By the Numbers and by God's Book: Cardinal Ratzinger is Just Dead Wrong

Christ or Chaos ^ | August 11, 2004 | Thomas A. Droleskey

[Unam Sanctam]

Thanks for proving that you are not Catholic, by rejecting the authentic Magisterium and the Deposit of Faith. Your rebellion is so old and hackneyed, people have been doing it every day since Luther and Calvin. You just carry on with your rebellion against the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff.

[Unam Sanctam]

And I don't see how the Pope is breaking the First Commandment of not having any other gods before him. The Pope knows the fullness of truth about the Triune God. The Moslems don't know the full truth. They do know that God is compassionate and merciful, as they recite that.

[Land of the Irish]

Thanks for proving that you are not Catholic, by rejecting the authentic Magisterium and the Deposit of Faith.

I reject neither. I reject apostasy and heresy within the Catholic Church.

[Land of the Irish]

They (Muslims) do know that God is compassionate and merciful, as they recite that.

Then, why do they invoke their merciful "god" as they fly 747's into skyscrapers?

[Land of the Irish]

Thanks for proving that you are not Catholic, by rejecting the authentic Magisterium and the Deposit of Faith.

FYI, I'm Catholic. But even if I wasn't, why should you or the Pope care? After all, the “new springtime” of the Church is a reality, but that it will not “necessarily” be significant in terms of numbers.

So much for, "Go forth and baptize all nations".

If the Muslims and Jews have their own salvations, why don't I?

[pascendi]

"Moslems simply misunderstand God's true nature."

The rejection of God cannot be adequately explained in terms of ignorance. It is not the case that the Catholic Faith will come to be accepted if Catholics merely approach other religions with an eye towards simply dispelling their misconceptions, as if that was all that was necessary. It is not the case that all deviation from Catholic truth can be accounted for because those outside it are misguided or don't have the fullness of the Truth. People are not opposed to the Catholic Faith for reasons that can be fully accounted for in terms of lack of knowledge.

People reject the Faith because their wills are hardened against Catholic Truth.

"Scripture teaches that even pagans can have glimpses of the True God."

Is this some sort of recent, brilliant insight heretofore not known, except be it for the enlightenment gifted to us by the Conciliar Church? This is a platitude at best. Everybody knows about prefigurings of all things Catholic beyond just Israel but also among the gentiles; everybody has one or another awareness of a semina verbi. This is a no-brainer. But unless someone takes that seminal word, or whatever pre-figurement type of data they have to work with, and push it all the way through to it's conclusion in a visible existance in the Catholic Church, then somewhere along that path they're going to get sucked down into syncretism and universalism. If it isn't brought all the way home to the Catholic truth, it's worthless.

The Pope does not teach heresy.

He allows it. He tolerates it. It's safe to say that his permission of it indicates that he is of the same mind as what he permits, to one degree or another. If he is not of same or similar mind as what he permits, one has every right to wonder why he does not move to condemn what's contrary to the Faith. And if there is nothing contrary to the Faith, why does he not clarify for the sake of the those who are scandalized?

His silence, toleration and permission of what is scandalous leads one to believe that he, to one degree or another, is of the same heart and mind as those who do the scandalizing.

This is reasonable and logical. It cannot be denied. Denial is unreasonable and illogical.

[pascendi]

"Thanks for proving that you are not Catholic, by rejecting the authentic Magisterium and the Deposit of Faith."

That's pretty weak response.

[pascendi]

"If the Muslims and Jews have their own salvations, why don't I?"

This is the inescapable, mind-wrenching, brain-blowing absurdity of ecumenism: that those who are the most violent opponents of Catholicism are somehow in it, while those who adhere to Catholic doctrine & tradition are somehow out of it.

Sorry, Unam Sanctam. It is impossible to take this seriously.

By the way, have you ever read the Bull Unam Sanctam? It's short and makes for an interesting read.

