EENS and ¿Invisible? Catholics
#31
(08-14-2012, 02:06 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: And now more... saying what I've been saying all along. It's like... yeah, it's like TrentCath is wrong.

Quote:Today, however, the social and cultural situation in the former Christendom is radically different. As we have noted above, centuries of increasing religious pluralism have made it entirely credible – indeed, morally certain – that there are indeed many non-Catholic Christians (believers, on God’s authority, in at least the Trinity and Incarnation) whose doctrinal errors and separation from the Church’s unity are not due to a sinfully proud, scornful, obstinate, or rebellious attitude. Therefore, good-willed modern non-Catholics of this sort do not fit the Council of Florence’s ‘job description’ of heretics and schismatics. But that in turn means the Council has abstained from teaching that such folks are extra Ecclesiam. On the other hand, not being members of the Church, neither are they intra Ecclesiam. So it makes sense to see them as being in that same kind of ‘portico’ situation – neither inside nor outside – in which the Florentine Fathers were already tacitly locating catechumens. In the light of these considerations, we can see as a harmonious development of the Florentine teaching, not as a contradiction of it, the Church’s recent recognition, in magisterial statements beginning in the 1940s, that even some who explicitly deny papal authority can nevertheless be linked to the Church by an unconscious or implicit desire which is sufficient for their salvation.

What absolute and total nonsense, thats probably one of the most nonsensical pieces of writing I've ever had the misfortune to read.

One is either in the Church or one is not, there is no 'portico' situation. The catechumens are united to the church 'in voto' as Tanquerey, Ott and others make clear.

Amusingly his statements are also not properly supported he goes from stating 'Now, is it really plausible today to assert or presume that, of all the hundreds of millions of professing Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant and other non-Catholic Christians around the world, there are none who hold and defend their erroneous beliefs “without obstinate fervor”? None who “seek the truth with careful anxiety, ready to mend their opinion when they have found the truth”?' to stating 'that there are indeed many non-Catholic Christians (believers, on God’s authority, in at least the Trinity and Incarnation) whose doctrinal errors and separation from the Church’s unity are not due to a sinfully proud, scornful, obstinate, or rebellious attitude'

He doesn't properly understand the meaning of the word heretic either, it is true one must make a distinction between obstinate heretics and invincibly ignorant heretics, but a person doesn't cease being a heretic just because they are not obstinate about it, the practice of the Church, the writings of the popes and all theological manuals make this rather clear.

Reply
#32
(08-14-2012, 02:27 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-14-2012, 02:06 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: And now more... saying what I've been saying all along. It's like... yeah, it's like TrentCath is wrong.

Quote:Today, however, the social and cultural situation in the former Christendom is radically different. As we have noted above, centuries of increasing religious pluralism have made it entirely credible – indeed, morally certain – that there are indeed many non-Catholic Christians (believers, on God’s authority, in at least the Trinity and Incarnation) whose doctrinal errors and separation from the Church’s unity are not due to a sinfully proud, scornful, obstinate, or rebellious attitude. Therefore, good-willed modern non-Catholics of this sort do not fit the Council of Florence’s ‘job description’ of heretics and schismatics. But that in turn means the Council has abstained from teaching that such folks are extra Ecclesiam. On the other hand, not being members of the Church, neither are they intra Ecclesiam. So it makes sense to see them as being in that same kind of ‘portico’ situation – neither inside nor outside – in which the Florentine Fathers were already tacitly locating catechumens. In the light of these considerations, we can see as a harmonious development of the Florentine teaching, not as a contradiction of it, the Church’s recent recognition, in magisterial statements beginning in the 1940s, that even some who explicitly deny papal authority can nevertheless be linked to the Church by an unconscious or implicit desire which is sufficient for their salvation.

What absolute and total nonsense, thats probably one of the most nonsensical pieces of writing I've ever had the misfortune to read.

One is either in the Church or one is not, there is no 'portico' situation. The catechumens are united to the church 'in voto' as Tanquerey, Ott and others make clear.

Amusingly his statements are also not properly supported he goes from stating 'Now, is it really plausible today to assert or presume that, of all the hundreds of millions of professing Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant and other non-Catholic Christians around the world, there are none who hold and defend their erroneous beliefs “without obstinate fervor”? None who “seek the truth with careful anxiety, ready to mend their opinion when they have found the truth”?' to stating 'that there are indeed many non-Catholic Christians (believers, on God’s authority, in at least the Trinity and Incarnation) whose doctrinal errors and separation from the Church’s unity are not due to a sinfully proud, scornful, obstinate, or rebellious attitude'

He doesn't properly understand the meaning of the word heretic either, it is true one must make a distinction between obstinate heretics and invincibly ignorant heretics, but a person doesn't cease being a heretic just because they are not obstinate about it, the practice of the Church, the writings of the popes and all theological manuals make this rather clear.

