Just wondering, What is the good christian response to a good high visibility christian going wrong? How about after s/he is caught?

Prayers for their return to sanity? repentence? There but the grace of God go I? Condemnation?

The protestants had their problems earlier. Jimmy Swaggert? was that his name? and others like him. Good people can either make a very public bad mistake, cover it up and have it found or can slide in to very bad habbits just like the rest of us. But when they are public Christians it hurts every one.

If there is some oversight, they usually will find correction before the press does, but so many of the top do not have any oversight at all. If Billy Graham was found to have a major problem, who would have been there to correct it, point it out, insist that he notice it?

And yes, dispite chosing to pick on Protestant standouts, this is relevent to the Catholic Church. I think that it is so similar that it can be lumped into the same catagory, and ask the same question of 'what should be our response?'. More so as I feel that we should honor any good warrier for Christ at their death, no matter what stance they came from or what division they lead. The test is did they do good, and/or did they lead others to Christ?

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), December 23, 2002

Answers

"IF Billy Graham was found to have a major problem" ???

*** From BBC news at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1850077.stm ***

Saturday, 2 March, 2002

The Reverend Billy Graham has apologised for a taped conversation with former President Nixon in which he said the Jewish "stranglehold" of the media was ruining the United States and must be broken.

The remarks came in 500 hours of tapes Nixon had secretly recorded during the first six months of 1972 which have now been released by the U.S. National Archives.

"Although I have no memory of the occasion, I deeply regret comments I apparently made in an Oval Office conversation with President Nixon some 30 years ago," Mr Graham said in a statement released by his Texas public relations firm.

"They do not reflect my views and I sincerely apologise for any offence caused by the remarks," he said, adding that he had spent his life building bridges between Jews and Christians.

In the taped conversation, Mr Graham said the Jewish "stranglehold" on the media "has got to be broken or this country's going down the drain".

"You believe that?" Nixon replies.
"Yes, sir."
"Oh boy. So do I. I can't ever say that but I believe it," Nixon says.
"If you get elected a second time, then we might be able to do something," Mr Graham replies.

Later in the conversation, when Nixon raises the subject of Jewish influence in Hollywood, Mr Graham says: "A lot of Jews are great friends of mine. They swarm around me and are friendly to me, because they know that I am friendly to Israel and so forth, but they don't know how I really feel about what they're doing to this country, and I have no power and no way to handle them."

Nixon, who became friends with Mr Graham in the 1950s during his time as vice president in the Eisenhower administration, then advises: "You must not let them know."

-- (ThereButForTheGraceOfGod@Go.I), December 24, 2002.

Sean, It is politically incorrect to say so, but what Billy Graham said, has some truth to it. It is not all Jews per se. Most Jews want to live in peace, raise their families, just like most of us do. There are influential , militant groups however, who do have agendas.What they are, are known only to them. It is not only Jews that have agenda, that are not good for the rest of society. Unfortunately, many others, like Saddam, and others do. It is a world we must live in. It's the only one we've got until, the next world, where hopefully , we can all live in love, and peace.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 24, 2002.

This stuff on Graham is nothing but slander.

At any rate, it all boils down to MAINTAINING OUR PERSONAL HOLINESS. If leaders, Christian above all, cling to the Lord daily, minute by minute, always seeking His will, and asking for obedience,God is faithful to provide and protect. Leaders need to be surrendered to the right authority, and accountable to righteous directors and advisors. God will thwart off temptations as soon as they are even a thought in our heads, but we must keep our minds on Him.

I remember when Swaggart fell, I can still see his crying face on the t.v. It was pathetic, and yet I wept. I wept, feeling the fall, the loss, it affects us all when Christ's body is wounded.

Sean, can we control our reactions? I know our attitudes must be as Christ's, one of compassion. We must pray for one another, we are all vulnerable. As soon as I'm feeling smug about my walk with Jesus I say the dumbest thing I wish I could take back.

The Lord, in all His justice, will sort things out in the end. I do believe our stance must be one of forgiveness and compassion.

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), December 24, 2002.

Theresa,

Thank you for an on topic answer.

I was raising a topic on our response to fallen leaders, including Catholic ones. Right now names should not matter, and no one should have to write all the sins down in the dirt.

Oversight is wonderful. It really reigns in some problems. But in independent protestant leaders as well as semi-independent Cardnials and ArchBishops it looks like it is substantially lacking. This was another point I was making. As in how much oversight did Rome really have on the recent problems? Were they even reported, or just handled locally? Well I would have to split the discussion to really take this up.

"I remember when Swaggart fell, I can still see his crying face on the t.v. It was pathetic, and yet I wept. I wept, feeling the fall, the loss, it affects us all when Christ's body is wounded. "

I love this statement. I was not as involved at that time and did not have such a reaction, rather the opposite. But today I might have such.

"Sean, can we control our reactions? I know our attitudes must be as Christ's, one of compassion. "

I think we can, a bit. Attitude makes a big difference.

"We must pray for one another, we are all vulnerable. As soon as I'm feeling smug about my walk with Jesus I say the dumbest thing I wish I could take back. "

How true.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), December 24, 2002.

Dear Theresa & Sean,

I love Billy Graham, but, he, too, is human and does say things or do things that are sinful - as we all do and that is why we have confession. Prior to confessing, we must examine our consciences to see how we sinned in word, deed, or action - a very humbling experience.

His son was on the Sean Hannity Show a couple of weeks ago and they did talk about his father's comment about Jews. He did say those things, but immediately repented. I'm not sure if he said all of the things quoted above, but he did say something about the Jews.

I don't think he meant it the way it was portrayed. I think he meant it especially towards Hollywood and how the movie industry has such a negative affect on our children, our world and creates many problems in the world today because of its negative influence on society in general. I don't think he meant that he does not like Jews.

Like I said, we all say unkind things at some time or another, things we regret and wish we didn't say or do and that is because we are not perfect. We are human beings, after all.

I feel very guilty as of late in regard to our Bishops and hierarchy. I'm afraid I have been guilty of judging them, even though I justified my reactions and rationalized my thoughts on this situation.

We cannot and should not play God with other people's lives and I pray that God forgive me for judging the hierarchy of our church. I must leave that to God and to Law Enforcement - if it is decided that a crime has been committed.

My job is only to pray for them. It is very, very sad when our religious leaders fall. However, I must remember that Satan is constantly at work and loves to see followers of Jesus fall into sin. How we choose to react to that can become sinful as well and I am afraid I have been sinful in this regard.

Thank you for the post. Your post has spoken to me, Theresa. I must humble myself and confess my hostile reaction to the scandal in our church and pray for all those involved and pray for healing in our church and in our hearts (those of us who may hold anger in our hearts)

Merry Christmas to all of you. I came on here to take a little break from the kitchen and better get back to it. :)

Love, MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), December 24, 2002.

From the BBC article copied above: "The remarks came in 500 hours of tapes Nixon had secretly recorded during the first six months of 1972 which have now been released by the U.S. National Archives."

From Theresa: "This stuff on Graham is nothing but slander."

No. Slander involves lies. This is absolute truth, quotations right from tape-recordings. Graham admitted to having done wrong and apologized at least twice. It is clear to anyone who reads his words objectively that he was, to a certain extent, an anti-Semite -- not the worst kind, like a Nazi, but anti-semitic nonetheless.

From Mary Lou: "His son was on the Sean Hannity Show a couple of weeks ago and they did talk about his father's comment about Jews. He did say those things, but immediately repented. I'm not sure if he said all of the things quoted above, but he did say something about the Jews.

Again, it has been overlooked that these were words from the Nixon tapes, recorded 30 years ago. He did not "immediately repent," but repented 30 years after the sin -- that is, just this year. He did say "all the things quoted above," because they come from the transcript. The guy did something terribly wrong, and no one can allow a personal liking for him to stand in the way of condemning what he did. (A Catholic priest, bishop, or pope would be thrashed to within an inch of his life by the anti-Catholic, ultra-liberal media if he had done this, rather than Graham. They would have hounded the Catholic for months until he quit his position and escaped into oblivion -- unlike Graham, who was let off the hook after a week or two.)

From Theresa: "I remember when Swaggart fell, I can still see his crying face on the t.v. It was pathetic, and yet I wept. I wept, feeling the fall, the loss, it affects us all when Christ's body is wounded."

I saw the crying on TV too. Not only was it "pathetic," but it was phony. He came across not as sorry for the sin, but sorry for having been caught and regretting the loss of power and money. He was no part of "Christ's body," the Church. In fact, what happened to him was good for "Christ's body," because Swaggart did all he could to shut down Catholicism by fooling people into leaving the Church. What an incredible anti-Catholic liar he was! Twenty years ago, some Cathoic (priest?) wrote a book that had Swaggart's name in the title, because it was written to prove to Swaggart's followers that he was not telling the truth about the Church.

-- (ThereButForTheGraceOfGod@Go.I), December 25, 2002.

Dear TBFG, When I say 'slander' I mean 'spoken with uncharity, resentment, and unforgiveness'. Pray for him and beg forgiveness, those who are unaware of his sin may be blessed by him.

Swaggart may have been a lying evil man, but his followers, those unaware little lambs, even though lost, were hurt, my tears were perhaps for his reign-for the damage it did to the Body.

Yes, I can agreee with you his fall was for the good. As are many falls. As a matter of fact we have the power to cause falls by our prayers. In 2 Corinthians 10:4 Paul tells us "We destroy arguments and every pretension raising itself against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive and obedient to Christ..."

As a matter of fact the Lord gives us the authority to tear down the enemy and build up the Church. When radical feminism had infiltrated our parish on a deep level we began to pray "Lord, renew them or REMOVE them". We saw powers fall and people get fired that was only a move of God's hand. What looked like impossible situations diminished immediately. Hearts changed miraculously.

It's a little off the subject, my point is we need to walk in discernment, and know who our leaders are, and pray appropriately. Our battle's are 'not with flesh and blood but with principalities, powers, world rulers of this present darkess, with the evil spirits in the heavens'. {Eph. 6:12}.

We can keep good leaders strong with our prayers, and tear down bad ones. It's all part of our Christian walk. And when we come back to the Lord, and say 'even the demons are subject to us in Your Name', we don't rejoice in that, we only rejoice that our names are written in Heaven. And we continue the battle, we 'put on our aprons and continue to serve the Master".

