Posted on 08/08/2005 2:41:43 AM PDT by bornacatholic
Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:
"Does the Novus Ordo Mass Fulfill Our Sunday Obligation?" That is the topic of an upcoming debate between Bob Sungenis and Gerry Matatics.
The debate is scheduled for October 1 at a yet-to-be-announced location in Southern California. If the venue has not yet been decided, that can't be said for the divvying up of roles. Sungenis will argue that the Novus Ordo (the vernacular Mass attended by almost all Catholics nowadays) fulfills one's Sunday obligation, and Matatics will say that it does not.
The very prospect of the debate has generated controversy in Traditionalist circles, with many people saying it will be a lose-lose event for their movement. Nothing good can come, they say, from having a prominent Traditionalist argue that the Novus Ordo is so defective that it does not even qualify as a legitimate Mass.
Is Matatics taking the negative in the debate merely as a courtesy? Apparently not.
A few months ago he began a lecture tour focusing on the vernacular Mass and the post-Vatican II revision of the rite of ordination. At his web site he refers to "the strong stand I've taken in my April talks against the New Mass and related issues--e.g., the new (post-1968) ordination rites."
At those talks he is reported to have argued that the Novus Ordo Mass is so defective (he calls it "a monstrosity") that it is invalid and that the 1968 revisions to the rite of ordination render that rite invalid as well.
FOLLOWING THE LOGIC
Lenin famously remarked, "Who says A must say B." If you accept certain premises, certain consequences follow. If Socrates is a man and all men are mortal, then Socrates is mortal. You can't escape that conclusion, even if you wish to.
An invalid rite cannot confer a valid sacrament, no matter how much one might wish it could. If the revised rite of ordination is invalid, then any man who attempts to be ordained a priest under it is not ordained validly. He comes out of the ordination ceremony as he came in: as a layman.
This means that, if the revised ordination rite is invalid, only men ordained prior to its introduction in 1968 are real priests. Only their ordinations "took." All the ordinations conducted since that time have failed to "take."
From what I can gather, this conforms to what Matatics has said in his public remarks. The implications are great.
For one thing, an invalid rite of ordination implies that it would be hard to find a real priest younger than about 60. The priest shortage would be immensely more extensive than it generally is understood to be. If the priest at your parish was ordained after 1968, then in fact you have no priest at all.
If the ordination of a priest under the revised rite is invalid, so too is the ordination (consecration) of a bishop.
A bishop, after all, is a man who has been given the fullness of priestly ordination and who, because of that fullness, has certain powers that a priest does not have. A bishop, for example, can ordain other men. A priest cannot. A bishop enjoys jurisdiction, while a priest does not. And so on.
A HYPOTHETICAL
Consider now a hypothetical example. Let's say that a man was ordained a priest in 1951. He would have been ordained under the old rite, and, according to Matatics, that ordination would have been valid. So far, so good.
Now let's say that the same man was ordained a bishop in 1977. That would have been under the new rite, so, if we follow Matatics's logic, that second ordination would have been invalid. In reality the man still would be a priest; he would not have been elevated to the episcopacy.
Let's take the hypothetical one step further and imagine that this man, who was ordained a priest but not a bishop, is elected pope. What happens?
By definition the pope is the bishop of Rome, not the priest or layman of Rome. No man can be pope unless he is a bishop, just as no man is married unless he has a wife. If our hypothetical man is not made a bishop, either before or just after his election, he cannot be a real pope. There is no such thing as a layman pope or a priest pope. The bishop of Rome must be a bishop.
Now let's bring this hypothetical into the real world.
Joseph Ratzinger was ordained to the priesthood in 1951. He was ordained archbishop of Munich-Freising in 1977. He was elected pope in 2005. If his priestly ordination was valid but his episcopal ordination was not, then he is not a true pope. He is an anti-pope, a pretender, an imposter.
He may be called the pope. He may be addressed as "Holy Father." He may wear papal white. He may live in the Apostolic Palace. He may preside at Vatican events. But, according to this logic, he is not the pope.
