The question is whether the documents of Vatican II are:

1. Ambiguous, such that one can read them and derive either a meaning which is consistent with all the past documents of the Church, but also derive a meaning that is heterodox, or...

2. Precise, and not ambiguous in any respect, such that it is impossible to derive from the documents any other meanings than ones which are consistent with all the past documents of the Church.

A sub-question can also be considered:

Is it sufficient for the laity to merely read the documents of Vatican II in order to understand the meaning the documents, or do they require further interpretation by the Church?

If it is the case that the documents of Vatican II require further interpretation from the Church, by who are they to be interpreted, and what is the proper way to obtain these interpretations?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 01, 2005

Answers

Your input please.

As a simple request, it would be helpful to receive input mostly from people who have actually read the documents of Vatican II, or at least have some measure of familiarity with them, if possible.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 01, 2005.

Another heretically inspired thread.

-- (m@r.k), March 01, 2005.

Thanks for your input. If possible, can you explain what you have in mind? It would help to facilitate the conversion.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 01, 2005.

There is no such thing as a written document which can be interpreted only one way. (Does the phrase "self-interpreting" ring any bells?)Which is why personal interpretation of authoritative documents is the surest road to error. Its just amazing how so-called "traditionalists" will point out the folly of Protestant attempts to understand the Scriptures by personal interpretation of their "obvious meaning", even as they themselves attempt to understand non-Scriptural Church documents by exactly the same process.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 01, 2005.

Resource link: the documents of Vatican II

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 01, 2005.

"Which is why personal interpretation of authoritative documents is the surest road to error."

My question, then, would be this: how would one be sure that they will not fall into error in reading the documents of Vatican II?

"Its just amazing how so-called "traditionalists" will point out the folly of Protestant attempts to understand the Scriptures by personal interpretation of their "obvious meaning", even as they themselves attempt to understand non-Scriptural Church documents by exactly the same process."

My question, then, would be this: what exactly is this process whereby somebody engages in private interpretation? What does the process consist of, and how does one avoid it?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 01, 2005.

Emeraldism reeks of heresy.

-- (m@r.k), March 02, 2005.

"Emeraldism reeks of heresy."

You're absolutely correct. I just did a google search on Emeraldism and came up with this.

Never heard of it until just now. But you're right; looks like it reeks of heresy.

What in the world it has to do with the subject of this thread is beyond me, though. Did you wish to contribute to the thread? Feel free to do so; thanks.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 02, 2005.

Ooops, forgot the goofy link.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 02, 2005.

My question, then, would be this: how would one be sure that they will not fall into error in reading the documents of Vatican II?

A: The same way one avoids falling into error while reading Scripture - by accepting the teaching of the Church as the correct and authoritative interpretation of the written text. Who can interpret any text more accurately then the writer?

My question, then, would be this: what exactly is this process whereby somebody engages in private interpretation? What does the process consist of, and how does one avoid it?

A: The process consists of accepting as valid whatever meaning comes to mind as you read, or as you privately ponder what you have read, without checking your impressions against, or submitting your impressions to, any objectively authoritative source. One avoids it by accepting the teaching of the Church as the correct and authoritative interpretation of the written text, and rejecting any personal impressions of the text which conflict with the official teaching of the Church, past or present.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 02, 2005.

"The same way one avoids falling into error while reading Scripture - by accepting the teaching of the Church as the correct and authoritative interpretation of the written text."

But the documents of Vatican II are purported to be the authoritative teaching of the Church, regarding how to interpret all the past teachings of the Church. If so, why do they themselves then require interpretation?

"Who can interpret any text more accurately then the writer?"

Probably no one. Where have the writers of the documents of Vatican II interpreted their own writing of it?

"The process consists of accepting as valid whatever meaning comes to mind as you read, or as you privately ponder what you have read, without checking your impressions against, or submitting your impressions to, any objectively authoritative source."

But the documents of Vatican to are said to be the authoritative source.

"One avoids it by accepting the teaching of the Church as the correct and authoritative interpretation of the written text, and rejecting any personal impressions of the text which conflict with the official teaching of the Church, past or present."

Where can one find the authoritative interpretation of Vatican II?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 02, 2005.

Are the documents of Vatican II precise or ambiguous?

Emerald,

I would suggest no more ambiguous than any other documented teaching of the Church. As such, given to the same errors e.g. sola scriptura dissent under the guise of the "Spirit of Vatican II"

Where can one find the authoritative interpretation of Vatican II?

Authoritative and authentic interpretation is only the domain of the Magisterium.

If it is the case that the documents of Vatican II require further interpretation from the Church, by who are they to be interpreted, and what is the proper way to obtain these interpretations?

Well -I would suggest that one must first get specific and then send the specific question(s) to the responsible activity at the Holy See.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), March 02, 2005.

Heretics distrust the Magisterium.

-- (m@r.k), March 02, 2005.

This thread reminds me of why it doesn't seem to make sense for Catholics to read the Bible, since we're not supposed to "interpret" it.....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), March 02, 2005.

GTO, don't let Emerald fool you. He is just another of the former Catholics who comes here (unwittingly on behalf of his diabolical master) to plant doubts in our minds.

You are mistaken in saying that we are forbidden to interpret the Bible. We may and must interpret it, but we have to judge our interpretation as acceptable or unacceptable according to whether it contradicts Catholic doctrine. If our interpretation of a verse (or chapter or book) contradicts anything in the Catechism, our interpretation is bad, and we must go back to the drawing board.

-- (tollfree@call.com), March 02, 2005.

It is impossible to read something without interpreting it. Interpretation is the mental process by which little black marks on a piece of paper are converted into ideas and concepts in the reader's mind. God frequently speaks to us in personal ways through the pages of Scripture, allowing us to interpret a passage in terms of a situation we are facing at that particular time. This is completely acceptable. What is not acceptable is to think that we can actually formulate Christian doctrine for ourselves through personal reading/interpretation of the Bible, apart from the God-given authority of the Church to define and teach the fullness of truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 02, 2005.

In every written record or teaching there's an abundance of easily understood communication for almost every impartial reader. All can understand the meaning.

Along with that abundance comes something else less linear or easily communicable to every reader. (One might say, ''Bethlehem; the City of David.'' Another, Not so-- ''It's the birthplace of Jesus.'' -- Some readers are sure to expect everything to result error-free, just by perusing and making a private judgment.

Ultimately there is always some difficult content in which even very capable minds will become entangled. --Yet, they'll wish to find their veracity without need for much consultation with authority. Now there's plenty of opportunity for error. If these minds insist only on their OWN Pie In The Sky, figuring for instance, that they have the Holy Spirit; No problem-- It can become a heresy or even gross error.

We see it every day with Christians who cannot and WILL not understand how ''Thou art Peter, upon this Rock I will build my church''-- could possibly mean the primacy of Peter, or a Church with one shepherd appointed by Jesus Christ. --They go into contortions to misinterpret a linear event, an outright assertion by Jesus to His followers.

We must assume then, that ALL Church documentation is divisible into partly understandable and not understandable materials. We can be certain then, that some portions of these truths REQUIRE readers to submit finally to the Church's position-- and to TRUST the Church unequivocally. To do less is to run a great risk. Nothing in that vein can ever be certain until Rome has spoken.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 02, 2005.

Calculated ambiguity.

Example:

Changing the traditional teaching from "The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church" to "The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church." (Lumen Gentium) What do they mean by "subsists in"?

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), March 02, 2005.

Don't stop.

Tell us what turned it ambiguous. Surely you know where the shift in doctrine is?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 02, 2005.

The Church of Christ SURVIVES TODAY in the Catholic Church.
(Lumen Gentium)

Not ambiguous, and hardly calculated. Subsist is a way of saying exactly the above. Of course, those were grown men writing; not C and D students.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 02, 2005.

Take a look at: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=subsist

1 a. To exist; be. b. To remain or continue in existence.

Sounds the same to ME. Surely there is a better example you can find?

-- Pat Thompson (pat.thompson.45@gmail.com), March 02, 2005.

""The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church."

Consider these three possibilities:

1. The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, meaning to include those within the fold, plus some of those outside the fold, though the latter may not necessarily be visibly in the Church or actual members, but who subsist some how in the Church.

In other words, the visible Church plus some other souls somehow attached.

Or:

2. The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, meaning that only some of those who are actual members are true followers of Christ and in a state of grace.

In other words, the visible Church minus the baddies.

Or:

3. The Church of Christ consists of the actual members of the Catholic Church, and this Church subsists in the world while distinguished from the world.

In other words, the visible Church IS the Catholic Church, and this Church subsists in the world.

Or perhaps an as-yet unstated 4th or 5th or more possibilities, if anyone cares to posit one.

The actual text in question, Lumen Gentium:

Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element. For this reason, by no weak analogy, it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a similar way, does the visible social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ, who vivifies it, in the building up of the body.

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth". This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

If there are other selections of text that pertain, please add them.

In any case, a distinction is made between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church.

What exactly is the basis for the distinction, and what is the difference between the two terms?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 02, 2005.

The "Church of Emerald" is a militant heretical sect (member: 1 zealot).

-- (m@r.k), March 02, 2005.

"It is impossible to read something without interpreting it. Interpretation is the mental process by which little black marks on a piece of paper are converted into ideas and concepts in the reader's mind."

That seems fair enough for practical use.

"God frequently speaks to us in personal ways through the pages of Scripture, allowing us to interpret a passage in terms of a situation we are facing at that particular time. This is completely acceptable."

This statement itself could have application to several different meanings. In a way I agree with you; in another way, I don't.

"What is not acceptable is to think that we can actually formulate Christian doctrine for ourselves through personal reading/interpretation of the Bible, apart from the God-given authority of the Church to define and teach the fullness of truth."

Now this is absolutely true. This has always been the clear teaching of the Church, and was reiterated yet again at Trent at a time in which restated it was particularly necessary.

But another question has come up here. I noticed in a lot of the responses so far, it seems to be a common thread that people are considering the authoritative texts of the Church as having a character similar to Sacred Scripture itself.

Can we say this?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 02, 2005.

Paul M. is donig such a fine job here, I will stay out of this one - no sense beating a dead horse.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 02, 2005.

"people are considering the authoritative texts of the Church as having a character similar to Sacred Scripture itself. Can we say this?"

What the heck, I'll bite.

Sure we can. In as much as both Sacred Scripture and the other authoritative texts come to us via the Church.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 02, 2005.

I thought if anyone would've been willing to participate in this, it would have been you, since you held it out to us, and others did as well, that you had the authority and training to properly interpret for us the documents of Vatican II.

Why, then, not participate?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 02, 2005.

"Sure we can. In as much as both Sacred Scripture and the other authoritative texts come to us via the Church."

Assuming that they have the same origin, you're saying that by this reason, we can then treat them as if they are essentially the same?

-- Emerald (em@cox.net), March 02, 2005.

I think a layman's understanding should be the same; unless the Church takes a particular position.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 02, 2005.

"essentially the same?"

NO, not essentially, because in essence they are not the same; one is the inspired Word of God, and the other is not.

The second is man's interpretation of God's Word, but it is an infallible interpretation because it is guided by the same Spirit that inspired its (the Word of God) writing in the first place. By infallible I mean (and the Church also) that it cannot be wrong; yet this does not mean that it is an adequate expression...or even an appropriate formulation" (Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism, Volume II, p. 835). Infallibility is not a positive charism, it is a negative one.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 02, 2005.

Ambiguous.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.

this does not mean that it is an "adequate expression...or even an appropriate formulation" (Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism, Volume II, p. 835).

YIKES! Father, please. Although I agree with your argument, I beg you not to quote the grossly dissident evildoer, Fr. R. P. McBrien, at this forum. Perhaps you are not aware of all the terrible things he has done in the U.S., not least of which was his publication of "Catholicism" (in which he was forced to correct errors by the Vatican). He has appeared countless times on U.S. television, badmouthing the Holy See and promoting dissent. He used to write vile weekly columns that were printed in many diocesan weekly newspapers, but bishops (even some "progressive" ones) have gotten rid of him.

Clearly, not everything in "Catholicism" is bad, but Fr. McBrien probably got everything that is good from fully reliable sources, which are the sources I'd appreciate your crediting instead of McBrien. Thank you.

-- (tollfree@call.com), March 03, 2005.

Thank you, tollfree;

You've thrown gasoline on Ian's fire for him. From Father Paul's once-disputed authority you've now made the charge radical unreliable source.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.

Yikes again! No, Mr. Chavez, you are mistaken. Re-read my message and you will notice two clues that provide no "gasoline" for "Ian's fire."

First, I wrote these key words: Father, I agree with your argument. It should have been obvious to you, Mr. Chavez, that I was saying that the words that Father quoted were correct. I merely wanted to expose the source (McBrien) as too (generally) unreliable to mention here. I don't want any unsuspecting lay Catholics to go out and buy McBrien's books!

Second, I wrote these words, speaking of McBrien's book: Clearly, not everything in "Catholicism" is bad. I had hoped that you would realize that I was saying that what Father quoted from "Catholicism" was one of the truthful things that it contains.

Have another cup of java, sir, for your grey matter is not functioning too well today.

-- (tollfree@call.com), March 03, 2005.

Nevertheless, tollfree; Yancy and his clan are sure to pounce on the spurious source you've called to Father's attention only too joyfully; like a duck on a Junebug. It's for sure they won't bother with these disclaimers. I've yet to see them show latitudinarianism in this forum. I'm grateful however, for your show of good will. Thanks.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.

a marvellous exchange - which provides a conclusion, but leaves it without a reliable source. ie sourceless.

the Sheenites meets the Tollfrees. what's the name for that Communion? the Sheefrees? the Tollnites?

there is, guys, with great respect, a serious issue here. nit- picking, point scoring, etc aside,......, we go back to:

"people are considering the authoritative texts of the Church as having a character similar to Sacred Scripture itself. Can we say this?"

Fr Paul has given his answer.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.

I told you;

Just like Daffy Duck.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.

PS Eugene

"latitudinarianism"

read this:

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/arguments/scripture/lecture2.html

.......be very careful with that thesaurus, friend.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.

........as it's not yet clear Eugene, this so-called error is yr problem. if you do not have an understanding of "infallibility", save for the definition that is included in a book that, on one recommendation, you reject, how do you propose to discuss "infallibility"?

this is absurd Eugene. you won't see it, but it is completely absurd.

maybe you might eventualy be able to tell me that it is also "latitudinarianism"!!!!! a cheap thesauras won't get you there, though. read some Anglican history.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.

I stated you were short on latitudinarianism. You are a dogmatist and Inquisitor who would never assist a person like me. But I'm not a latitudinarian. I don't believe anything unorthodox, as you presume. I'm completely orthodox, disputing with a pharisaical fanatic. One who fancies himself a doctor of the Catholic Church, but in fact is Pharisee.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.

Eugene:

"But I'm not a latitudinarian. I don't believe anything unorthodox, ..."

as you might say -- "Ha, Ha".

sometimes, i think you post here just to improve yr English.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 03, 2005.

Then speak English to me. ''Sheenites meets the Tollfrees. what's the name for that Communion? the Sheefrees? the Tollnites? there is, guys, with great respect, a serious issue. nit- picking, Wa-wa-wa . . .'' --Are you a ''rap artist?'' OK, but don't quit your day job, Yancy.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 03, 2005.

Tollfree,

Who I quote as a source is of no consequence, either the quote is true or it is not. Remember the baby and the bath water bit? Many today are quick to condemn Karl Rahner also whenever they here his name, but the truth is that he is one of the greatest theologians of recent years the Church has known.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 03, 2005.

He said the K word.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 04, 2005.

See Gene? Whether or not you realize it or admit it, you've been siding with those who side with Karl Rahner and his theory of the Anonymous Christian.

Look into that term. See the problem with it.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 04, 2005.

I beg your pardon. He not only said the K word, he said the R word as well, and then proceeded to add the words 'greatest theologian' in the same sentence.

May I now say the M word?

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), March 04, 2005.

Heretics (Emerald, Ian, Isabel) oppose Catholics.

-- (m@r.k), March 04, 2005.

You can mock. It has no effect if God judges a priest holy. Father's absolutely correct. A great theologian can be 80% correct and brilliant, 15% misunderstood and 5% unorthodox. The 5% will make all his work suspect; but only for some flaws. Not because it was totally flawed.

Again we should remind these Gloating Thomases-- No one appointed any of you Grand Inquisitors. Button your lips and LEARN.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.

Who I quote as a source is of no consequence, either the quote is true or it is not. Father, I forgive you for writing a run-on sentence (two sentences that should be separated by a period or semi-colon)!
Your first sentence is incorrect, since DIRE consequences can result, as I have already explained. Your mention of McBrien can tempt unsuspecting, untrained laymen to go out and buy dangerous works by that author, who will mislead them.
Your second sentence is correct. The "quote" from McBrien "is true," as I have already stated. But please quote the truth from someone who is far more reliable. In other words, don't quote McBrien, but the person from whom McBrien got the truth. If you don't know from whom he got it, you can carefully quote McBrien without giving his name (e.g., "An author of a book about the Church says, (etc.)").

Many today are quick to condemn Karl Rahner also whenever they hear his name, but the truth is that he is one of the greatest theologians of recent years the Church has known

I don't "condemn Karl Rahner," but only his errors. If the pope tells me that Rahner was "great," I'll believe him, but I cannot believe it coming from a relative stranger like you (whose orthodoxy has not yet been fully proved to me).

After you will have spent more time at Internet forums, Father, you will realize that what you write has more consequences than you had previously thought. At this forum, you are not speaking to fellow priests or seminarians, to whom you can mention a semi-dissenter like Rahner without fear of causing harm. Instead, you are speaking to a mixed bag of orthodox Catholics (with varying degrees of knowledge), dissenting Catholics, ex-Catholics, never-Catholic Christians, non- Christian religionists, agnostics, and atheists. Accordingly, please exercise the utmost prudence in future.

-- (tollfree@call.com), March 04, 2005.

Holy Cow,
Maybe Father Paul isn't departed for good. If he returns, I should help him.

Father, if you didn't believe in the devil before, here's the character who'll make you believe. El Tollo. He's served strict warning, Fr Paul; don't wing it on the Internet. Be prudent, because the jury is still out in the case of your orthodoxy (Might not be Kosher?)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 04, 2005.

Schismatics Emerald and Ian (not Isabel), are you circumcized? Then you cannot reach eternal salvation, according to the ecumenical council of Florence, Cantate Domino, Bull of Union with the Copts, whether or not you place your hope in it.

-- Dave (noaddress@justlooking.com), March 05, 2005.

Go for it, Isabel. Say the M word. Can you believe it? After all this bombast about these people representing a traditional Catholicism of an unbroken stream between past and present, doggonit if one of them didn't actually tip his entire hand in a high stakes game invoking the name Karl Rahner.

But that's not all. There's more. We have one-liner Gollum following us at a distance, when suddenly Roy Rogers ponies up to take issue with the take-issuers, dividing but yet not conquering his own allies. Proving also that, when it comes to middle-of-the-road positioning, traffic from both directions can be construed as oncoming. So then Gene posits that a theologian still might have some valid points some of the time, but that's ok, so long as he isn't a traditional theologian, in which case, being right all the time is actually the wrong thing to do.

Now some dood wants to talk about circumcision.

I figured this was all pretty funny. But that's only if one doesn't consider the real gravity of the chaos here in light of the solemn nature of the Catholic Faith and it's reason for being.

When it comes to Modernism, the closer you hone in on the actual heart of the topic, the epicenter, the more distractions are thrown out to you. It's like that chaff stuff or those flares they drop from the military aircraft to distract and confuse incoming missiles.

Best thing to do, then, would be to flip a coin this weekend, between let's say, Gaudium et Spes or Lumen Gentium... pick one, put the text up here, and begin to ask what it means. Crosshair the original topic and find the answer to it.

For what it's worth Dave, circumcision was the Old Testament prefigurement for Baptism.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 05, 2005.

i'm not. as it happens

also "...., unless they recoil at some time from these errors. "

unless you think the Council was talking gibberish - you don't, do you [???] -- the sentence before the one you mention is important.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 05, 2005.

Isn't it amazing, Ian, that we have the Council of Trent, and now, Vatican II.

They don't want to touch Trent. They claim to support Vatican II, but you could almost swear they've actually never read it, because they never refer to it, quote it, expound upon it. You'd think that if someone brought it up, they'd be so quick to jump in and utilize it.

