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

I make no judgment on whether Pascendi is in communion with the Universal Church, visible or invisible. I have a hard time reconciling his belief that one must be visibly connected with the visible Church in order to obtain salvation with the clear teachings of St. Paul and Pio Nono, that there MIGHT be instances when those outside the visible Church might be saved through invisible bonds therewith. I have no connection with Steubenville, although I see no relevance one way or another. I suppose you are trying to perpetrate a slur on what would appear to be a perfectly orthodox Catholic institution, demonstrating once again that so-called "traditionalists" appear intent on attacking orthodox Catholics rather than the much larger group of "Catholic" universities infected with dissident modernist ideas.

I have a hard time reconciling his belief that one must be visibly connected with the visible Church in order to obtain salvation with the clear teachings of St. Paul and Pio Nono, that there MIGHT be instances when those outside the visible Church might be saved through invisible bonds therewith.

<I am certaing that Pascendi has no problems with the "rightly interpreted" statements of Pio Nono and St. Paul. Ultimately, you can speculate until hog heaven about one's "visible" or "invisible" connection the Church. Pio Nono also said in Pascendi that we may not maintain "good hope" for the eternal salvation of all those who die outside the visible structure of the Church. So balance Pio Nono's "implicit desire" statements with that. Also, Cardinal Manning has a great article available from Catholic Family News that rightly interprets "visible and invisible ignorance." I would highly recommend reading it as it addresses the very misinterpretations of this promulgated widely in today's Church.

I have no connection with Steubenville, although I see no relevance one way or another.

<I merely asked a question.

I suppose you are trying to perpetrate a slur on what would appear to be a perfectly orthodox Catholic institution, demonstrating once again that so-called "traditionalists" appear intent on attacking orthodox Catholics rather than the much larger group of "Catholic" universities infected with dissident modernist ideas.

<Nope. Wasn't going to do any of that. And don't worry, I will not "suppose you are trying to perpetrate a slur what would appear to be a perfecly orthodox Catholic..." by railing against Pascendi all of the time--merely based upon the fact you supposed something to be that was not true. I was not going to make any such slur.

In fact, if Catholic universities are infected by modernism (I'm certain EVEN your beloved Steubenville has modernist infestations), this would not be a "slur" to point them out. In any event, since you made the accusation, I thought I would clarify for you.

Pascendi, thanks for the catch on "one mortal sin sends one to HELL," not heaven as I miswrote.

Unam... Care to address any of the substance below? Any of it?

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.

So now you want to play games with what the "Church" is, right.

No. I am merely trying to reconcile "Extra Ecclesiam" with St. Paul and Pio Nono, as they are all part of Sacred Tradition as expounded by the Magisterium.

Want to talk about "is" and "subsists"?

Not particularly. The fullness of truth does subsist in the Catholic Church on earth. That language is perfectly appropriate. The Church of Christ contains not only the visible Church militant on earth, but the Church Suffering and Church triumphant as well.

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.

So what? Stating certain models of the Church does not mean that other models are not valid.

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?

How the heck to do I know? I can't read people's consciences. The point is they may be, if they follow the law of God in their heart, but the only sure route to salvation is the visible Catholic Church and her sacraments.

What if they consciously reject doctrines of the Faith and want nothing whatsoever to do with submission to their Catholic Bishop or the Pope?

If they reject the Church knowing that she teaches the truths, clearly not. Otherwise it might be dependent once again on conscience, good faith and invincible ignorance type issues, and in the end, only God can know as regards specific individuals.

Then, are they still somehow "imperfectly connected"? They have no Sacrament of Penance. This stuff is just crazy.

Please take it up with St. Paul in Romans. They have changed the entire vocabulary and have based their theology on reinterpreting firm Catholic doctrine and dogma, with a false "postivistic" psychology.

Nothing is changed, but rather our tools for analysis are enriched by adding additional (not competing) models of the Church. Obviously we are dealing ultimately with a supernatural reality, and words like the "Mystical Body" and "Bride of Christ", while of course true descriptions, do not exhaust the possibilities of human language in describing the reality.

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.

One of the element of moral sin is that one knows an act is a mortal sin. Of course what you say is certainly true within the visible Church. We cannot say to much how it works outside the visible Church, as there are not the sure paths of the sacraments to guide anyone. St. Paul and Pus IX are both very tentative in their teaching in this area, and what exactly does it mean to follow the law of God written in one's heart? Only God can answer that clearly. This is why the Church must be missionaries and bring as many souls as possible to the true path to salvation marked out by Christ through His establishment of the visible Church.

"I am merely trying to reconcile "Extra Ecclesiam" with St. Paul and Pio Nono, as they are all part of Sacred Tradition as expounded by the Magisterium."

<I understand. But why does a DOGMA have to be reconciled. While it does not stand on its own and is part of the hierarchy of truths, it is still true as it stands by itself: the three infallible pronouncements are TRUE. We cannot make them mean the opposite of what they say.

"Not particularly."

<Pope Pius XII, in Mystici Corporis, said "is." He identified the Mystical Body of Christ exclusively with the Roman Catholic Church. Then, at the advise of a Lutheran Bishop, at Vatican II they change it to "subsists." Ratzinger says Pius XII said "is" but certainly did not mean it. Then, he explains how "subsists" is more definite and specific than "is."

"So what? Stating certain models of the Church does not mean that other models are not valid."

<I have no problem with this either. It is simply that since Vatican II, the only "model" one hears about is "The Church as sign and sacrament" or "the People of God" or "the Pilgrim Church." My point is that in the documents of Vatican II, other than one reference, the Church suffering and Church triumphant are not included in "the People of God" or "the Pilgrim Church." Doesn't this give an incomplete understanding to people about the true nature of the Church?

"How the heck to do I know? I can't read people's consciences. The point is they may be, if they follow the law of God in their heart, but the only sure route to salvation is the visible Catholic Church and her sacraments."

<OK. Now we are getting somewhere. Individuals might be "implicitly" "imperfectly united" with the Church, BUT the Protestant denominations that practice their heretical doctrines ARE NOT. There is a difference between the sects themselves and the individuals who frequent those sects.

<I have no problem with the content of the rest of your answers. However, why are we focusing on just St. Paul? There are various other interpretations regarding salvation that Catholics can draw from reading Sacred Scripture, the whole of it. However, this is why we rely upon the magisterium to pronounce authoritatively (as in the 3 dogmatic, infallible pronouncements) what the whole of the interpretation means.

Also, most people have a wrong view of "invincible ignorance." It neither saves nor condemns. The Cardinal Manning article is worth a read.

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.