Topic: Roman Catholic Ecclesiology-Pre & Post Vatican II

[MalpanaGiwargis]

Again, your premise here is logically inconsistent with your conclusion. The Catholic Church can only judge the liceity of a sacrament where she has legal jurisdiction (in the sense of ecclesiastical, not civil law). In other words, if the Church is able to judge the liceity of sacraments performed outside of visual unity with her, this implies that all those outside of visual unity with her still are subject to her laws and judgments, and hence, they are actually contained within her, though visibly in disunion with her. It is illogical to speak of the liceity of sacraments performed completely outside of the Church, just as it is illogical to speak of the legality of performing certain actions in Amsterdam under US law.

Thomas Pink, a Catholic professor of philosophy at King's College, London, wrote that the teaching, at least from the time of Aquinas until the 20th century, was that the Catholic Church acquires spiritual jurisdiction over Christians by virtue of their (valid) baptism, whether this is administered inside or outside the Catholic Church. This is because the sacrament belongs to the Catholic Church. According to this line of thinking, validly-baptized Christians of any confession are subject to the spiritual jurisdiction of the Catholic Church; this is the reason the Church historically argued it had the right to apply coercive penalties to non-Catholic Christians to compel Catholic fidelity, and also why the Church is not permitted to compel non-Christians to faith and baptism (although this has not always been observed, obviously). If this is true, it stands to reason, then, that they still belong to the Church in some sense.

Dr. Pink's article can be found here; it is concerned with the differences between the 19th-century papal teachings on religious liberty and Vatican II's apparent discontinuity with that teaching.

[JoeS2]

As a former traditional Catholic who is discerning the Orthodox position, I felt it was important for the Roman Catholics that participate here to be aware of the divergence of the Latin church's teaching in regards to its ecclesiology. I'll start with this:


“Every quest of the human spirit for truth and goodness, and in the last analysis for God, is inspired by the Holy Spirit. The various religions arose from this primordial human openness to God. At their origins we often find founders who, with the help of God’s Spirit, achieved a deeper religious experience. Handed on to others, this experience took form in the doctrines, rites and precepts of the various religions." 

"Normally, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Savior.”
 
 
John Paul II
 
General Audience of  Wednesday 9 September 1998


This is an astounding statement by JPII, and it contradicts the most basic elements that traditional orthodox Roman Catholics know to be true. God gave only one Pentecost, not many that manifested themselves anytime a new religion was founded. This statement would mean that there is no such thing as a false religion, only "partially true". This is the novel idea of "partial communion" that has been the nomenclature of the post Vatican II Church. I'll continue with what Benedict XVI wrote in regards to the Eastern Orthodox:


"Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church." (Dominus Iesus, Benedict XVI)


Now, compare this with what numerous other popes have stated prior to Vatican II:

PIUS IX
[Letter from the Holy Office, September 16, 1864, to the English Episcopate]

"It [this novelty] can be summed up in this proposition, that the true Church of Jesus Christ is made up of one part
Roman Church, established and propagated throughout the world, and one part the schism of Photius, and the Anglican heresy, both of which have, with the Church of Rome, one same Lord, one same faith, one same baptism."

"This novelty is all the more dangerous in that it is presented under the appearances of piety and eager solicitude for the unity of Christian society. The foundation on which it is built is such that it destroys at one stroke the divine
constitution of the Church."


PIUS IX
[Letter Jam vos omnes, September 13, 1868, to Protestants and other non-Catholics]

"Now, anyone who wishes to examine with care and to meditate on the condition of the different religious societies divided among themselves and separated from the Catholic Church...will easily be convinced that no one of these societies nor all of them together in any way constitute or are that one Catholic Church which Our Lord founded and established and which He willed to create. Nor is it possible, either, to say that these societies are either a member or part of this same Church, since they are visibly separated from Catholic unity."

LEO XIII
[Encyclical Satis cognitum, June 29, 1896]

 “Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ...He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation.” (St. Augustine, Sermo CCLXVII, no. 4)

LEO XIII
[Encyclical Satis cognitum, June 29, 1896]

"The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavor then she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with one drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by Our Lord and handed down by apostolic tradition.”

