Archbishop Vigano has been excommunicated

[Michael Wilson]

Melkite.

No, there are lots of good faith schismatics.  The goodness of one's intent may absolve them of culpability for their schism, if it is maintained ignorantly enough.  But it doesn't change the fact that they are schismatic.  A good faith SV is still in schism with the Church.

You cannot have both your Conciliar Church and its heretical ecclesiology (see above) and the traditional Ecclesiology. In the brave new Conciliar Church, the schismatics are in "close bonds" with the Catholic Church.

[Melkite]

Michael Wilson, there are a number of non-sequiturs in your reasoning.

[Michael Wilson]

Michael Wilson, there are a number of non-sequiturs in your reasoning.

Melkite,
this is a discussion forum; go ahead and point them out.

[Melkite]

Melkite,
this is a discussion forum; go ahead and point them out.

If you want to really submit to the Conciliar Popes, then you have to accept the teaching of the Council on Religious Liberty, which states that all men have the right not to be impeded in the practice of whatever religion they want; which means that all men have been given the right from God to be or not to be Catholics; therefore there is salvation outside the Catholic Church.

God gives all men free will.  Therefore, he has given men the right to be or not be Catholics.  But in so choosing to not be a part of the Catholic Church, they are choosing against their own salvation.  It does not follow that because God gave us the right to choose against the Church, that we can find salvation anywhere outside of it.

Secondly the Conciliar Church has stated that "the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using these (false religions) as a means of salvation. Which also means that there is more than one true Church and one doesn't have to be a Catholic to be saved; on the contrary.

God can and does use what partial truths exist in them to draw them to the fullness of truth that can be found in the Catholic Church alone.  Just as God may use a sinful man to bring about his will, he can use a fallen, false religion to draw someone to the right one.  It does not follow that because God used these false religions as a means of saving some, that their salvation was completed therein or that they could be saved without fully uniting themselves to the Church.

So these false sects are themselves used by the "Spirit of Christ" (The Holy Ghost) as means of salvation.
Well then, there is definitely salvation outside the Catholic Church. 

This is similar to the previous point.  Salvation itself is not outside of the Church.  Salvation comes from God.  He tells us that the Church is the only place we can find salvation, if we choose to seek it.  It does not follow from that that God is forbidden from using other means to save others; only that if we are to seek salvation, we are not to seek it elsewhere.  It does not follow that there is salvation outside of the Church.  However, God will save whom he will save, whether he does so within the formal walls of the Church or without.

[james03]

4. Pius XII in Mistici Corporis explained how some are only members of the Church in "votum" or by desire.
But he "shut down the idea" of a "invisible" or "spiritual" Church that was not the visible Catholic Church.

You also have Humani Generis:

27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith.

[Michael Wilson]

Melkite,

God gives all men free will.  Therefore, he has given men the right to be or not be Catholics.  But in so choosing to not be a part of the Catholic Church, they are choosing against their own salvation.  It does not follow that because God gave us the right to choose against the Church, that we can find salvation anywhere outside of it.

Gives men a free will in order that they may love Him and serve Him freely and not as puppets or robots. But men do not have a "right" to not love or disobey God. Liberals confuse "psychological liberty" i.e. Free will, or the capacity of a rational creature to choose the means to his end, and therefore being responsible for his actions, with "Moral Liberty" or the "rightness or sinfulness" of an action.
Man is a creature and is under the law of God, to seek God as his ultimate end and to order his life in  accordance with this end. God has given man a conscience in order to guide him to choose the good and reject the evil. If man chooses evil, he will be punished in this life by a guilty conscience and remorse and in eternity with Hell and damnation.
Those who refuse to obey God or God's Church here on Earth are in a state of sin and on the road to perdition.
Therefore declaring to men that they have the "right" not to practice the Catholic faith, is the equivalent of giving them the right to sin against God and to disobey His earthly representative, the Church. To their great spiritual harm and even eternal ruin.
 
Read Pope Leo XIII's Encyclical "Libertas Praestantissimum" here: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13liber.htm

God can and does use what partial truths exist in them to draw them to the fullness of truth that can be found in the Catholic Church alone.  Just as God may use a sinful man to bring about his will, he can use a fallen, false religion to draw someone to the right one.  It does not follow that because God used these false religions as a means of saving some, that their salvation was completed therein or that they could be saved without fully uniting themselves to the Church.

