Posted on 05/29/2015 10:31:19 AM PDT by ebb tide
Francis’ recent statement regarding Christian persecution and the “devil-inspired ecumenism of blood,” was not his first foray into the topic. I’d like to introduce you to a significant effort reader D alerted me to, called the “Denzinger-Bergoglio,” a site by some faithful priests, with approval of their bishop(s), who take some of Pope Francis’ statements and then compare them to statements of the traditional Magisterium. The site started in Spanish for a Spanish milieu, but some like-minded priests are translating it into English. The priests of course remain anonymous.
The site takes it’s name from the Denzinger compendium of Catholic belief. What they are doing is comparing many of Pope Francis’ more troubling statements to the established doctrine of the Faith. As a sort of introduction to the site, I excerpt portions of their post on Pope Francis’ previous foray into examining this “ecumenism of blood,” in an interview given with Andrea Tornielli last year AND on other occasions. Since they excerpt Pope Francis’ statements at length, I will take only the highlights from those, and then some of the “responses” from the Church’s perennial belief:
PF: Are you Christian? Boom!……They don’t ask them if they are Pentecostal, Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox… Are they Christians? They kill them because they believe in Christ. This is the ecumenism of blood.
Yes, for me ecumenism is a priority. Today there is an ecumenism of blood. In some countries they kill Christians for wearing a cross or having a Bible and before they kill them they do not ask them whether they are Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic or Orthodox. Their blood is mixed. To those who kill we are Christians. We are united in blood……
“For persecutors, we are not divided; we are not Lutherans, Orthodox, Evangelicals, Catholics…No! We are one in their eyes! For persecutors we are Christians! They are not interested in anything else. This is the ecumenism of blood that we experience today….Spiritual ecumenism and the ecumenism of blood.
“We offer this Mass for our 21 Coptic brothers, slaughtered for the sole reason that they were Christians”. “Let us pray for them, that the Lord welcome them as martyrs, for their families, for my brother Tawadros, who is suffering greatly.”
Now, some of the quotes from the Magisterium:
Council of Florence (Ecumenical XVII)
-Salvation does not Exist Outside of the Church Even for Those who Have Shed their Blood for Christ
Synod of Laodicea (363-364 AD)
-The ‘Martyrs’ of the Heretic are Aliens from God
Saint Fulgentius of Ruspe
-Non-Members of the Catholic Church Cannot be Saved, Even if they Shed Their Blood for the Name of Christ
Saint Cyprian of Carthage
-The Blood Shed by a Schismatic does not Wash Away the Stain of Sin -The Torments Suffered by a Schismatic do not Serve as a Crown, but rather a Chastisement for his Perfidy -The Baptism of Blood is Useless to a Heretic
Saint Augustine
-Those who, as Schismatics, do not Lead a Christian Life, do not Die as Martyrs -Those who Rebel against the Body of Christ cannot presume to be persecuted for His Sake -If a Schismatic Dies Guilty of Sacrilege how may He be Baptized by his Blood? -The Same Furnace which Purifies the Martyrs, Reduces Heretics to Ashes
Benedict XIV
-Even if a Heretic Dies for one Article of the True Faith, He may not be Considered a Martyr
For each of the above, D-B then expands on the topic with quotes from the original source. To show you how that works, the bit from the Council of Florence (which, by the way, featured the temporary reunion of the schismatic Orthodox and the presence of Eastern Orthodox bishops) above expands to:
Council of Florence (Ecumenical XVII):
It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Mt 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasting, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Denzinger-Hünermann 1351. Council of Florence, Decree in Behalf of the Jacobites, February 4, 1442)
OK, how about that Synod of Laodicea?
Synod of Laodicea (363-364 AD):
Canon 9: The members of the Church are not allowed to meet in the cemeteries, nor attend the so-called martyrs of any of the heretics, for prayer or service. […] Canon 34: No Christian shall forsake the martyrs of Christ, and turn to false martyrs, for they are aliens from God. Let those, therefore, who go after them, be anathema. (Synod of Laodicea, The Canons, Canon 9/34)
Finally, they add a critically important supplement to the above with resources on so-called invincible ignorance, which has quite often been abused to morph into a kind of catch-all means of salvation for heretics and schismatics. Great stuff:
Saint Thomas Aquinas:
Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith. […] if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. […] A heretic does not hold the other articles of faith, about which he does not err, in the same way as one of the faithful does, namely by adhering simply to the Divine Truth, because in order to do so, a man needs the help of the habit of faith; but he holds the things that are of faith, by his own will and judgment. (Saint Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica II-II q. 5, a. 3)
You get the point. You can go to the D-B site to read all the rest of the citations they have.
