I put this together a couple nights ago, and it's uncompleted. It's a thing in progress more than anything else, but then again, that's what threads are for, I suppose. I'll come back later to polish it up or get into more detail or whatnot. Hoping at least that the html tags are all closed properly.

All comments and opinions and reactions are welcome. People often refer to this letter, so it is worth a close examination. Let this be merely a beginning, then. But it's an important study for those who care. No doubt it's a mere platitude to mention that not many may care, but still, some do.

Text of the letter is in bold, all else not. Here goes:

From the Headquarters of the Holy Office, Aug. 8, 1949.

Your Excellency:

This Supreme Sacred Congregation has followed very attentively the rise and the course of the grave controversy stirred up by certain associates of "St. Benedict Center" and "Boston College" in regard to the interpretation of that axiom: "Outside the Church there is no salvation."

Note the use of the term Axiom. Words like these in philosophy and theology have very specific meanings. While up pretty far up there on word-wise in denoting unchangable or immutable principle, Axiom nevertheless falls short of being fully explicit: it isn't just an axiom, this "outside the Church, no salvation". It's an infallible dogma of the Catholic Church.

After having examined all the documents that are necessary or useful in this matter, among them information from your Chancery, as well as appeals and reports in which the associates of "St. Benedict Center" explain their opinions and complaints, and also many other documents pertinent to the controversy, officially collected, the same Sacred Congregation is convinced that the unfortunate controversy arose from the fact that the axiom, "outside the Church there is no salvation," was not correctly understood and weighed, and that the same controversy was rendered more bitter by serious disturbance of discipline arising from the fact that some of the associates of the institutions mentioned above refused reverence and obedience to legitimate authorities.

Two issues are raised: one is the charge that "outside the Church there is no salvation" was not being understood properly, as if some heresy were afoot. The other is a charge that disobedience or insubordination of some variety was afoot. The true heart of the discussion resides solely in a controversy concerning the first, the doctrinal element.

Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:

We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (, n. 1792).

True.

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

True, and well said. In fact, most of the first part of the letter is actually a very eloquent reiteration of Catholic dogma.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.

True.

Now, in the first place, the Church teaches that in this matter there is question of a most strict command of Jesus Christ. For He explicitly enjoined on His apostles to teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever He Himself had commanded (Matt. 28: 19-20).

True.

Now, among the commandments of Christ, that one holds not the least place by which we are commanded to be incorporated by baptism into the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, and to remain united to Christ and to His Vicar, through whom He Himself in a visible manner governs the Church on earth.

True.

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.

True. HOWEVER... you may notice something here. The way it is written, the reader is led to infer something that is not necessarily true. This is very unique to, and common in most post-conciliar documents; this particular text, obviously pre-council, is a forerunner of what's to come.

Here's what I mean. Let's take this statement on the face of it. Is it true as written? Absolutely.

But notice how it introduces the qualifer: "no one ... who knows". Without actually saying so, the reader is left to infer that ignorance exempts one from the truth of the statement. The reader automatically assumes this:

"If they know and don't submit to the Church, well then yeah, they can't be saved. But if they don't know, well, that must be different. They probably can be saved if they don't know."

But the statement didn't say that. The reader is merely left to infer this. This way, the one making the statement is in a certain sense held harmless. The fact of the matter is, ignorance doesn't exempt them. Why not? Very simple: ignorance does not remove Orginal Sin. Original sin has to be remedied. The sacrament of baptism does this. Ignorance doesn't. That's doctrine.

This is a classic example of the carefully crafted statements that have become so common in the modern Church. See how it isn't an untruth on the face of it, but how it leads the reader to infer something that cannot rightly be concluded without flying in the face of the known dogma of the Church. This can be easily pulled off; all one needs to do is to predicate the truth of a selective part instead of of the whole thing. Even though it's true for the whole thing, instead of just the part. This way, the reader assumes it is only true for the part, and not for the whole. Example:

Let's say you're standing in a line for a movie, for which it is known by all that a ticket is required for entry. People of all races are in the line. Somebody comes over the loudspeaker and says this:

"All Pacific Islanders not displaying a ticket will not be admitted into the movie."

Is the statement true? Well, yeah, sure. But automatically everybody of every other race is going to get it into their heads that maybe they don't really need a ticket. Maybe. True?

