Posted on 08/08/2005 2:41:43 AM PDT by bornacatholic
"The Church has never accepted even the most holy and most eminent Doctor, and does not now accept even a single one of them, as the principal source of truth. Certainly, the Church considers Thomas and Augustine great Doctors, and accords them the highest praise, but the Church recognizes infallibility only in the inspired authors of the Sacred Scriptures. By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth.--Pope Pius XII ("Allocution to the Gregorian," October 17, 1953)
Dear Gerard.P,
Oh, gee whiz, I'm not going to condemn ANYONE for being a glutton or a sensualist. To note that someone appears to have sinned isn't to condemn them. To note that they appear to revel in their sin STILL isn't to condemn them.
Sinners often repent.
But if they perform an objective evil, well, then, they perform an objective evil, and it isn't calumny to note it.
As for St. Thomas Aquinas and GK Chesterton, I'll note that it appears that they too may have had to struggle with the sin of gluttony. What I can't tell you is how their own constitutions may have entered into the picture. Although I must work hard to avoid gluttony, my body isn't my ally in some regards, as I gain weight easily and lose it with difficulty. Nonetheless, I won't tell you that my extra pounds are the result of "genetics."
So, perhaps Mr. Chesterton and St. Thomas were gluttons who struggled with the sin of gluttony. Big deal. All of us have these struggles of one sort or other.
The difference, though, is that I don't recall either of the two aforementioned gentleman writing odes to their sensual cravings, or that they feed their souls through the sensual delights. If you can provide quotations from either glorifying their search for the highest aesthetic culinary experience, I'd be interested in reading them.
Heck, I figure most of us who live in the United States have to struggle in some way with sins related to sensualism. It's so easy to fill our bellies, to indulge our other senses. I condemn NO ONE for having to struggle with the same things with which I must daily struggle.
But I don't hold up as a worthwhile exemplar of Catholic values those who promote as a positive good these sins.
sitetest
Do you really?
St. Clement's Anglican as blasphemous as it is, is probably closer to Catholic than anything else in Philadelphia or the surrounding area.
How can something that is not Catholic and does not understand what the Church is, St. Clements Episcopal Church (not Anglican), be closer to Catholic than the Catholic Church?
If I dreess up and play Priest can I be more Catholic than the Pope too?
Our own Cardinal Archbishop recently buried my cousin, a very nice man who was a priest but rather swaddled in the goofiness of today's modernist mileu, and nobody could tell during the "mass" at the basilica whether the consecration had actually been done or not due to the hootenany of the ridiculous ceremony.
And we are to trust you on this because of what veracity you have demonstrated here?
And what exactly is your definition of a hootenany?
And if it was really a "mass" in quotes as you express it to express doubt, then why would you even attend? Don't you know the Canons forbid attending doubtful Sacramental ceremonies?
Can you give the date of this ceremony?
Like Saint Gregory Nazianzen, we disagree with the opinion of Saint Thomas that, in principle, desire replaces the act itself. If Saint Thomas is correct, then all the other sacraments — Holy Eucharist, Holy Orders and Matrimony included — may be had by desire.
The statement concerning Order and Matrimony is too absurd to require refutation (who has ever suggested such a thing?). Concerning the Holy Eucharist, they once again are led to deny the teaching of Trent:
Now as to the use of this holy sacrament, our Fathers have rightly and wisely distinguished three ways of receiving it. For they have taught that some receive it sacramentally only, to wit sinners: others spiritually only, those to wit who eating in desire that heavenly bread which is set before them, are, by a lively faith which worketh by charity, made sensible of the fruit and usefulness thereof: whereas the third (class) receive it both sacramentally and spiritually, and these are they who so prove and prepare themselves beforehand, as to approach to this divine table clothed with the wedding garment. (Session XIII, Decree on the Holy Eucharist, Chapter VIII)
That the faithful may learn to be zealous for the better gifts, they must be shown who can obtain these abundant fruits from the Holy Eucharist, must be reminded that there is not only one way of communicating. Wisely and rightly, then, did our predecessors in the faith, as we read in the Council of Trent, distinguish three ways of receiving this Sacrament.Some receive it sacramentally only. Such are those sinners who do not fear to approach the holy mysteries with polluted lips and heart, who, as the Apostle says, eat and drink the Lord's body unworthily. Of this class of communicants St. Augustine says: He who dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, most certainly does not eat spiritually His flesh, although carnally and visibly he press with his teeth the Sacrament of His flesh and blood. Those, therefore, who receive the sacred mysteries with such a disposition, not only obtain no fruit therefrom, but, as the Apostle himself testifies, eat and drink judgment to themselves.
Others are said to receive the Eucharist in spirit only. They are those who, inflamed with a lively faith which worketh by charity, partake in wish and desire of that celestial bread offered to them, from which they receive, if not the entire, at least very great fruits.
Lastly, there are some who receive the Holy Eucharist both sacramentally and spiritually, those who, according to the teaching of the Apostle, having first proved themselves and having approached this divine banquet adorned with the nuptial garment, derive from the Eucharist those most abundant fruits which we have already described. Hence it is clear that those who, having it in their power to receive with fitting preparation the Sacrament of the body of the Lord, are yet satisfied with a spiritual Communion only, deprive themselves of the greatest and most heavenly advantages. (Roman Catechism, On the Holy Eucharist)
The sacraments which may be received in desire are Baptism (Trent, Decree on Justification, Chapter IV), Confirmation (St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, III q. 72 a. 6 ad. 3), Communion (Trent, Decree on the Eucharist, Chapter VIII), and Penance (Trent, Decree on Justification, Chapter XIV; Decree on Penance, Chapter IV). All this teaching is solidly based on Scripture and Tradition.
The SBC principles apparently lead them to deny all of the clear teaching of Trent mentioned above, concerning Baptism, Communion, and Penance: we disagree with the opinion of Saint Thomas that, in principle, desire replaces the act itself.
It is well known that every Father who treated this topic explicitly says that of the necessity of Baptism, and exception is made for martyred Catechumens. There is not a single Father who denies it. Therefore, it is infallibly shown as true.
We know Saint Emerentiana is in heaven because the Church has told us so. And by our Faith, we know she was baptized by someone, for the same Church has told us that no one can enter heaven without first having been "born again of water and the Holy Ghost."
Circular logic. She cannot received Baptism of Blood because we say so despite all the evidence to the contrary. And since we say so, its proof that she did not! And the St. Benedict Center and so-called "Brother" Francis purports to teach the rigors of logical argument?