The Council stated that it these false religions "as such" which are used by the Holy Ghost to bring men to eternal salvation:
U.R. #3:

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Therefore these false sects "as such" are also means of salvation. While the Catholic Church always acknowledged the elements of truth and valid sacraments in false religions; it never attributed any of those to the religions themselves. Also, what is proper to these false sects is their errors; which means that they in themselves are a means of perdition, not salvation.

This is similar to the previous point.  Salvation itself is not outside of the Church.  Salvation comes from God.  He tells us that the Church is the only place we can find salvation, if we choose to seek it.  It does not follow from that that God is forbidden from using other means to save others; only that if we are to seek salvation, we are not to seek it elsewhere.  It does not follow that there is salvation outside of the Church.  However, God will save whom he will save, whether he does so within the formal walls of the Church or without.

God can use any means that He wills; but these false religions are not in themselves means of salvation, rather the contrary, they are an impediment to these means. Msgr. Lefebvre in his missionary work noted that the African Pagans lacked any formal religion, so they were easily converted; but where there was a formal religion in place, such as Mohamedanism or Protestantism, it was much more difficult to obtain conversions. The same could be said of any religion which isn't the Catholic Church.

[Michael Wilson]

You cannot have both your Conciliar Church and its heretical ecclesiology (see above) and the traditional Ecclesiology. In the brave new Conciliar Church, the schismatics are in "close bonds" with the Catholic Church.

This is also an important point; if these false religions are in very "close bonds" and "communion" with the Catholic Church, then one can remain in these and obtain salvation in and through them. The Balamand Agreement in fact stated publicly that the Catholic Church would refrain from trying to convert the members of the Eastern Schismatics to the true faith and therefore to obtain eternal salvation, which is perfectly logical given the new Ecclesiology of Vatican II:

22) Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox. It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church. Within these perspectives, so that there will no longer be room for mistrust and suspicion, it is necessary that there be reciprocal exchanges of information about various pastoral projects and that thus cooperation between bishops and all those with responsibilities in our Churches can be set in motion and develop.

[josh987654321]

for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope."
St. Catherine of Siena

Indeed... That is why despite their errors I try to be careful not to dishonor those such as Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI etc and they sadly did err... I felt the same toward Bergoglio early on... nevertheless, his cunning and heresies became way too much, which prompted me to look deeper... now I am confident enough to say that it doesn't matter what Bergoglio says and does now, good or bad it's too late (hence any bones he might throw my way as appeasement mean nothing to me) because I'm confident he is a usurper and therefore I owe him no such honor!

It is those who abused and deposed our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI who are guilty of this!

If I am wrong I will have to confess such dishonor... but I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Bergoglio is a usurper. Now if your wrong and you've pledged allegiance to a usurper? What then of the Ark you presume your in? 

"Our Lady of Victory, Ark of the New Covenant, Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, Pray for us."

God Bless

[Melkite]

Gives men a free will in order that they may love Him and serve Him freely and not as puppets or robots. But men do not have a "right" to not love or disobey God. Liberals confuse "psychological liberty" i.e. Free will, or the capacity of a rational creature to choose the means to his end, and therefore being responsible for his actions, with "Moral Liberty" or the "rightness or sinfulness" of an action.
Man is a creature and is under the law of God, to seek God as his ultimate end and to order his life in  accordance with this end. God has given man a conscience in order to guide him to choose the good and reject the evil. If man chooses evil, he will be punished in this life by a guilty conscience and remorse and in eternity with Hell and damnation.
Those who refuse to obey God or God's Church here on Earth are in a state of sin and on the road to perdition.
Therefore declaring to men that they have the "right" not to practice the Catholic faith, is the equivalent of giving them the right to sin against God and to disobey His earthly representative, the Church. To their great spiritual harm and even eternal ruin.

I think we're probably saying the same thing here but using different words.  If we have free will, but only the right to use it to make one choice, then it isn't truly free, and we do not avoid being robots in a sense.  Yes, we could make the wrong choice, but will necessitates choice, so if we are only "allowed" to choose one way, then we're not making a free choice, and thus an act of the will.

I would add that the right to choose evil does not give one the right to freedom of the consequences of that choice.
 

The Council stated that it these false religions "as such" which are used by the Holy Ghost to bring men to eternal salvation:
U.R. #3:

It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Therefore these false sects "as such" are also means of salvation. While the Catholic Church always acknowledged the elements of truth and valid sacraments in false religions; it never attributed any of those to the religions themselves. Also, what is proper to these false sects is their errors; which means that they in themselves are a means of perdition, not salvation.