Probably not the best of analogies. I'll wrack my brains for another if that doesn't seem to work. But hopefully you see the point: people are immediately going to take the letter's above paragraph to mean that you're only capable of losing salvation only if you first have specific knowledge of the Church, and if you don't, you might have a chance with an ignorance plea. But nothing, nothing in world is going to mask over this reality: Original Sin. Ignorance or no ignorance, knowledge itself is not the determinate principle. Original Sin is the determinate principle. Not knowledge or the lack of it; nope.

Try another analogy; perhaps this will work: using the structure of the letter's sentence, but changing the subject:

"Therefore, no one will avoid being fined and penalized who, knowing they must pay taxes, nevertheless refuses to report income or withholds payment from the Federal Government."

Needless to say, ignorance won't work as an excuse in this example, though anyone is welcome to try. It won't work. But it sure looks like it could when you see it laid out in this manner.

"Not only did the Savior command that all nations should enter the Church, but He also decreed the Church to be a means of salvation without which no one can enter the kingdom of eternal glory."

True.

"In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807)."

But Trent didn't talk about just the effects, saying that only the effects were necessary. It said that the actual Sacraments themselves were necessary. Look what it says above: "not by intrinsic necessity". But intrinsic necessity is exactly what Trent predicates of the Sacraments. Check it out:

7th Session, Canon 1: "If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, or that there are more or less than seven, namely, baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order and matrimony, or that any one of these seven is not truly and intrinsically a sacrament, let him be anathema.

Truly and intrinsically a sacrament. And Trent declares their necessity. Same session, Canon 4:

"If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema."

The Holy Office letter also also mentions two Sacraments, baptism and confession, which differ from each in regards to the nature of their necessity. Theologically, baptism is a necessity of means and precept, while the sacrament of Penance is a necessity only of precept. The two Sacraments cannot be treated in a manner which would equate their nature of necessity. Look at session 7, canon 4 again. Take note of this fact first: Baptism is the entryway sacrament. No one can have any of the other sacraments unless they've been baptised first. Now the reason it says "though all are not necessary for each one" is because obviously, one does not need to be married, or have had the sacrament of matrimony, in order to enter the kingdom of God. Or they don't need to have been a priest. Or they didn't need to be confirmed.

Or maybe they don't need to go to confession! Maybe they have never committed a mortal sin since their baptism. Conceivable, and for some souls, a possible lifelong reality. Now of course the Church says that one must go at least once a year; very true. But the person who goes, while fulfilling a rightful precept of the Church in this regard, need not go into that confessional with a mortal sin on their soul in order to fulfill the Church's command, to be sure.

At any rate though, it may well be the case that, for all reasons other than the Church's once-a-year rule, that confession isn't a necessity, as one had not committed mortal sin.

Baptism differs: Baptism is absolutely necessary both as means and precept, as not all the others are necessary for each person in order to enter the Kingdom of God. Except, of course, Baptism. Necessary by both means, and precept.

This paragraph fails the distinction between baptism and confession. But where it really fails is in the statement that the sacraments are necessary in their effects only, and not by intrinsic necessity. What Trent is saying is that the Sacraments, though not all, are necessary by their very intrinsic nature.

The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

Look what it says. It says that you don't need to be incorporated into the Church to be saved. Pure and simple, it just said that. That's a denial of all the clear and concise reiterations found in the first couple paragraphs of the letter that were so well written, claiming that "outside the Church there is no salvation". It just wiped that all away right here.

What's more, it says they can be united to Her by desire or longing. But ignorance was cited as the excuse. Question: How is it that one can desire and long for something that they are supposed to be ignorant of? I suppose in some sense that's possible. But there is a conflict here. Desiring and longing, and being ignorant do not go hand in hand concerning the same object. Here is the conflict brought to the fore in the next paragraph:

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.

This is confused. The person is in invincible ignorance, yet has the wherewithall and presence of mind to want to be conformed to the will of God?

These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.

But what this letter is putting forth is most certainly is NOT clearly taught Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi. Anyone may wish to look it up and read it. Mystici Corporis Christi most clearly states the contrary, that the Catholic Church is synonymous with the Mystical Body of Christ... not that the Mystical Body of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, but that they are one and the same.

Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

Well... right. Of course that's right. The letter returned briefly at this point to tell the truth again, like it did in the first couple paragraphs of the letter.

Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who "are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire," and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church" (AAS, 1. c., p. 243). With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, , in , n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, , in , n. 1677).

