It is currently Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:34 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
 Question about Protocol 122/49 
Author Message

Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 42
New post Question about Protocol 122/49
I just had one question about this document, and it has to do with this part:

Quote:
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.


Does this "knowing" mean, simply being aware of the fact that there is such a thing called the Catholic Church which makes this claim?

For example take any non-Catholic in New York City today who without doubt is aware of such a thing called the Catholic Church (even if it is in fact the Novus Ordo, which actually is not the Catholic Church, but you get it) which makes this claim.

Is this person considered as knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ?

I don't see how it could be otherwise. It seems to be Mark 16:16 in different words.

This is of course in Lumen Gentium and in the New "Catechism", but this destroys any idea of false ecumenism, and everything else the Novus Ordo is doing and what they believe in, so how is it possible that they put it in those two things?

Is it correct to say that this new religion, contradicts even itself, not just Catholicism?


Mon Aug 18, 2014 6:18 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 42
New post Re: Question about Protocol 122/49
1


Fri Aug 22, 2014 4:46 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Question about Protocol 122/49
It seems that many of the theological arguments I read on this and other forums (though, thankfully, they are fewer here than elsewhere) are about such minute issues or fine points that, it seems, the arguments are pointless. This, in my mind, is one of them. What, precisely, does "knowing" mean? I don't know. This is what I know:

Since the foundation of the Church:

1, The Church is commanded to teach all nations all that Christ commanded (Matt 28: 19-20).

2. Those who accept these teachings will be saved while those who do no will be condemned (Mark 16:16).

3. If someone claims to accepts the teachings of Christ but by their words and deeds clearly reject them (i.e., the schismatic or heretic) we are to judge their outward actions and drive them away, but if someone does not claim to accept the teachings of Christ, then God will judge them (Cor 5:11-13).

It seems obvious that if a person does not accept the teachings of Christ, then the injunction upon Christians in item one.

So the argument about whether a person knows what is necessary for salvation seems to be irrelevant in the whole scheme--at least as far as the average layman. We need not worry about whether a man knows, how God will judge his soul, or what, specifically, a person's culpability is for not knowing or for rejecting the teachings of Christ. Are we, by our example at least, teaching our neighbors what Christ commanded? Are we encouraging true conversion? Are we driving those schismatics and heretics who wish to pollute our souls with their lies and deceits from us (or do we continue to attend their churches, as in, for example, the Conciliar sect)?

Why are we so obsessed over the question whether a man who obeys the natural law in all things can be saved even if he does not specifically know what is required by Christ? Whose fault is it that he does not know? Who is culpable for his ignorance? It is clear that the number of people who actually obey the natural law in all things while not knowing Christ is exceedingly small. In history, we've heard of a few examples of such men, but they are so few as to not really be relevant to us today.

It is not as if the Church (even in this document) is suggesting that anyone can be saved if they are a reprobate as long as they are ignorant of Christ's commands to a certain degree. I just don't understand why this issue is so important to so many traditional Catholics. Obviously, the problem is that so many people wish to excuse everyone so that hell is (or may be) empty, but those who espouse that view are already condemned.

_________________
Daniel Peck, Indiana, United States


Sat Aug 23, 2014 12:09 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 42
New post Re: Question about Protocol 122/49
TKGS wrote:
It seems that many of the theological arguments I read on this and other forums (though, thankfully, they are fewer here than elsewhere) are about such minute issues or fine points that, it seems, the arguments are pointless. This, in my mind, is one of them.


Then you shouldn't have posted at all. Why did you?

I wasn't making any argument, but a simple inquiry.

What I see as pointless is your own post.

You see my post as pointless, I don't. Who's right? Well, no one, because this is subjective and what you may deem important, I may deem trifling and useless, and vice versa.

But you already knew that, so what's your deal?

Not only that but you even went ahead and delved into other tangents and issues which I didn't even mention and which had nothing to do with my post at all.


Sun Aug 24, 2014 2:19 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Question about Protocol 122/49
It doesn't appear that you really read or comprehended my reply, so, since you don't really care to consider my thoughts on the matter that doesn't seem to be generating much attention from other members either, I'll not bother you any further. If you want lots of talk on this, I suggest you post it on CathInfo.

