Vatican orders slight change in text for baptism
#41
(08-25-2013, 07:31 AM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-24-2013, 09:25 PM)DustinsDad Wrote: New theology is fun!

It is new theology.  It's becoming clear and clearer to me that it is new theology no matter how much I don't want to believe that it is new theology.  "Subsists" in the Catholic Church does not equal "is" the Catholic Church.  To say that elements of Christ's Church can be found in other Christian communities is a new theology. To say that Christ's Church is not one and is separated and needs to be united is new theology. It completely contradicts  previous Church teaching.

Added:  I read a few encyclicals late last night, so I may be mixing them up but I believe it contradicts Mortalium Animos.  I mean I just re-read Philosoptor's post above and thought, "wow, this was exactly what was condemned".

Simply saying elements of Catholic truth exist in false religions is nothing new or profound (as if its some brilliant new discovery these modernists have made). It's what the modernists, these New Theology theologins do with it that is so damning. What they have done is to distort the whole notion of the Mystical Body of Christ and the One True Church.

From Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generus, condemning the New Theology:

Quote:(#27) Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.

Can't say we weren't warned.

DD
Reply
#42
(08-25-2013, 08:15 AM)DustinsDad Wrote:
(08-25-2013, 07:31 AM)2Vermont Wrote:
(08-24-2013, 09:25 PM)DustinsDad Wrote: New theology is fun!

It is new theology.  It's becoming clear and clearer to me that it is new theology no matter how much I don't want to believe that it is new theology.  "Subsists" in the Catholic Church does not equal "is" the Catholic Church.  To say that elements of Christ's Church can be found in other Christian communities is a new theology. To say that Christ's Church is not one and is separated and needs to be united is new theology. It completely contradicts  previous Church teaching.

Added:  I read a few encyclicals late last night, so I may be mixing them up but I believe it contradicts Mortalium Animos.  I mean I just re-read Philosoptor's post above and thought, "wow, this was exactly what was condemned".

Simply saying elements of Catholic truth exist in false religions is nothing new or profound (as if its some brilliant new discovery these modernists have made). It's what the modernists, these New Theology theologins do with it that is so damning. What they have done is to distort the whole notion of the Mystical Body of Christ and the One True Church.

From Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generus, condemning the New Theology:

Quote:(#27) Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.

Can't say we weren't warned.

DD

Absolutely.  The error of Modernism is no new theology.  The fact that it was allowed into Catholic theology is what's new.  Meanwhile. .....many defend it...over and over again.

And thanks for the papal quote.  I don't think that was the one I saw but it definitely works as well. 
Reply
#43
2Vermont, you should check out this book...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/089555643X

[Image: 1588x.jpg]
Reply
#44
Catechism of Modernism

http://www.amazon.com/Catechism-Modernis...d_add_1_dp
Reply
#45
The intentional misunderstanding here is hilarious.

Quote:Simply saying elements of Catholic truth exist in false religions is nothing new or profound (as if its some brilliant new discovery these modernists have made). It's what the modernists, these New Theology theologins do with it that is so damning. What they have done is to distort the whole notion of the Mystical Body of Christ and the One True Church.
Saying that elements of the Church can be found in the assemblies of separated brethren is exactly what the Church has taught, is teaching, and will teach. As you say, nothing new here. And guess what, DD? Vatican II goes no further than that! Benedict was clear that the phrase "the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church" can in no way be applied to any other community. So what you said here
Quote:But to insinuate that the Church of God subsists in false religions because of said elements makes about as much sense as saying the Church of God subsists in brothels. And saying false religions are a means of salvation makes about as much sense as saying the brothel in question was a means of salvation. With enough mental gymnastics the statements can be ''not false'' but the statements are dangerous in that we weak human creatures can easily be led to indifferentism by using such rhetoric....as the current state of the world and the Church manifestly demonstrates.

Got it now?

Perhaps saying ''the Church of Christ subsists in brothels'' doesn't sound odd to you. In which case, nothing I say can help.
is unfortunately false on a number of different levels. Maybe this will make it clear: "Elements of the Catholic Church (e.g. apostolic succession, valid sacraments, etc.) can exist outside the Catholic Church" =/= "The Church of Christ subsists in these separated communities." What it does mean (and LG is crystal clear on this point!) is that 1) elements of the Church can be found outside the Church. This is a fact; why else does Rome acknowledge the valid orders of the Orthodox? Why else does She acknowledge their sacraments? If no elements of the Church can be found without her pale, then this would not be the case.