This is the inevitable implication of the position that Matatics is now said to promote. If the Catholic Church has not had a valid rite of ordination since 1968, then today it cannot have a true pope. This is sedevacantism.
TALKS FOR TRADITIONALIST GROUPS CANCELED
At his web site (www.gerrymatatics.org), Matatics writes:
"Many of you have inquired about my summer speaking schedule, since, until today, my web site had only listed engagements up through April 16! Here's the scoop: due to the strong stand I've taken in my April talks against the New Mass and related issues--e.g., the new (post-1968) ordination rites (about which I'll be writing in my next essay, which I hope to post here next week)--all but one of my 2005 speaking engagements have been canceled, including:
"1) the Chartres pilgrimage in May I was to have once again (as in the previous 9 years) joined 'The Remnant' for,
"2) the Dietrich von Hildebrand Institute in Lake Gardone, Italy, in June [actually, June 30 through July 10] for which I was to deliver several lectures on the doctrinal controversies in the early Church and the formation of the New Testament canon,
"3) the annual St. Benedict Center Conference in Fitchburg MA in July (at which I've also spoke for nearly ten years now),
"as well as ALL my other summer speaking engagements."
In an e-mail to me, Michael Matt, editor of "The Remnant," confirmed that Matatics withdrew from participation in this year's pilgrimage because he doubted that priests associated with it, including those in the Vatican-sanctioned Fraternity of St. Pter, had been ordained validly.
I did not reach Prof. John Rao, who oversees the Dietrich von Hildebrand Institute conference, because the conference was underway in Italy just this last week.
I telephoned the St. Benedict Center and spoke with a representative who confirmed that Matatics was not invited to speak at the group's conference this year precisely because of talks he had given in March and April, talks in which he denied the validity of the vernacular Mass and the present rite of ordination.
Matatics goes on to say in his online letter:
"Although these cancellations (more about which I will write in my next 'Gerry's Word' essay) entail a devastating loss of income (so donations to help us through these next several weeks will be gratefully appreciated!), I refuse to compromise, or to be intellectually dishonest, on these issues. I will be giving a full defense of my positions on these matters, quoting the authoritative teachings of the Catholic Church, in my next essay."
That essay has not yet appeared.
CATHOLICI SEMPER IDEM
This brings me to something mentioned in my E-Letter of last week. Matatics says that "all but one of my 2005 speaking engagements have been canceled." The one that has not seems to be the "Australia-New Zealand speaking tour" that is listed in the "Upcoming Events" section of his web site.
But something else is mentioned there too: "CSI (Catholici Semper Idem) conference in France."
I was not familiar with an organization by that name, so I did a Google search on "Catholici Semper Idem." The search turned up several hits.
Some were to the French site I mentioned in last week's E-Letter. That is the site of "Pope Peter II," an elderly Frenchman who imagines he is the real pope. The site is titled "Catholici Semper Idem" ("Catholics Always the Same") and includes a long essay arguing that John Paul II was not a real pope and another saying that men ordained by the Catholic Church since 1968 remain just laymen.
Is this the group putting on the conference that Matatics will attend? I suspect not. Although his argument about the revised ordination rite leads to the conclusion that Benedict XVI is not a real pope, I find it hard to believe that Matatics would give credence to the claims of "Peter II," even if the latter has published arguments that Matatics finds congenial.
No, I suspect the conference is being sponsored by a different though like-thinking group. This one is called Les Amis du Christ Roi de France (The Friends of Christ King of France) and uses as its subtitle "Catholici Semper Idem," the same phrase used by "Peter II." In fact, arguments on the ACRF site are made use of at the "Peter II" site.
The ACRF site (www.a-c-r-f.com) is more extensive and, seemingly, more serious-minded than the other site, but both rely on the argument that Matatics has taken up: The revised ordination rite is so flawed that today we have no valid ordinations.
