Which One of These is Not Like the Others?
#31
Walty conceded earlier that heretical ministers can be used as the material means that God uses to create new members of the Church, so what's the problem again with the last quote? It's a very modest proposition.

As for visibility of the Church, the invisible aspect of her nature is affirmed in the Apostles Creed when we affirm the communion of saints. We shouldnt fear saying the Church has some non visible elements out of fear of being confused with Martin Luther. There is a Catholic both/and opposed to the fundamentalist either/or.

There is no change in dogma here when we assume the proper metaphysics in our analysis. That the contrary interpretation of quotes like this have been allowed to persist without proper context or qualification is the real issue. That's a matter of administration, not doctrine.

Reply
#32
(06-25-2012, 01:23 AM)Ray M Facere Wrote: Walty conceded earlier that heretical ministers can be used as the material means that God uses to create new members of the Church, so what's the problem again with the last quote? It's a very modest proposition.

1) Because it is the Catholic Church that is the means of salvation, not the sect of perdition. That is like saying that the Romans and Jews were part of the Church since they were the material means that God used to begin it. The real answer is that God uses evil for good and would use the evil of a schismatic or heretic to bring someone into the Church. It does not make the schismatic or heretic united to the Church in any way simply because God used it for a greater good. On such a slippery slope as that, the devil, too, could be part of the Church, since God can use his constant temptations to perfect souls and bring them into the Church.

2) Because non-Catholic Christians are not part of the "one church." An individual Christian may be by way of ignorance, but non-Catholic Christians as a group are not united to the Church.
Reply
#33
(06-25-2012, 01:23 AM)Ray M Facere Wrote: Walty conceded earlier that heretical ministers can be used as the material means that God uses to create new members of the Church, so what's the problem again with the last quote? It's a very modest proposition.

As for visibility of the Church, the invisible aspect of her nature is affirmed in the Apostles Creed when we affirm the communion of saints. We shouldnt fear saying the Church has some non visible elements out of fear of being confused with Martin Luther. There is a Catholic both/and opposed to the fundamentalist either/or.

There is no change in dogma here when we assume the proper metaphysics in our analysis. That the contrary interpretation of quotes like this have been allowed to persist without proper context or qualification is the real issue. That's a matter of administration, not doctrine.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but the whole idea does seem like it might reduce the role of the Church in the process of salvation, or at least the idea of the Church as a real, historical community.
Reply
#34
(06-24-2012, 10:38 PM)Walty Wrote:
(06-24-2012, 10:30 PM)JayneK Wrote: I did not convert directly from Judaism to Catholicism.  I spend some years as a Fundamentalist Protestant.  It was a position closer to the truth than I had been and was a step that helped me to become Catholic.  Being Protestant was a means of truth and grace for me.

No one is arguing that there is not truth in Protestantism.  Nor is anyone arguing that God cannot call anyone to the Church from any state in life.  What is being challenged is the idea that Protestantism itself is a means of salvation.

If it is a means of salvation, then your conversion wasn't strictly necessary.

Means or... instrument? Let's keep the word usages in line with what Pope Benedict XVI said and as he has used the word before. Once you do that, it becomes very clear what he meant. We are saved by grace through faith and works, no -ism. The -ism is the conduit to the most perfect ability to have everything needed if you just go with it. Those outside the Church are the ones who should be struggling more. However, no one said Protestantism is a means of salvation in terms of the -ism. Just as Protestantism is a heresy whereas there's not very many Protestant heretics in comparison to their forebears. They are, as the Pope says, "a new phenomena". And he's absolutely right. It's just not the super old denominations, as they were. There are "trad" Lutherans too. Anglicans. Even traditional Methodists and Baptists. They've been totally confused and gobsmacked by the "emergent church" and all the free love and insanity it preaches with its rock n roll services.

And even those "trad" Protestants aren't really culpable for the fact of growing up with virtually no exposure to the Church, or without the ability to understand the doctrine of the Church, or even have it explained correctly by one who is responsible for that very thing.

But make no mistake that they are paying very large amounts of attention to the battle waged over the HHS deal. They're starting to realize they don't have much protection, nor is their doctrine staying the same even within 50 years. The basic truths of the faith never change for the Church. This is going to be more obvious as they come in, and they will. But they also know the Bible like the back of their hand, long passages memorized, and all they will need is the correct doctrine to flip them into some of the most powerful preachers ever seen, preaching correct doctrine. You have no idea what a good fire-and-brimstone preacher is capable of.

But they know the Bible, and there are certain passages that are just universally agreed on in what they say, Romans 2 included. And Romans 2 is the axis point everyone here is overlooking if in disagreemet, as the Protestants of today are in a unique, though untenable position- baptized, yet that includes them in the Church, though they have no access to the Sacraments or correct doctrine. They sort of like the Samaritans in this regard. They have a pretty good idea on certain things, and others there is just stark disagreement, and enmity is always present in some form.

