Where Is the Church From Before 1963?

This is the last installment of the series on the controversy with the advocates of 'unknown ways' of joining the Catholic Church such as implicit baptism of desire. Interestingly, the case for EENS turned out to depend on accepting one letter, Suprema haec sacra, of 1949, discussing the case of Fr. Feeney. I posted the exchange almost in full so as to demonstrate the difficulty of discussing the issue with the Catholics strongly committed to the Vatican II. I will post my comments on the exchange later, should time permit.

Peter Albert said...

PJP, you raised a very important question--where is the Church? Now, I suppose this is according to you a very simple question to answer, but it was not always so easy to answer, and I'll just bring up two historical cases when it was as difficult:

a) Athanasius vs. Arius

b) Great Western Schism.

In the first case, actually the Arian bishops ruled their dioceses and yet they lost their jurisdiction due to heresy.

In the second case, there were saints who supported in good faith papal claimants who later turned out to be antipopes.

Now, one lesson we might draw is that both issues were not seen at the time in the light they came to be seen by historians. So what were Catholics to do in those times? Use the means of salvation of the Church and convert the non-Catholics to the Catholic faith (again the Athanasian Creed comes in handy).

PJP, to close my position on the EENS, I'll just posit the following fact: lay Catholics are totally entitled to assert the truths of the faith that have been infallibly declared just as the necessity of holding the Catholic faith for salvation is. I could quote multiple councils and popes to show that by the time of the letter on the case of Fr. Feeney, Rome had spoken definitively and this documents does not change a bit of the teaching.If we are to continue the discussion, I have one condition--that we do not go off on tangents such as the Vatican II vs. pre-Vatican II teaching (for that reason I quoted the opening address of John XXIII who clearly denied the possibility that the council could change the meaning of the established dogma).

Let me end in the following way: imagine that the modernists would want to compromise on the dogma of immaculate conception of Blessed Virgin and would find that indeed Thomas Aquinas had denied that truth (when it was still not defined)--how would you react if not the way I reacted? Would you try to find all the ways in which this 'broader interpretation' could be accommodated or would you say, no, that's it, that's clearly outside the Catholic tradition?Peter

July 24, 2007 3:11 PM
PJP said...

Fair treatment, Peter? You aren’t giving yourself a fair treatment by quoting such things out of context, are you? Are you giving Vatican II fair treatment? Are you giving the Dimond Bros fair treatment? Baptism of desire? Ecumenical Councils? The Church? Christ’s promise that the gates of hell will never prevail?

First of all, you neglect many of the questions I have posed to you. I wonder why? What do you mean by “exclusive salvation”?

Second, what you accept of Suprema Haec Sacra supports the entire document as what “must be understood in that sense in which the Church [NOT Peter Albert] herself understands it.” Don’t you see what you’re doing? You taking what you want to read and not reading the entire context of what the Church teaches. This has led you to make false conclusions.

Furthermore, you quote a non-infallible theologian, Fr. Fenton, to tell you an authoritative document is not itself infallible. Well, that doesn’t make sense, does it? Are we as catholic ONLY to submit to those statements that carry an infallible character? Is that the traditional Catholic way?

All your other “traditional resources” (Haydoc, Most Holy Family Monastery, etc) carry no infallibility either, do they, Peter? No. You are relying on sources (for EENS that negate the foundation of EENS. What?) without looking to the foundation and fundamental source of EENS, the Catholic Church and HER way of understanding it. So it seems like you are contracting yourself.

You do not reply to the entirety of Unitatis Redintegratio no. 3? Why is that? You have also failed to answer my questions regarding the salvation of only those who are formal members of the Church. Peter, does one have to be in a Catholic pew to be saved? No, you simply say that I call the Dimond Bros. “dangerous.” Well, I say that because it is true. They wrench quotes out of context all the time, condemning Christ's vicars since Vatican II as apostates and heretics and you’ll be following their example, if you're not already, if you are not vigilant. Please beware. Do your homework and don't trust the Brothers Dimond. Yes, Peter, there is only one acceptable faith, and that is the Catholic faith. But there is extraordinary and ordinary means by which to come to such faith? Yet does faith alone save? No one is contending that here.