With, I add, hearts of humility, compassion, and forgiveness.

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), December 26, 2002.

for the damage it did to the Body.

Theresa, you seem like a really nice lady, so pardon me for asking, what 'Body' are you speaking of? Swaggert, Graham and all the rest of the prominent Protestant 'militants' are not part of the 'Body', if you are speaking of the Body of Christ, His Church. How can they be? They speak untruth, lies, and heresy. Don't get me wrong, I am sure at least Graham is a 'good person.' But he is still outside of the Church Militant. For you must accept all doctrine and dogmas of the faith to be a true member of the Church, and he does not do that.

Think about it this way. God is too kind, too merciful to withhold the grace of Faith from those that are truly searching for the truth. Of course, most people think they want the truth, but probably can't get rid of this little voice in the back of their head saying, "As long as the truth isn't too hard." And the truth is hard, very hard. As an example, I say this little prayer everyday,

"O Lord My God, I now at this moment, readily and willingly accept at Thy hand whatever kind of death it may please Thee to send me, with all its pains, penalties and sorrows."

As much as I want that prayer to be from my heart, I often find myself thinking at the same time, 'I sure hope you don't expect me to be a martyr, or die from cancer, and any other awful death, though.' Because that would be so hard and I don't want to have a hard death. So, you see, we try to align our will with God's but it is a very hard thing to do, and I think that is what keeps most people from converting to Catholicism........if they were willing to align their will with God's and prayed and searched for the truth, it would be against the nature of God to withold the truth. But too often our will is put before God's.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), December 26, 2002.

hi Isabel, it's late and I don't have the info I'd like to with me. So off the cuff.. first off, I may as well not be considered part of the Body 'cause I'm so not perfected yet. are you?

I may 'seem like a nice lady'. What does that mean? I've read about mass murderers who 'seemed like such nice people'. I don't like the word nice. At any rate, you can disagree with me, I'm not put out.

I think i know what you're trying to say though,thanks for the response. Blessings, Theres

-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), December 27, 2002.

"Swaggert, Graham and all the rest of the prominent Protestant 'militants' are not part of the 'Body', if you are speaking of the Body of Christ, His Church."

This is a completely supportable teaching of the Church throughout the ages. It is beyond dispute; document after document makes this clear. They need to come into the Church.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 27, 2002.

I may 'seem like a nice lady'. What does that mean?

I certainly meant no offense by that. I apologize if you were offended. I only meant, that not knowing you personally, but by what you post, you appear to be very kind hearted and well-intentioned. So, I started my post in that manner, in the hopes that you would not misunderstand my intentions, which were not to blast you, but to question something you had written. That is all. It seems I failed.

I may as well not be considered part of the Body 'cause I'm so not perfected yet. are you?

You need not be perfect. God knows I'm not. And none of us ever will be while we are on this earth. I never said anything about being perfect. But you must accept the doctrines, dogmas and laws of the church to be a part of the 'Body of the Church.' Just being a Christian by name, does not make you part of that body. Like I said, I am sure many of these Protestants are well-intentioned and live very good lives, (probably better than me), but that does not take away the fact that they spread false doctrine and error. Christ cannot be happy with anything but the truth. It would be against His nature.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), December 27, 2002.

ok Isabel, I totally hear you, really. Sorry for being picky or snippy. thank you- love,Theresa

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), December 27, 2002.

I thank God every day that my sins are not "out there" for all of the world to see and hear and discuss over supper! How awful to be a public figure, a leader of the church, and to have your sins hung out on the public washline! I like Jesus' remarks.."Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." It is always with sadness that I read of an individual's public exposure of failings and sin. How terrible enough to have to experience the event, but to also SHARE the intimate details with millions of people....it would be quite a burden I would imagine. I have enough to do keeping myself from error, and pulling myself back on track day after day without condeming others for their faults as well. To me, with all due respect, dragging a public figure through the proverbial mud is no different from doing so to your next door neighbor..it's just gossip and serves no good purpose. Prayer is so much more effective and kind.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 27, 2002.

Isabel,

You seem to say something like: ignore the protestant leaders, they are not in the Body of Christ, and do not count as Christians.

So they are not your brothers and sisters in Christ?

I started this thread using the protestant leaders as a way of keeping some prospective, and keeping everyone from feeling that I was attacking the Catholic church. The problem is in all leadership positions.

And even if your narrow and nasty view about the protestant leaders would be true, the world lumps them together with Catholics under the common name of “Christian”. What stains one stains all to some extent, though one can distance oneself from the mistakes of another’s sect. So if the Eastern Orthodox had some big scandal, the Catholic church would be slightly diminished as would all under the sign of the Fish, but not specifically diminished. And if a leader or saint caused all to respect Christianity more, or caused more to be called into the faith, it helps other sects slightly.

I am trying for respect among the various varieties of Christianity, not disharmony, not hatred.

Others, Could we be done with the specific sins of the specific leaders? Or should we dissect the specific recent Catholic scandal? The responses I have gotten have been pray for them, do not condemn. Does anyone have an alternate response?

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), December 27, 2002.

"Does anyone have an alternate response?"

Sort of... when you say that Isabel's expression of a truth she holds fast is "your narrow and nasty view about the protestant leaders", I think a case can be made that this could also be construed as condemnation of the same order in and of itself.

Often times (or most times) when people cling to immutable truths, they are seen as bigoted, narrow minded, hateful. My question would be, is not the case being made that one should not hold immutable truth so as not to be bigoted, narrow minded and hateful? If this is the case, then the truth cannot be obtained, and the pursuit of truth is in vain.

I always spring back and away from the assumption that the truth cannot be attained; I simply do not believe it. If one claims to possess the truth, invariably they are subject to accusations of bigotry, narrow mindedness and hatred. I guess it just comes with the territory, curteousy of the proponents of "everything-ness".

That's somewhat alternate. =_

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 27, 2002.

Most certainly Protestant leaders are just as human as Catholic leaders, no more so or less so. We are all sinners, and all in need of Christ's truth to show us the way home. Perhaps that is why the moral failings of a Catholic leader, who has access to the fullness of Christ's truth, are more noteworthy, and seemingly more despicable, than similar failings by a person who has only partial truth available to him.

In Christ, Paul

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 27, 2002.

Thank you, Emerald.

And, Paul, I couldn't agree with you more. Very well put.

Sean, I do realize that I may seem narrow minded and hateful. I guess I am narrow minded, in that I believe what the Church has always taught, no matter what the rest of the world is saying. Church doctrine, dogmas, and laws are not open for personal opinions or preferences. They are not subject to change to fit current times. They are unchangeable truth, regardless of what Billy Graham says. Does that mean I hate all protestants? Of course not, there are many I have a great respect for. But I still pray for them, because they are outside of the fold, the Body of Christ. I pray that they may one day join the Body of Christ, so their road to salvation may be made just a little easier by the frequent reception of the sacraments and the knowledge of (at least some) the truth. (I, of course, do not hold all the truth, but at least the Catholic Church does. And by staying in that fold, one has a much better chance of attaining the truth.)

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), December 27, 2002.

Ok, this is topic drift, but it now seems to dominate.

The Body of Christ is _only_ the Catholic Church? Please cite this teaching's place and maybe origin. This is the first time I have heard of it.

My view was more that the various churches were in a sense in the body of Christ, some more one kind of organ than others, in a similar way that Apostle Paul mentioned that various people who believed in Christ were members of that body in different ways.

Since the Church was not really split in Pauls time, the citation of this policy must come later, right? The original Body of Christ concept was a creation of a quote from Paul, and inculded all Christians at that time. Since this is the origin, I figgured that only the bigoted would exclude their brothers and sisters in Christ from this. So show me when the Catholic Church started this stuff.

So the Eastern Orthodox is not in the BoC? And yet their beliefs are very close to yours. Including a belief in their being the unbroken line from the apostles.

It would seem that you are saying that only Catholics are Christians. Well let us trash ecumenicalism. It is no doubt too liberal and no doubt was wrong-headed to start with.

And anyway there has not been too many on topic responses, maybe just one.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), December 28, 2002.

Dear Sean,

The Church does recognize the "broken Body of Christ", which includes baptized Christians who are "separated brethren", in the same sense that estranged members of a family, who no longer participate in family gatherings, are still family members, though separated from full unity. The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ as Christ Himself founded it and intended it to exist, with full authority granted by Christ Himself, and fullness of truth guaranteed by the Holy Spirit. Congregations which have rejected the authority of the Church Christ founded, abandoning part of the fullness of truth in the process, are still Christian, and therefore still members, albeit separated members, of the Body of Christ by virtue of the divine truth they have retained from their Catholic roots. Of course, it is possible for a separated body to reject so much Christian truth that they cannot reasonably be called Christian, even though their roots lie in Christianity (Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses for example). ..... continued .....

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 28, 2002.

No Christian Church but the Catholic Church can rightly be said to be "fully Christian", because the Church Christ founded was originally fully Christian, and all churches but that Church have rejected part of that original fullness. Any Church which has rejected all Catholic belief is clearly not Christian in any sense, because Catholic belief IS Christian belief in its fullness. The Catholic Church teaches that separated brethren who are still Christian can be saved by virtue of the truth they have received from the Catholic Church, provided they do not recognize the Catholic Church as the One True Church, "through no fault of their own" (hence, the often heard statement "salvation is only through the Catholic Church"). However, anyone who recognizes the Catholic Church for what it is - the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ for all mankind - and yet refuses to enter it or to remain within it, has abandoned salvation.

Your example of Paul speaking of the members of the body is not a good example. the members Paul spoke of were different in function within the Body, but they were united in belief, which is why they were ONE Body. In contrast, denominational churches are divided doctrinally. It is a matter of truth, not ministry. Yes, Paul's concept did indeed include all Christians of the time - precisely because all Christian congregations of the time were united in common belief, just as the Church Christ founded is today.

True ecumenism does not ignore the very real differences which fragment denominational Christianity. Differences which are ignored can never be healed, and unity can be restored to Christianity only by healing of the breaks which have occurred.

In Christ, Paul

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 28, 2002.