ACRF claims that the recent conclave contained no real bishops, since all the voting cardinals were ordained to the episcopacy under the post-1968 ordination rite. All the attendees were either priests or laymen: "Fr. Ratzinger, ordained in the new rite of [Giovanni Battista] Montini [Pope Paul VI, who authorized the 1968 revision], is not a Catholic bishop." If true, this means that Benedict XVI is not a real pope.
The October debate is to be about the Novus Ordo Mass, not about the revised rite of ordination. But the two go together, because if there are no valid priests, it makes no difference whether the Novus Ordo Mass fulfills one's Sunday obligation. A Mass celebrated by a non-priest is a non-Mass.
Whatever the difficulties, whatever the dangers, whatever the problems faced by the Catholic Church, their solution will not be found apart from the successor of Peter. To think otherwise, is a grave misjudgement.
What is a grave misjudgement is your assumption that resisting Peter to his face when he is wrong is being apart from him. And even if mistaken like St. Vincent Ferrer, it is not necessarily grave.
It's the mistake made by every Protestant reformer.
Well, that is not what is happening.
What Catholic of sound mind would turn his back on the Roman Pontiff as a source of authentic Catholicism and turn instead to a layman on the lecture circuit?
Those are false options. You don't have to turn your back on the Roman Pontiff to listen to a layman read the Pope's own words and then read another Pope saying the opposite. The Roman Pontiff is not a "source" of authentic Catholicism. He's supposed to be the authentic guardian of the Deposit of Faith.
That is strange. I can say that the "other" Easterners (i.e. Orthodox) do not believe any of what you posted the Maronite priest stated -- and I don't belive the Maronites believe it either. I am pinging a Maronite freeper for an insider comment.
I'm telling you. You have to be careful with modernists in the Church and you can't just depend on their "rite". It took me three hours of conversation to get this guy to open up with his true beliefs. Everything is couched. The words he uses and says he believes in do not mean the same things as they do to as traditional Catholic of whatever rite. I often wondered why the Society of Saint Pius X works with traditional priests of other rites as well. It turns out that there are many good priests resisting the post-Vatican II changes that have crept into the Eastern rites.
Unless I am sadly mistaken, this Maronite priest you mention is on a fringe and does not relefct what the Maronite Church teaches as a full member of the Vatican community.
Well, he's in good standing in a very large Maronite community that is thriving in the eparchy. I'm sure he comes off as just fine and "conservative" to most. I'm sure he sincerely believes he's a good Catholic. But he's a heretic. It's like dealing with a Mormon. They believe in "the Trinity" but it's not THE Trinity.
I have met people who credit Gerry with their entry into the Church. I have met far more who have credited Steve Ray or Al Kresta or Jeff Cavins. I have met even more who have credited Scott Hahn. Other names could be added: Fr. John Corapi, Fr. Benedict Groeschel, Peter Kreeft, Jimmy Akin, and more, both clergy and lay.
The problem is that most of the people influenced by the above named apologists, theologians or clergy have to have their theology cleaned up. That's where Gerry generally comes in. One of the reasons Gerry is so successful in his ability to move people with the Catholic truth is that he jettisoned his Protestant errors while someone like Hahn can't resist relying on his "old professor of Bible" etc. Just ask Groeschel or Fr. Pacwa about EENS. They are in obstinate denial of a dogma of the Church. They make Catholicism absolutely meaningless for salvation. They are effectively no longer Catholic in their hearts if read by their stated beliefs.
If people are coming into the Church however haphazardly by way of the Half-Cath/Half Protestant convert apologists. They come to understand "the fullness of the faith" by way of Gerry Matatics.
Well, if you say that only converts who believe as Gerry believes are real converts, then by definition Gerry must be the most successful convert maker. But if you allow a wider definition of what constitutes a Catholic (perhaps the test might be: Would Benedict XVI consider this person to be a convert to the faith?), then Gerry can't be considered anywhere near the top of the list. The numbers just aren't there.