But what is referenced? Father McBrien. Karl Rahner.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 05, 2005.

But don't you get it, Ian. Lots of Catholic men and boys are circumcized (at least here in North America). They don't seem too repentant about the practice. But the bull says "can in no way be sharers in eternal salvation," and "cannot in any way be observed without the loss of eternal salvation." So are all these guys and their families going to hell.

Em, does that Florence council need interpretation when it comes to circumcision. Then why shouldn't Vatican Two need to be interpreted.

-- Dave (noaddress@justlooking.com), March 05, 2005.

"There are some who inquire: 'What are `Traditionalist heresies?' Traditionalist heresies are the errors against Catholic doctrine and discipline which are embraced by those who delude themselves into thinking that they are resisting Modernism by attaching themselves to the traditional external observances familiar to all Roman Catholics. Their `tradition' is only in the external use of familiar Catholic terminology and ritual. In essence, Traditionalists are nothing more than thinly disguised Neo-Protestants." -- Bishop Louis Vezelis, O.F.M.

-- (m@r.k), March 05, 2005.

Dave

easy answer. young child circumcised. then baptised in manner required by Church. soul cleansed. no issue.

not baptised, not saved in any event.

also, consider the 2 consecutive sentences in Bull:

"Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision .. as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors.

"Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.

in the first, there is a way back. "unless they recoil at some time from these errors". are these contradictory. no, they cannot be.

resolution of problem as follows:

if you "observe" circumcision --> youare "stranger to the faith" if you "recoil" --> you "glory in the name of Christian" if you "glory in the name of Christian" --> do NOT "practice" circumcision

do you have the Latin text of the Bull? i would be interested in seeing it.

sorry - typed in real rush. will clarify if need be.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 05, 2005.

Your answer does not make sense to me. The words of the bull seem clear.

Are you saying, baptized child is forgiven for the circumcision, but their parents cannot be saved because they allowed this. And just like I said, I don't see Cahtolics repenting of circumcision.

Are you also saying unbaptized babies go to hell. That is sick.

-- Dave (noaddress@justlooking.com), March 05, 2005.

"Are you saying, baptized child is forgiven for the circumcision, but their parents cannot be saved because they allowed this.

for starters, IF [no need to actually address this] the sin is of the child, baptism washes it away.

if it is of the parent, then you need to read this: "Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and ***other*** legal prescriptions...."

ie if the parent "circumcises" according to Jewish legal prescription, then i guess that that parent is doomed. 8 days, other rituals? i don't know. the parent in the US that sees his child circ'd for medical reasons is hardly following a Jewish legal requirement.

ditto the child that is born into the Jewish faith.

such people must be in the bosom of the Church, pre-death, to be saved. de fide.

"And just like I said, I don't see Cahtolics repenting of circumcision."

..because Catholics shouldn't be following the Old Law. that was abolished by the Passion. those Coptics were told to stop this Jewish practice, whether or not they thought it sacramental.

"Are you also saying unbaptized babies go to hell. That is sick."

well that makes St Thomas, St Augustine, the Popes and Councils sick too. sorry.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 05, 2005.

I just wanted to mention, "m@r.k", that your small contributions are worthwhile. The self-styled "trads" are indeed advancing the cause of Beelzebub, even if they don't realize it.

A prayer for Lent

Heavenly Father, forgive Ian, Isabel, and Emerald, if they know not what they are doing.

-- (tollfree@call.com), March 05, 2005.

Here's Emmie:
''Isn't it amazing, Ian, that we have the Council of Trent, and now, Vatican II.

They don't want to touch Trent. --------->>> On account of what? And why do YOU have Trent and Vatican II, yet belittle a priest who worships today with the People of God? --I suppose you think ''Trent'' has to supercede Vatican II in order for Fr Paul to post here?

They claim to support Vatican II, but you could almost swear they've actually never read it, because they never refer to it, quote it, expound upon it. You'd think that if someone brought it up, they'd be so quick to jump in and utilize it. --But what is referenced? Father McBrien. Karl Rahner.''

------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------

Dear Sir: Would you point out that reference of Fr. McBrien's which you repudiate?

As for Karl Rahner, we know Fr Paul could reference him here. but he hasn't. Why do you lambasted a catholic priest for mentioning that one? (And McBrien)- ???

You are more the Grand Inquisitor with each passing day. I have complete faith in Father Paul's orthodoxy, and I recognise yours -->>> for the Scribes & Pharisee's Brand. As for ME, I reference Jesus Christ every day in our forum. You smear his faithful. --Find some flaws or unorthodoxy in Jesus. Do it today, Robo-Scribe. Find something to smear about Christ?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 05, 2005.

If he said babies go to hell then Augustine was sick when it comes to that. If Thomas and other councils said unbaptized babies go to hell they are sick too.

Jesus doesn't put babies in the fire of hell. I'm sorry you do. If you think Jesus does, you don't know who he is.

-- Dave (noaddress@justlooking.com), March 05, 2005.

Thank you, tollfree. I also pray with you. We Catholics are one with Pope John Paul II, Vatican II Council, the Holy Eucharist, and the Holy Spirit.

According to Bishop Louis Vezelis, O.F.M., traditionalist heretics (Ian, Emerald, Isabel) are deluded.

-- (m@r.k), March 05, 2005.

Dave

"Jesus doesn't put babies in the fire of hell. I'm sorry you do. If you think Jesus does, you don't know who he is."

it's called Original Sin.

which is why there is a Limbo. a place of unimaginably perfect natural happiness. suffering in Hell is proportionate - de fide.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 05, 2005.

Unimaginably perfect natural happiness. Is this what Florence's Decree for the Greeks meant by "those who die...with original sin alone go down immediately to hell to be punished however with different punishments."

Doesn't sound like perfect natural happiness to me.

So, does Florence need someone to interpret it. Like Vatican Two.

-- Dave (noaddress@justlooking.com), March 05, 2005.

"...however with different punishments...".

the loss of the Beatific Vision. is that a punishment? i would say so, even though the child has no concept of the Vision. does that makeit zero punishment?

that's, i think, how the theologians arrived at this theory.

one small thing that occurs to me is this - consider Hitler's fate had he been aborted in the womb.....

ultimately, it all comes back to Original Sin. if you abandon Original Sin, you get loads of solutions that bring great "personal peace", but you also abandon the Church.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 05, 2005.

Once again, as the direct logism resulting from many other revealed truths,

It must follow there's an alternate to hell fire with unbaptised dead infants. To suppose these tiny souls can be eternally punished in hell for a crime they never even HEARD of, less committed; would mean God is unjust. Making it untenable as Catholic doctrine.

But to suggest they are somehow cleansed of Adam's Original sin, or need no repentence for it, is to deny God punishes sin. That's untenable too, in theology. There must be a truth other than the two extremes. Anybody can see that.

In the past, theologians arrived at the concept, completely orthodox; of a compensating stage: Limbo of the Infants. This is altogether tenable. God isn't compromised by the minds of men. God give us the truth through reason-- just a process of elimination!

Men who presume to KNOW, based on logic that insults God's LOVE, His Wisdom and Justice, --To know which soul is damned and which soul is privileged, are simply un-Catholic, and don't know Jesus Christ. They ignore Christ's irrefutable and HOLY words:

With God all things are possible

He that loves me shall be loved by my Father, and I will love him,''

Because she has LOVED much, much will be FORGIVEN her.'' --------------------- ------

-----------------When you're ignorant of Christ, you inevitably fall into many errors. No Catholic doctrine can embrace error. --When you truly LOVE Christ, He leads you in the paths of truth whether you're a child, a goatherd, a philosopher or a king. Because He loves you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 05, 2005.

I repeat, "go down into hell". Maybe different punishments, but not up to heaven. Still doesn't sound like perfect happiness.

That's just my message. You guys trounce on Vatican Two because it needs interpretation. You don't give it the time of day. But you are willing to dance around and interpret Florence and make it say things it doesn't seem to say--unless perfect natural happiness is "going down into hell".

If you can use all kinds of tricks to read Florence, why can't you accept Vatican Two.

-- Dave (noaddress@justlooking.com), March 05, 2005.

subterfuge Gene.

you're preaching Limbo.

....which totally undermines all that misplaced "God is Infinite Love" stuff that you use to undermine other Catholic teaching,including certain solemn definitions of the Church.

indeed, God is INFINITE Love. INFINITE Justice. INFINITE Perfection. do we understand the mix? the Church does.

St Thomas knew that. read Summa. St Augustine knew that. all the Popes knew that perfectly well. the Councils knew that.

if you disagree with the Church's teaching, leave the Church.

don't contort its teaching, and lead others astray.

don't assume that St Thomas, St Augustine, the Popes and the Councils did not understand something that you do -- because in doing so, you assume that the Apostles, and Jesus Himself, did not understand.

do you, for one second, imagine that you now better than the Popes and Councils? or St Thomas?

straight answer appreciated, Eugene.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 05, 2005.

I don't know better. But I know MORE, since we've seen centuries transpire (hindsight) which many of them didn't see. They operated under their own constraints of time. (Read Confessions of Saint Augustine.)

Since their apogee, the Catholic Church and the Holy Spirit gave me (US) MORE truth to contemplate, giving it to all her faithful. I don't deviate from ANY of this truth. YOU DO. You are next to schismatic as we speak, Yancy!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 05, 2005.

Can someone explain to me how the greatest natural happiness is "going down into hell".

-- Dave (noaddress@justlooking.com), March 05, 2005.

Dave

the theologians say "natural" for a reason.

PS "why can't you accept Vatican Two" i do. completely.

PPS Emerald makes the valid point that no-one ever cites it, especially those that think it is being attacked. why is that?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 05, 2005.

"The Traditionalist [heretic] is a mongrel. He carries in his mental suitcase those elements which please him: He is a liberal when it suits him; he is a conservative when it pleases him. He picks and chooses what and for how long he will believe." -- Bishop Louis Vezelis, O.F.M.

-- (m@r.k), March 05, 2005.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9107fea1.asp

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 05, 2005.

Yancy protests:

Why can't you accept Vatican Two? I do. completely.'' -------- Then what's your squawk here? We all are in Communion. ''Emerald makes the valid point that no-one ever cites it, especially those that think it is being attacked. why is that?''

Tell me what's so valid about Emeralds' ''point''- -??? He never MAKES any point. All he does is wave the ''trad'' flag; insisting all other Catholics are ''modernists,'' or somehow deficient in the faith. If he supports Vatican II, there must be a better way.

Anyway, to put it bluntly: You lie. You do not accept Vatican II ''completely''. My considered opinion; and it must be so, till you prove otherwise.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 05, 2005.

"Bishop" Louis Vezelis, "O.F.M.," was speaking so well of the truth about you, Ian, and partners. I got his argument against traditionalist heretics from a "Franciscan" website (friarsminor.org). I called an authentic Franciscan priest, in communion with PJPII, to clarify the matter; and he said that the authentic Bishop of Rochester, NY, in communion with PJPII, is Bishop Clark.

Well, thanks.

Sedevacantist "Bishop" Vezelis is one of the actual "Bishops" of Pete the sedevacantist. It makes perfect sense why "Bishop" Vezelis, who is a traditionalist heretic himself, would rant against his own -- dog eat dog.

-- (m@r.k), March 05, 2005.

"It [The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation."

Dave, why did you twist this so badly out of contest?

Get ready press your case. I'll give you some lead time.

You're gonna need it.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 05, 2005.

tollfree,

Perhaps by your standards we should never quote Origen here either.

PS If I were writing an academic thesis it would be certain that I would watch for run-on sentences and other such grammatical errors of punctuation but since this is not such I let a few things by. ;)

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 05, 2005.

Phew.......all that in one breath. Makes good practice for singing the Exultet.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 05, 2005.

Fr. Paul,

I thought that you would have noticed that my comment about your run- on sentence was tongue-in-cheek. (I didn't use an emoticon, but I did use an exclamation point instead.) We all make errors here, but I do find run-ons rather inexplicable.

Perhaps by your standards we should never quote Origen here either. Origen is FAR less likely to be harmful than is Fr. McBrien, whose detrimental work is ongoing and who has books in print. Still, in the unlikely event that I would quote Origen, I would use a prudent introductory phrase, such as, "The following words are from an early- Church priest named Origen. Though he must be read with care because he wrote some things that the Church eventually rejected as heretical, some of his theological works are so helpful that he is quoted in the Divine Office and in the Catechism."

Mr. Jalapeno Chavez,

Among your various bad habits at forum is your propensity to get off the topic at hand to attack people (like me) who criticize others, particularly if those others are "men of the cloth."

I recall the time that you went berserk when someone pointed out how a Jesuit friend of your had told you something heterodox. You lost interest in what the truth was, because you cared only about defending the priest "as priest," even though the other person had not attacked the priest "as priest."

Now you are doing exactly the same, defending a priest "as priest" without caring whether or not I have a good case against what he wrote. When you do this, you make yourself worse than useless, because I have to waste time correcting you.

If two people are having a dispute, you need to let them fight it out without sticking in your insubstantial personal "two cents." Kindly speak up only if you can add something substantial to bolster one or the other's position. Don't just excitedly bash a layman who has the guts to stand up to a cleric, simply because the latter is wearing a Roman collar and the former is not.

-- (tollfree@call.com), March 06, 2005.

This is all true in part, John--

--Yet we love God in our forum, don't we? We SERIOUSLY celebrate Holy Mass, don't we? Devoutly--???

Why then would you place scare quotes upon the words men of the cloth ? ? ?

As a matter of fact I DO go off on a tangent frequently because unlike you, the important thing to me is communication. Not pedantry for the sake of quieting other folks' arguments. I think and then try to tell others what I'm thinking. Leaving the scholastic tasks to you schoolmarms. At the same time, yes: it bothers me when a priest meets unfriendly voices here, or an entire order such as the Society of Jesus is dismissed as nothing but Machiavellians.

I find it somewhat thrilling, forgive me; to defend our holy people of God. Not only His clergy; I've also stood up for our faithful in the laity quite often. Some nasty folks here have attacked them constantly. Somebody should come to their defense, and I've rarely seen you do it. You just want those characters banned after a few posts. Bully for you, Mr. Catholic Expert.

Notice I didn't cry because you called me Jalapeno Chavez. I realise you do it ''tongue in cheek''. -------Whatever turns you on, John!!! Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 06, 2005.

To EMERALD,

When you said, ''could almost swear they've actually never read it, (Vatican II) --because they never refer to it, quote it, expound upon it. You'd think that if someone brought it up, they'd be so quick to jump in and utilize it. --But what is referenced? Father McBrien. Karl Rahner.''--I asked you,

''Would you point out that reference of Fr. McBrien's which you repudiate?'' ----------->>> If you still repudiate it, Emerald, why not show the quote and show your direct objection to it? All we saw was your shot at the messenger, Father Paul. Not what Father McBrien is saying. There must be some reason; so explain, please.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 06, 2005.

Why then would you place scare quotes upon the words men of the cloth ? ? ?

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never heard the expression, "scare quotes." I put quotation marks around "men of the cloth" just as a way of offsetting that group of words as a unified phrase, in case the expression may be unfamiliar to some lurking readers. It was goofy for you to assume any nefarious motive on my part; one would think you were falsely accusing me of being anti- clerical. Please leave the paranoia to the Z-man.

Pedantry ... Leaving the scholastic tasks to you schoolmarms.

So typical of the ignorant to put down those who try to share knowledge during this anti-intellectual age! You think it's better for you to be politically correct by bashing people who like to teach, rather than to show them respect through silence. Apparently you teased the kids with straight A's, being envious of them because of your C's and D's, and you stil haven't outgrown the habit.

it bothers me when a priest meets unfriendly voices here, or an entire order such as the Society of Jesus is dismissed as nothing but Machiavellians.

Read, and interpret correctly and without exagerrating, what others write. It was not "a priest" that met "unfriendly voices," but rather some of his comments that were found objectionable. And it was not "an entire order" that was "dismissed," but only that portion of the order that has gone onto the scrap heap. As the saying goes, "If I told you once, I told you a million times, DO NOT EXAGERRATE!" It makes you look foolish, and it gains you no friends among those who would be friendly if you would be accurate.

I've also stood up for our faithful in the laity quite often. Some nasty folks here have attacked them constantly. Somebody should come to their defense, and I've rarely seen you do it.

I have no idea who you are talking about (laity whom I've allegedly rarely defended). Whenever I have come across someone being unjustly attacked -- someone who has not yet already been defended -- I have spoken up. It sounds as though you expect me to speak up also for someone who has already defended himself and has been defended by others. If so, you are wrong. At that point, I am not under an obligation to "pile on" and be redundant.

You just want those characters banned after a few posts.

Yet another example of gross exagerration ("a few posts") and stupidity to boot. Those hairy-ticks have now had "a few" THOUSAND "posts," and yet you STILL don't call for their banning, so utterly ridiculous and overly tolerant are you. I didn't call for their banning until after they'd had a few hundred posts. Moreover, they HAVE been banned (against your wishes), only to be allowed to return (through a weakness that made satan jump for joy). I have proposed a variety of criteria for banning people or for "managing" their mayhem, including reasonable time limits -- none of which were even vaguely related to a "few posts." Try not to make a bigger jackass out of yourself by additional false or exagerrated accusations.

-- (tollfree@call.com), March 06, 2005.

PLEASE!!!!!! --YOU ARE SPRAYING ME WITH ALL THAT SPIT!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 06, 2005.

Could you two iron out your disagreements via email or some other outlet? I kind of want to keep the discussion on topic.

The topic was the following:

The question is whether the documents of Vatican II are: 1. Ambiguous, such that one can read them and derive either a meaning which is consistent with all the past documents of the Church, but also derive a meaning that is heterodox, or...

2. Precise, and not ambiguous in any respect, such that it is impossible to derive from the documents any other meanings than ones which are consistent with all the past documents of the Church.

A sub-question can also be considered:

Is it sufficient for the laity to merely read the documents of Vatican II in order to understand the meaning the documents, or do they require further interpretation by the Church?

If it is the case that the documents of Vatican II require further interpretation from the Church, by who are they to be interpreted, and what is the proper way to obtain these interpretations?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 06, 2005.

The documents pre-suppose the those reading them have been paying attention all along to Papal teachings, are aware of and know the footnotes and scripture references, and above all, that they are read in context with one another, as definitively explained by the Popes from 1962 until the present.

In other words, the documents of Vatican II are NOT written for grade- schoolers. All of them are addressed to BISHOPS primarily, and then to everyone else. HINT HINT HINT, that the Bishops are the ones who supposedly are "in the know" are supposed to be keeping up on their theology and philosophy and applying the magisterium of the Church.

Look at EVERY SINGLE AUDIENCE OF PAUL VI from the end of the council until his death... what you get is constant effort to EXPLAIN and unpack the documents. Did many people pay much attention to him? Not many. Most didn't, but instead took the opportunity to do their own thing... again, that's their fault, not his nor the council's.

But those who did keep their eyes fixed on Peter's successor and listened to his explanations and teaching authority, did do well.

Look at the Encyclicals since 1978 - chuck full of both quotes and explanations of Vatican II, plus all the other councils as well...the CCC and footnotes (its own book) chuck full of the "Catholicism of dogma and tradition" showing the continuity of teaching along with the new emphasis and forms of teaching.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 06, 2005.

"The documents pre-suppose the those reading them have been paying attention all along to Papal teachings, are aware of and know the footnotes and scripture references, and above all, that they are read in context with one another, as definitively explained by the Popes from 1962 until the present."

Give me a brief outline of what the popes have definitively explained since 1962, if you would. Give me their summary of what Vatican II has taught. Nothing real extensive, just a short summary.

"In other words, the documents of Vatican II are NOT written for grade- schoolers. All of them are addressed to BISHOPS primarily, and then to everyone else. HINT HINT HINT, that the Bishops are the ones who supposedly are "in the know" are supposed to be keeping up on their theology and philosophy and applying the magisterium of the Church."

If it was primarily written for the bishops, and by your admission elsewhere in these threads, few bishops are in union with the Pope, how could these bishops have let their union with the Pope become something suspect, while they have at the same time been justifying themselves in the name of Vatican II itself?