The reason they cannot be sure of their salvation is because, unless they enter the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church before death, per the infallible declaration of Pope Eugene IV in a statement to the Univerals Church (not by private correspondence), they cannot be saved. That's Catholic doctrine, and that's what the pope was talking about in that encyclical when he said that. The letter twists his meaning to make it look like they are only less sure of their salvation than if they were in the Catholic Church. In other words: the letter is alluding to salvation outside the Church... it talks of it only in terms of being less certain than if the soul were in the Church. That still means only one thing of note: that there actually CAN be salvation outside the Church, which of course, is a complete repudiation of the doctrine of the Church which the letter upholds so outstandingly in the first couple paragraphs.

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).

Look at Trent, Session 7, Canon 8: "If anyone says that by the sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred ex opere operato, but that faith alone in the divine promise is sufficient to obtain grace, let him be anathema."

Oops.

Furthermore, the above paragraph plays upon the words of Pope Pius XII in referring to this phrase of his out of context:

"they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church." --Pius XII

The letter tries to render the Sacraments themselves as being the "helps" that Pope Pius XII was talking about. But Pius XII wasn't referring to the Sacraments. He would have been in violation of Trent 7, Canon 5:

Canon 5: "If anyone says that these sacraments have been instituted for the nourishment of faith alone, let him be anathema."

They're not just helps. They are necessities.

Note the key phrase used in the above paragraph from the letter: supernatural faith. This is where the letter leans on orthodox teaching by a thread. In order to qualify for this salvation outside the Church, one must have supernatural Faith, the letter says. But the Church has always taught: Supernatural Faith can only be found within the Church.

From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical , fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.

The case has not been made. Not by a long shot. What case has in fact been made, however, is the case for the very foundation of the new Ecumenism, whereby when followed through to its absurd conclusion, on finds that those who hold and practice the Faith are deemed outside it, and those who are outside it are deemed within it's fold. This letter sets the precedent, and the self-same style characterizes the formulation of later documents such as Lumen Gentium.

From these declarations which pertain to doctrine, certain conclusions follow which regard discipline and conduct, and which cannot be unknown to those who vigorously defend the necessity by which all are bound' of belonging to the true Church and of submitting to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and of the Bishops "whom the Holy Ghost has placed . . . to rule the Church" (Acts 20:28).

This letter and what it contains weren't declarations. It was a letter to an Archbishop. We all know the formula which represents a true declaration concerning faith and morals, which formula itself was declared to the universal Church in Vatican I, and had been always known and taught by the Universal Church before Vatican I. This letter does not at all meet the barest resemblence to an action of the Supreme Pontiff rendering an infallibly binding definition or declaration.

Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.

At this point, the letter ceases to discuss the doctrinal matter itself, and moves to disciplinary matters.

Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.

Again, this does not address the doctrinal matter itself, but delves into a matter of discipline.

Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "imprimatur," which is prescribed by the sacred canons.

Same thing here... not speaking here any more of the matter of the doctrine in question.

Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.

After having successfully blurred together a doctrinal matter and a disciplinary issue, this portion of the letter makes it appear as if "Rome has spoken" regarding a doctrinal matter which supposedly needs to be adhered to, which is pretty much this: that there really IS salvation outside the Church. This letter does not constitute Rome speaking definitively on the matter. Nor is there any salvation outside the Church.

Note that in the course of the letter, no heresy has been explicitly exposed. They never did nail Feeney on a any charge of heresy concerning anything at all, in the ultimate analysis. They only nailed him for disciplinary matters.

He never changed his mind. He simply kept believing the infallible dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church, without qualification. Later, they came to visit him. Without asking him to recant anything or accept any new intrepretation of the dogma of "outside the Church there is no salvation", they simply said that he was reconciled with the Church, and left. It was that abrupt.

They couldn't pin heresy charges on him, because he was guilty of no heresy at all in this matter, and they knew it. So they let him go. He died never changing his mind one iota, in full Communion with the Catholic Church.

But what is it that Catholics believe now? Any number of different things which lead them to believe that there is salvation outside the Church after all. When there really isn't.

Note that during the course of the entire letter, the specific error of Feeney is not cited. Rather, the bulk of the letter consists of a very adamate apologia for a new interpretation of an old dogma. It's less about a supposed error of Feeney's, and more to do with bolstering a theological proposal. When it does treat of Feeney directly, it treats not of a specific error of his, but rather, references to an obstinance of his part towards the theological proposals being made in the body of the letter.

In other words, he's in the way of a theological proposal. That's why obedience is concentrated upon, and why apologia is made for the new theological proposal, instead of really endeavoring to scope out the specific error of Fr. Feeney.