_________________
Daniel Peck, Indiana, United States


Sun Aug 24, 2014 2:38 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post Re: Question about Protocol 122/49
You can't just pick out one word in a sentence and debate what it means. The rest of the sentence is very clear, and answers your question before it is even asked.

Quote:
...knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ...


Then you come along and ask what does "knowing" mean. Knowing that the Catholic Church exists? Of course not. It says "knowing that the Church to have been divinely established by Christ". What part of this don't you understand?


Sun Aug 24, 2014 3:45 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 42
New post Re: Question about Protocol 122/49
Geoff Tribbe wrote:
You can't just pick out one word in a sentence and debate what it means.


Why did you write "debate"?

I was simply asking about it.

Debate means: a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints; a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.

By using the word "debate" you misrepresent what I wrote. I was simply looking for information.

Geoff Tribbe wrote:
The rest of the sentence is very clear, and answers your question before it is even asked.

Quote:
...knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ...


Then you come along and ask what does "knowing" mean. Knowing that the Catholic Church exists? Of course not. It says "knowing that the Church to have been divinely established by Christ". What part of this don't you understand?


All i was wondering was if maybe this meant being convinced of this but "nevertheless refuse to submit to the Church or withhold obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.", or if simply being told by someone, "Hey the Catholic Church is the only divinely established Church, you need to join Her", and then refusing to right then and there, was enough.

You do know there is a difference between studying a matter, reaching a conclusion and being convinced of it, but rejecting it anyways for whatever reason, and with simply being aware of something but rejecting it without any consideration or at face value.


Sun Aug 24, 2014 4:17 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 42
New post Re: Question about Protocol 122/49
TKGS wrote:
It doesn't appear that you really read or comprehended my reply, so, since you don't really care to consider my thoughts on the matter that doesn't seem to be generating much attention from other members either, I'll not bother you any further. If you want lots of talk on this, I suggest you post it on CathInfo.


I did read it, and the tangents i referred to where thing like this:

Quote:
Why are we so obsessed over the question whether a man who obeys the natural law in all things can be saved even if he does not specifically know what is required by Christ? Whose fault is it that he does not know? Who is culpable for his ignorance?


So with my simply question I am labelled "obssessed" over these things which I didn't even mention, and which you have no way of knowing one way or the other if in fact I am obssessed over.

Another tangent:

Quote:
It is not as if the Church (even in this document) is suggesting that anyone can be saved if they are a reprobate as long as they are ignorant of Christ's commands to a certain degree. I just don't understand why this issue is so important to so many traditional Catholics.


Now the "why is this issue is so important" lament is brought in.

I could say the same thing about Sedevacantism, or any other hot topic of today.

"Why is this issue so important. Who cares. Just live your life and let things be."


Sun Aug 24, 2014 4:29 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 9:49 am
Posts: 29
New post Re: Question about Protocol 122/49
Iugiter wrote:
I just had one question about this document, and it has to do with this part:

Quote:
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.


Does this "knowing" mean, simply being aware of the fact that there is such a thing called the Catholic Church which makes this claim?


No. The “knowing” cannot be in connection with the knowledge of the existence of the Catholic Church and her claim that She is divinely established by Christ, but, as the context shows, the knowledge that She is divinely established by Christ.

Iugiter wrote:
For example take any non-Catholic in New York City today who without doubt is aware of such a thing called the Catholic Church (even if it is in fact the Novus Ordo, which actually is not the Catholic Church, but you get it) which makes this claim.

Is this person considered as knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ?


No. This person could only be considered to be merely aware of the claim, not to be aware of the truth of the claim.


Sun Aug 24, 2014 10:25 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:53 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Ohio, USA
New post Re: Question about Protocol 122/49
Quote:
Debate means: a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints; a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.


There you go again. What part of "a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints...." wouldn't fit what goes on here? You have some sort of selective vision that leaves holes in your comprehension, and allows you to jump into the holes and start piling up barricades.

Again, the statement if very clear: one must accept the true Faith and act upon it. Any form of refusal to act consists of a non-acceptance in some form. Now you're going to argue that the words "acceptance" and "acting" are not in the words quoted. To argue that way mocks everyday common sense, context, and the intelligence of the audience.

