EENS and ¿Invisible? Catholics
#51
(08-14-2012, 07:12 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: What questions are those, Jon?  I use the Penny Catechism, and the St. John Neumann. 
Quote:Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?

A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person:

        Has been validly baptized;
        Firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and
        Dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.

Q. 511. Why do we say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?

A. We say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, because the necessary conditions are not often found, especially that of dying in a state of grace without making use of the Sacrament of Penance.

Q. 512. How are such persons said to belong to the Church?

A. Such persons are said to belong to the "soul of the church"; that is, they are really members of the Church without knowing it. Those who share in its Sacraments and worship are said to belong to the body or visible part of the Church.

Q. 513. Why must the true Church be visible?

A. The true Church must be visible because its founder, Jesus Christ, commanded us under pain of condemnation to hear the Church; and He could not in justice command us to hear a Church that could not be seen and known.
Source: http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/faith/bc3-11.htm
Reply
#52
(08-14-2012, 07:22 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote:
Quote:I think it's actually too simple for most people.  It's not even 101, which in my mind means a college course, or high school at least.  It's catechism, which a child can understand with no problems that time and repetition won't correct.

I could almost wish that that were so-- but when one plays pope against pope, catechism against catechism, theologian against theologian, and council against council, in my mind it becomes 600-level.

I'm not necessarily uncomfortable in a 600-level situation.  But when it's supposed, by most or all involved, to be a 101 or lower-level situation, and especially when it touches the Faith, that bothers me.

Why does it bother you that someone doesn't see it as 600 level?
Quote:From what I can see of Abp. Lefebvre's work, what he was doing had to be good.  Neither the SSPX nor the FSSP would exist without him.  I'm not sure even the 'Feeneyites' or sedevacantists would have many TLMs without him.  If he's not a saint, it's hard for me to imagine who, after V2, could be.

Of course the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary never had bishops.  Their goals are their own personal sanctification, the preaching of the doctrine EENS, and the conversion of America to the Catholic faith.  I'm not saying that's better than what the SSPX does, but I am saying these are excellent goals, and I've seen their fruits, and I'm impressed (obviously). 
Quote:I think I could say roughly the opposite for Abp. Muller.

Yes, you could even say precisely the opposite for that man, in my opinion. 

I think the thing that makes it seem like a 600 level course is the modernist influence in it all.  Modernism is elitist in that it came from the intellectuals.  Notice all the work you put into trying to get your head around Muller in another thread.  That wasn't really necessary.  You were right all along.  The man is confusing.  He has 3 interviews in his first week at his new post, and he says things that shed doubt on defined doctrine, and then 'explains' himself by restating the doctine.  That's typical modernist behavior.  It stops being hard when you just recover your instinct that tells you 'this is fishy'. 
Reply
#53
(08-14-2012, 07:41 PM)jonbhorton Wrote:
(08-14-2012, 07:12 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: What questions are those, Jon?  I use the Penny Catechism, and the St. John Neumann. 
Quote:Q. 510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?

A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, provided that person:

        Has been validly baptized;
        Firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and
        Dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.

Q. 511. Why do we say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?

A. We say it is only possible for a person to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church, because the necessary conditions are not often found, especially that of dying in a state of grace without making use of the Sacrament of Penance.

Q. 512. How are such persons said to belong to the Church?

A. Such persons are said to belong to the "soul of the church"; that is, they are really members of the Church without knowing it. Those who share in its Sacraments and worship are said to belong to the body or visible part of the Church.

Q. 513. Why must the true Church be visible?

A. The true Church must be visible because its founder, Jesus Christ, commanded us under pain of condemnation to hear the Church; and He could not in justice command us to hear a Church that could not be seen and known.
Source: http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/faith/bc3-11.htm

This is the problem with this catechism.  But it's hard to argue when so many people even here see this as traditional, simply because it's pre-V2, and because there's an even worse catechism (the 1993) that's widely used today.
Reply
#54
If there was an issue with such an important aspect of this catechism, it would have been redacted, corrected, or just flat out never made it this far.

Romans 2 and the Church as Israel. It becomes so clear. Otherwise, you literally have to argue Feeney's doctrine.

Or we could just look at the Catechism of Pope Saint Pius X...

Quote:27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.

28 Q. How, then, were the Patriarchs of old, the Prophets, and the other just men of the Old Testament, saved?
A. The just of the Old Testament were saved in virtue of the faith they had in Christ to come, by means of which they spiritually belonged to the Church.