The Church was already founded when St. Paul wrote Romans 2. He couldn't have been screwing up and he certainly couldn't have found his writing included if wrong. And especially not for the last 2k years of being true, suddenly finds itself untrue because one is not willing to think in a logical, connect the dots way. If you want to claim the title Israel, own it correctly!

Israel-Church
Church-all saved

Israel-law
Church- law established by faith

Law- profits if kept

Gentiles- no law
Jews- law

Catholics- fulfilled Jews (grafted into or back into the tree of Israel, which is the Church, having always been the promise of the covenant as says prophecy)

Non-Catholic Christians- baptized, yet, do not know there is a law to observe; as if circumcised gentiles without Torah or sacrifice. Subject to a law they cannot follow, yet, baptized. Odd, a phenomena.

Non-Catholics- no baptism
Gentiles- no circumcision
Gentiles- do those things of the law as per their conscience and heart, having not the law; a law unto themselves (in other words, not perfect or easy, but is a law which they follow, as God has placed in their heart. This desire would, if they had full understanding of the truth of the Church (which is to say, truly know the truth), they must pursue it. But there are circumstances they cannot meet the onus for culpability to do so. This category can break the law by violating the grace at baptism and must meet the same contrition for sin as anyone to be forgiven in such a situation. They have to ask for it. They have to know they need it. Flounder over past sins for which they've honestly begged forgiveness, as their doctrine is confusing to them since many subscribe to once saved, always saved. Which of course is a totally evil lie.

Catholics- those who have the law, and break the law; a complete market crash on the profit of baptism; needs forgiveness; transgressed God's law. Need forgiveness. Need contrition. Have priest to forgive and know it, thus making the process easier; knowledge and belief in forgiveness, having been contrite.

Conclusion: There's no more difference between the Gentile or Samaritan and Jew and Catholics, Protestants and non-Christian others; Nor Israel and the Church. Nor the nature of the law, for faith established one approved by God, and given by God through Christ, and the other was established by God for faith, and fostered Faith in the coming Messiah. The Gentile, and the Samaritans has capacity to both believe direct Catholic doctrine, as well as maintain that which they could best understand for whatever series of unfortunate circumstances. Nor does the Jew profit from circumcision if he transgresses the law, just as Baptism, if transgressed, profits not until the transgression is forgiven.

Within all systems, there are little things which can spur us to salvation in that roundabout way, or through the best and perfect, intended way, the established physical Church and all her supernatural ability to teach and lead to salvation. But there are instruments which, if you will, God plays, and they are heard for the heavenly melody they play, and seek God with sincerity. And in seeking with sincerity, eschewing that which violates their conscience, they can be saved.

The yoke of Christ is easy in the Church. It's us who load it down until we play Atlas. The yoke of the shifting sands is a heavy beast. But there will be those who bear it for Christ, or whatever would lead them to salvation through Christ, is an instrument whose melody they hum to heaven.

However, the Church has the best music. If we'd stop shouting in their faces that they're gonna burn like faggots, they might get the chance to hear it.
Reply
#35
(06-25-2012, 01:47 AM)jonbhorton Wrote:
(06-24-2012, 10:38 PM)Walty Wrote:
(06-24-2012, 10:30 PM)JayneK Wrote: I did not convert directly from Judaism to Catholicism.  I spend some years as a Fundamentalist Protestant.  It was a position closer to the truth than I had been and was a step that helped me to become Catholic.  Being Protestant was a means of truth and grace for me.

No one is arguing that there is not truth in Protestantism.  Nor is anyone arguing that God cannot call anyone to the Church from any state in life.  What is being challenged is the idea that Protestantism itself is a means of salvation.

If it is a means of salvation, then your conversion wasn't strictly necessary.

Means or... instrument? Let's keep the word usages in line with what Pope Benedict XVI said and as he has used the word before. Once you do that, it becomes very clear what he meant. We are saved by grace through faith and works, no -ism. The -ism is the conduit to the most perfect ability to have everything needed if you just go with it. Those outside the Church are the ones who should be struggling more. However, no one said Protestantism is a means of salvation in terms of the -ism. Just as Protestantism is a heresy whereas there's not very many Protestant heretics in comparison to their forebears. They are, as the Pope says, "a new phenomena". And he's absolutely right. It's just not the super old denominations, as they were. There are "trad" Lutherans too. Anglicans. Even traditional Methodists and Baptists. They've been totally confused and gobsmacked by the "emergent church" and all the free love and insanity it preaches with its rock n roll services.

And even those "trad" Protestants aren't really culpable for the fact of growing up with virtually no exposure to the Church, or without the ability to understand the doctrine of the Church, or even have it explained correctly by one who is responsible for that very thing.

