Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, failed automatic excommunications, and the SSPX

[BillMcEnaney]

14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

Yes, this denies what Ratzinger says in Theological Highlights of Vatican II.  But remember Unitatis Redintegratio, UR, says the Holy Ghost uses non-Catholic religions as means of salvation. Suppose he does that. Then Protestants, Jews pagans, and the Eastern Orthodox watch Pope Francis's religiously indifferent ecumenical events and think they don't need to convert. On the one hand, Vatican II tells me that I can't be saved if I refuse to become a Catholic when I know the Catholic Church is the true one. On the other hand, UR and religiously indifferent ecumenism suggest a non-Catholic religion can get me to heaven. Either way, the modernists justify their ecumenism with Vatican II. Hypocrisy, anyone?

In Pascendi Dominici Gregis, St. Pius X warns that the modernists separate science and faith, "Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist." [/quote]
Vatican II and ecumenism keep non-Catholics  objectively outside the Church.

Sadly, if you turn enough pages in your printed copy of Vatican II's documents, you'll find a similar problem.  The modernists write orthodox theology on some pages before undermining it on others. They're like postmodernists who refuse to clarify what they tell you because they want to reinterpret it.

Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.

Many want unity, but religiously indifferent ecumenism can't cause it. That's why Pope Pius XI insists that:

10. So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it.

Dr. James Likoudis told me that lifelong Protestants don't need to return to the Catholic Church since they've never been Catholic. But they were in it after their sacramental baptisms if any. That means they left it after all.

Even interreligious marriage can mislead a Catholic. Some Catholic I love married Pentecostals, so those Catholics now believe the Blessed Sacrament merely represents Christ.

17. As the Son was sent by the Father,(131) so He too sent the Apostles, saying: "Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world".(132) The Church has received this solemn mandate of Christ to proclaim the saving truth from the apostles and must carry it out to the very ends of the earth.(133) Wherefore she makes the words of the Apostle her own: "Woe to me, if I do not preach the Gospel",(134) and continues unceasingly to send heralds of the Gospel until such time as the infant churches are fully established and can themselves continue the work of evangelizing. For the Church is compelled by the Holy Spirit to do her part that God's plan may be fully realized, whereby He has constituted Christ as the source of salvation for the whole world. By the proclamation of the Gospel she prepares her hearers to receive and profess the faith. She gives them the dispositions necessary for baptism, snatches them from the slavery of error and of idols and incorporates them in Christ so that through charity they may grow up into full maturity in Christ. Through her work, whatever good is in the minds and hearts of men, whatever good lies latent in the religious practices and cultures of diverse peoples, is not only saved from destruction but is also cleansed, raised up and perfected unto the glory of God, the confusion of the devil and the happiness of man. The obligation of spreading the faith is imposed on every disciple of Christ, according to his state.(21*) Although, however, all the faithful can baptize, the priest alone can complete the building up of the Body in the eucharistic sacrifice. Thus are fulfilled the words of God, spoken through His prophet: "From the rising of the sun until the going down thereof my name is great among the gentiles, and in every place a clean oblation is sacrificed and offered up in my name".(135)(22*) In this way the Church both prays and labors in order that the entire world may become the People of God, the Body of the Lord and the Temple of the Holy Spirit, and that in Christ, the Head of all, all honor and glory may be rendered to the Creator and Father of the Universe.

Popes don't preach the Gospel at Assisi meetings. Francis didn't preach it to the Amazonians. Pope John Paul scandalized Catholics when a pagan tried to expel a demon from him. Many Catholics may believe that Protestants preach it, too. But Protestants I meet seem to reduce it to something you can print on a matchbook cover because it goes like this:

Admit that you're a sinner. Accept Christ as your Lord and Saviour, and you'll go instantly to heaven when you die.

But here's part of Mortalium Animos.