From the date and circumstances of his death, it is certain that Severian was not the 40th Martyr. However, we notice from this account that other soldiers were able to visit the Forty in prison. Would not this holy band of Christian soldiers, facing certain death for their faith, have been zealous enough to baptize any willing comrades who put their own lives in danger by visiting them?
Certainly they would have, but in your lunacy, you fail to note that the guard who joined them and was baptized in his own blood was never in prison with them, but joined them while the martyrdom was underway on the frozen lake. Perhaps you fancy he was baptized with ice or hoar frosts?
We think it very likely that the unnamed sentinel, the 40th martyr, was another soldier of the Legion who visited the Martyrs and was baptized.
More likelihoods and probabilities! Is the Catholic Faith a matter of probabalism?
Is it not likely, then, that this noble soldier would have known that he could not declare himself a Christian unless he had been baptized?
Is it not more likely this soldier knew of the Baptism of Blood and gladly embraced it when suddenly enlightened by grace, since that was the universal teaching of the Fathers?
But the fact that he was a catechumen does not prove that he was not baptized.
Only a Baptismal register will prove it for us!
So the Fathers have a doctrine they call "Baptism of Blood" meaning Baptism by martyrdom of an unbaptized person, and the Church still teaches the same doctrine, but we aren't allowed to make a connection here and claim a catechumen said to be "Baptised in his own blood" was not actually baptised by water before because we've made a priori conclusions that every piece of evidence for Baptism of Blood is false.
Yawn ...
Why not just stick to the teaching of the Church? Then you don't need to go through mental contortions and gymnastics to fit round pegs into square holes.
It is one thing altogether to enjoy ones food. Its another thing to eat and drink excessively, and make your belly and the satisfying of it the center of your daily quests and lifes work, and then another thing again to publicize this fact and spread it abroad as if it were a virtue one is to be proud of.
I love bratwursts and beer. But if I never drank another sip or ate another bite of either, it wouldn't be the end of the world for me, as apparently it would be for Messer. Coulombe by his own admission if he lost out on his ethnic fare and his drink.
"Be ye followers of me, brethren: and observe them who walk so as you have our model. For many walk, of whom I have told you often (and now tell you weeping) that they are enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction: whose God is their belly: and whose glory is in their shame: who mind earthly things." (Philipians 3.17-19)
I'm not aware of St. Thomas ever glorifying his culinary appetite, great as it may have been, as something wonderful about life and his person.
Do you really?
Yes. Do you really?
St. Clement's Anglican as blasphemous as it is, is probably closer to Catholic than anything else in Philadelphia or the surrounding area.
How can something that is not Catholic and does not understand what the Church is, St. Clements Episcopal Church (not Anglican), be closer to Catholic than the Catholic Church? If I dreess up and play Priest can I be more Catholic than the Pope too?
Can you be Catholic and believe and act like a Protestant? Go visit the Mass at Immaculate Conception in Germantown. Go listen to the sermons at the Chapel of Villanova University and watch the liturical dancing. Visit a few Churches on Christmas Eve and find out how many times Santa Claus has delivered the sermon. Oh and don't forget that annual tradition of the "Mummer's Mass" Nothing like a string band to play at the foot of the Cross on Calvary. Right? Maybe stop by my local parish where the pastor says not to bother with confessing sins in number and kind.
Our own Cardinal Archbishop recently buried my cousin, a very nice man who was a priest but rather swaddled in the goofiness of today's modernist mileu, and nobody could tell during the "mass" at the basilica whether the consecration had actually been done or not due to the hootenany of the ridiculous ceremony.
And we are to trust you on this because of what veracity you have demonstrated here?
I doubt you'll admit to trusting anything I write. Your calumny and distortions concerning Coloumbe don't engender me towards believing you are an honest person.
And what exactly is your definition of a hootenany?
Comparison to a proper traditional Latin Requiem Mass. Multiple priests "concelebrating" waving their arms around. The tabernacle moved off to the side. No one paying any attention to the Real Presence. Multiple Eulogies of varying goofiness and the usual "instant canonization" so prevalent today.
And if it was really a "mass" in quotes as you express it to express doubt, then why would you even attend? Don't you know the Canons forbid attending doubtful Sacramental ceremonies?
I didn't and wouldn't attend. My parents did and reported back to me in horror about what they saw. They refused to go to communion at the "service" because they feared a doubtful confection of the sacrament.
Can you give the date of this ceremony?
Yes I can. It was in Dec. of 2004 the 27th. Are you gathering information to stalk me or something? What's next? What is your home parish? Your last name? You and your spouse and children? Schools they attend? Is the key under the doormat?
BTW, I have Jurgen's Faith of the Fathers before me. Imagine my surprise Malone didn't include all references such as, book TWO, Sympathy at teh Death of Valentinian by Saint Ambrose Val died unbaptized. "Did he, then, not have the grace which he desired? ...Certainly, because he sought it, he received it.
Now, I know St. Ambrose ain't a member of the SBC but, as a Doctor of the Church, he ought be accorded almost as much respect as, say, the layman Malone, right?
MOre to come...but, what of Malone? How, um, logical is he in his thinking? Read for yourselves below. He can't even keep on topic and he builds and ignites straw men.....
By Mike Malone.
SACRED HEART PRESS, San Antonio, Texas
(with traditional corrections immediately following each Vatican II error)
No.1 : This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines. (Lumen Gentium)
A) We must mention another fruitful cause of evil by which the Church is afflicted at present, namely: Indifferentism, that vicious manner of thinking which holds that eternal salvation can be obtained by the profession of any faith, provided that a man's morals are good and decent. (Ah, Mikey...ya there, Mikey. What you selected to atack doesn't say that. Does that even matter?Seriously consider the testimony of the Savior that some are against Christ because they are not with Christ, that they scatter who do not gather with Him, and therefore without doubt they will perish in eternity unless they hold to the Catholic Faith and observe it WHOLE and INVIOLATE. (Pope Gregory XVI, "Mirari Vos," August 15,1832)
B) If anyone says that the condition of the Faithful and that of those who have not yet come to the true Faith is equal: let him be anathema. (Ecumenical Council of Vatican I, Canon 6: "On Faith")
C) Neither the true Faith nor eternal salvation is to be found outside the Holy Catholic Church. It is a SIN to believe that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church. (Ven. Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, March 17, 1856; cf. also OUR GLORIOUS POPES, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Cambridge, MA: 1955, p.168)
D) There is no salvation outside the Church. Who denies this? And therefore whatever things OF the Church are had OUTSIDE the Church do not avail unto salvation. (St. Augustine, "On Baptism, Against the Donatists," Book IV:24)
E) Right Reason: Can elements of salvation save anyone, (Ah, Mike, hello, Mike. Earth calling. WHERE does the teaching from V2 you are addressing say that?) or don't you have to meet the full requirements as commanded by the Voice of God, the Catholic Church? Can parts of truth suffice for the fullness of the Catholic Faith, ( Where does it say that?) or is all of it demanded of us, as the Church infallibly teaches? Moreover, did Jesus constitute and organize His Church on earth as a society or not, rather, as a Body -- His own ongoing Body on earth? The latter has been defined; here, Vatican II expressly contradicts it.
