Posted on 02/03/2025 3:49:29 PM PST by ebb tide
Edited on 02/03/2025 5:53:44 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
How false ecumenism destroys a proper understanding of redemption
One of the most devastating casualties in the period after Vatican II has been the practical elimination of the distinction between objective redemption and subjective redemption. This has contributed to various evils, ranging from mass apostasy to the Vatican’s persecution of those Catholics who believe what the Church has always taught. Indeed, in one way or another, almost every aspect of the ongoing crisis in the Church relates to the effective elimination of the concept of subjective redemption.
To understand this tragic phenomenon, we can look both at the direct attempts to reshape theology as well as the indirect practical assaults on the understanding of subjective redemption. As a starting point to the analysis, though, it is worthwhile to consider the proper understanding of the distinction between objective redemption and subjective redemption.
In his Theological Journey: Part I, Fr. Johannes Dormann introduced the distinction between objective redemption and subjective redemption as follows:
Since our present discussion on the Church’s teaching involves a distinction of capital importance which, however, today is by no means familiar to all, we present a brief summary of the dogmatic underlying principles. The God-Man Jesus Christ has, through His vicarious satisfaction and the merits of His Redemption, accomplished the reconciliation of humanity with God. This objective universal redemption must, however, be received by and applied to each individual before subjective redemption comes to pass. The act of applying the fruits of the Redemption to each man individually is called justification (dikaioosis, justificatio) or sanctification (hagiasmos, sanctificatio), the fruit of Redemption being the grace of Christ. (pp. 61-62)
Thus, Our Lord paid the price to redeem us all (objective redemption), but the fruits of this redemption must be applied to each man individually (subjective redemption). As Fr. Dormann wrote, this subjective redemption requires our cooperation with God’s grace:
The author of subjective redemption is the Triune God. As a work of divine love, the communication of grace is attributed to the Holy Ghost, although it is effected by all three Persons together. The subjective redemption, however, is not only God’s work but requires from men, who are endowed with intelligence and freedom, their free and voluntary co-operation (Denzinger-Bannwart, 799). In the co-operation between divine grace and human freedom lies the unfathomable mystery of the teaching on grace. (p. 62)
St. Augustine summed up this relationship between God’s grace, our free will, and redemption as follows:
Although God made you without your knowledge, He does not save you against your will. (Serm. 169.3)
Because our salvation depends upon our cooperation with God’s grace, we obviously need to know how to cooperate with God’s grace. On this point, Fr. Dormann wrote of the importance of the Catholic Church:
Along the way to subjective redemption God comes to man’s aid not merely through an inner principle, the power of grace, but also through an outer principle, the efficacy of the Church in her teaching, governing, and sanctifying, by her dispensing the grace of Christ in the sacraments. The end of subjective redemption is the eternal consummation in the beatific vision. (p. 62)
God did not need to establish the Catholic Church to assist us in saving our souls, but He did. As such, we cannot hope to attain salvation if we reject the truths and graces God provides through the Church. If it was not the case that we must accept the truths and graces God provides through the Church, there would be no persuasive reason to be Catholic.
In all likelihood, the most impactful attacks on the proper understanding of subjective redemption have been through the practical manifestations of false ecumenism discussed below. However, it is important to understand the direct theological attacks as well. In his Pope John Paul II: Doubts About a Beatification, Fr. Patrick de La Rocque wrote the following:
It is well known that we owe the formula from Gaudium et Spes to Karol Wojtyla: ‘By His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man.’ Left in its vague sense by the conciliar document, this expression found a more precise interpretation in the writings of John Paul II. His teaching, indeed, contains three recurring affirmations: 1) The Redemption is applied to all men; in other words, to each of them in particular; 2) Redemption is applied in such a way that he cannot lose it; 3) Redemption is applied to everyone from the moment of conception. (p. 2)
These are obviously bold assertions, especially given the fact that the Church’s formal teaching still rejects this notion of universal salvation. However, Fr. de La Rocque cited the following statements, among others, from John Paul II to support his argument:
In the Holy Spirit, every individual and all people have become, through the Cross and Resurrection of Christ, children of God, partakers in the divine nature and heirs to eternal life. (February 2, 1981 message to the Peoples of Asia and Manila)
Jesus Christ makes us sharers in what He is. Through His Incarnation, the Son of God in a certain manner united Himself with every human being. In our inmost being He has recreated us; in our inmost being He has reconciled us with God, reconciled us with ourselves, reconciled us with our brothers and sisters: He is our Peace. (October 2, 1979 homily in Yankee Stadium)
We are dealing with ‘each’ man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united Himself for ever through this mystery. (March 4, 1979, Redemptor Hominis)
Thus, there is a progression involved in the theological development of universal salvation: John Paul II built upon some of the ambiguous passages of the Vatican II documents to develop ideas that pointed at least vaguely to a concept of universal salvation; and the more progressive theologians used John Paul II’s writings to justify even more bold assertions of universal salvation. It matters little that apologists for the Vatican II revolution could find ways to reconcile these passages with Tradition — the reality is that those who oppose Church teaching have used these same passages to attack the proper understanding of subjective redemption.