"Look at EVERY SINGLE AUDIENCE OF PAUL VI from the end of the council until his death... what you get is constant effort to EXPLAIN and unpack the documents."

Unpack the documents? If they needed to be unpacked, why didn't they just write them in unpacked form in the first place? Since when did the Church write packed documents which needed constant and almost never-ending unpacking?

I appears, then, that in your view the documents indeed do admit of a certain character of ambiguity. It seems that you are simply calling that ambiguity by another name: "things that need unpacking".

"Did many people pay much attention to him? Not many. Most didn't, but instead took the opportunity to do their own thing... again, that's their fault, not his nor the council's."

The people that do their own thing, virtually all of them, claim that what they are doing is mandated by Vatican II, or at least, is encouraged by the "spirit of Vatican II".

At any rate, what did the pope, in the encyclicals or elsewhere, say in particular that is not getting listened to? If you have a handy example, that would be helpful. Or if you refer to the Council, what particular part is not getting observed?

"But those who did keep their eyes fixed on Peter's successor and listened to his explanations and teaching authority, did do well."

What explanations in particular are you referring to? Can you give an example of one of these people that are doing well, that listened? What in particular did they listen to, and then, do?

"Look at the Encyclicals since 1978 - chuck full of both quotes and explanations of Vatican II, plus all the other councils as well...the CCC and footnotes (its own book) chuck full of the "Catholicism of dogma and tradition" showing the continuity of teaching along with the new emphasis and forms of teaching."

In reading the encyclicals since 1978, I have found that the vast majority of a references only serve to tie together the components of, get this, the Council itself and everything that's come after.

If I may direct your attention, for instance, to the footnotes found here.

The inter-connectedness of the various pieces of postconciliaria is quite extensive. But that entire body of connected documents, constantly referencing between themselves, are almost entirely disconnected to the past.

Have you noticed this?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 06, 2005.

Traditionalist heretics (Ian-Emerald) are scared of the Authoritative 1994/1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church.

-- (m@r.k), March 06, 2005.

I, for one, would like very much to read about an INTELLIGENT discussion of the documents of Vatican II..

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), March 07, 2005.

Lesley,

Complain, complain, complain. Go scrub the toilet, do the laundry, and bake the cookies instead.

-- Seymour (sy_freedgood@hotmail.com), March 07, 2005.

"Seymour"..assuming that you are ignorant of the fact known by many here on the forum that I am severely disabled and can do none of those things which you suggested, I'll forgive the specifics..I'd actually love to be able to scrub out a toilet. But to your point: I'm looking forward to reading about the documents of Vatican II and people's comments on them without the distractions of uncharitable asides. My sincere apologies to you if my initial comment tempted you to make one.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), March 07, 2005.

I, for one, would like very much to read about an INTELLIGENT discussion of the documents of Vatican II.

AMEN to that, Lesley. I find the documents to be exquisitely beautiful and, like the Council and Catechism, true gifts of the Holy Spirit to the Church.

However, Lesley, there will never be an "intelligent discussion of the documents" at this forum until the moderator finds the courage and prudence to ban the "pseudo-traditionalists" (especially Ian, Emerald, Isabel, Jake). The last three of these were once or twice banned in the past, but were allowed back in, even without having apologized or promised to stop pushing their heretical ideas.

Lesley, if you and I could prevail upon the moderator to ban these folks permanently (i.e., until their conversion occurs), an "intelligent discussion of the documents" could at last be held. Until then, these heretics will insert themselves obnoxiously into every conversation, trying to convince us orthodox Catholics that Vatican II, the Catechism, and the writings of Pope John Paul II contain doctrinal errors. Some of these people have even had the nerve to claim that earlier popes and saints believed or taught heretical ideas. Clearly, in their current condition, these people are utterly useless, even counter-productive, to a forum like this one.

-- (tollfree@call.com), March 07, 2005.

Lesley

that last post of yours was the most dignified i have ever seen in these parts. truly.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 07, 2005.

"tollfree"..As long as the Catholic forum remains open to non- Catholics, I cannot see the difference between the two groups and their posts (non-Catholics who interject their anti-Catholic opinions on various threads and those people who claim to be Catholics yet disparage the Faith).

My sole objection remains that of the frequent use of uncharitable remarks made on the forum by anyone. Even when people violently disagree, and have no respect for another person's opinion, there should remain respect for the person as a child of God who is in error.

Ian..thank you.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), March 07, 2005.

Dear Lesley
Each day we pray the Our Father; in which is the following: ''Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.'' What could be fairer or more loving?

Over time you would realise we in the forum are always forgiving. Even if we tangle sometimes we try to forgive. Not only that, a fair number of us are grown men. There's nothing wrong with objecting to smears or raw language, by a good woman. It's to be expected, and sometimes we're guilty.

However, men aren't women; they are sometimes gentlemen and sometimes mean. It comes with the gender. Just remember that men who won't fight may be in a state of grace with God; or instead might be just plain afraid to fight.

Men who fight can also be in a state of grace. This is the world. Good men can be relied on to fight for something just, with God's blessings. Doesn't Almighty God love His Holy Archangel St Michael? The leader of angelic armies! Nevertheless, God loves gentlemen too. No question. He chose one to become the foster-father of Our Lord: Saint Joseph.

Saint Joseph was brave; we don't doubt it. Yet he fled into Egypt; to protect Our Lady and the Child Jesus. He escaped with them, but not to run away from Herod. He obeyed the command of God; that's all. For all we know, Joseph would have battled to the last breath for Jesus and Mary, heroically. --Wasn't he descended from David, who slew the giant Goliath? But he was obedient and he was a perfect gentleman. Don't you just love him? I sure do.

And I always forgive those who offend me. ALWAYS. So, in a way I'm a gentleman, I hope. Ciao and God love you, Lesley. You're a real sweetheart and we love you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 07, 2005.

tollfree,

As regards Origen et al, you afford far too much prudence, much more than the Church Herself (in fact it is not the virtue at all in this case, perhaps even a vice or spiritual/mental illness - such as scrupulosity). Before none of the writings of Origen found in the Liturgy of the Hours (the only other Official Prayer of the Church besides the Mass) will you find a preface cautioning one how to read him. Just in case you don't know, the Liturgy of the Hours (a.k.a. the Breviary) is not just for clergy and religious, it is for all the Faithful.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 07, 2005.

Fr. Paul, you couldn't possibly be more wrong about me. It's almost hilarious how wrong you are!

Not only do I know that Pope Paul VI invited all Catholics, including laymen like me, to pray the Liturgy of the Hours (LoH) ...
and not only do I know that the LoH is part of the official prayer of the Church ...
and not only do I know that the readings from Origen in the LoH are not preceded by cautions ...
but I do pray one or both of Morning and Evening Prayer of the LoH daily, and I do read the readings of the Office of Readings daily.

Father, instead of unsuccessfully trying to psychoanalyze me (finding "far too much prudence" and "perhaps even a vice or spiritual/mental illness - such as scrupulosity"), you should have been concentrating on the point I have been trying very hard to impress upon you because you are a "tyro" on the forum scene. I'll try to impress it again.

I previously told you that, when you are chatting with fellow priests or seminarians, there is no danger in your talking about controversial theologians. But such is NOT the case when you are chatting with the very mixed bag of people here at the forum. Here you need to exercise much more guarded language (e.g., using introductory remarks/disclaimers before quoting some people), lest the unwary accidentally be led down dangerous paths.

In exactly that spirit, I was trying to explain to you how we ought to deal with passages from controversial men like Origen and Tertullian, being prudent enough to let the very young (and non- Catholic) lurkers know that these guys wrote some very good things, but also some wrong things.

I hope that you know what a "lurker" is. I hope that you know that mere children have been known to read at this forum. They need the protection afforded by prudent prefatory remarks when quoting certain people. Meanwhile, though, you and I know that there is no need for such prefaces within "safer" contexts, such as the LoH.

-- (tollfree@call.com), March 08, 2005.

Where's Michael G.? This thread is starting to look like that story he wrote.

Are you people going to discuss the clarity of Vatican II with me or what?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 08, 2005.

Earlier in this thread I wrote about Vatican II:

Calculated ambiguity.

Example: Changing the traditional teaching from "The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church" to "The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church." (Lumen Gentium) What do they mean by "subsists in"?

In Current Problems in Ecumenical Theology, Cardinal Kasper writes:

The decisive element of the Second Vatican Council’s ecumenical approach is the fact that the Council no longer identifies the Church of Jesus Christ simply with the Roman Catholic Church, as had Pope Pius XII as lately as in the Encyclical "Mystici corporis" (1943). The Council replaced "est" (the Catholic Church "is" Jesus Christ’s Church) with "subsisti": the Church of Jesus Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, which means that the Church of Jesus Christ is made concretely real in the Catholic Church; in her she is historically and concretely present and can be met.[5]

In footnote no. 5 Kasper writes:

The exact interpretation of "subsistit" is still a desiderata...Important are the different interpretations given by Cardinal J. Willebrands...and by Cardinal J. Ratzinger...My interpretation...On the recent discussion, which goes often beyond the Council’s declaration, P. Lüning...The ecclesiological problem of the "subsistit in" (LG 8) in today’s ecumenical conversations...considerably more balanced M. Kehl...

So here we are 40 years later and Church leaders are still arguing over the meaning of "subsists in."

On the other hand, everybody knows what the meaning of "is" is. Even Bill Clinton, although he wouldn't admit it.

Most importantly is the fact that the Catholic Church changed her teaching from "is" to "subsists in." Ooops, there goes any claim to infallibility.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), March 08, 2005.

Of course, one could claim that "subsists in" means the same thing as "is." But if so, then why the word change? Perhaps for to appease the ecumenists, i.e., to give the appearance of change when in fact there was no change at all.

-- Bonzo's Cousin (bonzoscuz@yahoo.com), March 08, 2005.

Finally. Thanks, Bonzo; I'll look through this more closely this evening.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 08, 2005.

This is stupid. If some nut claims he's raping women because the bible tells him so...does Emerald immediately suspect that the bible is bad? No, you think the guy is simply nuts.

When an IRA terrorist blows up civilians in Belfast and claims that his catholic faith made him do it...do you AGREE with him and think "golly, I guess Catholicism really does force people to kill civilians"? No. You, like everyone else understand a guy trying to justify the unjustifiable.

When the Supreme Court claims the Constitution allows for Abortion... does Emerald agree with them just because THEY claim it? NO, you say, SCOTUS is full of it, and they invented that right out of thin air!

But when a bishop or theologian or layman claims "Vatican II made me do it" YOU BELIEVE THEM! "gOLLY i GUESs they're right, I guess Vatican II really did make them do it!"

My argument has always been, that the problems in the Church (and world) are largely spawned in the West: North America and Western Europe - people disobeying the Gospel and using whatever occurence as cover to do what they want to do. Council or no, those guys were messing around.

Before the Council there were serious across the board problems for the Catholic Church - in its so-called days of glory it was losing growd to communism around the world. Why? If those pre-Vatican II prelates and priests were so stellar and so faithful and so holy and so wonderfully faithful to "unambiguous teaching" why did they do such a horrible job at evangelizing and stopping communism?

Why did all these people then just implode in a single decade even in the free west?

BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T HOLY, WELL TRAINED, FAITHFUL BEFORE THE COUNCIL BUT NO ONE KNEW THIS BECAUSE THEY HID BEHIND THE MASK of aparent orthodoxy.

As for the need to unpack things... when you write a document for BISHOPS, citing scripture and previous counciliar documents and saints in copious footnotes, THEN YOU NEED TO UNPACK IT FOR THE UNEDUCATED AND THOSE WHO HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION!

"Just show us the Father and we will be satisfied" Philip asked Jesus during the Last Supper. EVEN AN APOSTLE NEEDED OUR LORD TO UNPACK SOMETHING AND JESUS WAS TRUTH INCARNATE!

Nicodemus, the woman at the well, Martha and Mary, and others in the Gospels didn't understand what Our Lord meant, so he unpacked his own words!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 08, 2005.

Subsist the English word means a thing survives as --and is a straight answer to doubters of the Catholic Church. Such as the nasty little sdqa, who repeats ad nauseam --the Church of the new Testament is different from your ''RCC''.

It is NOT different, the Church Paul wrote all his epistles to subsists in the Catholic Church of 2005. (In unbroken apostolicity and Tradition, as well as HOLY and One.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 08, 2005.

--P.S.

Bonxo would have seen that with one glance into the dictionary, we know. But he needs a pretext for your ''calculated ambiguity.'' I venture to say more people are puzzled by the word ambiguous than subsist.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 08, 2005.

Eugene

therefore Vat II teaches that the Church of Christ "survives as" the Catholic Church?

why, therefore, as it not translated as " the Church of Christ subsists "as" the Catholic Church"?

that would actually, imho, create few issues - though it still falls short of "is".

as it happens, the translation is that "the Church of Christ subsists "in" the Catholic Church".

this suggests non-exclusivity - to wit, that it also exists elsewhere. this is a very unCatholic notion, though, very "unCatholically", the Church hasl also now recognised the Greeks as a "true particular Church".

therefore, did "subsists in" paves the way for a denial of the teaching that the Church of Christ, quite simply, IS the Catholic Church. they are one an dthe same, in each and every respect.

i personally feel that the Latin "subsitit in is possibly even stronger that "is". it emphasis the "stops at" exclusivity.

this is a bad translation. what would be wrong with "est" and "is"? why all the hoo-haa?????? just a coincidence?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 08, 2005.

Coming from you, this is a joke. Your command of English is nothing past elementary. You subsist from grade school to the same Ian who can't read today.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 08, 2005.

another great quote Gene!!

nothing substantive in your response, however.

all i'm saying is that you have selected one definition of the word "subsist" in an English dictionary, when you should instead have sourced the meaning of the Latin word - whoch is the source of the teaching.

however, quite by chance, you have stumbled upon a translation that would be closer to the Latin.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 08, 2005.

I don't stumble into translations. I read the proper dictionary and/or thesaurus.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 08, 2005.

Eugene

i meant a Latin dictionary.

you said: "Subsist **the English word** means a thing survives as.. "

please read my posts again. you are still missing the point.

by referencing the English word "subsist", you have already made the error of translating "subsistere" to "to subsist".

it has a more powerful meaning than that.

that is why i say that you accidentally stumbled onto a better translation -- because you found a supposed-synonym of subsists that actually operates more as an antonym in this context.

now do you see?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 08, 2005.

I see that you are a quasi-schismatic who enjoys splitting hairs.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 08, 2005.

"I see that you are a quasi-schismatic who enjoys splitting hairs."

and you are very funny!

yes, i was being a little camp and teasing you -- but just a little.

if i can be honest. i just wonder why the Church doesn't use "est" and "is". they're darned simple words.

moreover, i think "subsistere" translates into something much stronger than "to subsist". therefore, it's very likely that the Latin word was well-chosen, but that the English translation is naive.

that's all.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 08, 2005.

Think for a moment on the definition of the Church....what exactly is "it" that a person can be a member or having once been brought in could then leave "it"?

In Acts of the Apostles we are told that the witnesses of the resurrection (all observant Jews), called their movement "the way" - implying that it involved actions - thus, morals. But it was spread by their preaching "the word" or "Good news" - implying that belief or better, Faith, was part and parcel of membership.

They were united insofar as they all shared prayers (liturgy), the breaking of bread (sacraments), and followed the teaching of the apostles (hierarchy). Then of course, morality also became an issue - especially in Antioch as more and more Greeks began to join them, with their moral baggage and habits. John's letters refer or imply that member's respect of duly appointed leaders could be either a sign of membership or loss of it...

So while visible signs such as membership in a given parish are helpful, they don't in and of themselves prove membership. Nor does past reception of sacraments prove current membership.

Where does Christ's Church - the union of men with God in Christ through the Holy Spirit (to use one definition) begin and end?

When the Catholic Church teaches that the Church established by Jesus Christ subsists in the Catholic Church and people gasp that this implies that theoretically a person could be united to Christ outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church....Emerald has a cow and goes off about ambiguity and heresy when nothing is new with this!

Yet what exactly happens when a soul is baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit? You baptise a baby - cast ashore from the Tsunami who is in risk of death.

Is this little Indonesian baby boy a Catholic now? What if the person who baptised him was a Lutheran? Dying, does the boy go to heaven to be with the one in whose name he was baptized...or to hell because the boy wasn't baptized by a Catholic?

Clearly, Catholic theology has always taught that such a child would be united to Christ! He'd go to heaven.

But there is alot more to being a Catholic than merely receiving the grace of baptism! Gasp! What does this mean if not that the Church - the union of souls with God in Christ through the Holy Spirit is larger than the visible confines of the Catholic Church with liturgy, prayers, hierarchy and organizational structures?

Souls who are baptized in the Greek Orthodox Church - valid sacraments and all - are Christian are they not? If they are...and being baptized puts you in union with Christ...then doesn't this mean, ipso facto, that the Church - that union of souls with God in Christ through the Holy Spirit - is bigger than the visible limits of the Catholic Church?

Or are we saying that a soul who is baptised validly isn't really baptised unless the soul is raised on Catholic catechisms and regularly attends a parish?

Angels are members of the Church too - but were never baptized! How is that possible if we define the Church narrowly?

From the Old testament and New we are told of the Kingdom - Christ was King, but his rule was not "of this world" i.e. geographical extension, as much as one of the heart (informed by the mind).

During the reign of King David, people who were not Jews were still subjects of the kingdom, but obviously weren't part of "the people". There was some distinction between subjects and people. Yet there was a relationship going on there - once you crossed the physical border you were "in" the Kingdom even if you weren't personally allied to the King.

But where is the hard and fast frontier to a kingdom that runs through hearts and minds and what maintains this border? Not all is as it seems to be...no everyone who were baptised into this union still remain in it! Those who outwardly seem very involved may not even have faith!

For those who think this is some novelty, some weird water-down-the- faith-of-the-fathers Vatican II idea...read Acts of the Apostles sometime.

We read of a chap called Apollos who preached the good news, but had not be baptized in the name of Jesus but only that of John. A lay couple, Aquila and Pricilla had to set him straight. So while he preached the good news was he a Christian or not? Not apparently - since he wasn't baptized. But then, he didn't know that he had to be!

That Ethiopian who was baptized after the briefest catechesis by Philip... he became a Christian. But he didn't have anything else commonly seen as needed for good membership in the Church. He wasn't ordained, he wasn't going home to an established diocese...he was just a believer who had been baptized.

Now according to those who want to narrowly define things: was he a Catholic or not? In Christ's Church or not?

Also in Acts we see that God's grace was not limited by his own membership rules - i.e. sacraments - in that his angel visited pagans like Cornelius to have him send for St Peter!

Those who have cows when the Pope casually mentions that signs of truth and goodness and even sanctity can be found outside of Christianity apparently never read the bible! You don't think an apparition of an angel is a manifestation of divine truth, and goodness and grace?

You think actual grace is limited to the visible confines of the Catholic Church or only to those actually baptized? (Then how pray tell do adults get moved to seek baptism?)

So when later Popes simply acknowledge that, based on these scriptures and other examples, that truth and goodness and even holiness (a sign of the activity of the Holy Spirit) can be found outside the visible limits of the Church... they are not saying anything new nor are they claiming therefore that the frontier isn't one or that being a full member has no advantages and leaving has no risks.

Those who want to miscontrue membership in the Church, and thus union with God in Christ through the Holy Spirit with VISIBLE signs are falling into the same trap the Jews fell into prior to the coming of Christ.

St Augustine in his City of God is eloquent in the analysis of the fact that the city of man and city of God are two realities involving the SAME PEOPLE. Like an ever changing mosaic, some members are leaving the union with Christ by sin or apostasy, while others - apparently lost to the saved are actually responding to actual graces in their souls and coming into the fold.

What happens theologically with a soul who is baptized by some itinerent missionary but then grows up without ever seeing another missionary, and thus has no other sacraments and no further catechesis (such as happened in Russia or Japan in decades past)?

We'd say, insofar as he was baptized and believes, he's a Christian - but would we say he's a full member of the Catholic Church too? If he's not a "full member" then doesn't this very qualification lead us to grasp that there are GRADES of membership?

Where does the Church - "the union of men with God in Christ through the Holy Spirit" cease to exist? If you would claim it ceases to exist at the border of the Catholic Church, then all the above is rot and rubbish and merely being baptised isn't enough.