* Well, such is the quality of "thought" and arguementation of this heretic. I mean, he himslef selected the teaching he wanted to atack. I would have thought it considerate if he had actually addressed the Doctrine he denies. Go figure...
Another star in the galaxy of Feeneyism
St. Augustine I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, beofre a baptized heretic....For Cornelius, even before his Baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit....That the palce of Baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering is supported by a substantial arguement which the same Blessed Cyprian draws from the circumstance of the thief...I find that not only suffeering for the name of Christ can supply for that which is lacking by way of Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart...
* Ooops, Mikey M. Here we got us another Saint/Doctor (he'd be a heretic accrd to the SBC) teaching BOB BOD....Funny how Feeneyites seldon, if ever, quote these Doctors of the Catholic Church accurately on this matter... It is almost as if the feeneyite heretics aren't trustworthy
Gerard. Try fishing in a pond which has oxygen. I can smell the SBC from here. That you actually are willing to go public with this nonsense says a LOT about you
I won't cite them all right now.
But, get a load of this ..
St Cyprian of Carthage (Catechumens who suffer martyrdom before they have received Baptism with water) are not deprived of the Sacrament of Baptism. Rather, they are baptized with the most glorious and greatest Baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord said that He had another Baptism with which He Himslef was to be baptized.
* Well, well Mikey Malone. Here is Another doctor of the church proving y'all are a bunch of heretical liars with not an observable ounce of decency - not that this info will in ANY way discourage the schismatic heretics from publicly promoting this stuff.
Schism leads to madness.
If any man does not receive Baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who, even without water, will receive the kingdom.....
* Mikey, MIkey, Mikey, T'Hell is wrong with you and the SBC and Charles Coulombe, aka Mr Huntington who Gerard quotes as an authority, and Matatics, and all the other Feneyites - WHY CAN'T YOU BE HONEST?
At least Luther had cojones.
..I know also a fouth Baptism, that by martyrdom and blood, by which Christ Himslef was baptized. This one is far more august than the others, since it cannot be defiled by later stains.
Mikey, Mikey Malone. You got some 'splainin to do...Gerard takes your word as Gospel.
St. Augustine, Dr of the Church
Those who , though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ - it avails them just as much for the forgiveness of sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of Baptism
* The choice for the rational, sane, Christian is easy. Hear the Doctors of the Church, hear the Magisterium, or hear an excommunicated heretic and his defenders.
I KNOW where I get my Doctrine from.
The statement concerning Order and Matrimony is too absurd to require refutation (who has ever suggested such a thing?).
Just wait. Cardinal Kaspar doesn't believe the laying on of hands should be the definition of orders anymore. See his May 24th speech to the Anglicans from 2003.
I also notice that ridicule is not even an attempt at refutation either. And it is also absurd. Ignoring the quotations of St. Gregory is also ridiculous.
Concerning the Holy Eucharist, they once again are led to deny the teaching of Trent:
Again. Another absurdity presented as if it comes down from on high itself. They do no such thing as denying Trent. They simply don't abide by the interpretation that contains a contradiction. Necessary means necessary.
Now as to the use of this holy sacrament, our Fathers have rightly and wisely distinguished three ways of receiving it. For they have taught that some receive it sacramentally only, to wit sinners:
Surely you aren't equating sinners receiving the sacrament with those in the state of grace are you?
others spiritually only, those to wit who eating in desire that heavenly bread which is set before them, are, by a lively faith which worketh by charity, MADE SENSIBLE OF THE FRUIT AND USEFULNESS THEREOF:
Trent makes no reference to the receipt of the same gifts (ie. sanctifying grace) from those gaining the wisdom of the fruit and usefulness of the third type.
Others are said to receive the Eucharist in spirit only. They are those who, inflamed with a lively faith which worketh by charity, partake in wish and desire of that celestial bread offered to them, from which they receive, IF NOT THE ENTIRE, at least very great fruits.
There it is. It's not the same. That concept is more clear in Baptism with desire providing Justification and the actual sacrament providing justification and the character.
The sacraments which may be received in desire are Baptism (Trent, Decree on Justification, Chapter IV),
Wrong. It says that true and natural water is necessary. Anything that is not necessary is not necessary. Justification may be had by desire but not the sacrament for salvation.
Confirmation (St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, III q. 72 a. 6 ad. 3),
Really? Needless to say, as the clear teaching of Trent states not all the sacraments are necessary for salvation which is the real point of Baptism which is necessary for Salvation.
I answer that, The character of Confirmation, of necessity supposes the baptismal character: so that, in effect, if one who is not baptized were to be confirmed, he would receive nothing, but would have to be confirmed again after receiving Baptism. The reason of this is that, Confirmation is to Baptism as growth to birth, as is evident from what has been said above (1; 65, 1). Now it is clear that no one can be brought to perfect age unless he be first born: and in like manner, unless a man be first baptized, he cannot receive the sacrament of Confirmation.
Reply to Objection 3. Those who heard the preaching of Peter received the effect of Confirmation miraculously: but not the sacrament of Confirmation. Now it has been stated (ad 1) that the effect of Confirmation can be bestowed on man before Baptism, whereas the sacrament cannot. For just as the effect of Confirmation, which is spiritual strength, presupposes the EFFECT OF BAPTISM, WHICH IS JUSTIFICATION, so the sacrament of Confirmation presupposes the sacrament of Baptism.
Same principal. Effect of Baptism equals justification but not the character which is necesary for salvation.
Whether three kinds of Baptism are fittingly described--viz. Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit?
Objection 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (65, 1). Now none but Baptism of Water is a sacrament. Therefore we should not reckon two other Baptisms.