[Unam Sanctam]

The fullness of truth is possessed by the visible Church in full communion with the successor of Peter. The path of her sacraments, founded by Jesus Christ himself, is the only sure path to salvation. All humans should be invited to unite themselves with her. Others, not in full communion, such as schismatics (who since they seem to ignore the doctrines of papal supremacy and full governance of the Church of Vatican I cannot I think be said to be fully accepting of the Deposit of Faith, Scripture and Tradition), other separated Christian brothers, and even those further from the truth outside of Christianity, MAY (not will, but may) be invisibly united with the visible Church by following the law of God written in their conscience. The Deposit of Faith, Scripture and Tradition contain both the words of St. Paul (and Pio Nono on the possible salvation of the invinvibly ignorant) suggesting that there might be possible some sort of salvation outside the visible Church, as well as teaching of Unam Sanctam that you mentioned and the maxim "Extra ecclesiam nulla sanctus". My reconciliation of those teachings is the Catholic one. Your interpretation only accepts the latter, while ignoring the former, and tends towards Feeneyism, which has been condemned by the Magisterium.

[Unam Sanctam]

Is this some sort of recent, brilliant insight heretofore not known, except be it for the enlightenment gifted to us by the Conciliar Church?

There is no such thing as the "Conciliar Church", unless you are referring to Archbishop Lefebvre's schismatic organization. There is only the Catholic Church, and St. Paul did not live after the Vatican II Council, I hate to remind you. Please read the Epistle to the Romans. As for the Pope, I think he has done quite a bit to shore up orthodoxy in the Church, much more than the schismatics who are intent on destruction of the Church. And even if he was an awful Pope, he has taught no heresy. Being an ineffective, incompetent or even sinful Pope does not justify rebellion against legitimate authority. Again, one goes back to the crimes and misdemeanors of the Renaissance popes. People from Luther and Calvin onwards use their wrongs to justify their rebellion against the One True Church. The SSPX are nothing more than Luthers and Calvins in the current day.

[Land of the Irish]

My reconciliation of those teachings is the Catholic my personal one.

[pascendi]

"The fullness of truth is possessed by the visible Church in full communion with the successor of Peter."

The truth is possessed by the visible Church. The term fullness is neither precise nor necessary, and it's new. There is either communion with Peter, or there is not communion with Peter. Communion does not admit of variation of degree. One might say that if someone holds most doctrines in common with the Church of Peter, that they are in partial communion. Not so; everyone knows that to deny any one doctrine of the Catholic Faith is to suffer shipwreck of the entire Faith.

In short, you attach unnecessary qualifiers to a true statement. Those qualifiers can be used effectively to reinterpret and therefore to negate the truth of the statement itself.

"The path of her sacraments, founded by Jesus Christ himself, is the only sure path to salvation."

The use of the term path here, and the use of the adjective sure lead one to believe that there are other paths. There aren't. Expressed a billion times in a billion different ways by the universal Church for 2,000 in statements ranging from infallible declarations to simple admonitions, I find this simple death-bed admonition of Pope Leo XIII the most in keeping with the character of a true Holy Father:

"This is Our last lesson to you: receive it, engrave it upon your minds, all of you: by God's commandment, salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church."

You would like to imply there are other paths. The Church has never said this.

"All humans should be invited to unite themselves with her."

Of course.

"Others, not in full communion, such as schismatics (who since they seem to ignore the doctrines of papal supremacy and full governance of the Church of Vatican I cannot I think be said to be fully accepting of the Deposit of Faith, Scripture and Tradition), other separated Christian brothers, and even those further from the truth outside of Christianity, MAY (not will, but may) be invisibly united with the visible Church by following the law of God written in their conscience. The Deposit of Faith, Scripture and Tradition contain both the words of St. Paul (and Pio Nono on the possible salvation of the invinvibly ignorant) suggesting that there might be possible some sort of salvation outside the visible Church, as well as teaching of Unam Sanctam that you mentioned and the maxim "Extra ecclesiam nulla sanctus"."

Lots of nebulous and unclear speculations involving all sorts of partial things. Unam, we have a an infallible doctrine here. It's not a maxim, it's infallbiby declared doctrine. To claim the there can be salvation outside the Church is to deny infallibly declared doctrine. To do so is to deny the entire Catholic Faith. How quickly things turn back upon the accusers:

"But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. "In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them"" --Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum

It seems clear enough that one who believes that salvation can be found elsewhere has rejected a doctrine of the Catholic Church.

"My reconciliation of those teachings is the Catholic one."

