ORthodox perspective of Traditionalist Catholics
#41
Gerard, I think the contradiction Silouan is referring to concerns the implications of John Paul's statement. He says:

"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."

In essence, what he says is that (1) salvation in Christ is accessible (2) without being formally part of the Church.

The Church has always distinguished between visible and invisible, and actual and virtual membership, but I am not familiar with a distintion between formal and informal membership. "Formal" and "informal" refer to different attributes of the Church's visibility, but not to individual persons' membership. She teaches, for examle, that one can be an invisible member of the Church, and She even distinguishes between virtual and actual (such as when it concerns intention), as the theologians have taught, but that is not the same as being informally part of the Church. All must be formally attached to the Church, if one insists on making a distinction (though I am not aware that any distinction even exists), but we, as humans with limited knowledge, may not know that they are attached. Such an attachment is invisible, but not informal. We get a glimpse of how John Paul defines "formal" attachment to the Church when he says that it "enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation." This is a very dangerous theological path to thread, since it sits upon a very slippery slope. It implies that God will mold the Church to their circumstances rather than that they mold themselves to Christ's Church.

I am not arguing that the statement is heretical, but I do see why Silouan would find it troubling.
Reply
#42
(05-12-2012, 01:35 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: A pretty interesting short read. It is essentially the paradox of groups like the SSPX. My emphasis added:

Quote:Thus, when Roman Catholic traditionalists separate from Rome over issues of traditional practice, they obviously separate themselves from the very source of Roman Catholic authenticity. One can persuasively argue that since, unlike Orthodox, they do not attribute primacy to Holy Tradition, Roman Catholic traditionalists have no foundation on which to justify their schism from the Mother Church of Rome, especially when such separation is forbidden by the Pope himself, the very criterion of authenticity.

Archbishop Lefebvre did not separate from the Church.  He disobeyed the Roman Pontiff because the Roman Pontiff wanted him to do something he knew in conscience to be immoral.  Pope Paul VI, therefore, suspended Lefebvre a divinis.

Furthermore, Lefebvre identified statements made by members of the Magisterium as though they were engaged in teaching the Church that clearly contradict previous teaching by the Magisterium.  This is very different from mere "traditional practices."

And what I have just described is very different from what YOU think happened.

(05-12-2012, 01:35 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: Thus, how to what do the SSPX cling to that they consider themselves the Church?

Stop reading anti-SSPX websites and articles that clearly have no idea what anyone in the SSPX leadership has ever said about their existence.  Lefebvre adamantly resisted ALL attempts by ANYONE in the Society to try to set up some of kind of alternate "church."  Get that straight right now.

(05-12-2012, 01:35 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: How is what they have done not schism? How does actions and teachings of recent Popes and Councils, which seems to depart from Tradition, stand to be believed. On the one hand, some Catholics claim Papal supremacy to the extent that teachings can be changed. Other Catholics reject popes who change doctrine even though they are the succesors of Peter. In the middle you have Catholics who stumble between Tradition and contradictions of current magesterium and try to reconcile the irreconcilable. So what do you do? Do you cling to the Faith of the Fathers, or to the succession and visible Church?

You are clearly completely unfamiliar with the primary documents of the history of the SSPX and its relations with the Vatican.  Please go here and spend a Saturday reading ALL of it:

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbi...he_Vatican

When I say primary documents, I'm talking about TYPED CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE VATICAN AND ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE THAT HAS BEEN MADE PUBLIC BY BOTH PARTIES.

I spent several days reading ALL of this stuff.  If you want to debate this issue, please do the same and familiarize yourself as well with the relevant canons of the Code.
Reply
#43
(05-13-2012, 11:51 PM)Norbert Wrote: 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".

No, they don't believe that at all. They believe God is a liar who can lie because He's God. And He'll break His own Word because He's allowed to.  That's the post-conciliar belief/error.  Again, the angel coming to instruct someone is St. Thomas Aquinas, the last minute conversion is St. John Vianney, the miraculous work of God is the deacon Phillip and the Ethiopian Eunuch.  That's the pre-conciliar understanding.

Quote: 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.

I don't dispute the fact that the recent Popes are disappointment.  But we have to be honest about what they do and say specifically and formally.  The fact that they make their statements ambiguous enough to lead others into heretical beliefs without formally going into heresy themselves is lamentable but accurate. 

Pope Eugene was absolutely correct in his definition, JPII's wording must be objectively capable of fitting Eugene's definition.  The fact that people draw inferences from JPII that are heretical doesn't count.  Even if JPII interiorly agreed with the inference drawn by others, the inferences are not a part of the objective words of the magisterium. 
Reply
#44
(05-14-2012, 12:58 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: Gerard, I think the contradiction Silouan is referring to concerns the implications of John Paul's statement. He says:

"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."