Thanks, Paul:
Here's the main part of Sean Cleary's misconception; ''My view was more that the various churches were in a sense in the body of Christ, some more one kind of organ than others, in a similar way that Apostle Paul mentioned that various people who believed in Christ were members of that body in different ways.''

The ''various churches aren't what you think, Sean. One faith was the Church; and the one faith is Saint Paul's Church. We know Christ made clear allusion to it as His Body, when he converted Saul on the road to Damascus. One Body; and all of One faith. Continued:

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 28, 2002.

Finally--

Now you-- one of their faithful, think the Universal Church includes those who abandoned the One Church to start opposing sects!

You think the Body of Christ is the product of opposing teachers and beliefs, while Paul knew it for the Church in her original solidarity.

You can't have it both ways simply because you read the Bible. The Bible isn't the Body of Christ! He founded a Church from where the Bible was written and the Gospel was promulgated. First to the faithful of One Catholic Body. Later assimilated by the unfaithful to that Body who followed false prophets. There is still only ONE Church. This is the Mystical Body of Christ, united in ONE faith. She is the Body of Christ; the Holy Catholic Church.

God bless you and illuminate your good soul, Sean Cleary. You are of Irish descent, by your name. Irishmen have practically a unanimous assent as a people to the Holy Catholic Church. You would do yourself a favor to examine the roots of your holy faith. Your good ancestors all were faithful Catholics, Sir.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 28, 2002.

Isabel and Emerald. You are true Catholics.

Pope Innocent III, fourth Lateran council Ex Cathedra.

Extra Ecclisiam, Nulla Salus" Outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation.

The Modernists ignore that when they push their Eccumanism!

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 28, 2002.

"Duh, no Edcumanism for me, boy!" {ER (where he maybe ought to be)}

-- (what@a.mess), December 29, 2002.

Jmj

Hello, fellow Catholics.

In replying to Sean, one of you stated: "No Christian Church but the Catholic Church can rightly be said to be 'fully Christian' ..." and one or more of you stated that non-Catholics are not part of the Body of Christ. According to my reading of Church documents, I don't think that I could make those statements.

I can understand why someone might want to use phrases like "fully Christian" and "partly Christian," but the Catholic Church does not use those phrases herself.
And I recall that, in the past, I myself have argued (as some of you have today) that non-Catholics are not part of the Body of Christ. However, I believe that the following partial articles from the Catechism shows these expressions of ours to be "inadequate":

"1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ ...
"1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: 'For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."

[to be continued]

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 29, 2002.

[continued]

What follows from these quotations?
(1) The Church wants us to call these people and ourselves "Christians," without saying that we are "fully Christian" and they are not. (They and we are "Christians," though we may say that only we believe the fullness of the faith.)

(2) Everyone (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) becomes a member of the "Body of Christ" at the moment of Baptism. Most, if not all, of you know that the syllable, "corpor," in the word "incorporated," comes from the Latin "corporis" -- meaning, "of the body." Note that the CCC quotation says that non-Catholic Christians are "incorporated into Christ." That means they are part of the "Body of Christ." However, elsewhere in Church documents, one can read that only we Catholics are "fully incorporated" into Christ, while non-Catholic Christians are incompletely incorporated. The analogy that comes to me from this is that Catholics are like limbs/digits/organs/cells that are healthy and completely connected to the Body of Christ ("fully incorporated"), but non-Catholic Christians are to a greater or lesser degree incompletely connected to the Body -- often, I'm afraid, being like a finger that has become amputated (but could be re-attached) or an eye that is temporarily blinded.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 29, 2002.

"That means they are part of the "Body of Christ." However, elsewhere in Church documents, one can read that only we Catholics are "fully incorporated" into Christ, while non-Catholic Christians are incompletely incorporated."

Can you make a guess as to what percentage incorporated they are? Say, maybe a Lutheran is at 73.87%, an Assembly of God at 64.77% incorporated?

Untenable. Absolutely categorically untenable.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 29, 2002.

John,

This is the answer I was looking for and expecting.

I was signing on to restate my question in more quiet terms, that Isabell was saying that the Body Of Christ was Only the One True Church, and I was saying that it is all of Christ's followers. It is nice to have such an informed person as yourself on my side.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), December 29, 2002.

John, thank you for an old suggestion that I have one extra window open on the letters while writing all this.

Leslie, thank you for the second on-topic response. Your prescription: Pray for them. Same as Theresa.

Paul, thank you for an almost on topic response: analysis but no prescription.

And thank you later for a supporting answer that Christians are members of the Body Of Christ, even weakly. I think of this as a tautology, others as absurdity. I might restrict the cirle to those churches whose leadership can agree with the apostles creed, and maybe to the more restrictive Nicene creed.

eugene, Ok so my analogy of the churches being like the people in Paul's words was a bit weak. Then let me say that the people that believe in Christ are Christian, and as Baptized Christians are members of the Body of Christ. That is supportable.

As we sing: The mystic sweet union with those who have gone before.

Apostle Paul did face the tendency of the church to fragment. And he said that the people should not identify with one teacher or another, but with being followers of Christ. Now this can be taken two ways, either as Paul as inclusionist asking that all be included, or Paul as One True Way asking that all stop trying to exclude themselves. Or maybe kind-of both, with both of the above meanings: do take in all that profess the name of Christ Crucified, and please stop being so fragmented.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), December 29, 2002.

"I was signing on to restate my question in more quiet terms, that Isabell was saying that the Body Of Christ was Only the One True Church, and I was saying that it is all of Christ's followers."

This is a revealing statement. It would seem that Isabel is considered wrong for saying that the Body of Christ is only the One True Church, the Catholic Church. That's an amazing departure; how on earth did this come about?

A couple things strike me offhand... one is about how many disciples walked away when Christ talked of His Body and Blood, while others stayed with Him as He had the words of eternal life. Unless we eat His Body and drink His Blood we shall not have life in us; yet who has this but the Catholic Church? What about the confession of sins? Who has this but the Catholic Church, or the apostolic succession but the Church, or general concept of sharing in the cross of Christ by suffering and personal sacrifices, and the honoring of Mary His mother?

And people want to say these are helps. Helps?!? These things are necessary for salvation! Calling someone a Christian, showing a distant or even proximate connection and thereby including them somehow in a relationship with the Mystical Body of Christ but not being fully in it is just brandishing niceness as a term, in the use of a word, but it does not address the issue of the eternal salvation of that soul. It is difficult to fathom how God has ordained a specific and necessary path for salvation yet for whatever reason we wish to be generous with a word, wishing to extend its definition to include those that reject the greatest elements of the necessary formula of salvation.

continued...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 29, 2002.

continued...

Am I mean nasty person? Sometimes, but it has nothing to do with this topic, no way. What happens to all these good souls? God alone knows these things and the reasons for them. But far be it from us in our limited vision of Truth to look for other ways for people to be saved than the way in which Christ instituted.

At the fall of Adam, the damnation of every man, woman and child was an absolute conclusion, a foregone conclusion, except that God in His mercy promised salvation and He delivered with a plan conceived from all eternity. People seem to have come to think that is untenable that any person be damned outside this narrow, God-ordained path. Wow. The Church has perenially taught that there is but a narrow path.

What is at the root of this, I believe, is that people are no longer cognizant of Original Sin; it seems the depth and gravity of this concept is lost. People have forgotten how screwed they really are.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 29, 2002.

thank you, John, good clarification.

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), December 29, 2002.

Emerald and Isabel,

There is an expression that goes, "There is no such thing, as a little bit pregnant" You either are, or you are not in the Catholic Church. Ask those, that drowned just outside the door of Noah's Ark,if being just that close, helped. I would not even consider Muslims, or the others. However Jews rejected Our Lord, and He wept. He would not have wept, if they were saved.

When the disciples, do so because their hearts are walked away, He said, "Will you also leave Me?

"Where would we go Lord"? YOU have the words of eternal life"

Do Protestants accept this?. They do not! So much for them.

Those who walk away do so becuse of hardened hearts. No "Invincible ignorance there" This phony ecumanism, has caused much of these troubles.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 29, 2002.

In answer to Ed,
And not asking his response, only wishing to neutalize the impression he gives to any impartial visitor.

The smirking attitude Ed shows us here, as a self- proclaimed traditional Catholic, is emphatically the one our Popes have striven to wipe out in those who live the Holy Gospel. Those Catholics few and far apart who never wanted the Gospel to mean much more but a club membership. When Catholics shun all others from the safety of the fold, they negate the passion and death of Jesus Christ, who offered it His Almighty Father for all men and women. We in the Church have this truth always before us; that Christ calls every soul to Himself.

Excuse me here for pasting a portion of my last posting on a similar thread.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 29, 2002.

Continued:
God is by His infinite wisdom incapable of being hidebound and narrow- minded. He searches the heart. The faithful of His Church merely follow His example; never confining salvation to a simplistic formula. Yet withall, our faith is only realised in the Church Christ has founded for all men. That's what ecumenism means; bringing the lost sheep home.

If the lost sheep aren't called, Catholics prove themselves indifferent to their neighbor's need. Pure and simple.

This goes counter to all Our Lord's teaching and His commandments. To insist the Church has been preaching a ''phony ecumenism'' is to turn your back on the Holy Gospel of Christ. What kind of Pharisee are you, Ed Richards?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 29, 2002.

Actually, most of what you say above Eugene, I could buy into. I actually agree with it. But when you get to this line:

"To insist the Church has been preaching a ''phony ecumenism'' is to turn your back on the Holy Gospel of Christ."

You see, that's where I think a leap in logic is taking place. Understandbly, too; I don't condemn you for making the leap there... after all, it is an incredible bit of cunning. I would a agree with the same phrase from a completely different direction, and I hope I can put this in a way that is clear and understandable; I would say:

"To insist the Church has been preaching a "a way of salvation that is outside the Church" is to turn your back on the Holy Gospel of Christ."

See, I don't think the Church is teaching a phony ecumenism because it is not being presented to us in a binding manner. Again, see the notes at the bottom of Lumen Gentium, and with all such documents, seek to ascertain the nature of their character, whether binding and to what extent, and in light of the entire Deposit of the Faith throughout the ages.

