In a recent open email with Robert Siscoe, I asked who are the baptized non-Catholics that are members of Christ’s Body and have a right to the Christian name, which Vatican 2 is referencing and to name them? [1]
Siscoe responded: “Anyone below the age of 14 who has been validly baptized, and who has not renounced Christianity.”
The problem with Siscoe’s answer is that Vatican 2 is not referring to just those under 14 or 5 or 6, but ALL of who’ve been baptized “and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.”
If Siscoe were correct, only those under 14 would be accepted as brothers by Catholics. However, the Vatican 2 popes are clear that all Eastern Orthodox and Protestants are considered as our brethren and use the term “separated brethren” in place of heretics and schismatics.
The right to be called Christian is an external forum issue, which necessarily means that Christ’s Body is a reference to the external forum. Christ’s Body in the external forum is the Catholic Church. This is why Pope Leo XIII declared in his 1896 Encyclical Satis Cognitum, #3: “For this reason the Church is so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ – “Now you are the body of Christ” (I Cor. xii., 27) – and precisely because it is a body is the Church visible…. 5 So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic – the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member.”
Pope Pius IX declared in his Apostolic Letter to all Protestants and other Non-Catholics at the convocation of the Vatican Council, September 13, 1868, “Neither will it ever be able to be said that they are members and part of that Church as long as they remain visibly separated from Catholic unity.”
Siscoe remarked how I had stated in a previous email that, “You may call them [baptized non-Catholics] Christians out of conventional language, but they don’t have a right to it. This is another heresy of Vatican 2.”
Siscoe then replied, “It’s not a heresy. Heresy is the denial of a dogma, that is, of a revealed truth that has been infallibly proposed as revealed by the Church. The Church has never defined the meaning of the word Christian, nor has she ever defined, as a revealed truth, that only those who are externally united to the Roman Catholic Church can be called Christians. truth.”
Vatican 2 is saying that baptized non-Catholics have a right to the Christian name precisely because they are members of Christ’s Body. The heresy, which I was referring, is the denial that Christ’s Body is the Catholic Church. The Vatican 2 teaching denies the dogma that only Catholics are members of Christ’s Body (external forum). This is an oft repeated teaching.
Siscoe continued, “Therefore, it would not be heresy to refer to a Protestant or a Sedevacantist as a Christian.”
I didn’t say it was heresy to refer to a Protestant as a Christian. I said it was heresy to say they have a RIGHT to the name, because it denies the dogma on Christ’s Body and Eastern Orthodox and Protestants are outside of Christ’s Body (the Catholic Church in the external forum).
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also…heretics and schismatics…” (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441)
Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.”
I could supply dozens of teachings that say that heretics are not members of the Church.
Siscoe believes in the one Church of heretics, who all have a right to the Christian name, just as his modernist popes have officially taught. He tried to get around it by placing a 14 year age limit on the teaching, but it doesn’t come close to the truth of Vatican 2’s teaching.
I asked Siscoe if Christ’s Body is the Catholic Church in the external forum or not. I’m still waiting for an answer, but I don’t expect to get one, because this is one teaching of Vatican 2 that Siscoe can’t BS his way out of.
Footnote
[1] Referring to non-Catholics, Unitatis Redintegratio of Vatican 2 declared: For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church – whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church – do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, (21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church. (22)
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
Love it.
Also pope St. Pius X defines who a true Christian is in his catechism and he doesn’t say what U.R. says.
Is position of father Anthony Cekada, bishop Daniel Dolan, bp Donald Sanborn on killing of Terri Schiavo catholic?
What was their position?
“The other compromise that we had to make during our stay at Saint Gertrude the Great Church involved the atrocious manner in which the murder of Mrs. Theresa Maria Schindler-Schiavo by dehydration and starvation was justified by Bishop Donald Sanborn and Father Anthony Cekada.
The moral principle at work in the Terri Schiavo case was really simple: one can never undertake any action that has as its only possible end the death of an innocent human being.