(Tractatus de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
"The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium." (Note:The Orthodox deny the First Vatican Council, for example)

 

LEO XIII
[Encyclical Satis cognitum, June 29, 1896]

"Those who acknowledge Christ must acknowledge Him wholly and entirely. The Head is the only-begotten Son of God, the body is his Church; the bridegroom and the bride, two in one flesh. All who dissent from the Scriptures concerning Christ, although they may be found in all places in which the Church is found, are not in the Church; and again all those who agree with the Scriptures concerning the Head, and do not communicate in the unity of the Church, are not in the Church.”

PIUS XI
[Encyclical Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928]

"It is therefore inconsistent and foolish to say that the Mystical Body could be formed of disjointed and separated parts; therefore whoever is not joined to it is not a member of it and is not in union with Christ the Head."

"No one is in the Church of Christ, and no one remains in it, unless he acknowledges and accepts with obedience the authority and power of Peter and his legitimate successors."



Now, compare these pre Vatican II quotes above with this from Lumen Gentium from Vatican II:

 

"All men are called to this Catholic unity which prefigures and promotes universal peace, and in different ways belong to it, or are related to it: The Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."

Also, this:

"This communion exists especially with the Eastern Orthodox Churches which, though separated from the See of Peter, remain united to the Catholic Church by means of very close bonds, such as the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, and therefore merit the title of particular Churches. (CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH. Letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion.)
[1992] (Note: How can the Orthodox be separated, but be united at the same time by very close bonds?)

"The special position of the Eastern churches: These churches though separated from us nevertheless possess true Sacraments, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy. Therefore, some worship in common is not merely possible, but is encouraged." Unitatis Redintegratio


Now, pre Vatican II:

PIUS IX
[Encyclical Amantissimus, April 18, 1862]

"He who leaves this [Roman] See cannot hope to remain within the Church; he who eats of the lamb outside of it
has no part with God."

PIUS IX
[Encyclical Quartus supra, January 6, 1873, to the Armenians]

"He who abandons the Chair of Peter on which the Church is founded, is falsely persuaded that he is in the Church, since he is already a sinner and a schismatic who raises up a chair against the one Chair of Peter, from which flow to all others the sacred rights of communion."

PIUS IX
[Encyclical Etsi multa, November 21, 1873]

"The very first elements of Catholic doctrine teach that no one can be considered a legitimate bishop if he is not united by the communion of faith and charity with the Rock on which the Church of Christ is built, if he does not adhere to the Supreme Pastor to whom are confided all the sheep so that he may feed them, and if he is not bound to him who has the office of confirming his brethren who are in the world."

LEO XIII
[Letter Officio sanctissimo, December 22, 1887, to the Bishops of Bavaria]

"But he who in his manner of thinking and acting would separate himself from his shepherd and from his Sovereign Pastor, the Roman Pontiff, has no further bond with Christ: “He that heareth you, heareth me, he that despiseth you, despiseth me” (Luke X: 16). Whoever is estranged from Christ does not reap; he scatters."


PIUS XII
[Allocution to the Irish pilgrims, October 8, 1957]

"To be Christian one must be Roman; one must recognize the oneness of Christ’s Church, that is governed by one successor of the Prince of the Apostles, who is the Bishop of Rome, Christ’s Vicar on earth."

POPE ST. LEO THE GREAT
[Sermo CXXIX]

"Wherefore, since outside the Catholic Church there is nothing undefiled, the Apostle declaring that “all that is not of faith is sin,” we are in no way likened with those who are divided from the unity of the Body of Christ; we are joined in no communion."



I could post dozens more, but I hope you can see the difference.


There is simply no way an honest person can deny that the Church today practices what she has taught prior to Vatican II. It's undeniable. It has led to pluralism and indifferentism. It has distorted some of the most basic tenants of the Catholic faith.

