Vatican II opened the Church to the World
#21
(10-15-2012, 12:17 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: As far as I can tell, only one or two active posters believe that.

I guess it's time for another poll.
Quote:I don't know why people promote the idea that this forum is being overrun by "neocaths" when all evidence says otherwise. I know many movements build group identity by telling their members that they are surrounded by hostile forces on all sides. Perhaps that is part of it.

I don't know what to say in response to this.
Quote:Anyway, I agree that people who call the SSPX schismatic are wrong, but my point was more about the problems inherent in using what exactly a person believes is entailed by the Social Kingship of Christ to determine whether or not one is in communion with him.

It's simple. One either holds the Catholic view, or not.
Reply
#22
Crusading Philologist,
Adult (baptized) Protestants aren't members of the Church, although theoretically, they're under her jurisdiction.  Unitatis Redintegratio stated without any distinction (i.e. true faith, unity of government) that baptized Protestants are members of Christ's Body; this is false, except in the case of baptized Protestants under the age of reason.

Then we have the idea of "imperfect communion" between Christ's Church and false sects.  This blurs her unity and separateness from other religions (Churches and ecclesial communities).

I do agree with you, however, regarding the objective definition of schism.

The Social Kingship of Christ and its consequences is a doctrine of the faith.  Catholics are obliged to hold the faith whole and entire.  Voluntary denial or doubt of Christ's kingship is a sin (whether directly or indirectly) against the faith and destroys one's communion with the Catholic Church.
Reply
#23
(10-15-2012, 12:30 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
Quote:Anyway, I agree that people who call the SSPX schismatic are wrong, but my point was more about the problems inherent in using what exactly a person believes is entailed by the Social Kingship of Christ to determine whether or not one is in communion with him.

It's simple. One either holds the Catholic view, or not.

I suppose this is the only option available to you, but it seems problematic for a couple of reasons. Most importantly, it goes against the traditional definition of schism as explained by St. Thomas above. Also, the Catholic Encyclopedia makes this distinction:
Quote:schism is a genus which embraces two distinct species: heretical or mixed schism and schism pure and simple. The first has its source in heresy or joined with it, the second, which most theologians designate absolutely as schism, is the rupture of the bond of subordination without an accompanying persistent error, directly opposed to a definite dogma.

So, according to the traditional definition, one can be a schismatic without also being a heretic. This same distinction is clearly there in St. Thomas when he discusses whether a sin of unbelief is worse than a sin of schism. According to your definition, though, it appears that there is no difference between heresy and schism. One cannot be a schismatic without also being a heretic. The collapsing of these two categories is worrying.

Secondly, it is ultimately subjective and relies on private judgment. There are no authorities to which we can appeal, so the only way I can determine whether or not I am in communion with you is to find out if you accept all the teachings of the Church, and of course I am the one who decides what counts as a teaching that must be accepted and how it ought to be interpreted. I'm also not sure if this method is all that effective. Other traditions within Christianity have done things this way and it does not appear that it has inspired unity amongst them.
Reply
#24
I'm not really discussing schism here.

With regards to my "Catholic or not" statement, isn't that true? Sure, there can be leeway on certain issues, but when it comes down to it, one is either Catholic, or not, right?
Reply
#25
I thought this was fitting.

[Image: vatican-2-opened.jpeg]
Reply
#26
But John Paul 2 said "nouveau printemps."
Reply
#27
(10-15-2012, 01:03 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: I'm not really discussing schism here.

With regards to my "Catholic or not" statement, isn't that true? Sure, there can be leeway on certain issues, but when it comes down to it, one is either Catholic, or not, right?

We can easily say that someone who rejects the Trinity or something like that is not Catholic, but I don't think it's always quite that easy. That's the whole point of having a pope.
Reply
#28
(10-15-2012, 02:30 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(10-15-2012, 01:03 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: I'm not really discussing schism here.

With regards to my "Catholic or not" statement, isn't that true? Sure, there can be leeway on certain issues, but when it comes down to it, one is either Catholic, or not, right?

We can easily say that someone who rejects the Trinity or something like that is not Catholic, but I don't think it's always quite that easy. That's the whole point of having a pope.

I don't understand what you're trying to get at. If I were to say right now "We do not need to confess" I would cease being a Catholic.
Reply
#29
(10-16-2012, 12:15 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
(10-15-2012, 02:30 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(10-15-2012, 01:03 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: I'm not really discussing schism here.

With regards to my "Catholic or not" statement, isn't that true? Sure, there can be leeway on certain issues, but when it comes down to it, one is either Catholic, or not, right?

We can easily say that someone who rejects the Trinity or something like that is not Catholic, but I don't think it's always quite that easy. That's the whole point of having a pope.

I don't understand what you're trying to get at. If I were to say right now "We do not need to confess" I would cease being a Catholic.

Nah dude.  You still believe in something you call "God" so you still believe in THE God.  Anonymous Christian, yo.
Reply
#30
(10-15-2012, 01:03 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: I'm not really discussing schism here.

With regards to my "Catholic or not" statement, isn't that true? Sure, there can be leeway on certain issues, but when it comes down to it, one is either Catholic, or not, right?

By the way, do you believe it is possible for one to be a schismatic in our day without also holding any heretical beliefs? If so, how?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)