EENS and ¿Invisible? Catholics
#11
The problem is that you don't seem to think its necessary to belong to the Catholic Church, although you say you do, your actions and posts on this forum contradict that view.

Quote: Not loaded. If Joe Bob responds to the Hootenanny Altar Call at the First Baptist Church of Unforking Family Treeville: accepts that he's a sinner and needs the Sacrifice of Calvary to expiate him from his sinfulness and its consequence and means it: get's dunked: and is so on fire for what he thinks Jesus means: and then 3 days later, having not mortally sinned: gets creamed by a semi, has a heart attack, etc.: he certainly should be in a state of Grace. Your cut-and-dry charge has Joe Bob going to hell. One must have something to go off of to be invincibly ignorant. Simply put, your understanding of the Protestant milieu is deficient. I came from that cesspool, and know how they actually approach things.


But this is of course wrong, as Tanquerey and canon law itself says, such a person would become a notorious heretic and thus would not be in the Church! This was clearly explained to you above so why do you deny it?

Quote: " Thesis: 'In order to be a member of the Church baptism is required and is sufficient, together with the bond of unity of faith and of Catholic Communion' This thesis is de fide....

A)...All theologians teach that publicly known heretics, that is, those who belong to a heterodox sect through public profession, or those who refuse the infallible teaching authority of the Church, are excluded from the body of the Church, even if their heresy is only material heresy. Are occult heretics also excluded, who by an internal act only are separated from the Catholic faith, or who by external acts manifest their heresy, but not by a public profession? The more common opinion holds that occult heretics are always in the Churchs bosom because they preserve an external union with the body social through a profession of faith and through obedience to their legitimate pastors. All agree that infants who are validly baptised among heretics are truly and perfectly members of the Church until they become notorious heretics by public adherence to heresy.
  Tanquerey, Manual of Dogmatic Theology, paras 269 and 271

Quote: 22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

Mystici Corporis

Quote: One who after baptism, while remanining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any one of the truths which must be believed de fide divina et catholica, is a heretic.....
Canon 1325, s2

See also
Quote: But here we must remark briefly upon the position of non-Catholics in good faith. Even such authorities as Suarez and the theologians of Salamanca, writing at a time and in a country where, Catholicism reigned supreme, were prepared to allow that there could be heretics and infidels so untouched by Christian influences as to experience no doubt about the truth of their religious tenets.... The whole tenor of the Church's official documents makes it clear, that apart from two cases, it is necessary for salvation to belong explicitly (in re) to the Catholic Church. The two exceptions, wherein membership of the Church by desire (in voto) suffices, are the following: i) In the event of the impossibility of Baptism, which is always necessary for membership, being effectively received. Since according to the teaching of the Council of Trent (Session VI, cap. iv), the desire for baptism (contained in an act of charity) can suffice for the souls regeneration, it is clear that the desire for membership of the Church, which is made effective by this sacrament, can likewise suffice. And this holds for catechumens, who are prevented from receiving the sacrament owing to some insuperable obstacle, and for converts from heresy whose antecedent Baptism may be uncertain and who are impeded by the like extremity from reception of the sacrament. ii) The Church teaches no less clearly that actual membership of the Catholic Church is not necessary for the salvation of those in invincible ignorance of her true nature. This is stated clearly in the consitorial allocution Singulari Quadam of Pius IX and in his enyclical to the Italian Bishops, 10 August 1863. It follows therefore that in this case also to belong to the Church 'in voto' suffices for salvation.
The teaching of the Catholic Church, p708, edited and arranged by Canon George D Smith

More importantly the Church clearly teaches the necessity of belonging to her and that people who are not cannot be saved

Quote: It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church
  Council of Basel SESSION 11 4 February 1442 [Bull of union with the Copts] 

Quote: Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,' and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.
We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: 'Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.' [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23- 24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.'
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302