Some would say: beyond the visible organizational structure of diocese/parish. So if you're not a member of a parish or approved religious congregation...you suddenly cease being an official member of the Church?

If we say, that your faith that Jesus is Lord and the reception of a valid baptism makes you a member of the Catholic Church...then don't we by this definition acknowledge that all Protestants are members of the Church (albeit in a limited fashion since they don't have the other sacraments and also have alot of quirky ideas that need mending)?

Now clearly Protestants aren't Catholic - but if we acknowledge them to be Christian THEN WE MUST ADMIT THAT THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IS BIGGER THAN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WHICH IS ITS CORE BUT NOT ITS LIMIT; ITS CAPITAL, NOT LIMIT OF EXTENSION.

For those who don't comprehend this...that's your problem, not the doctrine itself.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 08, 2005.

Quick recap:

Question: are Greek Orthodox Christian? Yes, because their sacrametns are valid. Question: are Greek Orthodox Catholic? No, because their bishops are not in union with the Pope.

So...if they're Christian, but not Catholic, doesn't this mean that Christ's Church isn't the same thing as the Catholic Church?

Wouldn't it also mean that this Church - the one founded by Christ - is most evident and fully developed in the Catholic Church and only imcompletely or relatively found in other churches?

If so, and you happen to be Catholic, why would this make you want to leave the Catholic Church?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 08, 2005.

Joe, I hope that you are just kidding around, to keep people on their toes.

Over the years, I have agreed with you on about 19 of every 20 things that you write. This is one of those 1-in-20 cases, and (if you aren't kidding) it is a much stronger disagreement than any of those in the past. Your theologizing usually is extremely interesting and never gets off paved track. It went into a ditch this time, though. You are stating things that the Church has never declared in any document.

If ... being baptized puts you in union with Christ...then doesn't this mean, ipso facto, that the Church - that union of souls with God in Christ through the Holy Spirit - is bigger than the visible limits of the Catholic Church?

No. The Church of Christ subsists [has its existence in, is equated with] the Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church.

The Church, St. Paul says, is the Body of Christ. Each (orthodox) Catholic is a fully incorporated "member" (cell, limb, whatever) in the Body of Christ. (The word "incorporated," of course, comes from the Latin "in" [in] and "corpus" [the body].) Anyone who is not a Catholic, but who has been baptized, is NOT a fully incorporated member in the Body, but could be called "excorporated."

If the Catholic Church could be pictured as a grapevine, and each person at Baptism being a grape thereon, each of us orthodox Catholics is a fruit that fully clings to the vine, while each Christian who believes heretical doctrines is a fruit that has dropped off the vine and is lying on the ground. The latter fruit shows obvious signs of having once been part of the grapevine, but it is now "excorporated." It is not fully incorporated into the plant, and no longer draws nourishment from it.

Those who are excorporated include all who are usually called "protestants" and all who belong to ancient apostolic churches (e.g., the Eastern Orthodox). Some will argue that the latter are not excorporated, since they have valid sacraments. However, they are excorporated because they cling to the heresy of disbelief in the primacy of the successors of Peter, the visible vine-tender. (Many Eastern schismatics, at this point in history, now cling to other heresies as well and have really become protestants -- e.g., the possibility of remarriage after divorce, no existence of Purgatory, no Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, etc..)

If I could be made to bend on this at all, I might agree to let someone say that the Orthodox are a special case, being "incompletely excorporated" from the Church of Christ (the Catholic Church) by contrast to the "completely excorporated" protestants. To continue the analogy of the grapevine, the Orthodox would be like fallen grapes upon whom some sap still drips from the vine, since they still have the Most Holy Eucharist and the other sacraments.

-- (tollfree@call.com), March 08, 2005.

tollfree,

Your critique of Joe has one very serious flaw - you forget that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church, and is still capable of gracing (nourishing) any part that becomes detached. Yet this nourishment still comes from His Body by the power of His Spirit (i.e. not corporial, yet the life breath of the Church).

PS Your comments as regards questionable theologians still does not wash. Any simple lay person can buy the Liturgy of the Hours and begin useing it. If the Church sees no need to preface Origen, then why should you or I? Trust you not the Holy Spirit? Think you not that if this same person then proceeded to read other material that does not jive with Church Teaching that the Spirit within him or her would stir to indicate there is something wrong? Long before I had any studies at all, when I was very ignorant of the very Faith I professed (and continue to profess), I read material that was a mixture of Truth and untruth. I physically fealt sick and my spirit was troubled. Upon asking my Pastor he pointed out that there was indeed untruth mixed in.

Besides, what makes you think that those less informed among the forum dwellers are going to run out and start reading the material from these writers?

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 09, 2005.

Talking down to plebeians is an inherent fault of tollfee's, Father. We met long ago, and it was his trademark. That and the stark phobia of somebody not taking him seriously.

That's OK; since all of us have defects. Mine are sometimes too obvious. But I can't speak condescendingly to priests. I've met a number of them who shocked me. Surely tollfree has too. But my heart says always: ''GENTLY-- Be on your best behavior with HIM-- Every day HE is welcomed into every holy mystery of the Church. Be silent and let HIM speak. God is watching us.'' --Now I hope tollfree will care in some similar way.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2005.

Let's not jump on Tollfree.

Is my working definition of the Church of Christ wrong? The union of souls with God in Christ through the Holy Spirit? Yes or no?

If wrong, then I'll admit it and change. If right, then I'm right.

All analogies - the vine included - are just that, analogies, not definitions. They help, are similar to, but not the same thing as the real deal. Metaphors (flock, yeast, wheat, seeds, light, salt, city on a mountain...) all help highlight an aspect of Christ's kingdom which is begun in the Church.

Don't you recall the scripture where the apostles come to Our Lord to complain that some men not of their number were casting out demons in His name? What did Jesus tell the apostles? "Oh horrible, they're not of the college of apostles, they must be heretics and nothing they do could possibly be OK"? No. He told them that all who are not against him, are for him.

Now think this through... Our Lord was making a point. What was that point... hmmmmmmmmmm. Could it be that those guys - unknown to the 12 and hence not "part of the circle" were really serving Christ and so in some form and fashion, united to him? Not perfectly to be sure...but neither were they independent of Him...and their miracles were performed in His name, by His power.

Think of the case of a pagan baptizing an infant. The Catholic Church is not organizationally present at that baptism is it? But Christ is there, through the Holy Spirit, bringing a soul into union with the Father.

And that soul is incorporated truly into Christ - ergo, his Church, though not perfectly joined to the visible community of believers who as sheep are tended by Peter and his successor.

The lost sheep - not currently in the flock is STILL part of the fold, still belongs to the shepherd! Did not Our Lord also speak of "other flocks" and Him bringing them together to form ultimately one flock under his own leadership?

So obviously (at least to me) there is some sort of union going on outside what is visible - in preparation for the visible and leading towards its perfection.

As the Councils of Florence and Trent and others have taught, even a pagan can baptise an infant. That infant - if he grows up on an island far from the nearest missionary would be a true Christian. But he'd not be "fully incorporated" into the Catholic Church would he? Yet should he die before the age of reason, and hence before committing a mortal sin...he'd go to heaven to finally join the family, the People, and unity of charity. He'd finally "come home".

Now then, in this hypothetical (which has happened throughout the world in missionary lands like Korea and Japan and China), what do you call a Christian who is not a member of the Catholic Church through no fault of his own? Obviously, he's incorporated into Christ and hence "Church", the union of men with God in Christ through the Holy Spirit...but not the Catholic Latin or Greek rite with all the other bells and whistles, Goodnews, and dogmas, traditions and rites.

That's my point. duh, obviously, since this is true, there must be some distinction between Christ's body - all those souls who are saved in him, and the visible structure of the Catholic Church.

The Council of Florence we see bulls welcoming the Armenians and Copts into union with Rome... they weren't described as being non- Christians suddenly brought into Christ, but as Christians already and for centuries now coming into perfect union with Rome.

If "baptism" only refered grace insofar as the minister and recipient were Catholic Christians, then all those non-Catholic Armenians and Copts and Orthodox souls would have been damned for centuries. But that's not what the Catholic Church has officially taught now is it?

All who enter heaven do so through the grace of God - and this grace is always applied to the soul individually. Thus all the saved have been baptised, though the means of baptism could certainly vary: for us men, by the sacrament, but for God and his angels? Who is to say categorically that they are bound by visible sacraments?

For us, physical and in time...sacraments (outward signs and words and human ministers) are essential. Can't happen any other way. But for God and angels who are pure spirits? We and the Church and therefore the sacraments are not the owners and arbiters of grace, but the recipients and ministers only. Just as the Holy Spirit can move any heart directly via actual grace outside the confines of the visible community...it's theoretically possible for God to save souls in utero should he wish.

We can't bank on this... but we can't pooh pooh it either.

What we do know again, is that all those born and baptised - by another human being (pagan, heretic, Muslim, Jew, or Christian) ENTER into the union with Christ, becoming a part of his Church. But not all of these born children or adults are members of the Catholic Church. Called to it to be sure, but not instantly members, just as not all Jews made their pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

You circumcise a boy at 8 days "in accordance with the Law of Moses" and he becomes a Jew. Not perfected...but a Jew nonetheless. Baptise an infant and he is incorporated into Christ - he'll need catechesis and time to become a Catholic...but Christ has already claimed him before the apostles and their successors arrive on the scene to harvest the wheat or reap the vine.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 09, 2005.

Your critique of Joe has one very serious flaw

No, it doesn't (at least not the "flaw" that you next mention, Father).

- you forget that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church, and is still capable of gracing (nourishing) any part that becomes detached.

Surely you don't really think that I could "forget that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church," do you? Also, if you would re-read my message, you would not find me saying that Jesus cannot or does not "nourish" non-Catholic Christians. Rather, I said that they (through their own free choice) do not receive "nourishment" from the Catholic Church, since they do not partake in her sacraments (most importantly the Holy Eucharist) and do not accept her teaching (spoken/written), etc..

Your comment as regards questionable theologians still does not wash.

Yes, it does, but I can see that you will not be convinced no matter what I say, so I prefer not to "beat a dead horse." In your case, only time and experience will convince you that my advice is reliable. I will only reply to the next sentence that you wrote:

Besides, what makes you think that those less informed among the forum dwellers are going to run out and start reading the material from these writers?

Lived experience, which, as I mentioned earlier, you still need more of.

Talking down to plebeians is an inherent fault of tollfee's, Father. We met long ago, and it was his trademark. That and the stark phobia of somebody not taking him seriously.

What a hoot! They say that laughter is medicinal. Please know that your silly remarks daily medicate me, sir.

-- (tollfree@call.com), March 09, 2005.

Hello, Joe (and "thank you"). I take seriously what you have just written, so I'd like to add a few comments.

Don't you recall the scripture where the apostles come to Our Lord to complain that some men not of their number were casting out demons in His name? (Etc.)

Yes. (Ditto for Moses and two Israelites who were separately prophesying in the camp.) It appears that you are assuming, from some words I wrote last time, that I believe some things that I do not actually believe. I do not trash non-Catholic Christians as such. I do not say that they are automatically damned. I do not say that all of them are lacking in sanctifying grace. I do not say that all their religious efforts are worthless or unwelcomed by Jesus (just as certain biblical people's efforts were not unwelcomed by Jesus and Moses).

What I do say, though, is that, though these folks are Christians (by virtue of Baptism), they are NOT members of the only church founded by Jesus, the Catholic Church. They are not incorporated into the Body of Christ, though Jesus wants them to be. I believe that you will find this mentioned (i.e., their not being incorporated into the Body) in at least one Vatican II and/or post- Conciliar document.

Think of the case of a pagan baptizing an infant. The Catholic Church is not organizationally present at that baptism is it? But Christ is there, through the Holy Spirit, bringing a soul into union with the Father. And that soul is incorporated truly into Christ - ergo, his Church, though not perfectly joined to the visible community of believers who as sheep are tended by Peter and his successor.

I disagree with your statement that this infant is "not perfectly joined to the visible community" tended by the Pope. As I have stated many times before at this forum (though you must never have read it before), such an infant -- and even any newborn taken for Baptism by Protestant parents -- IS a Catholic from the moment of valid Baptism, because there is only one Baptism!

Yes, ironically, Methodist/Lutheran/Anglican parents have Catholic babies, from the moment of the babies' Baptism! Later, perhaps, a "baby Catholic" may tragically leave the Church/Body (excorporate himself) by choosing not to receive valid sacraments and not to believe certain necessary dogmas. This usually happens through no fault of his own, as when he is raised by non-Catholic Christian parents.

So obviously (at least to me) there is some sort of union going on outside what is visible - in preparation for the visible and leading towards its perfection.

We could not call it a "union," but rather a Spirit-impelled movement toward unification. Since no "union" yet exists (due to rejection of sacraments and dogmas), they are not yet in the Church/Body.

The Council of Florence we see bulls welcoming the Armenians and Copts into union with Rome... they weren't described as being non- Christians suddenly brought into Christ, but as Christians already and for centuries now coming into perfect union with Rome.

I agree. As I mentioned above, I never said that people like these were not "Christians," but that they were not within the Catholic Church and were not incorporated into the Body of Christ (having excorporated themselves by choosing not to be Catholic). Our missionary spirit and activities arise, in part, from our knowing that Jesus wants to RE-INCORPORATE all poor souls who have strayed into Protestantism (etc.), to lead them back into His Mystical Body, the Catholic Church.

-- (tollfree@call.com), March 09, 2005.

tollfree,

"Lived experience, which, as I mentioned earlier, you still need more of."

Now who is making judegments about others? I have more lived experience than many would care to know. Agreed, we all need more of it, but what I have is sufficient for me to post as I have.

"I said that they (through their own free choice) do not receive "nourishment" from the Catholic Church"

And you are so very wrong here, there is no where else that anybody can be nourished. Your understanding of the Church is quite lacking.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 09, 2005.

Start a thread on the clarity vs. the ambiguity of the documents of the Second Vatican Council, and what do I get?

Four NeoCatholics arguing with... each other.

Now if that doesn't make sense, I don't know what does.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 09, 2005.

You know, though, maybe that's not all bad. Come to think of it. Maybe it's a good thing.

Perhaps you can find a way to debate charitably, discuss honestly, and all come to the Catholic truth.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 09, 2005.

"what do I get?"

You get people like yourself who try to say the Church is currently teaching error or wishy-washy 'sudo' doctrines, you get people who claim the Church teaches what they (the people) say it teaches, and you get people like us 100% faithful to the Chair of Peter who state emphatically that the Church teaches what She says She teaches.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 09, 2005.

No wise cracks about spelling; that's one thing I don't like about this forum - you can't go back and edit after you have posted. Ironically, it is also something I like as it is something to safe guard against people changing their posts in order to deceive.

I wish the whole world was in one time zone with the same hours for sleep and wake. I really am getting tired of staying up so very late. And to think, I first ended up in this forum by doing a simple search for an address.

Either it's God giving me a good workout so I am more fit to lead my flocks, or its the devil trying to wear me out. If its the latter, he will never triumph (obviously); I've been pre-conditioned I guess by all those years of working the night shift and living the day shift. But it does get harder as the years go by.

Emerald and Ian have more stamina than a trad priest I dealt with last year; he bailed when I confronted him with arguments against his error based on the only Church documents he would permit to hold any authority. I guess he wasn't invincibly ignorant and so bailed when he was exposed; that's good news for you guys as it seems you are invincibly ignorant - there is still hope for you (according to the teachings of Pius IX and the Second Vatican Council at least).

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 09, 2005.

I was never much Neo Catholic.

I recall feeling judgmental about my own sisters going to Holy Mass without a head covering. Or when some Catholic walked past the holy tabernacle and failed to genuflect. What came to make me feel much better about it all was prayer and contemplation.

I also examined myself; and my own weaknesses. Most of all I spent long hours contemplating Jesus Christ and reading the scriptures while favoring only HIM and His holy words; as the perfection over all others.

I soon began to see how vain our lives are and how quickly they evaporate. I came to a better understanding; not only of our Church, --about our Communion of Saints; my brethren.

There's a long Pilgrimage all souls in the faith travel. Many travel swiftly, never hesitating on the road. Many cover less ground, and slower. These are souls with worldly preoccupations. To some of them, all external problems are roadblocks. They must convert the Church and me. Instead of just pilgrims they think they're spiritual guides. Instead of looking ahead to the holy land where God makes everyone truly a Christian. They never learn for themselves this is a Pilgrimage. They think they're in the holy shrine without walking the path at all. Just claim you're a Catholic, you know the ropes. You are holy without any interior reflection. Everything can be accomplished in externals. Slow and distracted; my foolish brethren.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2005.

Thank you for being faithful Father Paul.

This forum needs the spiritual counsel you can offer. But it's a trial for someone like you who can't spare all the time I can spare, --and versus trolls who return every twenty minutes of the day. Always swarming like piranhas. Unhappy about you and our holy mother Church.

You mot as well be an American President. They always want your head. Go to bed and let it rest, Padre. Take comfort in the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Lay down your arms and be a child for a few hours. We'll pray for you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 09, 2005.

"You get people like yourself who try to say the Church is currently teaching error or wishy-washy 'sudo' doctrines, you get people who claim the Church teaches what they (the people) say it teaches, and you get people like us 100% faithful to the Chair of Peter who state emphatically that the Church teaches what She says She teaches."

Although, you can't say what it is that she teaches that you believe, that I don't believe. That's very interesting. You're all 100% faithful, but you can't agree on what the Church teaches.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 10, 2005.

You make distinctions between Neos and Trads--

WHY? You bring to this forum a better religion. Yes, we've heard you out, but we lack your courage and conviction. What can I say? Could you give us five years, and come back? Things can change in five years, Emerald. Pray, as if your life depended on it. Come back after you've prayed for five short years. We'll pray for you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 10, 2005.

"...that's good news for you guys as it seems you are invincibly ignorant - there is still hope for you (according to the teachings of Pius IX and the Second Vatican Council at least)."

This is completely moronic. You people can't even say what the teachings of Vatican II are. You have the documents at your access, you claim to be in line with the teachings of the Church, yet you can't even agree on what it is the Church is saying, or each other. You claim to have given your assent to the "Church's interpretation" of these documents, yet, you can't even reiterate that interpretation when called on to do so.

I know what you think is being authoritatively taught by the Catholic Church right now, and that's this: that people can be saved without the sacraments by exception, and by some mysterious relationship, those who are outside the Church might be somehow in it in some sense.

That's what you think Vatican II is teaching, isn't it?

Well, the Church never taught this. It still doesn't. You just think it does.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 10, 2005.

He can place our faith in the nutshell, Emerald.

''You [Neos] think is being authoritatively taught by the Catholic Church . . . and that's -- people can be saved without the sacraments by exception, and [that] by some mysterious relationship those -- outside the Church might be somehow in it; in some sense.''

If he knew the Holy Gospel and the essential purpose of Christ's Catholic Church, Emerald could discern: --Sacraments are for obtaining grace. The Church is for administering sacraments, and yet CHRIST makes grace for us. Nobody can be saved without sacraments-- because they would have no access to Christ's GRACE without them.

If God were limited to one formula. Since He doesn't seem to say He is unlimited, but Emerald thinks He WOULD have told us, ''I'm unlimited and Omnipotent'' if this were so-- God MUST be limited to a few sacraments. Which necessarily says, ''CHURCH; you may not teach anything authoritatively about GOD. Just teach about your sacraments, and what limited resources a soul has till the Last Judgment. We leave God and His omnipotence and love out of the Catholic repertoire. OH! And FORGET about everything Christ says in the Holy Bible. As ''Sportin Life'' sings in Porgy and Bess: ''It ain't necessarily so.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 10, 2005.

Do you assent to the following?

"16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. (Cfr. S. Thomas, Summa Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3, ad 1.) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. (Cf. Rom. 9, 4-5) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. (Cf. Rom. 1 l, 28-29); But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, (Cf. Acts 17,25-28) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. (Cf. 1 Tim. 2, 4) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. (Cfr. Epist. S.S.C.S. Officii ad Archiep. Boston.: Denz. 3869-72) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. (Cfr. Eusebius Caes., Praeparatio Evangelica, 1, 1: PG 2128 AB) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. (Cf Rom. 1, 21, 25) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature", (Mk. 16, 16) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

[...]