9. These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment "Love one another," altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ's teaching: "If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you."[18] For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith. Who then can conceive a Christian Federation, the members of which retain each his own opinions and private judgment, even in matters which concern the object of faith, even though they be repugnant to the opinions of the rest? And in what manner, We ask, can men who follow contrary opinions, belong to one and the same Federation of the faithful? For example, those who affirm, and those who deny that sacred Tradition is a true fount of divine Revelation; those who hold that an ecclesiastical hierarchy, made up of bishops, priests and ministers, has been divinely constituted, and those who assert that it has been brought in little by little in accordance with the conditions of the time; those who adore Christ really present in the Most Holy Eucharist through that marvelous conversion of the bread and wine, which is called transubstantiation, and those who affirm that Christ is present only by faith or by the signification and virtue of the Sacrament; those who in the Eucharist recognize the nature both of a sacrament and of a sacrifice, and those who say that it is nothing more than the memorial or commemoration of the Lord's Supper; those who believe it to be good and useful to invoke by prayer the Saints reigning with Christ, especially Mary the Mother of God, and to venerate their images, and those who urge that such a veneration is not to be made use of, for it is contrary to the honor due to Jesus Christ, "the one mediator of God and men."[19] How so great a variety of opinions can make the way clear to effect the unity of the Church We know not; that unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith of Christians. But We do know that from this it is an easy step to the neglect of religion or indifferentism and to modernism, as they call it.

Still, we're supposed to believe UR when it teaches(?) that the Holy Ghost uses non-Catholic religions as means of salvation. Sure, you quoted a passage saying the Holy Ghost works among members of those sects. But that doesn't show that their sects are alternative means of salvation. Then again, some people might think those sects are exactly that if they read your post and the related part of UR.

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body, and with Him quickened to newness of life - that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation. We believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, in order to establish the one Body of Christ on earth to which all should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. This people of God, though still in its members liable to sin, is ever growing in Christ during its pilgrimage on earth, and is guided by God's gentle wisdom, according to His hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.

Again, religiously indifferent ecumenism tells non-Catholic religious people that their religions are good enough to get them to heaven.

Why do Pope Benedict's seemingly heterodox beliefs matter? He told Peter Seawald that  they haven't changed since Vatican II. Ignatius Press still sells his modernist books, including [Principles of Catholic Theology[/u], where he calls Gaudium et  Spes a "counter-syllabus" and An Introduction to Christianity that a bishop banned from his diocese because that book was "too liberal." Even if Benedict rejected his modernist opinions, they're still in print.

Granted, The Syllabus of Errors is non-infallible. But if Vatican II endorsed some beliefs Blessed Pius IX condemned, that makes Vatican II logically inconsistent with what the Church taught before it. If there's inconsistency, there's a rupture.

Joseph Ratzinger considers Gaudium et spes a 'counter-Syllabus' (traditioninaction.org)
A Tale of Two Cardinals | Garry Wills | The New York Review of Books (nybooks.com)

Justin, many wonder whether Vatican II is consistent with what came before it. I doubt that it is, but either way, the consistency question seems academic. That's because thecause the council(?) or misinterpretations of it still mislead people and endanger their salvation. So I think the Church should forget Vatican II and remember what can go wrong when worldly thought infests her. Since she is Christ's Mystical Body, Satan and his minions will persecute her most viciously. The don't need to pummel the sects that hard since Satan and the other fallen angels helped Protestants revolt.

The Eastern Orthodox faithful believe they belong to the true Church. But they splinter like Protestant sects, and the Russian Government controls the Russiam Orthodox sect.

[BillMcEnaney]

Justin hoped I'd cite a source showing that Pope Paul VI told Catholic countries not to mention Catholicism in their constitution. So I searched for an online proof. But I found only one supporting document, an Angelus Press book The Catechism of the Crisis by Fr. Matthias Gaudron, FSSPX. Fr. Gaudron writes:

Which Countries had to change their constitutions following Vatican II?