One of the Six Sins against the Holy Ghost is "impugning the known truth". If one knows (in your sense of the word) about it, mentally accepts it, and out of some perversity refuses to act upon it would be a clear example of such a sin. The rest of Catholic teaching supports and adds context to the statement you quote. That is the way you must judge it, if you are a bit confused.


Sun Aug 24, 2014 8:50 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pm
Posts: 210
New post Re: Question about Protocol 122/49
Maybe I am misunderstanding you Iugiter, but my reading from what you have said. It seems to me that what you are trying to get at, is whether this document is even applicable in the West (and most of the known world at the moment) where the presence of the Church is such that it would be impossible not to have ever been aware of the Catholic claim to being Divinely established by Jesus Christ.

There are so many different false religions, if it were not that each one by the fact that they are "different" in some point of doctrine is significant enough to form another false religion. I.e. by the very fact that there is a Catholic Church, and it is not a Protestant false Church, it is making a truth claim. It would be impossible even for the most liberal false religions out there, not to make some sort of truth claim, even in their non-dogmatist stance they are being dogmatic about there being no such thing as objective truth.

So that a cursory knowledge of the existence of the Catholic Church and her religious head the Pope. In my opinion should be more then sufficient for some to know that the CC is Divinely established by Jesus Christ or in their eyes makes that claim. Even a simple man without any knowledge can be able to make the connection, if they have ever heard of anything about the Catholic Church, is that it makes extraordinary claims and for a very long time even influenced to the greatest degrees the laws of the State to fit according to this truth claim. The extent and breach of the Church is so broad that to have never come into contact with her, would require to live in an island populated by no one. The Christian claim is the most unique because it makes a claim that it is the truth above all other claims to truth everyone understands this. Even a cursory knowledge of any Christian sects, will demonstrate to someone that even Christian sects all make a claim to be established by Jesus Christ so it would logically follow that the Catholic Church is no different especially when she is the oldest of all other Churches. If they wouldn't believe that they were established by Jesus Christ, then they would not claim the name of "Christian" which by a very basic definition means a follower of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

So to sum it up, even a basic cursory knowledge of the Catholic Church is sufficient to know the claim that she is established by Our Lord Jesus Christ. The only people who of course will not have any knowledge of the Catholic Church, are those who live in extremely remote areas that have never traveled 20 miles farter from their home and who are completely self-sufficient small village, they would be the equivalent of the Native American in some way, but even with Native's we have instances where God sent some religious through bi-location teaching them the faith (take Presidio, Texas for example I have been to that Church where the natives knew the Catholic faith before any Missionaries were sent there). Anyone who rejects this, of course will go to hell, if by the end of their life they don't change their mind. Any deeper reading of this, would really violate the true meaning of BOD and BOB which is what this document is trying to illustrate. I think way too many people give too much credence to a lot of the theological speculation that goes directly against a simple and literal understanding of Cantate Domino etc... They also try to make St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, St. Bellarmine and all the other eminent holy teachers stretch BOD && BOB to every single false religion. Not even ONE of them, when speculating on this issue ever talk about false religions all of them were strictly talking about those who desire baptism, and externally profess the Catholic faith (ergo a Catechumen, or in rare cases people who at their death bed profess the faith at the end of their life).

The opinion of the Church is quite clear, those who are not catechumens/believers (with supernatural faith) and are not baptized, if they lived just lives cannot be saved, but can go in potentio, given all the right conditions, to Limbo. Since if they never mortally sinned, they are not deserving of the fires of Hell, even though Limbo is a part of Hell, but without the suffering + natural state of bliss.