Reply to Objection 2. As stated above (60, 1), a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the baptismal effect. Consequently THEY ARE NOT SACRAMENTS.
And you'll notice that Aquinas quoting Augustine quoting Cyprian is not talking about anything passed on from the Deposit of Faith. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. HAVING WEIGHED THIS IN MY MIND AGAIN AND AGAIN, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."
Communion (Trent, Decree on the Eucharist, Chapter VIII),
I've already corrected you on this.
and Penance (Trent, Decree on Justification, Chapter XIV; Decree on Penance, Chapter IV).
Not relevant.
All this teaching is solidly based on Scripture and Tradition.
Your understanding of this teaching is what is not solid.
The SBC principles apparently lead them to deny all of the clear teaching of Trent mentioned above,
Again with the desperate use of "clear." You are "clearly" are wrong. Interestingly enough the adherents to Baptism of Blood and Desire will allow Aquinas to "speculate" on the baptism of the Apostles.
Reply to Objection 2. As Augustine says (Ep. cclxv), from our Lord's words, "'He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet' (Jn. 13:10), WE GATHER THAT PETER AND CHRIST'S OTHER DISCIPLES HAD BEEN BAPTIZED, EITHER WITH JOHN'S BAPTISM, AS SOME THINK; OR WITH CHRIST'S, WHICH IS MORE CREDIBLE. For He did not refuse to administer Baptism, so as to have servants by whom to baptize others."
But mysteriously that intellectually honest courtesy is not extended to someone else concerning the certitude of those who died without recorded Baptisms as part of the public knowledge.
Something which is impossible to conclude, based on St. Thomas' principles. Such a view would posit that the character of Order can be received due to the desire for it; but the character of Baptism is not received through Baptism of the Spirit, nor is the character of Confirmation received due to the desire for it, according to the teaching of our Doctor:
The Divine power is not confined to the sacraments. Hence man can receive spiritual strength to confess the Faith of Christ publicly, without receiving the sacrament of Confirmation: just as he can also receive remission of sins without Baptism. ... Those who heard the preaching of Peter received the effect of Confirmation miraculously: but not the sacrament of Confirmation. Now it has been stated (ad 1) that the effect of Confirmation can be bestowed on man before Baptism, whereas the sacrament cannot. (III q. 72 a. 6)
Ignoring the quotations of St. Gregory is also ridiculous.
Look, he's plainly wrong. He says that the catechumens prevented by necessity from receiving baptism will "neither be glorified nor punished ... for ... they are not wicked". So they received the remission of sins due to their desire for baptism, says our Saint - for surely these catechumens would have committed actual sins. But if they received the remission of sins, then original sin was also remitted and they would be glorified.
Effect of Baptism equals justification but not the character which is necesary for salvation.
This is a novelty, and utterly destructive of the Tridentine doctrine on Justification. Surely you've read the Decree - how could you miss it? "In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the sons' [Rom. 8:15] of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior" (Chap. 4). "we must believe that to those justified nothing more is wanting from being considered as having ... truly merited eternal life to be obtained in its own time (if they shall have departed this life in grace)" (Chap. 16).
Perhaps you are unaware, but the pain of loss is a punishment for original sin. By saying that our hypothetical catechumen is justified, you admit that all his sins have been forgiven. Suppose he immediately dies after his act of perfect charity, joined with the sincere intention to receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Either he is punished with the pain of loss, or he is not so punished. But he is not, because original sin was forgiven him, as you yourself admit. If he is not punished, then he does not suffer the pain of loss, and therefore has the vision of God. What then becomes of your invented necessity of salvation attached to the character?
Surely you aren't equating sinners receiving the sacrament with those in the state of grace are you?
You would seem to be the only one suggesting that.
This is apparently supposed to be some sort of argument. That St. Augustine's consideration on Scripture led him to uphold Baptism of Desire - already explicitly defended 150 years earlier by the author of the anonymous treatise on Rebaptism which I pointed out to you - hardly proves that the teaching doesn't belong to the revealed deposit, since, after all, Holy Scripture is Divine Revelation.
* Precisley. Then why do you go to the SBC, Mike Malone, and Charles Coulombe, aka Hutchinson, for "definitions" and explanations of Doctrine?
Sorry. You, once again, just undermined your own actions.
*There you go again. So what if the sbc has those personal opinions about BOB, BOD, you have already admitted it is the Church, not individuals, or groups, which have authority. And, you are not "blowing my arguements away" you are engaging in opposing the Church established by Jesus, the Pillar and Ground of Truth. As for you opposing me, who cares? I don't have any authority to Teach; nor do you; nor does SBC; nor does Matatics; nor does Coulombe, aka Hutchinson.
Michael Malone, author of the splendid reference book, The Apostolic Digest, has spent many years researching the works of these Fathers that have been translated into English, especially their writings pertaining, or relating, to the dogma, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
* So what? In ONE MINUTE, any Christian can read the current Universal Catechism and learn what the Church teaches. It teaches what you, Coulombe, aka Hutchinson, Matatics, SBC, all disciples of Feeney, an excomunicated heritic, oppose.
Now, it is EASY for any individual to pick up a reference bok and cite this or that Church Father. The probolems arises when that individual characterizes those comments in opposition to the Teaching Authority established by Jesus. Feeney did that and was excommunicated for his actions. Feenye's disciples are doing that today.
Your actions are no different than the actions of protestants who quote the Bible "prove" sola scriptura.
Please cite for me one Saint, one Papal Encyclical, one Document from an Ecumenical Council, one line from Holy Writ, which tells us to consult a heretic to learn the truth about the Doctrine of the Christian Church established by Jesus.
What the disobedient Feeney said amounted to this: he insisted that all who did not formally enter the Church would go to hell. Hence he had to say, and he did say, that unbaptized babies go to hell. Further, all adults who did not formally enter the Church - get their names on a parish register - would also go to hell, even if they never had a chance to hear there was a Church, e.g., those in the western hemisphere during the long centuries before Columbus. Therefore Feeney consigned literally millions upon millions to hell, even though He gave them no chance.
Not just the documents of the Church as interpreted by the Church should have kept him from this: merely common sense, and the realization that God is not only not a monster, but is infinitely good - that alone should have stopped him. We have, then, most ample reason for calling his error tragic. Even the sexually immoral do not deny that God is good. Feeney does worse than they.