Modernism can be loosely summed up in this way: "the latest interpretation is the right one". Truth is perrenial.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 29, 2002.

Dear Emerald:
If you had been correct, we are just plain modernists from the Pope on down. This is the logic of Ed Richards. We really aren't though. Please turn to the ''Ecummanism'' (sic) thread which Ed started. It's presently first on the New Answers list.

There you see how I've tried to explain the doctrine of No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church.

You must never confuse an option for the non-Catholic as a child of God who ALSO enters by way of the Church of the apostles; even though his baptism is one of Desire only. Admittedly, there must be an act of perfect contrition, plus the innocence associated with invincible ignorance.

However, God's grace is freely offered the righteous soul; even one outside the fold. This should never cause a Catholic problems. Even you and I, faithful in this Church, are under an awesome responsibility to persevere. Many Catholics lose their eternal salvation, Emerald. Same token; many benighted Bible Christians like Kevin and Tim may persevere in faith; with a sincere and contrite heart. God will certainly understand their deficiencies; and Jesus Christ compensated for them too. Not only for the elect. Christ predicted of His holy cross: ''Once I am lifted up, I will draw all things to me.''

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 29, 2002.

"Even you and I, faithful in this Church, are under an awesome responsibility to persevere. Many Catholics lose their eternal salvation, Emerald."

You bet; this is the basis of all that mammon nonsense I talk about. People have teased me about it, and I think it is sort of funny myself, but it is true. Once you are inside this fence or gate or Ark or whatever you want to call these boundaries, then you are really on the spot. You have to move to this sort of castle at the center of it all; it is a kind of demolition of self will and this giving over of all to the creator to remake and renew the human by the grace of God. It is the ridding of "false gods", mammon, that we all serve in any number of different ways at the expense of serving the Triune God. Dang, it could be anything... money, fame, alcohol, drugs, keeping up with the Jones', anger, pride, wasting time, bad sex, rejection of childbearing, rudeness, etc. When you enter the gates, the job has just begun.

I'm speaking to the choir though; you know this better than I do, being senior to me. I've been dense-headed in this regard until recently; I had more of a sense of it in my way back youth and had to regain it after having dissipated so much time running after the things of this world, even when it seemed justified as in the need to pursue sustenance. False gods are sneaky things.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 29, 2002.

Theresa, thanks for the encouraging words.

Sean, I knew that what I wrote would be heartening to you. However, please do not overlook the fact that I firmly believe what the Church teaches -- that, as a fallen-away Catholic, you are no longer "fully incorporated" into the Body of Christ. I urge you to return to the Church as soon as you are able -- to be a healthy, "fully incorporated" member of the Mystical Body.

Emerald, I was disappointed by your two comments ("Can you make a guess as to what percentage incorporated they are? Say, maybe a Lutheran is at 73.87%, an Assembly of God at 64.77% incorporated? Untenable. Absolutely categorically untenable.")

First, there is no suggestion of "percentages," and your invention of the idea is not cute. For us, there are merely "full" and "incomplete" incorporation. Anything further is God's concern alone.
Second, a Catholic in good stead is not free to say that the teachings I have copied above are "untenable." Orthodox Catholics assent to all magisterial teachings, such as these (straight from the Catechism and Vatican II). I will pray that you will some day repent of your sins of dissent.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 29, 2002.

"First, there is no suggestion of "percentages," and your invention of the idea is not cute."

I agree; its not cute at all. Look, when you have "full" and "incomplete", if there is more than one principle involved it stands to reason that there are various stages, or 'percentages' if you will, of completion or fullness. How could it logically be otherwise? If there is only one principle involved, clearly you have an in or out, on or off situation. So what I said works just fine.

"Second, a Catholic in good stead is not free to say that the teachings I have copied above are "untenable." Orthodox Catholics assent to all magisterial teachings..."

Those magisterial teachings, that is, which uphold and adhere to the Deposit of the Faith, the clear doctrines of the Catholic Church. If God forbid the magisterium teaches that which is in contradiction to the same, a Catholic in good stead is bound to reject them. Read the bishops' oath.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 30, 2002.

Galatians I, 6-9:

"I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we (17) have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!"

Note the use of the word "we", let alone "an angel from heaven".

We've been told what the truth is for 2,000 years by Holy Mother Church. Nothing has changed.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 30, 2002.

Dear ones, I don’t know if to post on this thread or the other one on “ecumenism”, they are starting to sound similar, and the same people are on both. I’m going to print some exerpts from a teaching given by Fr. John Hampsch,CMF, a scripture scholar and theologian, and friend of EWTN, entitled “Catholic vs. Non-Catholic Salvation”.

But first, I must say we are not sounding Christian or like Holy Spirit -led Catholics at all. All this bickering, it’s laughable. I walk away from the computer scratching my head thinking, yeh, you can have all the answers just right but so what! If it leaves you with an arrogant “I’m the perfect Catholic” attitude, and you look down on your neighbor, your protestant neighbor, what good is it? It certainly doesn’t exude a pleasing odor that would attract anyone to what you have! This narrow-mindedness, thinking you have God in your own little box to control, has left some of us really missing the boat.

[continued]

-- Theresa Huether (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), December 30, 2002.

Anyway, here’s some of what Hampsch says, bear with me and read, it makes sense... ”One extreme doctrine on salvation is that of univeralism, ,which holds that everyone will be saved because God wills everyone to be saved {1 Tim.2:4}, and because Christ died for all {John 11:52}. Another extreme doctrine on salvation is that of radical Fundamentalism that limits salvation to those who explicitly except Jesus for their personal Savior {John 1;12}- thus consigning to eternal hellfire all others, including Jews, Muslims, Hindus, uncivilized savages, most church-attending Christians, and even deceased infants.

The extreme of Universalism and the extreme of Fundamentalism both base their tenets on Scripture, differently interpreted. Is there another more acceptable doctrine that might somehow “bring together” their scripturally compatible bases? Yes, but this might appear to some to be extreme itself.

In what appears to be an extreme and even arrogant position, official Catholic doctrine states that there is no salvation for those who are outside of the Roman Catholic church. When adequately understood, this doctrine provides an indirect refutation of both Universalism and extreme Fundamentalism {not to be confused with moderate fundamentalism}. Rejection of that official Catholic doctrine usually results from ignoring its official interpretation.

[continued]

-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), December 30, 2002.

Let’s start with the origin of the official teaching itself., based on scripture and the early Church Fathers. St. Paul says the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, apart from which no one can have eternal lifein God {see Eph. 1:22-23; 4:4; 5:23; 1 Cor. 12:27}. When the infant [pope led] Christian Church was the only one, Origen wrote, “Outside the Church no one will be saved.” St. Cyprian added: “He who does not have the Church as his mother cannot have God for his Father.”

Subsequently very strong statements of the Popes on this issue {taken by themselves, without subsequent qualification} give the impression of extremism and exclusivism: Pope Boniface Vlll in Unam sanctam taught tht “outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins.” This was reasserted by Pius Xll in the encyclical Humani generis, having already been decreed at the Fourth Lateran Council, the Council of Florence, and the First Vatican Council.

[continued]

-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), December 30, 2002.

These authoritative teachings would seem to imply that anyone not baptized as a Roman Catholic is doomed to hellfire. Yet, when in the 1940’s these unqualified statements were taught literally by Fr. Leonard Feeney,S.J. of Boston College, he was expelled from the Jesuits and excommunicated by the Church itself- which he regarded as his very rock of salvation- for refusing to qualify that teaching. In 1949 the holy office issued a letter stating Paul’s teaching that the Church as the Mystical Body as the sole arc of salvation, but that direct formal membership in her through baptism and other sacraments is only the ordinary means of salvation. God’s will allows for non-ordinary means for those without access to the full truth in Christ’s Church, or who are sincerely not convinced that the Catholic Church has the fullness of Christ’s revealed truth. And that would include all non-Catholics except those who willfully reject the Church while knowing it embraces the complete expression of God’s revelation.

All sincere God-reverencing non-Catholics are what Ronald Knox called “unconscious Catholics”. They can be saved because they truly belong to the Catholic Church, even though only implicitly, not explicitly-by indirect, not direct participation. Even if they mistakenly presume to know what God’s will is for them, they sincerely want to do whatever God wants , without knowing that He wants them to be Catholics. Thus they unwittingly and implicitly accept Catholicism.

[continued]

-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), December 30, 2002.

C.S. Lewis [admittedly not a Catholic] wrote in his book Mere Christiantiy, “We...know that no one can be saved accept through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him”. Old testament saints were saved through Christ’s redemptive act that occurred centuries later; they had only an implicit faith in Him- hardly more then a confidence that God would deliver His people. Yet, by responding to whatever light God gave them they were saved.

Pope Pius lX stated that invincible ignorance of the true religion exempts any guilt in not joining it. Pope John Paul ll in his encyclical Redemptoris Missio says that salvation in Christ is accessible to many who do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church, as God accomodates grace to their spiritual and material situation. Vatican ll {Lumen Gentium, 14} says that “Whosoever, knowing that the Cath. Church was made necessary by God for salvation through Jesus Christ, would refuse to enter her or to remain in her could not be saved.” Yet in the following paragraphs it states that non-catholic Christians, even Jews and Muslims who seek God in good conscience can be saved.

[continued]

-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), December 30, 2002.

Conscience, as the subjective determinant in moral decision-making is recognized by scripture itself, for Paul says that one’s conscience can sometimes accuse a person and sometimes excuse him {Romans 2:15}. God respects an erroneous but sincere conscience, even when it dictates the non-acceptance of His Church as the ordinary means of salvation.

This dictum when thus qualified does not in any way condone religious indifferentsim-the belief that one religion is as good as another. Nor does it suggest that all Catholics are automatically saved by thier explicit membership in the Church. Any Catholic, even while accepting all Catholic doctrines, can be damned by dying at enmity with God in the state of unrepented mortal sin. Just as there are many non-Catholics in Heaven, there are also probably many Catholics in Hell.

As a corollary of all this , the question often arises: if many non- Catholics are implicitly or ‘unconsciously’ Catholic by virtue of their sincerity, why should we try to convert them to become explicitly Catholic with full membership in the Church? Because only full membership in Jesus’ Mystical Body opens a person up to all those elements which flow from Him to attain and maintain full communion with Him.