Peace, PJP

July 24, 2007 3:25 PM
Peter Albert said...

Dear PJP,I'm not calling for fair treatment, but frankly you are a second discussant who, after being presented with the evidence, exclaimed that the gates of hell have not prevailed and that he cannot accept that the Vatican II documents could contain error (although I had not advanced such an argument in the discussion).

Since you are a fellow Catholic by virtue of baptism and the sacraments, I don't just want to quit the discussion and instead respond with all sincerity.I have quoted extensively infallible statements of the popes from Leo to Pius XII to illustrate the concept of 'exclusive salvation' -- if you don't like the term, I'll settle for 'the necessity of holding the Catholic faith for salvation'.

Before you raised a number of issues dealing with the magisterium, permanence of the dogma and the boundaries of the church, I merely pointed out the main problem with Mr. Sungenis' alternative to the sacrament of baptism--namely the danger of staying in mortal sin when one does not have access to sacramental confession. It's a serious pastoral issue, and one that should concern us as Catholics as well--we cannot just stake everything on the perfect contrition.

PJP, Catholic faith is a POSITIVE system of theology and you have so far demonstrated a negation of a string of quotes from the Popes and Councils. Your only reference is the letter Suprema haec sacra, which, although authoritative (i.e. valid in the matter of discipline) is not a source of doctrine! For one, it was not addressed by the Pope to the entire Church with the purpose of teaching doctrine or morals. Hence, it had the authority of the Congregation yet it did not define doctrine, but merely it elucidated it. If it was not ex cathedra, error could creep in there. Haven't you heard, PJP, of the Popes who made theological errors in private? John XXII is one of them. (not John XXIII, but XXII, check it out for yourself). Vatican I does not provide for unlimited infallibility, as we know :) -- now that would be a stumbling block for the separated brethren, wouldn't it.

Why do you want me to discuss the interpretation of the Vatican II decrees and documents, if they are only being interpreted now, and John Paul II and Benedict XVI blamed all the liturgical and doctrinal abuse on the 'misunderstanding' of the Council. Sorry, my job was to alert to the danger of the idea of 'baptism of desire' which indeed goes all the way back to Augustine, Ambrose and Thomas Aquinas, but is not stated explicitly in a single ex cathedra papal statement. Did I say that Vatican II decrees and documents contain heresy? No, I didn't. Did I say that Vatican II has any bearing on the dogma that has been defined earlier? I believe the opposite since it can be shown that the necessity of holding the Catholic faith for salvation was established earlier, and the definition of a dogma cannot be made less strict (unlike the discipline)--see the Trinity--the subsequent councils developed, i.e. made more clear and explicit, the dogma, but never made it more ambiguous. The documents of Vatican II do not make the meaning more restrictive--rather allow for multiple interpretations. And we agree on the latter point. As a result, you should not blame me for opting for discussing the issue on the basis of the more restrictive statements since there are such statements in the deposit of the faith. It is really a methodological question and does not imply anything in the discussion on Vatican II.

July 24, 2007 3:50 PM
Peter Albert said...

One more issue, PJP.You keep on pressing me on giving a verdict as to who 'only' is saved. I responded earlier that while God wants to save all, and Jesus' redemption applies to all, not all apply the means of salvation! Moreover, I clearly made sure that I do not believe in the assurance of salvation the Calvinist way, and provided an entire passage of a very respectable spiritual work by Fr. Cochem in which he demonstrated the need to 'tremble' about our salvation. So we know that not all the Catholics in the pew are going to be saved.

However, you seem not to be satisfied with the answer. In that case, I must resort to a very important part of the Catholic theology--which is--mystery. Yes, indeed. The discussions between Thomists and Mollinists on predestination were never resolved and the Pope even put a stop to the debate.You seem to shift the debate from the question 'what saves'--the answer 'Catholic faith' to 'how can we know who is saved'.

The answer to this one is twofold: a. negative--wheat and tares--not all members of the visible Church will be saved, b. positive--we, the people, don't see the extent of the invisible Church, and only in heaven will we get a glimpse.