Note also that one of the chief grievances against Fr. Feeney ("...it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical...") has also been completely taken off the table since that time, interestingly enough, by the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

Can. 212 §3 They [Christ’s faithful] have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 24, 2005

Answers

Unbelievable. I actually closed all the tags. Holy smoke, I never thought that would happen.

-- Emerald (em@cox.net), January 24, 2005.

Congratulations! I know how hard that task is to accomplish! its why I usualy us emy Trademary {} Brackets for my comments in posts instad of the HTML Code. f I forget to close thatoff, the rest ofthe post remisn readable...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 24, 2005.

I would agree that outside the *church* (a called out body of believers) there is no salvation, because we are saved by being found in Christ. His body is made up of true believers who, by faith in Him, have been predestined as adopted children of God. Apart from God, we have no hope. Our hope is in Jesus Christ alone.

The point is that the "church" is not caught up in the Roman Catholic religion alone. We can be found universally within many different denominations.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 24, 2005.

I also find the repeated mention of the Roman Pontif and the Vicar of Christ to be misleading as Jesus never referenced any of that. Those are not teachings of the apostles either. These things evolved over time and are not binding by the true church of Jesus Christ. How could that papal throne be condoned by Jesus? It's a horrific and murderous seat begotten by barbaric means.

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 24, 2005.

that's an excellent critique, Emerald.

the point about "...no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ,...." is the ever present which locks Catholics into the Church, but obligates no-one to convert. it's almost illogical: it will be come 100% illogical in the age of full universalism to come.

i have in the past been tempted to spoof my local priest into thinking that i was going to convert to some protestant sect.... and to thank him for his ecumenical efforts that helped me see the light.

i'd never do it, it's just a mean thought that goes through my mind now and then....but i really do wonder what he'd say. i suspect that ecumenists have non-evangelisation pacts. maybe he'd trust the protestants to send me back home. who knows.

i also wonder if, going back to the letter, it was necessary to reference EENS. the principle at stake was actually the necessity of Baptism for Salvation. the Invincibly Ignorant not having been baptised. its actually a separate subject in that sense. whether or not EENS existed, the necessity of Baptism for Salvation would remain true, surely? the Reformers attacked the Sacraments and the Church anathemised their errors. the cards are on the table already.

so, i wonder if Trent is too clear on the point to argue against Feeney? that's how i'm feeling right now when reading the SSPX book.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 24, 2005.

Faith

trust me. go to your local Catholic Mass centre, just once. take a notepad and jot down each point made by the priest with which you disagree.

many priests (especially in their 50's or 60's) would agree to some extent with yr first post. you might even find some that are sympathetic to the second, though your choice of words is unfortunate.

i can assure you that the times they are a'changing.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 24, 2005.

Ian.,

What is unfortunate is the very clear history behind that throne. I am sorry if my wording offends--but have you ever looked into some of the history? What is offensive is the way in which some of these popes obtained that seat--and all in the name of our glorious Lord and Savior!! This seat was taken by armed force, mob violence and murder. How can that be ordained by God?

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 24, 2005.

What was Jesus' response when one of His disciples made the mistake of lifting his sword in defense of even Jesus Himself?

Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

Matt. 26:52-54

“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

-- (faith01@myway.com), January 24, 2005.

Emerald,

"...no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ,...."

the other point i would have made, had i not started goofing about, was that the word "know" is a strange one. "actual knowledge, constructive knowledge, what?

just about everyone who leaves the Church, whether for another religion or for atheism, no longer "knows" the Church as such. they can't, or they wouldn't leave.

IOW this is actually quite meaningless.

Faith,

i understand your views. if you want to argue about Church cruelty, start a thread and i'll be happy to give you my opinions.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 24, 2005.

Ahh 2,000 years of rules, positions, laws and like any other document which involves the human the devil is in the details.

However nice break down but I do have to raise a few points objectively. First off how come I always cringe when I see the words Boston College? hmmm!! As we know double talk became the language of V-II. (i.e.) write a position which each side will see or hear what they want.

CL: "The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church **actually as a member**, but it is necessary that at least he be **united to her by desire and longing.** "

CL: "These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are **actually incorporated into the Church** as members, and those who are **united to the Church only by desire.**"

EM: "Look what it says. It says that you don't need to be incorporated into the Church to be saved. Pure and simple, it just said that. That's a denial of all the clear and concise reiterations found in the first couple paragraphs of the letter that were so well written, claiming that "outside the Church there is no salvation". It just wiped that all away right here."

EM: "This is confused. The person is in invincible ignorance, yet has the wherewithall and presence of mind to want to be conformed to the will of God?"