The reason why this is so important to so many traditionalists TKGS, is because they truly see how BOB & BOD is perverted in many ways. Just think of the speeches given by +Lefebvre, +Fellay, +Dolan etc... Who talk about the good Hinduh who is going to heaven, without ever for one instant having any faith in Jesus Christ. It seems like everybody thinks that invincible ignorance equals B.O.D., but many forget the important thing mentioned in this letter as to what this "implicit desire" means:
Quote:
But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith: "For he who comes to God must believe that God exists and is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). The Council of Trent declares (Session VI, chap. 8): "Faith is the beginning of man's salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and attain to the fellowship of His children" (Denzinger, n. 801).
So this very desire would lead the soul before its death to supernatural faith, and the only way that can happen is through knowledge of Jesus Christ. "Without faith it is impossible to please God" as Holy writ writes, and he who believeth not shall be condemned... What ends up happening then, is people interpret through their personal lenses, and start including things that were never said in the document. So that they end up making their own theology, based on one or two words. The sort of truth's that will be necessary at this point, if they are in their deathbed will be the most rudimentary doctrines. I would venture to speculate that Divine Wisdom to these good souls might even send an Angel to teach them the truth, if no people can be found. I know a gentleman myself who had a stroke in the middle of the desert that led to paralysis and for nearly 3 days he was just there without water, or food. Then someone came and helped him get to the hospital, and it was then that the truth of the Catholic Church hit him almost as if the thought was inserted in his head (how he explained it to me). He led a very sinful life before, and he with the little time left on the clock used every single second to praise God. Shortly after that he was baptized and he died shortly afterwards (few months later), with a rosary in his hand (which he prayed 20-25 decades daily, among many other pious practices). I was the last man to see him before he died, and we saw together the film about the Carthusian monks "Into Great Silence." We prayed a rosary and then I left home, I knew that his days were short. Don't led the word "implicit" somehow translate into a simple yearning, the sort of desire that is spoken of is a true desire that leads to real supernatural faith. Not some sort of heretical Rahner "anonymous Christian", I hope that helps clear things up a bit.

So when they see Most Holy Family Monastery & company preach against it (BOB & BOD). They find willing ears, because they see that some people think that any yearning for truth is sufficient to save you. Almost ALL traditionalist I have ever met, almost without exception believe this sort of non-sense. You see this manifested in many ways, such as someone giving a non-Catholic a scapular and thinking that it will save them "so long as it touches their skin." Heck, even in my nuclear family I see this sort of thinking, I call it wishful thinking. It is a complete ignorance in the faith, and this has been unfortunately been our sort of thinking because everyone thinks that sentimental Jesus meek and humble of heart can never damn souls to hell. This is why the important clause is included, "IF BY THE END OF THEIR LIFE, they are not converted." You can see manifestations of their clear rejection of EENS, of people who pray for people who clearly in the external forum died with first hand witnesses, sometimes even video taped of their last moments in life as reprobate unrepentent heretics. YET, they (traditional Catholics) will still include them in their prayers, "because they don't know for sure if they are saved." Reminds me Dr. David White having a chat with the famous atheist Christopher Hitchens (famous anti-theist apologist, British) and the host asked him a question (Dr. David White), whether he would say that if Christopher Hitchens were not to be converted by the end of his life, remain an atheist go to hell as a result of it. Now let me remind you, that Dr. David White is a traditionalist who wrote even a book of +Bishop Lefebvre and should know better. What he answered was that, he did not know whether he would go to hell. Despite the fact that the host clearly hypothetically said that he remained obstinate as an atheist to the end... This is the sort of stuff that is CLEARLY a violation of Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus, but no one considers it a big deal. Even Christopher Hitchens in the interview completely destroyed him, saying that what he is saying is not proper Catholic teaching :lol: . Sometimes it takes the faithless man to remind the believer of what he really should believe! This is sometimes the sort of doctrinal hypocrisy that [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOAaufREP38[/youtube] MHFM picks up. Note I know that you don't like me linking their videos, but I am simply trying to demonstrate my point that Igitur's concerns are not unfounded and this is where I would rightly agree with them to a limited degree. What is somewhat ironic, is that many of these same individuals are willing to grant near universal salvation possibilities to everyone, except the Sedevacantist who will burn in hell no matter what, unless they recognize these apostate anti-Popes as Vicar's of Christ. You especially see this sort of attitude in the neo-Catholic Conciliarist apologists of the Vatican II sect. The only people in Hell that Wojtyla and the modernist believe in, are believing Catholics. :lol: Go figure...

_________________
Laudare, Benedicere et predicare...
Bitcoin donations: 15aKZ5oPzRWVubqgSceK6DifzwtzJ6MRpv


Mon Sep 08, 2014 9:36 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.