[continued]

-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), December 30, 2002.

The Catholic Church alone provides the universal and optimum expression of Christianity , teaching all the things Christ commanded, including the papacy, to which He assigned the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. By this prerogative of ‘catholicity’ {universality}, the Spirit guides the Church “into all truth” {John 16:13}. Hence, conversion to explicit membership is preferable to being merely an implicit member.

This is a partial teaching- but you get the point. I exhort you on this forum who see things so black and white to take your judgemental attitudes to the Lord, we see only the man, God sees the heart.

{end}

-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), December 30, 2002.

Theresa, Fr. John Hampsch's understanding of the question itself, let alone the answer to it, leaves a ton to be desired. He doesn't even get the question right... doesn't even understand the question.

But worst of all, he didn't tell the truth. Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J. of Boston College was not excommunicated specifically for "for refusing to qualify that teaching". He was in fact excommunicated on a matter of obedience about going to Rome to make answer on these charges, not the charges themselves.

Fr. Hampsch abuses the facts when he fails to state that Feeney was reconciled with the Church, and was not asked to renounce anything because he was not guilty of any heresy to be renounced, and he continued teaching the same things after his reconciliation with the Church.

Go figure, huh?

This is a partial explanation of Feeney's personal martyrdom in defense of the Faith- but you get the point. I exhort you on this forum who see things so black and white to take your judgemental attitudes to the Lord, we see only the man, God sees the heart.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 30, 2002.

"This stuff on Graham is nothing but slander."

Theresa... it's the same with Father Feeney. Even worse.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 30, 2002.

Ok, we all have expressed our views on salvation, the Body of Christ, and such. And wonder of wonders, we have wrapped around to the main topic, What should be done to/for/against fallen leaders. We now have as topic a priest who was ex-communicated. How do you feel about him? What should be done to/for the people he led? What do you feel should have been done to/for/against him? Was ex-c. too far, just right, not enough? Would a public flogging help? Public ridicule? Just take away his position and his teaching authority?

And how do you all feel about exclusionist protestant theology that would damn all who do not say "Jesus is my Lord, and I have a private connection with him."?

One Catholic fiction writer I know, Jane Mailander, was listening to one such protestant on a radio, and wrote a piece called "Mother Teresa in Hell". It was inspired and funny. MT of course would set up hospices, comfort her fellow damned, help out, try to praise God, and in the story the preacher dies and gets his via her. She sold that short story, though I do not know where to find it.

But I really long for on topic responses, which is why I was praising the few I got and ignoring the off topic ones.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), December 30, 2002.

Sean, I promise to take another look at your opening message -- as well as your follow-up comments (which you just posted) -- to see if I can respond to your concerns. It has not gone unnoticed by me that you have repeatedly tried to bring the conversation back to your intended topic. However, you have one or more things fighting your effort:
(1) It may be that no one has an answer to your questions.
(2) It may be that no one is attracted to your subject matter.
(3) It may be (nay, is) true that at least two people are VERY interested in a tangential matter that has arisen.

All I can do is ask you to be patient and wait for "on topic" replies to come. Meanwhile, I am forced to post a reply (to Emerald) that is on that "tangential matter."

John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 30, 2002.

Jmj

Emerald, last time, I wrote: "... a Catholic in good stead is not free to say that the teachings I have copied above are 'untenable.' Orthodox Catholics assent to all magisterial teachings..."
To this you responded that orthodox Catholics assent to "[t]hose magisterial teachings ... which uphold and adhere to the Deposit of the Faith, the clear doctrines of the Catholic Church."

Ah! I think I see that your problem is that you are unaware of the fact that all teachings that are authentically magisterial -- including every teaching of Vatican II and every teaching in the Catechism -- do, by definition, "uphold and adhere to the Deposit of the Faith."
It appears that someone has misled you into thinking that the pope authentically teaching alone (or the pope authentically teaching in union with the bishops) can teach errors. This seems clear from your next words: "If God forbid the magisterium teaches that which is in contradiction to the [Deposit of the Faith], a Catholic in good stead is bound to reject them."
Do not trouble yourself to consider this! Such a thing is impossible.

[to be continued]

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 30, 2002.

I think that part of your problem is a misuse of the word "magisterium." In the most precise language, "the magisterium" is not a person or group of people. Rather it is a privilege -- a teaching "office" or "authority" -- held by the successors of Peter and the other Apostles. This is shown in Canon Law and elsewhere, with repeated references to the pope and bishops exercising their "magisterium." It is only by extension that people (and even documents) sometimes refer to those who have the power to exercise the Church's magisterium as "the Magisterium."

Emerald, it appears that you may be using the word "magisterium" to refer to a given bishop or a group of bishops. Such individuals or groups are NOT "the magisterium." They possess a "magisterium" (teaching authority), but they (except for the pope) may fail to use it in an authentic way. Such groups or individuals (except for the pope himself) are not infallible, and they can fall (and sometimes have fallen) into teaching errors. (When they do so, they are not failing to exercise their authentic magisterium.) To use your words, we are "bound to reject" those kinds of errors. But we are bound to submit to the teachings of the authentic magisterium -- such as those that are well summarized for us in the documents of Vatican II and much more completely in the new Catechism.

[to be continued]

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 30, 2002.

Within the Church, there are an "extraordinary magisterium" and an "ordinary magisterium." Our required assent even to the authentic "ordinary" magisterium (teaching authority of the Church) is explained in "Lumen gentium" #25

"Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking 'ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will."

[to be continued]

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 30, 2002.

Let's cover the same ground as LG 25 (and then some) by seeing how the 1983 Code of Canon Law teaches and binds us:

Canon 750 -- Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church [papal or conciliar], or by its ordinary and universal magisterium [bishops dispersed], which is manifested by the common adherence of Christ's faithful under the guidance of the sacred magisterium. All are therefore bound to shun any contrary doctrines.

Canon 752 -- While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops [which includes the pope], exercising their authentic magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ's faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine. [This includes all teachings in the Catechism. JFG]

[to be continued]

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 30, 2002.

Canon 753 -- Whether they teach individually, or in Episcopal Conferences, or gathered together in particular councils, Bishops in communion with the head and the members of the College, while not infallible in their teaching, are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ's faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic magisterium of their Bishops.

Canon 754 -- All Christ's faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which lawful ecclesiastical authority issues for the purpose of proposing doctrine or of proscribing erroneous opinions. This is particularly the case of those published by the Roman Pontiff or by the College of Bishops. [This includes the documents of Vatican II and many post-conciliar documents.]

[to be continued]

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 30, 2002.

Finally, let's turn to the 1990 "Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian," approved by Pope John Paul II for publication by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It states the following:

"23. [a] When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed.
[b] When the Magisterium proposes 'in a definitive way' truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.
[c] When the Magisterium, not intending to act 'definitively,' teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect. This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith."

[to be continued]

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 30, 2002.

I think that it is perfectly clear that all teachings in the documents of Vatican II and in the Catechism fall at least under point 23.[c] -- and thus, "under the impulse of obedience to the faith," we must give them "religious submission of will and intellect."
Emerald, my basic points have now been made to you over and over again -- with more than ample evidence backing them up. There is simply no "wriggle room" for you to contradict them and attempt to dissent with a clear conscience. I think you know perfectly well that, if you could speak to the pope face to face, he would be telling you the same things that I have been telling you.

Emerald, you quoted St. Paul in Galatians 1 ("... But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!") You did this to try to show that St. Paul could have gone bad and begun to teach errors. Having read what I wrote above, you realize that I agree with you! An individual bishop CAN go bad, and we are duty-bound to disregard what he tries to teach, if it indisputably contradicts the Catechism. (By the way, St. Paul's reference to "an angel from heaven" was hyperbole, since a heavenly angel is incapable of lying or teaching wrongly.)

You were right to end with the words: "We've been told what the truth is for 2,000 years by Holy Mother Church. Nothing has changed." Yes. In the Vatican II documents and in the new Catechism, "nothing has changed." These proclaim the same 2,000-year-old truths. And that is why you are required to join me in submitting to every teaching found therein. They contain no errors.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 30, 2002.

It is always bad accidentally to make a typing mistake in a post here. But it is especially bad when the mistake causes a sentence to say the opposite of what was intended. That just happened to me.

I accidentally wrote, speaking of bishops: "Such groups or individuals (except for the pope himself) are not infallible, and they can fall (and sometimes have fallen) into teaching errors. (When they do so, they are not failing to exercise their authentic magisterium.)"

My error is in the final sentence, which should have read:
(When they do so, they are failing to exercise their authentic magisterium.)

Sorry. JFG

-- (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), December 30, 2002.

^

-- ^ (^@^.^), December 31, 2002.

Emerald wrote:

“Fr. John Hampsch's understanding of the question itself, let alone the answer to it, leaves a ton to be desired. He doesn't even get the question right... doesn't even understand the question.”

It is just plain wrong to make a statement like this, when it is clear Fr. Hampsch didn’t answer the question based on his own personal opinion. Fr. Hampsch explicitly stated what the Church teaches (not himself). He gave a little bit of a history around heretical ideas, yet then showed what the correct teaching was. Emerald, if Fr. Hampsch doesn’t “get the question right”, then do you have the “right” answer? If you are able to judge who has the right or wrong answer, then that means you must have the “right” answer to make the distinction. Well, what is the right answer, and do you have magisterial documentation to back it up?

[continued]

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 31, 2002.

[continuing]

“But worst of all, he didn't tell the truth. Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J. of Boston College was not excommunicated specifically for "for refusing to qualify that teaching". He was in fact excommunicated on a matter of obedience about going to Rome to make answer on these charges, not the charges themselves.”

Where in Fr. Hampsch’s letter does it say he was excommunicated “for refusing to qualify that teaching”? And why is “for refusing to qualify that teaching” in quotes, when it was never quoted? Here is the quote from his letter:

“Yet, when in the 1940’s these unqualified statements were taught literally by Fr. Leonard Feeney,S.J. of Boston College, he was expelled from the Jesuits and excommunicated by the Church itself.”

[continued]

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 31, 2002.