Your ad hominems vis a vis me not understanding protestants are way and i mean wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off the mark, I was a protestant till i converted 2 and a bit years ago and my parents are still protestants, so I understand them just fine. In my experience the issue is not invincible ignorance its pride and an inability to assent to the truth due to sheer obstinacy, that is not invincible ignorance. Invincible ignorance would mean that they couldn't overcome their ignorance, but in most cases they can, theres google, theres catholic friends (sometimes), theres theology manuals, magazines, forums etc... I don't doubt there are a few genuine cases of invincible ignorance but it would be absurd to claim that it was common. Not assenting because you don't 'feel' its right or you don't 'like' it or it doesn't make 'sense' is not invincible ignorance, its simply a symptom of the protestant disease 'I only have to believe what I want to believe because I and I alone know the truth'. Thats what prompted Luther to start 'The Deformation', don't understand something? Bin it and invent a new doctrine. Don't like something? Bin it and claim it was imposed by the anti-christ in Rome. Don't like certain books of the bible? Get rid of them and claim they were never actually part of the bible.
Reply
#12
Interestingly I'm not the only one who dislikes the term 'invisible' aside from the obvious connotations it has with the 'anonymous christian' rubbish see
Quote: It has sometimes been argued that non-Catholics in good faith, may be said to belong to the soul, as distinguished from the body, of the Church. In the previous essay it has been pointed out that this is not an entirely satisfactory way of viewing the matter, as the distinction in question is not free from ambiguity. It lends itself to the false antithesis between an 'invisible' and 'visible' Church, and suggests that one might belong to Christs mystical Body without being incorporated, simultaneously and in the same degree, in the visible Catholic Church -which is impossibe
The teaching of the Catholic Church, p708, edited and arranged by Canon George D Smith
Reply
#13
I highly recommend Bishop Hay's The Sincere Christian: http://www.catholictradition.org/Classic...tion-4.htm

I think it's safe to say that we should not view most people (Protestants, specifically) as being in invincible ignorance regarding the true religion, if we understand the term as Bishop Hay defines it.
Reply
#14
TrentCath, I'll have to respond in full tomorrow as I have way too much to do today which doesn't involve FE.

Either way, I'll say that Pope Benedict XVI has said very clearly that the Protestantism of today is a new phenomena. He is very correct. You're appealing to original Protestantism which, yes, itself is a total no-go. That sort of -ism and foundation to go with it is basically dead. It really only finds itself anew in the Novus Ordo types who have turned EENS on its head or rejected it entirely since they have been convinced of the falsehood you're saying. St. Augustine says very clearly in Letters 43:1 that a person isn't a heretic just because they follow a heretical system.

My approach to this entire subject is everyone needs to be Catholic in total as per the reality that they are basically left to the whims of confusion if not. However, your approach is entirely too cut and dry and misunderstanding of the people you're addressing, where they are coming from, etc.

You're misusing heretic and not understanding what that means by applying a strict definition that is erroneous. See St. Augustine Letters 43:1.

I'd like for YOU to explain why Abp. Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay are wrong. . I'm merely repeating what they said.

Was Abp. Lefebvre wrong in Open Letter... chap 10? If so, why do you remain in the Society since it was founded by someone who bungles such a doctrine? What else did he get wrong?
Reply
#15
From Very Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey, S.S., D.D., Brevior Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae:

Vol. I, sec. 271, p. 160:

"3. Heretics, at least as far as the obligations of the Church are concerned, are members.

"All theologians teach that publicly known heretics, that is, those who belong to a heterodox sect through public profession, or those who refuse the infallible teaching authority, are excluded from the body of the Church, even if their heresy is only material heresy. Are occult heretics also excluded, who by an internal act only are separated from the Catholic faith, or who by external acts manifest their heresy, but not by a public profession? The more common opinion holds that occult heretics are always in the Church's bosom because they preserve an external union with the body social through a profession of faith and through obedience to their legitimate Pastors. All agree that infants who are validly baptized among heretics are truly and perfectly members of the Church until they become notorious heretics by public adherence to heresy.

"4. Almost the same is to be stated in regard to schismatics, well known or occult, as has been said concerning heretics.

"5. The same holds true for apostates.