A characteristic example is that of Columbia. The population of this country was 98 percent Catholic, and the Catholic religion was the only one officially recognized by the Constitution. The president, reluctantly, had to yield to the pressure exerted by the Vatican in the name of the Council, and to change the Constitution, which was done on July 12, 1973. About the same time, the Protestant sects, financially supported by the United States, set out to conquer Latin America. Today, the country is overrun by those sects. Some towns have more Protestant temples than Catholic churches (Gaudron 84).

Does this remind you of sinfully excessive human respect?

Gaudron, Matthias, Fr. The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church. Kansas City: Angelus Press, 2010.

[Michael Wilson]

I did some research also; Spain changed its Constitution in 1965, allowing Religious Liberty, expressly at the request of the Vatican and in order "to bring it in line with the teaching of the Council"; Malta, also in 1967; the Catholic Canton of Le Valais in Switzerland in the 80's, which Msgr. Lefebvre mentions in his book "They have Uncrowned Him"; He also mentions in the same book the change in Colombia, which Msgr. Lefebvre witnessed himself when he was visiting his sister there; and even the President of the Country going on T.V. And telling the people that he was against the change, but he had bowed to the demands of the Vatican.

[Jmartyr]

I did some research also; Spain changed its Constitution in 1965, allowing Religious Liberty, expressly at the request of the Vatican and in order "to bring it in line with the teaching of the Council"; Malta, also in 1967; the Catholic Canton of Le Valais in Switzerland in the 80's, which Msgr. Lefebvre mentions in his book "They have Uncrowned Him"; He also mentions in the same book the change in Colombia, which Msgr. Lefebvre witnessed himself when he was visiting his sister there; and even the President of the Country going on T.V. And telling the people that he was against the change, but he had bowed to the demands of the Vatican.

Yes, I have read this book and can confirm what you are saying. What a comfort and a joy it was to read Father Michael Muller's book " Outside the Church There is Positively No Salvation" from the 1800's and see the same doctrine on religious liberty that Archbishop Lefebvre espoused and in contradiction of VII.

[Christus Rex]

Still, we're supposed to believe UR when it teaches(?) that the Holy Ghost uses non-Catholic religions as means of salvation. Sure, you quoted a passage saying the Holy Ghost works among members of those sects. But that doesn't show that their sects are alternative means of salvation.

Hi Bill,

I have a question for you: what is required for a chapel or church to be part of the Catholic Church? Or phrased differently, what makes a sect a "sect," rather than a part of the true Church?

[Michael Wilson]

Still, we're supposed to believe UR when it teaches(?) that the Holy Ghost uses non-Catholic religions as means of salvation. Sure, you quoted a passage saying the Holy Ghost works among members of those sects. But that doesn't show that their sects are alternative means of salvation.

Hi Bill,

I have a question for you: what is required for a chapel or church to be part of the Catholic Church? Or phrased differently, what makes a sect a "sect," rather than a part of the true Church?

First what are the conditions for being considered a member of the Church?
Pius XII in Mistici Corporis:

22. 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.

So to be considered a member of the Church one must: 1. Be baptized 2. Profess the true faith (Catholic faith of course) 3. Not have been separated from the Church by falling into heresy, schism or been separated by lawful authority.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent also tells us who is not a member of the Church:

Those who are not Members Of The Church

Hence there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church's pale: infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons. Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments. Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematised. Finally, excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.

[BillMcEnaney]

Still, we're supposed to believe UR when it teaches(?) that the Holy Ghost uses non-Catholic religions as means of salvation. Sure, you quoted a passage saying the Holy Ghost works among members of those sects. But that doesn't show that their sects are alternative means of salvation.

[quotw]Hi Bill,

I have a question for you: what is required for a chapel or church to be part of the Catholic Church? Or phrased differently, what makes a sect a "sect," rather than a part of the true Church?

Here's part of Google's definition of a sect: "a group that has separated from an established Church."  By that definition, each Protestant communion would be a sect. So would every Eastern Orthodox one.

