Author Topic: Soul of the Church  (Read 4495 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BumphreyHogart

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 689
  • Reputation: +217/-643
  • Gender: Male
Soul of the Church
« Reply #135 on: March 14, 2017, 03:21:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ladislaus
    Quote from: BumphreyHogart
    People of order and reason follow the principle, "first things first". You are quite backlogged as to what you dropped.


    I don't care.  This was picking up from the last comment you made here, that it's not necessary to visibly belong to the Church.


    Yes, you apparently don't care about a lot that you should.
    "there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope" - Pope St. Pius X

    Today, only Catholics holding the sedevacantist position are free from the anguish entailed by this truth.

    Offline An even Seven

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1905
    • Reputation: +806/-566
    • Gender: Male
    Soul of the Church
    « Reply #136 on: March 14, 2017, 11:20:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Ladislaus
    Bumphrey and bosco also ignore this one:

    Quote from: Ladislaus
    Even the modernist Karl "Anonymous Christian" Rahner has the intellectual honesty to admit:


    Quote from: Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations, Volume II, Man in the Church
    . . . we have to admit . . . that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for someone outside the Church, is very weak. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church. For, with reference to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already ‘Christianus,’ and also that certain Fathers, such as Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire.


    Among the earlier proponents of BoD, the discussion never went broader than to the case of a Catechumen, and only because they were considered to some extent already to be part of the visible Church.  Your 1917 Code of Canon Law citation treats ONLY of Catechumens.  Those documents from Innocent II/III are speaking specifically of people who profess the Catholic faith.  St. Robert Bellarmine wrote only about catechumens (and considered them to be PARTLY within the visible Church).  You have NO SUPPORT WHATSOEVER for the possibility of salvation for anyone who does not profess the Catholic faith.  You merely try to distort Pius IX and apply the spurious SH for these ends.  Outside of those sources, you have ZERO support for the extension of BoD to non-catechumens, to those who do not at least openly and visibly profess the Catholic faith.


    They constantly ignore every valid point. The reason is obvious. It's sad.


    Offline Gregory I

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1544
    • Reputation: +657/-104
    • Gender: Male
    Soul of the Church
    « Reply #137 on: March 17, 2017, 10:02:06 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I posit this:

    We all know there is a distinction between belonging to the church and the remission of sins. After all, whenever we commit a mortal sin that is not heresy we don't fall out of the Church.

    Can a catechumen be imperfectly united to the Church without the remission of sins? We all know we cannot separate charity from the remission of sins, this is a condemned error of Michael du Bay. If you have charity infused, you have remission of sins. But what about an imperfect union? This certainly seems to admit of degrees as well. For what of the man made a catechumen but without conviction as opposed to the catechumen with conviction? Are they both imperfectly united in the same way? What would be the difference?
    'Take care not to resemble the multitude whose knowledge of God's will only condemns them to more severe punishment.'

    -St. John of Avila

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16