Music

[MichaelFilo]

Then please, do the honors. Explain what it means to be "in communion" and then "imperfect communion". If you are to claim that the former means that they are like any other Catholic, they are "in the house", then you could easily extend that to the Eastern Rites... and so the popes were wrong, since that is what some of them referred to when saying they were not "in the house". However, even VII doesn't claim that. They are in [b]imperfect communion[/b]. They are not part of the Church in the sense as to be part of the flock. That is the True Church. Neither are they liars (because of their own fault) and are still baptized like you and me. That does not mean that they are in full communion with the Church, and it does not mean that they are some how united because of their ignorance to being seperated. They are STILL seperated. Their worship still falls outside of that of the Church. They are therefore, still oustide of the house. Their worship, still displeasing. God wished his Churchses to be united, and he showed this on the night of the Passion. If they (even if to no fault of their own) are not united (in a full communion, that is, in a manner that the Lord prayed for) with the Catholic Church, they are still not pleasing God with their worship, since it disobeys Him.

To give a parallel. God is not pleased with the Protestant who converts a Catholic because the Protestant felt that the Catholic was steeped in lies and so he went to convert the Catholic (even if all along the Protestant thinks he is right). Ignorance may leave room for salvation, and imperfect communion might even provide that much. It does not mean that the Protestant is anymore right, and it does not make his worship pleasing to God.

God bless,
Mikey

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 10 2005, 12:16 AM'] If you are to claim that the former means that they are like any other Catholic, they are "in the house", then you could easily extend that to the Eastern Rites... and so the popes were wrong, since that is what some of them referred to when saying they were not "in the house". [/quote]
The eastern rites are part of the Catholic Church. The orthodox are not.

[Jaime]

[quote] Then please, do the honors[/quote]

Honestly Michael I don't understand the animosity.

Are Protestants in union with the Church? Yes. Therefore salvation is possible. Are they in perfect union? No they are separated to a degree. But you want to make it an all or nothing statement. If you want to then the bottom line is they are a part of the Church.

If you look at it from a broader "shades of gray" perspective, then they have a ways to go. (Incidentally we do to until we live like the saints)

Here's an analogy that might help you understand this better.

You yourself are in high school. Let's say there are 400 kids in your class. Some are going to be honor students. Some will get decent grades. Some will barely squeak by and some will fail.

The honor students will graduate with the fullest understanding of their education and will be the best prepared for the next step (like college).

The students who get decent grades are getting less than the full understanding from their education. They will have to make up for that in the next step they take.

And so on.

The ones who barely squeak by still graduate right? But they need to do the most work to comprehend all that the honor student already has acheived.

While it is a poor analogy, there are parts that work. Catholicism holds the fullness of the Truth. When we take full advantage of the teachings, we are preparing ourselves for the next world. Protestants hold part of the truth. Does that mean that eventually they don't have to learn it all? No. None of us are free from learning the fullness of the Truth.

But just as the kid in your class that is barely squeaking by, he's still getting some knowledge. He may not have mastered it. But he has got some.

So let's say this kid is your best friend. You love him like a brother. You're the honor student and he's squeaking by. What do you do? Do you write him off and say " You just don't get it!"?

Or do you work with him and try to help him understand what you have figured out?

The Protestant is our best friend.

This is what is meant by [b] and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection.[/b]

We embrace them as brothers so that they may learn the fullness of the Truth.

Edited May 10, 2005 by jaime

[MichaelFilo]

To Cmom, I should specifiy, the Eastern Rites that fell into schism.

To you Jamie, this isn't about animosity. If what I wanted were to change the Church's position, I should want nothing, beacuse I am falliable. However, constant tradition teaches that outside of the Church, there is no salvation. A heretics has seperated himself from the Church (that is what schism means, and all heretics are in schism (Aquanis for that tidbit)). If a heretics has seperated himself from the Church, and is doomed to Hell unless he convert, then how do you suppose someone born where the heretic left off, in schism and having left the Church, is somehow instantly where the heretic started, a Catholic? I have always stood by this reasoning "it isn't what Vatican II teaches that is wrong, it is the modernist who takes it to mean what he wishes" when it comes to such small but important things. If the Church declares that an imperfect communion is suffecient to allow salvatiion to even a heretic and a schismatic, then I am bound to obey it. However, She does not state they are in perfect communion, that is, in unity with the Church. That means they are NOT keeping in the unity asked by the Lord. The popes have spoken, claiming that none outside of the full unity of the Catholic Church (that is "in the house") can please God with their worship. If this were about salvation, we would have agreed a while back that Augustine was truely correct when he said when Rome speaks, the matter is closed. However, we are not talking about that (which your analogy would seem to convey), but instead on their worship. I cannot reject the popes, not contradicted by Vatican II, and believe what I will. That is being a "cafeteria Catholic" as is the norm to sling at liberals around these parts.