EM: "Mystici Corporis Christi most clearly states the contrary, that the Catholic Church is synonymous with the Mystical Body of Christ... ***not that the Mystical Body of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, but that they are one and the same.***"

On your last statement you provided the detail which provides the justification to their position when you wrote "but that they are one and the same" Which is Absolutely correct the only problem is that one and the same is "Spiritually" So clearly both Pope Pius XII was correct in Mystici Corporis Christi and they are correct in using the phrase united to her by desire and longing.

To me this is an issue of seperating the Physical from the Spiritual sides. You can say that is wrong but here is why it IS correct at times. Jesus could care less about St. Peters sq, or St. Patricks Parish IN THE PHYSICAL because what he wants IS THE SPIRITUAL. you know as well as I do. Forget all the 2,000 years of details in writing. That IS the bottom line the Spiritual side of the person.

You wrote: "This is confused. The person is in invincible ignorance"-- -OK here is where this can be very VALID and justifiable.

Read some of these Anti-Catholic post, meet with some of the former Catholics (not just former but Still very devote Christians), talk to some protestants or non-denominals and you WILL find "invincible ignorance" deeply inbedded in them and often out of Fear. And what is Fear Ignorance in 99% of the cases (well maybe 98.9%) Genuine fear! and Genuine Ignorance! and NOTHING you can do will convince them otherwise until they come to understand in simple layman terms who and what the Catholic Church really is, and why we believe what we believe. Forget the Trents, V-I V-II, the Canons or anything other then Simple logical understandings of who, what and why we are and how and why they most likely were us at one time.

But here is the real kicker MANY of these people are very devoted to many of the teachings of Jesus Christ, however as you know they lack MANY of the Deeper teachings involved. So hopefully this answers the 2nd 1/2 of your statement "yet has the wherewithall and presence of mind to want to be conformed to the will of God" and ties it in with "united to her by desire and longing" and "and those who are united to the Church only by desire" So if Jesus Christ and the Church are one in the same and the people are sincerely devoted to Jesus can we rightfully turn our backs on them? I don't believe so.

Think about what really drove the Sanhedrin council to wanting to have Jesus removed-If you review the 7 deadly sins you will have your list of answers. I can assure you that this is NOT the time for the Church to follow their path towards Non-Catholics. And if you look around our country over the past 4 years who has brought back a higher level of Religion and morality back into the focus of the daily lives of Americans, it's been our little Brothers and Sisters in Christ that have banded together and picked up the slack while we continue to heal ourselves.

This is truely the time for US to be more like Nehemiah and do a nocturnal inspection of the walls and become the repairers of the broken walls. Because in a few months more movies will be out which will not put the Catholic Church in any form of a favorable light and will try to put a bigger wedge between the Catholics and Muslims and anyone else who wants to point to a physical grievance from several hundred years ago. And we know how Anti-Catholic and Anti-Christian media will spin that out of context. But as I stated in the other forum this does NOT mean that we would give up anything nor should we expect them to other then their "invincible ignorance" (of course in a gentle manner like a good crusade or something)

Allow me a few minutes to return to my foxhole before you launch your rebuttal Missiles.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 26, 2005.

"Allow me a few minutes to return to my foxhole before you launch your rebuttal Missiles."

lol! No worries. Too much work lately, too little sleep too. It may take a while to hash it out, but if I don't respond right away, it's cool. Take all the time in the world. Speak your mind.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), January 26, 2005.

Ian--

Sorry for this took longer to respond too then what I had hoped. In these 2 statements of yours, you have brought to light a very, very serious issue which most people fail to see or understand in regards to the Role of the Catholic Church in peoples/societies daily lives or more so used to play. So it makes it hard to address and deal with the problems because most don't understand the complexity of what has occurred and how to go back and undo it in an orderly manner. And this will actually help build the case for much of what the Traditional Catholics have held to in my eyes. And even to mentally deal with the multiple levels of these complexities can be truely exhausting until you go to the basics.

"so, is it right to re-cast Domga to favour the minority, when it will cause the majority of us sinners to make less use of the Sacraments? i think that has already happened - and there is a causal link. eg where have all the Confession lines gone? well, who needs Confession if we are all saved anyway. or have we all stopped sinning? that must be true because the lines for the Blessed Sacrament haven't got shorter."

"sorry, feel like i'm ranting. however, there is a serious point in there. if you forget Dogma for a moment [which you can't] and try to see the best way that the Church should move forward, you open your arms to non-Catholics yet endanger the position of existing Catholics. just a theory. sorry if i'm rambling."