Each and all these items which are set forth in this dogmatic Constitution have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God.

Given in Rome at St. Peter's on November 21, 1964."

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 10, 2005.

Are the documents of Vatican II precise or ambiguous? --

That's not so ambiguous, is it? Thanks, Father.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 10, 2005.

"That's not so ambiguous, is it? Thanks, Father."

In other words, it's clear to you, Gene, that those outside the Church and outside the sacraments, can be saved.

Is this correct?

Fr. Paul. Do you believe that this section of Lumen Gentium allows you to believe that those who are outside the Church, and outside of the sacraments of the Church, can be saved?

Let's see how clear we can all be.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 10, 2005.

Is this correct?

It's not for me to say. God knows.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 10, 2005.

God knows;

--and it's on the record coming from the Catholic Church, Emmsie. Not from ME, or the priest; from the Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 10, 2005.

What does that section say, Gene? The one that Fr. Paul quotes above from Lumen Gentium.

Tell me what it means.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 10, 2005.

No explanation necessary. Do you or do you not give your assent?

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 10, 2005.

First of all Emerald, you never answered MY question about which dogmas we supposedly don't believe in.

NOR have you answered my question as to WHAT "traditions" you believe that bring these dogmas to us - and we have jettisoned.

Now we debate about sacramental and extra-sacramental economies of salvation. Fine.

Scripture again is helpful here. When Jesus told his disciples about the higher law of the Gospel with respect to marriage, poverty (rich young man) etc. they were dismayed...but he told them that for God all things are possible...hint hint, that their lack of incomprehension or the limits of their reasoning skills were NOT COTERMINOUS WITH THE POSSIBILITIES OPEN TO GOD'S GRACE!

So you can't see how the Church could be essential for salvation if people could be saved by God outside of its visible structure?

The Jews were scandalized by God offering salvation to the gentiles too! They thought that since ONLY the Jews were the chosen people... God couldn't possibly offer this sonship to any others! It was a heresy to them to even think that their august place could be shared!

They couldn't see the possibility of worshipping God outside of the temple -because God himself had asked that they build it and offer sacrifice only there...it was hard therefore for them to accept that a) other people could be brought into the friendship of God from beyond the visible structure of the 12 tribes...and b) that this new, larger people could worship God in spirit and in truth outside Jerusalem, indeed anywhere!

They were scandalized by Jesus claiming that God was more generous with his gifts than they were! How dare God offer justification (a free and unmeritable gift) to those who first didn't obey the Mosaic Law? Who first didn't SUFFER the inconvenience and discipline THEY had to undergo... always doing the Lord's will.

Hints of the Prodigal Son all over this folks... the eldest son refusing communion with the younger and with the father who was merciful rather than just. Generous beyond all telling rather than miserly. The elder projected his own attitude onto the father as though that was the way it had to be...and so was scandalized by the father's generosity with the younger, who in his eyes "got off cheap" without haveing to suffer the yoke of obedience and servitude.

But he completely missed the point of his relationship with the father! God didn't want sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice! He didn't enjoy the death of sinners or the smell of burnt offerings as though they had some magical or metaphysical importance in and of themselves! Some intrinsic value for God!

No, these were all actions he commanded of his people as a way to restore them to friendship with himself! "My son, you are with me always and all I have is yours, but we have to celebrate because your brother was lost, and is now found, dead, and is now brought back to life".

A underlying subscript none of you have brought up (and perhaps haven't thought of) was faced by St Paul: if pagans could attain a saving relationship with God what point was there for men to be Jews (and then Christians) at all? But such a question - which is at the basis of your own fears and worries - ignores the very definition and presuppositions of the whole sheebang of what God is, what the church is, what grace is, what sacraments are, what human nature and human beings are.

It's a minimalist approach to things - "what's the least I can do to survive death?" Not, "what more can I do to be perfect?"

It's the Cain and Abel dicotomy: Cain offered some first fruits of the ground...while Abel offered the umblemished lamb (i.e. the lamb that would have been his prime breeder, and thus not a one-time- sacrifice, but a sacrifice of lasting significance).

God blessed the younger brother's sacrifice and made it the prototype of all human worship - worship whose whole point was to help restore man's friendship with God via the sacrifice of themselves and their treasure... worship is antidote to the sin of Adam: Insofar as he failed to sacrifice himself and his treasure (Eve) out of obedience to God's will, and so suffered the FALL, so all of us and finally Jesus Christ had to restore friendship with God via self-denial and the offering of what we most treasure: possessions (poverty), the flesh (chastity) and our proud self-will (obedience).

Abraham offered his Isaac... completely outside the norm for worship at that time as human sacrifice was "verbotten" - but it was his attitude of poverty and obedience that "impressed" God that this was a guy who really worshipped him in spirit and truth and so he was ready for the blessings God bestowed on him as father of all believers.

In our own day we have the spectacle of a world of 6 billions souls, 1 billion of whom are nominally Catholic and another 1 billion or so who are Christian of various churches or "communities" which share 1 or 2 sacraments with us in common without the rest.

Clearly, Jesus is the savior of the world - the only savior and thus all who are saved, go to the Father through him. And all who come into a relationship with him (via grace) are thereby IN SOME FORM made a part of his Church.

So the grace of Justice and the union of men with God in Christ through the Holy Spirit are still essential and still always there...but what we are arguing about is whether this grace - the gift of Justice is poured into souls ONLY in the ordinary sacramental way and can not, in any circumstance, be poured into a soul miraculously - i.e. without outside human intervention but solely from God?

From our Catholic point of view - much like the Jews looking at the temple worship - there is one clear revealed way for grace to be applied to souls and that is the visible sacramental way.

But it's not a contradiction in terms to think that God who is the owner of the gift could not and indeed would not also offer this same gift in his own way to people who through no fault of their own could not possibly know of the sacrament or its need for their salvation.

i.e. people who are BEYOND OUR REACH, BUT NOT BEYOND HIS.

So what's the point of being Catholic? This. We know FOR SURE that God's grace of justification comes to us in the sacraments, and FOR SURE that this grace keeps us holy and in his friendship.

Outside the visible structure of the Church there is doctrinal error and human vices, demons and the flesh which conspire to darken minds and twist hearts and so choke off the souls of men from the truth and the virtue required to please God and so enter a union with Him.

Yet even there, we know from Wisdom and Romans and Acts that the Holy Spirit inspires even pagans to do what is good and long for what is better...that God is always working in the heart of men to inspire them and prepare the way for a return to his kingdom.

It's far safer and surer that we Catholics will be saved than that non-Catholic Christians will be, and it's far more sure that they will than Jews, and then Muslims, and then everyone else to various degrees depending on their religious or philosophical systems being more or less open to objective truth and promoting objective virtue.

So while there is a POSSIBILITY that God could bring souls to the same gift HE CERTAINLY gives us in the sacraments and visible structure of His Church, it's not a SURE OR PROBABLE thing.

And this makes sense - and indeed every missionary has had to grapple with this when converting tribes and new folk who lost little children or loved ones who they thought highly of as just and exceptionally good people. The missionary was offering TO ALL the grace which ordinarily would be extremely rare among those pagans.

And that's Good news! That's a motive for them to give up their vices - the slavery of sin and error and enter the light of Christ where the yoke is easy and the burden light (when compared with the yoke of sin and burden of vice).

So with respect to the Last Things...while it's highly probable that many, if not most of the 4 billion non-Christians are hell BOUND...it doesn't follow that Emerald and Ian are in the same statistical category of hell-bound express.

Insofar as you are striving to be virtuous Catholics, have been baptised, confirmed, receive the Lord's body and blood every week...are praying every day... I think it would be the height of ingratitude and even presumption on your part to think that Hell is a serious probability for you.

Possibility, yes, absolutely. Probability, no, unless there's something you aren't telling father in confession every month.

Probability of hell is high for the unbaptised living in a pagan culture and surrounded by enticements and bad habits and vices! But for the Catholic who is striving to maintain a friendship with Christ daily? What kind of attitude is that? You think our Best Friend, who has done so much for us up to know is just going to smite us or allow all this work to go to waste?

My friends... Jesus loves you. He died for us, not to smite us or judge us harshly. Sure - to whom much is given, much will be asked...but look at your attitude, look at your projection of doom and gloom.

The gates of hell will not prevail against us... meaning we - the winning side of grace and redemption of the race - are expanding the circle of salvation, not being pushed back into the caves.

Yes, the way is narrow, but to claim "damn, look at all I'm doing and sacrificing to be a faithful Catholic...and yet I'm still only a heart beat away from damnation... just like my hedonist neighbor Fred, that womanizing, cheating, rich, lazy SOB who has it so good. Oh well, might as well hang for a horse as for a sheep"

I mean, attitudes like yours would actually be preliminary temptations to go hog wild - on the presumption that laxity and enjoying evil for a while is no more dangerous than avoiding occasions of sin and actual sin!

But he promised them that they would persever thanks to God's grace.

Paul grappled with the same problem of who can be saved

You think GOD can ONLY give grace via sacraments...because the Church is essential for salvation. I ask you to define "church" and define the sacraments. You duck and dodge.

If by "church" you mean the Catholic Church, outside of whose visible structure there can be no relationship with Christ, then you fall into a paradox of what to call people who are baptized by the valid form in the Orthodox Church and the other Churches such as the Armenian, Copt, Syrian, etc. that all had valid orders and sacraments.

They are indeed Christians...but not in "full union".

You also fall into the paradox of explaining how a sacrament could possibily "work" if pagans could baptise their children - obviously outside the visible structure of the Catholic Church.

If God can (and he does) inspire pagans with actual grace...does this not mean that God can (and does) give grace to souls without human intervention via sacramental economy?

Of course it does.

But once you are IN the Church and enjoy the relationship with God which the sacraments involve, of COURSE staying in this most perfect friendship until the end would be absolutely ESSENTIAL for your salvation!

Leaving it, leaving the friendship with God for any reason - pride, lust, laziness, whatever, would be a grave sin.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 10, 2005.

Joe..it is a joy to "listen" to you.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), March 10, 2005.

"So what's the point of being Catholic? This. We know FOR SURE that God's grace of justification comes to us in the sacraments, and FOR SURE that this grace keeps us holy and in his friendship."

really?

Joe -- reality check: no-one goes to Confession anymore. everybody takes the Sacrament at Mass.

my observation. nothing more.

if it is true........

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 10, 2005.

......anyways. that excerpt from LG above.

Eugene has passed.

any other takers?

what does it mean?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 10, 2005.

"No explanation necessary."

Nice dodge.

"Do you or do you not give your assent?"

You tell me what it means, and then I'll tell you.

You're the one being evasive. You don't want to state what you think it says, because as soon as you did, you'll get slammed. Because you know that what you'd say would be contrary to the dogma of the Catholic Faith.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 10, 2005.

Guess what, Yancy? Eugene hasn't passed, he just wants to convey a message: Ian doesn't concern me. He is far from a challenging apologist, and I won't flatter him by allowing myself to be cross-examined.

If after 110 posts here, of which many were mine; all lovingly detailed for your benefit, --you still choose to play interrogator here, I think I ought to ignore you. You haven't been as impressive as you imagine.

Let's consider why Lesley just complimented our young friend Joe: ''Joe..it is a joy to "listen" to you. (Lesley (martchas@hotmail) and note that HE, and Father and tollfree devoted more than 2,000 words to explain something to YOU and Emerald-- on this thread in just a day;

To which you never PRETEND any attention; you never confront the truth-- either of you, but rather expect some poor idiot to parse the entire passage from Lumen for your entertainment--

Your arrogance sure won't be rewarded from MY side. You bought no tickets to see me explain anything. Read it yourselves. It says enough to stifle your little pretense of traditionalism. You are simply check-mated and you can't do anything but shut up.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 10, 2005.

Look, Gene. Quit beating around the bush.

Just say what you think that section of Lumen Gentium means to tell us.

Don't trust your own interpretation? Well... I can certainly appreciate. Well then. Give us the Church's official interpretation. Please don't forget to provide references to them.

Thanks in advance.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 10, 2005.

And Emerald didn't have words to meet the challenge with. He won't admit defeat so he swears on dogma of the Catholic Faith once more.

Nobody cares; because we uphold every dogmatic teaching and MORE-- in our present day Catholic communion. We follow Peter; if Emerald feels he does it better-- we won't rock the boat. Peter's Bark has room for clowns like him too. Or is he a plaster saint? NO--Clown.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 10, 2005.

Just. Say. What you think it means. Gene.

-- (em@cox.nett), March 10, 2005.

If for some reason you took me for the kind who wouldn't understand plain English, it might bother me. But you know I understand everything. And so do you-- But you won't touch it with a pitchfork. It'll BITE you! Hahaha!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 10, 2005.

Ian.."nobody goes to confession anymore...." We can all only speak to our own experiences of course. Perhaps it may seem that such a sweeping statement applies..yet it truly does not. In our own tiny parish (deep in what can be appropriately termed the "boonies" of rural Missouri), the confessional is quite a busy place. In my daughter's huge parish (an affluent suburb of St. Louis)two priests are needed to hear confessions each week.

Vatican II did not say at any time that the sacrament of Reconciliation was not a necessity. As a matter of fact,the first Sunday of Lent, in many Catholic newsletters, there was a great call for people to attend..Oh, now I have forgotten the terminology..sigh..it's a service where the parish comes together for prayers of repentance and THEN people go to individual confession with the priest. Beautiful service!

Undoubtably, there can be found misinterpretations of Vatican II where uninformed people THINK they no longer need to confess their sins to a priest..yet this is the error of individuals, not Vatican II. IMHO, there are many misinterpretations of Vatican II here and there..truly unfortunate.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), March 10, 2005.

"First of all Emerald, you never answered MY question about which dogmas we supposedly don't believe in."

I thought I did. I think you asked it in another thread, where I answered it. Basically you don't really believe there's no salvation outside the Church. You change the meaning of it, and then say you believe the dogma. But really, when pressed, it doesn't work out that you really believe it. You think that Catholicism is a smaller circle encompassed by a larger circle which is called "Christianity". It's based upon an understanding of the sacraments as a precept-only necessity as opposed to a means-based necessity. It relegates them to the status of ritual or law instead of realities. Also, there's an Americanism at work there that defies the Catholic principles which constitute a true social kingship of Christ, but we haven't really delved into that subject, even though it is virtually inseperable from the above.

Now I want you to know that I don't mean to be throwing accusations at you that you have to get all defensive about. I don't mean it to be that way. You asked, though, so I figured maybe I'd just lay it out on the table.

"NOR have you answered my question as to WHAT "traditions" you believe that bring these dogmas to us - and we have jettisoned."

Not sure what exactly what you mean here. But in general terms, at least in the Latin Rite, the dogma of the Church is in many and various ways precisely expressed and upheld. When it was jettisoned, the means to a precise doctrinal expression went with it.

"Now we debate about sacramental and extra-sacramental economies of salvation. Fine."

Sure.

"Scripture again is helpful here. When Jesus told his disciples about the higher law of the Gospel with respect to marriage, poverty (rich young man) etc. they were dismayed...but he told them that for God all things are possible...hint hint, that their lack of incomprehension or the limits of their reasoning skills were NOT COTERMINOUS WITH THE POSSIBILITIES OPEN TO GOD'S GRACE!"

That doesn't mean there's a way other than the sacraments.

"So you can't see how the Church could be essential for salvation if people could be saved by God outside of its visible structure?"

So what you're saying is that there really is salvation outside the Church.

"The Jews were scandalized by God offering salvation to the gentiles too! They thought that since ONLY the Jews were the chosen people... God couldn't possibly offer this sonship to any others! It was a heresy to them to even think that their august place could be shared! They couldn't see the possibility of worshipping God outside of the temple -because God himself had asked that they build it and offer sacrifice only there...it was hard therefore for them to accept that a) other people could be brought into the friendship of God from beyond the visible structure of the 12 tribes...and b) that this new, larger people could worship God in spirit and in truth outside Jerusalem, indeed anywhere! They were scandalized by Jesus claiming that God was more generous with his gifts than they were! How dare God offer justification (a free and unmeritable gift) to those who first didn't obey the Mosaic Law? Who first didn't SUFFER the inconvenience and discipline THEY had to undergo... always doing the Lord's will."

Let me tell you what the problem with this comparison is. The Old Testament was a prefigurement of what was to come. It came. The New Covenant is everlasting, and permament. The sacraments of the New Law are necessary. Now if your comparison were to hold correct, it would have to be the case that the New Law is yet another prefigurement of a "Third Thing To Come" so to speak. It's not. It is everlasting.

"Hints of the Prodigal Son all over this folks... the eldest son refusing communion with the younger and with the father who was merciful rather than just. Generous beyond all telling rather than miserly. The elder projected his own attitude onto the father as though that was the way it had to be...and so was scandalized by the father's generosity with the younger, who in his eyes "got off cheap" without haveing to suffer the yoke of obedience and servitude."

Yeah, I've heard that comparison before too. Here's why it doesn't work: if you really believe this a valid comparison, then you would be forced to admit that the elder son was always faithful. That can't work because to make it fit, you'd have to have the father throwing the eldest son out of the house. He didn't do that. Plus, you have the prodigal son actually coming home, to where the eldest son and the father were. If this comparison were to work for you, you'd have to have the father demanding that he and his eldest son leave their house, and go off and live with the prodigal son in a far off land.

It ain't working, man.

"It's a minimalist approach to things - "what's the least I can do to survive death?" Not, "what more can I do to be perfect?"

I would never condone a minimalist approach. It's contrary to everything traditionally Catholic.

It's far safer and surer that we Catholics will be saved than that non-Catholic Christians will be, and it's far more sure that they will than Jews, and then Muslims, and then everyone else to various degrees depending on their religious or philosophical systems being more or less open to objective truth and promoting objective virtue.

I'm not sure I'm going to be saved. I already know it's an infallible dogma of the Church that there's no salvation outside of it. So no, I wouldn't say it's less certain. According to the Church, it is impossible unless they enter into the Catholic Church and remain within her bosom. Can't argue with an infallible declaration. I'm not going to. Saying it is "less certain" that people who die without ever entering the Church is to not lend your full assent to the dogma. It's a certain measure of dissent. It is condemned in the Syllabus of Errors:

15. [It is an error to believe that] every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

16. [It is an error to believe that] man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.

17. [It is an error to believe that] good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

"So while there is a POSSIBILITY that God could bring souls to the same gift HE CERTAINLY gives us in the sacraments and visible structure of His Church, it's not a SURE OR PROBABLE thing."

It's impossible. The sacraments are necessary.

"So with respect to the Last Things...while it's highly probable that many, if not most of the 4 billion non-Christians are hell BOUND...it doesn't follow that Emerald and Ian are in the same statistical category of hell-bound express."

Hey, if I don't stay in a state of grace, I'm toast. If you want to be saved, you have to devote the rest of your life to that effort. If it wasn't the case that anything unclean couldn't come before God, we wouldn't have a doctrine concerning the existence of Purgatory. Salvation is serious business.

"Insofar as you are striving to be virtuous Catholics, have been baptised, confirmed, receive the Lord's body and blood every week...are praying every day... I think it would be the height of ingratitude and even presumption on your part to think that Hell is a serious probability for you."

WHAT? Sorry, didn't mean to yell... lol. But Joe, trads usually get thrown the accusation that they are certain they're going to Heaven, and no one esle is good enough. Which, of course, is the thought process at all, really. But in a true case of uniqueness on this forum, which isn't often, you say almost the opposite.

That's flattering, but I ain't going to buy that one either. No way. I would make no such assumption about myself, or my trad friends. No; I would assume Hell have gravity to it, to draw up a visual, and needs to fought against, while (don't overlook this) at the same time, the cultivation of a real and true love of God. There's plenty of love in traditional Catholicism. It's just not worn as a display. It's a garden enclosed.

"Possibility, yes, absolutely. Probability, no, unless there's something you aren't telling father in confession every month."

There's the theological virtue of Hope. That much I'll pin my... hopes on. But no assumptions.

"Probability of hell is high for the unbaptised living in a pagan culture and surrounded by enticements and bad habits and vices!"

It's a given. "But for the Catholic who is striving to maintain a friendship with Christ daily? What kind of attitude is that?"

It's called knowing your true self.

"You think our Best Friend, who has done so much for us up to know is just going to smite us or allow all this work to go to waste?"