Practical threats to the proper teaching
Most of us have learned to reject those “theologians” and clerics who would directly teach the heresy of universal salvation. Unfortunately, though, almost every novelty inspired by Vatican II has had the practical effect of teaching the same lesson.
We can see this most clearly through false ecumenism, which was the animating spirit of Vatican II. For over sixty years, false ecumenism has tried to water down and distort actual Catholicism, ostensibly to make it unobjectionable to non-Catholics. That process has undermined Catholic teaching about subjective redemption in the following ways, among others:
The Church teaches us the reality of subjective redemption, but false ecumenism teaches universal salvation. This is why Francis calls Traditional Catholics “rigid” and “backwards” for adhering to what the Church has always taught. He wants to accompany non-Catholics and public sinners, so he persecutes us because we have retained those beliefs and practices that are off-putting to those who do not actually want to embrace Catholicism.
What, though, makes Traditional Catholicism offensive to those who reject it? It is the insistence that we must actually follow the unadulterated Catholic Faith if we wish to please God and save our souls. And this rigid and backward mindset flows naturally from a proper understanding of the distinction between objective redemption and subjective redemption.
If we want to counteract these evils, we have to reject false ecumenism in its entirety and return to the unadulterated Catholic Faith. The sad history of the past sixty years has been dominated by well-meaning Catholics who have tried to make peace with the errors and abuses that have been introduced through false ecumenism. However, there is no acceptable mix of truth and error — even the smallest amount of error is lethal for those who willingly accept it.
Thankfully, Francis and his diabolical Synodal Church have made it much easier for us to recognize this reality. God, in His loving Providence, has permitted Satan and Francis to inflict great harm. But it also seems that God has required that these new attacks on the Church be made with much more transparency than we saw prior to Francis. Yesterday’s promoters of the Vatican II revolution had to tell us it was in continuity with tradition; today’s promoters of the exact same revolution instead make it clear that their new church began with Vatican II. So there is no longer any excuse for accepting error in the name of obedience.
In addition to rejecting error, we have immense work to do in reminding Catholics and non-Catholics alike of what the Church has always taught about subjective redemption. The good news on this front is that everything we value about our religion supports the Church’s teaching on subjective redemption. The lives of the saints; the true teachings of the Bible; the holy works of the spiritual writers; the Church’s sacraments; the lessons of the liturgy; the Church’s prayers and devotions — all of this is preposterous if we believe in universal salvation, but it is evidence of God’s great love for us when we understand that these are the means He has given us to lead us to Him. If we simply live and share this unadulterated Catholic Faith that God has given us, we will please God, enrage Satan, and testify to the proper understanding of the distinction between objective redemption and subjective redemption. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
Ping
The total absence of any Scriptural citations in support of any point asserted in this writing is DEEPLY disturbing.
How does one purport to represent with fidelity what it is that Scripture says without making any direct reference to the actual text? I’m always left with the uneasy feeling that the author is intent less on explaining what Scripture really says than in insulating their claims from Scripture.
When Jesus met the two on the road to Emmaus, his teaching came from Moses and the Prophets (Luke 24:13-31).
When St. Paul taught Jews living abroad during his missionary journeys he went to their synagogues and reasoned with them from the Scriptures (ref. Acts 17).