God bless,
Mikey

[Cam42]

[quote]Are Protestants in union with the Church? Yes.[/quote]

No, they are not. They are separated from us in a very real way. What does the Church teach about unity?

[quote]What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity "binds everything together in perfect harmony." But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:

- profession of one faith received from the Apostles;

-common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;

- apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God's family.  (CCC 815)[/quote]

How many of those unitive actions do the Protestants ascribe? The answer 1. Not very convincing.

We cannot ascribe culpability though. The Church teaches also:
[quote]"However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."[/quote]

They are brethren, but they are separated. They are not in union. We are to respect them as humans, but we are not to ascribe those things that are inherently Catholic to them.

[quote]How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. (CCC 846)[/quote]

The Church is necessary. We know this.

Incidentally, why are Protestants called Protestants? Because they are protesting the Church. They create disunity by their protestations. They are breaking the bonds of unity by their affirmation of those things contrary to the Church.

In the end, we all see two things. 1. Protestants are not in union with the Church, because they are heretical in teaching. They deny the basic tenents of the Church, just as the Orthodox do. Just as the schismatics do. 2. Protestants living today are not culpable for their state. Why? Because they through no fault of their own have not had the proper catechesis. So, we should accept them as Christian, but evangelize and catechize them, so that they may enter into union with the Catholic Church once again.

Cam

N.B. Mikey follow this line, it is a better track to follow.

[Jaime]

actually we are speaking about their music. And as the Church has said, their praise can bear some fruit.

I'm guessing (on the rest) that since I have been stating only doctrine, you are in agreement with me.

Unless you feel that I am misrepresenting Church teachings.

[Cam42]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='May 9 2005, 11:43 PM'] actually we are speaking about their music. And as the Church has said, their praise can bear some fruit.

I'm guessing (on the rest) that since I have been stating only doctrine, you are in agreement with me.

Unless you feel that I am misrepresenting Church teachings. [/quote]
That is all fine and well, but Protestants are not in union with the Church. If they were, they could receive Holy Communion, as it is, they are not and cannot.

Cam

[Jaime]

[quote]
That is all fine and well, but Protestants are not in union with the Church[/quote]

Definition of union[quote]The act of uniting or the state of being united.[/quote]

They are united through baptism. Is is a full communion? no. I've said that. Vatican II states that they are in an imperfect communion. But through their baptism, salvation is possible. I've never stated that protestantism is the same as Catholicism.

The point is (and has been backed with documentation) that their praise bears some fruit. This pertains to Christian music.

[Q the Ninja]

I believe UR also states that the Blessed Sacrament is the summit of unity. It's also a root as stated by the recent Prefect of the CDF.

They aren't really in communion at all. They are in an imperfect union so far as they share Baptism and they share faith, but we need to make absolutely sure we understand that much.

Cardinal Kasper says the word [i]communio[/i] used in UR doesn't mean communion, but rather participation.

[Jaime]

Is it me or is this getting a bit off track?

No one has said they are in full union with the Church. I have brought in UR as well as the Catechism to dispute the notion that "no good can come from Christian praise or worship" It was not the intent to say anything else.

Imperfect communion. Their praise still bears some fruit.

[Cam42]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='May 10 2005, 05:17 PM'] Is it me or is this getting a bit off track?

No one has said they are in full union with the Church. I have brought in UR as well as the Catechism to dispute the notion that "no good can come from Christian praise or worship" It was not the intent to say anything else.

Imperfect communion. Their praise still bears some fruit. [/quote]
But Protestants are still not in union with the Church....sorry.

[Jaime]

You gonna stay tangental or add something to the discussion?

[MichaelFilo]

Imperfect communion. Their praise is still outside of the full unity of the Church. I'm sorry, God doesn't like it when His children aren't in His Church. Whatever the intent, their praise and worship is flat, and doesn't please God. On a personal level, yes, but the actual praise and worship, nein.

God bless,
Mikey

[Jaime]

First of all their "praise bears fruit". There is some good that comes from it.

Second of all, most Christian music is, as I've said, a personal testimony. It does not reflect a group belief or doctrine.

[Nicole8223]

This is ridiculous. How can we judge that someone else's praise is worthless.

If a Protestant says "Jesus is the savior o the world," is it not pleasing to God? They are on their way, right? So why not if they sing it?

God is not an all or nothing God. He loevs each of his children. For us to say that Protestant music is not pleasing to God is judgemental and extremely presumptious.

Their praise may not be perfect, but as hot stuff said like 10 times, it bears some fruit.