These are not "changeable" practices. The Roman Catholic Church has taught these doctrines under the guise of infallibility from both her extraordinary magisterium and her ordinary universal magisterium. According to her own teachings, these are part of Divine law. And we have two magisteriums teaching two completely different things.


This would be classified as apostasy, and once again, by her own ordinary universal magisteriums teachings, these claimants of the chair of Peter would be ipso facto deposed of their office, i.e., they are false popes. This is not my opinion, this is what she herself has taught. I will elaborate on this later using what she herself has taught.

The RC has proven itself to not be what it claims to be through manifest contradictory statements of its supposedly infallible
magisterium. Anyone who is fair minded and not in some way emotionally attached to the RC Church will see this. Traditional and
conservative Roman Catholics will go through different but similarly incredible intellectual gymnastics trying to reconcile the
reality of the post VII church with the pre VII church. The sad thing is that they will try to believe two contradictory realities and/or beliefs
at the same time before they will reexamine their premises.

Much the same way the Byzantines and Romans treat their parallel theologies.  EC's can believe or not believe the IC, Purgatory, Filioque, Infallibility, Supremacy, Essence and Energies, etc. but is acceptable to Rome because they are in communion.  Sounds wacky but that the situation.

[Wandile]

Wandile, you seem to be arguing for a strictly binary "inside the Church" / "outside the Church" understanding, all the while employing Vatican II's formulation "perfect Communion" / "imperfect Communion." The latter implies some measure of belonging to the Church of Christ, does it not? Or is it just a curious way of saying the Orthodox illicitly appropriate the sacraments of the Catholic Church?

Its politics and ecumenism. They are saying the same thing. Its a way of saying a negative (being outside the church) thing positively ("imperfect communion) so as to not offend. Such is the ecumenical climate of today. Where once protestants were called heretics and Eastern Churches schismatics, they are now our "separated brethren"

[Cyrillic]

Wandile, you seem to be arguing for a strictly binary "inside the Church" / "outside the Church" understanding, all the while employing Vatican II's formulation "perfect Communion" / "imperfect Communion." The latter implies some measure of belonging to the Church of Christ, does it not? Or is it just a curious way of saying the Orthodox illicitly appropriate the sacraments of the Catholic Church?

Its politics and ecumenism. Its politics and ecumenism. They are saying the same thing. Its a way of saying a negative (being outside the church) thing positively ("imperfect communion) so as to not offend. Such is the ecumenical climate of today. Where once protestants were called heretics and Eastern Churches schismatics, they are now our "separated brethren"

I'd like to call it politeness.

[Mor Ephrem]

Wandile, you seem to be arguing for a strictly binary "inside the Church" / "outside the Church" understanding, all the while employing Vatican II's formulation "perfect Communion" / "imperfect Communion." The latter implies some measure of belonging to the Church of Christ, does it not? Or is it just a curious way of saying the Orthodox illicitly appropriate the sacraments of the Catholic Church?

Its politics and ecumenism. Its politics and ecumenism. They are saying the same thing. Its a way of saying a negative (being outside the church) thing positively ("imperfect communion) so as to not offend. Such is the ecumenical climate of today. Where once protestants were called heretics and Eastern Churches schismatics, they are now our "separated brethren"

I'd like to call it politeness.

If we are to believe Wandile and Xavier, it's simply lying, and lying of the worst kind.  After all, we are sinning mortally all the time just by going to church to celebrate the Liturgy and other sacraments, piling sacrilege upon sacrilege, and making ourselves even more worthy of hell than Protestants.  But they don't want to offend us lest we boycott St Peter's feast in Rome or fail to show up to promote Earth Day, so they call us separated brethren. 

[MalpanaGiwargis]

Wandile, you seem to be arguing for a strictly binary "inside the Church" / "outside the Church" understanding, all the while employing Vatican II's formulation "perfect Communion" / "imperfect Communion." The latter implies some measure of belonging to the Church of Christ, does it not? Or is it just a curious way of saying the Orthodox illicitly appropriate the sacraments of the Catholic Church?