You are too generous! Save for the Filioque and the transubstantiation, the rest of his sampler is not even Christian. As for the other two mentioned above, you do know that we Orthodox do not agree with Filioque, and that the mechanism of transubstantiation is just too rational for our taste, but our understanding of the Real Presense is on the same sheet.
However, I do not think his thoughs are shared by the Maronite Church even if he is a Maronite priest/bishop.
And what is the deal with Pope Benedict XVI? He has publicly promised to continue to persue ecumenism and he supports Vatican Two. Since when have those actions been consistent with Mortalium Animos? He who hears you hears me? Yeah, right. Try to imagiune Jesus saying THAT after what the Chruch did to HIM in Vatican Two.
And don't give me any of this rigamarole about Magisterium this and Curia that. So what if In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors was mentioned in passing in CHRISTUS DOMINUS. THAT document came LONG after Trent and the death of the axiological principle,Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira. I think even you, a neo-whatever, would be forced to admit that since the death of the axiological principle, the Catholic world has suffered the loss of theological giants, like Mario Derksen and John Vennari.
But, enough of the chin-wagging. What to do? It is obvious. All questions must be submitted to Marian Horvath and her decisons must be adhered to. It is that simple.
Have a nice day, tall man
You'd probably tell us he had a Doctorate in Philosophy; that he had a Doctorate in Theology; that he wrote his dissertation on "Dark Night of the Soul:" that he was acknowledged a genius even by his opponents; that he was acknowledged as a pious and personally holy man even by his enemies; that he invented a new Theolgy, the Theology of the Body; that he, in willing to follow Jesus, had put into practice all the knowledge apprehended by his giant intellect; blah, blah, blah. So what?
Tradition, Family, Property knows better. They have seen the truth. They expose the lies.
You got something against the truth?
You got something against Tradition? Heck, they have given Tradition pride of place in their title. I have read This Rock ever since it first was mailed in a regular-sized envelope. REGULAR SIZED. T'Hell is Traditional about that?
Family. Ya got something against Family, buster?
Property. Ya got something against Property Karl Marx Keating?
I notice that, unlike TFP, you don't have a picture of a lion on your Catholic Answers website, nor does a lion appear pictured in your magazine. Why is that Karl Kitten Keating? Is it because your Faith is weak like a kitten?
Well, Marian Horvath ain't scairt. She has already nailed Pope Benedict as a liberal fraud.
But, we Catholics don't need only her. So what if Jesus said "He who hears you hears me?" He said that LONG before Vatican Two, buster. Ain't NO WAY He'd say that now what with the conciliar Popes sucking-up to the Jews and what not. No sir. No way.
It is well known - I can cite visions and such - that the Holy Spirit doesn't abandon His Church, obviously, but, naturally, has to work through His Remnant (ever heard of a little paper called The Remnant, buster?) when heretical Popes try and destroy Tradition.
Well, welcome to the end times
But, don't worry. There are those loyal to eternal Rome - ETERNAL, capiche? - and they will be guided by the Holy Spirit and they will preserve Tradition until such times as a Traditional Pope - TRADITIONAL POPE, Badabing, buster - will be elected and he will call a Council and that Council will denounce as heretical the Vatican Two Council; the Council will condemn as heretics all the Popes since Pope Pius XII, the Council will condemn as invalid/satanic the Pauline Rite; the Council will excomunicate all who ever assisted at that satanic abomination; the Council will restore the Mass of Pope Pius V, and, finally and justly, the Council will declare Lefevbre a saint. Deal with it.
But, one doesn't have only TFP to rely upon. The ones the Holy Spirit works through, The Remnant, will be diffused throughout the world so The Holy See and Rome, occupied as it is by antiChrists, so keenly detected by Lefevbre, cannot quash it and extinguish it's truth. Individual members of The Remnant will make themselves known by a self-annointing. They will be known as Traditionalists. BadaBoom, buster.
Guided by the Holy Spirit during these perilous times, they will realize they have been chosen at his time to defend Tradition against the evil conciliarist church. The truthfulness of their thoughts and the authoritativeness of their judgements will be known to all with good will because all will recognize their citations from Denziger and Mortalium Animos and Pascendi.
