[as the holy office said in the 1800s] Even if the ritual of the schismatic group is the same...Even if there is nothing heretical or even if there is nothing immoral in it, just to join your prayer to schismatics, just to go there is mortally sinful.”

I think he is contradicting the Principles and Norms on Ecumenism.

More pressing I suppose;

Are converts now forbidden from praying with their families?

I really would have to see the decrees of the Holy Office to which Fr. Ripperger is referring in context to be able to judge whether he is relating their content accurately. In addition, whether those decrees reflect the Divine law or merely ecclesiastical law that can be changed. I tend to think that they are ecclesiastical law since some degree of prayer in common with the Orthodox has been going on for centuries. I've heard, for example, in Ukraine, where Catholics and Orthodox have lived next to one another for a long time, in remoter regions the local Orthodox priest might go to the local Catholic priest for confession and vice-versa.

The *Syllabus* very clearly denies that Protestantism is another form of Christianity; ergo, Protestantism is not a Christian religion, and Protestant individuals are not Christians. For the sake of simplicity, some papal documents do refer to non-Catholics (mostly schismatics, but less so heretics) as "Christians", but never without making it explicitly clear that these persons are outside the Church, and are therefore not true Christians though they grant themselves that title.

None of that "separated brethren" language, which is ambiguous and can give the erroneous implication that the separation between denominations is simply an internal disagreement between parts of the same Church. This ambiguity, I think, has been a very large factor in confusing Catholics, and making many Catholics come to the misguided conclusion that they can participate in heretical and schismatic religious services.

This is not so. Such mixed worship is prohibited by divine law, regardless of whether the leaders of the non-Catholic religion claim to profess Christ.



Flatly untrue; to be Christian, one needs to receive sanctifying grace and be incorporated into the one true Church of Christ, the Mystical Body. Although the baptisms performed by most Protestant denominations are valid, the Church since St. Augustine (and reinforced by the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas) has always been able to make a case against their fruitfulness in many cases, where the individual being baptised would not be properly disposed (having accepted heresy by joining a non-Catholic sect).

St. Thomas Aquinas identifies three elements of a sacrament:

1) The exterior sign (sacramentum tantum); this is the sacrament itself, which signifies and produces the other two elements. The exterior sign is made up of matter (water, for example) and form (the words).

2) An intermediate reality (sacramentum et re); this is the sacramental reality, which for baptism, is the character. It is signified and produced by the exterior sign, as well as signifying and producing the third element, the ultimate reality.

3) The ultimate reality (res sacramenti); this is the actual grace of the sacrament (i.e. sanctifying grace) which is the source of further graces which are needed to live as a child of God and as a soldier of Christ in accomplishing the work of the Kingdom, etc.

If the requirements of #1 are present, then the sacrament is valid, or truly conferred. If there exists a valid baptism, then #2, the character of baptism, is always present. However, #3 is not necessarily present because the person needs also to be properly disposed while receiving the sacrament, although #1 and #2 have nothing to do with the worthiness or disposition of the one receiving.

Perhaps an example may help. In confirmation, if the form and matter, etc, are correct, then the confirmation is a valid sacrament (i.e. truly conferred). However, say the person being confirmed is in a state of mortal sin, and as such, they are not properly disposed. Because of this, a barrier exists which deprives the sacrament, at least temporarily, of its ultimate effect. A person confirmed in a state of mortal sin may be confirmed validly, but they will not receive any graces until they are no longer in a state of mortal sin.

Similarly, if someone were to be baptized, but they had implicitly accepted heretical beliefs at that time, they would not receive sanctifying grace, and nor would they be incorporated into the Mystical Body. If, at a later date, they embrace the Catholic faith, then they will receive the graces, but only later on. So although Protestant baptisms are mostly valid, many of them are not fruitful, lacking the res sacramenti, so it is incorrect to say that all of the baptised are Christian, or belong to the same Church.

The *Syllabus* very clearly denies that Protestantism is another form of Christianity; ergo, Protestantism is not a Christian religion, and Protestant individuals are not Christians. For the sake of simplicity, some papal documents do refer to non-Catholics (mostly schismatics, but less so heretics) as "Christians", but never without making it explicitly clear that these persons are outside the Church, and are therefore not true Christians though they grant themselves that title.

This statement totally denies the nature of the Covenant of God and what it accomplishes. It appears that Point Number One you mention below supports the understanding that baptism works ex opere operato, and that if the formula is correct (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) it accomplishes what it is supposed to accomplish, which according to Scripture, is to place a person in Christ (Romans 6:3). To say that someone who is in a Protestant denomination, properly baptized, and has never known anything else from childhood, is not a Christian is both a denial of the efficacy of the covenant-making ritual known as baptism, as well as pretty arrogant. But then, we in the East have seen this arrogance at work for a long time.



What is the Church? Is it an organizational body, or is it an ontological Body (i.e., the Body of Christ, i.e., Christ Himself) If one is baptized into Christ, and the Church is the Body of Christ (or turning that around, the Body of Christ is the Church) then if one is in Christ, one is in the Church. I do believe the Roman Catholic Catechism speaks of having an "imperfect union" when one is baptized but not in the organizational Church. The fullness of the faith rests in the Universal faith which was given to the Apostles. Those outside that faith, i.e., holding to either heterodox or heretical ideas are in a defective relationship. Protestants lose a great deal by not having the Sacrament of the Eucharist, for instance. When I began receiving the Eucharist in 2001 as a convert, within weeks I noticed that a sin that had plagued me all my life, even as a Protestant, no longer had control over me.

I find another problem with your definition is that it reeks of legal ordinances rather than of walking in love. The beloved Apostle said that all who love know God, not all who have ever single one of their doctrines spot on. Some of the most doctrinally precise people I have read online are some of the most vicious and nasty.



On this we are in entire agreement. In Hebrews 8:5, Moses was warned not to tamper with the worship which God was showing Him. If we have come to know the fullness of the true faith, then anything less is adding man's ideas to that worship (either in addition or subtraction) and this is prohibited.



Smells of both legalism and scholasticism, as if knowledge rather than love is the criteria by which one is saved. One gets the sense that you would also condemn all those who never heard of Christ in their lives? Is that true? If so, you are opposing what the Bible says in Romans 2:13-16. The keeping of the Law is the measure of salvation according to St. Paul, and the Law is love. It is not dotting the "I's" and crossing the "T's" properly. I do understand you, however, since I am still working and praying to get what I am writing about deep into my heart. For me, for too long, it has been about judging people if they don't meet my standard and theology. I know this is wrong now, but I still gravitate towards it.



Of course, as I read this, the thing that pops out to me immediately is seeing grace as a thing that God gives. In the East we do not look at grace in that manner. Grace is nothing less than God Himself giving Himself to us, and the experience of His energies working in us by dint of our union with Him. Thus, going back to John the Beloved Apostle, he who loves knows God. That is a very flat and unambiguous statement, but what I get out of it is that if one loves, the energies of God are somehow at work in Him.

I don't see why you think "scholastic" is a bad thing.

How did Abraham know God? Moses? David? How did any of the first century Christians know God? Through the intellect? Or through experience?