Its politics and ecumenism. Its politics and ecumenism. They are saying the same thing. Its a way of saying a negative (being outside the church) thing positively ("imperfect communion) so as to not offend. Such is the ecumenical climate of today. Where once protestants were called heretics and Eastern Churches schismatics, they are now our "separated brethren"

I'd like to call it politeness.

If we are to believe Wandile and Xavier, it's simply lying, and lying of the worst kind.  After all, we are sinning mortally all the time just by going to church to celebrate the Liturgy and other sacraments, piling sacrilege upon sacrilege, and making ourselves even more worthy of hell than Protestants.  But they don't want to offend us lest we boycott St Peter's feast in Rome or fail to show up to promote Earth Day, so they call us separated brethren.

Yes, it's hard to take it any other way. Either the Catholic Church has changed its position, or it is prevaricating.

[Deacon Lance]

Wandile is correct, outside the Church, the Sacraments are valid but illicit.

Wandile was arguing they were inefficacious, which is wrong as well.

[Deacon Lance]

Wandile, you seem to be arguing for a strictly binary "inside the Church" / "outside the Church" understanding, all the while employing Vatican II's formulation "perfect Communion" / "imperfect Communion." The latter implies some measure of belonging to the Church of Christ, does it not? Or is it just a curious way of saying the Orthodox illicitly appropriate the sacraments of the Catholic Church?

Its politics and ecumenism. Its politics and ecumenism. They are saying the same thing. Its a way of saying a negative (being outside the church) thing positively ("imperfect communion) so as to not offend. Such is the ecumenical climate of today. Where once protestants were called heretics and Eastern Churches schismatics, they are now our "separated brethren"

I'd like to call it politeness.

If we are to believe Wandile and Xavier, it's simply lying, and lying of the worst kind.  After all, we are sinning mortally all the time just by going to church to celebrate the Liturgy and other sacraments, piling sacrilege upon sacrilege, and making ourselves even more worthy of hell than Protestants.  But they don't want to offend us lest we boycott St Peter's feast in Rome or fail to show up to promote Earth Day, so they call us separated brethren.

Yes, it's hard to take it any other way. Either the Catholic Church has changed its position, or it is prevaricating.

I would say it regained it sense and went back to its pre-Scholastic position.

[ialmisry]

Wandile, you seem to be arguing for a strictly binary "inside the Church" / "outside the Church" understanding, all the while employing Vatican II's formulation "perfect Communion" / "imperfect Communion." The latter implies some measure of belonging to the Church of Christ, does it not? Or is it just a curious way of saying the Orthodox illicitly appropriate the sacraments of the Catholic Church?

Its politics and ecumenism. Its politics and ecumenism. They are saying the same thing. Its a way of saying a negative (being outside the church) thing positively ("imperfect communion) so as to not offend. Such is the ecumenical climate of today. Where once protestants were called heretics and Eastern Churches schismatics, they are now our "separated brethren"

I'd like to call it politeness.

If we are to believe Wandile and Xavier, it's simply lying, and lying of the worst kind.  After all, we are sinning mortally all the time just by going to church to celebrate the Liturgy and other sacraments, piling sacrilege upon sacrilege, and making ourselves even more worthy of hell than Protestants.  But they don't want to offend us lest we boycott St Peter's feast in Rome or fail to show up to promote Earth Day, so they call us separated brethren.

Yes, it's hard to take it any other way. Either the Catholic Church has changed its position, or it is prevaricating.

oooh! Word of the day!

[Papist]

Wandile is correct, outside the Church, the Sacraments are valid but illicit.

Wandile was arguing they were inefficacious, which is wrong as well.

Yup

[LBK]

Wandile, you seem to be arguing for a strictly binary "inside the Church" / "outside the Church" understanding, all the while employing Vatican II's formulation "perfect Communion" / "imperfect Communion." The latter implies some measure of belonging to the Church of Christ, does it not? Or is it just a curious way of saying the Orthodox illicitly appropriate the sacraments of the Catholic Church?

Sounds like Wandile is saying it's possible to be a little bit pregnant ....

