No, this is your own invention. This is where you are "stuck in a rut". We've been over this but you remain stuck on it, but that is of your own invention. It is not what Fr. Wathen ever wrote. If you do not believe the adoption can never be lost, you have yet to prove it.

How is it my own invention if he says it's the Indelible Mark of Baptism that makes one a member, and membership is irrevocable just like the aforementioned mark?

How are you going to exclude non visible Catholics (protestants, orientals, easterns, mormons etc.) if they are validly baptised?

If you introduce the requirement of FAITH (which is actual Catholic understanding) then it becomes obviously revocable, and doesn't coincide with Baptism no more.

It seems to me it is you who introduce it, due to your own understanding.

If there are Wathen quotes where he explains the issue in more detail, please post them.

Cantarella can speak for herself,

Yes, that is why I asked her specifically.

all I will say is that you are straining out a gnat, to swallow a camel.

What I am saying is that it's possibly unwise to use someone holding an error directly related to EENS, as an authority on the defense of the very dogma.

All sorts of people have held to all sorts of error, this doesn't disqualify them as legitimate sources, but if the error pertains to the very subject at hand, then it becomes problematic, as all his reasoning might have been vitiated by it.
There's too much confusion as is.

Quote from: Stubborn

No, this is your own invention. This is where you are "stuck in a rut". We've been over this but you remain stuck on it, but that is of your own invention. It is not what Fr. Wathen ever wrote. If you do not believe the adoption can never be lost, you have yet to prove it.

How is it my own invention if he says it's the Indelible Mark of Baptism that makes one a member, and membership is irrevocable just like the aforementioned mark?

How are you going to exclude non visible Catholics (protestants, orientals, easterns, mormons etc.) if they are validly baptised?

If you introduce the requirement of FAITH (which is actual Catholic understanding) then it becomes obviously revocable, and doesn't coincide with Baptism no more.

It seems to me it is you who introduce it, due to your own understanding.

If there are Wathen quotes where he explains the issue in more detail, please post them.

Quote

Cantarella can speak for herself,

Yes, that is why I asked her specifically.

Quote

all I will say is that you are straining out a gnat, to swallow a camel.

What I am saying is that it's possibly unwise to use someone holding an error directly related to EENS, as an authority on the defense of the very dogma.

All sorts of people have held to all sorts of error, this doesn't disqualify them as legitimate sources, but if the error pertains to the very subject at hand, then it becomes problematic, as all his reasoning might have been vitiated by it.
There's too much confusion as is.

You have never explained why you think OCAC is wrong, all you ever said was you doubted the sincerity of the penitent could be proved, which does not explain or prove anything.

And as I noted, OCAC needs to be false for Sedes, as it is one important ingredient in the whole non-Catholic = can't be pope argument.

I cannot disagree as I have never found any theologian to preach OCAC either, yet if not OCAC, then how does one explain that Trent teaches in danger of death, "it has *always* been very piously observed" that  the fallen away or apostate or heretic or excom or etc., may receive the sacrament of penance?

Probably Ladislaus will correctly answer this soon enough.

However I will reiterate my explanation:
the Church presumes them to be repentant, of their sins including Heresy, when sanctioning (making licit) their Penance.
Because of the extreme circuмstances (danger of imminent death), they are allowed to skip the normal canonical iter, in light of the principles of:

'Necessity makes licit what is illicit.' and 'The highest law is the salvation of Souls'


If, they are genuine about their intention, they are instantly reconciled and die as members (and probably saved).



PS: in fact it's a case similar to the one described in the Sedevacantism  thread per which Catholics in Eastern Schismatic's countries were licitly allowed to, under danger of death, partake in their Sacraments.

I cannot disagree as I have never found any theologian to preach OCAC either, yet if not OCAC, then how does one explain that Trent teaches in danger of death, "it has *always* been very piously observed" that  the fallen away or apostate or heretic or excom or etc., may receive the sacrament of penance?

That's because, normally, leaving membership in the Church would require a formal profession to be readmitted into the Church (an abjuration of heresy, etc.) and/or a lifting of the excommunication.  Apostasy (a reserved sin) or excommunication reserved to the bishop or to the Holy See cannot ordinarily be forgiven by the average Confessor.  But the Church has always made an exception in danger of death.  Of course this would NOT apply to an unrepentant apostate, heretic, or excommunicate because such a one would not have the requisite contrition for absolution.

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: McCork

He is claiming the teaching included the word "explicit" to give all those Catholics from the birth of the Church to 1600 the clear message that "implicit" was condemned. There is ZERO evidence that the idea of "implicit" was condemned. It the same fallacy as the Greek Orthodox.

Can you quote any Church Father, Saint or theologian who taught the possibility of salvation for non-Christians through implicit faith before, say, year 1500?

Let me halt the quoting of your post right there. The traditional teaching has never taught that non-Christians are saved. If a person was a non-Christian, and unbeknownst to mankind suffered and died without verbally expressing anything, but nevertheless converted before God in his heart and will, then that man was no longer a non-Christian. Conversion ALWAYS starts in the unseen heart and will, and sometimes people die converted to Catholicism who never got to express evidence of that conversion to another man.