In essence, what he says is that (1) salvation in Christ is accessible (2) without being formally part of the Church.

The Church has always distinguished between visible and invisible, and actual and virtual membership, but I am not familiar with a distintion between formal and informal membership. "Formal" and "informal" refer to different attributes of the Church's visibility, but not to individual persons' membership. She teaches, for examle, that one can be an invisible member of the Church, and She even distinguishes between virtual and actual (such as when it concerns intention), as the theologians have taught, but that is not the same as being informally part of the Church. All must be formally attached to the Church, if one insists on making a distinction (though I am not aware that any distinction even exists), but we, as humans with limited knowledge, may not know that they are attached. Such an attachment is invisible, but not informal. We get a glimpse of how John Paul defines "formal" attachment to the Church when he says that it "enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation." This is a very dangerous theological path to thread, since it sits upon a very slippery slope. It implies that God will mold the Church to their circumstances rather than that they mold themselves to Christ's Church.

I am not arguing that the statement is heretical, but I do see why Silouan would find it troubling.

For whatever confused language JPII uses, the description is of one who 1) is not a formal member of the Church, 2) has a mysterious relationship with the Church and 3) has been given grace which enlightens them and from that 4) they have access to salvation "in Christ" (which is just another way of saying The Church.) By enlightening them in a way accomodated to their spiritual and material needs, it has to mean that they are given the proper knowledge and circumstances to enter the Church before death as Pope Eugene states. .  As a person who takes the "Feeney" position, I can only see that as something that would be accomplished by a person (angelic or human) in some manner providing a water Baptism with instruction and / or infused knowledge.
Reply
#45
(05-14-2012, 09:45 AM)Gerard Wrote:
(05-14-2012, 12:58 AM)INPEFESS Wrote: Gerard, I think the contradiction Silouan is referring to concerns the implications of John Paul's statement. He says:

"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."

In essence, what he says is that (1) salvation in Christ is accessible (2) without being formally part of the Church.

The Church has always distinguished between visible and invisible, and actual and virtual membership, but I am not familiar with a distintion between formal and informal membership. "Formal" and "informal" refer to different attributes of the Church's visibility, but not to individual persons' membership. She teaches, for examle, that one can be an invisible member of the Church, and She even distinguishes between virtual and actual (such as when it concerns intention), as the theologians have taught, but that is not the same as being informally part of the Church. All must be formally attached to the Church, if one insists on making a distinction (though I am not aware that any distinction even exists), but we, as humans with limited knowledge, may not know that they are attached. Such an attachment is invisible, but not informal. We get a glimpse of how John Paul defines "formal" attachment to the Church when he says that it "enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation." This is a very dangerous theological path to thread, since it sits upon a very slippery slope. It implies that God will mold the Church to their circumstances rather than that they mold themselves to Christ's Church.

I am not arguing that the statement is heretical, but I do see why Silouan would find it troubling.

For whatever confused language JPII uses, the description is of one who 1) is not a formal member of the Church, 2) has a mysterious relationship with the Church and 3) has been given grace which enlightens them and from that 4) they have access to salvation "in Christ" (which is just another way of saying The Church.) By enlightening them in a way accomodated to their spiritual and material needs, it has to mean that they are given the proper knowledge and circumstances to enter the Church before death as Pope Eugene states. .  As a person who takes the "Feeney" position, I can only see that as something that would be accomplished by a person (angelic or human) in some manner providing a water Baptism with instruction and / or infused knowledge.

I disagree with that interpretation of his statement, since it makes his statement contradictory at best. He says that this grace of enlightenment "does not make them formally part of the Church" yet grants them access to salvation anyway. It is tempting to make his statement say what you have made it say, but if you do that then the statement makes no sense, since it contradicts itself. It says this enlightening grace gives them access to salvation via their own particular circumstances without them being formally a part of the Church. You argue that his statement says that "they have access to salvation 'in Christ' (which is just another way of saying The Church)," but that is an interpolation. He never actually said that; in fact, his words preclude that interpretation since he says that this access to salvation "in Christ" via this circumstantial grace does not make them formally part of the Church. In other words, they can be saved by Christ without being in His Church. It sees that the way you reached your interpretation is by reordering the points in his statement: you placed "is not a formal member of the Church" first and then put "they have access to salvation 'in Christ' (which is just another way of saying The Church)" last. But that is not the order in which he presented his statements. If he did, it would be a self-contradiction. He argues that they have access to salvation "in Christ" first and then qualifies it by adding that they are not formally part of the Church. The order you have given it renders it a contradiction at best and a reflection of the Modernist interpretation of EENS as "salvation through the Church" as opposed to "salvation in the Church" at worst.
Reply
#46
(05-14-2012, 12:40 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: 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.


Then you have to shut down most SSPX discussion as they have a lot of criticism for conciliar popes and teachings.