Having said all this, do you agree that the Holy Ghost brings good-willed people to the Catholic faith? And that God wills all the people to come to the Catholic Church? If you answer yes to both questions, I have no further argument.
Peter

July 24, 2007 4:03 PM
PJP said...

Peter

“I'll just posit the following fact: lay Catholics are totally entitled to assert the truths of the faith that have been infallibly declared just as the necessity of holding the Catholic faith for salvation is.”

Nice try, Peter, but we are only “totally entitled” as long as our understanding is consonant with what the Church teaches [Not what Bros Diamond or Peter Albert teaches]. We cannot have our own renditions of what a dogma means, holding to the Council of Florence as the only clear teaching on EENS, negating the Church’s understanding of her dogma. Again, there is an entire context and corpus of thought and we must see the way the Church understands EENS. You seem to bypass that corpus and hold to only a portion of it. That portion you quote from the Diamond Bros. I could quote multiple councils and popes to show that by the time of the letter on the case of Fr. Feeney, Rome had spoken definitively and this documents does not change a bit of the teaching.

I’m sure you could, Peter, but it doesn’t mean hill of beans if you hold to your present "only Florence and ex cathedra" take and refuse to submit to other “authoritative” documents.Peter this is not a race for who can quote more than the other. Don’t you see that? I have not “negated” what you have quoted by have stated that YOUR conclusions, based on your good quotes, are faulty.

You in fact negate: You “negate” baptism of desire/blood. You negate the teaching of Vatican II as authoritative. You negate the fact that we must submit to statements that do not fall under your/Diamond brothers discernment of what is “ex cathedra”. Btw, who are you to discern how much error there may be within a document that is not “ex cathedra”? You are the negating.

Of course, I agree that the Holy Spirit brings people to the Catholic Church and that God wills such return. Who would disagree with that? But again, the way that one is brought to Catholic faith goes beyond formal membership or participation in the formal act of reception of a sacrament, doesn’t it? Read Roman 2:14-16 again, Acts 10:44-48, Luke 23:42–43.

It seems like you’re pushing some stringent view of EENS which is not in accord with the entirety of Catholic thought, while “negating” other aspects of catholic thought that complement, not negate, the teaching of popes and councils that you bring forward.God bless,PJP

(...)

July 24, 2007 9:28 PM
Peter Albert said...

Dear PJP,This time I will quote you: "I’m sure you could, Peter, but it doesn’t mean hill of beans if you hold to your present "only Florence and ex cathedra" take and refuse to submit to other “authoritative” documents. Peter this is not a race for who can quote more than the other. Don’t you see that? I have not “negated” what you have quoted by have stated that YOUR conclusions, based on your good quotes, are faulty."

Since "it doesn't hill of beans" and you have "stated" that my conclusions based on my "good" quotes are "faulty", I understand that you have closed the discussion.I am sorry I took the title of your site too strictly (pun intended). It turned out that Mr. Sungenis' belief in an 'anonymous Christian' going back to Karl Rahner is more consonant with centuries of Catholic belief.

Actually, I don't hold this position against you. The issue here does not seem to be the use of sources or a form of argument... but with drawing any conclusions whatsoever from the fact that 'there was Catholic Church before 1963'.

I have not reviewed other discussions on your blog, but if the other discussions are handled as this one was--i.e. opponents are accused of dishonest use of sources and (incredibly for a blog that seemed to stress that 'there was Church before 1963) bashed for not submitting to A (single) document, then how are you going to help restore the Church? To what state?

The irony is that while I toiled to try to make myself understood and build an argument, you resorted to ad hominem shortcuts--such as 'whoever makes a link to the site of the Dimond Brothers is by definition wrong'. Well, I made a link to your blog as well as to anyone who seems to care to discuss the EENS.

You seem to have a zeal to defend the Catholic Church against people like myself, and yet you have not shown a single argument that would show why the strict interpretation of the EENS is less safe for salvation than the idea presented by Mr. Sungenis that there are 'unknown ways' in which people become Catholic even without knowing it.

PJP, I tried to show that Mr. Sungenis used sloppy argumentation and drew conclusions that discourage evangelisation--I rest my case.