[continuing]

“Fr. Hampsch abuses the facts when he fails to state that Feeney was reconciled with the Church, and was not asked to renounce anything because he was not guilty of any heresy to be renounced, and he continued teaching the same things after his reconciliation with the Church.”

Emerald, are we to take you word for this? If you can show evidence that Fr. Feeney was accepted back, etc. then we are getting somewhere. I don’t think Fr. Hampsch ABUSED anything. The facts were straight, he was excommunicated when he taught these things. Whether he was let back later is beside his point.

“This is a partial explanation of Feeney's personal martyrdom in defense of the Faith- but you get the point.”

Well, actually, there was a single line and a single time that Fr. Feeney was mentioned. Fr. Hampsch’s intention was to teach on salvation outside the Church, not an exhaustive (or even short) essay on the life of Feeney. He used Feeney as an example (and one out of many that could have been used) to show the Churches stance on certain doctrinal confusions that some held. What happened to Feeney later (whether he was let back, taught the same thing, etc.) was beside Hampsch’s point. The point was that it was clear at the time, from the Churches reaction to Feeney, that Salvation outside the Church was a little more than what was being said.

[continued]

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 31, 2002.

[continuing]

“I exhort you on this forum who see things so black and white to take your judgemental attitudes to the Lord, we see only the man, God sees the heart.”

Emerald, that has been my mom (and Hampsches) point from the beginning. We cannot say who is saved or not, within OR outside the Church. Only God sees the heart!

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 31, 2002.

Dear Friends, Sean, Theresa, John, et al:
This thread contains an inordinate use of cut and paste. --Yes, the treatments pasted do have merit, and nothing which can be rejected. But they tend to be self-defeating, if only because they're impersonal.

As for the answer to Sean Cleary; going off-topic is often letting the Holy Spirit practice on an individual soul. No one knows where the Holy Spirit might lead us, and after all; we can return to the topic at hand.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 31, 2002.

Hello, Gene.

You wrote: "This thread contains an inordinate use of cut and paste. --Yes, the treatments pasted do have merit, and nothing which can be rejected. But they tend to be self-defeating, if only because they're impersonal."

Wow! I couldn't disagree with you more! When I am faced with someone who adamantly and repeatedly opposes scores of "personal" attempts to correct him, some of the most effective [not "self-defeating"] tools I can use are quotations from the Catechism, Canon Law, and Vatican II documents. Then the opponent cannot say that I am inventing anything. He sees, in black and white, what the Church really teaches. Also, if you would look at what I have quoted, I have surrounded (and even "sprinkled") the passages with personal comments.

In other words, I tried to do things your preferred way, but it did not succeed. Even if I do not succeed in getting an admission of error out of my opponent at this point, at least all other current and future readers of the thread will see the words of the popes, the Vatican prefects, and the Council Fathers.

Oh, one last thing, Gene. Maybe you should avoid this thread in future, because I may decide to do some more "copy-and-paste" here, on the subject of Fr. Feeney! (Or, perhaps, out of respect for Sean, I will start a new thread on that subject.) [Note: I said "copy-and-paste" because "cut-and-paste" is destructive (moving something from one place to another), while "copy-and-paste" is not destructive.]

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 31, 2002.

Dear John:
I stated an honest opinion. Such work is defeated at the start because fewer people will find it of interest. I suppose there may be one reader who desperately needs the information. But, objectively speaking, it covers ground most Catholics already knew. It makes for dull reading, whatever its good influence. Nevertheless, I commend you on your faith, and your intentions. Not just you-- there are a few more of you doing the same. Good luck!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 31, 2002.

Hi Jake.

"Emerald, if Fr. Hampsch doesn’t “get the question right”, then do you have the “right” answer? If you are able to judge who has the right or wrong answer, then that means you must have the “right” answer to make the distinction. Well, what is the right answer, and do you have magisterial documentation to back it up?"

Yes.

"Emerald, are we to take you word for this? If you can show evidence that Fr. Feeney was accepted back, etc. then we are getting somewhere."

The evidence in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

I've talked for hours with someone who lived with Feeney for I believe in the neighborhood of 20 or 25 years and who lived out what went down at Boston College in the late 40's. I asked all the questions and got all the answers, pretty much from the horse's mouth.

"Emerald, that has been my mom (and Hampsches) point from the beginning. We cannot say who is saved or not, within OR outside the Church. Only God sees the heart!"

You see Jake, people in fact do not understand the question, as I see. They see Emerald as someone packing heat in the form of random damnation which follows no principle. This is as far from the truth as possible.

Jake, do you really, really take me for someone who wishes to be "too quick in dealing out death and judgement"?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 31, 2002.

John,

I look forward to reading what you have to say about Feeney. I did a quick net search and found quite a bit of scattered opinions. It is evident however that Feeney, in the midst of everything, was pretty disobedient. It is said that the Church summoned him to Rome on several occasions to defend himself, yet because the Church didn't state "why", he didn't go. Regardless of whether or not the Church summoned him according to "cannon code", if the Pope summoned him, he should have gone. True, the officials in the Church might have gone about things wrong, but Feeney (being a priest) still was obliged to obey.

Emerald,

Your post seemed pretty illusive. I asked if you have the correct answer (to whether or not Protestants, etc. can be saved) and documentation for it, and all you said was “yes.” …. Well, what is it and where is the evidence for it being the right answer?

Also, I didn't quite catch why you think Feeney was innocent. You gave a compelling account of your source of information, but failed to leave any of the information. Can you put together a response that is easy to follow and has a clear and concise answer? Thank you.

In Christ -

And have a happy happy new year!

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 31, 2002.

"Your post seemed pretty illusive. I asked if you have the correct answer (to whether or not Protestants, etc. can be saved) and documentation for it, and all you said was “yes.” …. Well, what is it and where is the evidence for it being the right answer?"

It isn't so much illusive is that I have posted already on various places on the forum, so I'm hesitant to post the Ex Cathedra statements of Popes as well as not necessarily E.C. statements, but supporting statements from pontiffs from the present Pope John Paul II all going all the way back, back, back. Also I've posted the statements of Saints of the Church, too numerous to count, indicated the same, that there is no salvation outside the Church.

I always claim that the Church has always taught that there is no salvtion outside the Church, not because Emerald says so, but because it is a proveable truth of the Catholic Faith.

Here's the problem I have encountered... the statements are so very, very clearly in support of the fact that the Church has always taught that the salvation is only in the Catholic Church that those who have been taught otherwise go into a frenzied rage in an attempt to prove otherwise. In a way, I can't blame them. This age old doctrine, a major foundational dogma of our Faith, has been largely lost. When it is lost, the understanding of the necessity of the Eucharist is called into question, baptism is called into question, Papal primacy is called into question, and on and on and on.

continued...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 31, 2002.

continued...

The point is, if salvation can be found outside of the Catholic Church, the ultimate question is, why be Catholic?

Those who want to water down this formula of salvation do so, I think, out of what they feel is a sort of charity, a goodness of the heart. They don't want to see those they know who are "good people", and those who may even some of our doctrines in common, such as Jesus as Lord and Savior... they don't want to see these people as 'not making it' when it comes to eternal life.

I can certainly appreciate these feelings; I understand the 'good intention' behind them. But when we marginalize or bastardize our Faith, we do no favors for anyone. The game is heavy and thick with urgency; the Evil One never sleeps, never rests. He doesn't eat or sleep or take breaks but wanders through the world seeking the ruin of souls.

To counter this and make a way of salvation possible, Christ instituted His Church and ALL the Sacraments... everything; all the doctrines, everything. The way of salvation is clearly laid out.

But we question it. As precious time ticks by we allow our good friends the "I'm ok, you're ok" position. But it isn't ok, because of original and actual sin. We must bring them into the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. This Church is the Ark of Salvation, and no other. It couldn't possibly be any other way. How could it be that when God lays out the way of salvation, that people say other ways will suffice, though they just don't have the fullness of the truth? Anything less than the fullness of the Faith is not good enough, because we must keep the Faith whole and undefiled.

continued...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 31, 2002.

continued...

John, feel free to post anything you want on Feeney, but remember, I know people that knew him, and I know some of the well known people that oppose him as well, so I've probably heard it all before. I know that guy personally, the one with the "answers".

At any rate, if you want the Ex Cathedra posts, I'll post them again, but they are so very clear that I warn you, everyone is going to hit the fan. But unlike what people may say, though the best evidence, they are by far not the end of all the evidence. All from Church teaching, not from Emerald's hyperactive cranium.

Modernism has caused this; the modernism we were warned about by Pope Saint Pius X.

I'm not some ogre wishing mass damnation upon mankind. I see the urgency of it, and I pray for the salvation of souls every day. We need more people to see the urgency of these prayers. Nothing but prayer and sacrifices will obtain conversions and salvation of souls.

I trust in the mercy of God, which is infinite and beyond all comprehension. I just don't think we should be doinking around with the fact the His Church is the way of salvation, that's all.

If you really want the quotes, I will post them again.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 31, 2002.

ooops jake... I said nothing of Feeney. I yacked on and on; my apologies for being long winded.

Let's see what John comes up with and go from there, on Feeney.

All in all, though, I despair of proving any of this to anyone... so don't fear John, I will eventually give up out of sheer exhaustion.

It will not, however, change the truth of the matter any. A person is either open to the truths of the Catholic Faith or they are not; they are either going to uphold the doctrines of the ages or move off into the continued construction of an all-inclusive liberal citadel of the kingdom of man on earth. Like a god in the image and likeness of man. That's what it is really all about, John. It has nothing to do with Christ's Church.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 31, 2002.

Emerald,
You will never understand. The doctrine hasn't changed. Only the Catholic Church has the means of mens' salvation. It isn't being denied. You make a mistaken conclusion out of the Vatican II points. The Church always taught other faiths could not save us. But other people can be saved, if grace from Christ's Church becomes available in certain circumstances.

No other faith gets anybody saved; only Christ's Church and His grace which comes by action of the Catholic Church. John can explain that perfectly well. It's just that you need it broken down in plain words so the doctrine is simple. You are placing human limits on Catholic doctrine. But for God nothing is impossible!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 31, 2002.