29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation

http://www.ewtn.com/library/catechsm/piusxcat.htm
Reply
#55
Of course such a one can be saved.  He must follow through the way you and I did.  Would you please post the rest of this quote?  Thank you in advance.
Reply
#56
It's Q&A like Baltimore... the next has nothing to do with it, except to say that Catholics who know better and don't follow the Church cannot be saved. Different thing altogether.
Reply
#57
I humbly think Pope St. Pius X's Catechism was worded fairly poorly, for Msgr. Fenton tells us that, "The assertion that the axiom 'no salvation outside the Church' refers to the soul of the Church alone, and the teaching that the soul of the Church alone is necessary with the necessity of means, have contributed in large measure to the imperfect teaching on this subject which the Holy Father [Pope Pius XII] deplores and reproves in the Humani generis" (The Meaning of the Church's Necessity for Salvation, AER, February 1951).

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/mode...eaning.htm
Reply
#58
(08-14-2012, 08:13 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: Why does it bother you that someone doesn't see it as 600 level?

Because if it's 101, it should seem simple to me.  As I've said before, I'm not exactly the village idiot.

Quote:I think the thing that makes it seem like a 600 level course is the modernist influence in it all. 

The modernist influence didn't help, but I don't believe this issue was as clear-cut as Fr. Feeney and his followers would make it-- see all of the sources brought to bear in this thread and elsewhere, which include some that have a strong appearance of legitimacy.

Quote:Modernism is elitist in that it came from the intellectuals.  Notice all the work you put into trying to get your head around Muller in another thread. 

All the work was to get it around other people's heads.  It was a teachable moment, and I didn't want to miss it.  In Muller's case, I'm quite confident in my conclusion.  If I were not, I would never have accused essentially the pope's right-hand man of writing heresy-- probably not even if I thought it was obviously merely material.

In the case of the interpretation of implicit desire, in ecclesia in re or in voto, etc., I don't find it so simple.

Quote:That wasn't really necessary.  You were right all along.  The man is confusing.  He has 3 interviews in his first week at his new post, and he says things that shed doubt on defined doctrine, and then 'explains' himself by restating the doctine.  That's typical modernist behavior.  It stops being hard when you just recover your instinct that tells you 'this is fishy'. 

Yes, but Abp. Lefebvre, Bp. Fellay, the traditional Dominicans of Avrillé, and the head of the SSPX in France are not exactly who I think of when I think of modernists.  All of them have a more involved, 600-level view (if you will), of this doctrine.

By the way, I never meant to insult the MICM by suggesting that there are no fruits of sanctification there.  I rather suspect there are.  I merely observe that in this crisis, the one man who has been the providential instrument of God, above all others, is unquestionably Abp. Lefebvre.  Without him, the traditional sacraments and doctrine would be effectively gone, I think.

Of course, as Bp. Williamson once said, if Abp. Lefebvre had fallen, God could and would have saved His Church another way.  As the matter stands, however, he did it this way, and Abp. Lefebvre was His instrument.  And the greatest instruments of God are always the saints.

Fructibus cognoscetis.  I simply don't know a better argument.
Reply
#59
Here's the deal...

I KNOW it's HARD for many to GRASP that the collective YOU can put in so much effort: Mass, daily Rosary, abstain from meat, etc, etc, etc. while Joe Baptist/Episcopalian/Jew/Muslim/Hindu/Etc. gets Baptized( water, blood, or desire; responding to the knocking on his heart's door) and then fornicate, be divorced 8 times, never go to Church on Sunday, or at least not every Sunday, or Mosque or whatever. And then, at some point before he dies, whether it's at the moment before his death or an indeterminable time before his death make an act of perfect contrition, which is simply understanding he's once again sinned against God and must, once again, ask for forgiveness (regardless of if he believes in Once-Saved-Always-Saved or otherwise) because the Holy Ghost ONCE AGAIN, knocks on his heart's door and says, "hey... Joe, you've sinned against God, so you better beg forgiveness and hope Mercy is sufficient for you."