"[6. discusses the excommunicated, the vitandi (to be avoided) and the tolerati (tolerated) on p. 161.]


From Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

Book Four, Part 2, Chapter 5, p. 311:

"Among the members of the Church not to be counted:



"b) Open apostates and heretics. Public heretics, even those who err in good faith (material heretics), do not belong to the body of the Church, that is to the legal commonwealth of the Church. However, this does not prevent them from belonging spiritually to the Church by their desire to belong to the Church (votum Ecclesiae) and through this, achieving justification and salvation."



Pope Benedict XVI should respect the Church's approved terminology, which in this case would be "material heretics/heresy."
Reply
#16
(08-12-2012, 11:46 AM)jonbhorton Wrote: TrentCath, I'll have to respond in full tomorrow as I have way too much to do today which doesn't involve FE.

Either way, I'll say that Pope Benedict XVI has said very clearly that the Protestantism of today is a new phenomena. He is very correct. You're appealing to original Protestantism which, yes, itself is a total no-go. That sort of -ism and foundation to go with it is basically dead. It really only finds itself anew in the Novus Ordo types who have turned EENS on its head or rejected it entirely since they have been convinced of the falsehood you're saying. St. Augustine says very clearly in Letters 43:1 that a person isn't a heretic just because they follow a heretical system.

My approach to this entire subject is everyone needs to be Catholic in total as per the reality that they are basically left to the whims of confusion if not. However, your approach is entirely too cut and dry and misunderstanding of the people you're addressing, where they are coming from, etc.

You're misusing heretic and not understanding what that means by applying a strict definition that is erroneous. See St. Augustine Letters 43:1.

I'd like for YOU to explain why Abp. Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay are wrong. . I'm merely repeating what they said.

Was Abp. Lefebvre wrong in Open Letter... chap 10? If so, why do you remain in the Society since it was founded by someone who bungles such a doctrine? What else did he get wrong?

My definitions are those of The Church, so you are accussing The Church of being wrong.

As for Abp. Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay, I've read what they said several times and disagree with none of it, you simply misunderstand it and in quite a bizzare way.

You are simply pulling the same 'you don't understand them they're good people really...' nonsense that supporters of Vatican 2 have been trying for years.

If you'd like to explain why the popes, an ecumenical council and theological manuals are wrong, feel free to do so, if not I can't really see the point of continuing this discussion.
Reply
#17
My compliments to TrentCath for a couple of excellent posts.
Reply
#18
I'm going to borrow a quote from one of TrentCath's citations of Mystici Corporis, and apply a slightly different emphasis.  I think the resulting point is pretty important.

Quote:22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican.

What the Lord commands is, obviously, of the very greatest importance.

And moreover, in the very next sentence:

Quote:[19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

Honestly, I know lots of people, even serious theologians, even the bishops of the SSPX, have made the point that there may be "invisible" Catholics.  Nonetheless, none of these arguments seem to stack up to the preponderance of arguments against said thesis.  And as a practical matter, it doesn't change how we act.

That's why, in general, I think Abp. Muller is way off base, whereas Abp. Lefebvre was either right, or at least not condemnably wrong.
Reply
#19
(08-12-2012, 04:26 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: I'm going to borrow a quote from one of TrentCath's citations of Mystici Corporis, and apply a slightly different emphasis.  I think the resulting point is pretty important.

Quote:22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican.

What the Lord commands is, obviously, of the very greatest importance.

And moreover, in the very next sentence:

Quote:[19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

Honestly, I know lots of people, even serious theologians, even the bishops of the SSPX, have made the point that there may be "invisible" Catholics.  Nonetheless, none of these arguments seem to stack up to the preponderance of arguments against said thesis.  And as a practical matter, it doesn't change how we act.

That's why, in general, I think Abp. Muller is way off base, whereas Abp. Lefebvre was either right, or at least not condemnably wrong.

Yes, this troubles me.
Reply
#20
Don't let it trouble you, just keep living a good Catholic life the best way you know how.  God will provide the answers we need.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)