Hi Eugene; you said I will never understand, but believe me I do. What you are talking about is very, very familiar to me. It is the concept that those who are saved are saved in virtue of the fact that they in someway subsist within Catholic truth. You are talking about the Church as being a sort of aquaduct of salvation, where the waters of salvation so to speak, run throughout the world such that all those who partake, do so in so far as they as they partake in Catholic truth.

A tempting theory to be sure. But it is not the archetypical Ark of Salvation that the Catholic Church as always professed.

I believe you when you say that all you have ever concentrated on, even in the worst abuses to the Mass, is Christ, and have concentrated on Christ to your benefit. No doubt this transfixiation on Christ must occur for us even during the worst of attacks against Him.

Nevertheless, many are deceived.

When you say this: "You are placing human limits on Catholic doctrine. But for God nothing is impossible!", I plead with you to understand that I believe this deeply, and that the Almighty will lead the man of good will to find the Church and effect his salvation therein. God will not abandon a man who seeks.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 31, 2002.

Oooops... I believe this deeply: "But for God nothing is impossible!".

Obviously I don't believe this: "You are placing human limits on Catholic doctrine."

But its a no brainer; you figured that out, huh? lol!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 31, 2002.

I wanted YOU to finally figure it out, Emerald City!

Happy New Year; grow in wisdom and love for God! Amen!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 01, 2003.

"As for the answer to Sean Cleary; going off-topic is often letting the Holy Spirit practice on an individual soul. No one knows where the Holy Spirit might lead us, and after all; we can return to the topic at hand.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 31, 2002. "

eugene, john, and all,

I really do see the Holy Spirit moving in this topic shift, and am willing to wait or re-start the thread. What has been talked about really needed talking about for all concerned. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), January 01, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, Gene.
Reading your response to me made my head spin. You've got me fired up here, boy! I was just shocked at how out-of-touch you are with the reality of the Catholic laity's lack of, and need for, solid information as I provided. Let me explain.

You wrote, speaking of my quotations from official Church sources: "Such work is defeated at the start because fewer people will find it of interest. I suppose there may be one reader who desperately needs the information. But, objectively speaking, it covers ground most Catholics already knew."

First, you have no special qualifications to determine whether "fewer people" (or to what degree "fewer") "will find it of interest." Who are you that you would know such things -- Gene Gallup?

Second, it matters not a whit to me if "fewer people will find it of interest." As I already explained to you, I copied the info primarily to show a single person that he was wrong -- then secondarily to inform others. And I don't post something here merely because I think that people "will find it of interest." Is that why you post messages, to "interest" or "entertain" people? What a poor motive, if it's the only one! I post to learn myself and also to help people learn new things and "unlearn" bad things.

[continued below]

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 01, 2003.

[conclusion]

Third, contrary to what you seem to think, there are MILLIONS of readers who badly need to read the official texts that I quoted. I would estimate (without fear of being wrong) that at least 95% of English-speaking Catholics have NEVER read the documents from which I posted above. And I would further estimate that well over 50% have never seen/heard the same information explained to them in their private reading or in homilies they have heard. People are abysmally ignorant and willfully disobedient, left and right -- far worse than you seem to be aware. That is why they fall into all kinds of wrong behaviors, why they leave the Church for sects, why they go heretical or schismatic (like Ed) or into dissent (like Emerald), etc..

You continued: "It makes for dull reading, whatever its good influence."

Aha! Here is the real reason for your initial complaint, a couple of messages ago! It is not that OTHERS aren't interested or needful of what I posted -- but rather that it bores YOU. Well, I am sooooo sorry that I failed to entertain you, sir! Hahahaha! I have to admit that before hitting the submit button before my thousands of past posts, I never ONCE asked myself the questions: "Will this entertain Gene? Will I be bore him with this 'dull' stuff?" Do you want me to send you my proposed replies by e-mail in advance, Gene, to get your approval? Maybe you can spruce them up for me, delete the boring parts, etc.? [Hmmm. In proofreading this message just now, I realized that I did a bang-up job of Chavez-style sarcasm there! Very unlike me, I must say. Was it entertaining, Gene?]

I do appreciate your closing words, though. Too bad they didn't stand alone! I'll quote a few of them back to you: "I commend you on your faith, and your intentions. ... there are a few more ... doing the same [e.g., E. Chavez]. Good luck!"
Happy New Year.
John


-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 01, 2003.

John cannot resist taking a whack at Emerald and myself, even when he is arguing with Eugene. If John would join us in our"schism, and heresy", he might wake up to a lot of truth.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), January 01, 2003.

Dear Ed,
John is a good friend of ours here. You would have been, but your obnoxious and pharisaical opinions are a turn-off.

To make myself well-understood, I'd only remind John; that was an opinion, and not for condemning anyone's contributions. I never said the work was flawed in even a minor way. I only said frankly it was too bulky, and many readers will find it easier to skim and forget than truly appreciate.

Repeat: the method is self-defeating, IMHO.

Not without merit, not of little consequence. Since I said it (frankly) John has answered (frankly) ''I don't care.'' --What could be more direct than that? I applaud such a manly and insouciant reply! Lol!

You, Ed, should be grateful no one has made it their business to crunch you right out of here. Be thankful no one here is mean-spirited and vindictive, because that's just what you had coming. By the way; you --ARE in schism, heresy, and unhealthy dissent. No, thanks; we won't join you and your pal Jake. Life is too short to waste it on pipe dreams.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), January 01, 2003.

Jmj

I had to laugh, Emerald, when I read these words from you:
"John, feel free to post anything you want on Feeney ..."
Gee, I'm sorry. I never realized before that I had to get an OK to post things from you!

You then tried to head me off, perhaps because you don't really like the thought of me delving into the Feeney business. "... but remember, I know people that knew him, and I know some of the well known people that oppose him as well, so I've probably heard it all before."

Well, as I just finished telling Gene, I don't post messages for just one person, even if I may address a person by name. I post for all other readers, present and future. So, while you may think you know everything there is to know about the Feeney case [and I feel quite sure that you don't], there are huge numbers of people who don't know a single thing about the case. I would like to inform those good people, even if you don't read my posts on the subject.

By the way, the last person I'd trust for the scoop on what happened to Fr. Feeney is some old chum of his -- probably also excommunicated (or worthy of it). A really objective source you spoke to there! And with a crystal-clear, old-timer's memory about things of 50+ years ago. Yeah, I'd trust him!

[to be continued]

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 01, 2003.

[continuing]

Next topic ...
You told Jake H: "The evidence in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis."
Apparently you aren't aware of the fact that there is a whole lot more in AAS than just "ex cathedra" statements. Other teachings are there too, and we are all required to be submissive to them. My impression is that you lack submission to teachings that are not "ex cathedra." If so, you are a dissenter [with an outside chance of being a heretic] and -- objectively speaking -- you are in a state of mortal sin.

You also wrote: "I'm hesitant to post the Ex Cathedra statements of Popes as well as not necessarily [Ex Cathedra] statements, but supporting statements from pontiffs from the present Pope John Paul II all going all the way back, back, back. Also I've posted the statements of Saints of the Church, too numerous to count, indicated the same, that there is no salvation outside the Church. ... Here's the problem I have encountered ... the statements are so very, very clearly in support of the fact that the Church has always taught that the salvation is only in the Catholic Church that those who have been taught otherwise go into a frenzied rage in an attempt to prove otherwise."

[to be continued]

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 01, 2003.

[continuing]

This is an incorrect statement on your part. No real Catholic objects to your quoting from the popes or saints -- ex cathedra [e.c.] or otherwise. Every real Catholic embraces the e.c. statements. The problem is in your misinterpretation of those statements. Because people have often misinterpreted them through the years, the Church has provided more expansive explanations of of the e.c. statements. The real Catholics here accept those official explanations. You reject them, and that is the reason for the conflict on this and other threads, I believe. Once you embrace the Church's magisterial explanations of the e.c. statements, then you will be on your way back from dissent.

I had to smile a sad smile when I read Jake H's comment to you: "Your post seemed pretty illusive." He meant "elusive," but the irony was present. You have been "ill-Usive" -- "ill using" the e.c. statements to try to prove that they mean something not intended. And you have been "elusive" too -- not just to Jake H, but to others -- trying not to say too much, because to be as open as you ought to be would reveal just how profound your dissent really is.

[to be continued]

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 01, 2003.

[continuing]

Here. I'll give you a chance to prove that I am mistaken. I'll ask you to answer thirteen very pertinent questions that should have simple answers. Please number and list your answers. Please be neither "ill-usive" nor "elusive"! Then we will all know where you really stand. (If you can't answer a simple "yes" or "no," please use the words "probably yes," "probably no," "possibly yes," or "possibly no" -- and provide an explanation. If you really think that you must answer, "I don't know," please explain what information is missing that would have to be provided before you could give one of the preferred answers.)

(1) A baby girl is born in Belgium and is baptized in a Catholic church. On the way home, there is an auto accident and the baby is killed. Does her soul go to heaven? If not, where?
(2) A baby girl is born in Serbia and is baptized in an Eastern Orthodox church. On the way home, there is an auto accident and the baby is killed. Does her soul go to heaven? If not, where?
(3) A baby girl is born in Sweden and is baptized in a Lutheran Church. On the way home, there is an auto accident and the baby is killed. Does her soul go to heaven? If not, where?
(4) A baby girl is born in northern Sudan to Moslem parents. Within the first month of life, without being baptized, she dies in an accident. Does her soul go to heaven? If not, where?
[to be continued]

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 01, 2003.