Badabing. Badaboom.
Let me say to you publicly, what I have said to so many others privately...let me publicly offer you my sincere gratitude and love. I think you are a great gift to our times. You have done innumerable good works and your reward in Heaven will be great. I have read you for a LONG time and through your influence, your coaching, your instructions, your advice, your referents, my knowledge and love for Holy Mother the Church has been deepened and strengthned. I have always thought your approach has been (still is) based upon truth in charity and I think you are an excellent role model for anyone considering entering apologists.
You are the best, Mr. Keating. God Bless and, as Booz ( Ruth 2:4 ) used to say to his reapers Dominus Vobiscum
Thank you Mr. Keating, for your fine work on behalf of our Church. I'm one of your spiritual children, your book "Catholicism and Fundementalism" having convinced me immediately of the newfound Catholic faith a friend and a Priest had opened my eyes too. God bless!
Well, if you say that only converts who believe as Gerry believes are real converts, then by definition Gerry must be the most successful convert maker.
Since Gerry is in no obstinate denial of any doctrine or defined dogma of the Church, anyone who believes as Gerry believes is simply believing the Catholic faith.
But if you allow a wider definition of what constitutes a Catholic (perhaps the test might be: Would Benedict XVI consider this person to be a convert to the faith?), then Gerry can't be considered anywhere near the top of the list. The numbers just aren't there.
If by wider definition you mean one that allows error. Such as someone believing in Salvation outside the Catholic Church as Fr. Groeschel blatantly does, ( "I never bought into that" were his exact words.) then they and he are in denial of the Catholic faith (with Groeschel being the more culpable). Why not widen the definition of Catholics to include Protestants?
As far as Pope Benedict's opinion being the standard for considering someone truly in the fold, that would not be objective criteria. The standard would change according to the whims and orthodoxy of the Pope and liberal dissenters and heretics would not be able to be opposed on doctrinal facts.(think Pope Stephen on Pope Formosus).
Dear Karl Keating,
" I'm one of your spiritual children,..."
Gee, Karl, if you have to shoulder responsibility for Hermann, well....
;-)
Just kidding! Just kidding!!
sitetest
First off, I do not believe that the site you mention is anti-Semitic.
Agreed.
Second, at the time NYer posted her comment, the following thread was on the front page of the site you mention:
Thread: Global Holocaust-deniers bill passed in Knesset
O.K., a religious site posting a news story about a religious state. There's a shocker.
Third, the said thread was moved to that site's equivalent of FR's "Smokey Backroom" at 2:02 PM yesterday, i.e. about twelve hours after several messengers came over here and posted to NYer on this thread at the request of that site's owner (made in the thread on that other site linked by murphE at #53),
WRONG! The Angelqueen owner made no such request. A suggestion was put forth by another poster.
Fourth, I think you know quite well, Luddite, because of your longevity here, that FR would handle that sort of poster with much greater severity, and that his content would not be left up. I am not condemning either approach: I understand, from lurking there, that that other site attempts to attract ultra-trads into dialogue with more sane factions, and I think that's wonderful, and I pray for its success. I also know that the owner of that other site has exercised great patience with a lot of assorted nutballs and possible trolls, and has alienated others by insisting on a minimal amount of sanity from all. But discussing the relative merits of moderation styles is completely beside the point, because the management of that other site had not taken any action whatsoever against the poster in question at the time NYer made her post, and only did take action of any sort twelve hours after Robert Drobot's post to her.
Geez, I have "longevity" here? I'm still getting abused for being a newbie! One thing I have learned around here is that you can post up the vilest sort of hate, and it will stick around if a. no one complains or b. you have "protection".
Fifth, the fact that NYer, in response to a call for evidence of anti-Semitism among traditionalists, linked to a page on that other site that included at least one easily visible anti-Semitic entry, does not necessarily mean that she did, or did not, intend to indict that site's management or its entire membership of anti-Semitism. But it does mean that her post was objectively true: for the next nineteen hours after she had posted, you could click the link in her post and find apparent anti-Semitism among traditionalists. Any case alleging that she committed calumny is therefore meritless.
