-Jay

I am aware of those facts. In the instances I gave, it is the bishops/priests who are the schismatics, not the faithful who desire a true mass.

-Jay

Schism is an intrinsic evil, and therefore can never be justified. As St. Augustine said, “There is nothing more serious than the sacrilege of schism; there can never be any just need for severing unity.” We may never do evil that good may come about, and therefore we may never form or enter or perpetuate a schism, even to bring about some good. Of course we are not obligated to be in communion with heretics as such, but because schism is an intrinsic evil, we may not form a schism if such heretics are allowed to remain in the Church. And so accidentally, in such cases, we are obligated to be remain in communion with them, by remaining in communion with the Church.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

-Jay

I have spoken with many reformed folk who feel that, based on their experience of Catholic liturgy in the Novus Ordo Missae, their own community worships God more reverently and beautifully, so what interest would they have in becoming Catholic?

I understand that sentiment. If reverence and beauty were the essence of Christian worship, the persons who say the line above would have a good argument. Yet schism cannot be justified by lack of reverence and beauty in worship, because two wrongs don’t make a right. How could reverent and beautiful worship be pleasing to God while we were disobeying the apostolic command that there be no divisions among us (1 Cor 1:10)? Worship is not ultimately about what we want. Does God want people to form (or maintain) a schism, so that He can receive reverent and beautiful worship from schismatics? Definitely not. If the Church needs reform, then the Church should be reformed while being faithfully united to her. People tend to think of the Counter-Reformation as merely a movement opposing the Reformation. But that’s not accurate. Perhaps the primary difference between the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation is that the former attempted to reform the Church by leaving the Church, while the latter reformed the Church while remaining faithfully within her. To worship God as He is due, we must at least be in full communion with the Church that He founded. That is more fundamentally important than the degree of reverence and beauty in worship. Better to be in full communion, even if the beauty and reverence in worship is deficient, than to enjoy reverence and beauty in worship but be in schism from the Church Christ founded.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

-From his debate with Larson.

They are not out of line, as the Church has always affirmed baptism of desire and that Christ is united to all men via the Incarnation, both of which truths account for the ability of all men to be united to the Church, safeguarding the principle that no one is saved outside the Church. It is rather that people are united to the Chuch in various ways.

-Jay

I have also been thinking about the relation of Unam Sanctum and Lumen Gentium and other authoritative teachings that might appear to be at odds one with another. I attempted to formulate these thoughts here (especially with reference to the doctrine of “no salvation outside the church”).

In the immediate aftermath of the Council, the Church has been beset with confusion and controversy. But the same was true after Nicea 1. In fact, I cannot think of a Council whose teachings were universally received. One could say that a mark of an Ecumenical Council is that it is followed by dissent and schism.