tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post2596368543202614915..comments2024-03-28T20:30:10.681-04:00Comments on southern orders: THE DOCTRINE OF ECUMENISM EXPLAINED PROPERLY BY HOLY MOTHER CHURCHFr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-20584426771210262202012-08-30T22:06:28.424-04:002012-08-30T22:06:28.424-04:00Thank you, Fr. McD. I believe this is the first at...Thank you, Fr. McD. I believe this is the first attempt by anyone who posts here or on my own blog to take up my challenge and provide an actual effort (and an authoritative one at that) to reconcile one of the four troublesome VII statements with prior Catholic teaching. This is all that I have sought from anyone.<br /><br />Let’s see if the Responses solve the problem. According to Mystici corporis and Humani generis (e.g. Humani generis 27) the Mystical Body of Christ (which I’ll denote as A) is the Catholic Church (which I’ll denote as B) is the Mystical Body of Christ is the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ is the Catholic Church. In other words, there is a logical identity in the two terms; they are two terms for the same thing. A=B=A=B. Were we to construct a Venn diagram, there would be only one circle with two labels.<br /><br />In the following sentence, from the Responses, Cardinal Levada says exactly that.<br /><br />“Nevertheless, the word ‘subsists’ can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the ‘one’ Church); and this ‘one’ Church subsists in the Catholic Church.”<br /><br />It seems to me that if we take this one single sentence, the problem is completely solved. Game Over. Happy ending. The reason is that Cardinal Levada here essentially redefines “subsists” to mean “is.” (Of course, it depends on what the definition of “is” is, hehehe). This is something that lawyers and judges do all the time. You can call it “the constructive ‘is,’ ” if you like. <br /><br />Unfortunately, in the sentence immediately preceding the one just quoted, Cardinal Levada re-introduces the <i>exact same problem</i>: <br /><br />"It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them." <br /><br />All he’s done here is to substitute the term “is present and operative in” for the term “subsists in.” Is this not a direct refutation of A=B? Does it not introduce a tertium quid (“the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church”), which I'll call C, and to say that A<>B but that A=C? In Venn diagram terms doesn't there now <i>have</i> to be more than one circle--one for the Church of Christ and another for the Catholic Church?<br /><br />If the answer to these three questions is "yes," then what do we do with this sentence from Mystici Corporis 65: "We deplore and condemn the pernicious error of those who dream of an imaginary Church, a kind of society that finds its origin and growth in charity [i.e., C], to which, somewhat contemptuously, they oppose another, which they call juridical [i.e., B]."?<br /><br />And even tougher, what about this quotation from 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.”<br /><br />Bottom line: Humani generis 27—A=B (which I’ll denote as X). Responses—A<>B but A=C and C<>B. Which us back to ~(X & ~X).<br /><br />And he was <i>so</i> close.<br /><br />As always, I submit my comment to the judgment of the Magisterium. I also invite everyone to find any flaws in my logic. <br /><br />Hammer of Fascistshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08647227447212096501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-88128003580228623432012-08-30T15:44:37.730-04:002012-08-30T15:44:37.730-04:00I know several catechists who would likely scorn t...I know several catechists who would likely scorn these answers. That said, I am very happy to know that the official position is not "I'm OK, you're OK".<br /><br />Still, so long as (many) catechists fail to use--or perhaps even to read--the CCC, confusion will reign.William Meyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07461907300761131481noreply@blogger.com