If you're wondering whether the SSPX is a sect in that sense, I say it's not one because Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that the Society's canonically irregular status was an internal matter, suggesting that the SSPX is still a part of the Church. 

[Christus Rex]

Still, we're supposed to believe UR when it teaches(?) that the Holy Ghost uses non-Catholic religions as means of salvation. Sure, you quoted a passage saying the Holy Ghost works among members of those sects. But that doesn't show that their sects are alternative means of salvation.

[quotw]Hi Bill,

I have a question for you: what is required for a chapel or church to be part of the Catholic Church? Or phrased differently, what makes a sect a "sect," rather than a part of the true Church?

Here's part of Google's definition of a sect: "a group that has separated from an established Church."  By that definition, each Protestant communion would be a sect. So would every Eastern Orthodox one.

If you're wondering whether the SSPX is a sect in that sense, I say it's not one because Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that the Society's canonically irregular status was an internal matter, suggesting that the SSPX is still a part of the Church.

I didn't have the SPPX in mind.  I was thinking of the SSPV, the CMRI and the various groups of the Resistance.  Do you agree that these groups are all sects?

Regarding the SSPX, can you provide the quote from Ratzinger saying they are an internal matter of the Church?  I'd like to read it in context.   Thanks.

[BillMcEnaney]

Christus Rex, I'll look for the quotation. Meanwhile, I don't know whether to say sedevacantists form a sect. Many people say sedevacantists are schismatic. But how can someone be in formal schism when he believes honestly that St. Peter's chair is empty. If anything suggests sedevacantism, the current pontificate does. I'm not a sede. But I can see why sedes believe Francis is a papal imposter.

[Christus Rex]

Christus Rex, I'll look for the quotation. Meanwhile, I don't know whether to say sedevacantists form a sect. Many people say sedevacantists are schismatic. But how can someone be in formal schism when he believes honestly that St. Peter's chair is empty.

Because their subjective belief does not change objective reality.  If someone has been deceived into believing adultery is not a sin, the fact that they have been deceived will not excuse them from formal (mortal) sin if they cheat on their wife (or husband).

But setting aside the Pope question, sedevacantists are also in schism for leaving the Church and joining a non-Catholic sect.  Surely you agree that every sedevacantist chapel is a non-Catholic sect, right?  They are no different than the Old Catholics.   

[Baylee]

Christus Rex, I'll look for the quotation. Meanwhile, I don't know whether to say sedevacantists form a sect. Many people say sedevacantists are schismatic. But how can someone be in formal schism when he believes honestly that St. Peter's chair is empty.

Because their subjective belief does not change objective reality.  If someone has been deceived into believing adultery is not a sin, the fact that they have been deceived will not excuse them from formal (mortal) sin if they cheat on their wife (or husband).

But setting aside the Pope question, sedevacantists are also in schism for leaving the Church and joining a non-Catholic sect.  Surely you agree that every sedevacantist chapel is a non-Catholic sect, right?  They are no different than the Old Catholics.

Your comments are against the rules that sedevacantists are Catholic.

Once again, it is the anti-sede who brings up sedevacantism outside of the sub-forum.

[Michael Wilson]

C.R. Sounds an awful lot like JeffP

[Michael Wilson]

Here is an official document from the CDF authored by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, entitled: "Some aspects of the Church Understood As Communion"
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html
In which he states that the "Orthodox" are "In Communion" with the Catholic Church. If that is so, then so is the SSPX, the Sedes the Lutherans, Anabaptists and anyone else one can think of. Cardinal Ratzinger is only taking the false teaching of Vatican II in Lumen Gentium, which no longer exclusively identifies the Mystical Body of Christ with the Catholic Church; U.R. Redintegratio, which states that the "spirit of Christ does not refuse to use these (false religions) as a means of salvation"; and D.H. Which posits the right of every man to practice that faith which he thinks is the right one.

this communion exists especially with the Eastern orthodox Churches, which, though separated from the See of Peter, remain united to the Catholic Church by means of very close bonds, such as the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, and therefore merit the title of particular Churches(74). Indeed, "through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature"(75), for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present(76).