I'll repeat myself because I don't want to be misunderstood: "Subsisti in" can be applied only to the Catholic Church. It is another way of saying the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church, while recognizing that some elements (as noted above) exist in other Christian communities.

Maybe if people read the documents in their entirety instead of little snippets and actually gave them the full benefit of a doubt, as Rome asks us to do, silly protests like these would be lessened.
Reply
#46
The very reason they used ''subsists'' instead of ''is'' is the same reason they refused to use ''the Mystical Body of Christ'' and instead opted for ''People of God'' ... its the offence of exclusivity they wanted to avoid.

And far from being ''all they said'', the documents go on te heap praise upon raise upon praise on false religions. The may well have escaped formal heresy, but the newness and novelties of much of the documents, along with the vagueness, ambeguity and lack of clarity in other portions and the deafening silence on still others all led to the perfect storm we all now live through. That you refuse to see it is sad, but perhaps you don't want to. Perhaps it would shake your faith. Who knows.

BTW, the brothel analogy works perfectly. The crucifix hanging in the hallway represents the ''elements of truth'' in the false religions. A brothel is by its nature a place where sinful behavior takes place. False religions are by their very nature places where sin takes place (heresy and false worship).

Perhaps you would like to have seen a paragraph or two praising the good things in brothels...you know...combating loneliness, sensual pleasure, etc. Of course no word should be written of the potential loss of eternal life by partaking in fornication, prostitution, etc. That would be offensive and too judgmental.

Reply
#47
(08-25-2013, 12:24 PM)Sant Anselmo Wrote: Catechism of Modernism

http://www.amazon.com/Catechism-Modernis...d_add_1_dp

I have that one! ;)
Reply
#48
My niece was baptized in a NO church yesterday, the Christian community wording was used... obviously the memo was not received.
Reply
#49
Quote:That you refuse to see it is sad, but perhaps you don't want to. Perhaps it would shake your faith. Who knows.
I refuse to see anything in the Vatican documents besides what is, you know, actually there. Especially something which contradicts earlier Tradition; which the Council Father had neither the right or intent to do!. If I seem to find a contradiction between the documents of Vatican II and earlier doctrinal teachings, it is a sign that I have erred and have missed the mark. Period. To do otherwise is to oppose the Church in Her constant teaching, for it is Her teaching that everything in V.II is to be interpreted with continuity with earlier teachings; thus, the older pronouncements are an invaluable guide in interpreting the more recent pronouncements.

You have patently misrepresented the actual teaching of subsistence, insinuating that other Christian communities are the Church of Christ according to V.II (if you'd read Lumen Gentium you'd know that the opposite is taught). That is false, and moreover is a dangerous error.

Quote:BTW, the brothel analogy works perfectly. The crucifix hanging in the hallway represents the ''elements of truth'' in the false religions. A brothel is by its nature a place where sinful behavior takes place. False religions are by their very nature places where sin takes place (heresy and false worship).
The brothel analogy fails completely. Do we need to review your explanation?
Quote:But to insinuate that the Church of God subsists in false religions because of said elements makes about as much sense as saying the Church of God subsists in brothels. And saying false religions are a means of salvation makes about as much sense as saying the brothel in question was a means of salvation. With enough mental gymnastics the statements can be ''not false'' but the statements are dangerous in that we weak human creatures can easily be led to indifferentism by using such rhetoric....as the current state of the world and the Church manifestly demonstrates.

Perhaps saying ''the Church of Christ subsists in brothels'' doesn't sound odd to you. In which case, nothing I say can help.
False false false. Are you doing this on purpose? If this is honestly your understanding of LG and subsistence... Well shucks, son. Try reading lessons? First, nowhere in LG is subsistence used qua other Christian communities (which are the implied subject here - why do you keep bringing up false religions? We aren't discussing Nostra Aetate). Second, nowhere is it taught that false religions are a means to salvation! LG describes the situtations where invincible ignorance applies, but cautions that the Devil is hard at work to deceive souls into Hell, so we must not presume all are invincibly ignorant. If your brothel had had the following interpretation, I should have wholly endorsed it:
Dustins Dad in a More Rational World Wrote:The brothel represents a false religion. The crucifix represents the elements of truth in that false religion (e.g. monotheism, natural law, etc); the prostitute, convicted by the crucifix, abandons the brothel and joins the Catholic Church. Thus elements of the Church existed even in this brothel
Again, the focus of this passage is on the Church and recognizing some of Her elements in other communities, not false religions. Here's a helpful hint: replace 'false religion' with "Eastern Orthodoxy".