I regard to the damnation of infants, tragically, Feeney cited a text of Pius IX (quoted below) saying that no one goes to hell without grave voluntary sin - babies of course have no voluntary sin. Feeney actually ridiculed the text of Pius IX and charged Pius IX with the heresy of Pelagianism, saying (in Thomas M. Sennott, They Fought the Good Fight, Catholic Treasures, Monrovia CA. 1987, pp. 305-06): "To say that God would never permit anyone to be punished eternally nless he had incurred the guilt of voluntary sin is nothing short of Pelagianism... . If God cannot punish eternally a human being who has not incurred the guilt of voluntary sin, how then, for example can He punish eternally babies who die unbaptized?"
There is another feature of sound theological method we need to ecall here. If we seem to have on hand two truths, which seem to clash head on, and they are there even after we recheck our work, we must not try to force one to fit with the other. No, we must faithfully state both points, hoping that sometime someone will find how to make them fit. The Fathers did very well on this matter. For example, in dealing with the difficult texts of Lk 2:52 and Mk 13:32 on the human knowledge of Jesus, most of the Fathers made two kinds of statements, one kind affirming ignorance, the other denying it. finally, on the Lucan text St. Athanasius found how to reconcile the statements; later, Pope St. Gregory the great did the same for the Markan text. (For details see Wm. G. Most, ).
The same situation is found in regard to texts both of the Fathers and of the Magisterium on membership in the Church. One set of texts seems very severe, the other kind, very broad.
For commentary on each text, please see. W. Most, , Appendix.
a) Restrictive Tests of the Fathers
The Shepherd of Hermas, 9.16:(c. 140 AD) "The apostles and the teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, when they fell asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God preached also to those who had fallen asleep earlier, and they gave them the seal of the preaching. They therefore went down into the water with them, and came up again."
St. Irenaeus, 3.24.1:c. 140-202 AD) "God places in the Church apostles, prophets, doctors... those who are not partakers of these, who do not run to the Church, deprive themselves of life through evil opinions and wicked working."
Clement of Alexandria, 2.9:(c. 208-11 AD) "He who does not enter through the door... is a thief and a robber. Therefore it is necessary for them to learn the truth through Christ and to be saved, even if they happen on philosophy."(Clement also quotes verbatim the above text of Shepherd of Hermas).
Origen, 3.5:(c. 249-51 AD) "If anyone of the people wishes to be saved, let him come to this house, so that he can attain salvation, to this house in which the blood of Christ is a sign of redemption... . Therefore let no one persuade himself, let no one deceive himself: outside this house, that is, outside the Church, no one is saved; for if anyone goes outside, he becomes guilty of his own death."
St. Cyprian, 6:(c. 251 AD) "The power of baptism cannot be greater or more powerful, can it, than confession [of the faith], than suffering, such that someone who confesses Christ before men, is baptized in his own blood. And yet, neither does this baptism profit a heretic, even though after confessing Christ, he is killed outside the Church."
Lactantius, 4.30.11:(c. 305-10 AD) "Whoever does not enter there [the Church] or whoever goes out from there, is foreign to the hope of life and salvation."
St. Augustine, 2.2:(c. 415 AD) "If Christ did not die for no purpose, therefore all human nature can in no way be justified and redeemed from the most just anger of God... except by faith and the sacrament of the blood of Christ."
4.3.25:(c. 421 AD) "Nor can you prove by them that which you want, that even infidels can have true virtues." [He is speaking of gentiles in Rom. 2. 14-16, whom he thinks must mean converted gentiles. Other gentiles could not have true virtues, and so could not be saved].
St. Cyril of Alexandria, 30:22:(c. 428 AD) " ... mercy is not obtainable outside the holy city."
St. Fulgentius of Ruspe, , to Peter 38.81:(c. 500 AD) "Not only all pagans, but also all Jews and all heretics and schismatics, who finish their lives outside the Catholic Church, will go into eternal fire... . No one, howsoever much he may have given alms, even if he sheds his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
ibid. 36.79: "Baptism can exist... even among heretics... but it cannot be beneficial outside the Catholic Church."
b)Restrictive Texts of the Magisterium
Pope Innocent III, (1208: DS 792): "We believe in our heart and confess in our mouth that there is one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic apostolic Church, outside of which we believe no one is saved."
Lateran Council IV (1215: DS 802): "There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved."
Pope Boniface VIII, (1302: DS 870): "Outside of which there is neither salvation nor remission of sins... . But we declare, state and define that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is altogether necessary for salvation." [The second part merely means there is no salvation outside the Church, for it is quoted from St. Thomas Aquinas, Contra errores Graecorum 36. #1125 where context shows the sense].
Pope Clement VI, , 1351: DS 1051): "No man... outside the faith of the Church and obedience to the Roman Pontiff can finally be saved."
Council of Florence (1442: DS 1351): "It firmly believes, professes and preaches, that none who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can partake of eternal life, but they will go into eternal fire... unless before the end of life they will have been joined to it [the Church] and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body has such force that only for those who remain in it are the sacraments of the Church profitable for salvation; and fastings, alms, and other works of piety and exercises of the Christian soldiery bring forth eternal rewards [only] for them. 'No one, howsoever much almsgiving he has done, even if he sheds his blood for Christ, can be saved, unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. '" [Internal quote at end is from Fulgentius, as we saw above].
Broad Texts of the Magisterium
Pope Pius IX, (1863: DS 2866): "God...in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault. But it is also a Catholic dogma, that no one outside he Catholic Church can be saved, and that those who are contumacious against the authority of the same Church [and] definitions and who are obstinately separated from the unity of this Church and from the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, to whom the custody of the vineyard was entrusted by the Savior, cannot obtain eternal salvation."[emphasis added].
Pope Pius XII, (1943: DS 3821): "They who do not belong to the visible bond of the Catholic Church... [we ask them to] strive to take themselves from that state in which they cannot be sure of their own eternal salvation; for even though they are ordered to the mystical body of the Redeemer by a certain desire and wish of which they are not aware [implicit in the general wish to do what God wills], yet they lack so many and so great heavenly gifts and helps which can be enjoyed only in the Catholic Church."
Holy Office, Aug 9, 1949, condemning doctrine of L. Feeney (DS 3870): "It is not always required that one be actually incorporated as a member of the Church, but this at least is required: that one adhere to it in wish and desire. It is not always necessary that this be explicit... but when a man labors under invincible ignorance, God accepts even an implicit will, called by that name because it is contained in the good disposition of soul in which a man wills to onform his will to the will of God."
Vatican II, #16: (1964 AD) For they who without their own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation."