Reply
#47
(05-14-2012, 12:40 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: 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.

With all due respect, that line of thinking is exactly what the modernists want.
Reply
#48
(05-14-2012, 12:47 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: I disagree with that interpretation of his statement, since it makes his statement contradictory at best. He says that this grace of enlightenment "does not make them formally part of the Church" yet grants them access to salvation anyway. It is tempting to make his statement say what you have made it say, but if you do that then the statement makes no sense, since it contradicts itself. It says this enlightening grace gives them access to salvation via their own particular circumstances without them being formally a part of the Church. You argue that his statement says that "they have access to salvation 'in Christ' (which is just another way of saying The Church)," but that is an interpolation. He never actually said that; in fact, his words preclude that interpretation since he says that this access to salvation "in Christ" via this circumstantial grace does not make them formally part of the Church. In other words, they can be saved by Christ without being in His Church. It sees that the way you reached your interpretation is by reordering the points in his statement: you placed "is not a formal member of the Church" first and then put "they have access to salvation 'in Christ' (which is just another way of saying The Church)" last. But that is not the order in which he presented his statements. If he did, it would be a self-contradiction. He argues that they have access to salvation "in Christ" first and then qualifies it by adding that they are not formally part of the Church. The order you have given it renders it a contradiction at best and a reflection of the Modernist interpretation of EENS as "salvation through the Church" as opposed to "salvation in the Church" at worst.

JPII thinks phenomenologically.  Everything is the relationship and the acting person with him.  Look at the paragraph prior to the one cited in Redemptoris Missio,  He points out that the Church is vehicle that Christ has chosen to carry out his salvific work.  He's pointing out that God gives everyone the grace to enter the Church somehow even though the Church hasn't penetrated to every individual.  His talk of God's grace accomodating itself to their material circumstances doesn't rule out the natural conclusion, that that grace alters the persons material circumstances in their membership in the Church if they choose to cooperate with the grace offered. 



"9. The first beneficiary of salvation is the Church. Christ won the Church for himself at the price of his own blood and made the Church his co-worker in the salvation of the world. Indeed, Christ dwells within the Church. She is his Bride. It is he who causes her to grow. He carries out his mission through her.

The Council makes frequent reference to the Church's role in the salvation of mankind. While acknowledging that God loves all people and grants them the possibility of being saved (cf. l Tm 2:4),15 the Church believes that God has established Christ as the one mediator and that she herself has been established as the universal sacrament of salvation. 16 "To this catholic unity of the people of God, therefore,...all are called, and they belong to it or are ordered to it in various ways, whether they be Catholic faithful or others who believe in Christ or finally all people everywhere who by the grace of God are called to salvation."17 It is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for salvation. Both these truths help us to understand the one mystery of salvation, so that we can come to know God's mercy and our own responsibility. Salvation, which always remains a gift of the Holy Spirit, requires man's cooperation, both to save himself and to save others. This is God's will, and this is why he established the Church and made her a part of his plan of salvation. Referring to "this messianic people," the Council says; "It has been set up by Christ as a communion of life, love and truth; by him too it is taken up as the instrument of salvation for all, and sent on a mission to the whole world as the light of the world and the salt of the earth."18"

Reply
#49
(05-14-2012, 01:03 PM)Silouan Wrote:
(05-14-2012, 12:40 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: 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.


Then you have to shut down most SSPX discussion as they have a lot of criticism for conciliar popes and teachings.

Like I said, they are wrong for the right reasons, you're right for the wrong reasons. I co wider the SSPX position to be illogical, but at they err in good faith trying to be faithful to true Roman Catholicism. You are criticizing SSPXers and those who criticize post concilliar novelties, scandals, and heresies not because of concern for Roman Catholic truth, but to ultimately serve your Eastern schismatic agenda.

P.S. please take none of this personally, Silouan. I sincerely hope you abandon schism and heresy and enter into the Roman Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation. I only tell you this in fraternal charity and concern.
Reply
#50
(05-14-2012, 02:30 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(05-14-2012, 01:03 PM)Silouan Wrote:
(05-14-2012, 12:40 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: 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.


Then you have to shut down most SSPX discussion as they have a lot of criticism for conciliar popes and teachings.

Like I said, they are wrong for the right reasons, you're right for the wrong reasons. I co wider the SSPX position to be illogical, but at they err in good faith trying to be faithful to true Roman Catholicism. You are criticizing SSPXers and those who criticize post concilliar novelties, scandals, and heresies not because of concern for Roman Catholic truth, but to ultimately serve your Eastern schismatic agenda.

P.S. please take none of this personally, Silouan. I sincerely hope you abandon schism and heresy and enter into the Roman Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation. I only tell you this in fraternal charity and concern.

I'm sorry, it is not clear to me what makes a Western schismatic agenda preferable to an Eastern schismatic agenda?  Huh?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)