The only thing that can result from the removal of food and water from a living human being is death, and I went to great lengths last year to provide Bishop Daniel Dolan with the documentary evidence of the cruel death that Mrs. Terri Schiavo suffered while no one was permitted to alleviate her suffering in the slightest. Such a death can never be justified before God.
Bishop Donald Sanborn steadfastly refused offers that I made to him on several occasions to have Dr. Paul Bryne speak to him about the matter of ‘brain death.’
Father Anthony Cekada mocked publicly the neurological expertise of Dr. James Gebel, Jr.
Mr. Droleskey
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/questioning-fr-cekadas-judgment-he.html
Sounds like Sanborn, Dolan, and Cekada were quacks on the issue. What were their arguments?
It was published by The Remnant:
April of 2005
The Terri Schiavo Case and Extraordinary Means
by Father Anthony Cekada,
I HAVE BEEN repeatedly asked for my thoughts on the Terri Schiavo case. Here, for the record, is a brief summary of my opinion.
Many traditional and “conservative” Catholics were misled by unprincipled politicians and pseudo-conservative talk-show hosts into thinking of it as a pro-life or anti-euthanasia case.
It was no such thing and this demonstrates how wary one should be of turning for moral guidance to the advertiser-shilling blowhards of Fox News and the EIB Network.
Instead as Catholics we must turn to the teaching of theologians and the magisterium.
Here, the key issue is preserving a life by “extraordinary means,” a concept first developed by the 16th-century Dominican theologian Vittoria as follows:
“If a sick man can take food or nourishment with a certain hope of life, he is required to take food as he would be required to give it to one who is sick. However, if the depression of spirits is so severe and there is present grave consternation in the appetitive power so that only with the greatest effort and as though through torture can the sick man take food, this is to be reckoned as an impossibility and therefore, he is excused, at least from mortal sin. ”
“It is one thing not to protect life and it is another not to destroy it. One is not held to protect his life as much as he can. Thus one is not held to use foods which are the best or most expensive even though those foods are the most healthful. Just as one is not held to live in the most healthful place, neither must one use the most healthful foods. If one uses food which men commonly use and in quantity which customarily suffices for the preservation of strength, even though one’s life is shortened considerably, one would not sin. One is not held to employ all means to conserve life, but it is sufficient to employ the means which are intended for this purpose and which are congruous. ”
Other theologians subsequently refined and developed this teaching, until in 1957, we find Pope Pius XII explaining its application as follows:
“Normally [when prolonging life] one is held to use only ordinary means according to the circumstances of persons, places, times and cultures — that is to say, means that do not involve any grave burdens for oneself or another. A more strict obligation would be too burdensome for most people and would render the attainment of a higher, more important good too difficult. Life, health, all temporal activities are in fact subordinated to spiritual ends. On the other hand, one is not forbidden to take more than the strictly necessary steps to preserve life and health, as long as he does not fail in some more serious duty.”
These and similar passages in other authors led me to conclude that in the case of Terri Schiavo, the feeding tube, etc. constituted extraordinary means.
(Consider the “grave burdens” that such means would increasingly impose on society, now that medical science can keep the dying and unconscious going for years.)
This was also the conclusion of Bishop Donald Sanborn, who teaches moral theology the branch of theology that deals with ascertaining whether specific human acts are morally good or morally evil.
Accordingly, as regards applying the principles of Catholic moral theology: (1) One could have continued to employ these extraordinary means to maintain Terri Schiavo’s life; however (2) one would not have been obliged to do so.
It is false therefore to claim that Terri Schiavo was the victim of “euthanasia” or “murder.”
Further, in my opinion, Mrs. Schiavo’s husband (as horrible a person as he seems to be) and not her parents had the sole right before God to determine whether these means should have continued to be used.
My comments here, like those on the Iraq War, may cause consternation for some good lay people. But when it comes to contemporary issues, my duty as a priest is to research the Church’s teaching, tell you what it is, and tell you how to apply it.