I don't see the contradiction here that you do.  What you quoted from the council explicitly states that the means of salvation these other sects have, they have them because they came from the Catholic Church.  God has not instituted them independently in any other church but the Catholic one.  Yet God can still use them outside of the Church to bring about someone's salvation.  *Can*, not *does*.

God can use any means that He wills; but these false religions are not in themselves means of salvation,

Agreed, but the part of the council document you quoted says as much.

[Michael Wilson]

Melkite,
thank you; sometimes "it feels" like I am wasting my time here, and at other times I am certain of it.

I would add that the right to choose evil does not give one the right to freedom of the consequences of that choice.

the "right" to do something, is related to our duties; if one has the right to not worship God or to worship Him in a way that is contrary to His will, then one is fulfilling one's duty towards God.
Before you respond any further, go read Leo XIII's Encyclical.

[Melkite]

Melkite,
thank you; sometimes "it feels" like I am wasting my time here, and at other times I am certain of it.

I would add that the right to choose evil does not give one the right to freedom of the consequences of that choice.

the "right" to do something, is related to our duties; if one has the right to not worship God or to worship Him in a way that is contrary to His will, then one is fulfilling one's duty towards God.
Before you respond any further, go read Leo XIII's Encyclical.

Ok, I read it.  I agree with many of the individual points, but disagree with some of the conclusions he uses them to draw one towards.

As I mentioned previously, a right pertains to one's freedom to do this or that.  The encyclical even says that.  On things that do not pertain to Christian faith, and where sin is not involved, the Church leaves things up to human liberty.  We are free to choose one thing over the other.  Duties, on the other hand, pertain to our obligations.  If we are obligated to do something, we do not have any right not to do it.  This makes the connection between rights and duties somewhat nonsensical.  If I only have a right to do those things which I already must, what then does having a right add that is not covered by having a duty.

There certainly is *some* connection though.  I'll use the American electoral system as an example.  All Americans 18 years of age or older have the right to vote.  Many would say that those who can vote have a patriotic duty to do so, to participate in the democratic system to further the common good.  One may indeed have a duty to vote. And yet, they break no law if they choose not to, as is their right.  Likewise, one has a duty to give rightful worship to God and to obey his laws, but God gives each individual the right to either obey or disobey.  He doesn't give us license to disobey without suffering the consequences of our disobedience.  But he gives us the right to freely choose to obey or disobey.  And this is essentially the Catholic idea of freedom, as opposed to the American idea: we are enslaved to sin, but Christ gives us freedom from sin so that we are abke to choose rightly.  Without such freedom, it would be impossible to choose the Good.  But with that freedom comes the right to choose between doing what is right, or throwing ourselves back into the slavery we were rescued from.

[Michael Wilson]

 

Ok, I read it.  I agree with many of the individual point

You don't know how happy this makes me feel!

If we are obligated to do something, we do not have any right not to do it.  This makes the connection between rights and duties somewhat nonsensical.  If I only have a right to do those things which I already must, what then does having a right add that is not covered by having a duty.

Because my 'rights' cannot be licitly impeded by any authority. I have the right to worship God, therefore I cannot be lawfully prohibited from worshiping God.

kewise, one has a duty to give rightful worship to God and to obey his laws,I but God gives each individual the right to either obey or disobey.  He doesn't give us license to disobey without suffering the consequences of our disobedience.  But he gives us the right to freely choose to obey or disobey.  And this is essentially the Catholic idea of freedom, as opposed to the American idea: we are enslaved to sin, but Christ gives us freedom from sin so that we are able to choose rightly.  Without such freedom, it would be impossible to choose the Good. II But with that freedom comes the right to choose between doing what is right, or throwing ourselves back into the slavery we were rescued from.

Response to I:Rather God gives each man the "power" i.e. Free will to obey or disobey; just as he gave Adam and Eve the command "not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". He did not say: "You are free to eat or not to eat" but rather "do not eat". The same goes for all of the commandments.
Response to II: Not the "right" but the power; if we choose rightly we are using our free will for the purpose that God gave it to us i.e. To work out our salvation; if we use it wrongly, we are misusing or abusing of the gifts that God gave us. I'll give you and example; the power to reproduce: Humans have the power to reproduce, and the "right" to use this power only in the context of Holy Matrimony; any use of this power outside of marriage is an abuse of this power and a sin.