[continuing]

(5) The baby in #1 [Catholic] survives the accident and grows to age 14. She is in the state of sanctifying grace when another accident occurs, and she is killed. Does her soul go to heaven? If not, where?
(6) The baby in #2 [Orthodox] survives the accident and grows to age 14. She is in the state of sanctifying grace when another accident occurs, and she is killed. Does her soul go to heaven? If not, where?
(7) The baby in #2 survives the accident, grows to age 14, hears about how Catholics are obedient to the pope as vicar of Christ and chief pastor of Christendom, while she and her fellow Orthodox do not recognize him as such. What she hears, though, does not convince her that she should become a Catholic. She is in the state of sanctifying grace when another accident occurs, and she is killed. Does her soul go to heaven? If not, where?
(8) The baby in #3 [Lutheran] survives the accident, grows to age 14, but has not yet heard/read the teachings of Catholicism. She is in the state of sanctifying grace when another accident occurs, and she is killed. Does her soul go to heaven? If not, where?
(9) The baby in #3 survives the accident, grows to age 14, hears about how some Catholic beliefs differ from the Lutheran beliefs she has learned, but what she hears does not convince her that she believes anything wrong. She is in the state of sanctifying grace when another accident occurs, and she is killed. Does her soul go to heaven? If not, where?
(10) The baby in #4 [Moslem] survives the accident, grows to age 14, but has not yet heard/read the teachings of Catholicism. She has not committed any mortal sins, but has tried to follow her conscience and to do what her parents and teachers have told her is right. Another accident occurs, and she is killed. Does her soul go to heaven? If not, where?
[to be continued]

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 01, 2003.

[continuing]

(11) The baby in #4 survives the accident, grows to age 14, hears about the fact that many Catholic beliefs differ from the Moslem beliefs she has learned, but what she hears does not convince her that she believes anything wrong. She has not committed any mortal sins, but has tried to follow her conscience and to do what her parents and teachers have told her is right. Another accident occurs, and she is killed. Does her soul go to heaven? If not, where?
(12) [This is a new child, not mentioned before.] A baby was born in 1949 into a family of committed Marxist atheists in Siberia. She never received Christian Baptism with water. She grew to age 14, but never heard/read the teachings of Catholicism. She did not commit any mortal sins, but tried to follow her conscience and to do what her parents and teachers told her was right. An accident occurred, and she was killed. Did her soul go to heaven? If not, where?
(13) The child in #12 [atheist] grew to age 14 and then heard that some people have religious beliefs. Some Moslem and Catholic friends then told her about their beliefs, but she was not convinced to believe anything that they told her, so she became neither Moslem nor Catholic. She did not commit any mortal sins, but tried to follow her conscience and to do what her parents and teachers told her was right. An accident occurred, and she was killed. Did her soul go to heaven? If not, where?

I sincerely look forward to your answers, Emerald. Everyone else, please let Emerald give a list of answers first. Then, if you wish to post yours, please do so.

Happy New Year.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 01, 2003.

To the top, waiting for Emerald's answers ...

-- (_@_._), January 03, 2003.

Hello, Sean.
I promised you that I'd make an effort to give you an "on-topic" reply. Here it is. I'll put your words in quotation marks, followed by my comments in [brackets].

"Just wondering, What is the good christian response to a good high visibility christian going wrong? How about after s/he is caught? Prayers for their return to sanity? repentence? There but the grace of God go I? Condemnation?"
[The same person could have a bunch of responses, all of them normal:
1. Sadness, because the person's soul was put in danger of hell.
2. Anger, since the person was probably a hypocrite upon whom many depended.
3. Prayer for the conversion of the person's heart and mind.
4. Empathy, upon realizing that one commits sins every day -- and may have committed greater sins than the "celebrity" -- but without their being made public.
5. Caution, to avoid putting high-ranking people on too high a pedestal in the future.
6. Wisdom, in giving advice to children about people in high places.
7. Happiness and forgiveness, if the high-profile person genuinely repented.]

(continued below)

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 03, 2003.

"If there is some oversight, they usually will find correction before the press does, but so many of the top do not have any oversight at all. If Billy Graham was found to have a major problem, who would have been there to correct it, point it out, insist that he notice it?"
[Family members and co-workers should have the courage to speak up. Very few people work in a 100% vacuum and can repeatedly sin without being caught.]

"And yes, dispite chosing to pick on Protestant standouts, this is relevent to the Catholic Church. I think that it is so similar that it can be lumped into the same catagory, and ask the same question of 'what should be our response?.'"
[Why do you want to ask about "our response" at this point, Sean? These problems broke into view in a very public way almost a year ago. Haven't you noticed what the responses of society have been? The response of the bishops and Vatican? The response of the courts? Why do you want to ask about "our response" now?
Unbeknownst to most people (because the mediat have ignored it), the Catholic Church in the U.S. first recognized the abuse problem in the 1980s, and started to take action in a big way ten years ago, with 1993 guidelines agreed to by the bishops. The efforts were very successful in dioceses where the bishops followed proper procedures. Where they did not, things went from bad to worse, and a rotten crop has now been harvested.]

(continued below)

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 03, 2003.

"Ok, we all have expressed our views on salvation, the Body of Christ, and such. And wonder of wonders, we have wrapped around to the main topic, What should be done to/for/against fallen leaders."
[Whoah! It seems that you are changing the topic. The opening message did not ask what "should be done to/for/against" them, but what "should a good Christian response" be toward them. To your new topic, I think that they should be treated just as any "non-leader" would be treated. Some falls involve crimes, while others do not. There are varieties of seriousness in falls, so there is no "one-size-fits-all" reaction.]
"We now have as topic a priest who was ex-communicated. How do you feel about him?"
[He was excommunicated in the early 1950s, was reconciled to the Church in the 1970s, and is now dead. It's a bit difficult for me to "feel" anything about him. If I feel anything, it is sadness that he could have made such a grave error and convinced many people (including posthumously, perhaps against his will), to believe wrongly about salvation.]

"What should be done to/for the people he led?"
[We're talking about "leaders," not duped followers, right?]

(continued below)

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 03, 2003.

"What do you feel should have been done to/for/against him? Was ex-communication too far, just right, not enough? Would a public flogging help? Public ridicule? Just take away his position and his teaching authority?"
[I want to read one or two more thing about his case before making a final decision, but at this point I believe that he was treated justly, if not leniently. The Church in our era bends over backwards to be incredibly fair toward people who are accused of punishable wrongdoing. She often does not impose justifiable penalties on the repentant. She has a legal process, with appeals, etc., and things are done as privately as possible. Why do you ask about "public flogging and public ridicule"? Don't you realize that it is an insult to us Catholics for you to even propose those things (especially the first) as viable alternatives? A bad priest (like Fr. Feeney) can rightfully have his "faculties" taken away -- permission to celebrate Mass publicly, to hear confessions, to teach, to publish, etc.. If he does not want to accept the latter two penalties, he is free to apply for laicization (to leave the clerical state).

"And how do you all feel about exclusionist protestant theology that would damn all who do not say "Jesus is my Lord, and I have a private connection with him."?
[A new subject for a new thread, no?]

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 03, 2003.

Awaiting Emerald's answers to 13 questions asked on New Year's Day (above) ...

-- (_@_._), January 03, 2003.

John, Thank you for your wonderful answer to my topic thread. It was very complete. I liked it.

“And how do you all feel about exclusionist protestant theology that would damn all who do not say "Jesus is my Lord, and I have a private connection with him."? [A new subject for a new thread, no?] ” And yes, I have been the one to spawn topic drift too.

John you wrote:

“Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff

When the Magisterium, not intending to act 'definitively,' teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect. This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith."”

This could get scary. Catholics not only have to say “Yes, sir! I will comply” but also believe and understand what they are complying with? Sounds like there are a lot of Catholics that will not make it. If this is another topic, I can do for either a rest or a new thread.

I am very interested in Emeralds answers and your reply on what the Catholic Church teaches the answers should be. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@juno.com), January 03, 2003.

If it leaves you with an arrogant ......attitude, and you look down on your neighbor, your protestant neighbor, what good is it?

It has nothing to do with looking down on our protestant neighbors, and everything to do with accepting that the Catholic Church, and no other has the truth, and wanting that for our protestant neighbors.

This narrow-mindedness,

But to be a Catholic is to be narrowminded. For we must accept only truth, and nothing else. It does not leave any room to be open minded when it comes to Catholic doctrine.

thinking you have God in your own little box to control, has left some of us really missing the boat.

It is about God having us in HIS box. For God gave us the truth, and He cannot even deviate from the truth Himself. That, also, would be against the nature of God.

[cont.]

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), January 03, 2003.

In reading this whole thread, something came to my mind. I love reading stories of the early American missionaries. And in those stories, the missionaries (most of who are now saints) always stated something like this, "We must continue always to do what we are doing, otherwise think of all the Natives who will go to eternal fire if we do not bring the Catholic Church to them." By this statement (and many more like it from other saints) it would appear that Catholics used to believe that salvation was only attainable in the Catholic Church, in the literal sense.

One more thought, and I have posted this earlier, is this........many of you claim that salvation is possible for those who are in complete ignorance of the fact that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church. Yes, there was a day when there were many people who had not even heard of the Catholic Church, but that is not so today. What keeps people from entering the Catholic Church? Simple, they put their will before God's. Selfishness. Because if one truly wanted to do God's will, searched high and low for the truth, then it would not be in God's nature to withhold the truth from him. It is too easy to find the truth, only people want what is easier. I hear that time and time again from many protestants. "I'm glad I'm not Catholic, that would be so hard" (when they see me fasting in Lent, not eating meat on Fridays, other various things). You see, most don't care what God wants, they want what is easier for them. And is that type of ignorance really excusable in God's eyes? I doubt it, because He wants us to subject ourselves completely and entirely to Him.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), January 03, 2003.

Well said ,Isabel!

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), January 04, 2003.

Isabel,

One more thought, and I have posted this earlier, is this........many of you claim that salvation is possible for those who are in complete ignorance of the fact that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church. Yes, there was a day when there were many people who had not even heard of the Catholic Church, but that is not so today.

You know, I used to think the same, but ~8 or 10 years ago I remember in a homily the priest saying he was in a department store and heard someone looking at crosses as jewelry saying, "no, not that one, the one with the little man on it". That's always stuck with me... how could someone in this country NOT know SOMEthing about Christianity? But there it is. Better to assume there are people in true ignorance, at least it will keep us from becoming lazy.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 04, 2003.

Thanks, Sean, for recognizing my effort. Your questions were not easy, and I really had to take some time to think them over and compose my reply. It makes me feel good that it helped you in some small way.

John

PS: Still awaiting Emerald's answers to 13 questions asked on New Year's Day (above) ...

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 04, 2003.

at they believe in the Cnsecration of the Host, with their faith, but they do not trust how God will bring the Catholic faithto those, who would accept it. They need a human explanation, so they make one up.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), January 04, 2003.