May Terri Schiavo rest in peace.
Father Anthony Cekada
St. Gertrude the Great, West Chester, Cincinnati, Ohio
In April of 2005, Rev. Anthony Cekada’s article was printed in The Remnant as a letter. The appearance of the letter evidently provoked a hefty negative reaction.
==============================
The Remnant: May of 2005
Soon thereafter Rev. Anthony Cekada sent to The Remnant a follow-up article. Here is the text of that article:
Rev. Anthony Cekada’s Follow-Up Letter to in The Remnant: May of 2005
To the Editor,
My letter on the Terri Schiavo case that appeared in your previous issue was widely circulated and prompted many comments from traditionalists nearly all negative and emotional. Most objections were rooted in misconceptions about extraordinary means, or in a disgust with the actions of Terri Schiavo’s husband. I’d appreciate the opportunity to expand upon both these points, and then add a more general observation.
1. EXTRAORDINARY MEANS. The resolution of the moral issue in the case hinges upon the definition of the term “extraordinary” – not as the term is defined by medical science, but rather as it is defined by moral theologians. Pius XII’s statement defines extraordinary means as those which “involve any grave burdens for oneself or another.”
The emphasis, then, is not on the specific procedure that is performed, but rather upon the burden that results from performing it.
Moral theologians categorize as extraordinary those treatments that are physically painful, invasive, repulsive, emotionally disturbing, dangerous, rarely successful, expensive, etc.
Nowadays the latter burden – extraordinary expense – is mostly hidden, because ”someone else pays for it- i.e., you and I and everyone else foot the bills through health insurance premiums, doctor malpractice premiums and high taxes.
This is now a grave burden on society. If someone wants to make every effort to sustain life for as long as possible in a body that is obviously shutting down for good, he is free to pay for extraordinary means himself but it is wrong for him to impose this burden on everyone else.
Had Terri Schiavo not received a $750,000 malpractice settlement – i.e. some trial lawyers shook down an insurance company, which in turn calculated that it would be cheaper to pay them and the Schiavos off, rather than gamble with the Oprah-watching idiots in the average jury pool- you can bet that her husband and parents would not have sold off their own houses to sustain her for all this time.
Instead, you and I- not merely the Schiavos or the Schindlers – got stuck with the “grave burden” of paying for it. If something is immoral in the whole affair, it is surely this.
2. WHO DECIDES?
Mrs. Schiavo’s husband (as horrible a person as he seems to be) – and not her parents – had the right before God to determine whether these means should have continued to be used. A husband does not somehow automatically lose his headship of the household or his God-given “domestic and paternal authority” if he becomes a moral reprobate.
An ecclesiastical or civil court may for a grave reason, of course, prevent him from exercising his authority.
In the Schiavo case, however, the civil courts examined the matter and repeatedly reaffirmed Mr. Schiavo’s rights.
The alternative to this is what? Allow in-laws automatic headship over the wife when they believe the husband is a “moral reprobate”? Have those paragons of family values – congressmen legislate the rules? Assign headship of the wife to the relative deemed most worthy by the majority of members of an Internet chat room?
Even a wicked husband retains certain rights before God.
3. EMOTION OR PRINCIPLE?
The negative response to both these points was almost without exception based on emotion. This I find very disturbing – because the first reaction a Catholic –lay or clerical- should have when confronted with a complex moral or theological problem is to find the principle that applies – what, in other words, is the standard the Church (not my emotions, directed by Michael Savage) uses to separate virtue from sin, or truth from error, on any particular issue.
In most cases, the right principle and the correct definition of its terms can be found in a theology book somewhere, even though it may take some time and priest with good Latin to find it.
The tendency of so many traditionalists to resolve moral or theological questions – be it the Schiavo case, the Indult, excommunications, schism, heresy, the Fatima consecration, the sede vacante dispute, etc. – by following emotional reactions, rather than by seeking out an objective principle that the Church has laid down, makes them ripe for deception by the ignorant and manipulation by the cynical.
