistent.

(05-13-2012, 09:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: That it is. I suppose that means you're only able to criticize each other? Either way, the rest of this statement is nothing but an excuse to throw insults. It certainly has nothing to do with the point I was making.

What is your point? I will absolutely criticize anyone who comes onto this message, especially non-Catholics, those are are outside of the bosom of Holy Mother Church, the Ark of Salvation, and say that the Roman Catholic faithful rolled over "like sheep."

(05-13-2012, 09:01 PM)Silouan Wrote: What in the world are you talking about? Pretty sure we're still here and going strong.

[Image: 172832808.jpg]

Sure. Nice vestments, nice churches, even liturgical piety. This cannot make up for heresies and schism.


I genuinely wonder if you are really paying attention to what I am writing.  Huh?
Reply
#36
Quote:I genuinely wonder if you are really paying attention to what I am writing.

You're criticizing the SSPX position in re. the post-Concilliar magisterium. Of that I can see. However, they are wrong for the right reasons. If I may say so, you are right for the wrong reasons.
Reply
#37
Silouan, you seem to have a very "absolutist" view of the papacy. This is, unfortunately, quite common amongst Catholics, but it is not the only option. Here is Pope Benedict on the role of the papacy:
Quote:In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not "manufactured" by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. Here again, as with the questions of icons and sacred music, we come up against the special path trod by the West as opposed to the East. And here again is it true that this special path, which finds space for freedom and historical development, must not be condemned wholesale. However, it would lead to the breaking up of the foundations of Christian identity if the fundamental intuitions of the East, which are the fundamental intuitions of the early Church, were abandoned. The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. Still less is any kind of general "freedom" of manufacture, degenerating into spontaneous improvisation, compatible with the essence of faith and liturgy.
Reply
#38
I would also like to say that any kind of attacks against Catholic doctrine, even if very implicit via criticism of the concilliar popes and teachings, should not be allowed on this forum, for it is a Roman Catholic forum.
Reply
#39
CP which Benedict said that? The XV or the XVI?
Reply
#40
The XVI

Grin

It's from The Spirit of the Liturgy.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)