So to be "united to the Catholic Church by means of very close bonds"; one does not have to confess the Catholic faith or be subject to the Roman Pontiff and those bishops in union with him; in fact these false sects also merit the title of "particular Churches" (notice the use of Caps in the doc.); And further, the Church of God is built up and grows through these sect. And every valid celebration of the Eucharist the "one, holy catholic and apostolic Church' becomes present (notice the lack of caps).
So there we can now see if the SSPX or one of the other groups aformentioned is "united to the Catholic Church by means of very close bonds": 1. Valid Bishops? Check 2. Valid Eucharist? Check 3. Do they then merit the title of particular Churches? Check.
So throw out EENS, it is no longer a valid teaching.

[Christus Rex]

Here is an official document from the CDF authored by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, entitled: "Some aspects of the Church Understood As Communion"
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html
In which he states that the "Orthodox" are "In Communion" with the Catholic Church. If that is so, then so is the SSPX, the Sedes the Lutherans, Anabaptists and anyone else one can think of. Cardinal Ratzinger is only taking the false teaching of Vatican II in Lumen Gentium, which no longer exclusively identifies the Mystical Body of Christ with the Catholic Church; U.R. Redintegratio, which states that the "spirit of Christ does not refuse to use these (false religions) as a means of salvation"; and D.H. Which posits the right of every man to practice that faith which he thinks is the right one.

this communion exists especially with the Eastern orthodox Churches, which, though separated from the See of Peter, remain united to the Catholic Church by means of very close bonds, such as the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, and therefore merit the title of particular Churches(74). Indeed, "through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature"(75), for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present(76).

Here is the quote in context:

Among the non-Catholic Churches and Christian communities, there are indeed to be found many elements of the Church of Christ, which allow us, amid joy and hope, to acknowledge the existence of a certain communion, albeit imperfect(73).

This communion exists especially with the Eastern orthodox Churches, which, though separated from the See of Peter, remain united to the Catholic Church by means of very close bonds, such as the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, and therefore merit the title of particular Churches(74). Indeed, "through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature"(75), for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present(76).

Why did you leave off previous sentence, which clarifies that the communion that is being referred to is "a certain, albeit imperfect" communion? 

[Baylee]

Here is an official document from the CDF authored by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, entitled: "Some aspects of the Church Understood As Communion"
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html
In which he states that the "Orthodox" are "In Communion" with the Catholic Church. If that is so, then so is the SSPX, the Sedes the Lutherans, Anabaptists and anyone else one can think of. Cardinal Ratzinger is only taking the false teaching of Vatican II in Lumen Gentium, which no longer exclusively identifies the Mystical Body of Christ with the Catholic Church; U.R. Redintegratio, which states that the "spirit of Christ does not refuse to use these (false religions) as a means of salvation"; and D.H. Which posits the right of every man to practice that faith which he thinks is the right one.

this communion exists especially with the Eastern orthodox Churches, which, though separated from the See of Peter, remain united to the Catholic Church by means of very close bonds, such as the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, and therefore merit the title of particular Churches(74). Indeed, "through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature"(75), for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present(76).

Here is the quote in context:

Among the non-Catholic Churches and Christian communities, there are indeed to be found many elements of the Church of Christ, which allow us, amid joy and hope, to acknowledge the existence of a certain communion, albeit imperfect(73).

This communion exists especially with the Eastern orthodox Churches, which, though separated from the See of Peter, remain united to the Catholic Church by means of very close bonds, such as the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, and therefore merit the title of particular Churches(74). Indeed, "through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature"(75), for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present(76).

Why did you leave off previous sentence, which clarifies that the communion that is being referred to is "a certain, albeit imperfect" communion?

Imperfect communion? Where has the Catholic Church taught that there is imperfect communion with other churches prior to Vatican II?