The diluters of EENS never actually say the non-Christians can be saved, Arvinger. Do not expect an honest answer from these Modernists. They fabricate loopholes such as the above. The made-up scenario is that these non-Christians are somehow invisibly transformed into Catholics at the last very second of their lives, enter the state of Justification and remit Original and actual sin through a "Baptism of Desire" and therefore, can enter Heaven as Catholics.

And they know this with a certainty of fact as to make the hypothetical scenario nothing less than a dogma of the Faith. And they know this, how? as if they could ever see the dead....

No, it is just an "easy way out" so they do not have to admit their explicit heresy which is that non Catholics can be saved. These Modernists always start by re affirming the dogma, just to destroy it a few sentences later.

Cantarella will quote "Fr. Wathen" as a source, when he was merely a loner priest after Vatican II, completely unrecognized by the Rome that Cantarella now recognizes as legitimate with Francis as a legitimate pope. I will quote from true magisterial sources starting from the catechism under St. Pius V up until the catechism of St. Pius X, and in between, which all teach baptism of desire. If they diluted EENS, then all those popes were heretics, but these Feeneyites shut their mouths about that point because they want to dishonestly not turn you off. A political move.

Yes, of course conversion is invisible. Cantarella's own modernist Church points to non-Catholics and says they are saved. Traditionalists like me don't. The teaching is always a POSSIBILITY and nobody can ever point to someone and say they are saved. Cantarella's condemnations should really be aimed at her Pope because that is what her words really condemn in diluting baptism of desire into universal salvation, including the Mass of the Resurrection instead of the Requiem Mass. What was condemned in Mortalium Animos in 1928 was actually foisted on the Church with a fixation at Vatican II, and Cantarella is a part of that.

Do not be silly.

The only reason of the particular quote is because it happens to be a very good one from Fr. Wathen, especially in the term of "diluters" to name heretics such as Mc Cork, Nado, Rube, Certitude, etcs. These are not blunt deniers, only "diluters" of EENS. They operate in a more destructive manner therefore than the ones who bluntly deny EENS like the liberals Novus Ordo.  

Nice try to deviate the topic into the "source" instead of the point being made, Mc Cork. Point, by the way, that it is easily demonstrated by sources of the highest Magisterial authority such as Ecuмenical Councils, ex-cathedra statements and Papal pronouncements, as it has been done many times before in the past.

I only place the limits that the Church places, which means once a person has reached the age of reason and has partaken in at least the sacraments of penance and the Holy Eucharist(...)
 

I don't believe this to be the case, as we can deduce from the requirements for Salvation.

Baptism alone suffices to make one a member (initially and necessarily, but not sufficiently as for permanence), since:

1)EENS
2)A person, having only received the Sacrament of Baptism, and holding the true Faith may be saved
3)"   "   "   "   "   "   "   "   "  is a member of the Church

Of course, secret apostates/etc. would remain members of the Church.  These are all external forum considerations.

I've heard this mentioned before, possibly in relation to Bellarmino.
I don't understand how this would work.
I suppose he theorised this in order for all the jurisdictional issues to make sense in such a case, for a cleric etc.

But formal heresy, "in the internal forum", exists and has effect regardless of we the mortal people being able to see it.

It's one thing the interior, or divine, realm, supernatural in essence and another the visible and manifest (external forum).

What happens in the case of a formal heretic, non manifest, as to its jurisdiction is in my opinion the Church supplying it automatically were this case to arise, as to conform the Divine with the Apparent, for the benefit of the faithful.

He would still de facto be valid and his acts licit, but as a private person, he would be outside and a non member.


Thinking back to the Schismatic "orthodox" example from the Sedevacantism thread, that's exactly what happened and how it could have possibly been licit for Catholics to receive Sacraments from them.

The Church (this time consciously and actively by means of Papal pronouncement) supplying jurisdiction on a case to case basis, to clerics who were non members and outside the Church.
 

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Stubborn

So then the whole excom/apostasy/heresy/schism/etc. that makes one no longer a Catholic(?) is Church law, not Divine Law.

No, what's Church law is the stipulation of the conditions by which a repentant apostate/heretic/schism/excom could re-enter the Church.  These conditions for re-entry are lifted by Church law for those in danger of death.  Of course, secret apostates/etc. would remain members of the Church.  These are all external forum considerations.

Ok, I understand the conditions normally required for "re-entry" are lifted when there is danger of death.

We all understand that only Catholics may partake in the sacrament of penance, which is to say that non-Catholics are not permitted to even approach that sacrament.

So if OCAC is false, the question remains - According to Trent, without abjuration or otherwise any official, formal, or ceremonial renunciation of their sin/heresy/apostasy etc., on account of danger of death, the non-Catholic penitent who sincerely seeks repentance, partakes of the sacrament of penance - at what point or when did the non-Catholic become Catholic?  

The Church has always considered Protestants with valid baptism to be non-Catholics. This is a non-issue and a no-brainer.