First, I think you are going at this whole thing all backwards because you are starting with the words of PBXVI which clearly do not say what the popes prior to him said.

Next you seem to be justifying his words according to your interpretation or understanding of Protestant culpability, which does not agree with the previous popes or the dogma because whether they are completely or only partially culpable or completely ignorant, matters not since they are not inside the Church - to miss heaven at all is to miss it completely, regardless of the reason, according to the dogma - no?

Next, while it seems true that it will be the parents who actually lost the faith for their children many generations ago - or perhaps only yesterday - who will be held most responsible, that does not mean those still alive, yet who remain outside the church, can hope for salvation when they die because of their own obstinacy in rejecting the graces offered them or the parent's sin - according to the dogma.

As for culpability, there are numerous references in Scripture similar to Num 14:18 The Lord is patient and full of mercy, taking away iniquity and wickedness, and leaving no man clear, who visitest the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. which is saying that the loss of faith of the parents not only does not absolve the children due to ignorance, if anything, the loss of faith aids in condemning them and their future generations - God sure seems to hate it when parents lose the faith for their children - that's the way I read it anyway......................which is why Holy Mother teaches the necessity of not only "persevering in the faith till the end", but also of the responsibility that all parents have of handing down the true faith to your children, so they do the same, and they the same and so on - otherwise, what you say might possibly be conceivable.

Reply
#36
Does the passage in VatII and the CDF response necessarily mean that those who die in protestant/orthodox churches can be saved? Or could means of salvation potentially mean what I thought it meant, that God could use them as a transitory means to bring someone from heathenism to Catholic truth? If my reading of the text is possible, does that somewhat make the text more compatible with the other quotes Walty gives, or am I still missing something?
Reply
#37
Quote:Because it is the Catholic Church that is the means of salvation, not the sect of perdition.

Absolutely true at the correct level of reality. No where is this denied. The quote merely says if you consider only the material reality, then certainly a heretical minister can perform a valid baptism, in some cases consecrate a host, etc.

Quote:That is like saying that the Romans and Jews were part of the Church since they were the material means that God used to begin it. The real answer is that God uses evil for good and would use the evil of a schismatic or heretic to bring someone into the Church. It does not make the schismatic or heretic united to the Church in any way simply because God used it for a greater good. On such a slippery slope as that, the devil, too, could be part of the Church, since God can use his constant temptations to perfect souls and bring them into the Church.

Except that the quote does not affirm that the heretical minister who performs the baptism, for instance, is a part of the Church -- it affirms that in certain cases the one who is being baptized is. This is perfectly consonant with the preconcillar teaching.

Quote: Because non-Catholic Christians are not part of the "one church." An individual Christian may be by way of ignorance, but non-Catholic Christians as a group are not united to the Church.

This too is correct. The quote does not deny it. It merely affirms there are certain people who are visibly present in heretical sects, yet in the higher reality are truly are members of the one true Church and that God can be "operative" through heretical sects on a material basis as well via valid sacraments.

Quote:I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but the whole idea does seem like it might reduce the role of the Church in the process of salvation, or at least the idea of the Church as a real, historical community.

I don't think so. For a couple of reasons a) the case of Cornelius illustrates that the Church is wider than "her visible realities" and that this has been affirmed since apostolic times b) this does not deny the critical importance of those visible realities, since anything else is not strictly provable in the external forum.
Reply
#38
(06-25-2012, 10:25 AM)Ray M Facere Wrote: Except that the quote does not affirm that the heretical minister who performs the baptism, for instance, is a part of the Church -- it affirms that in certain cases the one who is being baptized is. This is perfectly consonant with the preconcillar teaching.

I was baptized by a heretic, some years before entering the Catholic Church. 
Reply
#39
Quote:I was baptized by a heretic, some years before entering the Catholic Church.

Juridically, you were a subject of the Catholic Church as soon as you were baptized. However, I believe you said you were already beyond the age of reason when you were baptized, so you were cut off from the graces of the sacrament, because you were formerly a Protestant heretic, right? But did you receive a conditional baptism when you converted? If not, you can see the Church must have already considered you juridically subject to the Church -- and you became formally part of the Church when you abjured your heresies.
Reply
#40
(06-25-2012, 10:49 AM)Ray M Facere Wrote:
Quote:I was baptized by a heretic, some years before entering the Catholic Church.

Juridically, you were a subject of the Catholic Church as soon as you were baptized. However, I believe you said you were already beyond the age of reason when you were baptized, so you were cut off from the graces of the sacrament, because you were formerly a Protestant heretic, right? But did you receive a conditional baptism when you converted? If not, you can see the Church must have already considered you juridically subject to the Church -- and you became formally part of the Church when you abjured your heresies.

Yes, I was 16 years old when I was baptized.  When I became Catholic I was questioned about my baptism and they must have decided it was valid because I did not receive a conditional baptism.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)