Having made an act of perfect contrition, as imperfect as its verbage and understanding of that may be per the wording of Catholic doctrine, in fact, he will spiritually be pleading to God.
Now, with no mortal sin after, which means he KNOWS he is going against God (murder, adultery, stealing, etc), and finds himself standing before the Judgement Seat of Christ with a decision favorable to his eternal Salvation. Oh, believe me, I'm sure he will get QUITE the lecture if we want to look at eternity as a linear thing; or rather, an infusion, instantaneously, of his entire life and why he not only deserves hell, but why he is in fact not going there. Maybe he'll hear a female's voice... advocating for him. Ya know, like Our Lady does.

It SUCKS to think that you all, we, can do all this HARD stuff and might go to Hell while Joe Schmoe does whatever the hell he wants and then corrects himself in the best way he knows how, and God says, "OK, welcome to Heaven... but first we're gonna have a little talk." Is Joe saved through the Catholic Church, which is to say the Mystical Body of Christ, which is to say Joe is Catholic whether he was visibly something else his entire life? You may bet your butt on that one. The Jews, similarly, weren't pleased. Enter Romans 2. Enter the accolades of having been a "faithful Israelite/Jew/Catholic", while Joe just gets the knowledge he ain't in Hell, and whatever other way he is rewarded. Don't like it? TOUGH. This is exactly why Abp. Lefebvre that he didn't found the Church, but Jesus Christ, and as Priests they must state the TRUTH.

But let me be clear:

The Church IS Israel. And WE gentiles are brought in. And like the gentiles were as to the Jews, which were physical Israel, Romans 2 makes clear certain things. Protestantism is a weird thing, as it throws a very weird monkey wrench into the scheme of things. BUT just as Romans 2 was written to address the physical Jews as concerned the physical Gentiles, and Romans 11 was written to counter the obvious pride and boasting which can go with that against the branches broken off, it doesn't mean all dogs go to heaven. Nor does it mean hell won't be filled with a bunch of cats.

There is no clear understanding for many people that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded, and so many have no understanding that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ as per Matthew 16. They don't have proper understanding of interpretation via the Catholic Church and Her Bishops, and have no understanding that this Chair of Peter is even legit. Ergo, they do exactly what BC#3 Q 510-513 say, and Pope Saint Pius X Catechism Q27-29.

Many Protestants view the Church AS this ephemeral Mystical Body of Christ, not understanding the physical necessity of a Church as per BC#3 Q513.

The argument I grew up hearing, as truly believed by all I encountered: Blessed art thou Simon Bar-Jonah, for thou are Petros (pebble) and on this Petra (Boulder-- seen as Christ, not Peter), I will build my Church.

Now, that understanding goes to complete crap once you realize that the word makarios (Blessed) etymologically means to make larger via God.

In other words, and I believed Peter was Pope before this dawned on me... I must consider the understanding of it either a gift, or God letting my brain figure out something so obvious once I'd believed FIRST:

To make this linguistic truth clear, let us consider that English is abjectly retarded, and many just won't make this connection since "blessed" is just so lost when the focus is on the pebble and boulder:

I'll make you bigger, Simon Bar-Jonah. Right now you're a pebble, but you're gonna be a boulder, and I'm gonna build my Church on you... and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Further, going back to John 1:49, Jesus clues in Nathanael/Bartholomew that Jesus is the Christ. But HE, the SON clues him in. Not God the Father. But who clued in Peter? No flesh and blood, per the words of Our Lord. But God the Father in Heaven. And Peter declared it... so he's the Pope.

Once that becomes established, you have to then fight tooth and nail to get them to understand Apostolic succession. They understand Peter was the leader of the Apostles, but they just DON'T get it. It's like someone with dyslexia looking at algebra. They might see the formula and rock it every time, but throw actual numbers in there and they crumble. Many Protestants have a sort of spiritual-dyslexia.

Will they pass the course? Who knows. But maybe it's time some of you got your heads in the game, or step the hell out from in front of the classroom because you're nothing more than smartass Teachers Assistants. Smart assed TA's who have no business going for the PhD if you insist on never adopting the understanding of teaching versus facts you don't understand anyway.

There is no Salvation Outside the Church.
Reply
#60
Thanks for this, Jon. 

I know that St. Robert Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Church, held these beliefs also.  I'm surprised because it seems to contradict St. Pius X's own recommendation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which he was known for, and which teaches no such thing as a salvific BoD or BoB.  If he really believed that salvation was possible apart from baptism with water, then (until these are defined) I say he was wrong.  A saint is free to be wrong.

The Council of Trent teaches dogmatically that justification is possible with the other 2 baptisms, but that baptism with water is necessary for salvation.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)