Müller, Protestants & Justification
#11
(08-14-2013, 01:25 PM)JCCMADD Wrote: Does he mean they are part of the vac ii church or the  REAL catholic .

Don't promote sedevacantism here. Please see the rules. Thanks :)
Reply
#12
(08-16-2013, 01:38 AM)bigdummy Wrote: Unam Sint I believe your analysis to be putting something in the best light possible, but I don't see how you believe this can be orthodox in any way, shape or form.

“Baptism is the fundamental sign that sacramentally unites us in Christ, and which presents us as the one Church before the world. Thus, we as Catholic and Evangelical Christians are already united even in what we call the visible Church. Strictly speaking, there are not several Churches, one beside the other – rather these are divisions and separations within the one people and house of God.”

Now if he's talking children's ontological status then yes they cannot consent. Here he's clearly talking about the subjective disposition of the baptized person who is clearly NOT part of the Church as he does not mention their ontology previous to reason, but as to the sect they belong to.

You cannot expect me to believe he was referring to the ontological status of infant baptism when he says that Prots are "already united" do you?

Also, different popes at have said the only true title to Christian are Catholics. 

Your argument flies in the face of 2000 years of Catholic theologians that these people are part of the Church.

This was my opinion from reading the quote, thats what I got from it. You could be right, he could have been saying something else but in my opinion thats what he was referring to.

As far as the "the only true title to Christian are Catholics" yeah ok no dispute on that.

As far as my argument flying in the face of 2000 years of Catholics theologians... well depends what theologians, and that seems to be a rather vague statement. As far as I know the theologians are not infallible.
Reply
#13
He's saying we're all a part of the same Church; specifically united in Baptism.  There's nothing heretical about that statement, it's fairly common knowledge that those baptized in certain Protestant churches do not need to be "re-baptized" when they convert - meaning that they are a part of the universal church, but not in full communion.  Benedict XVI goes into more details on this by referring to Protestants as "separated brethren", with brethren implying they are a part of the same family.

Where "tradition in action" errs is that a conversion is still necessary, because Protestants who've been validly Baptized at one point where in the house party, but decided to go to the backyard for some reason..

I'm not sure why they're jumping all over a teaching that's been around for a bit.
Reply
#14
(08-16-2013, 06:36 AM)Unum Sint Wrote: well depends what theologians, and that seems to be a rather vague statement. As far as I know the theologians are not infallible.

Yes I agree it depends if we quote theologians pre and post Vatican II. The theologians aren't infallible per se, but a universal consensus of the Patristics must be upheld in the external forum and ergo the problem we have today as a Church. We come up with formulations never seen or heard of in the history of the Church, make up doctrines as we go along and make a theology that peers forward instead of looking back.

Yes, saying that Protestants & us make up the Church was condemned over and over again. It's called the branch theory but expanded to even a crazier degree than the original condemnation. At least in the branch theory people had to claim material apostolic succession, now it's everyone and that was condemned.

Yes, it's heretical.

"and that one and true [Church] is the assembly of men gathered in the profession of the same Christian faith, and in the communion of the same sacraments, under the reign of legitimate pastors, and especially of the one vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff. ...By reason of the first part all infidels are excluded, both those who were never in the Church, such as Jews, Turks, and pagans; and those who were, and went back, such as heretics and apostates." St. Robert Bellarmine

I can quote popes too, but read Mortalium Animus of Pius XI:

"10. ... For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one,[22] compacted and fitly joined together,[23] it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head."

"11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors..."

No man can remain even if baptized. They do not belong to the Church. A heretic, material or formal, is not a member of the Church.
Reply
#15
I don't know or haven't read in the comments that Baptism, properly conferred, makes anyone a member of the Catholic Church (we are not speaking of the iffy, confusing "subsists in" ambiguity found in the documents "certifying" membership in the Church of Christ).  This membership is immediately ipso facto lost the moment one apostatizes, embraces a false church or belief, etc. 
Reply
#16
(08-16-2013, 08:25 AM)Melchior Wrote: He's saying we're all a part of the same Church; specifically united in Baptism.  There's nothing heretical about that statement, it's fairly common knowledge that those baptized in certain Protestant churches do not need to be "re-baptized" when they convert - meaning that they are a part of the universal church, but not in full communion.  Benedict XVI goes into more details on this by referring to Protestants as "separated brethren", with brethren implying they are a part of the same family.

Where "tradition in action" errs is that a conversion is still necessary, because Protestants who've been validly Baptized at one point where in the house party, but decided to go to the backyard for some reason..

I'm not sure why they're jumping all over a teaching that's been around for a bit.

I may not be up to date on the latest things said or written by our last holy father, but I know the Baltimore Catechism pretty well. It seems to disagree with you:

Quote:Q. 489. What is the Church?

A. The Church is the congregation of all those who profess the faith of Christ, partake of the same Sacraments, and are governed by their lawful pastors under one visible Head.

Now, I know the Church first said that baptisms performed by sects outside the Church could be valid as long ago as the 3rd or 4th century (Donatism?), but while baptism makes them part of the Church at that moment, my understanding is that individuals lose membership in the Church as soon as they willingly profess another faith or sect. If they are baptized after the age of reason (the normal practice for evangelicals) then it would seem they lose membership in the Catholic Church in an instant.

Seems like this was all settled such a long time ago. Protestants are not part of the Church even if they retain a valid sacrament.

I'm going to assume that Abp. Muller was being exuberant or has been misquoted. I have heard squirrelly statements from high offices but I find it hard to believe Pope Benedict would have put a man at the head of the CDF that openly holds heretically beliefs.
Reply
#17
The Catholic Church is both visible and invisible.

Protestants are incomplete members of the INVISIBLE aspect of the Church, because of baptism.

But what makes Muller's statement heretical, and therefore Muller suspect of heresy, is that he said Protestants are members of the VISIBLE Church which they are not.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)