The Catholic Church over the past 2,000 years understood the need to develope a single mindset of conditioning the human being, to be in the light of Jesus Christ, In doing so it recognized the need of developing cause and effect strategies. (i.e.) if a person must disclose his sins verbally and ask for forgiveness he will be much less likely to dwell on it, create a depression for himself but equally important he will be less inclined to repeat this sin over again, now if we remove the human confessor from the picture his guilt will most likely cause him to repeat it or become depressed and in his depression cause him to throw his arms up and say I'm screwed anyway might as well go have some more fun and sin more. And to do confessions properly it must be done in a private confessional.

In Short the Church became not only the Spiritual center for man but also the Doctor to many of mans problems. If we view each of the Sacraments as an additional step to that persons fuller commitment to God through the Catholic Church, each building upon the other to that fuller commitment. An equally important role were/are the portraits, statues previously displayed in the Churchs the right ones bring peace and comfort much more rapidly to the persons mind which helps them to focus on their Worship services. (i.e.) The Church Already understood the human mind.

So what happened? Easy the Church screwed up and allowed the Psychiatry industry in to help them to understand the changing dynamics of man in the course of todays world. As a result you have science trying to override God. So as a bi-product of that you arrive at the modern Church which are devoid of many of the basics that human benefits from. Creating an isolation of the human from the greater spirituality with God, isolation from other humans, less commitments to life long obligations of spouse, children (i.e.) Family, US, WE. And in turn he turns to the comfort of materalism (I, Me), leaving his obligations to be free, throwing away basic rules in order to find happiness. A continual path to personal destruction and seperation from God all while destroying or damaging the very lives he was entrusted with. And now he needs the Psychiatry industry to prescribe drugs to aid in his comfort, the comfort he was able to obtainly weekly for free and it stayed with him all or most of the week and even more so he was closer to God and God was part of his daily life and that of his family.

While the church can not turn it's back on science it must recognize that science as a whole takes the approach that if you can't touch, see, smell it or recreate it consistantly it is not valid. So how can Science claim to embrace Religion, God, the Spirit world? How can a mental health doctor understand or believe in a possession or a prophecy if he rejects the spirit world? Think about what science really is, it's reverse engineering to understand how God created something.

So how do we move forward? Start by moving backwards slightly, some of which is already occurring. Put the confessionals back in, gradually but over a short period of time Put the time tested Holy Pictures and Statues back into view. ( I suspect many churches still have them in the basements or attics of the Church). Take the Me's out of the church and Put God back in it, put the whole families and the We's and Us's back into it..

Here are a few links for you to give consideration to. IF you think this may be a topic of further interest, let me know and I will be happy to try and engage, but I will warn you now it CAN be mentally exhausting when you get into and start seeing the complexities of it not just at the church level but the educational system, industry... . Until you start at the basics and work it through. Also rantings ARE good they force the problems and solutions to the front of the mind so rant away.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12PSYRE.HTM ON PSYCHOTHERAPY AND RELIGION

http://www.psyche.gr/lpsycrel.htm

The Church and Psychiatry

http://www.americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm? articleTypeID=1&textID=1715&issueID=325

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), January 31, 2005.

Ian; sorry my friend. I've been into with others at other forums, and then being tired of it all, spent the rest of the weekend goofing off with the kids and stuff.

Promise: this week I'll try to keep all the reading promises.

-- Emerald (em@cox.net), January 31, 2005.

Michael G

i agree with you in what you say.

in fact, only today, i have been hearing about the demise of the traditional family - married couple plus kids.

statistics show that a child from a "broken home" is TWICE as likely to suffer various problems [abuse, educational etc] and TWICE as likely to run away from home.

therefore, the Church's opposition to divorce should actually "make sense" [to a secularist] because it creates significant impediments to the formation of broken homes. whilst there are many kids that have a happy childhood in a broken home, and many kids that are unhappy in a traditional family setting, the Church has provided the framework that works out best overall.

from Mystici Corporis Christi:

"For the social needs of the Church Christ has provided in a particular way by the institution of two other Sacraments. Through Matrimony, in which the contracting parties are ministers of grace to each other, provision is made for the external and duly regulated increase of Christian society, and, what is of greater importance, for the correct religious education of the children, without which this Mystical body would be in grave danger."

i'll read the links.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 02, 2005.

Emerald

thanks. look forward to a discussion.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 02, 2005.