NYer posted up the site without comment, without pointing out "hey, there's at least one poster over there that fits my description". The unmistakable implication was that Angelqueen was an ant-semitic site. To imply otherwise after the fact is disingenuous.
Sixth, the user in question (767heavy) is still posting similar remarks on other threads on that other site.
Nope. Maybe commenting on similar subjects, but toned down.
Seventh, if they continue to tolerate that particular poster, and his continued postings in the same vein, the management of that other site will find it difficult to avoid future charges of anti-Semitism from other quarters, and may find themselves attracting (more?) anti-Semitic trolls.
Monkeys may fly out of my butt, too. Isn't speculation fun?
Eighth, I would characterize the reaction by that other site's management as petty, cultish and personal. For a site against which the allegation of "stalking" has already been made, it certainly seems most imprudent for them to reveal that they are actively monitoring the posts made by one of the site's own users at other forums. A front page headline demanding that a user, one who has posted only 30 times in five months and at the express and public invitation of the management, "explain" herself before the membership of the entire board (which is busy remotely psychoanalyzing her) is borderline sadomasochistic. In fact, because I registered at that site myself a while back, I feel a bit wary even posting this, lest they retaliate by revealing my email and IP address or disclosing information to others which allows them to track me down offline. This type of conduct by the management, which is becoming a pattern, will not serve to attract sane and stable people to their membership.
You mean "sane and stable" men who pose as ordained ministers on one site and as a woman on another? Of course, such posters would never be tolerated on FR now, would they?
Ninth, it is quite condemnable that that other site's management has felt the need to respond so quickly and with such great force against NYer's alleged off-site infraction against some rule I can't seem to find anywhere on their site, while at the same time treating the repetitive Holocaust denier on their own site with kid gloves. It is almost needless to say this, but if I were NYer I would tell the management of that other site to go jump in a lake, if I could be bothered to say anything to them at all. But that's certainly her decision to make, not mine. And if they were truly interested in "reconciling" with NYer, that other site's management should certainly apologize to NYer and to all their members. But that's certainly their decision to make, not mine.
How magnanimous of you to recognize that managemnet of their site is none of your business.
Tenth, the one good thing about the psychodrama at that other site is that it is not on FR. Unfortunately, by encouraging (ordering?) their users to harrass people on this board, the owners of that other site have become a nuisance to us here as well. I hope that this is the last time we are forced to hear from them on such internal matters, whether personally or through their agents.
Again, WRONG! Understanding of basic English would show you that no mention of this site was made by the Angelqueen owner. Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth, but not this time. And your cute little attempts to characterize Angelqueen posters as a "cult" is realy juvenile.
Communion with the Pope and the Church is a one-way street. You are not in Communion with the Church because you protest that you are Catholic. You are in Communion by being in Communion with legitimate Pastors accepted by the Pope. "Communion ... is not understood as some kind of vague disposition, but as an organic reality which requires a juridical form and is animated by charity." (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, Nota Previa)
To reject the ordination of all priests and bishops since 1968, and thus not hold communion with them, is to be at least in defacto schism, especially when one of them has been elected Pope.
Why do you need to distort the words of the Fathers on this doctrine? St. Cyprian and Origen and Lactantius and St. Augustine are clear enough that it refers to those who have left the bonds of the Church, not those who never heard the Gospel.
Do you believe Baptism of Desire is salvific, as defined at the Council of Trent? It doesn't appear so. Wouldn't that make you a heretic in obstinate denial of clearly stated truth?
Why do you need to distort the words of the Fathers on this doctrine? St. Cyprian and Origen and Lactantius and St. Augustine are clear enough that it refers to those who have left the bonds of the Church, not those who never heard the Gospel.
I'm not distorting the words of the Fathers for one thing. Augustine for one never held those outside the Church who were never in the Church are saved.