John Paul II, #10 (Dec. 7, 1990): "The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the Gospel revelation or to enter the church... . For such people, salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the church, does not make them formally a part of the church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation." [emphasis added].
Broad Texts of the Fathers
Pope St. Clement I, 7.5-7 (c. 95 AD): "Let us go through all generations, and learn that in generation and generation the Master has given a place of repentance to those willing to turn to Him. Noah preached repentance, and those who heard him were saved. Jonah preached repentance to the Ninevites; those who repented for their sins appeased God in praying, and received salvation, even though they were aliens [allotrioi] of God."
St. Justin Martyr, 1.46 (c. 150 AD): "Christ is the Logos [Divine Word] of whom the whole race of men partake. Those who lived according to Logos are Christians, even if they were considered atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus." 2.10:" Christ... was and is the Logos who is in everyone, and foretold through the prophets the things that were to come, and taught these things in person after becoming like to us in feeling."
Shepherd of Hermas, 2.4.1:(c. 140-55 AD): The angel asks Hermas who he thinks the old woman was who appeared. He thought it was the Sibyl: "You are wrong... . It is the Church. I said to him: Why then an old woman? He said: Because she was created first of all; for this reason she is an old woman, and because of her the world was established."
14.2 (prob. c 150 A.D. ): "The books of the prophets and the apostles [say] that the Church is not [only] now, but from the beginning. She was spiritual, like also our Jesus. She was manifested in the last days to save us."
St. Irenaeus, 4.28.2: (c. 140-202 AD): "There is one and the same God the Father and His Logos, always assisting the human race, with varied arrangements, to be sure, and doing many things, and saving from the beginning those who are saved, for they are those who love and, according to their generation (genean) follow His Logos." Ibid. 4.6.7: "For the Son, administering all things for the Father, completes [His work] from the beginning to the end... For the Son, assisting to His own creation from the beginning, reveals the Father to all to whom He wills." Ibid. 4. 22. 2: "Christ came not only for those who believed from the time of Tiberius Caesar, nor did the Father provide only for those who are now, but for absolutely all men from the beginning, who, according to their ability, feared and loved God and lived justly... and desired to see Christ and to hear His voice."
Clement of Alexandria, 7.17:(c. 20-11 AD): "From what has been said, I think it is clear that there is one true Church, which is really ancient, into which those who are just according to design are enrolled." Ibid 1. 5: "Before the coming of the Lord, philosophy was necessary for justification to the Greeks; now it is useful for piety... for it brought the Greeks to Christ as the law did the Hebrews." Ibid. 1.20.99:" Philosophy of itself made the Greeks just, though not to total justice; it is found to be a helper to this, like the first and second steps for one ascending to the upper part of the house, and like the elementary teacher for the [future] philosopher]."
Origen, 2.11-12: (c. 240 AD): "Do not think I speak of the spouse or the Church [only] from the coming of the Savior in the flesh, but from the beginning of the human race, in fact, to seek out the origin of this mystery more deeply with Paul as leader, even before the foundation of the world."
4.7: (c. 248 AD): "... there never was a time when God did not will to make just the life of men. But He always cared, and gave occasions of virtue to make the reasonable one right. For generation by generation this wisdom of God came to souls it found holy and made them friends of God and prophets."
, 9-10:(after 244 AD) [the law was written on hearts: Cf. Rom 2:14-16] "that they must not commit murder or adultery, not steal, not speak false testimony, that they honor father and mother, and similar things... and it is shown that each one is to be judged not according to a privilege of nature, but by his own thoughts he is accused or excused, by the testimony of his conscience."
Homily on Numbers 16.1: (after 244 AD): "Since God wants grace to abound, He sees fit to be present... . He is present not to the [pagan] sacrifices, but to the one who comes to meet Him, and there He gives His word [Logos?]."
Hegemonius (?) 28: (c. 325-50 AD): "From the creation of the world He has always been with just men... . Were they not made just from the fact that they kept the law, 'Each one of them showing the work of the law on their hearts... ?'[cf. Rom 2.14-16] For when someone who does not have the law does by nature the things of the law, this one, not having the law, is a law for himself... . For if we judge that a man is made just without the works of the law... how much more will they attain justice who fulfilled the law containing those things which are expedient for men?"
Arnobius, 2.63:(c. 305 AD): "But, they say :If Christ was sent by God for this purpose, to deliver unhappy souls from the destruction of ruin - what did former ages deserve which before His coming were consumed in the condition of mortality? ... .Put aside thee cares, and leave the questions you do not understand; for royal mercy was imparted to them, and the divine benefits ran equally through all. They were conserved, they were liberated, and they put aside the sort and condition of mortality."
Eusebius of Caesarea, 1.1.4:(c. 311-25 AD): "But even if we [Christians] are certainly new, and this really new name of Christian is just recently known among the nations, yet our life and mode of conduct, in accord with the precepts of religion, has not been recently invented by us; but from the first creation of man, so to speak, it is upheld by natural inborn concepts of the ancient men who loved God, as we will here show... . But if someone would describe as Christians those who are testified to as having been righteous, [going back] from Abraham to the first man, he would not hit wide of the mark."
St. Gregory of Nazianzus, 18.5 [at funeral of his father, a convert]:(c. 374 AD): "He was ours even before he was of our fold. His way of living made him such. For just as many of ours are not with us, whose life makes them other from our body [the Church], so many of those outside belong to us, who by their way of life anticipate the faith and need [only] the name, having the reality."
8.20 [on his sister Gorgonia]: "Her whole life was a purification for her, and a perfecting. She had indeed the regeneration of the Spirit, and the assurance of this from her previous life. And, to speak boldly, the mystery [baptism] was for her practically only the seal, not the grace."
St. John Chrysostom, . 5: (c. 391 AD): "For this reason they are wonderful, he [Paul, in Romans 2:14-16] says, because they did not need the law, and they show all the works of the law... . Do you not see how again he makes present that day [Judgment in 2.16] and brings it near... and showing that they should rather be honored who without the law hastened to carry out the things of the law? ... Conscience and reasoning suffice in place of the law. Through these things he showed again that God made man self-sufficient in regard to the choice of virtue and fleeing evil... . He shows that even in these early times and before the giving of the law, men enjoyed complete Providence. For 'what is knowable of God' was clear to them, and what was good and what was evil they knew."
Homilies on John 8.1: ( c. 389 AD): "Why, then, the gentiles accuse us saying: What was Christ doing in former times, not taking care... ? We will reply: Even before He was in the world, He took thought for His works, and was known to all who were worthy."