[Xavier]

Wandile was arguing they were inefficacious, which is wrong as well.

Well, Deacon Lance, they are efficacious conditional upon good faith and invincible ignorance, but not efficacious if one has stubbornly rejected the Church and set up a schism. Can any sacrament effect grace in one who obstinately started a schism? What do the Fathers say about that? Can you show me even one who says they are efficacious, I can show you several who say they are not. Do you think Patriarch Caerularius, who in 1054 A.D. had the Holy Eucharist trampled because it was consecrated in Azyme bread, (as Fr. Adrian Fortescue documents here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10273a.htm) received grace from the sacraments? Certainly, he did not, otherwise schism loses every meaning. His flock, who were not responsible for his errors, if they sought to do God's will and obey Christ as best they could, would not, however, share in his guilt and would receive grace themselves. Thus, the sacraments administered in a dissident community are efficacious conditional upon the good faith of those who receive.

Now, I'm aware the Popes, by contrast, have always followed and still follow a mild policy toward the faithful of these dissident particular Churches, of whom it is generally admitted the vast majority are in good faith. These persons are indeed in partial communion with the Church, before Vatican II, they were said to be incorporated in the Church in voto, or to belong to the soul of the Church. Today, they are said to be in partial communion, which is well and good. But that doesn't take anything away from the fact that schism is a terrible evil and individuals who make light of it, trivialize it, or are indifferent to it in the Church today do the cause of ecumenism no favors. What does ecumenism mean? Is it simply indifference to truth? Sure, it is kindness and understanding towards our separated brethren, acknowledging what is good in what they have preserved, but above all it is directed toward the restoration full ecclesial communion between the dissident Eastern Churches and the Apostolic See.  As defined by Pope St. Paul II, "ecumenism is directed precisely to making the partial communion existing between Christians grow towards full communion in truth and charity". The Apostle says, we are to speak the truth in love. Love without truth is mere sentimentalism. Truth without love is empty rigorism. The only prerequisites for ecumenical dialogue are sincerity, openness to truth and deeper understanding on both sides. The Church knows She alone possesses truth in its fullness while other Churches and communities possess it in part, the Orthodox in particular lacking very little.

Vatican II condemns what it calls irenicism, "It is, of course, essential that the doctrine should be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded. " and much of what passes for "ecumenism" today is really this false irenicism rejected by the Council. True ecumenism is unapologetic not only in defending those doctrines from Scripture and the Fathers all Christians have in common, such as the divinity of Christ or the fact of the Resurrection, or even only Churches of Apostolic origin retain, like the priesthood and the Eucharist, but also in particular those doctrines of which our separated brethren are still unaware. It is the duty of Catholics, in dialogue with other Christians, to show that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church and that the unity of Christians can only be promoted by the return of dissident Christians to that Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church that in the past they have unhappily become separated from. This is the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII,

"For care must be taken lest, in the so-called "irenic" spirit of today, through comparative study and the vain desire for a progressively closer mutual approach among the various professions of faith, Catholic doctrine-either in its; dogmas or in the truths which are connected with them-be so conformed or in a way adapted to the doctrines of dissident sects, that the purity of Catholic doctrine be impaired, or its genuine and certain meaning be obscured ...

Therefore the <whole> and <entire> Catholic doctrine is to be presented and explained: by no means is it permitted to pass over in silence or to veil in ambiguous terms the Catholic truth regarding the nature and way of justification, the constitution of the Church, the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and the only true union by the return of the dissidents to the one true Church of Christ. It should be made clear to them that, in returning to the Church, they will lose nothing of that good which by the grace of God has hitherto been implanted in them, but that it will rather be supplemented and completed by their return. However, one should not speak of this in such a way that they will imagine that in returning to the Church they are bringing to it something substantial which it has hitherto lacked. It will be necessary to say these things clearly and openly, first because it is the truth that they themselves are seeking, and moreover because outside the truth no true union can ever be attained."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFECUM.HTM

[Deacon Lance]

But we are talking about now not then.  My point stands.