The Unam Sanctam "Problem" Resolved (Can Non-Catholics Be Saved?)

FidoNetRC ^ | 1997 | Phil Porvaznik

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The Armenians were never Nestorians. The Nestorians were the Assyrians. The Armenians were not Monophysites either, but only became that just to be contrary to Constantinople.

[hosepipe]

" For where ever two or three come together in my name, there I am with them ".. Matt 18;20 -Jesus

[Hermann the Cherusker]

No one is saved who does not profess the Catholic Faith. Profession of the Faith is necessarily visible, since it distinguishes one from the practice of the adherents of the false relgions in the rest of humanity. It doesn't of course mean you will be on a parish register. If that is all you are trying to say, then we agree.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

They've been condemned a hundred times over in countless documents. Because the Vaticn did not reply to this particular liberal bill of goods in the Feeneyite newsletter therefore these liberal propositions stand approved by the Vatican? Give me a break.

You seem to operate with the principle the friend of my enemy is my enemy.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Do I understand you correctly, Hermann, that a baptized (in a Protestant setting, but validly) Protestant is a capital-C Catholic Christian who fell off on the rest of the sacraments?

Yes. Everyone who is baptized is baptized into the Catholic Church, because there is only one Baptism, and one result of Baptism. Being Baptized among heretics makes Baptism inoperative in terms of bestowing grace, unless it is done in infancy, because heresy is inimical to faith, and without faith, no one can be justified. This is why the great Doctor, St. Alphonsus de Liguori writes:

"We must believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true Church. Hence, they who are out of our Church, or separated, cannot be saved, except infants who die after baptism." (On the Commandments and the Sacraments)

If so, then do you not arrive at a community of Catholic Christians that is larger than the community of practicing Catholic Christians? And then, does Dionysius not speak of the same duality of boundary you do?

Everyone who holds the Catholic Faith is a Catholic Christian. Simply because one is not registered and attending Mass at a parish, does not automatically unchurch someone. Think of the immigrants to this country. For many years, many Catholics lived alone and apart from the comunity of believers. They would of necessity baptize their own children, and celebrate marriage on their own, and avail themselves of a travelling priest should he happen their way. They were no less Catholic than Italians living in the shadow of St. Peter's.

It is a mistake to limit the Catholic Church to the people written down on the register at the local parish. The Catholic Church is the comunity of believers who hold the Catholic Faith, are baptized at least in desire, and obey the lawful pastors of the Church.

One does not need to practice the faith to be a Catholic either. We are all aware of people who are Catholic, but who only attend Mass infrequently if at all.

Additionally, it is clear that people such as the adherents to the Traditional Anglican Communion, who are requesting integration into the Church, are Catholic, even though not members proper. Similarly, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox are Catholic by profession of faith, shared sacramental rites, obedience to lawful Bishops, and common identity. This is why we speak of our lack of full communion with them (an historical oddity only dating from 1729, when the Holy Office forbid it) as properly a matter between the Pope and their Bishops, where those two parties need to come to an understanding regarding the limits of power and authority in the Church held by various persons. If it were an issue between Latin and Eastern laity, Rome would never permit any exceptions to our having communion with them, receiving penance and extreme unction from them, etc.

OTOH, people who reject the Catholic Faith, or the authority of Bishops, baptized or not, are not Catholics, and are not in any way part of the Catholic Church.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Fr. Feeney was never condemned. He was excommunicated by name for disobedience, and was later reconciled by making a simple profession of Faith (recitation of the Athanasian Creed).

The letter of the Holy Office "Suprema haec sacra" condemned the position taken against implicit baptism of desire. Since this is to be found in the manuals of St. Alphonsus, for example, whom the Holy See had already entirely approved, this is hardly a surprise.

[annalex]

if there is a reunion, however, my life might change decidedly for the worse.

This is a classic Tragedy of the Commons dilemma that Catholics will have to face as well. The benefits from our religious praxis accrue to the individual alone in a tangible way. The wounds from disunity are borne by the Body of Christ as a whole and not personally. We only experience them as a cosmic disorder, and not as a hole in the flesh.

[annalex]

Yes, this is what I always thought intuitively, in my ignorance, thanks.

[gbcdoj]

In any event, excommunication must be based on some specific denial of dogma. Disobedience, per se, is insufficient,

It must be nice to know so much about canon law. I'm sure you can cite authorities for this ridiculous claim, right? It's needless to give the many historical instances of excommunication for disobedience, or to consider the writings of so many and so renowned doctors and theologians on the matter, or to consider the fact that the Code of Canon Law imposes an excommunication latae sententiae upon anyone who procures abortion or commits willful murder.

Excommunication can be imposed for any grevious sin. See St. Thomas, Supplement, question 21 (on the definition, congruity and cause of excommunication), especially article 3: "And since by injuring a man in his body or in his temporalities, one may sin mortally and act against charity, the Church can excommunicate a man for having inflicted temporal injury on anyone."

[bornacatholic]

Please ping all CDSSPX (Commitee for the Defense of the SSPX)members.

Y'all hold to a restrictive idea of EENS. That being the case, what dos that mean for the sspx founder,Lefevbre?

He was excomunicated and died excommunicated.

Isn't Lefevbre in Hell an inescapable consequence of your EENS theology?

[murphE]

He was excomunicated and died excommunicated.

Isn't Lefevbre in Hell an inescapable consequence of your EENS theology? ?

OK , first a correction

Isn't Archbishop Lefevbre in Hell an inescapable consequence of your EENS theology the Churches Dogmatic declaration of EENS?