St. Ambrose, 2.3.11:(after 375 AD): "Our price is the blood of Christ... . Therefore He brought the means of health to ill so that whoever perishes, must ascribe the cause of his death to himself, for he was unwilling to be cured when he had a remedy... . For the mercy of Christ is clearly proclaimed on all."
St. Augustine, 18.47: (413-26 AD): "Nor do I think the Jews would dare to argue that no one pertained to God except the Israelites, from the time that Israel came to be... they cannot deny that there were certain men even in other nations who pertained to the true Israelites, the citizens of the fatherland above, not by earthly but by heavenly association."
1.13.3: (426-27 AD): "This very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients, nor was it lacking from the beginning of the human race until Christ Himself came in the flesh, when the true religion, that already existed, began to be called Christian."
102.11-13, 15: (406-12 AD): "Wherefore since we call Christ the Word [Logos], through whom all things were made... under whose rule [was/is] every creature, spiritual and corporal... so those from the beginning of the human race who believed in Him and understood His somewhat [utcumque] and lived according to His precepts devoutly and justly, whenever and wherever they were, beyond doubt they were saved through Him... . And yet from the beginning of the human race thee were not lacking persons who believed in Him, from Adam up to Moses, both in the very people of Israel... and in other nations before He came in the flesh."
St. Prosper of Aquitaine, 2.5: (c. 450 AD): "... according to it [Scripture] ... we believe and devoutly confess that never was the care of divine providence lacking to the totality of men... . To these, however [who have not yet heard of Christ] that general measure of help, which is always given from above to all men, is not denied."
St. Nilus, . 154:(perhaps c. 430 AD): "In every nation the one who fears God and does justice is acceptable to Him. For it is clear that such a one is acceptable to God and is not to be cast aside, who at his own right time flees to the worship of the blessed knowledge of God."
St. Cyril of Alexandria, 3.107: (433-41 AD): "For if there is One over all, and there is no other besides Him, He would be Master of all, because He was Maker of all. For He is also the God of the gentiles, and has fully satisfied by laws implanted in their hearts, which the Maker has engraved in the hearts of all [cf. Rom 2.14-16]. For when the gentiles, [Paul] says, not having the law, do by nature the things of the law, they show the work of the law written on their hearts. But since He is not only the Maker and God of the Jews [cf. Rom 3.29] but also of the gentiles... He sees fit by His providence to care not only for those who are of the blood of Israel, but also for all those upon the earth."
Theodoret of Cyrus, 2.14-16:(425-50 AD): "For they who, before the Mosaic law, adorned their life with devout reasonings and good actions, testify that the divine law called for action, and they became lawgivers for themselves... . He [St. Paul] shows that the law of nature was written on hearts... . According to this image, let us describe the future judgment and the conscience of those accepting the charge and proclaiming the justice of the decision."
6.85-86:(429-37 AD): "But if you say: Why then did not the Maker of all fulfill this long ago? You are blaming even the physicians, since they keep the stronger medicines for last; having used the milder things first, they bring out the stronger things last. The all-wise Healer of our souls did this too. After employing various medicines... finally He brought forth this all-powerful and saving medicine.
Pope St. Leo the Great, 23.4: (440-61 AD): "So God did not take are of human affairs by a new plan, or by late mercy, but from the foundation of the world He established one and the same cause of salvation for all. For the grace of God by which the totality of the saints always had been justified was increased when Christ was born, but did not begin [then]."
Pope St. Gregory the Great, . 15: (540-604 AD): "When He descended to the underworld, the Lord delivered from the prison only those who while they lived in the flesh He had kept through His grace in faith and good works."
2.3: "The passion of the Church began already with Abel, and there is one Church of the elect, of those who precede, and of those who follow... . They were, then, outside, but yet not divided from the holy Church, because in mind, in work, in preaching, they already held the sacraments of faith, and saw that loftiness of Holy Church."
Primasius, Bishop of Hadrumetum, 2.14-16:(c. 560 AD): "'By nature they do the things of the law... . ' He [Paul] speaks either of those who keep the law of nature, who do not do to others what they do not want to be done to themselves; or, that even the gentiles naturally praise the good and condemn the wicked, which is the work of the law; or, of those who even now, when they do anything good, profess that they have received from God the means of pleasing God... . 'And their thoughts in turn accusing or even defending, on the day when God will judge the hidden things of men.' He speaks of altercations of thought... . and according to these we are to be judged on the day of the Lord."
St. John Damascene, 11:(late 7th cent. to 754 AD): "The creed teaches us to believe also in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic church of God. The Catholic Church cannot be only apostolic, for the all-powerful might of her Head, which is Christ, is able through the Apostles to save the whole world. So there is a Holy Catholic Church of God, the assembly of the Holy Fathers who are from the ages, of the patriarchs, of prophets, apostles, evangelists, martyrs, to which are added all the gentiles who believe the same way."
Conclusions from the Above Texts
1. Following proper theological method, the Fathers and the Magisterium saw two things: a)the Church is necessary for salvation;
b)In some way God must make provision for those who do not find the Church. This was already stated in Romans 3.29 by St. Paul. If He did not do that, He would act as though He were not their God- He would condemn millions to hell who never had a chance!. Such a God could not be a God at all, but a monster.
2. In an effort to find how to fit the two together, most of them expressed a very broad concept of membership in the Church. Then one can say that there is no salvation outside the Church, but that the concept of membership is very broad, and covers even those who do not find the Church.
3. The early Magisterium texts at first seem very stringent. It is likely they had in mind those who culpably reject the Church - the words of Pius IX about those who are contumacious and obstinate fit with this and did not apply to those who through no fault of their own do not find the Church. The words of Romans 3.29 call for this interpretation.
Later Magisterium texts speak of those who pertain to the Church or are joined to the Church by even an unconscious desire, contained in the will to do what is right. John Paul II spoke of a mysterious grace.
Our proposal, expressed above in our comments on LG 5 do not contradict these things. Rather, they try to fill in, taking a lead from St. Justin that some in the past could have been Christians because they followed the Logos, who is in all. We attached the thought of St. Justin to Romans 2:14-16. This is not strained, for when we say the Logos, a Spirit is present, we really mean He is producing an effect: His presence is not spatial. What effect does He produce? He produces the effect of making known to them interiorly what the law requires, so that the law is written on their hearts, as Rom 2:15 said, following Jeremiah 31:33. (All actions done by the Three Divine Persons outside the Divine nature are common work to all three. Cf. DS 800. Hence we may say God did it, or the Logos did it, or the Spirit of Christ - all mean the same).