Being that the Passion was as harrowing an event as it was, what does that tell you about man's true condition? Letting it go to waste would be to not pick up one's Cross. That's gratitude, that willingness. Anything less proves nothing.

My friends... Jesus loves you. He died for us, not to smite us or judge us harshly. Sure - to whom much is given, much will be asked...but look at your attitude, look at your projection of doom and gloom."

The statement that the many make is that "Jesus loves you". But this is a platitude, theologically speaking. Of course He does. That's not the statement upon which the souls hangs in the balance. What tips the soul to one side or the other is the answer to this question:

Do you love Jesus?

Of course, if you'd say yes, then He had his habit of responding in if/then terms.

"The gates of hell will not prevail against us... meaning we - the winning side of grace and redemption of the race - are expanding the circle of salvation, not being pushed back into the caves."

"Shape a circle ever wider..." Now where have I heard that before. Yep, here it is. Straight out of the Novus Ordo song book I've got here on my desk. Let me see, page... ah, here it is:

Draw together at one table
all the human family
Shape a circle ever wider
and a people ever free.
Let us bring the gifts that differ
and in splendid varied ways
Sing a new church into being
one in faith and love and praise.

Yep. That's the New Theology.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 10, 2005.

And you are so very wrong here, there is no where else that anybody can be nourished. Your understanding of the Church is quite lacking.

No, Father. My understanding of the Church is fine. What is "quite lacking" is your understanding of me. It is your faulty understanding of what I was trying to say (plus a bit of a subconscious desire for revenge, I dare say) that led you unjustly to criticize me. And it isn't the first time that this kind of thing has happened. You struggle to grasp what people say, so I guess that I have to cut you some slack.

You quoted me as follows: "I said that they (through their own free choice) do not receive "nourishment" from the Catholic Church"

Now I just scrolled back up to see where that came, and I was astounded by the unjust thing that you did!

Two posts back, you showed that you had misunderstood me by saying, "- you forget that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church, and is still capable of gracing (nourishing) any part that becomes detached."

To correct your understanding of my previous words, I replied:
"Surely you don't really think that I could 'forget that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church,' do you? Also, if you would re-read my message, you would not find me saying that Jesus cannot or does not 'nourish' non-Catholic Christians. Rather, I said that they (through their own free choice) do not receive 'nourishment' from the Catholic Church, since they do not partake in her sacraments (most importantly the Holy Eucharist) and do not accept her teaching (spoken/written), etc.. "

I thought it would be obvious that I was speaking about their not availing themselves of DIRECT "nourishment" through valid sacramental graces (other than Baptism and Marriage) and through attending Mass, reading the Catechism, and the like. I was not saying that they do hot receive INDIRECT, unsought "nourishment" from the Catholic Church, through several sources.

So what did you proceed to do with my just-quoted explanation? You ripped one phrase out of context and threw it back in my face with a false accusation that my "understanding is lacking," when it was really your effort to understand me that was "lacking. Here again is what you ripped out of the above full quotation, ignoring the explanatory words that preceded and followed it: "I said that they (through their own free choice) do not receive 'nourishment' from the Catholic Church."

There is no point in continuing to fight, Father. You obviously DO need a rest. You are spending too much time here and it is adversely affecting your fairness. Don't take out on Catholics your frustration that is justly felt toward "pseudo-trad" heretics.

You may be right about one thing, though, Father. You said that Ian and Emerald may be "invincibly ignorant." Yes, and not only in the theological sense of the term. They are also just plain "ignorant" in the layman's sense of the term! They are "ignoramuses." (The plural is not "ignorami," because "ignoramus" is not a Latin masculine noun but a Latin verb form meaning "we do not know").

-- (tollfree@call.com), March 10, 2005.

".I really am getting tired of staying up so very late."

Well then go to bed Father. Go hear Confessions and pray to be a holy good priest.

Don't waste your time. Go save souls. Your pride is getting in way of your job, son.

-- Blake (nett@cox,...nnn), March 10, 2005.

Ooops! Posted too soon, not having completed my comments about the pseudo-trad heretics, especially Emerald. Recently, you were well warned about just how demonic he is. Now you have experienced some of the worst of his gehennian tactics.

First, when someone asks him to say what he rejects in the Vatican II documents, he refuses to quote anything. Instead, he says that he rejects nothing that is in the Church's deposit of faith.

Second, when he is pressed to reveal what Vatican II teaches that is not in, or is contrary to, the Church's deposit of faith, he remains silent or tries to deflect everyone's attention.

Third, when you specifically ask if he assents to a clear and vital passage quoted from Vatican II, he honors his spiritual daddy (satan) by pretending not to know what the passage means. He has the nerve to demand that others tell him what the passage means before he will say whether or not he assents! What this father-and-son team are trying to get you to do, Father (et al.) is to paraphrase the Vatican II passage in words that agree with his heretical (Feeneyite) understanding of truth. If you do that, he may assent. But if you don't, then he will claim that you are the heretic, propounding something contrary to the deposit of faith. He may even claim that your paraphrase is not what the Fathers of Vatican II meant by their statement, since that would let him pretend that he does not dissent after all! Yep, Esmeralda tries to be even slicker than Slick Willy. But he also exceeds Willy in the profundity of his vices.

By now, perhaps, you see why I will always recommend that "dangerous debris" like this duo of Ian and Emerald be swept into the dustbin (i.e., that they be banned), lest they lead even more souls into schism or heresy than they already have.

-- (tollfree@call.com), March 10, 2005.

According to you, tollfree, I'm:

1. A heretic, but

2. ...invincibly ignorant.

According to your theology, I can therefore be saved.

Which leads one to ask a very natural question.

What're you all worked up about then? I'm saved.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 11, 2005.

According to you, tollfree, I'm: 1. A heretic, but . ...invincibly ignorant

Foremostly, you are a poor reader. I did seriously say that you are a Feeneyite heretic, but I didn't really or seriously say that you are "invincibly ignorant." That's for God to say.

What I actually and jokingly said was (with emphasis added), You may be right about one thing, though, Father. You said that Ian and Emerald may be "invincibly ignorant."

I actually doubt that you are "invincibly ignorant," suspecting instead that you don't have that excuse (and are thus on the road to perdition).

But regardless of the situation in that regard, the following comment of yours is foolish, as you ought well to know.
According to your theology, I can therefore be saved. Which leads one to ask a very natural question. What're you all worked up about then? I'm saved.

The fact that a person in invincible ignorance CAN be saved doesn't mean that he WILL be saved. He usually has great obstacles to overcome that are not faced by people who are ignorant at all (i.e., faithful Catholics). And that is why Catholics are "all worked up." Catholics have Christian love, and it is expressed in concern for the souls of those who are invincibly ignorant (not to mention those who are even in worse shape, including possibly you).

Catholics have a duty to be missionaries to them, because God does not desire them to remain in their state of ignorance. He desires everyone (even you) to be a Catholic, so that they can receive His Sacraments, learn all about His revelation, obey His Commandments, and communicate with Him in prayer. People in invincible ignorance are missing out on some or even all of these things -- and we can't settle for that.

-- (tollfree@call.com), March 11, 2005.

+++ Pardon a typographic "sin of omission": +++

He usually has great obstacles to overcome that are not faced by people who are not ignorant at all (i.e., faithful Catholics).

I accidentally omitted the bolded word, "not," in my previous message.

-- (tollfree@call.com), March 11, 2005.

"Foremostly, you are a poor reader. I did seriously say that you are a Feeneyite heretic, but I didn't really or seriously say that you are "invincibly ignorant." That's for God to say."

Yeah you did. Here:

"You may be right about one thing, though, Father. You said that Ian and Emerald may be "invincibly ignorant." Yes, and not only in the theological sense of the term."

"What I actually and jokingly said was (with emphasis added), You may be right about one thing, though, Father. You said that Ian and Emerald may be "invincibly ignorant."

You said yes to that.

"I actually doubt that you are "invincibly ignorant," suspecting instead that you don't have that excuse (and are thus on the road to perdition)."

That's not what you said above. You just changed your mind, that's all.

"But regardless of the situation in that regard, the following comment of yours is foolish, as you ought well to know."

You mean, of course, this one:

"According to your theology, I can therefore be saved. Which leads one to ask a very natural question. What're you all worked up about then? I'm saved."

Actually, it made complete sense. I merely used your own premises, and drew them out to their own absurd conclusion.

"The fact that a person in invincible ignorance CAN be saved doesn't mean that he WILL be saved. He usually has great obstacles to overcome that are not faced by people who are ignorant at all (i.e., faithful Catholics)."

Obstacles like what, Original Sin perhaps? Is this overcome by ignorance's opposite?

"And that is why Catholics are "all worked up." Catholics have Christian love, and it is expressed in concern for the souls of those who are invincibly ignorant (not to mention those who are even in worse shape, including possibly you)."

So, if I want to be a good Catholic, I have to get rid of my ignorance, and start showing Christian love, which is basically the same thing as accusing other people of idiocy, demonic possession, and being children of the devil. Accusing them thusly, I will demonstrate my concern for them and the good of their souls, and this will prove me a faithful Catholic? I think I'm getting this down.

"Catholics have a duty to be missionaries to them, because God does not desire them to remain in their state of ignorance."

Who, the Catholics or the heathen?

"He desires everyone (even you) to be a Catholic, so that they can receive His Sacraments, learn all about His revelation, obey His Commandments, and communicate with Him in prayer."

lol.

"People in invincible ignorance are missing out on some or even all of these things -- and we can't settle for that."

No we can't. You're right. Let me be the first to help... I'd like to invite you to the Latin Mass.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 11, 2005.

...invincibly ignorant. The Sophist:
''According to your theology, I can therefore be saved.''

The Catholic Church's doctrine, Sir. We have no other. You can be saved, but only if you show God perfect contrition for your sins (against His Church). ''a very natural question. Blah blah, I'm saved.'' --No you're ignorant and contumacious. And you don't repent.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 11, 2005.

There's no sophistry here except for on your side, Gene.

Let me lay it out for you. You claim to have given full assent to the teachings of Vatican II.

I've told you that I give assent to all the teachings of the Church. And I do.

But you say I haven't, because you believe I reject something in Vatican II.

Now I ask you.

What is the teaching of Vatican II which you have given your assent to, that you believe I haven't?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 11, 2005.

There can no longer be any doubt.

The poor man is either demonically possessed or has sold his soul to satan. No other kind of person could continue to respond in the way he does. The man is riddled with utter evil, through and through every atom of his body, every fiber of his being. He is only a shell of a human being. He is probably in need of an exorcism.

There can no longer be any doubt.

Mr. Moderator, "Emerald" MUST be PERMANENTLY BANNED from here, because of the monumental damage he is doing to others and to himself (repeatedly misleading and lying to people, causing incalculable wastes of time, committing countless mortal sins) -- and because of the perils he presents (bringing the tangible aura of the demonic presence into our midst).

-- (tollfree@call.com), March 11, 2005.

The poor man is either demonically possessed or has sold his soul to satan. No other kind of person could continue to respond in the way he does. The man is riddled with utter evil, through and through every atom of his body, every fiber of his being. He is only a shell of a human being. He is probably in need of an exorcism.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, Emerald. You evil, green snake thing! What are we going to do with you?

-- Isabel (joejoe1@msn.com), March 11, 2005.

bringing the tangible aura of the demonic presence into our midst

Get over yourself.

-- jake (j@k.e), March 11, 2005.

The husband wife team of holier-than-thous are just as contumacious (50 cent word for damnable.)

If it were ever really left to these dividers (Emerald in there) to lead, our Catholic faith would turn into 20,000 little auonomous sects, a protestant rehash. We can thank God and His saints they've lost all credibility. Nobody cares what they spout. They don't weigh as much as the Jehovah's Witnesses for a challenge.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 11, 2005.

hey jake. are we married? did you move to utah recently?

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), March 11, 2005.

''tollfree'' ought to go on another retreat. Those kinds of outbursts cost HIM his credibility too. He's in the right Church but losing all semblence of charity. Or, maybe he's a sick man. Let's pray for his recovery.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 11, 2005.

hey jake. are we married? did you move to utah recently?

That's gonna be a tough one to explain to my wife. Your home address & phone number are in our address book. The spouse is always the last to know, I guess.

-- jake (j@k.e), March 11, 2005.

HAAA! --It might not be Matrimony; you're in bed together, though. --Careful, Emerald will be jealous! Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 11, 2005.

Don't ban Emerald. Eugene and others, stop the ad hominems against him, calling him Satan, etc. That's uncalled for. The man believes a certain thing, has arguments (reasons) for believing what he does, and is defending them.

Yes, he tends to only answer what he wants...but I guess we all do, time permitting.

Let's keep this civil and ad argumenta, not ad hominem. That mean's you, Eugene. I mean it. cool it. If you don't I will...well, er, I with think uncharitable thoughts and have to add them to the list for confession...so for the love of God, cool it.

Now back to our scheduled program.

The Church has always taught two things: the sacraments are neccessary for us (though not sufficient for those who live long after receiving them), and that God continues to build his Church even beyond what we do - i.e. actual grace, direct intervention, miracles, apparitions.

Now let's look at two parts of the Acts of the Apostles, shall we?

First of all, Acts 8:14-16. "When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them...and prayed for the Samaritans to receive the Holy Spirit, for as yet he had not come down on any of them: they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit."

So far so good Emerald: a heretical sect is preached to, believes, is baptised and then confirmed. Catholicism of dogma and tradition in action right? Baptism was NECESSARY for salvation and a prelude to the Holy Spirit among people well versed in Jewish theology and custom.

But wait! What do we see in Acts 10:44? "While Peter was still speaking the Holy Spirit came down on all the listeners. Jewish believers who had accompanied Peter were all astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit should be poured out on the pagans too, since they could hear them speaking strange languages and proclaiming the greatness of God. Peter himself said, 'Could anyone refuse the water of baptism to these people, now that they have received the Holy Spirit just as much as we have?"

Bada bing, bada boom.

Here we have Peter evangelizing PAGANS who suddenly get the gift of the Holy Spirit - just as Peter and all the other BAPTIZED folk did, without HUMAN INTERVENTION. It was divine intervention.

Yes, they were all baptized immediately afterwards in the Lord Jesus...but the point is, God COULD, AND DID, GIVE THE GIFT OF HIS SPIRIT TO UNBAPTIZED PEOPLE.

We've already seen that God saved Mary from original sin without baptism, and Catholic theologians, Popes and fathers have spoken of John the Baptist being born without original sin without baptism, and now pagans received the Holy Spirit without baptism...

Yet, PETER was STILL bound by Our Lord's command to baptise wasn't he? Baptism was still neccessary for these people to enter the communion of the Church, WASN'T IT. No contradiction here IS THERE?

God did, and thus can grant his graces and his very presence to souls without our intervention, but for us, those sacraments are neccessary.

You can't deny the clear meaning of Acts can you. Fact is, because your reading of Catholic dogma is partial, out of context, not taking into consideration to whom a council or pope is speaking... your conclusions are wrong.

When I come along to inform you of the big picture, you think I'm preaching a new doctrine!

Yeah. Well another guy like Emerald, called Apollos probably thought the same thing when a lay man called Aquila put him straight about Jesus' baptism which he hadn't heard of. Imagine that... the guy knew and preached about Jesus being the messiah but hadn't heard about baptism. Odd no?

Moving on Emerald, I see some of your points about my first paragraphs. I understand your concern but I never did sing that song so the inference is yours, not mine. Similarity is not identity and analogies are not perfect.

With respect to the New Covenant, yes, it is the definitive one and there will be no other until the end of time. Agreed. But this community of believers will change and grow. Revelation shows the immense throng of people from every race and tongue... something that wasn't the case in 1545 because more than half the world's races and tongues weren't Catholic.

St Paul used the analogy of the body - and doesn't the body grow too? The identify of the mass of cells which is now called Emerald is the same as the mass of cells that grew in your mother's womb...but it's also different. That's not a contradiction in terms. A thing can change many things without losing its identity.

What we will be in heaven is surely different than what we are now on earth, yet our identity will remain.

Moving on to the issue of "Subsists in" which you consistently misread from Lumen Gentium.

There are a billion non-Catholic Christians. They're baptised. They think they're not Catholic because they don't accept many Catholic doctrines. Most don't understand or have been taught erroneous ideas about such doctrines so it's not as though they've rejected what they know. (cf. Jesus' talking with the woman at the well in Samaria "we worship what we know, you worship what you don't know") But they ARE baptized.

So what are they? Not members of the Catholic Church... if "Church of Christ" was absolutely co-terminous with "Catholic Church" as you seem to think, then such non-Catholics who are baptized wouldn't in fact be baptised. But that's not what the Church has taught since time immemorial now is it?

So what do we call them? Christians, separated brethren... sharers in the grace we received in baptism...and thus members of Christ's body...but NOT the Catholic Church...and thus not perfect.

Hmmmmmmmm. Looks like there is some sort of distinction then between the Body of Christ, into which souls come via the grace of justification...and the Catholic Church which has the fullness of truth and graces doesn't it?

How do you talk about this distinction except by saying that the one Church of Christ, founded on Peter and the apostles, subsists in the Catholic Church? That's not new theology, it's the old explained better.

Beyond the confines of Christianity we enter the realm of speculation as to what God can and can not do on his own when a soul is in immediate danger of death and there is no one around to either inform them of baptism or baptise them.

Could God miraculously "baptise" them? Sure he could.

Acts 10 shows us that God did in fact come down on Pagans with the same gift of the Holy Spirit enjoyed by apostles! We don't know for sure how often this has happened since, so we can't take it to the bank, but neither can we deny God's omnipotent power either and preach as a Catholic dogma a doctrine of existential and categorical despair for the vast majority of human souls who have come into existence since 33 AD.

Any soul saved miraculously would be brought by Christ, into his body, the Church. But that soul may still be ignorant of the union of men with God in Christ called "Catholic" with all the wealth and treasure and hierarchy etc.

I don't think it's heretical that God, the author of all graces, can justify souls directly, while we, his people must use the sacraments because those alone are the signs he gave us to minister his gifts to souls.

I think it would be heretical to say for us Catholics, sacraments are optional. Or that for Christians the sacramental system is optional.

As for other religions and philosophies being in "relation to" the Church and salvation, this doesn't mean they are alternative ways of grace, but OCCASIONS BY WHICH GOD COULD TEACH TRUTH AND INSTILL VIRTUE in preparation for Justification.

How else did Cornelius come to pray and offer up alms and thus get heard by God? Acts 10:4 "'your offering of prayers and alms...has been accepted by God'"

He was a pagan, sympathetic to Jewish causes, but a pagan nonetheless. His paganism and culture must have had SOME truth and human virtues in it with which he was inspired to offer prayer and alms... Lumen Gentium acknowledges this fact - without making paganism an equivalent religion or having intrinsic power of itself to grant grace!

- i.e. other religions' beliefs and rites don't save souls or give men the unmeritable gift of Justification BUT THEY MAY TEACH AND PREPARE a soul certain truths about God, creation, and virtue with which the Holy Spirit can use as preparation for a personal theophany.

But follow me closely on this Emerald...when a pagan soul has an encounter with God via a miracle, not via human intervention, and this soul is open to God, how could it be that this soul could be lost in hell simply because the poor soul didn't know the Gospel and need for baptism which had he known, he would have desired and asked for?

Ah, because the sacraments are necessary for salvation? To us! But to God? Acts 10, the Immaculate Conception and the Visitation all prove that God is not in fact limited to the sacramental economy, nor was he limited to the Old Law either! He's a generous God Emerald.

The councils in question you quote were deaing with a context of Catholics tempted to leave the faith for some alternative "way" of salvation - which lead to secret societies, deism, pantheism, atheism and now the new hedonist immanentist dream of being immortal in their corporality.

None of the councils dealt with the problem of whole peoples who hadn't heard the Gospel at all. They dealt with people who had and chose to reject it or where in the Church tempted to leave her.

You are factually wrong in your reading of the Prodigal son. His Father DID run and reach him "on the way" rather than wait for him to come into the home and grovel at his feet.

The older brother, who "always obeyed" the father didn't care about the lost brother, didn't go in search of him, didn't run to greet him. But the father did - beyond the call of Justice, out of a higher call of Mercy and love.

Same way... you live at home, you must obey the father's will or leave home and go to a far away country...but if you repent and seek to return to the Father, he will come out to meet you even before the chosen, obedient ones will.