He would be if the "excommunication" was valid, but it never was. When Pope Benedict declares that statement "null" watch how fast his canonization cause gets started. =D

[bornacatholic]

Sad. What an ideology. It results in your hero being in Hell

[Kolokotronis]

"Similarly, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox are Catholic by profession of faith, shared sacramental rites, obedience to lawful Bishops, and common identity. This is why we speak of our lack of full communion with them (an historical oddity only dating from 1729, when the Holy Office forbid it) as properly a matter between the Pope and their Bishops, where those two parties need to come to an understanding regarding the limits of power and authority in the Church held by various persons. If it were an issue between Latin and Eastern laity, Rome would never permit any exceptions to our having communion with them, receiving penance and extreme unction from them, etc."

Thanks for mentioning this as the concept of "communion" is often loosely applied down to the level of the laity. Communion is in fact a matter of relationships between and among bishops (or abbots) to whom we laity, monastics and lower clergy owe obedience. It is for that reason that issues of reunion and/or intercommunion in the sense of receiving the sacraments, must be resolved initially between and among the hierarchs even if as a matter of ecclesiology in the Eastern Church and as a matter of practicality in the Western Church, the laity, monastics and lower clergy will have to recognize and accept any reunion which may come about.

I see much to recommend the approach of the Latin Church to the question of intercommunion by economia under certain circumstances. On the other hand, the virtually universal rejection of that exercise of economia by the Orthodox hierarchs to me makes good sense as reception of the Eucharist is the ultimate symbol of a real unity which doesn't exist. This of course raises the question of why apparently an intercommunion with the Oriental Orthodox is allowed by a limited economia. As Kosta has pointed out, at least historically, the theological differences between the non Chalcedonian and Orthodox Churches are more profound than those between Orthodoxy and the Latin Church.

Final point on intercommunion. When that concept or economia was first proclaimed by Rome in the 1960s, it was made very clear that on a diocese by diocese basis this should only be allowed after consultation and agreement with the local Orthodox hierarch. In this country that was not done and it made for some bad feelings just as Rome predicted. I understand that at least some Latin Rite Ordinaries have consulted with their Orthodox counterparts and when told that Orthodoxy will not accept the idea, the little statements contained in most missalettes about intercommunion with the Orthodox have been removed. Unfortunately some priests and bishops, despite complaints from the Orthodox hierarchs, are still preaching this to the confusion of the laity and lower clergy. We've seen examples of it right here on FR with Roman Catholics who think that Orthodoxy and the Latin Church are "in communion".

[bornacatholic]

THey never replied to the Abbe de Nantes either. Big deal

[bornacatholic]

Canon 331 states: “The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church of Rome. He is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the Pastor of the universal Church here on earth. Consequently, by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power.”

Canon 332 §1 “The Roman Pontiff acquires full and supreme power in the Church when, together with episcopal consecration, he has been lawfully elected and has accepted the election.”

Canon 16 §1 says, “Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator (the Pope)and by the one to whom the legislator ( the Pope) has granted the power to interpret them authentically.”

Canon 333 § 3 “There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff.”

*Y'all can cite any lay publication, sspx opinion piece, Remnant article, Catholic Family News special column, any suspended a divinis Fr. Gruener exhoratation, any statement issued by the Montana Pope, any Seatle Catholic "think piece," any Daily Catholic scribbling, and old dog-eared copy of of some long-discardedd Theological Manual, it makes NO DIFFERENCE

at least not to a Catholic

[Hermann the Cherusker]

When that concept or economia was first proclaimed by Rome in the 1960s, it was made very clear that on a diocese by diocese basis this should only be allowed after consultation and agreement with the local Orthodox hierarch.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law clearly allowed intercommunion in certain limited circumstances (i.e. danger of death). So the current Catholic position predates the 1960's. The 1960's saw what was tantamount to a total lifting of the ban of 1729.

From the Catholic perspective, the problems with the East have always centered around the Bishops. As far as we are concerned, the lay Orthodox are fully Catholic provided that they hold no heresies. Their Bishops may or may not be involved in some level of schism or even heresy from our POV depending on their own position on various disputed matters. But just because one's Bishop is possibly in error, does not mean that his laity are also in error, and until the Church removes him from office by declaring him deposed if he is actually disobedient, the Bishop's lay faithful owe him reverent submission on all things not contrary to divine and natural and ecclesial law. Last I checked, the Pope hasn't removed any Eastern Bishops.

[Kolokotronis]

" Last I checked, the Pope hasn't removed any Eastern Bishops."

LOL! Not lately, anyway, and there was a time when we were grateful for his help in getting rid of some real beauts!

[annalex]

just because one's Bishop is possibly in error, does not mean that his laity are also in error

Mutatis mutandis, and on a very different level, the principle also applies to the Protestant, I suspect. Many Protestant Christians are not protesting anything and simply follow the faith they have always known, including the defective praxis that is also the only thing they know. I would hold the Protestant ministers to a different standard because they have made an informed decision to separate themselves and their flock from the Church.

[murphE]

And when Pope Benedict XVI rules that Pope John Paul II's interpretation of canon law was in error, that in reality Archbishop Lefebvre, and the other bishops, by their actions had not "excommunicated" themselves* are you going to survive?

It's going to happen, sooner or later, I hope you don't have a breakdown.

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

If memory serves me, it was Prefect of the CDF Cardinal Ratzinger's interpretation of canon law that was involved more directly than JPII's. I suppose Benedict could declare Ratzinger to have erred, but I'm not holding my breath. If he does, I won't jump off a cliff--if a pope wants to declare himself to have erred in his prepapal decisions, it's a mark of humility, but I'm not sitting on a mountain waiting for it to happen.