Then, if, for example Socrates - explicitly mentioned by St. Justin - follows the law on his heart, Socrates does not know the source of that law. It is really the Spirit of Christ who writes it. In accepting it, Socrates objectively accepts the Spirit of Christ. Since he accepts and follows that Spirit, he of course follows the Logos. But in Romans 8:9 we hear that "If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him." So then, one who does have and follow that Spirit, does belong to Christ . But to belong to Christ in St. Paul's language means to be a member of Christ - which is a member of the Church, by substantial membership, even though without formal external adherence.
So people of this sort who follow the law on their hearts are members of the Church, and as such, can be saved. This fits especially well with the words of Vatican II in LG 16.
We are not saying, of course, that the Baptist church, for example, is a component part of the Catholic Church. No we merely say that some who are Baptists (or other types) can, if they fill the conditions given above, become substantially, not formally, members of the Catholic Church as individuals, and so can be saved.
When Feeney was old, some church authorities out of sorrow for him, let him be reconciled to the Church. As part of the unfortunate looseness we se so often today, they did not demand that he recant.
So he did not. As a result, some former followers of his came back to the Church. Others even today insist that the lack of demanding a recantation meant Feeney had been right all along. Of course not. We have proved that abundantly with official texts above and the texts of the Fathers of the Church.
Let us add one more thing. In the parable of the talents, the man who hid his talent told the master he knew the master was a hard man. The master replied that he would judge him out of his own mouth, and condemned him. So when a Feenyite comes up for judgment, we pray that God may not follow the pattern given in the parable and say: You insisted I was a monster. Very good, I will be a monster to you. Hell is your place.
That isn't what Cardinal Kaspar said.
Rather, he said clearly that Apostolic Succession is much more than simply having hands laid upon you by a Bishop, which is always the basis of Anglicans and Old Catholics and Traditionalist Schismatics to Apostolic Succession today.
Apostolic Succession includes not only the Episcopal character, but also unity of faith and submission to the Pope. Those who do not possess all these characteristics do not truly have Apostolic Sucession, since they have succeeded not to the faith of the Apostles, but to that of a heresiarch. Their vain spiritual geneaology is of the spirit of what St. Paul condemned. "But avoid foolish questions and genealogies and contentions and strivings about the law. For they are unprofitable and vain." (Titus 3.9)
This is why the Catholic Church will never recognize the epsicopal ministry of sedevacantists and Anglo-American Old Catholics, for example, despite apparently correct use of form and matter in the consecrations.
The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Apostolic Succession notes:
To be in continuity with the Church founded by Christ affiliation to the See of Peter is necessary, for, as a matter of history, there is no other Church linked to any other Apostle by an unbroken chain of successors. Antioch, once the see and centre of St. Peter's labours, fell into the hands of Monophysite patriarchs under the Emperors Zeno and Anastasius at the end of the fifth century. The Church of Alexandria in Egypt was founded by St. Mark the Evangelist, the mandatory of St. Peter. It flourished exceedingly until the Arian and Monophysite heresies took root among its people and gradually led to its extinction. The shortest-lived Apostolic Church is that of Jerusalem. In 130 the Holy City was destroyed by Hadrian, and a new town, Ælia Capitolina, erected on its site. The new Church of Ælia Capitolina was subjected to Caesarea; the very name of Jerusalem fell out of use till after the Council of Nice (325). The Greek Schism now claims its allegiance. Whatever of Apostolicity remains in these Churches founded by the Apostles is owing to the fact that Rome picked up the broken succession and linked anew to the See of Peter. The Greek Church, embracing all the Eastern Churches involved in the schism of Photius and Michael Caerularius, and the Russian Church can lay no claim to Apostolic succession either direct or indirect, i.e. through Rome, because they are, by their own fact and will, separated from the Roman Communion.
It seems to me you are confusing the question of the validity of episcopal orders with the possession of Apostolic Succession. The two are closely linked questions, but are certainly not identical.
Perhaps you might try reading his actual speech.
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/archive_db.cgi/tablet-00742
As I see the problem and its possible solution, it is not a question of apostolic succession in the sense of an historical chain of laying on of hands running back through the centuries to one of the apostles; this would be a very mechanical and individualistic vision, which by the way historically could hardly be proved and ascertained. The Catholic view is different from such an individualistic and mechanical approach. Its starting point is the collegium of the apostles as a whole; together they received the promise that Jesus Christ will be with them till the end of the world (Matt 28, 20). So after the death of the historical apostles they had to co–opt others who took over some of their apostolic functions. In this sense the whole of the episcopate stands in succession to the whole of the collegium of the apostles.To stand in the apostolic succession is not a matter of an individual historical chain but of collegial membership in a collegium, which as a whole goes back to the apostles by sharing the same apostolic faith and the same apostolic mission. The laying on of hands is under this aspect a sign of co-optation in a collegium.
This has far reaching consequences for the acknowledgement of the validity of the episcopal ordination of an other Church. Such acknowledgement is not a question of an uninterrupted chain but of the uninterrupted sharing of faith and mission, and as such is a question of communion in the same faith and in the same mission.
It is beyond the scope of our present context to discuss what this means for a re–evaluation of Apostolicae curae (1896) of Pope Leo XIII, who declared Anglican orders null and void, a decision which still stands between our Churches. Without doubt this decision, as Cardinal Willebrands had already affirmed, must be understood in our new ecumenical context in which our communion in faith and mission has considerably grown. A final solution can only be found in the larger context of full communion in faith, sacramental life and shared apostolic mission.
Cardinal Kaspar is making the point that the validity of Anglican Orders is a totally misplaced question, because Apostolic Sucession is not a mechanistic chain, but a sharing of faith, sacraments, and government. The Anglicans have changed their ordinal and have introduced Old Catholics into their ordinations, but none of this really matters without unity in the Church, since these men are not part of the collegiate heirarchy regardless of the validity or invalidity of their episcopal character. All the worse then for them that the Catholic Church still considers their orders invalid, as Cardinal Kaspar notes. We should recall that Anglican Orders were condemned precisely because their Church left off for a different mission and a different communion, thus abandoning the sacramental priesthood and its communication through the Sacrament of Orders..
And note well that Cardinal Kaspar insists on the laying on of hands for induction into the college of Bishops.
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.