There is no interpretation of infallibly declared doctrine. The nature of what's infallible definition is, by definition (aha), the interpretation itself. Intrepretation of divine revelation is not possible, is the revelation IS what IS. Endless attempts at new interpretation of old doctrine is the nature of Modernism itself.

"Your interpretation only accepts the latter, while ignoring the former, and tends towards Feeneyism, which has been condemned by the Magisterium."

I didn't interpret anything. I just believe the doctrines of the Catholic Church, that's it. The Magisterium has condemned no doctrines.

[pascendi]

"There is no such thing as the "Conciliar Church"..."

There is a Conciliar Church that attempts to reinterpret difficult doctrines in order to make them more palatable. It seeks to reconcile (key word here) doctrine with their progressivist ideas and philosophies; there is a Conciliar Church that develops a liturgy that is more compatable with these ideas and philosophies, and more conducive to a lifestyle that is more worldly and less spirtually oriented towards eternal life.

[I_Like_Spam]

Springtime? Nah, Paul VI and John Paul II undoubtably had the best of intentions in their earthshaking revamping and reinterpretation of the Catholic faith. But it alienated the people.

At least half of my relatives quit attending after the ill-concieved reforms, the reasons are that the people, the faithful expect that religion will connect them with those around the world, and throughout the ages through a common ritual and liturgy.

The old mass was the same in every nation, and every age, changing as rapidly as a mountain. The new mass is different in every nation, and in every age, I understand that still another re-write and re-translation of the mass is pending.

The new mass isn't heretical per se, but its constantly metamorphisizing nature goes contrary to the idea of a catholic or universal church.

[Unam Sanctam]

I just believe the doctrines of the Catholic Church, that's it. The Magisterium has condemned no doctrines.

I believe in all the doctrines of the Catholic Church, including infallibly declared doctrines. The "infallibly declared" doctrine you refer to does not say that outside the VISIBLE Church there is no salvation, only that outside the Church there is no salvation. The former proposition would contradict the clear teachings of St. Paul and Pius IX. Sorry, your interpretation is simply wrong, and condemned with Feeneyism by the Magisterium.

[pascendi]

I didn't even interpret anything.

Believe whatever you wish.

[Uri’el-2012]

The tradition of the Church teaches us that God cares about numbers, which are indeed something of an indicator of the health of the Church Militant here on earth.

Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat

a bondslave to the Christ
chuck

[Conservative til I die]

People reject the Faith because their wills are hardened against Catholic Truth.

Not always true, not by a longshot. Many people are ignorant of the Catholic Faith (I'd make a joke about you being included but I digress...).

[pascendi]

"I'd make a joke about you being included but I digress..."

Fire away. I'm always up for a good joke; don't let me down.

[Mershon]

The "infallibly declared" doctrine you refer to does not say that outside the VISIBLE Church there is no salvation, only that outside the Church there is no salvation. The former proposition would contradict the clear teachings of St. Paul and Pius IX. Sorry, your interpretation is simply wrong, and condemned with Feeneyism by the Magisterium.

<So now you want to play games with what the "Church" is, right. Want to talk about "is" and "subsists"? One thing I find quite interesting is that the documents of Vatican II speak much about "the pilgrim Church" and the "People of God," but not at all (although there are allusions to it in one of the documents;perhaps Lumen Gentium) the Church Suffering and the Church Triumphant. All Vatican II talks about is the current Church Militant, without of course ever using that offensive word. Next, we have to get into the minuscule dissection of those "imperfectly united" to the Catholic Church through Baptism. Are they part of the Catholic Church and the Mystical Body of Christ? What if they consciously reject doctrines of the Faith and want nothing whatsoever to do with submission to their Catholic Bishop or the Pope? Then, are they still somehow "imperfectly connected"? They have no Sacrament of Penance. This stuff is just crazy. They have changed the entire vocabulary and have based their theology on reinterpreting firm Catholic doctrine and dogma, with a false "postivistic" psychology. One drop of cyanide in a full glass of milk KILLS the person who drinks it. Parts of people who are "imperfectly in communion" with the Church will not go to heaven while other parts of them go to hell. It takes ONE mortal sin, unconfessed, to send a person to heaven.

I do not agree with Pascendi on every issue or every opinion, but there is NOTHING he has written here that puts him outside the heart and body of the Church. Unam, let me guess, you are a Steubenville grad, right?