The reactions of so many in the Schiavo case make me fear that when it comes to deceiving the elect, the Antichrist won’t have to work too hard.
Father Anthony Cekada
====
I don’t have article of bp Sanborn on his position on killing of Terri Schiavo.
It disappeared from the public sphere I guess.
A NOTE ON THE DEATH OF TERRI SCHIAVO
by The Most Rev. bp Donald J. Sanborn
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1393366/posts
TERRI SCHIAVO
I WROTE ABOUT this subject a little over a year ago, but because much has been said in recent weeks about it, I feel I should say more.
The removal of the feeding tube is being styled by conservatives as a murder. This is false. A murder is a direct taking of an innocent life. But there was no direct taking of an innocent life here.
Terri Schiavo was suffering from the failure of a vital organ, namely her brain. This failure of her brain caused other failures, most notably the failure of part of her digestive function, namely chewing and swallowing. Therefore she could not receive and digest food in an ordinary fashion.
Whenever a vital organ fails, we die. Whether it be the heart, the liver, the kidneys, or anything else needed for the basic functions of life in the body, we die when they fail. These life functions can, in certain cases, be artificially continued, e.g., by a respirator, for those who cannot breathe. But by the ordinary course of events, these people will die of the failure of these organs.
The general moral principle regarding medical treatments and life-support is that one is obliged to use ordinary means to preserve one’s life, but one is not obliged to use extraordinary means to preserve one’s life, although one may use them.
So the question in this case is: is it extraordinary means to preserve Terri Schiavo’s life to keep a feeding tube in her for fifteen years?
I unhesitatingly respond yes, it is extraordinary. Why? Because the entire purpose of medicine is to aid the body to heal itself. When it becomes evident that the body will never heal itself in the case of the failure of a vital organ, then the prolongation of life becomes purely artificial. Think of a permanently brain-damaged person on a respirator, because he cannot breathe.
If a reliable physician should attest to this state of affairs, or many reliable physicians in case of doubt, it would be perfectly moral to remove the extraordinary means of life-support.
Medical treatments, furthermore, can be extraordinary for extrinsic considerations. For example, what might seem ordinary in itself, from a purely medical point of view, may be extraordinary from the point of view of the ability of the patient or of the family to pay for it, or to provide the care necessary to maintain the sick person in the kind of care he needs.
Here is where the Schiavo case becomes more serious. If the removal of a feeding tube, in a case where there is no hope of recovery, is defined as murder, then the State will be obliged to prevent the removal of feeding tubes and respirators and of many similar devices and treatments for tens or hundreds of thousands of people who are on them, at this moment as we speak. As medical science progresses, for how long will people be able to be kept alive by these extraordinary methods?
Now if the State is required to keep people in this condition indefinitely, the State is then also required to pay for their care. This could easily amount to $1000.00 a day or much more. So my question is, are all those who are calling Terri Schiavo’s death a murder willing to pay the enormous taxes necessary to build facilities for these people on feeding tubes and respirators, and to care for them day by day? Would all of these people be willing to sell their homes and cars, and live in abject poverty, in order to keep all the Terri Schiavo’s alive now and in the future? I doubt it. In such a case, I think that the common sense and reality of what extraordinary means signifies will dawn on them.
For if it is murder to remove these means, then it is intrinsically evil to remove them. But if it is intrinsically evil, it is something which we can never do or cooperate in for any reason. As a result, the whole family would have to become homeless, and sell pencils on the street, in order to keep a loved one on a feeding tube or on a respirator until he or she is 105, or perhaps more aged. Does this make any sense at all?
bp Donald J. Sanborn
Most Holy Trinity Seminary
https://thelaypulpit.blogspot.com/2016/05/special-edition-letter-by-donald-sanborn.html
Matt. 25:35-40