So St. Augustine got it wrong too?

Quote:1. The Apostle Paul has said: "A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sins, being condemned of himself." Titus 3:10-11 But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics.
Letters 43:1
Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102043.htm
Reply
#33
Quote:The catechumens are united to the church 'in voto' as Tanquerey, Ott and others make clear.

Not taking sides, because I think some of the things JBH said are a little too lose (at least implicitly so), but doesn't this merely beg the question. For specifically what is under discussion is whether or not a baptised person who is nevertheless separated from the visible church can be united to the Church "in voto" as well.

Quote:He doesn't properly understand the meaning of the word heretic either, it is true one must make a distinction between obstinate heretics and invincibly ignorant heretics, but a person doesn't cease being a heretic just because they are not obstinate about it, the practice of the Church, the writings of the popes and all theological manuals make this rather clear.

Yes, but separation from the Church always involves SIN, mortal sin specifically -- and if the person is not obstinate, it is hard to see how they could be guilty of the mortal sin of heresy. Even Fr. Feeney admitted this, as the article points out. Here Fr. Feeney agrees, but then goes on to say that it is impossible to avoid OTHER mortal sins and for this reason, we can assume anyone without access to the sacraments is doomed. It is not as important to consider how one might respond to this, only to point out that even the most hardline view of EENS concedes the point that heresy in and of itself is not always enough to constitute separation. This view is confirmed, as has been pointed out, by the two great Saints -- Augustine and Aquinas.
Reply
#34
(08-14-2012, 02:52 PM)Ray M Facere Wrote: Not taking sides, because I think some of the things JBH said are a little too lose (at least implicitly so), but doesn't this merely beg the question. For specifically what is under discussion is whether or not a baptised person who is nevertheless separated from the visible church can be united to the Church "in voto" as well.


Not at all, there is no third state as the writer of the article tries to make out, that is all I'm saying.


Quote:Yes, but separation from the Church always involves SIN, mortal sin specifically -- and if the person is not obstinate, it is hard to see how they could be guilty of the mortal sin of heresy. Even Fr. Feeney admitted this, as the article points out. Here Fr. Feeney agrees, but then goes on to say that it is impossible to avoid OTHER mortal sins and for this reason, we can assume anyone without access to the sacraments is doomed. It is not as important to consider how one might respond to this, only to point out that even the most hardline view of EENS concedes the point that heresy in and of itself is not always enough to constitute separation. This view is confirmed, as has been pointed out, by the two great Saints -- Augustine and Aquinas.

I am not saying otherwise, I am merely point out that such people are still heretics and cannot belong to the body of the Church.
Reply
#35
Dude, St. Augustine specifically disagrees with such an assertion on heretics as you make.
Reply
#36
Quote:Not at all, there is no third state as the writer of the article tries to make out, that is all I'm saying.

The article does not create a third state, inasmuch as he places the "portico" state IN the Church (and thus accessible to salvation). He is merely point out that a thorough analysis requires a distinction between an unbaptized adult catechumen for instance, and a regular Mass-goer.

Quote:I am not saying otherwise, I am merely point out that such people are still heretics and cannot belong to the body of the Church.

I don't disagree with you about them not belonging to the body (the analogy from the above example would be actually inside the building instead of in the portico). The question is are they nevertheless, inside the Church (i.e., are they like the catechumens, in that they are in the portico)?
Reply
#37
From another thread that was not answered:




In Regards to baptism and salvation outside the Church.

I was listening to Al Kresta interviewing a priest last week.
They were talking about Colombine.
Fr. said that a very good example of salvation outside the Church was what happened to the little girl whom one of the shooters asked "Are you Christian?". She could have answered "no". But she said "Yes!". He executed her while kneeling. End of story.

:)
(And no, that's not one for "the books")



What do you think. This girl is damned?
Reply
#38
There's no proof of Cassie Bernal being in that situation, and it's urban legend as far as I'm concerned. However, if she was given the choice of renouncing Christ or dying, and she did in fact hold to Christ, she's a valid martyr.
Reply
#39
(08-14-2012, 03:19 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: There's no proof of Cassie Bernal being in that situation, and it's urban legend as far as I'm concerned. However, if she was given the choice of renouncing Christ or dying, and she did in fact hold to Christ, she's a valid martyr.
Good answer.
Reply
#40
(08-14-2012, 02:56 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: Dude, St. Augustine specifically disagrees with such an assertion on heretics as you make.

:shrug: He may but unless Tanquerey, Ott and others know less about the fathers than you, the statement stands.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)