Maybe some commentary will help:
Quote: In view of these identities, it is strange that the document says that the Church of the Creed “subsists in” the Catholic Church, rather than simply saying that the Church of the Creed is the Catholic Church. This softened language appears to be motivated by the desire to recognize that there are “many elements of sanctification and of truth” outside its visible structure. In other words, the Church of Christ might in some sense extend beyond the visible structure of the Catholic Church.

This subtle distinction can easily be misread, and indeed has been misread far more frequently than it has been correctly interpreted. The Council definitely did not intend to say that the Church of Christ is a distinct entity from the visible, hierarchical Catholic Church. It plainly rejected that idea just a few sentences earlier. Any authentic, honest attempt to discern the Council’s meaning must harmonize with its earlier declarations that the hierarchical Church and the heavenly Church are not distinct realities, and that the Church of the Creed was erected under the authority of Peter and the apostles, to last for all ages.

Fortunately, we do not have to guess at the Council’s meaning, for the matter has been clarified by official magisterial pronouncements by the Popes, starting with Pope Paul VI. Just months before Lumen Gentium was ratified, the pontiff issued his encyclical Ecclesiam Suam, which approvingly quotes Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis: “The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, a doctrine revealed originally from the lips of the Redeemer Himself...” Here the equation of the Church with the Mystical Body of Christ is plainly pronounced as de fide. Lest there should be any doubt that Lumen Gentium did not intend to break continuity with this tradition, the same Pope announced, when promulgating the Constitution, “There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach.” In later years, Pope Paul would become exasperated with attempts to interpret the Council as overturning previous dogma. That this was not the case was obvious to him, since he had worked tirelessly to ensure that no dogmatic controversies were to be taken up by the Council, but rather it was to focus on pastoral aims. The near unanimous approval of the document would have been impossible if the Fathers had understood it to contradict the perennial doctrine expressed in Mystici Corporis.

Still, some account needs to be made of the choice of wording. According to tapes of the Council, the phrase subsistit in was proposed by none other than Sebastian Tromp, a Thomist traditionalist who had been instrumental in authoring Mystici Corporis.[[That darn Modernist, infecting the Church with Mystici Corporis errors! ] He says:

    Possumus dicere: itaque subsistit in Ecclesia catholica, et hoc est exclusivum, in quantum dicitur: alibi non sunt nisi elementa. Explicatur in textu.

    We can say: ‘and so it subsists in the Catholic Church,’ and this is exclusive, inasmuch it is said, elsewhere there are not but elements. It is explained in the text.

Tromp understood this wording to have an exclusive meaning, so that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church and nowhere else. Elsewhere there are only “elements” of sanctification, as we shall discuss later. Given that Tromp had helped author Mystici Corporis and had helped arch-traditionalist Cardinal Ottaviani prepare the original schemata that were set aside by the Council, it is hardly surprising that subsistit in should be given a perfectly traditional interpretation in its origin. [Well that tears it. Those who oppose subsistence don't really have a leg to stand on anymore. He helped draft the original schemata? An assistant to Cardinal Ottaviani? I guess he ain't a liberal like Loisy like I thought!]The word subsistit was to replace the ambiguous adest (“is present”) in order to signify specifically that the Church of Christ is present in the Catholic Church and nowhere else. Tromp was an accomplished Latinist, and knew that subsistere originally meant “to remain standing,” and by the Middle Ages it was practically synonymous with “to exist.” That is to say, the Church of Christ remained in the Catholic Church, even as many members broke away. This is why Tromp understood subsistit to have an exclusive meaning, more so than adest or est.
Some trads/SSPX say Vatican II teaches that the Church of Christ is not the Catholic Church. Apparently DD thinks they are correct. But that is dead wrong, as I have shown. If some are still unconvinced, here is the CDF's response to these and other dubia:http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...html#_ftn9 quote]The use of this expression [subsists in], which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. [/quote]
I guess you could say that LG introduced theological error into the Church, and that every pope, synod, and CDF proclamation since has been infected with the same poison.

...but that's sounding pretty dumb at this point.

Reply
#50
(08-25-2013, 10:10 AM)DustinsDad Wrote: 2Vermont, you should check out this book...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/089555643X

[Image: 1588x.jpg]

LOL!  That *is* the book I was perusing last night!!

And as for the other posts here, the defense continues......
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)