Regardless, a higher authority has already ruled on this:
"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church." (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 - 1878): "It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood." (Denzinger 1647)
Pope Benedict XV (A.D. 1914 - 1922): "Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved." (Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum)
I recorded the program with Fr. Groeschel on when it re-ran because I was so dumbfounded. I'll transcribe it word for word later but essentially what he stated was that people who are not Catholic are saved because they sincerely believe that the religion that they follow is true. As you can see that is condemned by Pius IX's Syllabus of errors.
III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.—Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.--CONDEMNED
16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.—Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846..--CONDEMNED
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.—Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc..--CONDEMNED
"Resisting Peter to his face when he is wrong?". Hahahahaha......which is almost all the time, right? You're a real comedian.
C'mon, seriously.
We're not talking about infrequent differences of opinion over minor matters. We're talking about rejecting, in toto, the papacy of not one, not two, not three, not four but five Popes.
If that is not being apart from the Pope, nothing is. And it most certainly is grave.
The solution to the Church's difficulties will not be found apart from the successor of Peter. You know this to be correct for you didn't contradict it. Instead, you parse the meaning of the word "apart". Apart? Who? Moi? Never!
Those are false options. You don't have to turn your back on the Roman Pontiff to listen to a layman read the Pope's own words and then read another Pope saying the opposite. The Roman Pontiff is not a "source" of authentic Catholicism. He's supposed to be the authentic guardian of the Deposit of Faith.
As indeed he is. That's precisely why we want to hear his teaching. Straight from the horse's mouth.
What goes on in the wannabee world of the lecture circuit doesn't concern us.
It matters to you though. We've all noticed what a hopeless name-dropper you are...(" I was speaking to Gerry back in April"......"I had Patrick Madrid screaming at me.".....etc, etc...). Big deal.
You soundlike you're the religious equivalent of the guy in the soap commercial who's frustrated because Spielberg won't call him.
Do you believe Baptism of Desire is salvific, as defined at the Council of Trent? It doesn't appear so. Wouldn't that make you a heretic in obstinate denial of clearly stated truth?
My own view is ultimately, God will save whom He wants and would more likely send an Angel to instruct and baptize before allowing such a loose interpretation of his doctrine to be true. Charles Coulombe addresses your position on what Trent actually stated very accurately. Should a magisterial decree be issued that clarifies this topic into something that I must accept and rules out Baptism with water and the Holy Spirit alone will save one, I'll submit to it. :
7. But doesn't the Council of Trent teach Baptism of Desire? Not at all. It declares that the "Votum" (vow, NOT mere desire) to baptised can justify one. But it does not say that one can be saved that way. Justification is the state of being pleasing to God, of having one's sins forgiven---such as you and I are when we step out of the confessional. But that is certainly not the same as being saved. The proof of this is that Trent anathematises anyone who would "make a metaphor" of Our Lord's words, "Unless a man be born again..." That means we must take that phrase----a phrase which does not permit exceptions---literally. Certainly, no one will claim that Baptism of Desire is anything more than a metaphor. What is forgotten here is that Baptism does not just forgive sins. It directly applies the merits of Christ's death to the individual soul; it makes of the baptised person a "new creature" (no longer a member of fallen humanity, which of its nature cannot enter into heaven, he becomes a member of redeemed humanity, which can); it places an indelible mark on the soul; it grafts him into the Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ; and it infuses knowledge of the Truth in a sub- or superintellectual manner---and all of these are necessary to enter into Heaven. An individual who is in the state of justification but has not received these other effects, is like one of the just of the Old Testament. Their sins were forgiven them; but they could not ascend to Heaven precisely because they were sons of Adam. They had to be united to Christ, because "no one ascends to the Father except through me." This union was accomplished for them by Christ when He "descended into hell," as we say in the Apostle's Creed. For those of us in the New Law, that can only happen through Baptism. Of course, it is far easier for us than for the Old Law people, who had no sacramental graces.
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.