And that reception, the ring, the sandles, and robe... all unmeritable gifts. Not because of anything the son did but because he repented and returned.

Let's look at Jonah shall we? God sent him to Nineve to preach repentence - not to make them all Jews. They repented, God spared them, and Jonah was angry. God replied that these people "didn't know their right hand from their left" but they acted on what little they did know - and so he spared them.

Roman's speaks of the natural law written on the human heart - preparing the way of the Gospel to be sure, but does it follow that if a Celt in 50 AD followed the natural law, guided to be sure by actual graces of the Holy Spirit, and died with a clean conscience based on what she knew to be true and good...that she would have been damned since Catholic missionaries had not yet arrived?

And that'd be an act of Divine Justice? Or are we to believe that no Celt ever was inspired by the Holy Spirit and all died with actual sin on their souls, and all their infants too, never received a visit from their maker before the Judgment...and this too would be just and merciful and the modus operandi of the Loving God?

Conversely, if a Jewish Christian in 50 AD turned away from the teaching of the apostles (Ananas for example) how could he be saved even though he had been baptised?

Councils and Popes speaking TO FELLOW CATHOLICS in danger of losing their faith or leaving the Church, proclaim that for us the sacraments are necessary for salvation and that people AREN'T FREE to pick and choose whether or not to remain or enter once they know what's what.

But the same councils and Popes also teach that these necessary sacraments are NOT sufficient if we live long after receiving them...because we need to PERSEVERE to the end.

What does this mean if not that things are dynamic and not static, that God is involved not just men?

God isn't limited by the sacramental system. If he gives the gift of justice to a soul, that soul would be made a member of Christ's body, hence a member of the Church of Christ - which subsists perfectly in the Catholic Church.

This isn't new theology, this is me explaining how the "old theology" works in the big picture which wasn't directly dealt with in the 13th, 14th, and 15th century.

Sorry I had to pop your bubble in 3000 words or more, but for the sake of all the other folks getting overheated I thought I'd roll out the big arguments.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 11, 2005.

bed?

jealous?

you feeling all right, gene?

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), March 11, 2005.

Gene: Take your own advice to Gecik. Have a good Lent. Perservere.

-- jake (j@k.e), March 11, 2005.

Dear Joe: You advise: ''Don't ban Emerald. Eugene and others, stop the ad hominems against him, calling him Satan, etc. That's uncalled for.''

My advise to you: Stop writing 500-word articles every time you feel an urge. They make little impact after the first pair of sentences. BREVITY! All your ducks may be in a row; but you're being ignored.

Especially by Emerald. Just 24 hrs ago, I asked him & Ian-- how can you flick off other people's heart-felt convictions (naming you) as if they're not worth a thought to you? --These folks are FANATICS, Joe. If you don't face that, you simply preach to the choir here-- As if WE need it.

Ad hominems don't thrill anybody either. But if a thinking person relies on a few (...not vile hate- speech, but reductio ad absurdum) -- Emerald gets jerked around and reacts as totally foolish. He requires PLENTY of ad hominem abrasives.

Instead of growing BOLDER with the attention. -- Because, trust me: ATTENTION is what Emerald cares about. NOT RELIGION. We are the more religious Catholics. (But remember: BREVITY-- Economy!!!)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 11, 2005.

I feel great, Isabel. Just covered all the bases. Ciao!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 11, 2005.

Look, I can be as contrarian as any of y'all...but if Emerald calls you a cow, you still shouldn't call him a pig.

And Eugene, on one level I don't care what his intent is by coming here. Insofar as the internet is a wide open book, and a google search can bring up any of our names and postings...I'm writing for all the lurking Catholics and non-Catholics out there who haven't been exposed to the kind and extent of formation I have received.

So it's really none of my business what motivates Emerald. That's his business. MY BUSINESS is to answer the questions - even the toughest - in order to give glory to God, evangelize souls, and thereby do my part in the redemption of the human race.

Besides, I happen to have met Emerald in person (no, his real name isn't "Emerald"), we're related through a certain princess he married, and I'm morally certain he's not coming here just for show or attention. He's got an uncommonly asute mind and graduated from Thomas Aquinas College - great books program and all, so isn't a lightweight per se, though I think IMHO he sometimes misses the forest for the trees.

In general it may do well for everyone to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who posts any question - take it on faith that the soul is really smart, really sincere, and that if they're wrong, there is a way of proving it, giving voice to the truth, without needing to call on rhetorical flourishes like ad hominems, name- calling, judging their intentions to be bad, etc.

Sure "trolls" do exist - bomb throwers who want to stir up trouble, but even they give us the opportunity to explain the truth.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 11, 2005.

These folks are FANATICS,

That's actually a compliment.

Just covered all the bases.

Hardly. You struck out at home plate.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), March 11, 2005.

Acts 10 anyone? I know my posts are long...but surely you people read the first couple of paragraphs before jumping to the conclusion (and to conclusions) right?

The Holy Spirit came down on PAGANS before they received baptism. God did it then, so it's possible for God to justify souls directly without that meaning that for us sacraments aren't necessary.

He's not bound by sacraments BUT WE ARE. He's doing his work, we have to do our work. We aren't free to stop evangelizing and baptising...but neither are we free to cook up some new doctrine and call it "dogma" whereby GOD ALMIGHTY can't intervene miraculously in the affairs of men, including by granting them the gift of Justification by his own power, without external signs.

It's right there in the bible as it always was... and my recap about Mary being saved from original sin by God ("Justified") without baptism or John the Baptists being BORN without original sin without baptism...or these pagans receiving Justice in the person of the Holy Spirit without baptism all PROVES WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING...

to wit: God is the author of grace, and can give that grace directly to souls in his own miraculous way should he choose. But we are not so free. FOR US the sacraments are his command for us, and thus for us are necessary.

I point this out - long standing Church teaching and all, you, because you didn't learn this before or put the pieces together before, think I'm making it up or following some 1960's new theology.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 11, 2005.

About Emerald:
I didn't KNOW he was a heavyweight, but it wasn't that important. ''Graduated from Thomas Aquinas College - great books program and all, so isn't a lightweight per se,''

Hmmm. That explains his insufferable elitism in this forum. I still maintain he is 75% Pharisee and 25% theologian. When he graduates from our Catholic forum, let's hope he isn't 100% Schismatic; because he's working hard at it. He shows it by insulting a Catholic priest with impugnity.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 11, 2005.

tollfree,

I must admit I did misread your post. When I went back to see it again, I was looking for "(through their own free choice)" and was sure I wouldn't find it. I thought that qualifier in parentheses was just now added. I was quite surprised to find it there; it does make all the difference. Sorry. This is yet another drawback of this particular forum - when you reply to another's post the only post shown in the reply window is the original post of the thread. Ezboard is a much easier forum to post in as it has many useful features, one of which is you can click a button to reply to any particular post.

Joe,

I have to disagree with you on one point about Emerald: "has arguments (reasons) for believing what he does, and is defending them" (emphasis added).

He is not defending them. He twists what others say.

Example: tollfree said "You may be right about one thing, though, Father. You said that Ian and Emerald may be "invincibly ignorant." Yes, and not only in the theological sense of the term." (Emphasis added.) Emerald responded with "According to your theology, I can therefore be saved. Which leads one to ask a very natural question. What're you all worked up about then? I'm saved."

He took a can or may and turned it into an am.

tollfree pointed this out and he continued in his delusion saying again that she said something she did not:

" [tollfree]'Foremostly, you are a poor reader. I did seriously say that you are a Feeneyite heretic, but I didn't really or seriously say that you are 'invincibly ignorant.' That's for God to say.'

[Emerald] Yeah you did. Here:

[tollfree] 'You may be right about one thing, though, Father. You said that Ian and Emerald may be 'invincibly ignorant.' Yes, and not only in the theological sense of the term.'

[tollfree] 'What I actually and jokingly said was (with emphasis added), You may be right about one thing, though, Father. You said that Ian and Emerald may be 'invincibly ignorant.'

[Emerald] You said yes to that.

[tollfree] 'I actually doubt that you are 'invincibly ignorant,' suspecting instead that you don't have that excuse (and are thus on the road to perdition).'

[Emerald] That's not what you said above. You just changed your mind, that's all."

tollfree did not say yes to Emerald's claim. tollfree said yes to the possibility that Emerald and Ian may be in invincible ignorance.

Hardly trying to defend himself in honesty. He is certainly most dishonest in his posts by twisting others' words around.

And now to Emerald who will probably twist my next words to mean what they do not.

"Fr. Paul. Do you believe that this section of Lumen Gentium allows you to believe that those who are outside the [physical/institutional] Church, and outside [???] of the sacraments of the Church, can [or may] be saved?"

It most certainly does. Does it mean they will be saved? No, just as all the documents of the Church do not say that ANYBODY will be saved simply by being in the physical/institutional Church as a mere card carrying member.

By what means are they saved you ask? They have no means, I thought you knew that. It's a pure gift from God merited by His Son and His Son's Church. They are saved through the Church even though they are not a card carrying member. Therefore, the Teaching that "there is no Salvation outside the Church" still stands.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 11, 2005.

I screwed up some where on the html codes.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 11, 2005.

I stand by what I said about tollfree. I've been debating with him for years, and he has continually attempts to invoke the "invincible ignorance" clause on me. He's done it many times before. He meant to say I was invincibly ignorant, pure and simple. Failing that, he start saying that I'm demon-possessed. He wants to try to set up an illicit polarization to either one of two false conclusions in order to distract from the bullseye to be had within the discussion itself.

All of which, I might add, amuses me greatly. I only worry that it's a sin to enjoy it. lol.

So no, I stand by the fact that I didn't twist his words. Sorry; I've spent too much time in the past debating with him. I know better. He means to either call me either a moron or a diabolical entity, but never a Catholic.

On to finer things, then.

Your remake of my question below, modified in turn. After that, my refinement of the question.

"Fr. Paul. Do you believe that this section of Lumen Gentium allows you to believe that those who are outside the [physical/institutional] Church, and outside [???] [without] of the sacraments of the Church [before death], can [or may] can be saved?"

Try again with the improved, clearer version of the question below. There's a missing qualifier, my fault. The missing qualifier is "before death". Certainly those outside the Church can be saved... if, before death, they enter into the Church.

However, your answer would seem to presume this missing qualifier as having been present anyways, so the response to some of your further comments are below as well. But first, to ask the question again, minus the strike-throughs and trimmed out for clarity:

Fr. Paul. Do you believe that this section of Lumen Gentium allows you to believe that those who are outside the Church, and those who have not had access to the sacraments, can be saved, if, before death, they have not entered into the Church and have not ever received the necessary sacraments?

Try that one. As to your original response:

"No, just as all the documents of the Church do not say that ANYBODY will be saved simply by being in the physical/institutional Church as a mere card carrying member."

But I already know this is the case. That was never posited by me or anyone else. True: not every Catholic will be saved, just because they are baptised Catholics. We all know this. Of course I don't believe that every Catholic is saved.

The term card-carrying Catholic is used frequently. It is a meanlessingless and non-representative likeness to what membership means in regards to being a member of the Mystical Body of Christ. No cards are issued. No one posited that cards were issued. No one posited that cards were accurately representative of the membership in the Church at all, or had a likeness to that membership. I don't use the term myself. What, specifically, do you mean by the term?

"By what means are they saved you ask?"

I would ask this, yes.

"They have no means, I thought you knew that."

Right; there are no other means to salvation than what God has ordained.

"It's a pure gift from God merited by His Son and His Son's Church."

The Church has never taught that there was a pure gift of salvation outside the sacraments, or outside the Church. This is your own idea. The Church has taught that the pure gifts of the means of salvation are the sacraments of the Church. It has never, ever definitively taught that salvation could be had outside these sacraments. It has definitively taught that the sacraments are the means, and that without them and without the desire of them, one cannot obtain eternal life.

"They are saved through the Church even though they are not a card carrying member."

This "card carrying member" thing means nothing. No one ever posited the existence of "card carrying membership". Again, cards are not issued. There is a reality of being attached as a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, cards or no cards.

"Therefore, the Teaching that "there is no Salvation outside the Church" still stands."

No, you didn't hold to it. You changed it, from "no salvation outside the Church" to "no salvation without the Church". Which is true in it's own right, except that you would modify it such that it would include salvation for those who are not in the Church. That inclusion has never been taught by the Church, and in fact, it has been condemned repeatedly. You are mere using taking a dogma expressed in the negative, and in the translation into the positive, have changed its meaning to make salvation inclusive of those outside the Church.

So, let's try this again:

Do you believe that those who die outside the Church can be saved?

You must understand something. I know what I mean here. I also know what you mean. They are not the same. We need merely to continue to discuss this in order to bear out the reality of this difference.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 12, 2005.

Eventually, though, I would like to try to steer this conversation back to the original topic, if possible.

We can continue this here, or start a new thread, whichever would seem most agreeable. But ultimately, I original topic needs to be addressed.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 12, 2005.

Emerald,

Define the "time of death", and "the Church".

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 12, 2005.

In response to original question: PRECISE, as the following from the Catechism reveals.

"VI. The Necessity of Baptism

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."62 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"63 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."

In summary:

"1281 Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16)."

This does not apply to children because they cannot act, seek, nor strive; thus the Church says in "1283 With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God's mercy and to pray for their salvation."

Now Emerald, Yes or No? Do you agree with the above just as it appears (precise, no other way to take it)?

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 12, 2005.

If you had any trouble following that last long response, my apologies. I read it again myself and saw that I made some mistakes, and that it was more complicated than it could have been. I might post a re-try to make it simpler and clearer.

"Define the "time of death", and "the Church"."

What is "The Church". According to the reiteration of Pope Pius XII, it is the Mystical Body of Christ. According to St. Robert Bellarmine:

"A body of men united together by the profession of the same Christian Faith, and by participation in the same sacraments, under the governance of lawful pastors, more especially of the Roman Pontiff, the sole vicar of Christ on earth."

As for "time of death", I'm going to have to rely on you to make any distinctions which you may want to make here. It would seem, by the very asking, that you have something in mind, perhaps. If so, feel free to lay them it on the table.

As for me, I know what death is, as do we all, and you as well. That there is a point of death is an indisputable fact, as everyone would agree. A person dies. There may be a death vigil, and one may querry as to what the exact point of death is. But ultimately, no one questions that there is a point of death.

That point, whereever it may lie in the course of a death vigil, is the point to which I refer, knowing beyond a doubt that such a point exists.

Your input as to what "The Church" is, then?

-- Emerald (em@cox.net), March 12, 2005.

"what 'The Church' is, then?"

The Mystical Body of Christ. Now what is that? Is it a perfect body?

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 12, 2005.

The point of death is when the soul and body are separated.

Now when does that occur? Can God intervene before this happens to give the person one last chance?

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 12, 2005.

In Johns gospel, when Jesus came to Lazarus' tomb it was four days since the dead man's demise. Mention has been made that in that span the body would be VERY smelly. Yet Jesus called Lazarus back to life.

The Jews believed a soul lingered in the area of a dead man's burial place for just that long; four days. When his stench was smelled by the living, the soul had departed for good. Even if this is only a tradition, Jesus apparently believed it; because He delayed coming to Lazarus, in order to give glory to God, resurrecting the dead man. Jesus might've known the soul of Lazarus couldn't leave until his Master arrived. He is said to have delayed intentionally. The soul of Lazarus waited.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 12, 2005.

"The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation."

True, and precise. Clear.

"He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them."

True, clear.

"Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament."

Partial statement of the truth. Note that I did not say "a falsity". Watch closely. Yes, it is true that "Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament". Most certainly true.

I want you to carefully note something here, though, because it is almost a duplicate in style and form to a statement made in the 1949 Holy Office letter. It's a true statement. But what's left unsaid is that baptism is not only necessary for these people, but, for everyone else as well.

Without actually stating a non-truth, the text leads the reader to infer the possible non-necessity of the sacraments for all other categories of souls other than "those to whom the gospel has been proclaimed" and so forth.

Wrong conclusion. Because the Church has always taught that baptism was necessary for all souls who were to enter the Kingdom of God.

So the statement cannot be denied... yet those who infer that others can enter into the kingdom of God without the sacraments do so on their own personal conclusions. The document does not actually state this openly. It cannot, for such would be to deny known doctrine.

Are you getting the hang of this? To continue:

"The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit."

Exactly.

"God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments."

If God has bound salvation to the sacraments, then nothing further needs, in all truth, to be stated. If it is true that God has bound salvation to the sacraments, and He has, then, there is no salvation outside of them. Which is the truth.

"God is not bound by his sacraments"... a theological proposal made by St. Thomas Aquinas, yet, not a doctrine of the Faith. There can very readily be made a healthy theological presentation which posits that God is indeed bound by His sacraments.

"The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament."

Compare with this infallible declaration of Pope Eugene IV in Cantate Domino:

"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels," unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, alms deeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

One firm conviction vs. one firm, clear, and infallible declaration.

A catechism, Fr. Paul, is not in-and-of-itself infallible. As you well know. A dogmatic declaration is. The truth here is quite clear.

Continuing:

"For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament."

Compare with Doctor of the Church St. Ambrose:

"You have read that the three witnesses in baptism - the water, the blood and the Spirit - are one. This means that if you take away one of these the sacrament is not conferred. What is water without the cross of Christ? Only an ordinary element without sacramental effect. Again, without water there is no sacrament of rebirth: Unless a man is born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord with which he too is signed, but unless he is baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit he cannot receive the forgiveness of sins or the gift of spiritual grace."

Is it a doctrine, because the catechism says it is? No. Catechisms are not the origins of Catholic dogma. Catechisms are meant to be a tool with which to reiterate and teach Catholic dogma. It is improper to treat any Catechism as inerrant or infallibly accurate. One who points to an error or inaccuracy in a catechism has not, by that fact, denied the authority of Holy Mother Church, nor have they necessary denied a dogma of the Catholic Faith.

"Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."

The possibility? Absolutely. They may possibly end up attaching themselves to the Mystical Body of Christ. True.

"Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved."

Yes they can. Absent qualifier, though: they must, before death, enter the Church and recieve the necessary sacraments. Once again, the truth is stated: yes, they can be saved. But if the reader infers that they can be saved without entering the Church or without recieving the necessary sacraments before death, they have drawn their own conclusion, which was not directly stated by the text itself. It was inferred. If they so infer, they infer against the known dogma of the Catholic Faith.

"It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity."

In other words, guessing.

In summary, my position:

I deny nothing that the Church has taught.

You infer something that the Church has not taught.

"About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they're just one thing, and we shouldn't complicate the matter." - Saint Joan of Arc at her trial.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 12, 2005.

"The point of death is when the soul and body are separated. Now when does that occur? Can God intervene before this happens to give the person one last chance?"

I have no reason to believe that He could not, or would not.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 12, 2005.

"...we're related through a certain princess he married..."

She had you fooled too, huh?

Thanks, btw, for your kind words. We may violently disagree, but I know you're a man of good will and intent, and our Lord and our Lady will always keep you as their very own. I'll see to it, you'll see to it. We'll see each other again. And fight like cats and dogs, too.

Congrats on the new member of your typical Mystical Body over there.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 12, 2005.

-- Emerald,

I have to hand it to you, You clearly stay the course of your beliefs and that I can respect. Maybe not always agree with for other reasons but I do respect that.

Maybe one of these days we can get back to a conversation without the interference of the one who always injects himself with attacks.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), March 12, 2005.

Michael means me, Emmie. He suffers from an acute case of envy. I forgive him for the snide remarks.

You certainly DO stay the course, I know. Your convictions are adamant, same as mine. I base mine on my lifetime of learning and experience in the Catholic Church. It goes back to the days of Pius XI. I love the Catholic faith, not just arguing about the faith. You love some parts of the faith, and most of all you love arguing. It makes of you the immovable object; and I'm an unstoppable one. You are Martin Luther. I am the Catholic pontiff, (if I may dare; for sake of the argument.)

Why am I (Novus) the tradition of our Church? I support her in everything she teaches. That leaves Luther Emerald; who is UNHAPPY with the Church. But he has great convictions to defend against her, like Martin Luther had. Ironically you mangle the thing you love most; Catholic Tradition. Was it Oscar Wilde who wrote: ''You always hurt the one you love,'' -- ? ? ? Keep staying the course, then. The Church will suffer your divisive battering, and She will simply outstay you. That's always been understood.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 12, 2005.