How, then, in this late and distant hour, can any servant of Christ abandon such vibrant examples set down not only by the greatest of ancient Apostles, but by Our LORD Himself??
What manner of Christian reasoning pretends to explain godliness but includes none of The Word of God?
I forsee tulsi won’t last in this position.
God, in His loving Providence, has permitted ebb tide to inflict great harm upon Francis and the consummate and wonderful Roman Catholic Church.
Being a non-Catholic, it seems that the reasoning is based upon this verse:
But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.
--John 21:25 Douay-Rheims Bible
As well as "Them sola scriptura folks are trying to keep GOD in a box."
Good luck.
Indeed! I think it is because Scripture does NOT support the claims Roman Catholicism makes about herself being the "one, true church" through which ALL must belong and follow as well as many of her developed dogmas and traditions that have no Scriptural support or which contradict Scripture. The idea that nobody can be saved outside of her flies in the face of Holy Scripture and minimizes the essential truth of the grace of God through faith being how we are saved and NOT through our works or merit or church membership. The RCC presumes she alone is the door to eternal life rather than Jesus Christ. Jesus said HE is the door, HE is the way, HE is the truth and HE is the life and no one comes to the Father but by HIM.
Does Roman Catholicism teach the truths of the Christian faith "once delivered to the saints"? Yes, there are many universal (what the word "catholic" means) truths that they remain faithful to and which can be traced back to the tenets of the early church. Sadly, over time heresy has crept in and the gospel has become corrupted - the primary doctrine of justification being perverted the most. Yet God has always preserved His remnant and the TRUE church - the called-out assembly of believers of which like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (I Peter 2:5) and fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:19).
Heretic.
*****
Roman Catholicism sure is.
“Them sola scriptura folks are trying to keep GOD in a box.”
That would be a supremely ironic accusation coming from a Catholic; they have an ornate box the call “the Sanctuary” in which are kept the bread and wine for the observance of communion. Juxtaposed with the doctrine of transubstantiation they’ve got God in a box up there in the front of every Catholic church on earth.
Never mind, of course, that God does not live in temples made by human hands (Acts 7:48, Acts 17:24, Hebrews 9:24, Ephesians 2:21, I Peter 2:4-6).
For those who are supremely ignorant of both scripture and the Catholic faith, it's called a tabernacle.
("Tabernacle" happens to be mentioned over 300 times in the Bible, but prots don't even have them in their "churches" since God isn't present there.)
The entire Mass is a contradiction of the New Testament.
As used in the Bible, the Tabernacle (and, later, the Temple) IS the “Sanctuary.”
When Christ said, “it is finished,” the veil to the Most Holy Place was torn from top to bottom (Matt. 27:51, Mark 15:38, Luke 23:45) — 5 or 6 inches thick and 60ft from for to ceiling — in a Divine exhibition of the universal sufficiency of Jesus’ sacrifice to reconcile the world to God, and in his own body open a “new and living way” to God (2 Cor. 5:19, Heb. 10:20).
So the need for the Temple/Sanctuary was brought to an end as the dwelling place of God became the living Body of Believers by the indwelling Holy Spirit of God Who came at Pentecost (Acts 2). There is now no longer a Christian need for these Old Covenant physical forms other than to illustrate how the Old was a prefigure of the New.
The Mass employs Oldc Covenant analogs to try to express New Covenant truth. I get what’s being attempted, and I’m not saying it’s infernal — I think that goes too far. But it does end up being an act of putting new wine into old wineskins with the eventual loss of both.
| John O' Brien, Roman Catholic Priest in the Faith of Millions. | Hebrews 9:24-28 | Hebrews 10:11-13 |
| When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors: it is greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim. Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows His head in humble obedience to the priest’s command. | 24For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him. | Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. |
Rome has effectively recreated the OT system of worship.
emmanuel
Tabernacle is still mentioned 19 times in the New Testament. Including:
The tabernacle also and all the vessels of the ministry, in like manner, he sprinkled with blood.
[Hebrews 9:21]
The total absence of the Protestant dogma of "sola scriptura" anywhere in scriptural citations is DEEPLY disturbing.
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.