They do not draw conclusions. They let Catholics, guided by faith and reason, reach their own. I’ll do the same. Note, they have commentary on many of Pope Francis’ voluminous statements. There is quite a bit of analysis there, the site is really a valuable resource.
I will add this, however. While the volume and extent of surprising statements from the papacy has certainly appeared to increase with Pope Francis, in truth, all of the post-conciliar pontiffs, even John Paul I, have made quite similar statements at times. You can even find them occasionally in John XXIII and, more rarely, Pius XII. Some try to use that as evidence of “A ha! See, Pope Francis isn’t doing anything different from them, he must be OK!” I see that continuity, to the degree it exists, less as an explanation and justification of Pope Francis’ words and actions, but more as an indication that the Church has suffered from a severe lack of catechesis and leadership, even at the very top, for decades.
So basically the orthodox Catholic position on the persecution of Christians in the middle east is, “Screw those heretics. They’re going to hell anyway.”
Ping
Bascially
I see it more as a direct result of false ecclesiology as taught by Vatican II. There was catechesis, just false catechesis.
The problem with all these proof-texts from saints, etc., is that they all refer to schismatics and heretics. I.e., those who are guilty of the sins of schism and heresy.
Modern-day Orthodox and Protestants are generally NOT guilty of the SINS of schism and heresy, despite the fact that they belong to schismatic and heretical “churches.”
So Catholic teaching changes with the times? Exactly why are Protestants in the year 2015 not guilty of heresy, but the Protestants say in the year 1700 were?
Jesus said unto him, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
What has changed since Pope St. Pius X?
"For this reason, too, We have had to give this exposition a somewhat didactic form and not to shrink from employing certain uncouth terms in use among the Modernists. And now, can anybody who takes a survey of the whole system be surprised that We should define it as the synthesis of all heresies?"
How are today's heretics and schismatics different than those in St Thomas' earthly life. Are you using VCII as your new benchmark of Modern-day?
To be Christian one must be Roman. One must recognize the oneness of Christ’s Church that is governed by one successor of the Prince of the Apostles who is the Bishop of Rome, Christ’s Vicar on earth” (Allocution to the Irish pilgrims of October 8, 1957).
Is 1957 not modern enough?
Vatican II *is* post-1957.
Was Pius XII talking about martyrdom? It is a misuse of ANY document or statement, including Scripture and Magisterial documents, to use them to answer a question that the author was not addressing.
He is talking about who is (and is not) Christian in 1957. If only Christians can be martyrs and Pius XII states very clearly that Protestants are not Christian, then isn’t he also saying they can’t be martyrs?
Or do you believe in non-Christian martyrdom?
So are they saved if they remain in those "churches"?
So basically the orthodox Catholic position is that the Bishop of Rome cannot teach error. These people are protestants.
I didn’t say anything about the year 1700.
Those who LEFT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH were guilty of heresy and/or schism. Those who are BORN in heretical and schismatic churches, or whose only introduction to Christianity occurs in heretical or schismatic churches are generally not guilty of those sins.
Note that I didn’t say that modern-day Protestants and Orthodox are not heretical or schismatic. I said that, GENERALLY, they are not personally guilty of the sins of heresy and schism.
Actually, that's the position of every orthodox (small "o") chrstian church, denomination, sect, or group has on every other chrstian church, denomination, sect, or group. The only exceptions are liberals who (despite what they say) don't actually believe in an afterlife anyway.
I'll never understand why various chrstian groups whose teachings are absolutely irreconcilable with one another hold it against the others for limiting "salvation" to the "true remnant." Isn't that what it's all about??? The only alternative to this is liberalism (unless people wake up and become Noachides).
They can be saved. The Church has always taught this.
No one goes to Hell except because of a personal decision to reject the truth and the will of God.
They are deprived of the fullness of the Christian Faith, and they are deprived of the grace of the sacraments other than Baptism, which are the ordinary means God has given for the communication of grace. These are great disadvantages.
That's quite a stretch; I'd be interested where you came up with that whopper.
Do you reject the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus?
I accept the doctrine of extra ecclesiam AS THE CHURCH UNDERSTANDS IT, not as the Feeneyites understand it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.