I Think you meant Philo

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle"

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), March 12, 2005.

Ahem..do people tell non-catholics that they are saved, or can be, or maybe...

Non-Catholics ask what is going to happen to them. They dont KNOW exactly. Should you tell them what you know or what you think?. Is this the mission of this temporal church, confusion.

-- --- (---@--.--), March 12, 2005.

Emerald,

"A catechism, Fr. Paul, is not in-and-of-itself infallible."

True, but as for the 1992 Catechism, perhaps the following will interest you as regards its authority:

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's FAITH and of Catholic Doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I DECLARE IT TO BE A SURE NORM FOR TEACHING THE FAITH AND THUS VALID AND LEGITIMATE INSTRUMENT FOR ECCLESIAL COMMUNION. [...] Given 11 October 1992, the thirtieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, in the fourteenth year of my Pontificate." (John Paul II, APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION, FIDEI DEPOSITUM [in case your Latin is really really poor, that means Deposit of Faith], ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, PREPARED FOLLOWING THE SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, JOHN PAUL, BISHOP SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, For Everlasting Memory [emphasis added])

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 12, 2005.

florence was not necessarily an infallible council. Some of the fathers of trent denied that it was. The council of basle was taking place at the same time and most of the leaders of the church were at basle, not florence. But em likes florence because he can get unbaptised mentally retarded and babies to go immediately down to hell. em likes the concentration camp feel of that so he drags up this questionable council so babies can go to hell forever. but ian thinks this is the greatest natural happiness to go down to hell. you are mixed up dudes.

-- Dave (noaddress@justlooking.com), March 12, 2005.

I guess I should have Googled; it would have saved me a lot of typing. The entire text can be found here.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 12, 2005.

I don't know where the extra slash came from to ruin that link, but the link is here.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 12, 2005.

"em" and "ian" like anything that supports their false understanding of Church Teaching.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 12, 2005.

whoa. em keeps quoting that questionable council about those who die in original sin [retarded], pagans [gypsies] and jews [jews] going to hell. is that God speaking or hitler.

Pope john paul knows about the horrors of auschwitz. he and the other bishops of vatican two went through that. they reminded us that God loves us and Jesus died for everyone. that is not ambiguous.

but em's mind can't get out of the box of a questionable council. he knows more than the pope ever could. em confuses God and hitler. em did your dad or mom beat you when you were a child.

-- Dave (noaddress@justlooking.com), March 12, 2005.

Father paul, thanks. i hope i did not interrupt you. i will shut up now. you are a priest i am not. keep on lifting up the true Catholic faith, father, God loves us.

-- Dave (noaddress@justlooking.com), March 12, 2005.

"em" and "ian" like anything that supports their false understanding of Church Teaching.

What false understanding of Church Teaching do we have?

Perhaps you can explain exactly what that error is, so that we may repent of it.

You can state the exact error... can't you?

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 12, 2005.

you don't believe in God's saving grace outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic church. you don't think Christ is big enough to reach out to pagans. and you bait priests like father paul just like the pharisees and scribes did to Jesus.

-- Dave (noaddress@justlooking.com), March 12, 2005.

"you don't believe in God's saving grace outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic church."

Wrong. There is a grace which acts upon those outside the Church called prevenient grace, which motivates them to enter into the Catholic Church.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 13, 2005.

Teachings of the Church Emerald is not ready to conform to:

An Infinitely Just and Merciful Judge in heaven; who can never condemn a perfectly contrite soul.

The existence on earth of millions of human beings of good will, to whom the Church cannot be indifferent and yet follow the impulse of the Holy Spirit. (This impulse is our Christian charity expressed in ecumenical love and humility.

The mystery of salvation in Jesus Christ, which is never fully understood in our world. There are no pat answers; God is omnipotent. He carries out his Will in response to our FAITH, and has never rewarded a negative response.

We leave the legalism and doubt to those morbose Catholics who never trust in the love of Jesus Christ for every sinner.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 13, 2005.

"We leave the legalism and doubt to those morbose Catholics who never trust in the love of Jesus Christ for every sinner."

Wrong. If there is a soul who is of good will, then God will bring that soul to the sacraments.

All you ever do is pretend that people hold ideas which they really don't hold, or have attitudes they really don't have.

Pop open a bottle of Catholic Lite. It's all attitude, with less than half the argument of traditional Catholicism. Sounds great. Less filling.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 13, 2005.

This self-serving presumption: ''If there is a soul who is of good will, then God will bring that soul to the sacraments.'' Is patently ridiculous. --You do not know every manner by which God grants sanctifying grace to ANYBODY. He may damn men who have always lived in the faith, only to fall into mortal sin from a passing infatuation or an angry impulse.

By the same token, He may save a suffering pagan who was ignorant and destitute, yet placed his faith against all odds on the Master of the universe; His own conception of our Almighty Father. If he rejected the evils of this life and suffered greatly without despairing, --in an act of perfect contrition before death, Our God is too Just not to understand and grant His mercy. God doesn't have to transport a priest from another country to that man's deathbed. The truth is, He would; if the soul were within reach of the Church. But God isn't limited in His graces and love.

Even you are moved to pray, ''Lord, I am not worthy to receive you; but only say the Word and I shall be healed.'' Another soul can arouse God's love and compassion just as well. You're only interested in baptisms and various documents you hold as fetishes; --God is interested in all His children. This is a greater dogma which you've sold short. God is Love.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 13, 2005.

Dave

"florence was not necessarily an infallible council. Some of the fathers of trent denied that it was. The council of basle was taking place at the same time and most of the leaders of the church were at basle, not florence. But em likes florence because he can get unbaptised mentally retarded and babies to go immediately down to hell. em likes the concentration camp feel of that so he drags up this questionable council so babies can go to hell forever. but ian thinks this is the greatest natural happiness to go down to hell. you are mixed up dudes. "

you've been reading too much Hans Kung!

aside from its internal teachings, what we learn from the Basle- Ferrara-Florence saga is that a Ecumenical Council is NOTHING unless the Pope is on-side. Florence killed off the Conciliar Church to a large extent. Vat I should have killed it off for good with its ex cathedra definition.

it all really boils down to the Pope in the end.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), March 13, 2005.

Emerald, please for once try answering my points and posts.

Thanks.

No mention yet, by anyone of Acts 10.

You quote Pope Eugene IV in Cantate Domino: For two extra credit points you might want to go look at the CONTEXT of that Papal teaching, to wit, that all those he mentioned, pagans, jews, heretics, schismatics WERE IN EUROPE AND THUS WERE EXPOSED TO THE GOSPEL. In other words, they chose to reject Christ and the Gospel that they were well aware of.

So who is dealing half-truths here? Who ducks whole questions? I ask anyone to define "Church" in the context of Mystical Body and you give us A PARTICULAR definiton of the visible, Church Militant.

To which we have to ask the simple question based on Acts 10. The moment the pagans received the self-same gift of the Holy Spirit, but had not yet been baptised, what was their "relationship" with respect to the Body of Christ? They were IN Christ's body, but not yet baptised, thus EMERALD, we see a real life distinction between the Kingdom and the visible Church, a difference made by direct miraculous divine intervention.

I'm amazed you haven't picked up on this and disappointed you - and others simply ignore my posts as though they say nothing. If they are rubbish, show me where.

I'm also interested to know why and how you can pooh pooh whole numbers of the Catechism - quoted in context - while pulling hundred year old quotes of past Popes and councils OUT OF CONTEXT.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), March 13, 2005.

"This self-serving presumption: ''If there is a soul who is of good will, then God will bring that soul to the sacraments.'' Is patently ridiculous."

No is isn't. The collective experience of the Church, and of the individuals who have come to her bear this out. Sometimes in extraordinary ways. As I mentioned before, on the shores of California here, when the missionaries arrived, indians went out to meet them asking for baptism because they were having dreams about it... cases on the incredible side, but then there's people we all know who have, in less spectacular ways, been led to the sacraments of the Catholic Church. Yet each individual's case is profound and beautiful reality. They were led there because they sought, and they found, and knocked and a door was opened, and they walked through it.

" --You do not know every manner by which God grants sanctifying grace to ANYBODY. "

If I agreed to that, I would be to some degree questioning, or opening a different door to the questioning of, my Catholic Faith. Because I do know the manner, which is what the Church has always said it was. "He who climbs in by another way", the Jesus told us, "is a thief and a liar". I'm not calling you a thief and a liar... you're not doing the climbing here, that's understood, but I'm saying: there is no other way. He is the way, the truth and the life. It's a true statement: "we know of no other way". Yes. A truer statement is this: "there is no other way". Jesus is on our altars; body, blood, soul and divinity.

"But God isn't limited in His graces and love."

What... else would he be working with, if not these? Don't say I'm twisting your words here. Merely, look at your words more closely, with precision.

"You're only interested in baptisms and various documents you hold as fetishes..."

On the contrary.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 13, 2005.

I will Joe.

-- (em@cox.nett), March 13, 2005.

This self-serving presumption: ''If there is a soul who is of good will, then God will bring that soul to the sacraments.'' Is patently ridiculous." BUT NO! Emmie says: ''Because I do know the manner, which is what the Church has always said it was.''-- You know NOTHING. The Church understands Baptism, and teaches Baptism in water, and Blood and Desire. I don't-- The Church does. They mean BAPTISM in His Church.

''He says, "He who climbs in by another way", Jesus told us, "is a thief and a liar".... He obviously means the false prophet, not in His fold; not in a state of sanctifying grace. That's all. --But God isn't limited in His graces and love.

''What... else would he be working with, if not these?'' -- Anything He takes a mind to; without your OK, Emerald. He can make any soul His, and bring it into His Church as it pleases Him. By a mystical Baptism of Desire. He gave sanctifying grace to the Holy Innocents and Dismas, and the woman who washed His holy feet with her tears. YOU can't limit His grace and love by your sophistry, to your own laws. To God there is no problem. He WILLS the soul's salvation. Particularly the repentent soul and the contrite sinner. It's in the Scriptures, Sceptic! You may not believe this, but the Catholic Church teaches as much.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 13, 2005.

"Anything He takes a mind to; without your OK, Emerald."

Such as? How do you know this?

"He can make any soul His, and bring it into His Church as it pleases Him."

Isn't that what I just got done saying? I said this: "If there is a soul who is of good will, then God will bring that soul to the sacraments". Some point along the way here you may, just may, actually come to the recognition that the sacraments and the Church are inseperable. Totally and completely.

"By a mystical Baptism of Desire."

You see, what you aren't admitting here is that it is you who is not really allowing God to "make any soul His" own. It is you that feels the need to say exactly how it is how God did this, and it is you who claims to know how, and that it wasn't sacramentally.

"He gave sanctifying grace to the Holy Innocents and Dismas, and the woman who washed His holy feet with her tears."

You won't even take the time to look at what the Church actually teaches regarding these examples, and you won't make the necessary distinctions which the Church makes, and you won't honor the order and sequence which the Church knows existed concerning these people and their time and their place in relation to Christ's salvific work. You merely throw out a statement, loose and lacking precision, and then claim that your opponent rejects the statement.

"YOU can't limit His grace and love by your sophistry, to your own laws."

Please do not call the dogma of the Church "sophistry".

Continuing in next post... got an error message saying my posts were too long.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 13, 2005.

....

"To God there is no problem."

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The non-traditionally thinking Catholics are always guilty of everything they blame the trads for. Here's another example. How so: see, the truth of the matter is that you do see an obstacle for God, from your perspective. You believe that a soul can meet up with obstacles that prevent them from obtaining the sacraments, such that you have to posit that there is a "mystical Baptism of Desire", as you put it, and you have to posit this to be a doctrine of the Church Church, when a the undertaking of an honesty study of the matter bears out the fact that it was only ever the product of theological theorizing.

To put it another way: you, as a rational animal, see obstacles to a soul's reception of the sacraments. You believe that God must work around these obstacles, and give the fruits of the sacraments, but not the sacraments themselves.

I say you're the one that limits God. I'm saying that, with God, all things are possible.

Including the reception of the sacraments for those of good will who desire them. That God can procure for them the sacraments despite whatever obstacles we believe to be an impediment to that reception.

Hoping that one of these days you might actually try to understand what's being said here.

"It's in the Scriptures, Sceptic!"

Holding the dogma of the Faith is not scepticism.

-- Emerald (em@cox.net), March 13, 2005.

There he goes again, ''The non-traditionally thinking Catholics are always guilty of everything they blame the trads for.'' Us against them ! ! ! They're not traditional.''

What makes you traditional? You believe in dogma? So do I. You think the Church is Holy, so do I. You think non-traditional thinking Catholics are guilty of whatever? So do I.

I never sided with a SINGLE non-traditional thinking Catholic anywhere, anytime.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 13, 2005.

I never blamed a ''trad'' of ZILCH, except for pretending they are ''trad'' and others are ''mod,'' -- or ''neos''. That's all i ''blame'' you for, false elitism. We're ALL faithful Catholics, until YOU render LIP service only to divine truths such as God's infinite Mercy and Justice. And LIP service to Christ's teachings in the gospels; wherein Jesus clearly does wonders that YOU say are unfeasible under your brand of dogmatic feasibility.

A pretext, for instance, like your Ascension Day stipulation, is supposed to render Christ incapable of saving someone by Baptism of Desire; it's too liberal for ''trad'' recognition!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 13, 2005.

--------------And it can't matter that the Church teaches us such truths, with at least one priest having settled it fair and square. He showed the proof here for YOUR benefit, and you cruised around it with a chuckle! Instead shamelessly bowdlerizing his document.

I'm all over the place expounding on the doctrine with perfectly orthodox texts (not pretexts) so that you can tell me it's ''all attitude''. Well, I'm sorry-- YOU're all attitude; and you haven't proven anything. The Church of today is MUCH more traditional than you; we love one another as Christ commanded, and YOU divide one from another.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 13, 2005.

The cyber demons favour schism - I lost two posts, one here and one in another forum.

Emerald,

You have not responded to my post in regards to the authority of the Catechism.

In relation to Joe's posts about the pagans who received the Holy Spirit without Baptism, I turn you also to St. Paul's letter to the Romans: "Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him." Reworded positively, it states that those who do have His Spirit do belong to Him (i.e. are in His Body the Church). Please note that this is The Word of the Lord. If you disagree, then you blaspheme when you say "Thanks be to God."

It would be helpful for you to read Romans 6:19-8:17.

Man's language trying to grasp the Mystery of God - fails ever so miserably at times. Yet we have the Life giving Spirit to guide us into ALL Truth. Thanks be to God!

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 14, 2005.

Joe's reference to Acts 10: may not be the best to prove the point intended.

Emerald can easily and rightly declare that this was "prevenient grace" at work. Which is true in this case. It also shows that After the people heard the words of Christ the Holy Spirit came upon them which at that time Peter Baptised them with Water.

"AC 10:44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then ****Peter said, "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.*** Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days."

"AC 11:15 "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning Then I remembered what the Lord had said: `John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?"

But what it does show is that one does NOT need to be a Catholic to be Saved.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), March 14, 2005.

"The Church has always taught two things: the sacraments are neccessary for us (though not sufficient for those who live long after receiving them), and that God continues to build his Church even beyond what we do - i.e. actual grace, direct intervention, miracles, apparitions."

Agreed.

"Now let's look at two parts of the Acts of the Apostles, shall we? First of all, Acts 8:14-16. "When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them...and prayed for the Samaritans to receive the Holy Spirit, for as yet he had not come down on any of them: they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit."

The sacrament of Confirmation.

"So far so good Emerald: a heretical sect is preached to, believes, is baptised and then confirmed. Catholicism of dogma and tradition in action right? Baptism was NECESSARY for salvation and a prelude to the Holy Spirit among people well versed in Jewish theology and custom."

Alright.

"But wait! What do we see in Acts 10:44? "While Peter was still speaking the Holy Spirit came down on all the listeners. Jewish believers who had accompanied Peter were all astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit should be poured out on the pagans too, since they could hear them speaking strange languages and proclaiming the greatness of God. Peter himself said, 'Could anyone refuse the water of baptism to these people, now that they have received the Holy Spirit just as much as we have?"

Continued in next post...

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 15, 2005.

"Bada bing, bada boom."

Not so quick. Michael wondered if this might be prevenient grace, but it really wouldn't fall under that category. The miracle of the phenomena itself was clearly meant to show in a definitive way that that the sacraments and salvation were meant to include the Gentiles as well. It worked. That's something you and I would both readily agree upon.

But what Peter states shows the inherent separability of the Spirit and the sacrament. It was immediately recognized that the Baptism had to occur. It is not at all an argument for the consideration of a separateness of spirit and matter, such that either could suffice apart from the composite, but the opposite: an argument for inseparability of components of a composite reality.

When focusing on temporal sequence of things, to have one element before another does not argue for completion, obviously. Take marriage, again, as a conveniently analogous sacrament: vows take place on the altar, yet later, at whatever point, the marriage is consummated. But both must take place for the sacrament to be complete, and it must be complete.

"Here we have Peter evangelizing PAGANS who suddenly get the gift of the Holy Spirit - just as Peter and all the other BAPTIZED folk did, without HUMAN INTERVENTION. It was divine intervention."

Its ALL divine intervention. A baptism under the most ordinary of conditions is divine intervention of the highest order. The very highest order.

"Yes, they were all baptized immediately afterwards in the Lord Jesus...but the point is, God COULD, AND DID, GIVE THE GIFT OF HIS SPIRIT TO UNBAPTIZED PEOPLE."

And St. Peter knew it had to be completed. It exclaimed as much immediately.

Continued:

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), March 15, 2005.

Man that's irritating. Who did that? Anyways, continuing:

"We've already seen that God saved Mary from original sin without baptism, and Catholic theologians, Popes and fathers have spoken of John the Baptist being born without original sin without baptism, and now pagans received the Holy Spirit without baptism..."

If you read it proper, it's not without baptism so much as it is with baptism, if you recognize the need for completion and the inseparability of elements, which is more the point of that particular passage than anything else.

Which texts did you have in mind about St. John the Baptist in regards to original sin? Post them up if you would. I'm wondering if I missed them. Maybe you did.

"Yet, PETER was STILL bound by Our Lord's command to baptise wasn't he? Baptism was still neccessary for these people to enter the communion of the Church, WASN'T IT. No contradiction here IS THERE?"

Right.

"God did, and thus can grant his graces and his very presence to souls without our intervention, but for us, those sacraments are neccessary."

Wrong conclusion. First of all, the sacrament was still necessary for those people, and they got it. That's what the text was showing, not it's opposite; i.e., as if they had the sacrament. They didn't. They had received the spirit, and now needed to have it completed. Totally consistent with what I've been trying to get across all along, and that is this: the Church teaches that the matter and form of the sacraments are inseparable, and that the sacrament cannot exist with all of which makes up the their composite reality.

Next post...

-- Emerald (em@cox.net), March 15, 2005.

Secondly, this thing about "intervention"... again, I believe it is a mistake to view the sacraments as we them regularly administered as being truly "our intervention". They are always the intervention of God, both in the Acts passage, and down at your local Church. That one makes for more of an awesome display of the might of God than anyother, does not make one the intervention of God and the other the intervention of men.

In short, there's no distinction there of one by God, and the other by us or by men.

"You can't deny the clear meaning of Acts can you."

I think I made it clearer. It is totally and completely consistent with what I've been saying, which is the same thing as the Church has always dogmatically posited: that the matter and form of the sacraments is inseparable, and must be complete, and are necessary.

"Fact is, because your reading of Catholic dogma is partial, out of context, not taking into consideration to whom a council or pope is speaking... your conclusions are wrong."

I think the opposite is the case. I think you're not seeing in this passage what the Church has always upheld: the necessity of them, and the necessity of the matter and of the form.

"When I come along to inform you of the big picture, you think I'm preaching a new doctrine!"

I think the people of the Church have lost the big picture. Many are preaching a new doctrine. I think you think you have the big picture, but don't. You know me enough to know that I'm just being blunt, but hopefully (and not intentionally) being insulting. I hope I'm not insulting here, just trying to be honest.

Saving the balance for a later post. That limited-post error has got to go.

-- Emerald (em@cox.net), March 15, 2005.